|
March 1, 2000 Dear Mr. Brumbeloe: Re: AutoSPRINK program v2.0 vs. SprinkCAD Pro I have read some recent reviews of AutoSPRINK, but none yet from CAD-experienced, senior designers. I have been a fire sprinkler designer for fifteen years. For many of those years I have used SprinkCAD as my primarily design tool, from the dark days of DOS to the current “Pro” windows version. I learned all the bugs, work-arounds and fixes to achieve the desired output. I have also used HydaCAD, FireACAD, and OmniCAD, but I’ve always considered SprinkCAD to be the most “complete”. When I first heard of AutoSPRINK I was skeptical. After all, with nearly twenty years of AutoCAD experience, the thought of leaving that environment when switching programs was rather frightening. It took about six hours for that fear to disappear. Importing and exporting AutoCAD drawings is fast, easy, and problem-free (the import/export engine is made by Autodesk). I’ve been using AutoSPRINK for exactly one month and I am completely satisfied with the results. I can honestly say that it took me about three days to reach full speed, whereas SprinkCAD took me several months. SprinkCAD is a very powerful program but requires the utmost care when laying out a sprinkler system. First of all, it must interpret the lines and blocks of information placed in the drawing. Pipes, heads, hydraulic nodes, etc. must be on their designated layers. Pipe sizes, elevations, slope symbols, nodes, pipe labels, pipe cuts, head elevations, etc. are all on separate blocks that must remain attached to their parent entity in order to function! On a complex project this can be a nightmarish jumble of information. If any of these blocks are out of place, calculations, cutting and listing will not function. Most of the time an error message will guide you to the problem but not always. Woe is the designer who has to slope a complicated system for the error messages don’t always tell you where the problem is. Furthermore, listing has always been SprinkCAD’s weakness. Frequent errors, especially when recapping made-on material, have always plagued the program. Finally, a few approving authorities will not except the SprinkCAD hydraulic summery sheet, resulting in extra time to input information to a separate hydraulics program. Years of this painful experience have given me a greater appreciation of AutoSPRINK. AutoSPRINK is the medicine for that pain. In one month I have designed 2500 heads worth of fairly complicated work with none of the headaches of SprinkCAD. I recently had to calculate a system that wasn’t finished. I had laid out all the sprinklers and mains, but very few lines. I simply ran the lines from the remote area to the main and it worked fine. The program didn’t care whether the other 1400+ heads were connected. Trying the same thing in SprinkCAD simply would have generated 1400+ errors. Of course there’s a work around for this and other problems, but it just adds more time. The program is “object-oriented”, meaning pipes are actually pipes, not lines. Since the program doesn’t have to interpret lines and blocks, it is more difficult to make a mistake. I calculated a rack system simultaneously with the overhead remote area and it balanced automatically. There are several design “wizards” similar to but better than SprinkCAD’s. The user has complete control over every object and eerily mimics the real world (i.e. for multiple systems with common drain piping, you must close the drain valves to prevent water from circulating through the drain!). There is a full compliment of objects including pumps, backflow preventers, pump rooms, riser assemblies, details, etc. to help save time. I could write another eight pages extolling all the highlights. I recommend this program to any level of designer. Getting used to designing in 3D is not difficult, since any designer must consider all three dimensions anyway. In my opinion, a designer with sprinkler design software experience will require two days to attain full productivity with AutoSPRINK. Someone with “AutoCAD only” experience may take one week. A “non-CAD” designer may take as long as three weeks. I disagree with some comments made by Gaylon Claiborne of Firemaster in the August 1999 and January 2000 issues of FPC magazine. He claims that designing in 3-D is more labor intensive and guesses at 25%. Dana Thompson (October 1999) also states this, however he is new to CAD. Anyone who has designed in 2-D knows this is incorrect. As I pointed out previously, describing the third dimension with blocks can be difficult and is time-consuming. My “guess” would be a 25% savings in 3-D. I wouldn’t say that 2-D is obsolete, yet. Mr. Clairborne says that it is a database-intensive program; he apparently has never tried to update or modify SprinkCAD’s database. It’s quite easy to modify AutoSPRINK’s database as needed. Also, the purchase price competitive: (e.g. ~$7000 vs. $2795 for AutoCAD + $5000 for HydraCAD). I use HydraCAD as an example because you can’t buy SprinkCAD. Mr. Clairborne makes a ludicrous comparison to Windows 98 in terms of cost. I suppose if AutoSPRINK had millions of users around the world, M.E.P.CAD could reduce the price and remain profitable. He is also curious about why training is required and again makes comparisons to “programs on my desktop computer”. AutoCAD and SprinkCAD ca be learned by using manuals and tutorials, but the typical designer does not have this luxury of time. I honestly could have skipped the class, but would have missed out on last-minute updates, short-cuts, and procedures. No program is static; they are as dynamic as living things. Incidentally, the program has several tutorial videos and an extensive help menu, although I’ve never needed them. The program works in Windows 98 but runs 35% faster in NT. I have made a few suggestions of program refinements to Joe Reghetti, the president / CEO of M.E.P.CAD, and the refinements are either already coming on the next release or can be easily added (apparently the software is very flexible due to a lack of AutoCAD constraints). Thank you for developing this answer to my dreams. It has made fire sprinkler design a more bearable occupation. Sincerely, Paul A. Basherian
|