Why is everyone so obsessed with accuracy when it comes to 3d modeling? At the end most people stick to autocad for 3d modeling, because of its so called accuracy level. When somebody finally comes to build the building, they're going to work to a tolerance that is way below the standard of any 3d program let alone autocad with it's 0,0000000000000 accuracy. It may even look better if all of your corners don't meet anyway, so why not turn snap off and go for it. (assuming you're not using 3d to make cd's)
Sometimes our clients seem to worry when we show them 3D models that we might be showing them nice fantasies that won't relate to their actual site, existing building(s), etc. It's very helpful to be able to tell them that the model is an accurate representation and that existing conditions have been faithfully rendered to within 1/2".
One of the things we use 3D models for is to "switch out" various options - for instance for assorted curtain wall patterns, roof profiles, specific doors and windows, custom casework and furniture, etc. In these situations, which involve fairly small objects with a high level of detail, it's really not worth modeling unless it's done with close to real-world tolerances.
Accuracy is not as important for things at a larger scale - for instance massing studies, schematic development of large forms, laying out adjacencies, campus layouts and such.
Sometimes we work with our 3D models to develop some of the 2D construction drawings from them. There's no point in taking an elevation directly from a 3D model if the model isn't accurate.
CAD is just half of it, sure a lot of archiects fancy the idea to make an spetacular 2D drawing and is disapointed that to draw a house With CAD, you also have to draw the part of the house you don't se in the graphic. But CAD make the garentie that "this can be made" as if you can't draw it 3D it can't be build, ---- CAD is just the 3D points as in real CAD is just the real measures made so that you can se it on a screen, but CAD basicly is about being able to go the further step called CAM, producing the building element producing the section as how that section will show with these measures and those entities.
Acturly most effort about CAD and architecture these day's are about using the core 3D model as basic drawing so even the guy on the site can refere to one basic drawing .
CAD CAN ONLY BE ACCURATE ---- Also the inaccurate CAD drawing is accurate down fraction millimeter , please how do you think a CAD program work it store the accurate 3D points even of an inaccurate drawing !!!! DAMN
Snap ----- Well the N.C. cutter do _not_ care about Snap it just cut from the measures send to it and if the N.C. cutter is accurate down one tenth millimeter then your piece cut will be accurate down one tenth millimeter , so if you draw with snap or without the CAM part of it don't care you don't talk with the cut pieces but if you "Snap" to the endpoint of the piece that later is cut with no snap set when drawn, then the next piece will ofcaurse fit if you drawn it to fit .
Realy ---- do you think that you can take a 2D perspective, place it in a CAD program and start the Section command and have a floor plan ? , ofcaurse you can't to get that you must draw the house in real 3D so to be able to make the calculations that yield the bloody floor plane and that can not be made from a lame perspective but ask 3D points stored in the drawing database as basic for the actural calculations triggered by the Sectoion command ---- to do it othervise is like asking a pizza to be made from a Rembrand,
Why do you think 3D-Honeycomb work, ---- becaurse no corners are cut, becaurse there are no need for fiddeling or bending, becaurse as how future will show a section make no sense if taken from a 2D presentation only as how you emagine it cut from a real 3D CAD model.
All drawings for traditional construction can have a builders tollerance as often a building site is a little more untidy than a CAD desktop. 5mm will do in most cases.
draghting on a drawing board we always alowed a tollerance, that and the suble note near the title block.
whoa Per, I think that pretty much all of us can agree that this statement is implying is wrong: there are plenty of things that can be drawn in 3D that can't be built.
Now please hand an example.
An example of what you can not build even it is drawn 3D.
---- If you can not come up with an example maby it shuld turn your mind, that I can show lots of 2D that _can not_ be build.
Please consider are you wrong or is you right, if you think you are right, replace your arogance with a real example. --- A thing you can draw in 3D that can not be build --- I measure it up with 100 items in 2D that can not be build for each thing drawn 3D that can't be build.
It is no garentie that it can be build that you can draw it 2D
Yet another ; 3D is the only garentie it can be build 2D is no garentie it can be build.
If you want to shoot shoot don't talk. It's been enough bullying now come up with somthing better do you realy think visions are build on social skills and bullying that future are dirt bags and barbed wire and no roof, do you realy think rebuilding is dirt bags as that is what you can emagine no --- if you want the new jobs the new technology don't replace skills and visions with social skill , if you want rebuilding you want the new jobs and the new technology houses at a third the cost and true digital technology not lookalike 2D. ------ Not a fancy 2D Escher promising a stairway to heaven where no stairs are when you try project them. Don't replace arguments with bullying or social skills all you display is mastering what they already mastered in the caves..
2D image or a 3D drawing it doesn’t matter. you could build it by disassembling the perspective so that the image seen is that from a perspective point of view. Channel 4 currently has an urban theme to their branding with the '4' assembling in the real world environment as the travelling camera reveals the perspective of the complete image.
Very clever, all too tolerance. Can find a clip to show sorry.
Try modeling a planet in 3d, then you go and build it. By the time you are done, Archinect will be on version 3.billion, and we will honor you and your godlike capabilities. Hell, we'll even hold the Per Corell title for you until you are done. Until the time comes when you can do this though, please cut the crap.
"...so why not turn snap off and go for it. (assuming you're not using 3d to make cd's)"
This is more of a working-style thing than a technical issue. There are "messy" designers and there are "clean" designers. You are a messy designer. Its all good.
As long as we don't have to work together.
In which case you will be the rendering my models... and you will not be touching my files.
Jan 17, 05 9:21 pm ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
Obsessed with accuracy in 3d programs
Why is everyone so obsessed with accuracy when it comes to 3d modeling? At the end most people stick to autocad for 3d modeling, because of its so called accuracy level. When somebody finally comes to build the building, they're going to work to a tolerance that is way below the standard of any 3d program let alone autocad with it's 0,0000000000000 accuracy. It may even look better if all of your corners don't meet anyway, so why not turn snap off and go for it. (assuming you're not using 3d to make cd's)
i model in 3d studio
i like accuracy to the level it makes your model clean and cool to work with
but the in the renderings, it is rare to percieve the accurary, thinking as a painter, and understanding we are making images.
thats just me douh
Jaja:
If you don't like accuracy in 3D, then could you tell me how doyou model a building?
I use 3dmax, rhino and of course, autocad.
Sometimes our clients seem to worry when we show them 3D models that we might be showing them nice fantasies that won't relate to their actual site, existing building(s), etc. It's very helpful to be able to tell them that the model is an accurate representation and that existing conditions have been faithfully rendered to within 1/2".
One of the things we use 3D models for is to "switch out" various options - for instance for assorted curtain wall patterns, roof profiles, specific doors and windows, custom casework and furniture, etc. In these situations, which involve fairly small objects with a high level of detail, it's really not worth modeling unless it's done with close to real-world tolerances.
Accuracy is not as important for things at a larger scale - for instance massing studies, schematic development of large forms, laying out adjacencies, campus layouts and such.
Sometimes we work with our 3D models to develop some of the 2D construction drawings from them. There's no point in taking an elevation directly from a 3D model if the model isn't accurate.
Why are people obsessed with off road capability on LA? MUDSLIDES?
Hi
CAD is just half of it, sure a lot of archiects fancy the idea to make an spetacular 2D drawing and is disapointed that to draw a house With CAD, you also have to draw the part of the house you don't se in the graphic. But CAD make the garentie that "this can be made" as if you can't draw it 3D it can't be build, ---- CAD is just the 3D points as in real CAD is just the real measures made so that you can se it on a screen, but CAD basicly is about being able to go the further step called CAM, producing the building element producing the section as how that section will show with these measures and those entities.
Acturly most effort about CAD and architecture these day's are about using the core 3D model as basic drawing so even the guy on the site can refere to one basic drawing .
CAD CAN ONLY BE ACCURATE ---- Also the inaccurate CAD drawing is accurate down fraction millimeter , please how do you think a CAD program work it store the accurate 3D points even of an inaccurate drawing !!!! DAMN
Snap ----- Well the N.C. cutter do _not_ care about Snap it just cut from the measures send to it and if the N.C. cutter is accurate down one tenth millimeter then your piece cut will be accurate down one tenth millimeter , so if you draw with snap or without the CAM part of it don't care you don't talk with the cut pieces but if you "Snap" to the endpoint of the piece that later is cut with no snap set when drawn, then the next piece will ofcaurse fit if you drawn it to fit .
Realy ---- do you think that you can take a 2D perspective, place it in a CAD program and start the Section command and have a floor plan ? , ofcaurse you can't to get that you must draw the house in real 3D so to be able to make the calculations that yield the bloody floor plane and that can not be made from a lame perspective but ask 3D points stored in the drawing database as basic for the actural calculations triggered by the Sectoion command ---- to do it othervise is like asking a pizza to be made from a Rembrand,
Why do you think 3D-Honeycomb work, ---- becaurse no corners are cut, becaurse there are no need for fiddeling or bending, becaurse as how future will show a section make no sense if taken from a 2D presentation only as how you emagine it cut from a real 3D CAD model.
All drawings for traditional construction can have a builders tollerance as often a building site is a little more untidy than a CAD desktop. 5mm will do in most cases.
draghting on a drawing board we always alowed a tollerance, that and the suble note near the title block.
DO NOT SCALE FROM DRAWING
"if you can't draw it 3D it can't be build"
whoa Per, I think that pretty much all of us can agree that this statement is implying is wrong: there are plenty of things that can be drawn in 3D that can't be built.
errr... "agree what this statement is implying..." is what I meant to type.
DANG!! Per Correll, do you have a llama named tina?
Hi
Now please hand an example.
An example of what you can not build even it is drawn 3D.
---- If you can not come up with an example maby it shuld turn your mind, that I can show lots of 2D that _can not_ be build.
Please consider are you wrong or is you right, if you think you are right, replace your arogance with a real example. --- A thing you can draw in 3D that can not be build --- I measure it up with 100 items in 2D that can not be build for each thing drawn 3D that can't be build.
Hi
Please let me repeat ;
"If you can't draw it in 3D it can not be build"
I add another statement;
It is no garentie that it can be build that you can draw it 2D
Yet another ; 3D is the only garentie it can be build 2D is no garentie it can be build.
If you want to shoot shoot don't talk. It's been enough bullying now come up with somthing better do you realy think visions are build on social skills and bullying that future are dirt bags and barbed wire and no roof, do you realy think rebuilding is dirt bags as that is what you can emagine no --- if you want the new jobs the new technology don't replace skills and visions with social skill , if you want rebuilding you want the new jobs and the new technology houses at a third the cost and true digital technology not lookalike 2D. ------ Not a fancy 2D Escher promising a stairway to heaven where no stairs are when you try project them. Don't replace arguments with bullying or social skills all you display is mastering what they already mastered in the caves..
you mean this
Per, didn't you cover this issue in some othen topic. We are talking tollerance after all.
Hi
Please tell me ---- is this a 2D image or a 3D drawing ?`
Case you say this is a 2D drawing, well do 2D then garentie it can be build ?
Hi
If this had been a 3D drawing, you could have generated the floor plans, how will you do that from a painting.
per is our resident ranting homeless guy on the subway.
Per leave it.
2D image or a 3D drawing it doesn’t matter. you could build it by disassembling the perspective so that the image seen is that from a perspective point of view. Channel 4 currently has an urban theme to their branding with the '4' assembling in the real world environment as the travelling camera reveals the perspective of the complete image.
Very clever, all too tolerance. Can find a clip to show sorry.
Per,
Try modeling a planet in 3d, then you go and build it. By the time you are done, Archinect will be on version 3.billion, and we will honor you and your godlike capabilities. Hell, we'll even hold the Per Corell title for you until you are done. Until the time comes when you can do this though, please cut the crap.
momentum writes:
"...so why not turn snap off and go for it. (assuming you're not using 3d to make cd's)"
This is more of a working-style thing than a technical issue. There are "messy" designers and there are "clean" designers. You are a messy designer. Its all good.
As long as we don't have to work together.
In which case you will be the rendering my models... and you will not be touching my files.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.