topic Re: Design Process Question in Modeling

Design Process Question

prigowasu — Sat, 16 Dec 2023 06:22:47 GMT

Our office is evaluating our design and documentation process. We are a residential architecture firm specializing in high end homes and providing full interior design services (including FF&E). We appreciate using Archicad to document projects. However, our design staff is having difficultly using the software to efficiently design and iterate within the SD and DD phases of work. We often fall back on Sketchup for quickly designing our initial massing models on the architecture side and interior casework on the interiors side. Are we making a mistake continuing to use Sketchup for early design work? It ultimately comes down to the ease, fluidity and looseness that designing in Sketchup has over Archicad. Has anyone else ran into this conundrum? I’d appreciate hearing what some other Archicad offices are doing in terms of design process.

Re: Design Process Question

Eduardo Rolon — Sat, 16 Dec 2023 15:33:38 GMT

Short answer is yes.

Basically anything you can do in SU can be done in AC.

Massing: either Start with slabs and if necessary then convert to Morphs.

Same for casework.

Want to be more specific then start creating specific favorites for each design phase.

Also with Design Options AC has become more flexible than SU.

---

Still using SU then switching to AC is not as bas as saying that my team prefers to use Autocad to design the project and then switches to AC for CDs but it is close.

Re: Design Process Question

jl_lt — Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:25:29 GMT

I say yes. Sketchup is a bad software we should not use

Re: Design Process Question

DGSketcher — Sat, 16 Dec 2023 21:59:33 GMT

Comparing SU to AC is like comparing apples & oranges. They're both fruit but very different to eat. SU has many shortfalls when compared to AC, but I still think it has an edge based on its simplicity. It doesn't have highly developed tools like AC, but if those tools are so complex that you can do the task easier in SU then why not?

And that's before we get on to seat costs and down time with hangs, crashes, bugs and the complexity of workflows and presentation options.

I have a huge amount of respect for @Eduardo Rolon but "Basically anything you can do in SU can be done in AC." isn't entirely true when you consider SU has had INSTANCING since its earliest days, but even after 20 years of asking it still isn't available in AC, to me that is a serious shortfall in AC's capability and where SU has an advantage.

Re: Design Process Question

Ignacio Azpiazu — Sun, 17 Dec 2023 00:28:11 GMT

It is a staff-related thing. I don't think anybody comfortable with Archicad will want to start a project in Sketchup, so the issue is how to make staff, as a team, comfortable/productive with Archicad –and about making do with Sketchup meanwhile, because having uncomfortable/unproductive staff waste everybody’s time in Archicad would be even worse. So I'd say it is a (hopefully, transitional) staff training/guidance/bim management problem. It is a hurdle you get to jump over or not, on a one-way track; I have never heard of anybody who passed it wanting to turn back.

Re: Design Process Question

mthd — Sun, 17 Dec 2023 02:19:38 GMT

Hi, it would be nice if you could show us an example of the degree of complexity of home design that you are dealing with. Also what country are you working in ?

With extra training you can definitely become more productive in AC. I don’t have any need to use SU but if your staff are proficient with it, then that’s ok to also have that in the CAD tool box. To help with the conceptual design phase many use the morph tool in AC for that purpose.

I came from using Chief Architect and while that is fast for regular home designs it slows down quite a bit when the degree of complexity rises.

I do all my work with AC these days with no need for other CAD apps. But if you have many complex shapes in your design then other apps can be very helpful.

Re: Design Process Question

Eduardo Rolon — Sun, 17 Dec 2023 15:19:57 GMT

Agree on the instancing but do you think users that need to use SU because it is easier will know how to use SU’s components correctly?😉

Autocad has instances, so the recommendation should be to go back to Autocad to draw, model in SU and then recreate everything in AC?😉

or stay as most offices near me with draw in Acad, model in SU, export to acad to finish docs because it is easier?

—-

Using SU as a crutch is acceptable while learning AC but if you don’t train your staff then productivity will not improve and the longer that problem is not addressed the more difficult it will be to change the culture of that office.

At a minimum they are trading “saving a few minutes now” for spending hours later redoing the work in AC.

Re: Design Process Question

hevi — Sun, 17 Dec 2023 16:16:42 GMT

There is certainly merit to a split workflow (and it will remain as long as GS doesn't make an honest effort to facilitate easy object creation/management and parametric placement) I would recommend going with Rhino instead of Sketchup. Rhino 8 has added some nice feature to simplify modelling and a real benefit is of course Grasshopper and the connection to AC.

Re: Design Process Question

DGSketcher — Sun, 17 Dec 2023 21:55:50 GMT

@Eduardo Rolon wrote:

... or stay as most offices near me with draw in Acad, model in SU, export to acad to finish docs because it is easier?

One of my business associates has done just that, they decided the cost and workflow complexities in Revit were too much, basically they can achieve their objectives quicker and easier with a SU / Acad workflow. Everyone & every business is different and they have to find the right tools to do the job. I've said before I used to tease the same guy about how quick AC could turn a job around. These days there isn't a lot in it particularly when it comes to projects with multiple split levels where we juggle elements with different story display methods, unstable dimensions and modelling service runs with half developed software. If I have to model my foundations with morphs to get them to appear as they will be built then all the advanced tools are clearly failing. Mixing beams, columns, slabs & roofs to model footings with each having very different build up workflows & presentations for each is just a stupid situation and one GS have been told about repeatedly.

Training I think is a generic issue for any business, until they find the software has become so complex that the costs and extended learning curve becomes a deterrent to using the software in the first place.

Re: Design Process Question

scottjm — Sun, 17 Dec 2023 22:23:10 GMT

What is it specifically that your are finding you are unable to achieve in Archicad?

Our 50 person office runs projects all the way from concept to sketch to full documentation in Archicad for projects from $100k up to $100m, and we have never had any issues.

Sketchup my be familiar and considered 'easier' than Archicad in those early phases by your staff, but it's all down to what you know and feel comfortable. Its definitely possible in Archicad, albeit maybe through a slightly different process. There will also be a period of lost productivity migrating over to a new piece of software, but if you ware already using AC for documentation, I would have thought this would be less of an impact.

Re: Design Process Question

Ignacio Azpiazu — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 02:28:50 GMT

The team needs to be comfortable, as a team; not every user needs to be trained to understand everything, which will never happen. The team needs someone, ideally in-house, otherwise outsourced, who understands the process, sets up procedures, troubleshoots/provides guidance as necessary, and knows when to call other even more specialized guys when the circumstances require their input (some specific template feature, GDL, AC-Grasshopper, whatever).

Sketchup and Autocad workflows resemble the hand-drafting office setup, in which anybody can jump in at any point and immediately get productive, with a simpler, lower productivity tool. Archicad, properly used, is a higher productivity tool (there are things you just can't do on a competitive budget on time in Sketchup and Autocad, no matter how many mouse-pushers and mouse-pusher-managers you bring in), but it does require a higher level management.

Re: Design Process Question

mthd — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:07:38 GMT

Those in the office might be able to quickly get up and running using the morph tools in AC instead of SU for massing. It’s better to use the native tools in AC when possible. There is free training on YT as well for using the morphs to model.

Re: Design Process Question

DGSketcher — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:04:07 GMT

@Ignacio Azpiazu wrote:

The team needs to be comfortable, as a team; not every user needs to be trained to understand everything, which will never happen. The team needs someone, ideally in-house, otherwise outsourced, who understands the process, sets up procedures, troubleshoots/provides guidance as necessary, and knows when to call other even more specialized guys when the circumstances require their input (some specific template feature, GDL, AC-Grasshopper, whatever).

I understand your perspective, but there is another one that includes micro businesses, where typically they don't have enough staff or large enough projects to go down the "Team" road and might also struggle to justify outsourced knowledge or specialists if they can be found. When you've done your time studying to become knowledgeable in architecture and local regulations etc, the last thing you want to know is that you are now going to have to learn to become a CAD specialist to communicate your design. And if that learning curve is too steep you find the simplest solution or maybe just use a small percentage of the market leading software, if the cost is justified.

Maybe I am naive in my business view, but what you describe is very much an us & them e.g. if you aren't big enough then stop using AC. I know you didn't say that, but that is the implication.

I would love to know how many micro businesses GS have on their licence list, because if they make up the majority, their current financial strategy, complex workflows and multi-disciplinary clutter is unlikely to retain them much longer and that could be devastating for the future of AC.

Re: Design Process Question

mthd — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:08:25 GMT

lol !

Re: Design Process Question

Marc H — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:17:08 GMT

For my part, I agree. There are several ways to approach a project design, depending on the scope, need, and resources, etc. I can see a few different approaches depending on several factors. Most of my work is/was non-residential, but I'll just share a few thoughts if helpful:

- For program driven and/or complex projects, I've set up specific AC planning and massing elements, layer combos, views, layouts, etc. to quickly model site feasibility. Then, if it goes to a greater LOD, I can I wand in or trace in shell and core elements, etc. I prefer to push AC as much as possible for site planning and massing, etc. Over time, it economizes the effort fairly well. If you have previous successful project elements or standard layouts, it does leverage your time. Also, complex sites with slopes, varied setbacks, existing structures to remain, etc., these can be modeled fairly quickly so you can reliably work your concepts within the site constraints.

- For broad, forward looking design concepts and/or finely detailed design or technical detail work, I still like freehand drawing things out first. Most years I used an actual pen and paper. But, with all so many benefits for working digitally, I switched over to Goodnotes on an iPad Pro a few years back. The reason for this is I can quickly import and export PDFs from any media (including BIMx), so it's something I can sit back and draw, but still share with the team seamlessly. Recently, I started snipping views from BIMx and bringing them into Goodnotes for all manner of overlay note-taking and such.

- I've worked with a few mid-size and large firms over the years who use SketchUp for conceptualizing. One designer used AC as well. In both cases, they found it easier than conceptualizing in Revit (standard in my main building type). One thing I did like with SU building models is that I could import them and set them out on a campus site quite easily, colors and all. Not useful for deep technical work, though.

- Of course, some projects may be better off starting with a shell pattern generative software, then program-fit within. With that, the AC exchanges with Rhino and Grasshopper would be useful, so seems there are opportunities there, too.

Re: Design Process Question

Marc H — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:32:46 GMT

".... These days there isn't a lot in it particularly when it comes to projects with multiple split levels where we juggle elements with different story display methods....."

I would think sloped sites and split-levels are a primary market for GS, but this is one area where GS really needs to 'close the gap'. I am continually baffled why with some elements I can stipulate which stories to display them on, some elements I am only given two choices, and others where it says I can customize, but when I try, it will not let me! I assume it's some mathematical issue with assigned stories, but it escapes me why this should be the case.

I have worked out some layer and view setting standards which help, but it could be so much easier!

Re: Design Process Question

mthd — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:33:59 GMT

Everyone has their own unique methods of how they express their design talents. Some build paper models some draw freehand some use SU. SU does play very nice with 3D model sharing and many CAD apps. It’s whatever you are comfortable in using. I like to use AC for all my work and I like to find shortcuts so I have time to be educated and also amused by the comments on the forum. I like the sound of your methods to push AC to its Limits. I don’t like to waste time building models with other apps when I could be building the concept in AC.

Re: Design Process Question

DGSketcher — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 09:57:55 GMT

@mthd wrote:

I don’t like to waste time building models with other apps when I could be building the concept in AC.

I agree with you, but there is a logical assumption here that everyone commenting has access to AC and once you are in there's no way out. The background point I am making is that faced with a limited budget and a steep learning curve, potential new users may never be caught by the AC fly trap in the first place. Under the subscription model there is no invested loyalty payment up front and if you see the software doesn't suit then you get out quickly. I would certainly take the forum membership with a pinch of salt. How many of them were/are short term signups? You can be sure marketing won't be purging the numbers anytime soon.

Re: Design Process Question

Ignacio Azpiazu — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:13:24 GMT

@DGSketcher wrote:

@Ignacio Azpiazu wrote:

The team needs to be comfortable, as a team; not every user needs to be trained to understand everything, which will never happen. The team needs someone, ideally in-house, otherwise outsourced, who understands the process, sets up procedures, troubleshoots/provides guidance as necessary, and knows when to call other even more specialized guys when the circumstances require their input (some specific template feature, GDL, AC-Grasshopper, whatever).

I understand your perspective, but there is another one that includes micro businesses, […] what you describe is very much an us & them e.g. if you aren't big enough then stop using AC. I know you didn't say that, but that is the implication.

Reread original post and my reply.

Archicad needs a higher-level management. In a solo practitioner office, that is either provided by the solo user himself (wearing still another hat say 30 minutes a day; perhaps 2 h a day at the start; which a 20-year-old has, but a real-life practitioner may not), or by some teacher or trainer or template provider. Now if there are several users, you absolutely don't need or want everybody to understand everything –you need maybe 4 hours of bim consultant time a week, maybe a bit more at the start. Over time, perhaps quickly, that research/support/management function will be mostly taken up by some enthusiastic in-house team member, who will still be wearing a different hat when doing that work. Those 4 hours make all the other team hours productive, instead of a frustrating struggle against the unknown.

Based on the original post, I am sure that is the problem in this situation. The biggest hurdle in transitioning from traditional CAD/modeling to BIM is organizational, not technical –both management and users understanding that change (the need for that specific knowledge “overhead”, and its business sense) (which they won't understand without guidance) and supporting it.

Re: Design Process Question

DGSketcher — Mon, 18 Dec 2023 15:11:07 GMT

@Ignacio Azpiazu Sorry if I have taken your post out of context & it was aimed at the OP where your comments make more sense.

I stand by my observation though. AC has become too complicated for start up solo / smaller users and the incentive of the "By Architects for Architects' tag line has been lost. The bigger the management & training overhead the less attractive the software if productivity isn't easily realised. Most people will take the path a least resistance to achieve their goals, even if it's just using pen & paper to convey a proposal.