Architecture - Software recommendations?

Author

Software recommendations?

Michael

2007-01-08, 9:25 am

Would someone recommend software for residential design?

I am reviewing Chief Architect 10.0, but wonder if others feel there is
better out there (and cheaper!!).

Thanks

3D Peruna

2007-01-08, 9:25 am

Michael wrote:
> Would someone recommend software for residential design?

For what purpose? One time use? Are you an architect? Do you plan on
doing lots of work?

Can't give a recommendation without knowing more about what you're
wanting to do.

>
> I am reviewing Chief Architect 10.0, but wonder if others feel there is
> better out there (and cheaper!!).

No thanks...

Michael

2007-01-08, 9:25 am

I am not an architect, but I am helping architects who are designing my
home. I want to help educate them on 3D architectural software so they
can produce 3D walkthroughs of my custom home along with
lighting/shading, etc. I expect that if they like the software, they
will want to use it all of the time for their other clients. So, in
answer to your queries: Many time uses, and lots of work - yes.

Thank you!

3D Peruna wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> For what purpose? One time use? Are you an architect? Do you plan on
> doing lots of work?
>
> Can't give a recommendation without knowing more about what you're
> wanting to do.
>
>
> No thanks...
>

Pat

2007-01-08, 1:25 pm

Your kidding, right?

You want to select a cheap piece of software that you can figure out
but that will be so stunning that your architect will want to put down
his pencil and switch over to it. You know this is a recipe for
disaster. If he's comfy using something, let him use it. He's the one
who has to fit the whole thing together. But hey....

My suggestion (and I am dead serious here) is for you to get the game
"The Sims". It is made by the people who brought you Sim City. You
can easily design your house and put stuff in it, do walk throughs,
etc. I don't play it, but I know people who are very content playing
it.

See if you can get a demo version.

Michael wrote:[color=darkred]
> I am not an architect, but I am helping architects who are designing my
> home. I want to help educate them on 3D architectural software so they
> can produce 3D walkthroughs of my custom home along with
> lighting/shading, etc. I expect that if they like the software, they
> will want to use it all of the time for their other clients. So, in
> answer to your queries: Many time uses, and lots of work - yes.
>
> Thank you!
>
> 3D Peruna wrote:

3D Peruna

2007-01-08, 1:25 pm

Michael wrote:
> I am not an architect, but I am helping architects who are designing my
> home. I want to help educate them on 3D architectural software so they
> can produce 3D walkthroughs of my custom home along with
> lighting/shading, etc. I expect that if they like the software, they
> will want to use it all of the time for their other clients. So, in
> answer to your queries: Many time uses, and lots of work - yes.

ROFL...

If a client came to me and said "Hey, I've designed my house using this
great, cheap software. You should use it, too!" I'd first have to
suppress the laughter, then kindly tell them I've got more than enough
software to do the job.

What you're saying is the equivalent of researching medical equipment,
then telling your doctor what to use on you.

If the architects you work for don't do 3D Stuff, they can hire it out.
Mind you, it's expensive to do what you're asking for. I used to do
3D modeling work for others. I wasn't cheap. It's not nearly as "easy"
as you think it should be. The "cheap" stuff produces "cheap" images.

Trust and pay your architect to do their job. Don't try and tell them
how to do it.

(I'm still laughing)

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-08, 1:25 pm

If you know more than your architect, hire another architect.
--

MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:8ltoh.42956$wc5.20087@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
>I am not an architect, but I am helping architects who are designing my
>home. I want to help educate them on 3D architectural software so they can
>produce 3D walkthroughs of my custom home along with lighting/shading, etc.
>I expect that if they like the software, they will want to use it all of
>the time for their other clients. So, in answer to your queries: Many
>time uses, and lots of work - yes.
>
> Thank you!
>
> 3D Peruna wrote:

Michael

2007-01-08, 1:25 pm

You all missed the point.

I'm not trying to design the house myself and then give it to them. I
am trying to get them out of the stone age and use Architectural
software. I didn't say 'cheap'... whatever you guys use would be a
great recommendation.

My architects are outstanding designers, but they use pen and paper.
Changes are a big deal and they make mistakes which can be costly. I am
savvy with software. I am willing to help them get over the 'computer'
factor.

Their design talent is worth it.

So..my question again is: what software do you use? pretty please???

3D Peruna wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> ROFL...
>
> If a client came to me and said "Hey, I've designed my house using this
> great, cheap software. You should use it, too!" I'd first have to
> suppress the laughter, then kindly tell them I've got more than enough
> software to do the job.
>
> What you're saying is the equivalent of researching medical equipment,
> then telling your doctor what to use on you.
>
> If the architects you work for don't do 3D Stuff, they can hire it out.
> Mind you, it's expensive to do what you're asking for. I used to do 3D
> modeling work for others. I wasn't cheap. It's not nearly as "easy" as
> you think it should be. The "cheap" stuff produces "cheap" images.
>
> Trust and pay your architect to do their job. Don't try and tell them
> how to do it.
>
> (I'm still laughing)
>

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-08, 1:25 pm

I think you missed 3d's point. Your architect should be able to find someone
to do what you want as a consultant. If your guys are so good, and work on
paper, then why try to get them on computers? You want them to do less than
their best? If you don't want a "stone age" architect hire a computer savvy
one, although from your point of view I couldn't imagine why you would care
how they come up with the design. What you should be interested in is the
final building, and the bill for it. Some of the best (older) designers I
know can't use a computer, but they know a lot about buildings and design.

It sounds to me like you should stay well out of their way if you want
things to turn out right. If you are seeing a lot of charges for changes
that you didn't generate yourself, and the work has costly mistakes in it,
you've got the wrong architect. If you are generating a lot of changes by
being 'hands on', or changing your mind about things, then that's your
problem, and it's not a software vs. computer issue.

There are a few people here who've been through this process more than a few
times, and are familiar with the anatomy of a client-architect relationship
that has failed. I'll bet that I speak for the bunch in saying that, if we
take what you're saying at face value, you are not headed for a happy
ending. You sound like you don't trust your architect, even though you say
they're great, and are far too involved in the process. For your own good,
try listening to someone.
--

MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:chuoh.60826$wP1.41993@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
> You all missed the point.
>
> I'm not trying to design the house myself and then give it to them. I am
> trying to get them out of the stone age and use Architectural software. I
> didn't say 'cheap'... whatever you guys use would be a great
> recommendation.
>
> My architects are outstanding designers, but they use pen and paper.
> Changes are a big deal and they make mistakes which can be costly. I am
> savvy with software. I am willing to help them get over the 'computer'
> factor.
>
> Their design talent is worth it.
>
> So..my question again is: what software do you use? pretty please???
>
> 3D Peruna wrote:

Ken S. Tucker

2007-01-08, 1:25 pm

3D Peruna

2007-01-08, 1:25 pm

Michael wrote:
> You all missed the point.
>
> I'm not trying to design the house myself and then give it to them. I
> am trying to get them out of the stone age and use Architectural
> software. I didn't say 'cheap'... whatever you guys use would be a
> great recommendation.
>
> My architects are outstanding designers, but they use pen and paper.
> Changes are a big deal and they make mistakes which can be costly. I am
> savvy with software. I am willing to help them get over the 'computer'
> factor.
>
> Their design talent is worth it.
>
> So..my question again is: what software do you use? pretty please???

Ditto Michael's comments.

YOU can't help them get "over the computer factor." If they haven't
already, you're not going to do it for them, unless you're prepared to
pay them for the learning curve to get over it.

We have a hard time finding people who can 1) Use CAD software
effectively (and it really doesn't matter what it is) and 2) Understand
how a building goes together. If these guys understand how a building
goes together, then let them do their job. If you want a 3D
walk-through, then have them outsource it. IT WILL BE CHEAPER FOR YOU
than trying to train them.

I've got YEARS of learning. I've done 3D modeling for the sake of
visualizations. You're not going to like the results from their first
efforts. And it ain't about learning "software." There is nuance and
tweaking and getting a fundamental understanding of how the software
actually works.

Since you asked (and it won't make a difference) here's what I use:

Autodesk's Architectural Desktop (ADT) 2007 - I hate it, but it works
and we can interface with numerous consultants seamlessly on commercial
projects.

Revit Building 9.1 - Just getting started with it. Experiencing typical
transitional frusturations. Revit has a fundamentally different way of
working with projects. Plus, we need to set it up to meet office
standards. This process (which is more painful with ADT) takes time to
work through.

Sketchup Pro - Great program, but I wouldn't use it for construction
documents.

3DStudio Max - Heavy duty, industrial strength
modeling/rendering/animation program. We use it for
rendering/animation, but not regularly (or as much as we used to).

All of the above programs have a steep learning curve. Revit is best
learned by someone who has little to no previous CAD experience.

There are dozens of other programs. Each person swears the one they
know is the best. I just swear at all of them, understanding that for
the most part, they all suck. Some just suck less in the areas I think
are important.

One last point: See the alt.architecture FAQ for the official CAD info.

Edgar

2007-01-08, 1:25 pm

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Jzsoh.42952$wc5.24380@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Would someone recommend software for residential design?
>
> I am reviewing Chief Architect 10.0, but wonder if others feel there is
> better out there (and cheaper!!).
>
> Thanks

Well since you got all the bad stuff out of the way with everyone else, I
would say if they are going to get out of the stone ages, they need to use
AutoCAD. If you just want to show them a little 3D stuff show them Sketchup
(google sketchup is free, but Sketchup pro costs $500). Of course if they
are pencil and paper architects, their hand renderings would probably blow
the sketchup stuff out of the water.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Michael

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

There is no better way for a client to see ('visualize') a design that
an architect can create than by using 3D software with full lighting and
shading capabilities. A great designer is great with or without a
computer like you said. But as a client, when they draw something for
me to see and approve, I need to see and walk through the design to have
a good feel for it. Most clients can not see in their mind what the
designer - through talent and experience - can see in theirs.

Which is why I don't go shopping for an architect simply if they have
CAD capability. I like my Architects work...but their clients have
mentioned that they make mistakes that 3D software would make easy to avoid.

I don't understand why you can't just tell me what software you use??

Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> I think you missed 3d's point. Your architect should be able to find someone
> to do what you want as a consultant. If your guys are so good, and work on
> paper, then why try to get them on computers? You want them to do less than
> their best? If you don't want a "stone age" architect hire a computer savvy
> one, although from your point of view I couldn't imagine why you would care
> how they come up with the design. What you should be interested in is the
> final building, and the bill for it. Some of the best (older) designers I
> know can't use a computer, but they know a lot about buildings and design.
>
> It sounds to me like you should stay well out of their way if you want
> things to turn out right. If you are seeing a lot of charges for changes
> that you didn't generate yourself, and the work has costly mistakes in it,
> you've got the wrong architect. If you are generating a lot of changes by
> being 'hands on', or changing your mind about things, then that's your
> problem, and it's not a software vs. computer issue.
>
> There are a few people here who've been through this process more than a few
> times, and are familiar with the anatomy of a client-architect relationship
> that has failed. I'll bet that I speak for the bunch in saying that, if we
> take what you're saying at face value, you are not headed for a happy
> ending. You sound like you don't trust your architect, even though you say
> they're great, and are far too involved in the process. For your own good,
> try listening to someone.

Michael

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

In-Reply-To: <Ygvoh.25$da7.6@newsfe03.lga>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 68
Message-ID: <E8zoh.60892$wP1.34825@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 70.241.121.254
X-Complaints-To: abuse@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr14.news.prodigy.net 1168293540 ST000 70.241.121.254 (Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:59:00 EST)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 16:59:00 EST
Organization: SBC http://yahoo.sbc.com
X-UserInfo1: Q[OIBSSE\BSKRRPXN[O@_WH@YR_B@EXLLBWLOOAFWIWTEPIB_NVUAH_[BL[\IRKIANGGJBFNJF_DOLSCENSY^U@FRFUEXR@KFXYDBPWBCDQJA@X_DCBHXR[C@\EOKCJLED_SZ@RMWYXYWE_P@\\GOIW^@SYFFSWHFIXMADO@^[ADPRPETLBJ]RDGENSKQQZN
Date: Mon, 08 Jan 2007 21:59:00 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.architecture:132929

Thanks 3D Peruna !!

3D Peruna wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> Ditto Michael's comments.
>
> YOU can't help them get "over the computer factor." If they haven't
> already, you're not going to do it for them, unless you're prepared to
> pay them for the learning curve to get over it.
>
> We have a hard time finding people who can 1) Use CAD software
> effectively (and it really doesn't matter what it is) and 2) Understand
> how a building goes together. If these guys understand how a building
> goes together, then let them do their job. If you want a 3D
> walk-through, then have them outsource it. IT WILL BE CHEAPER FOR YOU
> than trying to train them.
>
> I've got YEARS of learning. I've done 3D modeling for the sake of
> visualizations. You're not going to like the results from their first
> efforts. And it ain't about learning "software." There is nuance and
> tweaking and getting a fundamental understanding of how the software
> actually works.
>
> Since you asked (and it won't make a difference) here's what I use:
>
> Autodesk's Architectural Desktop (ADT) 2007 - I hate it, but it works
> and we can interface with numerous consultants seamlessly on commercial
> projects.
>
> Revit Building 9.1 - Just getting started with it. Experiencing typical
> transitional frusturations. Revit has a fundamentally different way of
> working with projects. Plus, we need to set it up to meet office
> standards. This process (which is more painful with ADT) takes time to
> work through.
>
> Sketchup Pro - Great program, but I wouldn't use it for construction
> documents.
>
> 3DStudio Max - Heavy duty, industrial strength
> modeling/rendering/animation program. We use it for
> rendering/animation, but not regularly (or as much as we used to).
>
> All of the above programs have a steep learning curve. Revit is best
> learned by someone who has little to no previous CAD experience.
>
> There are dozens of other programs. Each person swears the one they
> know is the best. I just swear at all of them, understanding that for
> the most part, they all suck. Some just suck less in the areas I think
> are important.
>
> One last point: See the alt.architecture FAQ for the official CAD info.
>

Michael

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

Thanks Edgar - I also looked at Chief Architect 10.0 - have you heard of
them?

Edgar wrote:
> "Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Jzsoh.42952$wc5.24380@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Well since you got all the bad stuff out of the way with everyone else, I
> would say if they are going to get out of the stone ages, they need to use
> AutoCAD. If you just want to show them a little 3D stuff show them Sketchup
> (google sketchup is free, but Sketchup pro costs $500). Of course if they
> are pencil and paper architects, their hand renderings would probably blow
> the sketchup stuff out of the water.
>

3D Peruna

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

Michael wrote:
> Thanks Edgar - I also looked at Chief Architect 10.0 - have you heard of
> them?

Michael,

It seems to me like you're sold on Chief Architect and want somebody to
confirm your decision for you. I doubt you'll find that here. We all
use something different. I've looked at Chief Architect and think it's
too limiting, has too many issues with import/export and doesn't work in
the way I think (partly because I've been using AutoCAD for too many
years...it's like speaking a language).

But I stick with what was said before...a good architect would pick up
on the problems you say they've had. Really... It's not software.
It's the architect. You forcing your idea of good architectural
software won't help you. It won't help them, either (at least not for a
long long time).

Either let them do their job, or find a different a architect.

Edgar

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Hbzoh.60893$wP1.26915@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
> Thanks Edgar - I also looked at Chief Architect 10.0 - have you heard of
> them?
>
> Edgar wrote:

No, I never have. AutoCAD is practically industry standard so if they need
to get into computers they need autocad. If they deal with consultants that
use computers, I bet the majority use some form of autocad. I don't assume
to judge a program without knowing it, but if it is one of those "design
your own home yourself" type of programs that is made for laymen it will not
be good enough. But again I have never used it myself.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Ken S. Tucker

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

Michael wrote:
> There is no better way for a client to see ('visualize') a design that
> an architect can create than by using 3D software with full lighting and
> shading capabilities. A great designer is great with or without a
> computer like you said. But as a client, when they draw something for
> me to see and approve, I need to see and walk through the design to have
> a good feel for it. Most clients can not see in their mind what the
> designer - through talent and experience - can see in theirs.
>
> Which is why I don't go shopping for an architect simply if they have
> CAD capability. I like my Architects work...

"but their clients have
mentioned that they make mistakes that 3D software would make easy to
avoid."

Hmm, Mr. Tucker sniffs a funny odor. Are you maintaining
you interviewed the architects previous clients, and those
clients were sufficiently informed to gauge an architects
work based on the variable of using CAD?

It's that "their clients mentioned", stinks, Mr. Tucker votes
OP is a funny troll, OP has 1 ding-bat point, yes I'll be bad
cop this time, my lips are still pouted from being the good
cop last time!
Ken

Don

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

"Michael"> wrote
> My architects are outstanding designers, but they use pen and paper.
> Changes are a big deal and they make mistakes which can be costly. I am
> savvy with software. I am willing to help them get over the 'computer'
> factor.
>
> Their design talent is worth it.
>
> So..my question again is: what software do you use? pretty please???

I have used AutoCAD since about 1994.
You are receiving mixed signals from these so called architects and making
yourself look foolish in the process.

Best advice I can give you, if you're serious about having a home designed,
is to get with some people that are current.
Also, I doubt you really know enough about the business to judge whether
these so called architects have *design talent*.

Don

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

"Michael"> wrote
> Which is why I don't go shopping for an architect simply if they have CAD
> capability. I like my Architects work...but their clients have mentioned
> that they make mistakes that 3D software would make easy to avoid.

Software won't eliminate mistakes, ever.

Don

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Hbzoh.60893$wP1.26915@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> Thanks Edgar - I also looked at Chief Architect 10.0 - have you heard of
> them?

Its a toy.

Warm Worm

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

Michael wrote:
> Would someone recommend software for residential design?
>
> I am reviewing Chief Architect 10.0, but wonder if others feel there is
> better out there (and cheaper!!).

This is a new and intuitive project that's being developed by
university computer science students in collaboration with architects
in the field:
http://archimedes.incubadora.fapesp...imedes-project/
It is a good opportunity to grow with the project, become part of its
community and history, and share in the excitement and encouragement. I
test it.

Others include QCAD (2D only for now)

http://www.qcad.org/qcad.html

....and CYCAS (3D too):

http://www.cycas.de/down.php?s=en#top

Bob Morrison

2007-01-08, 5:26 pm

In a previous post Don wrote...
> "Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Hbzoh.60893$wP1.26915@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Its a toy.
>

I concur. I worked on one job where the designer used CA. It was a
nightmare. CA made pretty pictures but it was a piece of junk when it
came to putting together a construction set.

Michael, why do you need a walkthrough? Don't you trust your architect?

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Michael

2007-01-08, 8:25 pm

Take a look at these two architect examples:

http://www.oconnorgill.com/

http://www.giarrussoandassociates.com/

This is the kind of design I like a great deal.

So many of you on this site have been 'warning' me away from focusing on
software, I'm inclined to believe you all - but, AS 'your' CLIENT - 3D
software really helps me to visualize your designs minimizing my wanting
to make changes (I already know what it looks like) and allowing the
architecture firm to play whatif's quickly and easily.

I think the work the firms above do is outstanding, but probably just
reflects my taste.

Don wrote:
> "Michael"> wrote
>
>
> I have used AutoCAD since about 1994.
> You are receiving mixed signals from these so called architects and making
> yourself look foolish in the process.
>
> Best advice I can give you, if you're serious about having a home designed,
> is to get with some people that are current.
> Also, I doubt you really know enough about the business to judge whether
> these so called architects have *design talent*.
>
>

Michael

2007-01-08, 8:25 pm

minimize? maybe?

Don wrote:
> "Michael"> wrote
>
> Software won't eliminate mistakes, ever.
>
>

Don

2007-01-08, 8:25 pm

"Bob Morrison" <SpamFighter@junk.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.200c71682a18b675989d1e@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In a previous post Don wrote...
>
> I concur. I worked on one job where the designer used CA. It was a
> nightmare. CA made pretty pictures but it was a piece of junk when it
> came to putting together a construction set.
>
> Michael, why do you need a walkthrough? Don't you trust your architect?

He's apparently caught up in the walk-through phenom.
I've designed thousands of homes and NEVER did a walk through.
It takes a whole lot of time = money to create a walk through.

I have, however, done thousands of 3d sketches on the fly, right before my
clients eyes.
The astute designer will do whatever is necessary to get the point across to
the client.

Michael

2007-01-08, 8:25 pm

I trust my architect, BUT ... I'd like to 'verify'.

I can't believe that software does not increase productivity of
Architects immensely and help avoid mistakes - or else why do you all
use it (AutoCad, etc.).

This is an interesting discussion here regarding your field....I realize
that I am an outsider (no architectural training), but I do have
architectural APPRECIATION. I love what Architects know how to do -
especially with materials, design and function. All I do as a client
(besides pay the invoice), is list our lifestyle requirements and take
my Architect out to dinner a lot and soon trips to exotic places for
'materials'.

One of you said, "why not just trust your architect"....I concur
somewhat. I chose them because I like their work and have seen a few of
their projects. No sharp corners, lots of smooth lines and transitions.
Doors which fit function (i.e. bathroom door is not the same as a
bedroom door) NO MOLDING - smooth transition. They create 'spaces',
where my neighbors architects have created a big expensive BOX with lots
of rooms.

I would like to see what they come up with BEFORE I spend a lot of money
just for peace of mind. Once the project is underway, I want it to go
like lightning and 3D visualization will help me have a level of comfort
that we have the best design for our lifestyle.

Just a Clients view....

Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post Don wrote...
>
> I concur. I worked on one job where the designer used CA. It was a
> nightmare. CA made pretty pictures but it was a piece of junk when it
> came to putting together a construction set.
>
> Michael, why do you need a walkthrough? Don't you trust your architect?
>
>

3D Peruna

2007-01-08, 8:25 pm

Michael wrote:
> I trust my architect, BUT ... I'd like to 'verify'.
>
> I can't believe that software does not increase productivity of
> Architects immensely and help avoid mistakes - or else why do you all
> use it (AutoCad, etc.).

Mistakes? The architect, engineer and contractor can all potentially
make mistakes. CAD software might help catch them, but CAD has not
eliminated them. If you're talking about "design" mistakes -- "I don't
like the color of that wall", it's cheaper to paint the wall 3 times
than to build the model and render it.

Why do we use CAD? Because it's faster...it's faster to make changes,
it's easier to talk to various consultants, it's faster to get the
output to the client, it's easier to archive, it's faster to copy a
detail from project A to project B. Sure, it helps reduce some
mistakes, but that's not it's primary strength.

>
> This is an interesting discussion here regarding your field....I realize
> that I am an outsider (no architectural training), but I do have
> architectural APPRECIATION. I love what Architects know how to do -
> especially with materials, design and function. All I do as a client
> (besides pay the invoice), is list our lifestyle requirements and take
> my Architect out to dinner a lot and soon trips to exotic places for
> 'materials'.

But none of what "Architects do" is because of CAD. Architects designed
and had built some of the most beautiful buildings in the world without
the benefit of any electricity at all. CAD doesn't do it. A great
designer with or without CAD is still a great designer. In fact, I'd
argue that CAD allows more mediocre designers to do less than mediocre
work, which is what we see a lot of. If you rely on CAD, you design
based on the limitations imposed by your ability with the software or
the software itself (unless you understand those limitations and go into
with eyes open).

And Architect's don't need trips to exotic places for 'materials' (but
are most happy to take them on the client's dime). We're pretty adept
at doing it from our office/our desk/our brains.

You don't need the "walk-through". Or, what I think might be the case,
is that you don't trust yourself. You want to see it before you'll
agree to like it. Maybe you want other people to "ooo, ahhh!" at the
pretty walk through so you can validate your opinion about the style.

> One of you said, "why not just trust your architect"....I concur
> somewhat. I chose them because I like their work and have seen a few of
> their projects. No sharp corners, lots of smooth lines and transitions.
> Doors which fit function (i.e. bathroom door is not the same as a
> bedroom door) NO MOLDING - smooth transition. They create 'spaces',
> where my neighbors architects have created a big expensive BOX with lots
> of rooms.

Have you physically toured their homes? Or are you just reacting to the
pretty pictures? I can promise you that the pictures lie.

I can also promise that almost every project shown is over decorated by
an overzealous interior designer. It won't look like that when you move
in, unless you pay an overzealous interior designer to make it look like
that.

No moulding isn't cheap. Moulding are designed to cover up the
interfaces and corners...where imperfection meets imperfection. It
costs more to create perfection.

>
> I would like to see what they come up with BEFORE I spend a lot of money
> just for peace of mind. Once the project is underway, I want it to go
> like lightning and 3D visualization will help me have a level of comfort
> that we have the best design for our lifestyle.

That's fine, but expect to pay them a lot to do that for you. I can
tell you from countless experience that "real-world" lighting
isn't...it's faked (just light lighting is faked in photographs).
Colors and materials are approximations (because the lighting is faked,
the scan isn't accurate, and neither is the reproduction on your
TV/Monitor/Whatever). It's all just eye candy that doesn't really mean
anything. It's terribly expensive to create the illusion of reality and
in the end its just an illusion.
>
> Just a Clients view....

One you're free to have. But trust your architect to design what you
want. If you want them to 3D the whole place, then PAY THEM to have it
done, even if they outsource it. If, at this point, they've not gone
CAD, it's very unlikely that they will, even if its just for you.

I still get the feeling that you can't go through the processes without
having a 3D walk-thru. Fine... Make it part of the deal with whoever
you select. If they won't do it, then find someone who will. But don't
force software on someone who doesn't want it.

MiamiCuse

2007-01-08, 9:25 pm

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:F7zoh.60891$wP1.28625@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
> There is no better way for a client to see ('visualize') a design that an
> architect can create than by using 3D software with full lighting and
> shading capabilities. A great designer is great with or without a
> computer like you said. But as a client, when they draw something for me
> to see and approve, I need to see and walk through the design to have a
> good feel for it. Most clients can not see in their mind what the
> designer - through talent and experience - can see in theirs.
>
> Which is why I don't go shopping for an architect simply if they have CAD
> capability. I like my Architects work...but their clients have mentioned
> that they make mistakes that 3D software would make easy to avoid.
>
> I don't understand why you can't just tell me what software you use??
>
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:

First, I am not an architect.

But in my opinion you hired those architects to produce a design, and you
should let them do whatever they feel most comfortable to deliver to you the
design. If you ask them to use CAD tools and they are not comfortable, you
are paying for the time that will need to ramp up to it, and I would guess
end up paying a lot more. If they currently use pencil and paper, then more
than likely the first automatiion they will take is automated drafting and
not 3D modeling, it is a big step to leap from automated drafting to 3D
modeling.

In our company, the bridge engineer do their design, and with the assistance
of some CAD drafters will produce the bridge plans. Now if they need to
take it to a public hearing, so the average Joe Blow who may not understand
how to read contours can understand, then we need to do a 3D model, but we
have trained people to create the model as it is completely counter
productive and a waste of time to have the bridge engineers do 3D piers
extrusions and put in 3D rebars and cut outs. Our modeling guy can do this
a lot quicker. I understand you want to be able to do 3D visualization and
walk through so you want them to be able to produce 3D model, I bet you can
save money by training yourself to read and visualize their plans and
sketches.

Good luck and let us know how it turns out.

MC

Bob Morrison

2007-01-08, 9:25 pm

In a previous post Michael wrote...
> I would like to see what they come up with BEFORE I spend a lot of money
> just for peace of mind. Once the project is underway, I want it to go
> like lightning and 3D visualization will help me have a level of comfort
> that we have the best design for our lifestyle.
>

So you don't trust your architect. Or more correctly as 3D Peruna says
you don't trust yourself to be able to visualize the results.

No software anywhere at any cost will give a real picture of the finished
results. Take a look at any recent animated movie. The results are
realistic looking, but they are not real. And just think of the millions
of dollars spent on animation software and high end computer software.

Trust your architect to give you the design you want. Or else hire
somebody else. If you insist on having a 3D walkthrough then hire
somebody to prepare one from the architect's drawings. It will be very
expensive and not really worth the money.

Let me give you one scenario: the walkthrough is drawn using a sun angle
based on day in early June. The house will look much different inside and
out using a sun angle based on a day in mid December. Which house do you
want?

--
Bob Morrison, PE, SE
R L Morrison Engineering Co
Structural & Civil Engineering
Poulsbo WA
bob at rlmorrisonengr dot com

Michael

2007-01-08, 9:25 pm

Thanks for your insights....

I am not forcing them to do 3D ... they told me how many clients keep
asking them about it and since I am in the 3D business (ran a data 3D
software company - volume visualization), I agreed to look into it.

You are right about one thing - truth be told, if I did not participate
at all and just went away for 18 months and came back, they would
produce a beautiful home (did you see the web links?). But at what
cost? and would it have the subtle features I would like to have since
it's 3D. They do build spec homes, so why not just buy one of those.

Participating in the decision process (not final decision -mind you) is
what I think my wife and I would have fun doing. It's been fun so far.

Hence .... the walk throughs....

3D Peruna wrote:
> Michael wrote:
>
> Mistakes? The architect, engineer and contractor can all potentially
> make mistakes. CAD software might help catch them, but CAD has not
> eliminated them. If you're talking about "design" mistakes -- "I don't
> like the color of that wall", it's cheaper to paint the wall 3 times
> than to build the model and render it.
>
> Why do we use CAD? Because it's faster...it's faster to make changes,
> it's easier to talk to various consultants, it's faster to get the
> output to the client, it's easier to archive, it's faster to copy a
> detail from project A to project B. Sure, it helps reduce some
> mistakes, but that's not it's primary strength.
>
>
> But none of what "Architects do" is because of CAD. Architects designed
> and had built some of the most beautiful buildings in the world without
> the benefit of any electricity at all. CAD doesn't do it. A great
> designer with or without CAD is still a great designer. In fact, I'd
> argue that CAD allows more mediocre designers to do less than mediocre
> work, which is what we see a lot of. If you rely on CAD, you design
> based on the limitations imposed by your ability with the software or
> the software itself (unless you understand those limitations and go into
> with eyes open).
>
> And Architect's don't need trips to exotic places for 'materials' (but
> are most happy to take them on the client's dime). We're pretty adept
> at doing it from our office/our desk/our brains.
>
> You don't need the "walk-through". Or, what I think might be the case,
> is that you don't trust yourself. You want to see it before you'll
> agree to like it. Maybe you want other people to "ooo, ahhh!" at the
> pretty walk through so you can validate your opinion about the style.
>
>
> Have you physically toured their homes? Or are you just reacting to the
> pretty pictures? I can promise you that the pictures lie.
>
> I can also promise that almost every project shown is over decorated by
> an overzealous interior designer. It won't look like that when you move
> in, unless you pay an overzealous interior designer to make it look like
> that.
>
> No moulding isn't cheap. Moulding are designed to cover up the
> interfaces and corners...where imperfection meets imperfection. It
> costs more to create perfection.
>
>
> That's fine, but expect to pay them a lot to do that for you. I can
> tell you from countless experience that "real-world" lighting
> isn't...it's faked (just light lighting is faked in photographs). Colors
> and materials are approximations (because the lighting is faked, the
> scan isn't accurate, and neither is the reproduction on your
> TV/Monitor/Whatever). It's all just eye candy that doesn't really mean
> anything. It's terribly expensive to create the illusion of reality and
> in the end its just an illusion.
>
> One you're free to have. But trust your architect to design what you
> want. If you want them to 3D the whole place, then PAY THEM to have it
> done, even if they outsource it. If, at this point, they've not gone
> CAD, it's very unlikely that they will, even if its just for you.
>
> I still get the feeling that you can't go through the processes without
> having a 3D walk-thru. Fine... Make it part of the deal with whoever
> you select. If they won't do it, then find someone who will. But don't
> force software on someone who doesn't want it.
>

Michael

2007-01-08, 9:25 pm

I will let you know how it turns out - there seems to be interest by the
responses in this thread. More than I thought actually.

To beat a dead horse - I am not forcing them to do anything. It was a
suggestion. A suggestion they jumped on. So I am helping them.

It does seem that many of their clients ask for 3D renderings. Whether
a client should or should not is somewhat irrelevant. The fact is - it
helps convey ideas.

But one thing is certain. If my architects chose not to use any 3D
software whatsoever, I would still use them. They are good at what they
do. The fact that they are willing to use it so I can see before they
build what it might look like pleases me. But it is not a requirement.

Thanks for all the valuable input!

MiamiCuse wrote:
> "Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:F7zoh.60891$wP1.28625@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> First, I am not an architect.
>
> But in my opinion you hired those architects to produce a design, and you
> should let them do whatever they feel most comfortable to deliver to you the
> design. If you ask them to use CAD tools and they are not comfortable, you
> are paying for the time that will need to ramp up to it, and I would guess
> end up paying a lot more. If they currently use pencil and paper, then more
> than likely the first automatiion they will take is automated drafting and
> not 3D modeling, it is a big step to leap from automated drafting to 3D
> modeling.
>
> In our company, the bridge engineer do their design, and with the assistance
> of some CAD drafters will produce the bridge plans. Now if they need to
> take it to a public hearing, so the average Joe Blow who may not understand
> how to read contours can understand, then we need to do a 3D model, but we
> have trained people to create the model as it is completely counter
> productive and a waste of time to have the bridge engineers do 3D piers
> extrusions and put in 3D rebars and cut outs. Our modeling guy can do this
> a lot quicker. I understand you want to be able to do 3D visualization and
> walk through so you want them to be able to produce 3D model, I bet you can
> save money by training yourself to read and visualize their plans and
> sketches.
>
> Good luck and let us know how it turns out.
>
> MC
>
>

Michael

2007-01-08, 9:25 pm

Ahhhh... that's exactly what I told my architects. I am very interested
in the sun lighting at different times of the year - especially the
difference between summer and winter. In Houston at 30 degrees north
latitude, the sun angle in June is near 89 degrees! almost straight up
with a northeast rise and northwest set. Since we will be entertaining
by the loggia and pool in the summer, the angles and lighting of the sun
are important to us. We want the sun rise over the pool in Summer to
angle against the back wall for maximum reflection off the water.
There is no doubt our architect can do this. But ....

Bob Morrison wrote:
> In a previous post Michael wrote...
>
> So you don't trust your architect. Or more correctly as 3D Peruna says
> you don't trust yourself to be able to visualize the results.
>
> No software anywhere at any cost will give a real picture of the finished
> results. Take a look at any recent animated movie. The results are
> realistic looking, but they are not real. And just think of the millions
> of dollars spent on animation software and high end computer software.
>
> Trust your architect to give you the design you want. Or else hire
> somebody else. If you insist on having a 3D walkthrough then hire
> somebody to prepare one from the architect's drawings. It will be very
> expensive and not really worth the money.
>
> Let me give you one scenario: the walkthrough is drawn using a sun angle
> based on day in early June. The house will look much different inside and
> out using a sun angle based on a day in mid December. Which house do you
> want?
>

3D Peruna

2007-01-09, 3:25 am

Michael wrote:
> Thanks for your insights....
>
> I am not forcing them to do 3D ... they told me how many clients keep
> asking them about it and since I am in the 3D business (ran a data 3D
> software company - volume visualization), I agreed to look into it.
>
> You are right about one thing - truth be told, if I did not participate
> at all and just went away for 18 months and came back, they would
> produce a beautiful home (did you see the web links?). But at what
> cost? and would it have the subtle features I would like to have since
> it's 3D. They do build spec homes, so why not just buy one of those.
>
> Participating in the decision process (not final decision -mind you) is
> what I think my wife and I would have fun doing. It's been fun so far.
>
> Hence .... the walk throughs....

I'm still not sure you understand...the level of detail you're looking
for in a "walk-thru" is terribly expensive, both in terms of time and
computing power. When I do visualization work (which isn't that much
anymore, but have the horsepower to do it), I start at about $1500/day,
minimum (basic stuff), and it goes up from there. That's just to build
the model, no animation or "walk-thru" stuff. I know there are
Indian/Chinese guys who do it for a lot less, but I don't. I build very
accurate models, that are designed, polygon by polygon, for radiosity
modeling to get the best effect. The more detail the more time and the
more expense... Animating the thing just compounds the time required
(although there are some neat tricks with turning your radiosity
rendering into maps that render quickly). Radiosity modeling different
sun angles is expensive, too...

I look forward to seeing what you get done...and how much it costs to
get it done...

gruhn

2007-01-09, 3:25 am

> So..my question again is: what software do you use? pretty please???

To _design_ - brain. Canary trace. A Sharpie.
To help with the odd design question - 3ds max.
To document - AutoCAD
To make expensive time wasting fly throughs - AutoCAD + 3ds max.

If I had the extra grand I might spring for a copy of Maxwell. But I
don't yet know how to make it fast enough for walkthroughs, only
stills. If I were better, I wouldn't need the crutch.

- g

gruhn

2007-01-09, 3:25 am

> I would like to see what they come up with BEFORE I spend a lot of money

How long are you willing to wait for them to become proficient enough
with the software that it adequately reflects their vision?

After which time, you have to keep reminding yourself that the computer
image is not reality, and spending endless hours nitpicking of minor
imperfections is a waste of time. A bit of charcoal on something toothy
can be better for a client as clients tend to treat drawings as
drawings and digital renderings as imperfect fact.

> just for peace of mind

"Is there supposed to be that dark line up there?"
"The floor tiles don't look quite right."
"Why does the fence flicker."

You may or may not be above that. Don't know. But these are
considerations your architect will want to ... take in to consideration.

nomail@tampabay.rr.com

2007-01-09, 3:25 am

You are a fucking idiot.

Michael wrote:[color=darkred]
> You all missed the point.
>
> I'm not trying to design the house myself and then give it to them. I
> am trying to get them out of the stone age and use Architectural
> software. I didn't say 'cheap'... whatever you guys use would be a
> great recommendation.
>
> My architects are outstanding designers, but they use pen and paper.
> Changes are a big deal and they make mistakes which can be costly. I am
> savvy with software. I am willing to help them get over the 'computer'
> factor.
>
> Their design talent is worth it.
>
> So..my question again is: what software do you use? pretty please???
>
> 3D Peruna wrote:

Michael

2007-01-09, 9:25 am

I'm above all that. I was a CEO of a visualization software company (3D
data modeling)that was very successful before we merged. I Understand
the power of ray tracing, lighting/shading and color - and the limitations.

I do not need the kind of 'walk-through' that 30 Intel / AMD processors
running in parallel with tons of disk could provide.

I just want to see where the light switches are relative to the outlets
and get a rough idea on the lighting angles (sunlight, house lights) to
make sure that we are not missing something. I know the architect will
do a great job - I don't believe that they can think of everything we
need. For me it's the little things like where the keys get thrown when
you come into the house. There are a million things a client will
forget to tell their architect about what is important to them until
they see it (either missing or glaring at them) and the 3D visual cues
help.

So in the end - the 3D walk-throughs are a communication tool between
architect and client. In my view, it is better than staring at
blueprints and elevations to get the idea that is in an architects mind
may be pretty simple to grasp, but is missing in the client. I can
stare at a blueprint all day long and not see what an architect sees. A
3D model helps convey what the architect sees to the client.

It is just another tool of communication. And PC power today is
sufficient to do a decent rendering with lighting, etc. to help that
communication along. That wasn't true 10 years ago.

gruhn wrote:
>
> How long are you willing to wait for them to become proficient enough
> with the software that it adequately reflects their vision?
>
> After which time, you have to keep reminding yourself that the computer
> image is not reality, and spending endless hours nitpicking of minor
> imperfections is a waste of time. A bit of charcoal on something toothy
> can be better for a client as clients tend to treat drawings as
> drawings and digital renderings as imperfect fact.
>
>
> "Is there supposed to be that dark line up there?"
> "The floor tiles don't look quite right."
> "Why does the fence flicker."
>
> You may or may not be above that. Don't know. But these are
> considerations your architect will want to ... take in to consideration.
>

Don

2007-01-09, 9:25 am

I'm not impressed at all, that stuff is run of the mill.
2 questions:
1) Why would a credible design firm NOT already be using CAD software?
2) Why would a credible design firm take the advice of a person that knows
nothing about CAD software?

BTW, here are 2 firms I have been associated with for more than 20 years and
both of them have used various software applications for most of that time.
http://tinyurl.com/4yxba

http://tinyurl.com/59ycv

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:RlBoh.57799$qO4.42678@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
> Take a look at these two architect examples:
>
> http://www.oconnorgill.com/
>
> http://www.giarrussoandassociates.com/
>
> This is the kind of design I like a great deal.
>
> So many of you on this site have been 'warning' me away from focusing on
> software, I'm inclined to believe you all - but, AS 'your' CLIENT - 3D
> software really helps me to visualize your designs minimizing my wanting
> to make changes (I already know what it looks like) and allowing the
> architecture firm to play whatif's quickly and easily.
>
> I think the work the firms above do is outstanding, but probably just
> reflects my taste.
>
> Don wrote:

Don

2007-01-09, 9:25 am

No, never.
Mistakes are created by humans, not machines.

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:mmBoh.57800$qO4.42646@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
> minimize? maybe?
>
> Don wrote:

Don

2007-01-09, 9:25 am

LOL
Hey brudge.

<nomail@tampabay.rr.com> wrote in message
news:1168321636.349967.176050@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> You are a fucking idiot.
>
>
>
> Michael wrote:
>

Michael

2007-01-09, 9:25 am

I'll take a look at it - thanks!

Don wrote:
> I'm not impressed at all, that stuff is run of the mill.
> 2 questions:
> 1) Why would a credible design firm NOT already be using CAD software?
> 2) Why would a credible design firm take the advice of a person that knows
> nothing about CAD software?
>
> BTW, here are 2 firms I have been associated with for more than 20 years and
> both of them have used various software applications for most of that time.
> http://tinyurl.com/4yxba
>
> http://tinyurl.com/59ycv
>
>
>
> "Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:RlBoh.57799$qO4.42678@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
>

Edgar

2007-01-09, 1:25 pm

Hey, if your architect needs some 3D renderings, you could always hire ME

--
Edgar
"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:jKDoh.15051$sR.10758@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
>I will let you know how it turns out - there seems to be interest by the
>responses in this thread. More than I thought actually.
>
> To beat a dead horse - I am not forcing them to do anything. It was a
> suggestion. A suggestion they jumped on. So I am helping them.
>
> It does seem that many of their clients ask for 3D renderings. Whether a
> client should or should not is somewhat irrelevant. The fact is - it
> helps convey ideas.
>
> But one thing is certain. If my architects chose not to use any 3D
> software whatsoever, I would still use them. They are good at what they
> do. The fact that they are willing to use it so I can see before they
> build what it might look like pleases me. But it is not a requirement.
>
> Thanks for all the valuable input!
>
> MiamiCuse wrote:

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

MiamiCuse

2007-01-09, 1:25 pm

hmm...my taste is very different so it does not impress me. However,
why do they show so much decorations and furniture, obscuring the lines
I would like to see to appreciate their designs. I prefer to see a
bare home myself, right now I think I see more of the results of the
interior decorator than I see that of the architect.

Their home page is not very appealing either, ok that might be a
reflection of the web designer but if you are in the design business
you would think the web site would be more impressive.

Why I use CAD? Hmm...because I am obsessive compulsive and I can't
help it!

MC

Don

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"MiamiCuse"> wrote
> I prefer to see a bare home myself,

Where does such a thing exist?

clintonG

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

I've been into CAD since Day One when the Autopimp products were first
released in the mid 1980s. I actually started CAD on mainframes and
minicomputer platforms. I've managed entire firms and I've worked as an
independent consultant. I've used the early versions of Chief Architect to
design and document residential projects and had no problems. Furthermore, I
was a Chief Architect reseller and sold to a handful of architects and a
number of builders and remodelers.

The only problems we had at the time were lack of detailing features and
dimensioning. Chief Architect was the first Object Oriented CAD program to
be commercialized. It had no vector drawings features so for awhile it was
impossible to draw with lines, arcs circles and so on to create custom
graphic representations of building assemblies and components so often
required to be shown in a set of construction documents. The ability to
dimension was also very limited at the time.

As I understand it though Chief Architect 10 is very very very much improved
from the 1.0 to 3.0 releases I worked with. It has become a full featured
program that remains easy to use and even though its price is creeping up
there it is still a bargain compared to Autoslime's software which became
the defacto standard and should someday be used if and only if the CAD
drawings have to be exchanged with others all working with the same file
formats which make file exchange much easier noting even when using
Autoslime software there is still many problems with file exchange -- just
fewer of them -- than when using another program like Chief Architect which
will save to a dxf file format that is not as stable when imported into
different versions of Autoslime software.

I say give Chief Architect a try... it is really not that expensive even
though the prive creeped up there and they no longer sell a rebranded
"light" version for only $69.95. Chief Architect is a very appropriate
program to start with for old school guys who need the push button
simplicity Chief Architect provides. If you discover you need to someday
choose Autoslime software get into their most recent product called Revit
which Autoslime acquired. Revit was a Chief Architect clone that Autoslime
acquired and rebranded. None of us know the reason why Autoslime chose Revit
to acquire instead of Chief Architect but I for one do know the history of
these CAD products, I've used or had to support most of those that have come
onto the markets and I say Chief Architect is an excellent program to get
started with if R10 has the improved detailing and dimensioning features
that enable a complete set of construction drawings to be developed with
precision and clarity.

<%= Clinton Gallagher
NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=...38&z=17&l=0&m=h

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:Jzsoh.42952$wc5.24380@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
> Would someone recommend software for residential design?
>
> I am reviewing Chief Architect 10.0, but wonder if others feel there is
> better out there (and cheaper!!).
>
> Thanks

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:F7zoh.60891$wP1.28625@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
> There is no better way for a client to see ('visualize') a design that an
> architect can create than by using 3D software with full lighting and
> shading capabilities. A great designer is great with or without a
> computer like you said. But as a client, when they draw something for me
> to see and approve, I need to see and walk through the design to have a
> good feel for it. Most clients can not see in their mind what the
> designer - through talent and experience - can see in theirs.

Software won't change that. Architecure can't be reduced to a 'view', even
if it's a fly-through.

> Which is why I don't go shopping for an architect simply if they have CAD
> capability. I like my Architects work...but their clients have mentioned
> that they make mistakes that 3D software would make easy to avoid.

So their *other* clients are smarter than they are?

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Bob Morrison" <SpamFighter@junk.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.200c71682a18b675989d1e@news.west.earthlink.net...
> In a previous post Don wrote...
>
> I concur. I worked on one job where the designer used CA. It was a
> nightmare. CA made pretty pictures but it was a piece of junk when it
> came to putting together a construction set.
>
> Michael, why do you need a walkthrough? Don't you trust your architect?

Some people can't read plans, Bob. I've had clients who admitted it at the
outset, and every time I presented an idea I had to do a 3d view as well as
P,S&E. It was expensive, but they didn't mid paying for it. I did one
(unbuilt) project for them which is on my recent projects page in B&W PDF.
What fun to draw it!
--

MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:6vBoh.57801$qO4.20795@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>I trust my architect, BUT ... I'd like to 'verify'.
>
> I can't believe that software does not increase productivity of Architects
> immensely and help avoid mistakes - or else why do you all use it
> (AutoCad, etc.).

Speeds up erasing, and copying. It doesn't help clients visualize too often.
--

MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca

Kris Krieger

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

Michael <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:8ltoh.42956$wc5.20087
@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net:

> I am not an architect, but I am helping architects who are designing my
> home. I want to help educate them on 3D architectural software so they
> can produce 3D walkthroughs of my custom home along with
> lighting/shading, etc. I expect that if they like the software, they
> will want to use it all of the time for their other clients. So, in
> answer to your queries: Many time uses, and lots of work - yes.
>
> Thank you!

It all depends upon the quality of render you're looking for.

3D Modeling software is much stronger on realistic lighting than is 3D CAD
software.

"Walkthrough" is not difficult to do. Lots of programs will produce
simplistic and rather cheesy "walkthroughs". Lighting is what makes or
breaks a scene, and that includes the visual quality of a walkthrough.

IMO, it'd be better for architects to skip software, if they're going to
use some cheap POS that only yileds simplistic models and single-point
lighting - they're better off in that case with color-washed drawings.

You seem to be hung up on that word "cheap", so keep in mind that, 99.9999%
of the time, you will not get more than you paid for. Cheap tools yield
cheap/cheesy results.

>
> 3D Peruna wrote:
>

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_ODoh.15053$sR.13662@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...
> Ahhhh... that's exactly what I told my architects. I am very interested
> in the sun lighting at different times of the year - especially the
> difference between summer and winter. In Houston at 30 degrees north
> latitude, the sun angle in June is near 89 degrees! almost straight up
> with a northeast rise and northwest set. Since we will be entertaining by
> the loggia and pool in the summer, the angles and lighting of the sun are
> important to us. We want the sun rise over the pool in Summer to angle
> against the back wall for maximum reflection off the water.

I think we have a troll here, comrades.

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
news:1168295613.262403.293880@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> Mr. Tucker votes
> OP is a funny troll

Mr. Bulatovich votes "Aaaayy"! Cant believe it took me this long.

Kris Krieger

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

Michael <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:F7zoh.60891$wP1.28625@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net:

> There is no better way for a client to see ('visualize') a design that
> an architect can create than by using 3D software with full lighting
> and shading capabilities.

You'll prob have to go with a 3D Modeling program. Unless something new
has been developed, 3D Cad, as far as I know, still sticks with single-
point lighting. Hardly what one can call "full lighting and shading
capabilities".

A comprimise might be to model something is a 3D CAD prog, export the
model, and render it in a prog that is capable of doing decent lighting.

"Decent lighting" being, of course, relative - I use 3D modeling
software, so to me, single-point lighting is what i call "what's the
point?" lighting.

Another thing is to be able to adjust the camera/eye-view to get a
decently-realistic "human gaze" feel.

> A great designer is great with or without a
> computer like you said. But as a client, when they draw something for
> me to see and approve, I need to see and walk through the design to
> have a good feel for it. Most clients can not see in their mind what
> the designer - through talent and experience - can see in theirs.
>
> Which is why I don't go shopping for an architect simply if they have
> CAD capability. I like my Architects work...but their clients have
> mentioned that they make mistakes that 3D software would make easy to
> avoid.
>
> I don't understand why you can't just tell me what software you use??

It might be partly because this info can be researched.
It also depends upon whether you want to emphasize the CAD aspects, or
the lighting-rendering aspects, or the modeling aspects.

I use a 3D Modeler for doing buildings as a hobby. I use the numerical
input function to get accuracy from 1 to 18 decuimal points, but
typically only go to 4 or 5.

CAD, OTOH, tends to have built-in functions for creating things like
standard stairs and so on. I do that by using a plug-in, tho' it can
also be done with a bit of Pythin script, if one is good at that sort of
thing (I can do it, but it takes me a long time because I'm not a lineal
thinker).

Have you poked around the 3DArchitect website at all...?

>
> Michael Bulatovich wrote:
>

3D Peruna

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

Michael wrote:
> I just want to see where the light switches are relative to the outlets
> and get a rough idea on the lighting angles (sunlight, house lights) to
> make sure that we are not missing something.

I don't EVER model light switches and outlets...not worth it. I suppose
I could but it'll cost extra.

Light switches & outlets are best handled on the pre-electrical
walk-through with the architect and electrician on the job.

Kris Krieger

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in
news:12q5iuv33tqmue5@news.supernews.com:

> "Michael"> wrote
>
> Software won't eliminate mistakes, ever.

ANother excellent point!

Kris Krieger

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in
news:12q739mq216249d@news.supernews.com:

> No, never.
> Mistakes are created by humans, not machines.
>
> "Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:mmBoh.57800$qO4.42646@newssvr13.news.prodigy.net...
>
>
>

Software mainly allows you to make *different types* of mistakes =:-o !!

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"3D Peruna" <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in message
news:M1Uoh.623$O34.110@newsfe03.lga...
> Michael wrote:
>
> I don't EVER model light switches and outlets...not worth it. I suppose I
> could but it'll cost extra.
>
> Light switches & outlets are best handled on the pre-electrical
> walk-through with the architect and electrician on the job.

My old boss called them "wall scars". Their easy to model as blocks, and can
inform your design if you include them, especially the 6-bangers.
--

MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca

Edgar

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:_ODoh.15053$sR.13662@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net...[color=darkred]
> Ahhhh... that's exactly what I told my architects. I am very interested
> in the sun lighting at different times of the year - especially the
> difference between summer and winter. In Houston at 30 degrees north
> latitude, the sun angle in June is near 89 degrees! almost straight up
> with a northeast rise and northwest set. Since we will be entertaining by
> the loggia and pool in the summer, the angles and lighting of the sun are
> important to us. We want the sun rise over the pool in Summer to angle
> against the back wall for maximum reflection off the water. There is no
> doubt our architect can do this. But ....
>
> Bob Morrison wrote:

That's easy enough to do in Sketchup. It can show you shadows cast from the
sun anywhere on earth at any time of day.

--
Edgar

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Kris Krieger

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"MiamiCuse" <nmbexcuse@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:v_adnQfBAZ3hnz7YnZ2dnUVZ_vKunZ2d@dsli.com:

>
> "Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:F7zoh.60891$wP1.28625@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> First, I am not an architect.
>
> But in my opinion you hired those architects to produce a design, and
> you should let them do whatever they feel most comfortable to deliver
> to you the design. If you ask them to use CAD tools and they are not
> comfortable, you are paying for the time that will need to ramp up to
> it, and I would guess end up paying a lot more. If they currently use
> pencil and paper, then more than likely the first automatiion they
> will take is automated drafting and not 3D modeling, it is a big step
> to leap from automated drafting to 3D modeling.

There is also the learning curve when it comes to 3D.

Part of that curve involves the interface (GUI) - a GUI that is intuitive
is easier to learn, *however*, what is or is not considered 'intuitive'
varies immensly from individual to individual. For example, many poeple
love LightWave, and it's certainly a capable program - but I hated the
interface so much that I wouldn't even use it for free; and OTOH,
although I love the GUI of my modeler, a great many other people don't
like it at all.

But would a practicing architect have the time to test demos, and have
enough time to dedicate towards becoming proficient with 3D? I'd think
not.

MiamiCuse makes an excellent point (IMO) regarding 2D CAD, which is great
for layouts and diagrams and so on, although Don could tell you far more
(very far more!) about that than I. I use a very simplistic (i.e., old)
program for doing accurate line-drawings that I then import into my
3DModeler, but that's as far as I personally go with it.

As soon as you add that third dimension, things get really dicey. And
then add lighting on top of that - let's just say that an outfit like
Lucasfilms has separate specialists in various areas of modeling, and in
lighting. ((Then there is texturing...)) 3D is not something at which
one can become proficient in a week, or a month, or often, even in a
year...

>
> In our company, the bridge engineer do their design, and with the
> assistance of some CAD drafters will produce the bridge plans. Now if
> they need to take it to a public hearing, so the average Joe Blow who
> may not understand how to read contours can understand, then we need
> to do a 3D model, but we have trained people to create the model as it
> is completely counter productive and a waste of time to have the
> bridge engineers do 3D piers extrusions and put in 3D rebars and cut
> outs. Our modeling guy can do this a lot quicker. I understand you
> want to be able to do 3D visualization and walk through so you want
> them to be able to produce 3D model, I bet you can save money by
> training yourself to read and visualize their plans and sketches.
>
> Good luck and let us know how it turns out.
>
> MC
>
>
>

Kris Krieger

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

Michael <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:jKDoh.15051$sR.10758@newssvr29.news.prodigy.net:

> I will let you know how it turns out - there seems to be interest by
> the responses in this thread. More than I thought actually.
>
> To beat a dead horse - I am not forcing them to do anything. It was a
> suggestion. A suggestion they jumped on. So I am helping them.
>
> It does seem that many of their clients ask for 3D renderings.
> Whether a client should or should not is somewhat irrelevant. The
> fact is - it helps convey ideas.

Here is apoint that I didn't see mentioned. It ought to be possible to
take 2D CAD plans, export them into a format that a 3D modeler can
manipulate, and extrude them to make the shell of a structure. At least,
I can do that between my vector-drawing program and my 3D modeler. THat
makes things go a bit faster.

HTH

>
> But one thing is certain. If my architects chose not to use any 3D
> software whatsoever, I would still use them. They are good at what
> they do. The fact that they are willing to use it so I can see before
> they build what it might look like pleases me. But it is not a
> requirement.
>
> Thanks for all the valuable input!
>
> MiamiCuse wrote:
>

Kris Krieger

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
news:eo10bo02nl9@news1.newsguy.com:

>
> "Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:F7zoh.60891$wP1.28625@newssvr14.news.prodigy.net...
>
> Software won't change that. Architecure can't be reduced to a 'view',
> even if it's a fly-through.

A good walthrough/flythrough is a close-enough facsimile for most
clients, tho'. Philosophically, you're right, of course, but the OP is
talking basic/ground-level practicalities - visualization ability is not
all that common a thing.

I've talked about 3D with several real estate agents who expressed an
interest, especially for expensive properties, in something like an
interactive DVD-based walkthrough - the client can choose to return to
any number of given points and "re-visit" various areas of the home and
property with the ease of re-viewing DVD movie scenes.

The main difficulty is that it would take a lot of time and a certain
investment of money to do something like that, so one would want to have
a contract and some seed money to start - but it *is* entirely do-able.

One can always argue whether any medium can ever truely express the
essence of any work of art. But in these cases, where one is
commissioning a building or purchasing one, a good walkthrough comes as
close to "virtual reality" as one can currently get - but I mean *good*,
not some cheesy squared-off mass-market simplistic run-of-the-mill
furniture'n'stuff models schlepped into flat-textured boxes and using
cheesy single-pouint lighting. That is, to really good 3D, what an
average kindergartner's crayion scribbles are to <insert title of your
favorite great painting>.

So, philosophically, even tho', as you say, "Architecture can't be
reduced to a 'view'", that is true of any subject - the artist's
rendition is its own creature so to speak, an individual's perception of
certain aspects of a thing. THe perception is not the thing, and someone
viewing the work sees the work, not the thing/subject, although the more
'realistic' the work is, the more it will resemble the way the
thing/subject looks.

But that's a whole 'nother topic ;)

>
>
> So their *other* clients are smarter than they are?
>
>
>

Don

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

"Michael Bulatovich"> wrote
> Some people can't read plans, Bob. I've had clients who admitted it at the
> outset, and every time I presented an idea I had to do a 3d view as well
> as P,S&E. It was expensive, but they didn't mid paying for it. I did one
> (unbuilt) project for them which is on my recent projects page in B&W PDF.
> What fun to draw it!

Exactly.
I can't imagine how you (what I do) design stuff (custom homes) without
being able to sketch well, and in front of people.
Its the ultimate mind meld, where the designer finds a 3rd medium to
communicate with the client.
Glad I've always liked to draw.

Kris Krieger

2007-01-09, 5:25 pm

nomail@tampabay.rr.com wrote in
news:1168321636.349967.176050@s80g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:

> You are a fucking idiot.
>

Your depth of insight, vast intellect, and exquisite writing skills just
take my breath away in astonished joy.

NOT.

When you wrote and then actually sent that bit of microcephalic drivel,
you must have been looking in the mirror and commenting upon its
revelations.

>
>
> Michael wrote:
>
>

Don

2007-01-09, 8:25 pm

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:y3Uoh.8320$pQ3.6318@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:12q5iuv33tqmue5@news.supernews.com:
>
>
>
> ANother excellent point!

Imagine a hammer that never hit your thumb or never bent a nail.
I'd pay $500 right now for one, infact I want at least 2, just for the thumb
part alone.
I don't hit my thumb often, maybe once every 5 years, but when I do its
bloody murder and I'd surely like to avoid it.

Don

2007-01-09, 8:25 pm

"Edgar"> wrote
> That's easy enough to do in Sketchup. It can show you shadows cast from
> the sun anywhere on earth at any time of day.

Can it do the north pole at 12 noon on the 21st of Dec?

Michael Bulatovich

2007-01-09, 8:25 pm

"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:Z5Voh.8347$pQ3.2177@newsread4.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Michael Bulatovich" <Please@dont.try> wrote in
> news:eo10bo02nl9@news1.newsguy.com:
>
>
> A good walthrough/flythrough is a close-enough facsimile for most
> clients, tho'. Philosophically, you're right, of course, but the OP is
> talking basic/ground-level practicalities - visualization ability is not
> all that common a thing.

Today I went to pick up a retainer in a building I designed in 1989 as an
intern. Someone else detailed it, and flipped it from right to left (so that
it no longer terminated an urban axis), but it was still fun to walk through
it. One of the things that made me smile was the realization that I was
doing *a lot* of curved spaces back them. A shallow-domed round vestibule
had survived the transfer of the project to others. When you stand towards
the center the acoustics make it sound like you're listening to yourself
with headphones. When someone else stands there, you can hear a whisper at
quite some distance into the next elliptical space. Playing with acoustics
like that was one of my first interests in architecture when I was a kid,
and I still hope that one day I might do a performance space before I croak.

The point is that an animated walk-through on a computer screen is nowhere
near the experience of a space. The other thing that drew me to architecture
is its size. The spatial-kinesthetic experience has not been approximated by
any means short of holography. Any other rendering still requires you to
'imagine' it to some degree. Some can do this from a set of P,S&E, others
never will.
--

MichaelB
www.michaelbulatovich.ca

MiamiCuse

2007-01-09, 8:25 pm

"Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12q7sb6eqdjved8@news.supernews.com...
> "MiamiCuse"> wrote
>
> Where does such a thing exist?
>

On the drawings.

Ken S. Tucker

2007-01-10, 1:25 pm

Michael Bulatovich wrote:
> "Ken S. Tucker" <dynamics@vianet.on.ca> wrote in message
> news:1168295613.262403.293880@38g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Mr. Bulatovich votes "Aaaayy"! Cant believe it took me this long.

Well to the credit of the OP (Michael) he did stimulate an
interesting thread, though in a fictional setting.
I can't imagine him really interviewing previous clients and
hearing criticism about the architects CAD, can you?
I got a pretty idea of what his angle and agenda is, just a
bit more rope and he'll hang himself.
Ken

MiamiCuse

2007-01-10, 5:25 pm

I suggest when the 3d CAD model is done you also get them to give you a
1:1 scale 3D plot insitu. That would be the most fun!

MC

H. Buntjer

2007-01-10, 5:25 pm

I'm from the Netherlands were we built the latest standards our houses are
not launched with the first autum storm, this moment i'm in a process
building a new house.
I started from sketch using 3Dplan, hired this product over the internet for
one year and handed over my plan to the architect to work it out in detail.
This is the far best methode to start with an architect,it saves a lot of
time discussing what people want for a house.
"clintonG" <csgallagher@REMOVETHISTEXTmetromilwaukee.com> schreef in bericht
news:45a3f87a$0$9008$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> I've been into CAD since Day One when the Autopimp products were first
> released in the mid 1980s. I actually started CAD on mainframes and
> minicomputer platforms. I've managed entire firms and I've worked as an
> independent consultant. I've used the early versions of Chief Architect to
> design and document residential projects and had no problems. Furthermore,
> I was a Chief Architect reseller and sold to a handful of architects and a
> number of builders and remodelers.
>
> The only problems we had at the time were lack of detailing features and
> dimensioning. Chief Architect was the first Object Oriented CAD program to
> be commercialized. It had no vector drawings features so for awhile it was
> impossible to draw with lines, arcs circles and so on to create custom
> graphic representations of building assemblies and components so often
> required to be shown in a set of construction documents. The ability to
> dimension was also very limited at the time.
>
> As I understand it though Chief Architect 10 is very very very much
> improved from the 1.0 to 3.0 releases I worked with. It has become a full
> featured program that remains easy to use and even though its price is
> creeping up there it is still a bargain compared to Autoslime's software
> which became the defacto standard and should someday be used if and only
> if the CAD drawings have to be exchanged with others all working with the
> same file formats which make file exchange much easier noting even when
> using Autoslime software there is still many problems with file
> exchange -- just fewer of them -- than when using another program like
> Chief Architect which will save to a dxf file format that is not as stable
> when imported into different versions of Autoslime software.
>
> I say give Chief Architect a try... it is really not that expensive even
> though the prive creeped up there and they no longer sell a rebranded
> "light" version for only $69.95. Chief Architect is a very appropriate
> program to start with for old school guys who need the push button
> simplicity Chief Architect provides. If you discover you need to someday
> choose Autoslime software get into their most recent product called Revit
> which Autoslime acquired. Revit was a Chief Architect clone that Autoslime
> acquired and rebranded. None of us know the reason why Autoslime chose
> Revit to acquire instead of Chief Architect but I for one do know the
> history of these CAD products, I've used or had to support most of those
> that have come onto the markets and I say Chief Architect is an excellent
> program to get started with if R10 has the improved detailing and
> dimensioning features that enable a complete set of construction drawings
> to be developed with precision and clarity.
>
> <%= Clinton Gallagher
> NET csgallagher AT metromilwaukee.com
> URL http://clintongallagher.metromilwaukee.com/
> MAP http://wikimapia.org/#y=43038073&x=...38&z=17&l=0&m=h
>
>
> "Michael" <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
> news:Jzsoh.42952$wc5.24380@newssvr25.news.prodigy.net...
>
>

3D Peruna

2007-01-10, 5:25 pm

H. Buntjer wrote:

> I started from sketch using 3Dplan, hired this product over the internet for
> one year and handed over my plan to the architect to work it out in detail.
> This is the far best methode to start with an architect,it saves a lot of
> time discussing what people want for a house.

This is *A* method, but not the best. One of the problems I've had with
clients is that they fall in love with their own efforts and resist any
change. I had to fire one client who wouldn't listen...she wanted
validation of terrible ideas. I wouldn't validate them and kept
questioning her decisions. She kept coming back for more abuse and
finally, I told her we weren't working well together. She paid us for
what we did...but she was a pain.

For clients who understand that they're just presenting sketches, this
is a fine way to go...they must understand that it's a starting point
and not the end. If they don't, or can't, then this is a terrible method.

Ron

2007-01-10, 5:25 pm

Michael <mzeitlin@sbcglobal.net> wrote in

> I don't understand why you can't just tell me what software you use??

How about have your architect post here and describe his needs and we'll
advise him. Sorry but if he's worked fine till now I doubt he's
interested. How do you suppose his clients managed to visualize till now ?

If someone comes to me _because_ I'm on CAD I know they have unrealistic
expectations and I explain how we work, learn their expectations, and if
not tempered with common sense I let them go elsewhere ...
Ron

Don

2007-01-10, 8:25 pm

"3D Peruna"> wrote
> This is *A* method, but not the best. One of the problems I've had with
> clients is that they fall in love with their own efforts and resist any
> change.

They don't even know what they don't know.

Don

2007-01-10, 8:25 pm

"Ron"> wrote
> If someone comes to me _because_ I'm on CAD I know they have unrealistic
> expectations

Isn't that where you can flip houseplans with a single mouse click and
everything is hunky dorey? heh

Señor Popcorn-Coconut

2007-01-10, 8:25 pm