Following on from "3DS Max is Dead"

[Kerry Thompson]

Hi

The Single Building Model and the Building Information Model (BIM) concepts have been around for longer than 10 years with products like Rucaps and T3 Sonata using the principles. I remember Intergraph also having a product based on IGDS called Master Architect, which used the concepts.

The relationship between the model and working drawings is not direct and while all of these systems allude to that capability, the current results are a compromise – and I think that is fine – take what you can from them.

Contract documents use a different graphics language compared to a model for visualization but at the end of the day, it is the same data presented in different way and resolutions depending on the end use.

Much of it does not fully work but then I am more productive using an object-based system to place door in a wall compared to scratching it in using a conventional cad system. We still have a very long way to go before the single building model concept can be comprehensively used and there is no doubt that is it over hyped. The technology is only one part of the equation; the whole building delivery process and building discipline relationships needs to completely change to utilize the advantages of BIM. The building industry is very fragmented and the production gains made by parametric systems in product design and manufacturing will be difficult to realize.

Best to use the appropriate tool to achieves the results you want.

[nisus]

Funny as hell! And pretty useless to... (i mean the original post about the Death of Max!)

 

I like the idea that users of a certain program will defend their choice by any way... Anyone remember the days before max when protecting 3dstudio was BIG time? :pp 3ds-Veterans would have never needed max because they could do whatever they wanted (the hard way of course...))

As I said... funny!

 

rgds

 

nisus

[siliconbauhaus]

never thought I'd hear the words "rucaps" and "sonata" ever again

[Victor Erthal]

I guess that we all dont have to worry about the "death of max" (gee, that looks like a b movie title). We (the arch viz professionals) cannot be replaced by any software or new process, because the result of the automated precesses have always looked weird compared to a good, professional work. A gun is equally dangerous as the hand that carries it. If you have no talent at all, you can use maya and get a poor result. If you are good, not only technicaly, but artisticaly, then you can use the old 3ds and have a good work.

And if in fact max dies, so another software will replace it, and we will have something like max veterans showting: In my days....

Or something like that.

Sorry for the bad english.

[]

[stefkeB]

As a user of ArchiCAD in both visualisation & architectural practice, I can assure you that the concept of the "Virtual Building" (the Graphisoft term) or "Building Information Modelling" (what most people call it now) is pretty much workable right now.

 

Although I don't do large buildings, I've used BIM in a few projects as an architect. The sections through the model are almost completely detailed for building permits. Just add some minor 2D corrections and dimensions and text and you're done. At the moment you enter the construction phase, you need to do more elaborate 2D-drawing, but since this is a CAD tool, it's quite possible.

 

For visualisation, the model is complete (I don't say as optimised as it would be when you simply model for rendering purposes only). I can render immediately from the CAD-software (suffices for most clients) or can export to something else for more control over rendering & materials. I do most architectural modelling in CAD, but for adding cars, trees and people, the 3D-software is still better at handling this (large polygon counts, RPC-elements etc...).

 

But... and now comes my point, there is not a single point in this workflow where my experience as a user is not important: all issues about the computer programs as well all issues about the architecture and it's technical construction details still require experience as a professional. This is not "one-click" modelling, nor "one-click" rendering.

 

So Revit, ArchiCAD, ADT, Allplan and others are not replacing architects and are certainly not replacing visualisation offices. Sure, a lot of architects can now start to produce nice 3d-models with reasonable renderings in most cases, but there is still a lot of place for experienced visualisation artists, to make marvellous renderings & animations. This part of the process is not changed by more capable CAD-tools.