#Architectural Animation?
24 messages in this thread
/* expensive pencil and there isn't much discussion on how to utilize the
technology in new and comprehensive ways. */
I think that CADD's effectiveness is well understood these days, that
it's not just an elaborate pencil (in that regard for CDs) but an
effective tool where symmetry, duplication, repetition and recycling
is involved. With Multimedia though (and I've said this before, it's
a total analogy of where CADd was in the early 80's right now), the
same curiousity exists but not the practicality or profitability.
Toxic takes a very different approach to presenting 3D Studio to new
architects. For one thing, we don't even wow them with animations
initially. We start simple by showing how their CADD designs can be
imported into 3DS, and then how materials and lighting can be added
for photorealism, how perspectives can then be shot for very quick
renderings. This is enough. At first. It sells, it works at bidding
sesisons and with owner-consultation sessions. Plug and play
modularity to materials and geomtries is as important in training as
3DS functions. For example, if a countertop in a given kitchen might
have several materials, the countertop material might reference a
raster file called CNTRTOP1.GIF which can then be substituted with
any other raster file and immeditely rendered again (in other words,
WOOD1.GIF or TILE1.GIF would be copies as CNTRTOP1.GIF and vavoom!).
Starting simple with a practical application seems to be very
effective. Only later do we send them a tape of architectural
animations and let them salivate at the added potential they have
already purchased. It's not a disservice to 3DS not go into
architectural animations. Look at how much AutoCAD is never taught at
first (SQL ties, DCL/AutoLISP, 3D) yet it is a productive tool in 2D
at first by doing simple copying, cuting scaling applications that
were tough manually. "Show benefit from minute one" is Toxic's prime
philosophy.
/* the step of visualization would fit in nicely. A whole new way of
approaching a project is necessary and architects today are caught in the
transition. */
As they always will be. 🙂 But hey, it keeps them competitive and on their
toes, right? The first "guys" to get CADD under their belt made healthy profits
from the technology. Architects who jump on MMedia will benefit in the same way
IMHO.
/* Any ideas on what is being done or what should be done in the education
process? */
You mean besides the telecourses? <g> I attend several colleges and
universities in a given year to discuss with the
CADD/Multimedia/Computer department heads what they're doing to get
students >jobs< after they graduate. NAAUG is always a part of that
equation. To my knowledge, very little is being done to show
profitability with 3DS. Right now (as CADD was again 1 decade ago)
it's more of a "neat thang", and some see the potential of it, but not
the implementation of it into a professional environment. CADD on the
other hand is coming long very well… most educational centers know
how to teach design/drafting productivity. <note: they may not be
teaching it, but they know how to teach it> It's a long learning
curve that will eventually happen on its own as CADD's did. But some
of us aren't willing to wait around for 10 years. 🙂 -dave
I agree on all points, Dave.
As Brendon said, I see plenty of architects who have no computer or a Mac at
best and the AIA just issued a report that their members report no productivity
gains with CAD. I've done some Acad training for some good sized architectual
firms, but they are only producing 2D, working drawings as a rule.
I have no contact with schools of architecture at all, but the civil
department at University of New Hampshire will have nothing to do with CAD
because "they aren't training drafters". Does this sound typical in
architectural curriculum? I think students will certainly see the benefits of
3D presentations and will implement it on their own.
Good thread!
TedB
!^NavFont01F0007MGHHI3D3D24
/* As Brendon said, I see plenty of architects who have no computer or a Mac at
best and the AIA just issued a report that their members report no productivity
gains with CAD. */
Who knows where this data comes from sometimes. I've worked for and
consulted for several large architecturla firms that are getting very
high productivity out of CADD. Maybe it's a case of "a poor carpenter
quarrels with his tools". I've seen CADD used ineffectively in a lot
of places. If a firm doesn't train it's people (or hire trained
people) should they expect productivity gains? 🙂
/* I've done some Acad training for some good sized architectual firms, but
they are only producing 2D, working drawings as a rule. */
This gets back to the same issue we were discussing with 3DS. Productive CADD
does not mean 3D CADD. For some firms (most IMHO), 2D is all the firm needs to
be more productive. But it gets deeper than this… how often does the firm
re-use old drawings, what type of designs to they do? An architect who does
sohpisticated never-to-be-repeated-again
not-a-thing-the-house-that-lends-itself-to-repetition-or-symmetry may find CADD
non-productive. A hotel designer, hospital designer, or apartment designer on
the other hand can nix projects in as little a 10% the original time. I know…
I did it for 6 years! (lots of Type 5 projects) 🙂
/* I have no contact with schools of architecture at all, but the civil
department at University of New Hampshire will have nothing to do with CAD
because "they aren't training drafters". Does this sound typical in */
Very. But then I never expect educational institutes to home in on
practicality. I graduated with my first BS in Electrical Engineering
and was absolutely worthless to the industry. The theory we had
learned was almost 10 years out of date, not a practical skill had
been taught, and the equipment we were using was anything but what
the professional environment was using. I don't mean to come off all
cynical and negative, but this is very typical. For the most part, it
seems one doesn't go to a technical University to be taught, but to
jump hoops and get a piece of paper. The real learning (what you are
able to teach yourself) is what really divides the student from the
professional.
/* architectural curriculum? I think students will certainly see the
benefits of 3D presentations and will implement it on their own. */
I agree. As for animation, I think it's strongest potential is at the
emotional level (a very important level), not the design level.
Stills can accomplish design evaluation far more effectively.
Animation does it's thing at the bidding sessions, and at the initial
owner consultations. Numerically (quantatively) speaking, for
architecture, it's of little use. As one architectural colleague who
uses 3DS very effectively now put it; "3D Studio addresses the
_subjectivity_ of my projects." -dave
>> the AIA just issued a report that their members report no productivity
gains with CAD <<
That's because their doing more in their drawings with CAD than they did by
hand (more detail like hatching, etc.). So when they say the hours spent on
CD's with CAD are the same as by hand, they're not taking this into
consideration, IMHO.
I'd like to see the results of the same drawing done by hand and by CAD side
by side!
– Steve Ormonde
>> the AIA just issued a report that their members report no productivity
gains with CAD <<
Thats because most of them do not use the computer properly.
3 Years ago I did a project 200bed Psychiatrical clinic, parts of it new parts
of it rebuild.
It took me about 4 1/2 months work (day in day out at 10hours a day).
I then compared it to a project my father dreaw a few years earlier himself
about same proportions, it turned out I did about 40% quicker.
You have to see I drew 21 A0 format plans in 10 weeks thats about one
plan fully detailed at scale 1/100 every 3 days, and you have to know
detail was for scale 1/50 which was used for the construction, thus
that makes a multiplication of 4 = 84 A0plans divided by 10 weeks,
that is about 1 A0 a day, try to do that by hand, no one would win
against me, I'am quite sure about that.
The biggest problem, many architects don't know how to use a computer, let
alone efficiently draw on one.
I've even come accross architects using AutoCAD for 3 years who had never even
heard of OSNAPS????? And then we wonder what is the problem, and to know some
of those teach new students.
The percentage of people using computers efficiently is still small I believe
not only in architecture, and this is still a major problem.
A survey done in Belgium who has about 10.000 architects showed about 80% had a
computer but only 35% had a CAD program, how many of those would use it
efficiently????
Christophe Van Oyen
Architect – Animator
Belgium
That's a good point, Steve. I've always told my customers that the time spent
will be about the same as when I did plans by hand, except that I've tried 3
kitchens, 2 baths, and 2 stairs in that time.
I'm not sure how the AIA did their survey.
TedB
!^NavFont01F0007MGHHGC89167
>> I'm not sure how the AIA did their survey.
Ted:
I'm afraid that there are just too many firms (including my own, no matter how
much I scream it from the rooftops) that just DON'T know that CADD isn't just a
glorified pencil. I've got about 35 people here, and I'd say that no more than
4-5 (including myself) understand what CADD is all about and how to use it
properly. Management just doesn't understand, and they certainly don't
understand spending money on formal training. All this burns me up so much
that I can hardly type for my clamped jaw and grinding teeth!
You wouldn't believe the quality of drawings most of the people here do. They
may plot fine, but for someone else to try and re-use data from them, or for me
to try and turn them into 3D takes simply hours of re-work. I'm sorry, I can't
go on about this much longer, cause I'll just get too hepped up (I'm really not
kidding about this — it really drives me nuts).
If the users aren't trained, and there isn't a fairly high degree of
organization (in all aspects: at firm level, project level, and
designer/drafter level) and planning, then I totally agree with the AIA survey.
There ISN'T a real increase in productivity. I've got plenty of living proof!
Dave
David:
I don't know what CADD system you are using but here's a sneaky way to keep
your sanity. You get the head of design to endorse your incredibly easy to
read and snappy floor plans which include filled linestyles for all of the
walls. (I don't know if AutoCAD can do filled linestyles yet – we use GDS) We
give every wall a 10% – 20% gray fill and they read beautifully. These filled
lines guarantee that I get nice closed loops for creating my 3D models no
matter who created the 2D. Anyway, it works out great for me but I won't tell
you that there isn't ANY clean-up.
Bob
We use AutoCAD, and what you're talking about would be possible w/ the release
13 multiple-linetypes, or with Softdesk's AutoArchitect add-on. I'm hoping
that when we get fully switched to AA (around the first of the year), a lot of
my problems will receed.
Yeah, I know… I'm a dreamer! <g>
Dave
We also will be making the switch to AA when the rel. 13 combined ASG/Softdesk
upgrade comes out. I am hoping that the new stuff can do a much better job of
transparent 3D construction while we use it for design work.
Have you had any experience with AA? Also, your name sounds familiar. Are you
in the Milwaukee area?
-Mike.
Actually, we've owned AA for longer than I care to mention, but only
our (4) mechanical engineers have implemented it. Since the
arch/int. des people comprise the majority of users, and they're
soooo diverse in their ACAD knowledge levels (mostly poor), and
because until earlier this year we weren't networked and I didn't
want to go to 20+ machines and install it over and over again, and
since most people didn't have HD's big enough to keep our old menu
AND the new one both on them (during the inevitable transition
period), I decided to wait. I've only played with it a little I'm
afraid. We two can both learn together! I'm adding you to my
address book in case I have any problems!<g>
As far as location, we're out in the middle of Kansas, so, we're
nearer to Milwaukee than Messers Pyros or Ritger, I wouldn't call it
"close".
Kansas? Whew!
Please do add me to your address book so we can keep in touch on
this. I have been using ASG for about five years now, and which it
were AA (soon enough). It is interesting, because I have met people
who have used AA and wished it were ASG! I think AA looks like it
has some nice 3D stuff, which would go a long way into easing the
modeling process and allow us to utilize 3DS to a higher degree…
Let me know what you find out!
Michael:
Okay, I'll try and keep in touch. I DID use it once, I believe to create a
quick, down-n-dirty 3D plan that I did an overhead flic of (like a rotating
isometric plan view), and it worked pretty well. Seems like I had one wall
face that wanted to be the wrong direction, but that was it.
Later!
Dave
PMJI, Michael, but I saw your question regarding Auto-Architect. We
are using almost all of the Softdesk products, including
Auto-Architect. While some of the 3D tools are powerful, they do not
translate well to 3D Studio as far as face normals are concerned.
Some people just recommend using 2-sided materials to compensate, but
I have found that I cannot afford that overhead with most of the
architectural work once I start using texture maps, reflections, etc.
I attended a "Corporate Partners" reception at Autodes University, but
nothing was said about 3D, and I did not pursue it at the time
because some other issues, such as networking ability, were more
pressing. For some "quick and dirty" architectural modeling, the
Facade add-on seems to be a useful tool, and the face normals seem to
work right when translating to 3D Studio. The only drawback I saw
with it was the number of faces it generates for some surfaces.
Let me know if I can help with any info about AA.
Bob Keefer, AIA
Dave
That's what I see as a typical senario. Management/purchasing gets a price
from the salesman and reluctantly says "yes". End of story, just make the CAD
system work, drafter! Planning and ongoing training are essential and seldom
taken in to account, because of budjet constraints, generally.
Sorry to get you started<G>. Thanks for the contribution.
TedB
!^NavFont01F0006MGHHHx9896
Ted:
"Hell, we didn't have to teach people how to pencil draft, so…."
My new problem is kids being hired out of school who either a) CLAIM to know
CAD & computers, but are clueless, and B) THINK they know what they're doing
and like to "tinker". Now, I'm COMPLETELY self-taught, computer-wise, and have
a healthy respect for those who learn by experimentation. But, there is a
"right" way to experiment (ie, make backups before you change something,
actually READ books/magazines/manuals, etc) and a "wrong" way (just decide to
see what happens when you do this, or I know that AutoCAD uses menus in MNU
files, so I'll go in and start changing things). Dangerous! Luckily, when I
finalize my new setup, it'll all be on the server and write-protected! 🙂
Dave
Dave
Do you require that a new employee takes the Acad Cert. Exam?
The experimentation mentality might be of "some" advantage in 3DS, but it
always amazes me that new users very often haven't gotten around to doing the
tutorials. Talk about trial and error!
Good luck.
TedB
!^NavFont01F0007MGHHGE38AAA
Ted:
No, we don't ask for the ACAD Cert. (I don't even know that it's available
anywhere close — there aren't very many places that offer it, are there?)
Honestly, I'd say that out of about 30-35 people, myself and MAYBE as many as
two others could pass it! How's THAT for a depressing ratio?
Dave
Dave
It would surprise you how many Autocad instructors don't do well on the
Cert.exam. The problem is, that same old song, acad is seen as a drafting tool
(pencil) and operators don't take advantage of the basic tools, never mind the
integration with other software, etc.
Although this thread seems as though it's about Autocad, I think the same
principles will apply to 3DS/MM. The software is ahead of the workplace and the
training does not do enough to bring people into the electronic era. Many users
demand all sorts of new features without utilizing the tools already available.
You're not alone out there, Dave.
TedB
!^NavFont01F0006MGHHIOED13
Ted:
>> You're not alone out there, Dave.
Yeah, but Ted, I'm alone IN HERE! Arrrggggghhhhh!
<g>
I agree with you. Sure, even in the pre-computer days, a firm would
STILL have to teach you their "style" (if you will) of drafting
(sheet layout, symbols, maybe even acceptable lettering styles) —
but you were expected to know how to make a nice sharp line with
those little accentuated endpoints that just _barely_ cross, etc. Now
that the tools have become SO much more complicated (diff platforms,
diff software, etc) there is a distinct difference between the tool
(and the theory & general "how-to's" of its use) and the specific
application of the tool to a problem.
In other words, one of my big philosophies is that it is more
important to understand the concepts behind something than it is to
know all the little facts and trivia about it. By having a good
grounding in "what is a computer, how does it work and why", I can
pick up just about any piece of software (or even go to another
foreign platform) and make some basic assumptions about how to use
it. And everything that happens, even if it doesn't work, goes on to
fuel my knowledge about how to use it. But, if someone just goes
into their class every day and copies down a command off the
chalkboard into their little notebook, they know nothing. Moreover,
if they make a mistake in their copying, and if either the instructor
didn't explain how this command interelated to the computer or the
program, or I just didn't pay attention, then I am totally lost. I
saw this over and over again when I was in school.
As a real-world example, our bookkeeper came along one day when I was
doing a luncheon CADD thing, and sat in. Afterwards, she told me
that she was pretty much able to follow along — that a lot of what I
said seemed pretty much like using a word processor, what with
blocking things, etc. I said, "EXACTLY!!!!" The more you know about
how computers manipulate data, and can realize that the computer
doesn't really care whether your data is a letter to a client or a
billing spreadsheet or a house plan, and that it pretty much offers
the same abilities to manipulate that data, then, as Obi-Wan Kenobi
said, "you've taken your first step into a larger world."
The problem is people who tell themselves that computers are too
complicated, that they're not smart-enough, or that they just don't
WANT to know — once you do that, you're sunk. How come any kid can,
just from mucking about on a computer for a week, have INCREDIBLE
insights to how it works and how to use new things they've never seen
before? It's because they haven't learned to limit themselves yet.
We have to figure out where these ideas of our limitations come from,
and stop them from being ingrained in us — THAT is the key.
Er, excuse me, have I been ranting?
PMJI, David – I just got to this thread and hope I haven't completely missed
out. You really hit _one_ of my nerves with the CAD issue. I have had the same
experience of trying to use CAD files that were a mess, yet were not considered
to be a problem because the plot "looked good". Eventually somebody has to come
back and work on those files and clean up the mess, or in my case try to use
them for 3D, and then people wonder why it takes so long! Just do it right the
first time!
Bob Keefer
Bob:
The ironic thing is, I have people come up to me and say, "you know, you were
really right about that. I just got a drawing from so-and-so to use for
somesuch, and it's a mess and I'm going to have to spend scads of time fixing
things to work for what I need." But, does that person turn into a reformed
sinner? NOPE. They just keep on truckin'. Of course, since management
doesn't recognise the problem, there's no reward system to provide incentive
for people to develop — it's just a "get it out and go home" mentality.
Gosh, you know, I'm only 32, and I'm already becoming a cynical old codger!
Dave
Hi Bob,
>> I have had the same experience of trying to use CAD files that were a mess,
yet were not considered to be a problem because the plot "looked good".
Eventually somebody has to come back and work on those files and clean up the
mess, or in my case try to use them for 3D, and then people wonder why it takes
so long! Just do it right the first time!<<
I couldn't agree more! We have learned to simply ask for dimensioned plots or
prints to work from, for we have found it faster, 9 times out of ten, to build
the geometry from scratch rather than try to disect someones dxf or dwg file.
Regards,
Brandon
DesignTec
In addition, I know of one local structural engineering firm that
refuses to use electronic bases given them by architects — they
always re-draw everything in-house. This is apparently because one
architect gave them an electronic base plan where ONLY the DIMENSION
text had been changed, not the actual elements. They had, of course,
just assumed that the drawing was correct, ignored the
text-dimensions, and did their calculations & sizings from it.
Luckily, the error was found before the fabrication of the steel had
started (THAT would have been costly), but they pretty much had to
start over, as far as their calcs go. They just can't afford to take
the chance that it'll happen again.