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

[Rod Jurich]

Thanks guys, next best thing to the comedy club.
Where would we be, without the thoughtful insight of Bob.

[David Collins]

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

Or someone who hasn't tried to use Stairmaker....

[Anonymous]

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

Ah! That's what your denial is all about. You are afraid of losing your job because of intelligent CADs! Yours is a standard objection to any important step in industry, usually raised by those who will either adjust or get busted.

To you and your friends, please post your pre-judgement and worries in the other thread, the "BIM? WHY?" one. This thread is only, and I repeat only, for those who are in favour of BIM, and want to post their vision about the future. Jerks!

Bob

[Anonymous]

jdk wrote:
... This thread is only, and I repeat only, for those who are in favour of BIM, and want to post their vision about the future. Jerks!

Bob

Bob,
I have to disagree with you on this...This thread is for anyone in the community to respond to as they see fit...and oh yeah, calling people "jerks" is not going to win you friends or any influence around here.

I believe what you are experiencing is people responding to your unrealistic statements as they pertain to anything achieveable by graphisoft, or any other software for that matter, in the near future. We all have visions for the future but we need to keep them grounded in reality. I'm sure if present your vision more grounded in reality people will respond more constructively.

Dan K

[Anonymous]

Dan,

the "jerks" thing is out of frustration. When a handful of people jumps into a thread to flame it, they get what they were in search for.

On being grounded to reality, there are a few posts mentioning that some of my wishes are already a reality in other CADs. I have not verified, but I am going to. I encourage that type of feedback, because it is constructive. Moving forward requires to be unbalanced, positive, and enthusiastic. ArchiCAD is great, I stated it many times, but I wish Graphisoft not to indulge into the status quo. There is a lot of work that is both possible and necessary. Much of my notes on rendering, for example, is out of chorus for one good reason: architectural design is a complex and demanding job. Clients are never satisfied (of course, it depends on one's clients...), they ask, and demand answers. An architect's answer is often not a word of mouth: it takes time to make up things. Rendering, when swift, is very helpful, as the client can envision the environment and spend time on possible adjustments. However, to date, high quality rendering is only available if you are prepared to work on a system other than your CAD. Do you see the point? I do not want to draw walls. I want to spend time on the actual residence, the spaces, the flux of people, the location of furniture, the scenarios, the overall harmony of rooms. The walls are built around of it. AutoCAD, by comparison, forces you to draw walls line by line, forcing the architect's nose to stay on the grindstone! Structural and stylistic constrains are the main job in my view. The satisfaction of a demanding client does not depend on AutoCAD's matching lines; it depends on a long list of interdependent tasks, and a modern CAD, to be of real help, it must deliver as much high-level support as it can. My wishlist is realistic. To have a rendering that delivers photorealistic images as part of AC's BIM is well possible and it would be a reality if Graphisoft would deliver AC together with the full version of LightWorks and the ability to read its 3d object files natively. It is not rocket science. Just compile the full version of LightWorks in place of the castrated version! It is not that difficult, is it?

Bob

[Anonymous]

jdk wrote:
I wish Graphisoft not to indulge into the status quo.

I believe that, if ever Graphisoft enjoyed status quo, currently they could not be further away from it.

Autodesk moved in with it's big guns, and we all have seen the results on this recent AC 10 upgrade: Finally Plotmaker inside AC, finally multistory elements (they said it could not be done on that old code), finally one hand editings.

So, my guess is, Graphisoft is on it's toes, and doing everything within it's reach to maintain it´s market. Fortunately for us

As for the next step BIM, and never forgetting that software manufacturers are here to make money, we can always dream.

IMHO, one of the big steps that has not happened yet is the man/machine interface. I think mouse and keyboard is still one of the main reasons that keep architects away from BIM (and CAD).

I wrote some stuff about that here http://www.graphisoft.com/community/envisions/2005_02_3dfuture.html and here http://www.graphisoft.com/community/envisions/2005_10_drawend.html .

[Anonymous]

Miguel,

I like a lot your articles. They are an example of a person who is focused on the field, not on the tools. Very well done...

Graphisoft, I happen to have a PhD in computing, I guess I know what computers can do, and everything I have mentioned is doable. The technology is already there. You just need to integrate it. Do you need money? Get funded! Spread the voice that you are committed to make the next paradigm in architectural design, ask for investors's money, build up all the cash you need, and make it happen. Now.

Bob

[Anonymous]

jdk wrote:

Graphisoft, I happen to have a PhD in computing, I guess I know what computers can do, and everything I have mentioned is doable. The technology is already there. You just need to integrate it. ...

Bob

I have an idea. Write yourself a Feng Shui add-on, sell it to the world, make millions.

[Dwight]

s2art wrote:

jdk wrote:

Graphisoft, I happen to have a PhD in computing, I guess I know what computers can do, and everything I have mentioned is doable. The technology is already there. You just need to integrate it. ...
Bob

That's "Mr." Graphisoft to you.

The writer assumes he is reaching Graphisoft. haha.

I admire the freedom of expression our new colleague has.
Sort of like the new guy at the twelve step group (Here AA = Archicad Anonymous) thinks he has the answer once he admits his life is unmanageable. And the old timers should pay more attention.

After immersion in the Graphisoft culture for fifteen years, I contrast my worn-down attitude with this guy's energetic exhortations. And my alliteration.

Of course, we all applaud superb iterative evaluation tools such as jdk seeks. But the touche is the Stairmaker comment. We are all run down because Stairmaker, a self-analyzing routine, is pretty kludgy. I'm tired of thinking of sophisticated relationship tools if they will perform slowly and collide with design experimenting.

I lost a lot of my suggestion energy over two exchanges with "Mr" Graphisoft, in one guise or another. The first time, several years before LightWorks, it was over the materials in the library and how lousy they were.

"They can always buy the Artlantis shaders." Sort of like Marie Antoinette saying "Let them eat cake." Except she never meant cake.

The other time was when I complained about the LightWorks implementation. We were discussing the lack of features in LightWorks and how expensive it would be to change the lighting model in Archicad to enable radiosity.
"How will this lead to increased sales?" Not an easy answer considering how few Archicad users ever make a rendering.

[__archiben]

jdk wrote:

~/archiben wrote:
Why not enter a series of site parameters and have archicad design the building for you?

Because Artificial Intelligence has its limits.

that was kinda my point fella . . . you are responsible for the design of the building, not archicad. and if you believe passionately enough in your design why shouldn't you challenge law and regulation? why should archicad limit what you can achieve?

is your vision of the future that limited? [censored by Djordje].

duh!