topic Re: Free-form modeling for ARCHICAD in Modeling

Free-form modeling for ARCHICAD

Martin Jules — Fri, 09 Apr 2021 07:01:03 GMT

How could I realize the enclosed waffle system using PARAM-O? Please let me know!

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Karl Ottenstein — Fri, 09 Apr 2021 16:53:05 GMT

Mjules wrote:
How could I realize the enclosed waffle system using PARAM-O? Please let me know!

That looks like a job for Grasshopper - not just because of the complex form, but because it is an actual building system that you want constructed from building elements, materials, and properly classified. It isn't really a library part, is it?

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Martin Jules — Sat, 10 Apr 2021 22:44:17 GMT

Yes, it's about a building system, and this is the path that should be taken with PARAM-O. It ought to be designed to draw building systems instead of objects. Shell combined with Curtain Wall can also do the job, but it would be more satisfying to use just one tool in ArchiCAD like Grasshopper to achieve that. Following in Grasshopper's footsteps with PARAM-O will give us great satisfaction as ArchiCAD users.

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Karl Ottenstein — Sat, 10 Apr 2021 23:09:04 GMT

Mjules wrote:
Yes, it's about a building system, and this is the path that should be taken with PARAM-O. It ought to be designed to draw building systems instead of objects. Shell combined with Curtain Wall can also do the job, but it would be more satisfying to use just one tool in ArchiCAD like Grasshopper to achieve that. Following in Grasshopper's footsteps with PARAM-O will give us great satisfaction as ArchiCAD users.

That's asking for an entirely different product... which is what the Grasshopper connection is.

PARAM-O is 100% GDL / library part based. It's purpose is to allow normal users to create parametric library parts graphically, without coding. Grasshopper, on the other hand, does NOT create library parts. Each has a distinct function at completely different levels of building modeling.

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Martin Jules — Sun, 11 Apr 2021 01:10:26 GMT

I only need to use ArchiCAD for whatever architectural design without any other editors, plug-in, or software. That's my point, and I hope so one day!

Free-form modeling for ARCHICAD

jl_lt — Sun, 11 Apr 2021 17:30:20 GMT

Hi Mr Jules, i understand what you say, but my take is different tools for different jobs as Mr Ottenstein suggests. Asking one single software to handle all possible architectural and engineering outcomes in a profession as vast as Architecture and structural engineering would be too much i think.

Having said that, i also would like that PARAM-O evolved over time to rival and eventually substitute the grasshopper connection and can be extrapolated to desingning whole buildings and not just objects; but with the level of improvement Rhino shows i seriously doubt it will happen.

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Martin Jules — Mon, 12 Apr 2021 06:49:08 GMT

Jl_lt,

It's counterproductive to buy all of the architectural software on earth.

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Marc H — Mon, 12 Apr 2021 07:22:33 GMT

I was just thinking, isn’t that what we most often do as architects - integrate dissimilar and diverse elements and systems together and create a synergy? And don't we do that because of the unique value each of these components bring to the building? I see Archicad that way. In fact, it’s ability to extend fairly fluidly is one reason why I chose it as a platform and continue to invest in it.

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

runxel — Mon, 12 Apr 2021 08:52:36 GMT

Marc, you're totally spot on.
If you try to cram every bit of software into a tiny space, well, then you land at Revit. A piece of software that is notoriously hard to grok, and even harder to maintain sanity in.
Graphisoft has realized early on, that they can't win the game this way. That's why GS has always been on the forefront of OpenBIM.

In the linux world there is one principle: Do one thing, and do it right.
Grasshopper does node-based editing of geometry better than anyone else. I think it is great to have the possibility. GS just needs to embrace it more – not incorporate it.
In the end it's not about "buying all of the architectural software on earth". You buy that, what you need. And there are many architects out there, who rather not use Grasshopper-like interfaces and design methods. So why impose your working methods on others? 🙂

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Martin Jules — Mon, 12 Apr 2021 14:06:21 GMT

Runxel,

The best way to help Graphisoft get out from its comfort zone with ArchiCAD is to criticize it. As such, the spirit of balance is important. It is not enough to tell that ArchiCAD is perfect. We must also look at its limits in terms of architectural design. Improving its limits will help us have one of the best architectural software in the future.

As ArchiCAD users, we need to be able to meet the demands of organic architecture as well on the market.

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

jl_lt — Thu, 15 Apr 2021 02:55:55 GMT

Mjules wrote:
Runxel,

The best way to help Graphisoft get out from its comfort zone with ArchiCAD is to criticize it. As such, the spirit of balance is important. It is not enough to tell that ArchiCAD is perfect. We must also look at its limits in terms of architectural design. Improving its limits will help us have one of the best architectural software in the future.

As ArchiCAD users, we need to be able to meet the demands of organic architecture as well on the market.

I think its fair and very necesary to criticize Archicad for what it is (an architectural 3d modeller with openBim philosophy), but its not fair to criticize it for what its not (a parametric surface modeller), where wishing is different from criticizing.

Complicated architecture is just that, complicated, but not necesarily better; yet, if you need to do it there are better tools for it, and even then, Archicad can be a part of the process, just look at what these guys are doing: https://www.uha.london/projects/ Not my stuff, but they use Archicad+ Rihino Grasshopper.

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Martin Jules — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 11:05:24 GMT

Special thanks to McNeel for thinking and working for this market segment of the AEC industry. Otherwise, we would still use the same techniques used by Antonio Gaudi from olden days for architectural designs mimicking natural forms.

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Bricklyne Clarence — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 18:17:24 GMT

Mjules wrote:
Special thanks to McNeel for thinking and working for this market segment of the AEC industry. Otherwise, we would still use the same techniques used by Antonio Gaudi from olden days for architectural designs mimicking natural forms.

McNeel never created Rhino (or Grasshopper|) as tools for the Architecture or AEC industries.
Not specifically or originally at least.

Rhino was developed as a general design tool mostly for other industries (Product design, Nautical (Ship and boat) design, and aeronautical design, Jewelry design...etc.), and it was architects and designers who adopted it to their workflow to fulfill needs that weren't being address with their traditional toolsets.
I mean, sure McNeel have played their part and been very supportive in helping it get adopted in these other industries. But its in the nature of their development process that they've made the tool itself accessible in other fields outside their main target markets.

It's much the same way that Digital Project, used by the likes of Gehry or Zaha Hadid Architects was never a tool meant for architects before Gehry adopted the use of CATIA to help him realize his designs (specifically the Guggenheim Bilbao) which couldn't be feasibly done with traditional AEC tools and methods.

CATIA was specifically design for the aeronautical and airline design industry.
Gehry adopted it and later spun-off Digital Project which uses the same kernel or base but is geared towards architecture and the AEC industry. But it's out of the price range of most mortal architects and architecture firms, hence the reason a tool like Rhino comes into play which fills a lot of the same needs and functions, but at a much more realistic price range.

A lot of the reason why you see Rhino and Grasshopper being used and accessible in AEC is mostly thanks to the architects and architectural designers who adopted it (along with people like David Rutten who developed Grasshopper as a grad student as a side project and third party plugin before they fully integrated it into the program), and pushed for its use in the industry along with McNeel being supportive of the effort.

It shows what can happen and what you can get when you have both the users being fully engaged in the software and its development in a robust community, along with the developer themselves being fully supportive of the effort and open to it (and eager to be pushed to improve in areas they may not have envisioned themselves working in).

Re: PARAM-O development roadmap? (with Survey)

Martin Jules — Sat, 17 Apr 2021 19:14:29 GMT

Thanks for the clarification, Clarence!

Whatever the form of support provided by an architect, a designer, an engineer, a developer, a construction manager, a technician, or a corporation, etc. it is good for the progress of the AEC industry. Your examples are very relevant. An architect like Gehry dared a lot with his architecture style. Its daring has also contributed to various technological advances in the field. I also appreciate Graphisoft's effort in terms of ArchiCAD interoperability. It's about a huge effort, but I think it's also important to push a bit more the tools that architects or designers would like to use as if they were using their hands to draw. It is very important to think about the flexibility of the tools that way. The BIM concept, for instance, mainly concerns construction managers, and ArchiCAD has made great progress in this direction.

There is not a single market segment in the sector. That's why I insist that Graphisoft gives architects or designers more flexibility using the ArchiCAD's drawing tools, especially for those who start any architectural projects from the predesign phase and have to play with drawing tools to realize some massing shapes and sketches, make both digital and physical models to explore the users' spatial experience, etc. We thus need flexible architectural tools in ArchiCAD during the design thinking or the iterative process.

Re: Free-form modeling for ARCHICAD

jl_lt — Sun, 18 Apr 2021 02:33:13 GMT

But again, Gehry wanted to do some projects that were not possible with the current tools at the time until he found those tools... in the aeronautic industry.

Im not saying that we shouldnt ask for more, which is what we have all being doing here, but other than this blobby and parametric forms which we already discussed there are better tools for, what is it that you find so unflexible in Archicad tools?

Re: PARAM-O

Martin Jules — Sun, 25 Apr 2021 14:32:22 GMT

David wrote:
I would guess that its an object (which really defeats the object of the exercise) sorry about the pun.
Also before we go back to feet and inches a level of accuracy better than 10mm is needed.

When I look at this free-form wall created by Graphisoft using PARAM-O, I see some hope for ArchiCAD user group working on organic architectural projects, passive buildings, sustainable neighborhood, etc. As a result, I would suggest Graphisoft to allow us to save this kind of objects as complex profiles, if needed, so that we can classify them with appropriate building systems. Another point is that architects design and draw in order to produce in one form or another. In other words, what we create using a computer doesn't stay on it like beautiful flowers. We need to print them, fabricate them, or share them with other stakeholders.

To print them according to local standards, we need much more developed tools for construction documentation. To fabricate them digitally, we also need powerful tools allowing us to contour the objects for laser cut, for instance, without using Grasshopper because we are ArchiCAD users first. About sharing platform, ArchiCAD has already had a competitive advantage in terms of BIM including integrated IFC, thanks to BIMcloud and the concept of teamwork.

Re: Free-form modeling for ARCHICAD

izo — Tue, 04 May 2021 14:37:46 GMT

Long story short: what majority of more "industrial design" orientated users want, is to see nurbs integration into Archicad, so (true) free form modelling would be possible inside native program. That way, rhino etc would nor be needed and then you can incorporate grasshopper like (open code) geometry generator into it, just like Revit does, for ex.
On the one hand, this would be kind of expected, since Nemetscheck's Vectorworks is nurbs based, but on the other, this could be also sad prediction, this will never happen..

Re: Free-form modeling for ARCHICAD

Martin Jules — Wed, 05 May 2021 13:27:56 GMT

izo wrote:
Long story short: what majority of more "industrial design" orientated users want, is to see nurbs integration into Archicad, so (true) free form modelling would be possible inside native program. That way, rhino etc would nor be needed and then you can incorporate grasshopper like (open code) geometry generator into it, just like Revit does, for ex.
On the one hand, this would be kind of expected, since Nemetscheck's Vectorworks is nurbs based, but on the other, this could be also sad prediction, this will never happen..

I agree with your points, Izo. Apparently, Graphisoft doesn't like progressive ideas. ArchiCAD has a great interface and technology that could have beaten both Rhino and Revit if Graphisoft had been listening to its user groups during the last 20 years. The company should have exploited that competitive advantage, and now, I am wondering how it could take this advantage over the other BIM software that currently meets the requirements of North American customers, for instance, in terms of free form and so forth.

Re: Free-form modeling for ARCHICAD

jl_lt — Thu, 06 May 2021 03:29:52 GMT

could you point out what progressive ideas are you talking about? if you mean "organic" architecture, it has been done in its current iteration since the beginning of the 20th century, so from an architectural design point of view there is hardly anything new in itself

Re: Free-form modeling for ARCHICAD

Martin Jules — Thu, 06 May 2021 21:58:20 GMT

jl_lt wrote:
could you point out what progressive ideas are you talking about? if you mean "organic" architecture, it has been done in its current iteration since the beginning of the 20th century, so from an architectural design point of view there is hardly anything new in itself

Jl-lt,

Do you know how to digitally fabricate free form physical models from ArchiCAD using contouring techniques?