Slashdot Mirror
Architecture / Home Design Software?
shroudedmoon asks: "I'm looking for a solution to create a printable floor plan (line drawing) and 3D walkthrough of a house that I'm preparing to build. I've got a rough design on paper that I want to tweak on the screen, and then show to my architect/father so that he can create the finished and buildable blueprints. I've know there are consumer packages out there like 3D Home Architect from Broderbund, but I've heard that the graphics and navigation are less than spectacular. I also recall a Slashdot article, a couple of years ago, about the possibility of using the editor of one of the 3D shooters (Doom, maybe?) as an architectural tool, but I can't seem to locate it. Just curious if anyone out there has had any experience with anything similar, or which of the current 3D Shooters might have the best editor for something like this."
many people neglect to read linked articles before posting but it appears you didnt finish reading the question...he says he wants something to SHOW his architecht...architect...he has one..
Bottles.
Disclaimer: I'm an intern architect currently taking my architectural registration exams.
There's two reasons not to use software to represent your designs. First, it's much slower. Unless you're a professional, you can't possibly draw contract document quality drawings with software at the same speed that you could with a pen and a good parallel bar. Even as a professional, drawing with CAD is about the same speed as by hand. The real advantage is working collaboratively (file reference sharing) and making modifications once everything already exists.
But the better reason for not drawing with some software package is that they don't design. A floor plan is just a fraction of the total picture! Just because you put lines on a page doesn't mean it can be built. There are countless details even in simple residential construction that can cost you *serious* dollars if you instruct a contractor to build something one way and in process it's discovered that some adjustments will be necessary. (Best example: Sydney Opera House. It was 700% over budget, because it required computer calculations even to design, during the 60's, and was re-worked three entire times before being completed, something like 10 years off schedule. Yet it stands today as the most significant architectural icon of the entire continent, despite remaining a miserable place for opera. :)
Rather, you should draw by hand. Having to make the marks yourself will force to you ask a lot of questions. These are questions that you need answered, questions that no CAD software can answer. An experienced architect can draw an accurate floor plan in just an hour. I've seen interns take more than a week to resolve a bathroom. It's a matter of what you know, not the manual act of drafting. Using a software to draw glosses over many of the questions you need to have a handle on prior to signing any contracts.
Trust me, I work on incredibly expensive laboratory buildings every day for a very large international firm and I know that there does not yet exist software to construct something in 3D that can be accurately sliced into construction details for bid or construction. (I've got AutoDesk's AutoCAD, Viz and Studio on my machine at work.) There are numerous vendors who, through smoke and mirrors, will attempt to peddle their products at such, even at the high end. But I've found none that can stand up to the prodding of an experienced architect in less than five minutes. Maybe some day, but not today. And certainly not for an amateur.
Which leads me to my final point: software will *never* be able to design in the highest sense of the word (at least not until AI is beyond human capability). Design is more than scientific, it is creative. There is no mathematically correct layout for the most efficient space, much less the most beautiful. Add in user personality, material efficiencies, fire protection, accessibility, re-sale value and durability and the whole thing becomes this big balancing act, best handled by an experienced architect. There's a reason architects do 5 years of school, 4-5 year internships and take a 9-part exam here in the US before even becoming licensed. And like a brain surgeon, you probably don't want to hire an architect whose still wet behind the ears.
I love using the Sydney Opera house as an example of great architecture because it fails in every way imaginable for what we expect in a building, except one: beauty. Despite all its failings, it is the best investment Australia ever made because of the incredible richness that it expresses.
Design with your mind and use a pencil. Draft it with a computer only after the design is finished.
There is no need to use a SlashDot sig for SEO...
But when I did that, I found I was coming up a few inches short, even though I knew certain things would fit.
Sounds like you were getting centerline dimensions for the walls. In other words, the software was taking your dimensions and assuming that they were from center of wall to center of wall. If you've done any architectural drafting, this should make total sense. But, if you want to compensate, add 4.5" to each measurement you make that is from wall to wall. It is most likely that the software is using that figure for nominal wall thickness. Here's why:
Typical framing material = nominal 2x4 studs (actually 1 3/4"x3 1/2" finished)
Typical sheetrock = 1/2" thick.
The dimensions you provide the software should be from center of wall to center of wall. Since two walls are involved in each measurement, add two half-thicknesses to your measurements.
The reason why center to center is so important, BTW, can best be illustrated by measuring each room in a house and then comparing those figures to exterior dimensions. You'd be surprised at the amount of "space" in a house that is consumed by walls.
Some people have a way with words, and some people, um, thingy.
I build houses for a living (just found a programing job, so that will change in two weeks). We have a real problem with houses for enginners. Most want to build a thousand year house, but don't care to learn what makes a house work. They end up specifying the strongest materials, without knowing that those materials are strong, but cause the house to rot out, and their "thousand year house" ends up unsafe less than 10 years.
Mind you, climate has a lot to do with it. Build in a desert and I don't think you will have this problem. We in the industry have no confidence in the ability of any house that meets code (without bribing inspecters...) to not rot out. At best a few will be around for 100 years, but we fully expect that most will not, despite looking for materials that wick water away.
Last advice: Make several acceptable drawings, and once you think you like a few, see if there is a print out there already that is close enough. Many home drawn prints are great in most ways, but end up shoving a lot of problems in an extra large, oddly shaped closet because things don't fit togather the way they want them to. Of course if you can't find any print you like, the architech will design that wierd close for you...
Why not blend the two. Its not a exculsive situation.
Draw using a pen and paper, then once you are done scan it in. Import it into a serious design tool. My friend does this with SGI tools. Check out how Nike designs its shoes.
Thats the problem with architects, they are creative but only in one way. Programmers are this way too, but they don't disillusion themselves by thinking there isn't a better way of doing things. When I was in architecture school they would be blown away by Doom quality graphics in walk-throughs when at home I had Quake3 stuff going on.
>Which leads me to my final point: software will *never* be able to design in the highest sense of the word
This is pretty stupid. Given enough resources and time, computers will. Just because you can't see it doesn't mean that its an impossiblity.
Fire codes are codified.
Material properties are known
Accessibility concerns are designed horribly now.
This doesn't sound like human architects are that sucessful at it right now.
>and the whole thing becomes this big balancing act, best handled by an experienced architect.
There are huge number of buildings which are damned ugly, have to go through multiple revisions just to meet local fire code (my sister works as a city plan insepectors, she has the worst time with architects) and routinely go over budget. Is that the best experienced architects can do?
>There's a reason architects do 5 years of school, 4-5 year internships and take a 9-part exam here in the US before even becoming licensed.
Is there really? Most architects don't become good until they are late in their careers, how much does schooling/testing help? Before they didn't even need formal schooling, just internship. And if they are so good, why does a civil eng. need to certify plans?
>Sydney Opera house as an example of great architecture because it fails in every way imaginable for what we expect in a building, except one: beauty
So if its late, overbudget, doesn't do what it needs to (horrible acoustics from what I know) but as long as it looks pretty, its good architecture? Architects need to address real world concerns. Being pretty isn't the end all.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.