topic Re: Massing tool in ARCHICAD similar to that of REVIT? in Modeling

Massing tool in ARCHICAD similar to that of REVIT?

Anonymous — Wed, 24 May 2023 17:20:43 GMT

I have been looking at the hype of Revit and I think one major thing that I found that stands out is their "massing tool". The ability to create a "conceptual mass" and add construction elements and systems on them is astounding. Not to mention that if you change the shape of that mass the rest of the elements/systems applied also can be updated on the fly (with some limitations, of course).

I understand the "morph" tool is the next best thing that ARCHICAD can offer, but it's still a "simple" push-pull and boolean blob operations, that is rarely as intelligent as the "massing tool" in Revit. With the exception of course that you can schedule it and gain info on area and volume and add a price to it.

I've been using ARCHICAD since 2010 and I think this is one major thing that would be a great addition to the software. Maybe even upgrade that "morph" tool? I think it's about time.

Any thoughts on this?Would this be something that ARCHICAD users would like to have?

I know I would

Re: Massing tool in ARCHICAD similar to that of REVIT?

arg617 — Wed, 09 Sep 2020 13:49:21 GMT

I'd love to have a massing tool which can have materials associated onto it at later stages of design. One of the main drawbacks I see with ArchiCAD is this need to have so much figured out just to get started. It's great when you know exactly how you're going to build something, but I haven't found a way to explore possibilities without feeling locked into a preconceived notion of how it will be built.

Re: Massing tool in ARCHICAD similar to that of REVIT?

Lingwisyer — Thu, 10 Sep 2020 01:24:36 GMT

This sounds like a Wish and should probably be moved over to Construction Wishes.

Re: Massing tool in ARCHICAD similar to that of REVIT?

Marc H — Thu, 10 Sep 2020 05:51:40 GMT

arg617 wrote:
....It's great when you know exactly how you're going to build something, but I haven't found a way to explore possibilities without feeling locked into a preconceived notion of how it will be built.

How about Erwin Edel's, Richard Morrison's, and no doubt others approach (noted in the forums) wherein one starts with simple components set up with generic surfaces (e.g., "interior material", "exterior material") and then only later replaces them as the design needs refinement? I've adopted this approach on several design starts and found it allows for quick, visual massing and layout modeling concepts, without having to immediately consider all the materials and their interactions. The other benefit is less time invested in something which may not be taken beyond initial concept.