topic Re: Archicad vs Physical Models in Modeling

Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Tue, 22 Mar 2005 22:44:01 GMT

I'm not sure I've got this in the right place, or that there even *is* a right place in this forum for this question, but here goes.

Obviously, those of you here in this forum understand Archicad and its advantages well, so I'm interested in your perspectives about using AC vs physical models in the design process. Do you still use physical models, or do you do all your work directly in AC? If you still use physical models, when do you do so instead of relying on AC? What sorts of tasks or investigations do you feel lend themselves better to studying in model form vs those you think are better (or at least sufficiently) studied in AC?

Basically, what do you think are the pros and cons of each method at different stages of the design process? Do you think there's still any real advantage to be gained by building physical models?

I'm asking because I'm having a really hard time understanding why some of my instructors are so adamant about physical study models when I find it far more efficient to just model everything in Archicad, and far easier (or at least just as easy) to study what's going on in the space as I would with a physical model, at least as far as I remember the latter, since I admittedly haven't built one in a while. I just don't see the advantage or the point of chopping up cardboard or basswood and making a mess (and putting myself in pain) when I can get a much better view of what the space would look like from the inside with Archicad. One of the main reasons I bought this program is so that I wouldn't *have* to build models, since some physical disabilities make it a pretty physically painful process. It also feels like a real waste of time and duplication of effort after I've already looked at everything from every possible direction in AC, and can so easily pull out images that show everything of relevance.

Obviously, nothing will ever fall down in a computer model, no matter how unrealistsically designed it may be, but how well does what one can tell about what *will* stand up in model form translate to real life? I have no experience getting anything built yet, so I honestly don't know how well this would correlate.

Would I *really* have been better able to tell that a staircase I designed would need better structural support if I'd cut out a piece of cardboard and glued it between two others, or stacked up a bunch of teensy bits of basswood, for example? Or is that the sort of thing that one simply needs to learn from experience and actually learning something about the structural requirements of staircases?

Are instructors' insistences upon physical models nowadays related to something that's really more valuable about them than software such as Archicad, or is this just the latest leftover from people who were trained when such 3D modeling tools didn't exist, and who literally don't even know the difference between Archicad and Autocad (and have them completely confused for one another), never mind AC's actual capabilities? Just a few short years ago, everyone was screaming bloody murder that computers couldn't replace hand drafting, and now the school isn't even teaching it any more in favor of doing everything in Vectorworks and formZ from day one. Are models just the next extension of that sort of thinking that's based in not understanding the advantages and capabilities of the software relative to the more time and labor intensive, older, manual methods?

Thanks for your thoughts.

Wendy

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Dwight — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 00:03:36 GMT

In the old days, we did basket weaving and moccasin stitching as a part of design school. What did these things have to do with architecture?
It taught about how things went together, and physical models do that, too, while anything modeled in ArchiCAD is just so much phlogiston, made up in the absence of gravity and in the learned implication of building elements, BIM notwithstanding.

ArchiCAD isn't the worst of the software used in pre-visualizing buildings because it at least pretends to use elements of buildings in assembling its model. The worst ones are those free-form modelers that let you manipulate and carve out space from a blobby losenge. Phlogiston.

Aside from real construction experience, the physical model is the next-best-thing in learning how buildings are assembled. A physical model can give the student edifying surprizes in developing hypothetical designs before they move on to a medioocre career of predictable space planning [2D] and formulaic "custom" house plans [2D, yet again].

ArchiCAD: bunch of dots. X-acto knife : band-aids

In your case, what with your challenges, have somebody pre-cut your modeling material in strips, or get a tiny power chop saw or use tiny maple building blocks as modules.....

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 02:56:22 GMT

I personally like working in AC as opposed to real models. Real models are very time consuming and hard to modify if changes are required. Real models are also an illusion as one never sees a model from such a height as clients and authorities normally view a model. The only time a real model is realistic is when one takes photos of it from the actual eye level of observers.

Having said that though, clients love real models. They feel they have something real they can look at, however illusory. Many clients are also like some of your teachers and a computerphobic hating anything to do with computers. Any drawing or image they see as too technical when prepared by computer.

In terms of changes, really looking at a design in 3D, spead of documentation, archiving, etc, AC is excellent IMO.

I am sure the rapidiograph pen was also seen as too technical once. We have to wait for understanding of clients, teachers, authorities, etc to catch up with changes.

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

__archiben — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 03:05:44 GMT

what dwight said.

i would still love to be able to get down and dirty with my craft knife, balsa wood and evo stick. the physical presence of a real model can be far more rewarding, educating and subtly revealing than its virtual counterpart. i also enjoy life drawing and won't ever give that up: anybody dealing with space and time should take time to also study the human body . . .

i read somewhere (on this forum perhaps?) a post by someone claiming that those architects really using archiCAD to it's potential and understanding the virtual building process are also those with physical models dotted around the studio. can't remember who said it, can't find the post and i don't necessarily agree 100%, but i do think that there is some truth in there somewhere . . .

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:11:54 GMT

Dwight wrote:
In the old days, we did basket weaving and moccasin stitching as a part of design school. What did these things have to do with architecture?
It taught about how things went together, and physical models do that,

Do they really, though? I mean, sure, they definitely teach about how to put modelling materials together, or baskets, but what does any of that have to do with how to actually build a building (serious question)?

ArchiCAD: bunch of dots. X-acto knife : band-aids

Exactly. I prefer keeping my fingers intact <g>.

In your case, what with your challenges, have somebody pre-cut your modeling material in strips, or get a tiny power chop saw or use tiny maple building blocks as modules.....

Interesting thoughts, Dwight. I'm not sure how I could have anyone precut anything when I don't know what I'm going to do with it, but it bears some thinking about for situations in which I do have some idea. If I could find a small enough chop saw or even tablesaw (and enough space to put them in my house), that would help a lot, so thanks for the suggestions.

Graeme wrote:
I personally like working in AC as opposed to real models. Real models are very time consuming and hard to modify if changes are required. Real models are also an illusion as one never sees a model from such a height as clients and authorities normally view a model. The only time a real model is realistic is when one takes photos of it from the actual eye level of observers.

My thoughts precisely, Graeme.

Having said that though, clients love real models. They feel they have something real they can look at, however illusory. Many clients are also like some of your teachers and a computerphobic hating anything to do with computers. Any drawing or image they see as too technical when prepared by computer.

That's certainly worth thinking about. I guess I'm just so accustomed to presenting to architects and designers. I really don't have that sort of experience with clients.

You make some good points as well, Ben.

Thanks, all. I'll have to chew this one around some more.

Wendy

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Dwight — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:29:51 GMT

Just remember that the architect-whose-name-we-dare-not-speak, whose firm uses what are allegedly the most advanced computer modeling tools modeled the new Guggenheim in New York with crumpled-up tracing paper and little sticks.

While modeling in ArchiCAD can certainly reveal flaws in design, I must admit that in my work it never gprovides a visualizing breakthrough like toy models can.

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 04:51:44 GMT

I totally agree with Dwight on this. There is just no substitute for a true three dimensional physical model. It provides a great deal more visual feedback than a 2D representation of a 3D virtual model. I have clients that stare at my pc screen looking at the 3d model and still can't get a grasp of what the space will be like. (hmmm... maybe there's a problem with my modeling skills? nah...) I'm not arguing against 3D models, I use them myself. Although please forgive me since I use the 'other' BIM software But I do think there is still a place for the physical model in the design process.

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Vitruvius — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 05:14:19 GMT

It's a rare computer that manages to pitch a design idea better than a model or a really beautiful water colour or a compelling mood sketch. Architectural design is also a heavily intuitive process that benefits from real world sculpting which virtual 'sculpting' just can't replace.

And you're not pitching to yourself, you're pitching to the person who is writing the cheques to build your concepts (or at this point, the folks dispensing grades).

So get that Xacto knife out and have some fun...

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 08:21:19 GMT

For me is a wrong question . A black and white or sepia movie made in art.lantis , can do the same job to fell the volumetric and structural concept .If you truly want you can do it. Remove the colors and you will see the true form.
For conceptual studies you MUST work in a different way than a standard project presentation. Archicad is not your master Archicad is only a powerful tool the rest is up to you.
Put the structure and you can analyze in a separate model.

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Rakela Raul — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:01:35 GMT

do you know the reason why a printer was invented that 'build' the model that you created virtually ??
to be a decent designer i think you need to dirty your hands first, otherwise you will have the gc's talking 'really good about you'....and me.

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Dwight — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 13:17:33 GMT

NOTE TO SELF:

Replace weak, outmoded Graphisoft slogan "I work with models everyday" T-shirt with darkly modern
"ArchiCAD is not my master" T-shirt.

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 15:48:07 GMT

I miss the days of physical models. I used to design with very rough, very fast, cardboard models. I personally never bought off on the idea of presentation models - way to static for me. My favorite were some of the 1/2" scale models where the only measurements I made were to cut out the people that I started with and would then measure the model to transfer to paper .

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Dwight — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 16:09:26 GMT

I knew a guy who made "freehand" models. He was great - corrugated cardboard has it own guidelines.

Sort of detracted from the "tiny perfect jewel" aspect of modeling as a sales tool [makes the potential buyer feel like God], as compared to the narrow-display-glare-surface-view-can't-really-tell-what-it-is-even-tho-he -used-the-Artlantis-flythru-and-took-out-his-sh*tty-oversaturation.

This topic brings up other issues:

1: what informs - the psychology of presenting design is to create comfort in the buyer. Computer animations fail to comfort people. The aren't sedate enough to quiet the mind - too stimulating. The physical model allows for serene contemplation - codeine for a nervous decision maker.
2: what repels - these animations we see all the time overstimulate the eye and lead to a sense of loss of control [don't tell me about VR]. It might be sexist of me to make this observation, but I hear women complaining all the time about jerky animations. There are many minds that just don't accept an animation as suitable to explain a space - a physical model is totally inclusive. Once they've seen the model, they get the idea.

3: even a crude model is better at delivering comfort and comprehension than the best computer animation.

In my experience as a public artist where I regularly face selection panels, we focus our effort on the maquette, not the computer work, because the connection I want to establish with my panel is closeness and emotion - while we crowd around the model and touch it and build positive feeling. I got beaten the other day because one of the other artists used her kid's baby blanket to cover her model-removing it at the right time. What a showboat.

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 20:09:55 GMT

This has been very interesting reading. I suspect that only the modellers are talking here. Originally I was very interested in modlling too. But found over time that I was better and faster at freehand drawing (internal/external perspective) and got a much fuller 3d appreciation that way. Time and budget have never allowed modelling in the poor end of the market anyway.

Maybe your teachers emphasize modelling because it helps all the 3d challenged students realize the significance of 3d vs 2d.

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:15:37 GMT

I recently had a model maker contact me saying he could make an architectural model from the computer model. I told him I want to see him. That would be an invention!
A cutting list from the AC model would be great with each piece drawn like in the window scheduler.
Or perhaps Graphisoft could develop a holigram 3D image projection system like in Starwars where R2D2 projects Princess Lea (sp?) into a 3D spatial vision. Probably too fanciful but hey one has to dream!!!

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Rakela Raul — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:22:40 GMT

http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?t=6031&start=0&postdays=0&postorder=desc&highlight=

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 21:57:45 GMT

Graeme wrote:
I recently had a model maker contact me saying he could make an architectural model from the computer model. I told him I want to see him. That would be an invention!
A cutting list from the AC model would be great with each piece drawn like in the window scheduler.
Or perhaps Graphisoft could develop a holigram 3D image projection system like in Starwars where R2D2 projects Princess Lea (sp?) into a 3D spatial vision. Probably too fanciful but hey one has to dream!!!

You can print your Archicad model with a 3D printer. We did this on a project the required a physical model . The latest thing I heard about was a 3D color printer. I don't think the holographic notion is too many years away .

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Wed, 23 Mar 2005 23:09:49 GMT

This is really a most intriguing question from both the perspective of technique - which form of representation is best for discovery and presentation; and it implies the question of the role of the designer's tools.

Choosing the "best" technique is really a matter of circumstances, like time, money, audience, etc. Importantly, what is best for one situation may not be for another. Back in the day of version four we made a lengthy video walkthrough for a Design Review presentation. At that time it might have been faster to build the actual building than to process the walkthrough. Ironically, we were ultimately asked to build and present a chipboard model to make the project clearer. Perhaps with the passing of time, and as folks grow more accustom to understanding buildings through virtual means, the virtual model will become more universally credible.

Beyond the notion of technique, however, lies a more telling condition. Designers are often more fascinated by the representation of the design than the reality of the design. Virtual modeling in particular is extremely seductive and more and more we see the result of buildings designed primarily, it would seem, because they could be modeled. This general condition has existed for many years, and through many modes of drafting and documentation. It might also be a mistake to forget just how much time and money is really involved to get us to the point that we can instantly revise a 3D model.

Quite easily the representation can become the focus of the effort, and often at the cost of the ultimate construction. While the scale of some projects do lend themselves easily to a hands-on understanding, such exercises as Dwight mentions can remind us that we are, in fact working toward a tangible rather than virtual end.

Mike

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 03:18:46 GMT

Thanks Rakela and Mike Hahn,
It seems like I am a bit behind in the game. The modelling machine is expensive though. It makes balsa and card board look cheap!

Re: Archicad vs Physical Models

Anonymous — Thu, 24 Mar 2005 07:14:24 GMT

Good points, Dwight and all. Thanks.

Wendy