Ideal Software


I'd like to discuss some software matters with you guys,

It seems to me that the most of architects use Autodesk Products (AutoCAD, Revit, 3dsmax) to perform designs at concept stage

Do you use them as well? How many programs do you usually use?

Is there any features of an "ideal software for architects" that you would like to have?

and finally - would you be ready to invest time to learn new software that can give you time saving in longer time period, or you just stick to AutoCAD?

I have seen some interesting programs for architects, and also for rendering, but almost noone seems to be interested in them...

Jan 11, 13 6:47 am

i use autocad and 3d max.  other people in my office are going over to sketchup for modelling but we all use autocad.

my i deal software would wake up early and go to work for me so i could sleep in.  it would cost a lot less than autodesk software and they would not have broken flexnet drm that makes me think i need to crack software i've already paid for to make it work.

the hard part about learning new software would be getting others to buy in.  also compatibility with other people we work with.  other than that, i like learning new things.

Jan 11, 13 7:10 am

Imagine a computer program, that generates eg. 20 good solutions (regarding optimal plan, insolation, performance, cost efficiency etc.)) after few hours of interaction with it. 

During the time of interaction it learns your taste, so you get to chose from 20 designs that you like (estetically).

The difference between this new approach and the traditional one is that you don't create form directly, but by defining certain conditions and relations between parameters. You receive the power to define conditions in which the form grows, but you can not decide what form the building takes. You can only guide it by changing parameters.

Would you be interested in such an idea? Would it make your work easier? 

Jan 11, 13 8:20 am


A problem with the approach you describe is information overload. Too many options is a bad thing, especially at an early design stage and particularly if they are only subtly differentiated. I would consider a design process that is multiplying options beyond three active at any time to be off the rails and heading for disaster.

It might be a useful brainstorming tool for dealing with specific issues, though. Hard to say without knowing more about what you had in mind.

Jan 11, 13 12:47 pm

I'm talking about digital morphogenesis with the use of genetic algorithms - the idea is known for at least 20 years, but no software of the type has been developed. I asked myself: why? I have read the most important papers on the topic and decided to write PhD work about it. So far I have a little bit of idea what the reasons for non-existing of such a tool could be, but I started wondering if architects are interested in it at all. If it's possible to design buildings in a bottom-up manner, we could all save a lot of time and money... and probably loose our jobs eventually :)  

Jan 11, 13 12:56 pm

It's like today's pilots - they rely too much on Autopilot and forget how to fly - same with architecture - part of the design process is to inform the designer to make proper input according to situations - that why I like Revit - it keeps you in the game

Jan 11, 13 1:04 pm

Block this user

Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?

  • ×Search in: