In March, I reviewed the new release of AutoCAD, which featured several significant improvements and marked the 20th release of the oldest and most ubiquitous CAD application in the AEC industry. This review takes a look at the corresponding new release of Autodesk’s architecture-specific design and documentation solution built on the AutoCAD platform, Autodesk Architectural Desktop (ADT) 2006. This comes exactly a year after I reviewed the previous release, ADT 2005, in which I pointed out that those concerned about the near-term future of ADT, in light of Autodesk’s competing Revit application, should find the continuing development and support of ADT reassuring. Autodesk continues to reaffirm its commitment to ADT at its annual user conference (see my overview of Autodesk University 2004) and follows up every new release of AutoCAD with a corresponding new release of ADT. Let’s see what improvements Autodesk has engineered in ADT 2006.

Analysis and Conclusions
As I pointed out last year in my review of ADT 2005, the biggest strength of ADT continues to be its AutoCAD base, offering AutoCAD users a familiar workflow and interface for transitioning from traditional 2D drafting to an object-based CAD approach. From that perspective, ADT benefits greatly from the overall modernization of AutoCAD. The substantial improvements in AutoCAD 2006, including dynamic input, overhaul of annotation, improvements in selection and zooming, and dynamic blocks, all of which are reflected in ADT as well, are compelling enough to warrant the upgrade. In addition, new features such as project standards, isolating objects for editing in required views, display themes, tighter integration between ADT and VIZ Render, and the other enhancements described in this review all add up to make ADT 2006 a solid release. The project standards feature, in particular, is critical as most firms continue to struggle with maintaining consistency in design and documentation across all their projects, as they move away from a drafting-centric to modeling-centric mode of working.
ADT continues to have high system requirements in comparison to AutoCAD. It requires a minimum of 1 GB of RAM and Pentium 4 1.4 GHz processor, while the recommended specifications are even higher: 2 GB RAM and Pentium 4 3.4 GHz processor. (AutoCAD 2006 recommends 512 MB of RAM and a Pentium III or later, 800 MHz processor.) The additional memory and processor speed are mostly due to the integration with VIZ Render as well as the additional 3D capability, surface hatching, and material bitmaps. While most offices that upgrade their hardware regularly will be able to use ADT effectively, it may get increasingly difficult for users to be able to take their ADT visualization work home, unless they have high-end computers for their personal use. However, if ADT is to be used without its VIZ Render visualization capability, its system requirements are not that high and it should work on existing hardware.
The poor 3D capabilities of AutoCAD, which have continued to remain one of its main limitations, are not such a major issue with ADT, since it is based on the use of 3D object-based CAD tools. However, the lack of improvements in 3D in its AutoCAD base do make it difficult to model an unusual or irregular form in ADT for which no ready tool exists. On the plus side, however, the integration with VIZ Render that is based on the superior rendering technology of 3ds MAX makes it possible to generate extremely high-quality visuals and animations from an ADT model in comparison to other building modeling applications.
Taking stock of the application as a whole vis-à-vis the current technological trends in the AEC industry, ADT continues to be a complex application that takes serious effort to learn and master. For those trying to use ADT for implementing the BIM (building information modeling) approach on a design project, it is a daunting task since all the building information is distributed across multiple files divided into several categories such as levels, divisions, constructs, elements, view drawings, sheets, and sheet sets. And this is something that is hard to circumvent, even with the abundant resources that Autodesk can put into ADT’s continued development, since it is intrinsic to the nature of the application. With ADT, you never get out of the feeling that you are drawing, rather than modeling the building. Autodesk also seems to be acknowledging this in their marketing of ADT as “Making AutoCAD better for architects” rather than focusing on its BIM capabilities.
Also, considering that full-fledged BIM adoption is still some years away (see the Executive Forum discussion in AECbytes Newsletter #18), ADT remains a good way for AutoCAD’s vast user base to begin to explore object-based CAD without a major disruption in workflow. Several features, very compatible with AutoCAD processes, can be implemented immediately and can alone be worth the price of the crossgrade from AutoCAD. These include the 2D detailing features, which don’t use the ADT object model at all but dramatically accelerate the drafting of architectural details. Keynoting is a similar easy implementation. And simply using the walls, doors, and windows features of ADT to produce plans efficiently is another quick productivity booster.
If firms who decide to adopt ADT can resist the temptation of falling back to using ADT like AutoCAD, they can benefit from the revitalization of the AutoCAD platform and still chalk up some critical experience which will prove invaluable in full-scale BIM implementation further down the road.