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."

Comments

Cycas

[snopes]

I can't sing great praises of it, but I found Cycas to be very capable and it runs well on Linux. I was able to use it for very accurate floor plans prior to moving into my house. I traded emails with a guy that designed (and apparently built from) a new kitchen with it and was planning his dream home with it.

However, expect a certain level of frustration learning any advanced draw program.

It uses POVRay to render and is partially free beer.

http://www.cycas.de/

Don't. Use a pencil.

[digitect]

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.

Re:Don't. Use a pencil.

[glassesmonkey]

I originally responded to this using a pencil and paper. Each word written allowed me to reflect on what I was really trying to communicate as I manually wrote each letter. Using a keyboard could not have prompted me with the right questions of what to write next, not in the same way that a blank paper can. Sure there is spell check, but is that really the same as choosing words I already know how to spell. Truely, a keyboard with a backspace key can *never* be as useful a tool for any one trying to communicate with the written word. Writting with quills and ink bottles is more creative and the end result could never be achived by hardware and software. As a matter of fact, your should print this out in a script font and read it outdoors in the daylight in the same manner this was written.

Re:Don't. Use a pencil.

[wfrp01]

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.

Bullshit. You're certainly not the first architectural sophist to posit their ineptitude is really a skill. Idiot rantings like yours are an insult to every bona-fide architect who's actually spent the time and effort to properly learn their trade. Just because you know how to use crayolas does not mean you are an artist. The building is the art, not the design document. Not the construction documents. The building.

This is not to say you can't design with pencils. Obviously you can. Many great architects have. And for sketching initial design concepts, a pencil, some graph paper, and some trace can't be beat.

But if you don't then move quickly into CAD, you're wasting time. You're fudging dimensions when you don't have to. You're making mistakes you don't have to. And it shows up in the final product. Things don't quite fit right. Seat counts don't add up. The mechanical systems interfere with the structural systems.

The biggest problem with CAD is that when you are untrained, you can use the power of CAD to just as quickly make a huge mess as you can to make a good design. The best thing in this instance about using pencil and paper is that it slows the poor designers down so they don't screw stuff up too badly.

But the better reason for not drawing with some software package is that they don't design.

Neither do pencils. Good designs are iterative. Apples don't fall on people's heads, knocking functional designs in all their crystalline beauty loose into the world.

With pencils, you use trace. How long does it take you to trace the whole frickin' floor plan? Option 'A' .. Option 'B' .. Option 'Z'. Too long. You don't. Do you meticulously create stencils for each lab configuration you'd like to trace onto each new iteration of the floor plan? No. You fudge it. Lots and lots of fudge. Later someone who actually knows how to draw, in CAD, and hence design, will fix all of your stupid mistakes.

Re:Don't. Use a pencil.

[digitect]

You're certainly not the first architectural sophist to posit their ineptitude is really a skill.

Since you question my abilities, let me bore you with my credentials: I started using CAD in 1984. I've written 10,000 lines of AutoCAD VBA, plenty of AutoLisp, and set up CAD customization for two different offices, and was hired away to my current position for technical experiences. (Did some sysadmining, too, but that's another story.) I'm co-author of a GPL AutoCAD customization system that we hope to release in a few months. I've drawn working documents (100% CAD) for several $25m buildings, and have been a key team member for more than $100m of construction total. I know DataCAD, AutoCAD, Architectural Desktop and Vis, and have used Microstation, ClarisCAD, QCAD, even Draw Turtle back in the early 80's. I'm sure you'd like to think I don't know CAD so your points have some kind of weight, but all you say to me is that you don't yet have an appreciation for the weaknesses of CAD, or the computer in general. But have *you* ever drawn working drawings by hand?

The OP is looking for some simple tool to help him design a layout. (If his father really is an architect, he could draft the entire design in a fraction of the time this guy is going to take, and will probably revise most of it just so it's buildable.) CAD is the wrong tool for him, he doesn't even know what he's drawing. (Although I'm sure he thinks he does.)

Good designs are iterative....With pencils, you use trace. How long does it take you to trace the whole frickin' floor plan? Option 'A' .. Option 'B' .. Option 'Z'. Too long.

Well, I certainly wouldn't re-trace it! The whole point of using trace is that you draw new possibilities *over* the old, not redraw the whole thing! Have you ever designed with trace paper before in your life?! I think you're confusing design with drafting.

Even for someone who knows both, it's a matter of the task at hand. Over grid paper, I can iterate countless designs in just minutes. Drawing to precise scale (as is done with CAD) is not the first necessity for designing a building. Site strategies, basic building masses, circulation structures, access diagrams... all happen before scale. If you know what you're doing, sketching over grids gets you very close, without having to be anal about fractions of inches that matter nothing before you've even resolved schematic design.

Once schematic concepts are proven, drawing the program to scale is necessary to check those strategies. But even then, locking into CAD can ruin the flexibilities required to complete a successful project. One always has to be careful. You are quite emphatic the CAD is always a time saver, but I'd say that's true only for someone who has both plenty of experience and an equal enough skill in sketching so as not to bias the design into some course monolithic extrusion that has neither any efficiency *or* beauty.

Re:3D Home Architect....

[cybermage]

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.

Don't fall into the enginner trap

[bluGill]

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...