Archicad vs Physical Models

[Anonymous]

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

[Dwight]

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.

[Anonymous]

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 .

[Dwight]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Anonymous]

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!!!

[Rakela Raul]

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

[Anonymous]

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 .

[Anonymous]

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

[Anonymous]

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!

[Anonymous]

Good points, Dwight and all. Thanks.

Wendy