Parametrically, I am currently familiar with Digital Project and was wondering what the major differences were between Digital Project and Generative Components...any experience? When would be appropriate to use each one. Thanks.
It is an adverb that refers to any factor that determines a range of variations, especially to a factor that restricts what can result from a process. Look it up. Care to comment on the actual post and be helpful?
its an impossible question to answer without having some idea of your knowledge of Catia. What workbenches you know, what you have been using it for, etc... otherwise I could come up with an infinite list of things that you can do in Catia and not do in Generative Components but not vice versa...
okokok...i have been using digital project to model the geometry of our building using reference point generated in revit. Revit couldnt handle the geometry so we moved over to DP. We have created numerous product which are propogated throughout the facade and use the various reference points to reconfigure themselves in Power Copies. We have created placeholders for now, until we go into greater detail. I feel I am proficient at Digital Project and have a few years experience with it. I dont have any experience with Generative Components, and feel as if GC is more of a design tool, than a production tool. This may be naive, but that is what I hear...does this clarify at all?
Any non-architectural dinosaurs want to comment, who know nothing of the topic yet continue to make fun of it. Why don't you and mdiddle go talk about wood joinery over cognac. Apparently you are idiots, I would expect more from Bob Stern wannabes.
alright....lets keep this a legit conversation....
I have a general question for you that use parametric software outside of school - do you find that you use it more to find form or to expedite repetitive processes?
not making fun of the topic but of self righteous easily offended dumbshits with two whole years of experience. mdler i'll buy the vsop and we can swap asshats.
Let's please not run facader out of town, since this does appear to be a legitimate topic, and surely there are people here who can discuss it knowledgeably. And facader, check the attitude.
Frankly, as one of the dinosaurs of this site who has freely offered up tons of professional insight and experience - and hopefully taught some people a few things - through my thousands of posts, I would love to have the opportunity to learn something about what is going on in the trenches of BIM work from some of the youngsters on the site who know something about it.
From my understanding (please explain if I'm off), Generative Components is for parametric modeling but on a smaller scale than Digital Project. Digital Project is more for entire buildings and possibly even complex of buildings. I don't think Generative Components has the hierarchy system like Digital Project that allows the organization of its smaller parts. The benefit of Generative Components is that it is much more detailed and allows more freedom in parametric modeling.
Its been my experience though, that outside of the academic environment, parametric modeling tools are used more for building difficult complex geometries and speeding up repetitve process, rather than "form finding" - hence my earlier question. Although, technically it could be a little bit of both - allowing a simpler way to define complex forms.
Also how reasoable can it be, to project future wonders with today's account systems.
That Revit can not handle the structure , the core structure so to say, is raw data atleast, and it carry the potential to revolve itself, under a number of parameters ,not only strength , it's a particular structural idear, 3dh as a great example do all those things 3dh work still it seem you rather wait, wait for something you then think is better ,but it newer will be , the bill is not data posts with 3dh, in 3dh the bill the note, are a drawing of a particular part, in a smart assembly, that has the possibility to grow into the ideal, structural system ; the Idiot proven 3dh.
, with the spretsheet calculations for ten thousands of various parts and pieces to build anything, where one small window block screw gasked is happily allway's avaible, see there the the 3dh framework automaticly relese you the buying and selling, to fabricate building parts,,3dh do just thet ; the raw structure right now , as you prepared it in form and allowance , ---- the best ballanced ,best performing some strange operation not at all, what's so strange about 3dh plus generative structural allowance ? --- the capasity to fully allow the digital options in production plus projecting ,,yield a safe house in bundles, by sheet material variants allready ,, so many clever designs with exactly the sheet material one can emagine. A new architecture, production , world.
A world where smart methods allow you top of what architects has ever dreamed, think about it, it's havn't yet started.
LibertyBell and Philarch, thank you, and I apologize for coming off as agressive, sometimes certain comments divert the attention of the post. It is a coincidence that Gehry is looking for someone, keep me far away from that. In regards to BIM, we use Revit extensively, but have found some major limitations, especially when trying to conform to some of its more clumsy desires. It does not take well to buildings that are not boxes, and thus we have moved on to Digital Project. Through Digital Project we are able to correlate between Revit and Rhino, allowing both to update each other back and forth through the use of datasheets in Excel. Digital Project is great, does everything we need it to do, but was curious about the downfalls I have found within the program...namely...
1. Difficulty visualizing/animating parameters without considerable front loading. I have heard GC is much quicker with visualization.
2. No efficient drawing extraction, beyond engineering shop drawings, and export to Revit, which will be useful for shop drawings later on, but are a bit much now.
3. Constant collaboration with Gehry Technologies who are basically the only ones who can manipulate the code for the program. Meaning, after a while they basically own your model. Great for them to get their names on buildings, but not great for us, when we need to make changes, and have to contact our "middle man."
I realize that GC uses less hierarchy, which may be a good thing since DP is so front loaded and intense. It would sound as if GC is better when you are looking at form and need things to change on the macro, whereas DP is better on the micro end. Is this accurate?
Offcaurse Revit want to see boxes , and it is not just like that, to use for something you don't even know --- emagine you instead said ; well been there tried that, and that is progress ? We made the savings jettison 20000 different nuts and bolts , to eject a building, now we uses one and a smart method and Eco friendly sheets materials ?
It's not firms or copyrights that make the new architecture, it is skills, new thinking and not, not striving to torture the old mindset onto the so very different 3D way ., force the way we put things together, --- yet, for you it is not about making a mountain of money, it's about what ?
facader, I think you have to be aware that you are asking some specialized questions. The number of people that have used all GC, DP, Revit & Rhino and have enough experience to say anything meaningful is few. And the number of those being on archinect is even fewer. I mean, the cost of DP alone will deter most architecture firms from even experimenting with it. I'll admit that I only have experience with DP (very, very little) and Revit with just a conceptual understanding of GC. Honestly speaking, you'd have better luck with responses if you were discussing something more general and conceptual rather than the nittygritty of parametric modeling and BIM.
Im sure know this but I think with the variety of programs that you've listed, its important to note the difference in priority between them. Drawing production? Speed? Accuracy? Visualization? Interoperability? Specialization of software?
They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and the problem is that you have different priorities at different phases - and eventually you'll need to have them talk to each other between the phases. And then the following issue is, do you trust the interoperability between the different software?
Sorry, I realize I'm offering more questions and no answers.
You are an idiot mdler...just because I use Digital Project doesn't mean that I am an underpaid render monkey who doesn't know how to build anything. I have worked as a facade consultant for 5 years before making the shift to an architect firm where I use my engineering experience and Catia, and have worked on many buildings that amazingly...don't leak. You and your cronies are the reason archinect sucks now, pompous assholes who don't realize that we are all working toward a common goal.
I don't know about archinect sucking...but I think whats going on here is just a case of misunderstanding - all this software talk can sound like pretentiousness while vado and mdler's usual rude/funny/random/thoughful/thoughtless/witty/snarky comments can sound just rude. I do understand where you're coming from, but only because I'm on the engineering side (for now) as well. I can see how you could've sounded like a fresh graduate with crazy ideas about software and parametric design, etc, etc.
Sure thing Liberty...the Gehry thing is tricky...if you buy Digital Project, I mean they dont really technically own anything UNTIL you ask for their assistance, than they take over. I actually do not have a beef with Gehry Technologies, they have been nothing but helpful, I just wish what happened behind the curtain wasn't so mysterious.
vado...I wasnt calling you anything, i like you.
Old Fogey
Question 1 - That is the Bentley Suite which recently went commercial, you can buy it from them if you would like.
Question 2 - Digital Project is the CATIA little sister. It is fantastic for what it is, an engineering based parametric software. Extremely front loaded, meaning you need to know exactly what you are going to change and the relationships that are going to be created in advance. Not really for design, more for resolution of design.
As for screenshots, take a look at their respective websites, they all have screenshots up. They are both hierarchy based, all using a visual tree structure to order things you make. So if you change a parent, the change trickles down to all the children you create. This is different than layers in Rhino, where things can be made at any time with no consequence to anything else. There is definite order in parametrics. You need to make things in a particular order so that it references the correct parts. I know this sounds very specific, so please ask more questions if you have them. Thanks.
mdler - if you knew anything about what people are talking about here, you'd know it's got fuck all to do with rendering or maya. This is about the stuff that's under the hood, not the shiny surface.
Don't you have burrito thread to bump or something?
GC does seem like it is about the process of the design and not actually any of the process of building, which is a large problem in general these days. I dont see GC helping this. But none of these softwares, or any software in general, are solve-all uber-softwares. Which is actually where my original post was headed. I am trying to find a nice balance between GC and Digital Project, even if there is one. I worked with one guy who did an entire project in Solidworks, from SD to shop drawings, and it was the biggest nightmare of his life. It took 3 times longer than expected and he ended up doing the shop drawing in CAD in the end because these engineering based softwares can be very limiting sometimes, especially when extracting 2d. Also, many people talk about issuing the 3d model as part of the drawing set, and the major problem here is none of the contractors are that advanced yet. They still rely on good 2d drawings. I have only encountered a handful of good contractors (albeit expensive) who could handle a rhino model, let alone a DP model. Its just the nature of the game.
On a funny side note...heard Neil Katz of SOM talk about all his "genetic algorithms" and all the scripting work that goes into all his designs. He then goes ahead and shows what gets built from his design and it is the most watered down variety of what he has designed...because he cant translate any of this stuff into tangible cost effective documents for the contractors. It is funny and sad at the same time.
Completely agree with meta - whats really the jigger about all these is that the quality of the drawings extracted from the BIM model tend not to be as nice without cleaning them up, and if that is the case, then why not just take the base information from a "dumb" 3d model and draw it from there? You probably will get a better product because you know what an architectural drawing SHOULD look like.
I actually still waiting to see what a BIM model will get me that I can't get out of our standard modelers. Parametrics are a different story.
I think BIM is the way of the future its just not there yet. We should have a vested interest in learning it to stay ahead of a curve, but it renders nobody's working style obsolete yet.
Old Fogey put it best "I want a tool that feels like it's connected to my brain" - thats what I want out of a BIM package. Until then I will wait patiently...
meta and Surry: it seems to me that the important shift is not in the drawing tools, but in how a building gets built: do you not see a construction technology shift that will eventually catch up to/go along with the drawing shift? Won't we soon be able to build a buidling with nanobots that form the structure according to a 3D model in a computer?
If that's not going to happen, then I'm perfectly happy to stick with my 2D drawings and the "hand sketch and phone call", as meta says - it's been working great for me so far.
Just kidding, I was actually wondering how you learn these higher end softwares like Bentley, GC, or DP. Now that I have learned the mainstream application, what if I want to get access and take it to the next step "Parametrically speaking"...do I have to get a job in the right firm just to get near these.
Sorry if this is a stupid question...but this is coming from someone who is no longer in school and who learns everything on pirated software.
the builders of the cathedrals were actualy highly paid for relative to the feudal system sround them. Most were wandering craftsmen - hence the term "journeyman" and were regarded as somewhat of the tech gurus of their day as they were well learned in various cultures, materials and methods of production from region to region.
no meta - thats what parametric will do - associative is relational and conditional - i dont work over grids - i do surfaces and it recognizes the local neighbors and reacts and total surface and reacts - every time i run my scripts i get hundred of itterations with ability to measure and record the outcomes.
when people start out its just as you say but i been doing gc 2 years now so i am a bit beyond the basics.
best post in a while methinks.
not that I'm around that much,
I have heard that SHoP uses bim modeling as a way of cutting margins for business ie. we are building this surface, hence it will cost this much. This type of application seems to make sense with respect to old fogey and facader's points/questions as far as applications where you have to know exactly what it is you want before doing it. and, although it might operate like a pencil that type of feedback and calculation seems to be a hugely important part of the design process. and may have implications as far as architects taking more control of the whole orchestration (and maybe more money?).
thoughts?
just trying to understand this bim modeling thing a bit better.
I no nothing about generative components but from what I can gather, its enables freeform modeling to become parametric? Anyone care to give an explaination of the basics?
Im still in school and use GC. Its great. I make great music videos from the results. The old autocad guys shouldn't worry I'll let them draft my details. If you are using Revit, Gc has a hard time exporting usable geometry to Revit. My friend in studio has found Rhino to Revit is very compatible. Perhaps instead of parametric object oriented modelling you can look at scripting what you need in Rhino. If you don't know how to do this I can refer you to some consultants that are very adept at GC and Rhino script. If you want to see what I have produced with GC look on youtube.
My only quibble with "detail" is where the handrail (existing?) punches through the (new?) membrane. It just doesn't show any consideration, in other words , it doesn't show any mindfulness of detail, which is what you've promised us old guys ;-) that we can draft for you... But the idea of the "insertion" (which is what I am assuming it is) is lovely and makes an interesting connection/separation of the space of the upper and lower levels. And again, the video is beautiful.
pist intern: as to your comment that it might be a way for architects to maintain more control and thus earn more money: what I don't see in my very limited exposure to how the schools are currently teaching this technology is any significant difference in approach from how a tech school would teach it. So isn't that just another way architects can lose more control to technicians/engineers as we are already?
If I'm wrong, please tell me: I'm enjoying this discussion very much and am happy to be told I'm off base - just please help me understand why.
The handrail is a good call. Since the video was done pro bono I havn't felt the urge to correct it since the design has not been finalized.
P.S. Microstation is a BIM program why would any one work in it to export to another BIM. Maybe Robert Aishe will make Revit better for autodesk. I want more parametric design functions and fabrication tools in 3d studio max so it becomes a robust design tool that can animate and render as well as produce product. Vive la revolucion
My favorite part about CATIA (besides making fun swoopy parametric thingys) is the file management system. A project in CATIA is essentially a huge collection of files that are loaded simultaneously. These files/parts have relative constraints that, say, connect a handrail to a wall when these are actually two separate files. Its a bit like an xref, but comparisons to AutoCAD are generally insufficient. Since these constraints are relative, I can change their values and update the model. This can happen across a wide range of scales in a project - some constraints are measured in miles, others in millimeters.
Why is this a good thing? There a lot of obvious reasons, like being parametric and flexible, as well as keeping the file size manageable on big projects. Say I want to model all of the ductwork in a 100 story highrise (in order to predict clearance issues, etc.) Revit definitely would get bogged down, as would any software that opens a project as a single file.
The other great thing about this file management system is that it facilitates collaborative work in an incredibly efficient way (it was developed to do this witih Boeing.) Since the relaive constraints are in place, the architect can send the handrails to one consultant, the structure to another, the facade to another, and so on. If the architect is managing this collaboration, then there is an opportunity (and liability) for this model to have a life through the entire project. And if the architect owns this model, then we might start to see some of the rhetroic about the return of the medieval "master builder" starting to become a reality.
Ouch . . . the cold acceptance of your fate humbles me. " I have dreams and the elders have wisdom. Can we generate a utopian future where amazing new architectures propagate across the globe." I implore you listen to my pleas from a naive designer not yet bittered by codes and bankers, generative design is the future and you hold the details to make all things possible.
Although the conversation seems to be primarily about drawing I was thinking about BIM more along the lines of what flashpan wrote. In a file management setting. The power of that management allows the overseer (a title which the architect may still retain) to have a greater understanding and precision of what exactly is in said building. which I would think would make a bigger foothold in the bidding process.
(now I trying to combine two things I really don't know much about)
since knowing that a 2x4 costs exactly x amount the front loading seems more like inclusive(?) loading which is why I wonder about the applicability in this sense. I would be very curious to know if generative components or digital project lends itself to this type of use.
Eh -- if an entity contain the calculated weight , of the structural entities above how difficult can that be ,it realy it's quite simple, say Z is your presant hight , then the weight above is easy to find becaurse it's Z are greater then the presant, now volume calculations in a computer program where everything is documented in 3D cooerdinats ,are easy, there are functions for everything so in theori atleast, it would be easy to "read" the load upon a particular building part yes or no ? Also it's thruout properties right ?
That's why you type massprop in AutoCAD allready, Would you realy expect 3dh to be without these features , if you wanted a sense suggestion with a drawing, showing the absolut minimum and maximum a computer generated building core will establish ?
Sorry , but sometimes it feel like wveryone are still discussing 1981 issues , where no time was better, for a revolution in construction. Gee you talk advanced architect programs, I been there since the 80' I can do the 3D math calculations and still, I challance that 3dh allready offer those potentials, tools trolls shuldn't even try emagine.
Strenghts and weaknesses of Generative Components
Parametrically, I am currently familiar with Digital Project and was wondering what the major differences were between Digital Project and Generative Components...any experience? When would be appropriate to use each one. Thanks.
what the fuck does 'Parametrically' mean???
It is an adverb that refers to any factor that determines a range of variations, especially to a factor that restricts what can result from a process. Look it up. Care to comment on the actual post and be helpful?
its an impossible question to answer without having some idea of your knowledge of Catia. What workbenches you know, what you have been using it for, etc... otherwise I could come up with an infinite list of things that you can do in Catia and not do in Generative Components but not vice versa...
okokok...i have been using digital project to model the geometry of our building using reference point generated in revit. Revit couldnt handle the geometry so we moved over to DP. We have created numerous product which are propogated throughout the facade and use the various reference points to reconfigure themselves in Power Copies. We have created placeholders for now, until we go into greater detail. I feel I am proficient at Digital Project and have a few years experience with it. I dont have any experience with Generative Components, and feel as if GC is more of a design tool, than a production tool. This may be naive, but that is what I hear...does this clarify at all?
Parametrically is latin for 'asshat', mdler.
parametrically speaking parameter is derived from the greek.
Any non-architectural dinosaurs want to comment, who know nothing of the topic yet continue to make fun of it. Why don't you and mdiddle go talk about wood joinery over cognac. Apparently you are idiots, I would expect more from Bob Stern wannabes.
alright....lets keep this a legit conversation....
I have a general question for you that use parametric software outside of school - do you find that you use it more to find form or to expedite repetitive processes?
not making fun of the topic but of self righteous easily offended dumbshits with two whole years of experience. mdler i'll buy the vsop and we can swap asshats.
My thesis was a self generative ass hat
when i think ass hat, i think of you ep.
OK, I'm chiming in.
Let's please not run facader out of town, since this does appear to be a legitimate topic, and surely there are people here who can discuss it knowledgeably. And facader, check the attitude.
Frankly, as one of the dinosaurs of this site who has freely offered up tons of professional insight and experience - and hopefully taught some people a few things - through my thousands of posts, I would love to have the opportunity to learn something about what is going on in the trenches of BIM work from some of the youngsters on the site who know something about it.
Carry on, and please play nice.
You wouldnt be the first
From my understanding (please explain if I'm off), Generative Components is for parametric modeling but on a smaller scale than Digital Project. Digital Project is more for entire buildings and possibly even complex of buildings. I don't think Generative Components has the hierarchy system like Digital Project that allows the organization of its smaller parts. The benefit of Generative Components is that it is much more detailed and allows more freedom in parametric modeling.
Its been my experience though, that outside of the academic environment, parametric modeling tools are used more for building difficult complex geometries and speeding up repetitve process, rather than "form finding" - hence my earlier question. Although, technically it could be a little bit of both - allowing a simpler way to define complex forms.
Coincidence that Gehry's office is looking for "Digital Building Professionals"?
Also how reasoable can it be, to project future wonders with today's account systems.
That Revit can not handle the structure , the core structure so to say, is raw data atleast, and it carry the potential to revolve itself, under a number of parameters ,not only strength , it's a particular structural idear, 3dh as a great example do all those things 3dh work still it seem you rather wait, wait for something you then think is better ,but it newer will be , the bill is not data posts with 3dh, in 3dh the bill the note, are a drawing of a particular part, in a smart assembly, that has the possibility to grow into the ideal, structural system ; the Idiot proven 3dh.
, with the spretsheet calculations for ten thousands of various parts and pieces to build anything, where one small window block screw gasked is happily allway's avaible, see there the the 3dh framework automaticly relese you the buying and selling, to fabricate building parts,,3dh do just thet ; the raw structure right now , as you prepared it in form and allowance , ---- the best ballanced ,best performing some strange operation not at all, what's so strange about 3dh plus generative structural allowance ? --- the capasity to fully allow the digital options in production plus projecting ,,yield a safe house in bundles, by sheet material variants allready ,, so many clever designs with exactly the sheet material one can emagine. A new architecture, production , world.
A world where smart methods allow you top of what architects has ever dreamed, think about it, it's havn't yet started.
i thought you ^ were gone...
LibertyBell and Philarch, thank you, and I apologize for coming off as agressive, sometimes certain comments divert the attention of the post. It is a coincidence that Gehry is looking for someone, keep me far away from that. In regards to BIM, we use Revit extensively, but have found some major limitations, especially when trying to conform to some of its more clumsy desires. It does not take well to buildings that are not boxes, and thus we have moved on to Digital Project. Through Digital Project we are able to correlate between Revit and Rhino, allowing both to update each other back and forth through the use of datasheets in Excel. Digital Project is great, does everything we need it to do, but was curious about the downfalls I have found within the program...namely...
1. Difficulty visualizing/animating parameters without considerable front loading. I have heard GC is much quicker with visualization.
2. No efficient drawing extraction, beyond engineering shop drawings, and export to Revit, which will be useful for shop drawings later on, but are a bit much now.
3. Constant collaboration with Gehry Technologies who are basically the only ones who can manipulate the code for the program. Meaning, after a while they basically own your model. Great for them to get their names on buildings, but not great for us, when we need to make changes, and have to contact our "middle man."
I realize that GC uses less hierarchy, which may be a good thing since DP is so front loaded and intense. It would sound as if GC is better when you are looking at form and need things to change on the macro, whereas DP is better on the micro end. Is this accurate?
Offcaurse Revit want to see boxes , and it is not just like that, to use for something you don't even know --- emagine you instead said ; well been there tried that, and that is progress ? We made the savings jettison 20000 different nuts and bolts , to eject a building, now we uses one and a smart method and Eco friendly sheets materials ?
It's not firms or copyrights that make the new architecture, it is skills, new thinking and not, not striving to torture the old mindset onto the so very different 3D way ., force the way we put things together, --- yet, for you it is not about making a mountain of money, it's about what ?
facader, I think you have to be aware that you are asking some specialized questions. The number of people that have used all GC, DP, Revit & Rhino and have enough experience to say anything meaningful is few. And the number of those being on archinect is even fewer. I mean, the cost of DP alone will deter most architecture firms from even experimenting with it. I'll admit that I only have experience with DP (very, very little) and Revit with just a conceptual understanding of GC. Honestly speaking, you'd have better luck with responses if you were discussing something more general and conceptual rather than the nittygritty of parametric modeling and BIM.
Im sure know this but I think with the variety of programs that you've listed, its important to note the difference in priority between them. Drawing production? Speed? Accuracy? Visualization? Interoperability? Specialization of software?
They all have their strengths and weaknesses, and the problem is that you have different priorities at different phases - and eventually you'll need to have them talk to each other between the phases. And then the following issue is, do you trust the interoperability between the different software?
Sorry, I realize I'm offering more questions and no answers.
blah blah blah maya rendering bs fuck you shitty ass leaky cant build 28,000 a year cause i aint know shit paradigm shift blah blah blah
You are an idiot mdler...just because I use Digital Project doesn't mean that I am an underpaid render monkey who doesn't know how to build anything. I have worked as a facade consultant for 5 years before making the shift to an architect firm where I use my engineering experience and Catia, and have worked on many buildings that amazingly...don't leak. You and your cronies are the reason archinect sucks now, pompous assholes who don't realize that we are all working toward a common goal.
I don't know about archinect sucking...but I think whats going on here is just a case of misunderstanding - all this software talk can sound like pretentiousness while vado and mdler's usual rude/funny/random/thoughful/thoughtless/witty/snarky comments can sound just rude. I do understand where you're coming from, but only because I'm on the engineering side (for now) as well. I can see how you could've sounded like a fresh graduate with crazy ideas about software and parametric design, etc, etc.
all i did was point out that parameter is a word of greek origin. i didn't get rude until i was called an idiot. asshats.
facader, can you address OldFogey's questions? That would help me understand better too.
And: really, if you use Digital Project, Gehry's office has a finger in it the whole way through?
Facader, I think they are picking on your grammar, not your interest in the subject.
easy, son.
Sure thing Liberty...the Gehry thing is tricky...if you buy Digital Project, I mean they dont really technically own anything UNTIL you ask for their assistance, than they take over. I actually do not have a beef with Gehry Technologies, they have been nothing but helpful, I just wish what happened behind the curtain wasn't so mysterious.
vado...I wasnt calling you anything, i like you.
Old Fogey
Question 1 - That is the Bentley Suite which recently went commercial, you can buy it from them if you would like.
Question 2 - Digital Project is the CATIA little sister. It is fantastic for what it is, an engineering based parametric software. Extremely front loaded, meaning you need to know exactly what you are going to change and the relationships that are going to be created in advance. Not really for design, more for resolution of design.
As for screenshots, take a look at their respective websites, they all have screenshots up. They are both hierarchy based, all using a visual tree structure to order things you make. So if you change a parent, the change trickles down to all the children you create. This is different than layers in Rhino, where things can be made at any time with no consequence to anything else. There is definite order in parametrics. You need to make things in a particular order so that it references the correct parts. I know this sounds very specific, so please ask more questions if you have them. Thanks.
Oh boy, flamewars!
mdler - if you knew anything about what people are talking about here, you'd know it's got fuck all to do with rendering or maya. This is about the stuff that's under the hood, not the shiny surface.
Don't you have burrito thread to bump or something?
(bring it, whuut!!??)
GC does seem like it is about the process of the design and not actually any of the process of building, which is a large problem in general these days. I dont see GC helping this. But none of these softwares, or any software in general, are solve-all uber-softwares. Which is actually where my original post was headed. I am trying to find a nice balance between GC and Digital Project, even if there is one. I worked with one guy who did an entire project in Solidworks, from SD to shop drawings, and it was the biggest nightmare of his life. It took 3 times longer than expected and he ended up doing the shop drawing in CAD in the end because these engineering based softwares can be very limiting sometimes, especially when extracting 2d. Also, many people talk about issuing the 3d model as part of the drawing set, and the major problem here is none of the contractors are that advanced yet. They still rely on good 2d drawings. I have only encountered a handful of good contractors (albeit expensive) who could handle a rhino model, let alone a DP model. Its just the nature of the game.
On a funny side note...heard Neil Katz of SOM talk about all his "genetic algorithms" and all the scripting work that goes into all his designs. He then goes ahead and shows what gets built from his design and it is the most watered down variety of what he has designed...because he cant translate any of this stuff into tangible cost effective documents for the contractors. It is funny and sad at the same time.
vado
why are you such a cognac drinkin', dovetail joint makin', asshole???
Completely agree with meta - whats really the jigger about all these is that the quality of the drawings extracted from the BIM model tend not to be as nice without cleaning them up, and if that is the case, then why not just take the base information from a "dumb" 3d model and draw it from there? You probably will get a better product because you know what an architectural drawing SHOULD look like.
I actually still waiting to see what a BIM model will get me that I can't get out of our standard modelers. Parametrics are a different story.
I think BIM is the way of the future its just not there yet. We should have a vested interest in learning it to stay ahead of a curve, but it renders nobody's working style obsolete yet.
Old Fogey put it best "I want a tool that feels like it's connected to my brain" - thats what I want out of a BIM package. Until then I will wait patiently...
meta and Surry: it seems to me that the important shift is not in the drawing tools, but in how a building gets built: do you not see a construction technology shift that will eventually catch up to/go along with the drawing shift? Won't we soon be able to build a buidling with nanobots that form the structure according to a 3D model in a computer?
If that's not going to happen, then I'm perfectly happy to stick with my 2D drawings and the "hand sketch and phone call", as meta says - it's been working great for me so far.
OldFogey - the builders of the cathedrals had cheap labor, theocracy, and a few centuries of time on their hands, nothing like the good old days, huh?
I'll clink that with my Jamesons and meet you on the hammer(r)ed thread.
gc is NOT a parametric modeling program - its an associative modeling program -- a huge difference.
parametric is equal to fortran or that BIM crap everyone talks about
associative = C# -- object oriented programing
Has any one found a crack for these softwares?
Just kidding, I was actually wondering how you learn these higher end softwares like Bentley, GC, or DP. Now that I have learned the mainstream application, what if I want to get access and take it to the next step "Parametrically speaking"...do I have to get a job in the right firm just to get near these.
Sorry if this is a stupid question...but this is coming from someone who is no longer in school and who learns everything on pirated software.
the builders of the cathedrals were actualy highly paid for relative to the feudal system sround them. Most were wandering craftsmen - hence the term "journeyman" and were regarded as somewhat of the tech gurus of their day as they were well learned in various cultures, materials and methods of production from region to region.
by that you mean adjective then?
no meta - thats what parametric will do - associative is relational and conditional - i dont work over grids - i do surfaces and it recognizes the local neighbors and reacts and total surface and reacts - every time i run my scripts i get hundred of itterations with ability to measure and record the outcomes.
when people start out its just as you say but i been doing gc 2 years now so i am a bit beyond the basics.
but the god, robert has left the gc world to better places so who knows what will happen to gc.
best post in a while methinks.
not that I'm around that much,
I have heard that SHoP uses bim modeling as a way of cutting margins for business ie. we are building this surface, hence it will cost this much. This type of application seems to make sense with respect to old fogey and facader's points/questions as far as applications where you have to know exactly what it is you want before doing it. and, although it might operate like a pencil that type of feedback and calculation seems to be a hugely important part of the design process. and may have implications as far as architects taking more control of the whole orchestration (and maybe more money?).
thoughts?
just trying to understand this bim modeling thing a bit better.
I no nothing about generative components but from what I can gather, its enables freeform modeling to become parametric? Anyone care to give an explaination of the basics?
Im still in school and use GC. Its great. I make great music videos from the results. The old autocad guys shouldn't worry I'll let them draft my details. If you are using Revit, Gc has a hard time exporting usable geometry to Revit. My friend in studio has found Rhino to Revit is very compatible. Perhaps instead of parametric object oriented modelling you can look at scripting what you need in Rhino. If you don't know how to do this I can refer you to some consultants that are very adept at GC and Rhino script. If you want to see what I have produced with GC look on youtube.
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=cll12345
That's a beautiful video, cll123.
My only quibble with "detail" is where the handrail (existing?) punches through the (new?) membrane. It just doesn't show any consideration, in other words , it doesn't show any mindfulness of detail, which is what you've promised us old guys ;-) that we can draft for you... But the idea of the "insertion" (which is what I am assuming it is) is lovely and makes an interesting connection/separation of the space of the upper and lower levels. And again, the video is beautiful.
pist intern: as to your comment that it might be a way for architects to maintain more control and thus earn more money: what I don't see in my very limited exposure to how the schools are currently teaching this technology is any significant difference in approach from how a tech school would teach it. So isn't that just another way architects can lose more control to technicians/engineers as we are already?
If I'm wrong, please tell me: I'm enjoying this discussion very much and am happy to be told I'm off base - just please help me understand why.
"The old autocad guys shouldn't worry I'll let them draft my details" a major difference between those that work in GC and those that work in CATIA...
The handrail is a good call. Since the video was done pro bono I havn't felt the urge to correct it since the design has not been finalized.
P.S. Microstation is a BIM program why would any one work in it to export to another BIM. Maybe Robert Aishe will make Revit better for autodesk. I want more parametric design functions and fabrication tools in 3d studio max so it becomes a robust design tool that can animate and render as well as produce product. Vive la revolucion
My favorite part about CATIA (besides making fun swoopy parametric thingys) is the file management system. A project in CATIA is essentially a huge collection of files that are loaded simultaneously. These files/parts have relative constraints that, say, connect a handrail to a wall when these are actually two separate files. Its a bit like an xref, but comparisons to AutoCAD are generally insufficient. Since these constraints are relative, I can change their values and update the model. This can happen across a wide range of scales in a project - some constraints are measured in miles, others in millimeters.
Why is this a good thing? There a lot of obvious reasons, like being parametric and flexible, as well as keeping the file size manageable on big projects. Say I want to model all of the ductwork in a 100 story highrise (in order to predict clearance issues, etc.) Revit definitely would get bogged down, as would any software that opens a project as a single file.
The other great thing about this file management system is that it facilitates collaborative work in an incredibly efficient way (it was developed to do this witih Boeing.) Since the relaive constraints are in place, the architect can send the handrails to one consultant, the structure to another, the facade to another, and so on. If the architect is managing this collaboration, then there is an opportunity (and liability) for this model to have a life through the entire project. And if the architect owns this model, then we might start to see some of the rhetroic about the return of the medieval "master builder" starting to become a reality.
Ouch . . . the cold acceptance of your fate humbles me. " I have dreams and the elders have wisdom. Can we generate a utopian future where amazing new architectures propagate across the globe." I implore you listen to my pleas from a naive designer not yet bittered by codes and bankers, generative design is the future and you hold the details to make all things possible.
sorry for the delay (it's the weekend)
Although the conversation seems to be primarily about drawing I was thinking about BIM more along the lines of what flashpan wrote. In a file management setting. The power of that management allows the overseer (a title which the architect may still retain) to have a greater understanding and precision of what exactly is in said building. which I would think would make a bigger foothold in the bidding process.
(now I trying to combine two things I really don't know much about)
since knowing that a 2x4 costs exactly x amount the front loading seems more like inclusive(?) loading which is why I wonder about the applicability in this sense. I would be very curious to know if generative components or digital project lends itself to this type of use.
as far as how the schools teach it.....
Eh -- if an entity contain the calculated weight , of the structural entities above how difficult can that be ,it realy it's quite simple, say Z is your presant hight , then the weight above is easy to find becaurse it's Z are greater then the presant, now volume calculations in a computer program where everything is documented in 3D cooerdinats ,are easy, there are functions for everything so in theori atleast, it would be easy to "read" the load upon a particular building part yes or no ? Also it's thruout properties right ?
That's why you type massprop in AutoCAD allready, Would you realy expect 3dh to be without these features , if you wanted a sense suggestion with a drawing, showing the absolut minimum and maximum a computer generated building core will establish ?
Sorry , but sometimes it feel like wveryone are still discussing 1981 issues , where no time was better, for a revolution in construction. Gee you talk advanced architect programs, I been there since the 80' I can do the 3D math calculations and still, I challance that 3dh allready offer those potentials, tools trolls shuldn't even try emagine.
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.