Hand drawn plan elevation and section of my model:
Reflection on completing Assignment 3:
I found completing this task really challenging, mainly because my model has a very irregular shape that is difficult to measure.
I tried measuring from one point to another, spaces between etc. I was not able to get my ruler right in there, I am certain my measurements were not correct to a millimetre.
I am nevertheless happy with the result, considering how challenging this shape is.
Reflection on Part 3:
During part 3 I learnt the importance of detailed survey that is legible and that drawing details (such as lengths and angles) correctly is paramount to the finished drawing doing what is intended to do (give correct instruction to builder etc).
I started learning AutoCAD, still way to go but pleased with progress so far. I decided to get a new monitor, the one I had did not have best resolution. Now I have it I can really see the difference when drawing in CAD. To start with I did not use layers, but in my assignment drawing I created 7. They are a great tool and were great help. CAD is great for creating small detail to scale. One can also trust lengths and angles created in the software.
I also used layers in my hand drawing for assignment 3 to help me measure dimensions to rely onto CAD software and not ruining my original drawing (Fig. 1 below). I used tracing paper over my drawing to draw squares which then I measured and used as guide to fit my objects in CAD.
I learnt that one site survey would probably never be enough, but it is important to note everything, even what seems to be unimportant at a time. Going back and forth may not be practical and certainly will not look professional. It is also important to note your measurements in a legible manner. Second visits purpose should be to double check and measure details that would inevitably get missed first time. If it is one small thing it will probably not impact the design but if it is important then it may stall design work.
I looked at my learning log entries and noticed that in Exercise 3.3 in exploded planometric drawing I could have marked internal edges of bath and sink and then place the drain holes differently.
I still struggle with mind-maps and the ‘Lines: A Close Reading’ contextual study was tough. I found it hard because I could not tell which information was important or relevant. The text kept coming back to me afterwards when drawing both by hand and in CAD. I kept thinking about guidelines and plotlines and how accurate Tim Ingold was.
I made some observations about lines:
- One can draw a close representation of any object or space in CAD using only straight lines. Some of the lines I created in my assignment 3 look quite curvy despite consisting of shorter perfectly straight lines, therefore:
- We are surrounded by lines.
- Some people prefer straight lines, some rounded but it is impossible to create a space using only straight or only rounded lines.
Another thought: Contextual – gives context – looking at it now it certainly gave context to lines I was drawing afterwards. My mind was constantly wandering back to the points I read. I didn’t enjoy that study at the time, but it gave me so much food for thought – now I am happy it was included in the course.
I am thinking of getting a drawing board with a ruler and set square to get my lines and angles correct (and to make technical drawing by hand a pain free task).
It is important to draw both by hand and in CAD as repeating the process gives us time to contemplate and notice details previously missed. It is also good to give yourself a break and then go back and look at the drawings again, with fresh eyes. As I did and noticed error in my exploded planometric drawing. Perhaps if I completed it first by hand I would have spotted it in CAD.
Recently, while sitting in my garden I noticed a shadow of metal staircase railing on a wall. I thought it is like natures axonometric projection. Of course, dimensions were distorted but straight lines (or shall I say visibly straight lines) were there casting interesting pattern.
At first, I found it hard to distinguish axonometric from planometric projections. Only after completing the cube and cylinder planometric drawings I understood that the floor shape and angles remain same in planometric but change in axonometric.