CompuServe Messages

>>Well, not all buidlings are easy, and maybe the student that started this thread should evaluate what type of buildings he plans to put into the machine, and then decide on the package.<< I'm the student who inquired about Facade and alternatives. As you know, as a thesis student, I have far more leeway to create a design which stretches CAD capabilities. The tumult over AME vs. Facade is inappropriate IMHO, each has their place. I started out using a solid modeler which I find to be faster and easier to use than AME, Silverscreen from Schroff Development. Unfortuately, although it is a capable CAD engine, there are no architectural applications. I find that solids are more useful for massing studies than for detailed drawings. While it might be a nice idea to completely model a building, the overhead is too high. Unless you were developing a VR or other interactive model environment, there is no need to get into redundant detail. My point is that Facade is adequate to QUICKLY develop 80- 90% of architectural forms, while a solid modeler can generate certain forms with more ease, but it would bog down a drawing if used exclusively. I'm glad to hear about the proposed enhancements to Facade, and since no one offered any viable alternatives, I think I'll go with Facade.