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]

Also:

I like physical models because the parts collide. They assert their right to exist. Totally unlike ArchiCAD where you have to be mindful of the positions of things and it all just floats.

[Anonymous]

Great thread! It touches on the whole computer vs. human hand thing. I know many will disagree (especially those who grew up on the computer), but I feel there is currently no substitute for the immediate feedback that pencil, paper and cardboard provide.

I spend nearly all of my time on AC, but I still do conceptual sketching by hand as it allows me to "think" much better. It is a rare occasion that I will ever make a physical model, but when I do, I am always surprised how revealing, informative and fun a few pieces of cardboard can be.

I have been a guest critic at Cal Poly San Luis Obispo and Pomona for many years and in that time I have seen the computer (in the form of Form Z) become a major part of the design process. With rare exception, when the computer was used as the exclusive design tool, the results were terrible. Great graphics, no concept.

Architectural design is in many ways a "craft" in the best sense of the word. And you don't learn your craft in a virtual environment.

Years ago, students used to tell me that I didn't understand because I wasn't computer literate. Now, I tell them they don't "understand" because they can't sketch or cut a piece of cardboard. Sketching and model making are an invaluable part of the very long learning process that is takes to become a skilled designer. Understandably, for a student the temptation is to use the computer to short cut the process.

When I look away from the monitors to rest my eyes (dual 20" LCD's...love them) I find myself looking at the very few cardboard models that are in my office. And they always tell me something new.


Don Lee

AC9 (user since 4.5)
OS X Mac dual 1.8
X-acto (#11 blade)
Bienfang sketch paper (white not yellow)

[Dwight]

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. Not so with cardboard. Cardboard I can trust: horizontal corrugation = brick, vertical corrugation = metal siding.

[Rakela Raul]

I still spend way too much time actually trying to drive ArchiCAD and not thinking about design

i would be very surprised if this is not a commmon habit or problem to all 3d cad users...(make it a subject and vote option y or n)

[Anonymous]

Great topic Wendy! I do all my modeling in Archicad, I find that I can work much faster, and with far less frustration, than I can with chipboard, balsa wood, etc.. I start my computer models as "concept" models, where I set all my materials to a chip-board like brown, and work almost exclusively with slabs. I don't render, I don't worry about any detailing - I pull, push, stretch, hack my design as though it were maleable chipboard. I don't think there is any right or wrong, it's whatever tool works best for you - and for me, it's computer modeling all the way.

I do agree with Dwight re flythroughs, but I have seen great success with the presenting to clients VR Objects of their building. Clients love being able to rotate their building on the computer, the VR Object gives them a feeling of control, something a flythrough does not.

[Dwight]

and with VR they can stop once they feal queasy. and not just from the budget excesses.

[Anonymous]

LOL - I think they enjoy getting a good high-speed spin going on, makes them feel like the Wicked Witch

[Dwight]

in that case be sure to build in an extra big broom closet.

[Anonymous]

Wendy,
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. As tedious as model making can be, the process is important for your architectural learning and will aid you in your use of ArchiCAD. Beyond what clients want and expect, choose the right format for presenting your design, a physical model is not the same as an ArchiCAD 3D model.

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.

[LiHigh]

The last time I worked on physical model was long long time ago. I do all my works in virtual model purely because it's faster and cheaper. However, I still think that physical model is essential to all those who is just started to learn the art of creating form and space. Let put it this way, teachers won't allow children to use calculator not without reasons. They want the children to learn it's the hard way- it's fundamental!