CompuServe Thread

Michael- Thanks for the info. I have found a few drawbacks in AME, like it being cumbersome, and sometimes slow (grrr). For extruded floor plans buildings (cardboard architecture), Facade or some other one probably is the best. But there are some architects that go a bit further, and create forms and structures that are above the norm ; that which we try to get published <g>. These are designs that you do not see that oftern, and are kind of hard to explain (although the licenced architects out there know what i'm talking about). It is these designs that I am calling architecture, and it is that architecture that I have found is best to be drawn completely accurately; then the analysis of the 3D model is valid. I don't know, maybe Facade or some of these other packeages do that; but all I hear is "easy" and "inexpensive". 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. Thanks for the reply- Joe Cheers- Joe

Bruce- Ahhhhh…..hence the meshing process of solids. That clears that up! Thanks for the reply- Joe

David- Thanks for the reply. Can Facade do boolean operations? Most of the private homes I do (or want to do <g>) have many curves, etc., and the roof structure can vary from compressive to tensile (depending on my mood!). This makes for some very complex forms, and AME and Autocad's editing feature (osnap, etc.) has been been very helpful, in 3D model analysis and presentation. Thanks for the info, though. I am an expert architect, but not near the expert with computers and manipulating 3D modelling / rendering software as some of the folks in this thread. I should be careful about contributing my comments <g>! Joe

It would make interesting reprints for convenient in-basket material for those most in need (the illiterate managers). However, once you can show 'em success (mo' money) then the road gets easier. Be prepared to let the top guys take all the credit too. Richard

Joe, There is a fine line between arrogance and confidence and the best cross it all the time – I wouldn't worry too much. One has to stand up for what one believes in – and that is always. Don't hold your philosophical rein TOO tight. If that credo had alwasy been held we would be short many good tomes of architectural dissertation; I mean where would Venturi be if he had never taken his initial controversial stands and printed them (no comment on his work, just his words and their influence<g>). – Phil

No need to rein in the expression of your philosophical underpinnings regarding architecture. Your 'real architecture and CAD' thesis is probably more appropriate in a place like the LEAP Forum's Architecture section, though, than in a thread that started as a question about a specific piece of software. I wouldn't charecterize your "philosophy" of architecture as arrogant, just the way (I perceived) that you expressed it. And as is always the case, my perceptions, and responses to them, may have more to do with me than with what you actually typed… Your "philosophy" itself, that appears to revolve around the notion that the highest value of architecture is achieved if it's 'published', seems more just misguided and immature, to me. I think there's more to it than that… But then, you might charecterize me as just an old fogey, too. <bg> Fair enough…

I read your previous note about the image lab – congratulations! I know all too well about technologically illiterate management <g>. But you're not using AutoCAD? I trust you must have some CAD package that reads/writes DXF. The biggest advantage for AutoCAD in the architectural community is its overwhelming use – from consultants to clients to vendors. Not having it on hand can cost a firm projects – and it is a good modelor for simple shapes that need to be very accurate (e.g. architecture!). For an architect, the Shaper and Lofter are most powerful when they use DXF shapes and paths. A Lofter DXF path insures that the mesh will allign with the rest of your DXF-imported mesh perfectly. The quick ability to loft gives many chances to experiment. For the model-mesh itself I can only speak of AutoCAD for DXF export. You no doubt have heard of Face Normal nightmares – don't worry, once you know the nuances you will rarely need to flip normals in 3DS. VistaPro – fascinating program, but its for terrain modeling/imaging and not for traditional model building. It creates images or, if you wish, VERY large DXF files. Aliging entities in the 3DE – yeah, this is tough. Remember that the Align command is aligning to the viewport's construction plane – it can be useful but I would hardly call it an accurate tool. Vertex snap – it's only availbale when you really don't need it <g>. If you need to make perfect alignments I'm afraid you are forced to zoom to the "invalid region" and make sure the vertices align (unless yu can weld them and just increase your weld threshold). A trick for centering objects on one another is to copy tracks in the keyframer. All in all, your best bet at making highly accurate models is to do it elsewhere (AutoCAD) and bring the model in. The models' origins match and you will be able to junp between the two programs without alignment problems fro as long as your project exists, changes, and evolves. Hope that helped a little,

It's me again. PMJI. If you have existing 2d site plans in Acad you can turn the building perimeters into plines, extrude each building to it's height and set an elevation if necessary, then use the solidify command in AME to convert those to closed boxes for export to 3DS. Not perfect but can save time in many cases.

Robert: >> Site modelling For my money, the best combination is AutoCAD and Schreiber's QuickSurf program. Takes any type of 3D data (straight from the newfangled surveying equipment) or polylines or even 3d points and turns it into a surface with variable density which can be taken over to 3DS. Greg Pyros

JKJ: I second Chuck's comments, Designer is awesome!!!!! AME, what's that? <g> Greg Pyros

JKJ, >> Is this an add-on to AutoCAD like AME or a stand alone program? << An add-on like AME. It connects with AutoCAD R12c2-DOS (and ONLY c2) via an ADS link with an authorization code like AME. It uses the ACIS solids core, so it should be readily ported to ALL the UNIX platforms, and Windows support should be down the road a bit. >> If an add-on, is it intended to replace AME? If so, do you know if there is an upgrade path, or is AME a throw-away, like AutoShade? << The future of AME is as yet undecided. It doesn't make sense that AME would continue with such a powerful product available. Regarding the upgrade, there has been ALOT of preliminary chatter both pro and con, as soon as I see something on letterhead I'll let you know. >>Can you select various mesh densities? Better than that, you can select an allowable variation between the model and the face mesh. This variation can be specified to be as small as 001"!!!!!!!!! I wouldn't want to do one though, as the face mesh would be astronomical in size. >>Do you have a short list of specs? In short, AutoCAD Designer is a "Feature Based, Parametrically Driven, Bi-Directionally Associative Solid Modeler" (Whew, aren't you impressed! <BG>) Here is the short of what that means… -Feature Based AutoCAD Designer works with the individual "components" of a solid as intelligent features. Features always understand their relationship to 3D-space and TO OTHER FEATURES. This is key, because if one feature is changed, all the adjoining features will update to reflect the changes AUTOMATICALLY. For instance, if you had a part that was a flat object with an attachment point on the end, when you lengthened the flat, the attachment would change to reflect it! -Parametrically Driven In Designer, every feature is simply "sketched" in and then dimensionally constrained. These constraints not only reflect the size and shape of the feature, but the feature's relationship to other features. In AME, once an object is "solidified" you are "stuck" with it. In Designer, you simply edit the dimensions of the feature and have Designer update the model. Thus, that feature (and any other connecting features!) will be updated. Remember, THE DIMENSIONS DRIVE THE MODEL. – Bi-Directionally Associative This is the KILLER part of Designer. Visualization aside, most people will be using Designer to produce two-dimensional drawings. In AME, you could only produce "dumb" projections onto a UCS. In Designer, you have complete control over how and what two dimensional drawings are required. Plus (and this is the key) any time the model is updated, the drawings will AUTOMATICALLY reflect the changes. Also, any time the "designer" dimensions of a 2-dimensional drawing are updated, the MODEL and ALL OTHER 2-D VIEWS WILL UPDATE AUTOMATICALLY!!! Gosh, I could go on forever, you need to see the product!!!!!! Hey, where are you located, as we will be showing the product (and the AutoSurf/AutoMill components) in Wichita on February 2nd. >> Do you have any pricing information? Designer will be $1500.00 My fingers (both of them) are tired! <BG> Chuck

Bruce, With it being -20 here the last three days you bet we needed a flame! I'd be very interested in learning what architectural elements you create that require or fully utilize the full-blown use of AME (no joke – I'm sincerely interested and am always willing to learn). Granted, AME has some great tools – but for architecture? I trust you are modeling some fairly avant-garde work. I agree with you completely about AutoCAD's snapping ability and accuracy – that's why I do a considerable amount of modeling in it. I see how breaking the model into components might lessen the AME overhead but there's always the need to coordinate them at some point correct? Always looking for new techniques, – Phil

Why isn't 3DS more like ACAD? >> that's one of the great un-answered questions of the universe <g>. You have to remember that the two are programing groups of different camps with very different priorities. I don't think we want the core ACAD group coding 3DS (lest the interface fall into that of ACAD) and the Yost's might bounce off the walls at the other place. There definately seems to be a right-brain left-brain division between the two groups <g>. The two programs can work very well together and I think that AutoVision is a step in the right direction (i.e. integrating 3DS into AutoCAD and not the other way around). Once they finally get AutoVision to translate (or AT LEAST respect and not discard) all of the 3DS information the two worlds will finally comunicate. Windows – it's already there as a DOS App. I don't think running 3DS as a true WIN3.1 App is a very good idea. Now NT on the other hand…………

Joe, "REAL" architecture – ouuch!, ooooh!, ouch! Just because one doesn't put AIA after one's name does not mean that one is not an architect <g> – our chapter here is very poor and it's just too expensive to belong for only the magazine. Of course I create Architecture (both in mesh and concrete) and one can create very intricate, delicate forms without solid modeling. Obviously this is all a matter of choice and what works best for whomever – we'd probably learn a lot from looking over eachother's shoulder for an afternoon. I've created all the forms you spoke of (intersecting barrel vaults, groin vaults, elliptical ceilings, fluted columns, etc) without solid modeling – modeling the control points/arcs/plines and using them to generate AutoCAD meshes and 3DS lofts (these control entities can be used by repeated forms for numurous tasks). When you combine custom LISP with basic AutoCAD you can do a lot of quick modeling (granted you don't know how much it weighs but who really cares <g>). Even if I am forced to do the perverbial decorated shed I usually include some sophisticated form/detail somewhere if only to keep my sanity and self-respect. My analogy to cardboard was an analogy to how most architects build their study (or finish) models – very few will carve into solid blocks of wood or plastic – a little tough on the interiors <g>. I agree with you on using AutoCAD – any of our given projects will use 80-98% ACAD models and will always be kept current as a DWG. The key for using the Lofter is to use DXF paths that you create and align in AutoCAD – say the centerlines of walls and sections. This can make even the most complicated form a snap – just did a surpentine 3-story wall section yesterday with the wall section (mullions, drip edges, rounded details, etc.) created in AutoCAD from the SD document and lofted along the curving centerlines in about 15 minutes. Auto Link – it's dead (and was never very useful IMHO). AutoVision holds a little more promise (although it discards a LOT of 3DS3 info). -Phil (RA)