Presentation vs. Construction Modeling

[morganp]

Three questions:

1. Should wall sections be pulled directly from the 3D model; or should they be drawn separately as 2D 'REVIT' details?

2. Do some firms create two 'REVIT' models: one for presentation and one for construction?

3. What is the most efficient way to synchronize art and craft when utilizing 'REVIT' ?


At our firm, we have noticed that 3D elements (such as mullion and wall sweep profiles) look clunky when they are cut in section. This is due to the fact that designers here have no time and no willingness to add extraneous information to projects during the intial design phases.

A designer must understand construction techniques in order to transform a 'REVIT' schematic model into a 'REVIT' construction model. Some designers with whom I have worked cannot embrace the technologies of construction. They can only build a simplistic and superficial 'REVIT' model (ala 'SketchUp') that can be linked to a sophisticated rendering program in order to create photorealistic images for clients. These designers get very testy when they see their glossy 'REVIT' models being transformed into nutty construction models.

Within our architecture office, there exist two types: the artist and the craftsman. Based on a recent Monday meeting, however, the schism between artists and craftsmen within this office has already begun to grow. This schism has emerged because some people want to draw what they imagine, while other people want to draw what they know.

'REVIT' allows an architect to simultaneously tap into the imagination and the intellect. However, it also requires that a person use the whole of his or her brain.

[Gordon.Price]

1: I would argue for both. Basically,m the model contains an accurate representation of the overall form. Then, in sections, details, and even in elevations, I add 2D embellishment. For example, the model shows some sort of hatch for materials 2" and thicker, so CMU, brick, concrete, etc. gets a hatch. This makes plans look better, and is useful for design sections early on. Then, in CDs, I will add filled regions over the top with hatches for gyp, plaster, plywood, etc. I also add flashing and sealant and other such as 2D embellishment.

2: We do, but not for the reason I think you are getting at, extra detail. We will carry a model forward to a deadline, then after the deadline, we take that model and archive it, then start addressing the changes that resulted from the meeting. This means the model is a bit of a mess and you can't quickly grab another perspective view when the client asks. So we tell them, you have a choice, we can give you a nice perspective quickly, but based on the model before the meeting. If they want the revisions they have to wait until we actually work out all the implications of the revisions. Or they have to accept an ugly corner or something where we are still trying to reconcile things. The only time we have a true separate presentation model is when we export to VIZ.

3: Make sure you put people on Revit who understand both the art and craft of Architecture, and they will do great work in Revit.

With regards to design phases, I think drawing scale is important. For residential work, for example, in CDs I would be working at 1/4", and have a lot of detail. But for early design I show everything at 1/8", usually printed on 11X17 brown paper, with maybe a little prisma color or marker. Because of the smaller scale, the lack of definition, the clunkyness, is minimized, and we can focus on the design. I think it is perfectly valid to show a simplified smaller scale view that focuses on form in design, and a larger, more detailed view in CDs. Revit makes this ridiculously easy.

As for those designers who can't be bothered to learn architecture, better get a job in academia. I have a theory about architects and that schism. I think half of architects are capable of being good, complete architects. They understand both the art and the craft. I also think half of architects are capable of learning to use a tool like Revit effectively. The overlap is such that only 25% can do both, and 25% can actually do neither. Currently a large part of a competent architect's work is fixing what the incompetent ones screwed up. Now, take that 25% that can do both, give them a tool like Revit, and they can do the work of the 100%, better. For a lower fee and yet higher pay. Gonna be an interesting 10 years or so coming up.

Best,
Gordon

[Maximillian]

Three questions:

1. Should wall sections be pulled directly from the 3D model; or should they be drawn separately as 2D 'REVIT' details?
.

create your floor plan, add floor/ceiling, add roof cut a 3d section(s). DONE

2. Do some firms create two 'REVIT' models: one for presentation and one for construction?
.

I dont see the point in that. Design dev. is revits strongest feature in my mind. You can get a drwaing with simple sections and elevations done in a day for a small presentation project.

Within our architecture office, there exist two types: the artist and the craftsman. Based on a recent Monday meeting, however, the schism between artists and craftsmen within this office has already begun to grow. This schism has emerged because some people want to draw what they imagine, while other people want to draw what they know.
.

There will be a transition like anything in life. In my optionion you should either draw by hand (with a pencil) or use revit. ACAD is not really any faster or effective than drawing by hand when you think about it. Find out what the resisting partys needs are and demo how revit can help.

[twiceroadsfool]

We do everything right in one Revit model. As long as you leverage the right tools early on, you can always change the later iterations to include more constructable information... For instance, of early on i know someone wants a column in a room or under an eave, but im only pounding out a quick plan, ill make a column family thats nothing more than a circle and 4 drafted lines. But because its the column family, i can update it and have the change take place globally later.

The same is true for the difference in design and construction... if a designer models a massive cornice that is all Plaster on foam, but is much to big to be feasible, i can then edit the wall sweep downstream to be hollow, and include framing either in the model (if im a masochist) or in the sections for construction.

In my humble opinion, the earlier you decide to make the two work together for you, the better. When we resign to not play nicely together because its a new tool to learn, i think we end up divorcing the capabilities that could have been.

[morganp]

"Leverage" is a good word.

[twiceroadsfool]

"Leverage" is a good word.

IMHO, its one of the most important words. At the risk of sounding hokey, i try not to think about it as "how do i deal with a construction drawing and a design model..."

I try to think of it as "How can i make my construction model work FOR my design, or my design model FOR my construction model..."

Leverage is sah-weeeet.

[kpaxton]

I'll add my two cents...

Three questions:
1. Should wall sections be pulled directly from the 3D model; or should they be drawn separately as 2D 'REVIT' details?

Yes.

2. Do some firms create two 'REVIT' models: one for presentation and one for construction?

Some do. I don't.
The theory goes... one model should and will transition into another. IF it's been built correctly from the beginning (within reason), you shouldn't have a problem. However, for posterities sake, I save a milestone copy to CD when a stage is completed (D/DD/CD)

3. What is the most efficient way to synchronize art and craft when utilizing 'REVIT' ?

There's a difference?? To quote Gatzke, quoting Yoda -"“Do or do not... there is no try.”

At our firm, we have noticed that 3D elements (such as mullion and wall sweep profiles) look clunky when they are cut in section. This is due to the fact that designers here have no time and no willingness to add extraneous information to projects during the intial design phases.

Clunkiness aside, during the Design stage we're really not expected to 'get into' the nuts and bolts nor the details. Getting the main concept, idea or relationships are what is important. Having an idea of what you want with a good understanding of what it will take to put "that element there" however is always preferred.

A designer must understand construction techniques in order to transform a 'REVIT' schematic model into a 'REVIT' construction model. Some designers with whom I have worked cannot embrace the technologies of construction. They can only build a simplistic and superficial 'REVIT' model (ala 'SketchUp') that can be linked to a sophisticated rendering program in order to create photorealistic images for clients. These designers get very testy when they see their glossy 'REVIT' models being transformed into nutty construction models.

"...Cannot embrace the technologies of Construction?" Hmmmmmm. And just what does he think happens in our profession anyway? Reminds me of a comment a Professor made to a fellow student of mine during Jury: "...and just what do you call this material, that spans 150 feet and is only 4 inches thick? SuperStructuralPlastic?" One does not degrade themselves by having a foot in the 'reality circle', but I believe it actually helps them to be better designers.

As to their comment about their glossy model - As I said above - keep a milestone copy somewhere if it's that important. But remember that the transition between one stage and another get blurred within Revit. It's meant to progress and go from one stage to the next.

Within our architecture office, there exist two types: the artist and the craftsman. Based on a recent Monday meeting, however, the schism between artists and craftsmen within this office has already begun to grow. This schism has emerged because some people want to draw what they imagine, while other people want to draw what they know. 'REVIT' allows an architect to simultaneously tap into the imagination and the intellect. However, it also requires that a person use the whole of his or her brain.

Sorry to break this to you, but this schism is nothing new. Personally, I don't see the difference between an artist and a craftsman - always thought they were akin to one another. In my work I practice both - I draw what I imagine and what I know; what I don't know, I'll figure out later. Revit does allow for that.

I like to say: Revit is but a tool. How does one make the tool work best for you?


A final quote from Yoda-
“ADT is the path to the dark side. ADT leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering.”

Kyle

[morganp]

. . . I'd like to add that I do have faith in BIM software.

Also, here are two definitions from the 'Wiktionary':


1. art; "Human effort to imitate, supplement, alter, or counteract the work of nature."

2. craft; "The skilled practice of a practical occupation."


Admittedly, the two should dovetail.