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]

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.....

[Anonymous]

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.

[__archiben]

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 . . .

[Anonymous]

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

[Dwight]

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.

[Anonymous]

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.

[Vitruvius]

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...

[Anonymous]

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.

[Rakela Raul]

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.