BIM! WHAT MORE?

[Anonymous]

This is meant to be the twin thread of "BIM? WHY?" for those who are in favour of it and want to share their view on how to improve it. Those who are not in favour of BIM may still read it, and mouthwater as they change opinion...

Then the question is, what more would I want in it? This is my answer so far.

- include a section on topography that would serve the obvious purpose in design: when drawing a slab, AC also draws the foundation by following the actual land, on the fly. This is not easy, as one may want to have two or three connected slabs, as they follow a hill.

- AC is able to draw all sorts of roofs on the fly. Let this feature be smarter. Given the geographical north and the slab (see above), draw the roof so that it is oriented towards the maximum exposure to sun light, for the purpose of solar panel installation. This would solve a pesky problem with all new constructions, at the click of a button.

- let interior design meet its next generation cad by adding constraints on object placement, constraints that apply locally to any designer in the studio. Let call the collection of these constraints, a style model. For example,

- I want all beds to have the head towards north.
- I want no less than 1.2m around any master-bed.
- I do not want to see the dining table in front of the main entrance door.
- I do not want to see the toilet when I open the bath-room door. For example, if the door opens to the left, I want to see the washbasin on the right and the toiled on the left.
- and so forth

This is possible by adding a relevant option to the relevant object, where I can specify the parameter. However, one may forget about it, and thus one would rather set them all on a separate page. The collection of all these constraints defines a style model that applies to the design. Style models are not meant to be unique. For example, I would dream to have Feng Shui or other similar "philosophy" reduced to a set of constraints into a style model, and have AC enforce them on the fly.

Now it's time for coffee...

Robert Hunter

[Anonymous]

This is slightly off topic wrt BIM.

It is now clear to me too that AC10 has a castrated version of LightWorks. Its renderings are plain ugly. So, why would I want to purchase LW as part of AC10? If I purchase AC10 and the full version of LW, I pay twice for LW, which I am not going to do. If I purchase AC10 and Artlantis, which is much better than LW, it would not be integrated with the BIM and I would still have the castrated LW around. I am sure this is not a novel problem to the AC team, so why is the probem still on the desk? Too difficult to solve? I do not think so. My proposed solution is to open AC to any "compatible" renderer. This is possible by releasing the specs for the interface, and let the companies make a plugin. People using AC10 on windows, for example, could use v-ray instead of LightWorks. This goes along with my proposed solution to the other problem of AC10, namely its limited understanding of file types for 3d objects, which is necessarily related to the quality of the renderer. An open platform would allow for various professional solutions (see my posts on this topic), with no need to limit itself to one proprietary solution for low-quality renderings, such as the present approach with AC10.

Bob

[__archiben]

jdk wrote:
...Now it's time for coffee...

why not enter a series of site parameters and have archicad design the building for you?

a bad workman . . .

~/archiben

[Anonymous]

> Why not enter a series of site parameters and have archicad design the building for you?

Because Artificial Intelligence has its limits. One is still able to make better tools. My proposed enhancements can be implemented in AC10.

Bob

[TomWaltz]

jdk wrote:
> Why not enter a series of site parameters and have archicad design the building for you?

Because Artificial Intelligence has its limits. One is still able to make better tools. My proposed enhancements can be implemented in AC10.

"Can".... probably.
"Will"..... it depends. Do you believe in unicorns and that all dreams come true?

[Anonymous]

> "Can".... probably.

It depends on money only.

> "Will"..... it depends.

Where did the quoted "will" came from?

> Do you believe in unicorns and that all dreams come true?

Engineering has nothing to do with mythology, sorry...

As far as dreams, the very concept of computerized design was unthinkable in 1800. Your pre-judgement will not stop progress.

Bob

[Anonymous]

More in my wishlist:

- for a given piece of land, expecially in residential areas, the law says that the roof/slab must be at most as large as the perimeter of the land minus two meters. The law also sets the maximum height of the building. It would be useful to set these two constraint in AC10, so that, when you draw the roof/slab AC10 allows for that much of space, and no more. For small lands, AC10 could be instructed to draw the slab and the roof on the fly, and thus also the outer walls in between. Of course, AC must allow us to change the outer shape of that building with ease, a' la SketchUp.

- the idea to allow for an open standard for the rendering engine could be used also for topography. There is no need to extend AC10 to topography; just set the interface, and let third-part firms write the plugin for thieir application.

Robert Hunter

[Dwight]

You are truly a visionary.

I suggest that you post these wish/observations in the appropriate wishlist forum categories. Graphisoft pays close attention to obscure wishes and will certainly implement them before Christmas. I just heard that they were making a button to save Sketch rendering preferences. (Joke.)

Not all jurisdictions are the same and a tool that would truly reflect all of zoning/volume/setback peculiarities will be complex to use. Almost as complex as knowing and employing those constraints like an architect should.

My observation is that by imposing more and more choices and parameters on elements (bed parameter limited to facing North, for instance) the plan situation gets very complicated, inflexible and slow.

I think that you are asking the software to overcome poor planning and simple design knowledge. Not wanting to see the toilet from the bathroom door? Come on? You can make a module that does that, or perhaps an architect should take this into account subliminally? Some cultures like to see the toilet from the door, especially those cultures prone to exhibitionist vodka drinking. We could have a check box for them: "Always see toilet from door."

BTW: many elements have a "Minimal space" check box that adds a clearance space fill to the symbol.

[Anonymous]

A tutor of mine at Polytech suggested that the best place to have the toilet (room, not pan) is in view of the main entrance to a house. That way when guests arrive it is immediately obvious where it is, and there are no awkward moments as they work out a nice way of asking where it is. He later had a nervous breakdown and left.

As for height control planes, Cadimage have a tool that works that out for you, even follows the contours of your site mesh to give an accurate depiction. It shows a volume of glass over your entire site so you can see your building within. The problem with making this a setting is that rules can be broken, that's what Resource Consent is for, and why you talk nicely to your neighbours.

[TomWaltz]

Sounds like someone trying to wishlist themselves out of a job.....