|
Home > Archive > Architecture > October 2006 > I hate software
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
| Godzilla Pimp 2006-10-11, 8:25 pm |
| I can never get it to do what I want. Most don't do shed roofs, flat roofs,
diagonals or curves, that I can tell anyway. I use graph paper and a pencil
and can design anything I want, down to the inch.
I usually start out with a 2' module, Say 48'x28' for a house. I first
sketch the floorplan with furniture. I then add up all the dimensions top to
bottom and side to side. I count exterior walls as 6", interior as 4".
Hallways and stairs are 3'-3' 6", kitchen cabinets and closets are 2'. A
standard bathtub is 5'x2'6" and so on. I add or subtract and inch here or
there to get to my 2' module. It works great.
Here are some:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jerry1784/design/
I need to add several more, including my "upside down house" for a steep
lakeside site (the carport is on the roof) and two 1 bedroom houses I
designed for myself. They are ultra-micro (700 square feet) but cool.
GP
| |
| RicodJour 2006-10-12, 3:25 am |
| On Oct 11, 7:27 pm, "Godzilla Pimp" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
> I can never get it to do what I want. Most don't do shed roofs, flat roofs,
> diagonals or curves, that I can tell anyway. I use graph paper and a pencil
> and can design anything I want, down to the inch.
Ummm, design software that doesn't do a shed or flat roof? Won't draw
diagonals? What the hell are you using for software? I don't know any
that won't do those things.
> I usually start out with a 2' module, Say 48'x28' for a house. I first
> sketch the floorplan with furniture. I then add up all the dimensions top to
> bottom and side to side. I count exterior walls as 6", interior as 4".
> Hallways and stairs are 3'-3' 6", kitchen cabinets and closets are 2'. A
> standard bathtub is 5'x2'6" and so on. I add or subtract and inch here or
> there to get to my 2' module. It works great.
>
> Here are some:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jerry1784/design/
>
> I need to add several more, including my "upside down house" for a steep
> lakeside site (the carport is on the roof) and two 1 bedroom houses I
> designed for myself. They are ultra-micro (700 square feet) but cool.
In the amount of time it took you to draw those sketches I would have
had a fully dimensioned sketch model. With that I could determine and
tweak any dimension, calculate areas, work on material selection, have
accurate shadows based on location and time of day/year, and the list
goes on. My sketch model would also be damn close to a presentation
model. I did mention that I could do fly-bys and walk-through slide
shows and animations, right?
To each his own, I guess. It just seems to me that when you stop
learning new tricks that's when you become an old dog.
R
| |
| gruhn@rararchitects.com 2006-10-12, 3:25 am |
| > In the amount of time it took you to draw those sketches I would have
> had a fully dimensioned sketch model. With that I could determine
That that one dimension should be 34'-7" not 34'-0"
> To each his own, I guess.
Yup. That's what makes the world worthwhile.
- g
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> In the amount of time it took you to draw those sketches I would have
> had a fully dimensioned sketch model. With that I could determine and
> tweak any dimension, calculate areas, work on material selection, have
> accurate shadows based on location and time of day/year, and the list
> goes on. My sketch model would also be damn close to a presentation
> model. I did mention that I could do fly-bys and walk-through slide
> shows and animations, right?
Bet my machine has more RAM then yours.
nyah, nyah-nyah nyah, nyah...............
| |
|
| PETE!
Long time no see, dood!
Back in AZ finally.
<gruhn@rararchitects.com> wrote in message
news:1160625793.905605.265300@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
>
> That that one dimension should be 34'-7" not 34'-0"
>
>
> Yup. That's what makes the world worthwhile.
>
> - g
>
| |
| gruhn@rararchitects.com 2006-10-12, 3:25 am |
| > Back in AZ finally.
Nope.
Massachusetts still. Second semester. Had a good crit yesterday. Gotta
go do my structures homework soon. (About 8 hours ago. Oops.)
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-12, 9:25 am |
| "RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in
news:1160623688.147056.243880@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com:
> On Oct 11, 7:27 pm, "Godzilla Pimp" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Ummm, design software that doesn't do a shed or flat roof? Won't draw
> diagonals? What the hell are you using for software? I don't know
> any that won't do those things.
Might I add:
That's why 3D modeling is called 3D *modeling*. Some software can do
some things simply and automatically, but the emphasis is usually on the
first word. Complex rooflines and the texturing thereof just might not
be something the OP's software can do.
At the same time, there really is a lot of truely kludgy software out
there. I hate kludgy software, also. But good software can be fun and
even (dare I say it ;) ?) a joy.
Of course, "good" and "kludgy" are in themselves subjective terms. In
the end, when shopping for software, many people seem to overlook a few
very important things:
(1) Try all the demo of each software package that interests you and
note whether the GUI meshes with *your* working style.
If 10,000 poeple tell you a program is great, and you buy it and find
that for you, actually *using* it is about as fun as hitting yourself in
the head with a hammer, then that software is *not* good *for you*.
IOW, personal recommendations are grist for the mill but should never be
a major basis upon which you base your purchasing (or downloading)
decision.
(2) Think about your workflow, and whether the processes you need to go
through to model, AND render, make that workflow go more
quickly/smoothly, or take more time than you can really spare.
There are many roads to Rome so to speak, but some are more convoluted
than others. How many steps do you need to go through to get from your
starting point to the final render? Do you have ot learn 2 or even more
pieces of software to do that? There are some interesting free/open-
source programs out there, but the most important thing is whether they
do what you need to do, and can render with the ease, and with the final
results, that you need. Can the render engine *only* deal with one
light, or maybe up to three? Well, if you want to do even *somewhat*
realistic renders, a simplistic render engine isn't worth the bother -
OTOH, if simple renders suit your needs, then you don't have to get
something elaborate. At the same time, if learning, and then switching
software packages, to get a decent render accomidates your workflow, you
can get some interresting open-source software. OTOH, if you need to
use one click to get high-quality renders, you'll probably have to go
commercial.
IOW, when the OP says "I hate software", my first thought is that the OP
simply got the "wrong" software, IOW, software that doesn't do what is
needed.
I haven't yet installed Google Sketchup (too many different things going
on to sit down and devote any time to learning it), so I can't say
anything about it one way or the other, but plenty of folks here seem to
use it and can give advice about it. It certainly sounds very capable
and like something the OP could use, especially since there is a free
version that several people here in the group seem to find quite
capable. For free, it certainly is worth a try!
>
> In the amount of time it took you to draw those sketches I would have
> had a fully dimensioned sketch model. With that I could determine and
> tweak any dimension, calculate areas, work on material selection, have
> accurate shadows based on location and time of day/year, and the list
> goes on. My sketch model would also be damn close to a presentation
> model. I did mention that I could do fly-bys and walk-through slide
> shows and animations, right?
>
> To each his own, I guess. It just seems to me that when you stop
> learning new tricks that's when you become an old dog.
Seems more like the OP just hasn't sufficiently researched software.
I'd think, tho', your eval of Sketchup should help that ;)
| |
| Kris Krieger 2006-10-12, 9:25 am |
| gruhn@rararchitects.com wrote in news:1160634642.635174.123850
@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com:
>
> Nope.
>
> Massachusetts still. Second semester. Had a good crit yesterday. Gotta
> go do my structures homework soon. (About 8 hours ago. Oops.)
>
>
Are you in a 4-yr program? Which school are you at again? How do you like
it so far?
(No reason, I'm just nosey ;) )
| |
|
|
"Godzilla Pimp" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:%5fXg.10195$o71.3865@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>I can never get it to do what I want. Most don't do shed roofs, flat roofs,
>diagonals or curves, that I can tell anyway. I use graph paper and a pencil
>and can design anything I want, down to the inch.
If you cannot do on computer 100+ times more accurate that what you do on
paper, you are using the wrong program.
I looked at your site...looks like you scanned in hand drawn and tried to
add ceiling fans with
Windows "draw" program.
It's kinda like trying the draw ink on sepia with a banana, it ain't never
gonna work without the right tools.
> I usually start out with a 2' module, Say 48'x28' for a house. I first
> sketch the floorplan with furniture. I then add up all the dimensions top
> to bottom and side to side. I count exterior walls as 6", interior as 4".
> Hallways and stairs are 3'-3' 6", kitchen cabinets and closets are 2'. A
> standard bathtub is 5'x2'6" and so on. I add or subtract and inch here or
> there to get to my 2' module. It works great.
>
> Here are some:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jerry1784/design/
>
> I need to add several more, including my "upside down house" for a steep
> lakeside site (the carport is on the roof) and two 1 bedroom houses I
> designed for myself. They are ultra-micro (700 square feet) but cool.
>
> GP
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
|
| "jojo" <cgv_2000@*remove your hat*yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:44tXg.12367$GR.8842@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
>
> "Godzilla Pimp" <me7@privacy.net> wrote in message
> news:%5fXg.10195$o71.3865@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
>
> If you cannot do on computer 100+ times more accurate that what you do on
> paper, you are using the wrong program.
>
> I looked at your site...looks like you scanned in hand drawn and tried to
> add ceiling fans with
> Windows "draw" program.
>
> It's kinda like trying the draw ink on sepia with a banana, it ain't never
> gonna work without the right tools.
>
Wow, yeah, Windows Paint is not the program you want to be using for
"design". I suggest you stick to paper and pencil and keep your day job.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
| 3D Peruna 2006-10-12, 5:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
> Bet my machine has more RAM then yours.
> nyah, nyah-nyah nyah, nyah...............
Bet not. I got 4 Gig. Neener.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-10-12, 5:25 pm |
| On Oct 12, 12:19 am, "Don" <one-if-by-l...@concord.com> wrote:
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
>
> Bet my machine has more RAM then yours.
> nyah, nyah-nyah nyah, nyah...............
The correct taunting terminology, tautologically speaking, is neener,
neener, neener. Nyah, nyah, nyah is what you say when you're singing
along and don't know the words.
And, for you edification, I stuck RCA component video and audio cables
directly into my cerebellum. I have virtually unlimited RAM. And
unlimited oozing. But it's fast!
R
| |
|
| > Nyah, nyah, nyah is what you say when you're singing
> along and don't know the words.
It may be what YOU say... But "nyah nyah" has a proud history as a
taunt.
| |
| Ken S. Tucker 2006-10-13, 1:25 pm |
|
gruhn wrote:
>
> It may be what YOU say... But "nyah nyah" has a proud history as a
> taunt.
Hi Gruhn, good to see you, hope all's well.
We knocked together the 20x20 you rendered,
here's some pix...
http://ca.pg.photos.yahoo.com/ph/co...hX7xaFBbHoUd1f3
We opened up the bathing area, that's nice,
TV and foot soaking, and elevated the tub.
We're currently experimenting with putting
electric heat under the tub, using a dead
quiet $60 1500W convection heater, (well
grounded of course), with water in the tub
that provides humidity.
The tub window is a central feature, it moves
light and has nice symmetry, if it's too weird
we can put some translucent on the living room
side, but a curtain works for privacy.
Many small experimental details ongoing.
So far so good, and thanks again!
Ken & Lynne
| |
|
| Godzilla Pimp wrote:
> I can never get it to do what I want. Most don't do shed roofs, flat roofs,
> diagonals or curves, that I can tell anyway. I use graph paper and a pencil
> and can design anything I want, down to the inch.
>
> I usually start out with a 2' module, Say 48'x28' for a house. I first
> sketch the floorplan with furniture. I then add up all the dimensions top to
> bottom and side to side. I count exterior walls as 6", interior as 4".
> Hallways and stairs are 3'-3' 6", kitchen cabinets and closets are 2'. A
> standard bathtub is 5'x2'6" and so on. I add or subtract and inch here or
> there to get to my 2' module. It works great.
>
> Here are some:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jerry1784/design/
>
> I need to add several more, including my "upside down house" for a steep
> lakeside site (the carport is on the roof) and two 1 bedroom houses I
> designed for myself. They are ultra-micro (700 square feet) but cool.
>
> GP
Hey man, whatever works for you.
A while back someone posted and said they decided to go from 8'
ceilings to 10'. No big deal. They just told their contractor. They
were using bad software or didn't tell the software of the change.
They ended up with a stairway that was 2' short -- not really. They
had the right stairway but there wasn't enough room to fit it in
because they didn't take into account the horizontal difference in the
size. It was nearly a complete rework of the plans to make the house
on the foundation, if I remember right. That's a lot of work with a
pencil.
| |
| RicodJour 2006-10-14, 9:25 am |
| gruhn wrote:
>
> It may be what YOU say... But "nyah nyah" has a proud history as a
> taunt.
We used to neener, neener, neener the nyah, nyah boys. Wasn't a fair
fight. The subtleties of the neener, and it's inherent singsong, are
far more powerful weapons on the field of taunting.
R
| |
| Warm Worm 2006-10-14, 1:25 pm |
|
"Godzilla Pimp"
> I can never get it to do what I want.
I am reminded of my discussion earlier this year about pencils that began
with Marcello. If I recall, however, he seemed to like software, but
appreciated the greater immediacy of the pencil.
> Most don't do shed roofs, flat roofs, diagonals or curves, that I can tell
> anyway.
That's probably because it's still on the default Prepare-A-Cup-of-Coffee
mode.
> I use graph paper and a pencil and can design anything I want, down to the
> inch.
Ya, but can it prepare a satisfying cup of coffee every time?
> Here are some:
>
> http://home.earthlink.net/~jerry1784/design/
>
> I need to add several more, including my "upside down house" for a steep
> lakeside site (the carport is on the roof) and two 1 bedroom houses I
> designed for myself. They are ultra-micro (700 square feet) but cool.
I remember one of those designs. I trust you design with the environment and
ergonomics (ie. "choreography") in mind? Keep up the good work.
| |
|
| "RicodJour"> wrote
> gruhn wrote:
>
> We used to neener, neener, neener the nyah, nyah boys. Wasn't a fair
> fight. The subtleties of the neener, and it's inherent singsong, are
> far more powerful weapons on the field of taunting.
I've seen the *word* neener many times during my time on the web/usenet but
have never actually heard the word in person nor have I said it myself.
I just now did.
Said it to myself that is. Outloud.
I sounded like a wuss.
(to be fair, I said nyah out loud too and sounded like a wuss too.)
My vocal cords don't respond well to that high pitched sound.
(the 'ee' part)
By the time I got to the 5th neener I almost had to cough.
Now if I could do that Bruce Lee thing with my nutz perhaps I could more
easily produce that traditional neener sound. heh
| |
|
| Hey Richard, go make a cup of your legendary finely ground mud and leave the
poor chow alone already. LOL
"Warm Worm"> wrote
>
> "Godzilla Pimp"
>
> I am reminded of my discussion earlier this year about pencils that began
> with Marcello. If I recall, however, he seemed to like software, but
> appreciated the greater immediacy of the pencil.
>
>
> That's probably because it's still on the default Prepare-A-Cup-of-Coffee
> mode.
>
>
> Ya, but can it prepare a satisfying cup of coffee every time?
>
>
> I remember one of those designs. I trust you design with the environment
> and ergonomics (ie. "choreography") in mind? Keep up the good work.
| |
| Godzilla Pimp 2006-10-20, 8:25 pm |
|
"RicodJour" <ricodjour@worldemail.com> wrote in message
news:1160623688.147056.243880@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 11, 7:27 pm, "Godzilla Pimp" <m...@privacy.net> wrote:
>
> Ummm, design software that doesn't do a shed or flat roof? Won't draw
> diagonals? What the hell are you using for software? I don't know any
> that won't do those things.
>
>
> In the amount of time it took you to draw those sketches I would have
> had a fully dimensioned sketch model. With that I could determine and
> tweak any dimension, calculate areas, work on material selection, have
> accurate shadows based on location and time of day/year, and the list
> goes on. My sketch model would also be damn close to a presentation
> model. I did mention that I could do fly-bys and walk-through slide
> shows and animations, right?
>
> To each his own, I guess. It just seems to me that when you stop
> learning new tricks that's when you become an old dog.
>
> R
>
| |
|
|
"Don" <one-if-by-land@concord.com> wrote in message
news:egrtdg0v20@news4.newsguy.com...
> "RicodJour"> wrote
>
>
> I've seen the *word* neener many times during my time on the web/usenet
but
> have never actually heard the word in person nor have I said it myself.
> I just now did.
> Said it to myself that is. Outloud.
> I sounded like a wuss.
> (to be fair, I said nyah out loud too and sounded like a wuss too.)
> My vocal cords don't respond well to that high pitched sound.
> (the 'ee' part)
> By the time I got to the 5th neener I almost had to cough.
> Now if I could do that Bruce Lee thing with my nutz perhaps I could more
> easily produce that traditional neener sound. heh
>
>
Nyah nyah nyah reads more like a self-gratifying chuckle than a spiteful
retort ie the Three Stooges - Larry Moe and Curly - IIRC.
In OZ, neener neener neener is voiced more like nairner nairner nairner,
where the nasal emphasis is proportional to how far one can screw-up their
nose.
|
|
|
|
|