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]

Te danger in the virtual model is when you come to do something truly new - something experienced architects rarely need to do since they understand their building types so well the answers are straight forward.

But, like students learning design for the first time, when you do something radically new, how do you learn about what to do for a solution?

I remember a guy from architecture school in Canada who already had a degree from Hong Kong- so he thought that he knew something, already. When the "design a temple for a mythic society" problem came out, going off to the steel siding product catalogs was of no help to this guy at all. He had no experimentation or child-like exploration in him at all.

I think there must still be a red mark on his ass from when he left the school, mystified. Not that I have looked.

[Rakela Raul]

i postd some pictures of a model made by a printer and taken from 2d autocad and extruded in adt by the printer rep..go to 'other product' subject to c it.

[Dwight]

had a look.
this is interesting - replace model builders with machines - certainly will pay off in making fancy curved beams and the structure for curving irrational glass facades. Can the thing print - not in color - but in transparent?

would like to see a complex model - something worthy of the technology - not some bungalow.

[Rakela Raul]

we will give him a complex design to be printed in the latest machine (the one i posted in a picture) which has an incredible res (the model i posted was made in a much older printer with low res)....and this new test should be in color...i hope
glass?? tough luck
cuz of the limitation in size, there are elements from the model that need to be removed cuz the scale would be too small, then there is some extra work involved with that,
along with that you need to prepare one (bott) model face open or create a hole and be able to remove the extra powder that remains inside the model after printing...
all that coordination and prep and printing is about 3 days...

[Dwight]

how hard is it to reconfigure the archicad model file to create the instructions?

[Anonymous]

my school has a laser cutter where the pen weight = the intensity, and depth, of the cut. Naturally it is set up for autocad, but export as a dwg and I am sure it will work. Lighter pens cause fine burns in the wood for windows, doors, fills, etc., heaviest pen cuts all the way through the wood.

[Anonymous]

I get too much time to think on weekends but how about........
If holograms could be used they could be projected at real size and used to set out the size and extent of materials, rafters, joists, walls, etc. In a similar way, we were taught at university, the gothic builders set out buildings. They would have a spare site next to where they were building. They would, on that spare site, set out the building in chalk to size and cut materials from there.
A holographic project of a part could make cutting very easy and even as with models makers being discussed a cutter could prepare the part for a building.
The next idea is even more left field........
If E=MC2 then it may be possible to live in an archicad hologram. If the energy of the lines and 3D planes could be given some mass then could it be possible to give the model weather protection and stability. It certainly would then be easy to do alterations and additions to your house!!!
Cheers,

[Anonymous]

Dwight wrote:
A Terrible Confession:
As a long-time user -1992- I still spend way too much time actually trying to drive ArchiCAD and not thinking about design. Remembering that I try not to do the same thing twice, half my time is spent trying to get the placement or effect rather than addressing the design.

Coming back to this thread after presenting my last project, I am really beginning to see that this is what I've been doing as well, and it has *definitely* hurt my design process. If nothing else, it took me so long to figure out how to do the curved stairs I wanted that I literally didn't have time to ensure that the overall design was fully functional, let alone fully supporting my design concept. I did much more of this design in AC than previous projects, and it bombed the worst. Major owie - and a big ugly lesson <sigh>.

I still find cutting things up, especially with curves and circles involved, to be painfully laborious. I also broke my finger badly two weeks ago, so it's also completely out of the question for the time being since my entire hand is pretty much out of commission (thankfully the nondominant one), but I can see that I very well might have to return to more hand drawing at least, and eventually to models.

Wendy

[Anonymous]

Mabe wrote:
In addition to the variety of experiences posted here, consider that we are the sum of our experiences. The more you have, the better your future decisions.

That makes sense, Mabe.

As tedious as model making can be, the process is important for your architectural learning and will aid you in your use of ArchiCAD.

In what way do you see it helping in using AC?

Also, I noticed you live in Mill Valley, not too far from Healdsburg. If you'd like to stop by and meet a group of ArchiCAD users (expert to novice), please contact me.

That would be great! I don't know too many firms off the top of my head that are using it.

Wendy

[Anonymous]

The physical models we print from Archicad PLA or VRML files have about a 5 day turn around and cost no more then 75 cents per square foot. (ex. 1000 sf home would cost $750 USD)

Now that I own this machine, I can't imagine taking 40+ hours to build a model by hand, let alone the hours I could spend working on other parts of the project.

www.modellabs.com