Revit is being challenged

[Bluemotif]

Recently in a forum on the FormZ website a discussion was brought up debating the speed at which you can model a building in FormZ compared to revit. Being a former FormZ modeler i made the comment that Revit is much faster when it comes to modeling architecture. Needless to say i was attached with emails saying this was impossible, that there was no way Revit would be faster. So the folks at Auto.des.sys(formZ) proposed a contest at one of the upcoming shows. Is this something Revit would be interested in? Do any other users feel FormZ is faster?

http://www.formz.com/forum/board_topics.html then click on discussion, then 3D Photorealistic Architectural Renderings to view the thread.

Is Revit up to the challenge?

[Kroke]

Nice read...i have no skillz in FormZ

[J. Grouchy]

Is Revit up to the challenge?

Sounds like you are a FormZ plant...no offense, but that's just how it appears to me. I'm not terribly familiar with FormZ, so I can't speak to its usefulness...but it seems like a silly pointless challenge with no purpose other than to shore up either side's support for their product.

There doesn't seem to be any discussion about the point of Revit. People do not use Revit to create models of teacups, they use it to create models and construction documents of buildings...and Rendering is a part of this (though not always). You might as well compare Photoshop to InDesign...

But again, I'm not totally familiar with FormZ, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[DanielleAnderson]

I had to use formZ in college and I thought it was a nightmare. It has lots of capabilities, but it doesn't have that third dimensional control that revit has and I was always getting lost in my z coordinates, drawing things in what i thought was the right place and then discovering they were miles off.
When I learned that we were moving to 3d software here (revit), I was a little terrified because of my bad experiences in formZ. I have been so relieved to find revit so much more controlled--it's so much better in comparison.

[jason.74650]

Sounds like a good competition being i know both programs and I also think Revit is faster

[Bluemotif]

I am definitly not a plant but a genuine FormZ user that now models in Revit. Yes, it does not do Revit justice to use it simply as a modeler but my point on the FormZ forum is that they are behind the times and programs like Revit are changing the way we design/ think of architecture. I still use formz however to do my renderings as i am not skilled enough in VIZ yet to switch. I am really looking forward to the day when I am using Revit and VIZ hand in hand. Sorry if it seems like i was drumming up support but i was getting killed on the formz side and i just cant fathom how they think they can compete with the parametric technology of Revit. Anyhow, i am serious about the competition and I volunteer my services to join the revit team in a head to head, althogh i feel i am just an intermediate user.

Nothing like a little competition to get the excitement running.

[sfaust]

I also used to be a formZ user (at my last job) so I am pretty familiar with both. FormZ has a lot of power, but until you bring rendering into the picture, Revit is much faster and can do much more IMHO. That is only in relation to architecture. FormZ would be my choice for teacups & the like :). I would love to see a showdown & would probably be willing to participate if it were close to me.

steve

[Steve_Stafford]

I suppose if you are judging things with a goal of modeling a building and rendering fine, but realistically Revit's primary purpose isn't rendering, it's just a related capability. Likewise, FormZ's primary function is not for creating buildings and generating construction documentation for them. The only common thing between them is that you model things in 3 dimensions and you can render the result.

A competition seems a bit pointless to me, as soon as you are finished modeling a building in FormZ, now what? In Revit you're ready to print drawings to build with. FormZ, you're just ready to start drawing...

They may share clients, but do so for different reasons.

[LRaiz]

FormZ and Revit target different markets. Even though I am not an expert in FormZ, it seems to focus on modeling of 3d objects and producing renderings. Revit on the other hand is focused on automating workflow of architectural design and drafting. There is some overlap but the two systems go after different markets and comparison would not be fair to their respective strengths. For example FormZ does not even pretend to be a tool for producing drawings. On the other hand Revit does not make a claim to address the needs of industrial designers.

Edited - P.S. Steve just made this point first.

[natrix]

I have been using FormZ for quite some time and am relatively new to Revit.
If I was to model a house, or say a any small fairly conventional building, I think I could have a nice Revit presentation out of the plotter before I had the z model rendered. That being said, I really like FormZ for 3D modeling/rendering and I am sure I could come up with some renderings (and forms) that Revit couldn't touch. I like Revit for BIM and producing usable results.
What could a showdown possibly demonstrate? That someone can model a spaceship in the same amount of time that another can but together a set of CD's.
Nate

[Steve_Bennett]

Its like comparing 3ds MAX to ACAD - they have totally different purposes.

[jason.74650]

I read the formz forum and correct me if i am wrong, it apears the competion was to model 3 different building types to see which program is the fastest and not to render?

IMHO revit would be faster but there are things you can model in formz that you cant in revit. I say do it for the fun of it.

I would offer my services if its near San Diego.

[Wes Macaulay]

I'm with Leonid that this is a waste of time - really...

If you were using Revit, what would the point of FormZ be? maybe building a form that you can't currently model in Revit... but otherwise, FormZ is a waste of time.

When you get down to the business of operating an architectural firm, if you're planning to make use of 3D, why throw money away building a model in FormZ?

FormZ, for the vast majority of purposes in architecture, is now a waste of time, unless you're planning to crank out CDs in 2D, which most of us here would also say is a waste of time.

Revit? challenged by FormZ? I wouldn't say so. Use FormZ to model teacups and trash cans. Use Revit to model towers.

[hand471037]

heh. When I was working for the Reseller, I was out on a sales demo where this very thing occured.

There was someone at the firm I was demoing Revit to who was a self-professed Form-Z Master. And was constantly talking about how they could either do everything Revit could with Form-Z, or how Form-Z was faster/better/whatever.

So I quickly, in less than five minutes drew a ruled curtain system, a nice swoopy curvy curtian wall, complete with mullions and glass and everything. Y'all know what I'm talking about.

I then asked the Form-Z expert how long that would have taken them in Form-Z. And they said 'all day, probably'.

I then grabbed the top curve of the window-wall, and pulled it, and the whole ruled curtain system responded in kind, and redrew itself as soon as I let go to the new curve, with every mullion, panel, ect in it's proper place.

I asked them how long it would take for them to make an edit like that, and they said 'I'd probably have to start over'.

:)

However, I'd never want to use Revit for modeling complex furniture... But when it comes to buildings, it just can't be beat in raw modeling speed...

[Steve_Stafford]

...So I quickly, in less than five minutes drew a ruled curtain system, a nice swoopy curvy curtian wall, complete with mullions and glass and everything...and...

in Revit, it KNOWS it is a curtain wall...
in FormZ, it doesn't KNOW anything about the objects and it just LOOKS like a curtain wall.

[hand471037]

I was going to do a curtain panel schedule to show that, just to rub it in, but I felt like I shouldn't be mean. ;)

[ppelegrin]

Regardless of which is quicker for 'more complex shapes' (kinda would like a Revit user to take up this challenge *grins*)

Really, this is compliment to Revit. It shows they take us seriously, in spite of the fact that Revit has a very different focus (Architecture - not free form model anything).

I assume they would make sure there is no documentation or real word editing/client change requests thrown in.

Regards,
P Pelegrin

[Cathy Hadley]

What I would be most interested in... instead of mine is faster than yours... is...

a collaboration.... showing the TRUE capabilites of building maker with Form Z models.....

If anyone has Form Z models that are exported to Acad... I'd love to get my hands on some to do some experimentation.

CZH

[Arnel Aguel]

Is the model from Form Z a solid model or a surface model?

Right now building maker doesn't seem to work with 3d face or surface model.

[Martin P]

But you cant produce construction drawings with formz? That is the real purpose of Revit as far my office is concerned, so what does really it matter which one makes the model faster...... a 3D model is of no real use to us if we cant generate the floor plans, schedules etc. Doesnt really seem to be a worthwhile comparision to be honest....

[clarkitekt]

Firstly, I don't think that all of us Revit users should so quickly discount FormZ. I have used both (I modeled exptensively in FormZ in college and during my first couple of years at the office here and have for the last year farely excusively modeled in Revit) and I think that, even though they CURRENTLY occupy different niches, Revit has a lot to learn from FormZ. And for the record. I could, even with my year+ experience in Revit, model a building quite faster in FormZ than I could in Revit. I couldn't do the CD's as fast but then that isn't the point. Read on...

As far as 3d modeling capabilites, formZ wins hands down no questions asked. There are many things, such as basic curtain walls with mullions, Revit can do quicker however if you are to throw a twist in there and a couple of mullions out of horizontal or vertical the game changes drastically.

Revit could also stand to learn from the ease in which you can model in FormZ. In formZ, you can push and pull on masses actually in 3d whereas in Revit you are pretty much stuck to working in one plane. In Revit, if you extrude something from one plane, it is stuck being an extruded object from that plane.You can edit the profile of that extrusion but that's about it. In FormZ you can extrude a profile and then modify any facet of the extrusions, warp it, bend it, fold it, mesh one surface or all, and THEN cut a door in it...

It should also be noted that the current release of FormZ supports parametric object modeling and objects also have properties just like in Revit. You can model an object and define a category for it (like casework, or window or floor slab or structure) also... The major difference here is in the order in which things happen. Revit you have to define what something is (to some degree anyways) before you model it. In FormZ however, you can sketch in a short stub wall and then decide later that it will be casework. Modify it as needed and change it's properties to casework...

Revit and FormZ aren't after the same market? This is really not true either. FormZ indeed does not even come close to touching Revit in it's abilities to produce CD's and I understand that they really have no intention to. Perhaps in this regard FormZ is looking further down the road than Revit. Eventually we won't be issuing a set of "CDs" (not as the primary means to communicate design intent anyways) we will be issuing a building model which defines the components for fabrication. Rather than sending some 2d drawings to the cabinetry shop the architects model of that component will be sent. The shop merely needs to add the detail to that framework that they need and send it back to the Architect. The Architect plugs the model that has been refined by the cabinetry shop back into the model and approves it. The cabinetry shop proceeds to fabrication directly from the model. No time is wasted duplicating effort, chances for error are lessened, the client gets an error free product at a lower cost. FormZ I have a feeling is positioning itself there. Where is Revit going? Reproducing analog methodologies in a digital world...

Consider this warning and constructive criticism...

[hand471037]

There are many things, such as basic curtain walls with mullions, Revit can do quicker however if you are to throw a twist in there and a couple of mullions out of horizontal or vertical the game changes drastically.

While I agree with most everything you're posting here, I have to ask, what kind of curtain wall are you talking about? I can model out-of-plane curtain walls in Revit very quickly... give me an example, and I'll make it and post it if you want.

Also, while the modeling abilities of Form-Z are great, I have to really wonder how much it's going to just fall into the Sketchup! realm, and not really graduate to being a real full BIM. There is so much more to BIM than the 3D model. I mean, just quickly generating a simple schedule, and being able to effortlessly add more parameters to track more information... is that even possible with Form-Z? I'm asking because the last version I worked with was a looooong time ago, I seriously don't know.

However, I'm skeptical of solutions that might be stronger on the modeling side but don't think of the Project as a whole very well, for that's where I see the true value-add of all of this BIM stuff.

And, personally, the Form-Z interface has always driven me a little crazy. It always felt too mouse heavy for me, and the very 'procedural' approach to how you selected what you wanted to do I never really grew into. But then now I use Blender, and used to heavily use Truespace (and still miss certain things about it's UI) so I'm probably not the person to listen to here. ;-)

But, just an end note, while I agree that I'd love to see Revit learn some tricks from Form-Z, Max, and even ADT in the long-term I see it being the better solution, because it was created from the beginning as a BIM solution and from the beginning it was based upon solid Object concepts and database ideas. In my view, this gives it a fundamentally different approach, and that approach allows for a lot more value than a simple 'modeler' that may have gained some parametric or categories.

I mean, you ever think Form-Z is going to be able to work for a Structural engineer? or allow a designer & engineer to pass back and forth models, test for inerfearnaces, and truly collaborate in 4D?

[FK]

I've never touched FormZ, and I'm not even much of a Revit user, so let me pose a stupid question... say, you "pull" a face of a FormZ wall in 3d. Does the roof, floor and connected walls change shape, and the doors/windows/fixtures/furniture move to accommodate the change? How much effort does it take to set up the constraints that make this happen?

[trombe]

No matter how slick and groovy digital modeling systems become, and no matter how well integrated cross platform communication becomes, someone has to dimension physical objects unless every party in an industry has equal technical capability, such as being able to invoke a digital process to allow a digital model to be totally accessed by computerized machines that can read and cut seamlessly.
How likely is that to happen ?

Some big industrial plants will easily do this, gee even little 7 people firms can run a DXF file in a lathe , milling machine, sander or automated dimensioning saw to produce precisely defined finally finished kitchen benches for example.

It might take a long time before everyone can take an originally conceived digital model from one party directly and run a / the routine for multiple tasks for a final output without interim steps and for medium and small players, the capital cost of infrastructure is usually bleeding edge and not leading edge.
While many instances already abound for automation and process streamlining in many industries including construction - like production line prefabrication as it is now running, this is a far cry from what is being suggested conceptually I think.

2D output will be around for some time to come for mainstream large scale operations I suspect and even longer for smaller market operators.
I agree, Form Z does seem to do some things extremely well, but at this point in the game the markets are quite different, with different aims and output requirements.

A competition between the 2 programs seems quite fruitless. Why bother trying to convince the uninitiated about the unnecessary ?
Just relax with a decent coffee and some good jazz.
trombe.

[Steve_Stafford]

...Consider this warning and constructive criticism...Thanks for sharing your perspective. Interesting things to consider. Fun, this imagining the future is eh?

[Wes Macaulay]

Consider this warning and constructive criticism...I would be the first to concede that FormZ is a far more powerful modeler. Perhaps there even some common forms that it can model more effectively. Perhaps, I say.

FormZ completely lacks any tools for CDs, and it can't be used collaboratively in a multi-user envrironment. I don't see FormZ in the near term having a wide role like Revit in the building office. Drawings are going to be the standard of communication for at least a few years longer, and when more intelligent forms of communication come online for construction, Revit will probably be years ahead of FormZ.

The notion that a cabinet maker using MDF, medite and melamine is going to be able to import the digital model from the architect is improbable in the forseeable future. (I have a friend in the millwork industry who has looked at this extensively - they have CNC machines that connect to their millwork CAD system).

FormZ is a modeller, and if someone wants to use it, that's fine. But if it does not contribute to what I am under contract to produce at the end of the day - building drawings - then I literally would discourage its use in my office. That's why I maintain that FormZ is a waste of time UNLESS you are trying to model something Revit cannot. Which, for the vast majority of architects, is not the case. Money on software and wages is best spent focused on getting the work done.

I have seen so many offices that throw money away on modeling exercises when that time should have been used in Revit.

[clarkitekt]

"I can model out-of-plane curtain walls in Revit very quickly... give me an example, and I'll make it and post it if you want."

Out of plane curtain walls. No Problem. Try changing the angle of a single mullion (the rest remaining perpendicular or parralel to the work plane) in a curtain wall however (within the plane of the curtain wall still of course). Can't do it.


"how much it's going to just fall into the Sketchup! realm"

Not even close. Sketch-up can't do the complex geometry modeling nor parametrics that formZ can do.


"skeptical of solutions that might be stronger on the modeling side but don't think of the Project as a whole very well..."

Absolutely. This IS indeed the value of BIM and Revit now. FormZ doesn't do schedules, structural calcs, linked views (or views even for that matter), revisions, etc. It does have a very robust API however that will allow for all of this to be developed. Additionally, and one of its largest shortcomings to be a serious contender is that you can't share the work load of the modeling as you can in Revit.


"the Form-Z interface has always driven me a little crazy..."

The interface takes some getting use to. Once you understand its logic however you wouldn't want it any other way. As for being click heavy, you can asign keyboard shortcuts to anything just as you would in ACAD or Revit. I actually find Revit to still be too click and mouse heavy. You can set shortcuts but you can't access tool settings via shortcuts. For instance try offsetting a line 10' you can evnoke the command via shortcut but you still have to click buttons.

Since we are talking UI, Revit needs to consult some UI experts. The problem with the current setup is that tools are never located physically (that is in the "physical" realestate of the screen) in the same place and even worse located in multiple places. This denies cognitive mapping to occur. Said differently, it denies the subconscious from learning button locations. If buttons are always in the same physical location on the screen your subconscious will begin to guide you to the right location before you consciously "see" the tools menu. The current set up requires denies this pre-visualization and forces conscious parcing of the menus. Sometime while working in Revit, pay careful attention to your behaviour when searching for tools and the subsequently searching for the tool options. The furthest your subconscious can take you accurately everytime is to the left of the screen. From there you must decide that you have to proper meny open which requires parsing your optinos (I want a wall, should I use the basic menu or the modeling menu?).


"But, just an end note..."

Agreed. I am not trying to bash Revit really. It takes us a long long way down the road. It is a great solution that is 1000 times better than anything else out there. I am only offering criticism as points of argument. Without that the tool will never evolve!


", you "pull" a face of a FormZ wall in 3d. Does the roof, floor and connected walls change shape, and the doors/windows/fixtures/furniture move to accommodate the change? "

Nope. You could build parameters to do that for you but they don't come predefined. In the time it would take to wrestle Revit into first of all putting a door in a complex form and secondly making the adjustments for me "automatically" and RIGHT, I could have made the changes and adjustments in formZ myself and moved on...


"...someone has to dimension physical objects unless every party in an industry has equal technical capability, such as being able to invoke a digital process to allow a digital model to be totally accessed by computerized machines that can read and cut seamlessly.
How likely is that to happen ?"

That is true, but not really the point. There will never be a unified process in which you send the model to the millwork shop, they push a button and a machine spits out the cabintry. However if I, for instance, massed in some casework in my Revit model. That model is shared with the millwork shop. They open the model and add whatever details they need to show their guys on the floor how to build it. Or if their shop is so sophisticated to have computerized milling machines they can add the needed data to drive these machines. All they have to do is make their details fit within whatever framework I gave them (the model, which I can set/lock in whatever dimensions are important to me). My model + the millwork shops details are then passed back to me and upon approval are pushed back into the overall building model. Instant as-builts and an instant way to see the oh-sh**, we have a drawer in the casework where electrical has a plugin... That my friend is the future and if we in the construction indurstry don't push hard on becoming more efficient both in our processes and in construction we WILL lose. The money saved on errors and omissions, labor, and the oh sh** factor in the field everyone can take the bank and drink more beer! As architects we are the best suited to lead the construction industry but currently the least well positioned. Revit and BIM changes this. Don't miss this opportunity.

[bpayne]

Two thoughts and I will return to obscurity....

1. Revit was easier for me to learn, especially family creation, because of my previous experience with form-Z, that being said I havn't touched the program in 5 years, and don't expect to ever need it again.

2. It's all about the Lowest Common Denominator i.e. as long as at the end of the day, my 3d BIM rendered model with bi-directional parametric controls ends up in the soiled hands of a non-english speaking immigrant day-laborer, then we'll need a 30x42 sheet of graphic information for him to look at and spill his coffee on. Supervisor, CM...maybe that's a different story. I guess I'm just saying I wouldn't hold my breath for a complete digital process and I'm not recommending dumping paper company stock any time soon.

P.S. Steve, We miss you! :)

[clarkitekt]

CD's (building drawings) and contracts. An unfortunate limitation of current standard contracts based on the archane notion that the only way to communicate design ideas is on a piece of paper. This will need to change (the contracts that is).

Think of the amount of information that is lossed translating a 3d idea (your building model) to a 2d piece of paper. Then the amount of waste for someone on the other end to look at this dumbed down 2d representation, mentally reconstruct their own 3d idea and then dumb it back down to 2d to send it back for approval... Anyone else here play the "whisper game"? Anyone else see the problem here?

[bpayne]

It's not really an "arcane notion", its an arcane reality. Nobody is fooling everyone to believe that blue-lines are the only way to build. It's just the way that makes the most sense (right now) given the technological expertise , education and skill of those involved in the building process.

[hand471037]

Out of plane curtain walls. No Problem. Try changing the angle of a single mullion (the rest remaining perpendicular or parralel to the work plane) in a curtain wall however (within the plane of the curtain wall still of course). Can't do it.

Actually, you probably could, using massing and careful planning.

And it would still know that it was a curtain wall.


Not even close. Sketch-up can't do the complex geometry modeling nor parametrics that formZ can do.

oh no, I know that. What I meant is that it would be used as a pure modeler in the early design phase, and then the models it produces would for the most part be thrown away and/or partially imported into something like Revit when you go to make it into a real building. I meant more 'realm' as in how the tool would be used within an office, not in capability. And you should check out the latest Sketchup! before saying that it can't do some of the things you talk about, it's come a long way recently, and some Building Product Manufacuters are even making custom content for it.


Absolutely. This IS indeed the value of BIM and Revit now. FormZ doesn't do schedules, structural calcs, linked views (or views even for that matter), revisions, etc.

well then it's not much of a help to me in putting a building together is it?

I mean, I know that Form-Z is a stronger modeler than Revit when it comes to pure geometry. Heck, Blender can do a lot of things Revit can't, and it's open source and free. But I don't create models for a living, I don't work for a movie house or game company, so the point's moot. When I need to make a building, I use Revit. When I need to make a prototype model of something for furniture/industrial design I turn to something else (Blender these days mostly)

And actually, the ONE feature that I wish Revit would take from Form-Z is the ability to do true scalable Axons. That rocks. That's something I very much wish I could do in Revit...


It does have a very robust API however that will allow for all of this to be developed.

By whom? You? One of the reasons that I use Revit is that it works today. I hear this from ADT guys all the time, that you *could* make it do something that Revit already does, or that *someday* you could do something that Revit already does right out of the box... so where's the value in using a tool that *someday* could do something over a tool that already does that something automatically and well right out of the box?


Additionally, and one of its largest shortcomings to be a serious contender is that you can't share the work load of the modeling as you can in Revit.

Yeah, this is something I think a lot of the folks who say, for example, that Max or ADT or something is 'way better' than Revit don't really understand. Revit has a real strength in it's collrbrative abilities, and how it allows everyone to work on the same thing at the same time pretty automatically. I wish worksets were easier & better, but it's still way better than what you have to go through on the ADT side to have everyone work together, and Max... well... I have no idea if it allows for such things at all.


The interface takes some getting use to. Once you understand its logic however you wouldn't want it any other way.

Yeah, it's totally a personal thing. UI preference is a really personal thing sometimes. I mean, I could say the same thing about Blender or Truespace, the 'once you get used to it you like it' thing, but that's pretty meaningless when you're talking to a non-technical user- see below.


As for being click heavy, you can asign keyboard shortcuts to anything just as you would in ACAD or Revit.

Oh, I know. But again, my job isn't using keyboard shortcuts for everything, it's Building Things. So what I'm getting at is Form-Z could have a keyboard shortcut for every last bit of it, and Revit could have none, and I'd still choose to use Revit instead.


I actually find Revit to still be too click and mouse heavy. You can set shortcuts but you can't access tool settings via shortcuts.

Yeah, it's something I've wanted for years. However, I don't let it bother me too much, for the tool's value I don't feel is impacted by it, and I use a Wacom tablet anyways, so it's not hard for me to use the Options bar instead. Revit ain't perfect, but presents an immense amount of value to me, so I don't get too worried about things like this. I'd rather the developers focus on other things in the short-term...


Since we are talking UI, Revit needs to consult some UI experts.

Whoa there cowboy. You're 'experts' are another man's curse. Just because there are certain ideas that make academic sense to the UI design community doesn't mean that Revit should be totally changed UI wise. I agree that it could use some help, and be a lot better, but in comparison to any other CAD/BIM/3D system I've every used I've yet to see another one that a lay person, a non-technical designer type, can pick up and make effective use of almost immediately.

I used to teach Revit professionally. I could get a non-technical person up and running and producing CD's in three day's time. I used to teach AutoCAD too, a long time back, and it would take that long just to get them to pay attention to the command line instead of looking for buttons or the crosshairs...

So, I'm just saying that while *you* might feel that some of the Revit UI is counter to what you know of as 'good' UI design, you should know that the Revit UI was largely designed with non-technical lay designers and such in mind, not highly-trained CAD/3D folks like you and I...


Agreed. I am not trying to bash Revit really. It takes us a long long way down the road. It is a great solution that is 1000 times better than anything else out there. I am only offering criticism as points of argument. Without that the tool will never evolve!

Oh yeah, totally. I see where you're coming from, and find a lot of value in these conversations...

[clarkitekt]

Just because there are certain ideas that make academic sense to the UI design community doesn't mean that Revit should be totally changed UI wise. I agree that it could use some help, and be a lot better, but in comparison to any other CAD/BIM/3D system I've every used I've yet to see another one that a lay person, a non-technical designer type, can pick up and make effective use of almost immediately.

Oh, this is actually something that I know a bit about. I have spent some time studying UI both on the computer and in the constructed world. And oh yeah. I absolutely agree with you here. I can teach someone to use the basics of Revit in an afternoon and they can build on that on their own. My point however is that over time, to become "one with the machine" so to speak, the UI must become engrained in the subconscious. Revits layout does not allow for this and in fact discourages it. Now you ask, who cares, it's good enough and can be learned fast? Well UI on the computer is much like Architecture actually. It does matter. First to the end users overall satisfaction. By dis-allowing the subconcious to guide, it forces conscious decisions at every instance. This builds confusion (albeit very minor, it's like a grain of sand in your shoe), frustration, mental fatigue, and ultimately disatisfaction. You would be suprised what an enormous difference the small things make in overall satisfaction. You and I (and most users on this forum) will have become callased to this grain of sand but the irratation is still there.

Conversly the UI of FormZ is actually fairly complex and takes more time to learn. However it's layout is conducive to cognitive mapping; it is easily engrained in the subconscious. Once you learn the "language" of the interface the use becomes intuitive and pushes acts into the pre-cognition range...you are at the tool you need before you start to conciously, visually look for it. Which means that ultimately the satisfaction (and efficiency of users of the software) is increased.

[J. Grouchy]

Oh, this is actually something that I know a bit about. I have spent some time studying UI both on the computer and in the constructed world. And oh yeah. I absolutely agree with you here. I can teach someone to use the basics of Revit in an afternoon and they can build on that on their own. My point however is that over time, to become "one with the machine" so to speak, the UI must become engrained in the subconscious. Revits layout does not allow for this and in fact discourages it. Now you ask, who cares, it's good enough and can be learned fast? Well UI on the computer is much like Architecture actually. It does matter. First to the end users overall satisfaction. By dis-allowing the subconcious to guide, it forces conscious decisions at every instance. This builds confusion (albeit very minor, it's like a grain of sand in your shoe), frustration, mental fatigue, and ultimately disatisfaction. You would be suprised what an enormous difference the small things make in overall satisfaction. You and I (and most users on this forum) will have become callased to this grain of sand but the irratation is still there.

I think a number of examples of what you are talking about are floating around on the wish list...so you're not wrong. There are a number of instances of things that take time, multiple clicks, or constant scrolling or searching to accomplish in Revit. Also, sometimes the terminology can throw a person off.

[Andre Baros]

Wow, what started out as an "out there" thread, has become quite informative on how Revit can grow. I personally think that Revit, while better than anything else I've used, does have room for improvement in precisely the area's that we're talking about here: UI, advanced modeling, shortcuts, etc. It only helps to be able to learn what other programs are doing better.

On the issue of construction and producing the the lowest common denominator, I'm personally sick of the lowest common laziness. I've found that when I have challenged builders and owners to look beyond the norm, they have always risen to the occasion. I just had to be willing to think differently, draw differently and push myself first not wait for a client or a builder to ask. We're the paid professionals, clients rarely come to us with radical new ideas; they're looking for us to guide them not just do drawings. Contractors will NEVER come to us saying, "hey could you draw something new and give me an .STL file so that I can machine this staircase for you instead of reading your drawings" but that doesn't mean we can't start that ball rolling.

Finally, the notion that "non-English speaking" contractors require printed drawings is insulting. I would rather have a crew who can't speak English, that a crew who can't build. In the part of the US where I'm working, every good crew has an accent, even the ones who have been here for a few generations.

[hand471037]

Oh, this is actually something that I know a bit about.

hey, great post. I think you nailed it dead-on: how can you make a UI that's accessible to the lay user, but in time allows those that wish to grow with it into advanced users (without screwing up the basic casual user).

Autodesk has had a very bad past history in this regard, the UI was mostly focused to the demands of the 'power user' and every new idea or concept on it's arrangement was adopted from version to version, so that you had a lot of change that didn't really matter much except to a very small group of 'expert's. My bosses at the time were more hampered by the fact that printing changed and wasn't easy anymore or that a particular function had changed name or location that I think I was aided by the change as a 'power user'. Now you've even got a large camp of folks who I think would be willing to pay Autodesk to *stop* changing the UI in AutoCAD/ADT, features be dammed, just because of this semi-nessary 'churning' of workflow and UI. And then you've got the very real problem with it being so focused on the 'power users' that the casual users can't just use the tools from time-to-time. An old Office I worked for had a copy of Viz that no one used. I watched four different people that had all used Viz at some point decide to use it on a project, spend a day or two struggling with it, and then just abandon it altogether because it was simply too slow to get back up to speed on it and do the work they needed (however the bad part of this is that then I would typically get asked to do whatever it was they needed as a 3D model in Revit, and my workload would increase ;) ). Or the fact that this same office used a highly-customized AutoCAD setup, that was a beast, and required a lot of overhead to move from version to version, and in the end just made new hires slower for a long time until they learned it and made the office as a whole resistant to any new features within AutoCAD, even if they did the job better than the customization. And they had so much invested in this customization that they felt the need to keep it so as to not appear stupid, and in the end the really sad fact was that I or anyone else who knew a lot about AutoCAD could crank out the work just as fast, if not faster, *not* using the customization at all...

Then, on the other side of things, we've got Adobe & Photoshop. My wife's a pro photographer. All digital, but she's not technical, and has zero pacence for anything 'geeky' if she can't see the immediate value of it (if you haven't guessed I'm the geek here). However, I know that when her work bought her a copy of Photoshop CS to upgrade from Photoshop 7 she didn't need any retraining at all, and was back up to speed in no time. And she's a real 'Power User' (god I hate that term) of photoshop, shortcuts, tools, the works, she's quite 'one with the machine' there, to the point that it's fun for people to watch her work with it (just like people like to watch me work in Revit). However, I know I could give Photoshop CS to an old boss of mine who only knows Photoshop 5, and it wouldn't be an issue. Or those that only use Photoshop every, say, 4-6 months or so have no problem putting it down and picking it up again...

So while I agree that Revit could use more of the 'power user' UI elements, I worry greatly about Autodesk being at the helm of that effort, for with many of their tools they STILL don't get it when it comes to UI design IMHO. I know, I know, the original team is still in place for Revit, but I'm still concerned that pressures from others within Autodesk might quickly dilute and mess Revit up in this regard... hence why I was touchy about you saying that Revit needed a complete UI 'overhaul'.

And, on a final note, I work with a guy who's got a really good background in software. old smalltalk guy. He talks about smalltalk, and if you don't know, it was one of the first OO languages out there. Many of it's ideas are in Java, Ruby, Python, .Net, however Smalltalk was doing them for the last 30 years. And you can run code that was written 30 years ago without a hitch on smalltalk today. However, Smalltalk always had it's own UI, it's own interface, it's own environment. And while it was a good one, well designed, and had some fantastic technology behind it, it never caught on in the popular market, simply because it didn't act and behave the same as what people were expecting from their 'native' OS that the smalltalk code was running on. It didn't matter at all that it was technically vastly superior to say a Windows 3.1 application written using COM api's, because it didn't *look and feel* the same, people avoided it. So now, this group of folks, the smalltalk people, some of the most advanced computer scientists in the world, are all saying the same thing: Native Interfaces Win. Give the people what they want, what they expect, and sometime our ideas of what's 'superior' are irrelevant to actually solving the problems on hand...

[hand471037]

Finally, the notion that "non-English speaking" contractors require printed drawings is insulting. I would rather have a crew who can't speak English, that a crew who can't build. In the part of the US where I'm working, every good crew has an accent, even the ones who have been here for a few generations.

yeah, I used to frame houses in Arizona to pay my way through school. Some of the crews spoke little English, but they sometimes could frame a house in a day. Damn could they work hard and fast!

Now, being here in the Bay Area, just because of local cultures and peoples here, I actually get *worried* when I'm working on a job and a certain sub *doesn't* have an accent. 'what do you mean the finish painter isn't Italian? What do you mean that the Electricians / Steel fabricators aren't either Irish or Chinese? What kind job is this? Did you hire someone who knows what they are doing here?' :D

(note: that's a joke above. I'm certain there are plenty of decent folks here in the Bay Area for all of these trades. Just then when I was doing lots of work in the local commercial interiors market, the three best painters we worked with were all Italian families, and the best electrian we worked with was all Irish, so if they weren't on your job you got worried...)

[bpayne]

It was not my intention to insult non-English speaking people. If I did, I sincerely apologize. My point was to give an extreme if not typical situation, in which our 3d computer models would hypothetically be used. The fact still remains that although advancing technology is great, it only takes one limiting factor to curtail everything.


Example....modular building technology in architecture is doing some cool things. Problem: the size of the modules are limited because they still have to fit under freeway overpasses and street lights. It would be great if they didn't! Even when we are not limited by technology, we often are limited by real world issues of practicality.

It's great to imagine and speculate on the future of BIM's. But when we hand a design off to be built, we have to remember who's building it. That's all i was trying to say.

Please don't hate me! :)

[Marek Brandstatter]

Oh, this is actually something that I know a bit about. I have spent some time studying UI both on the computer and in the constructed world. If you really want to make a difference...

http://www.jobsearch.org/seeker/jobsearch/quick?action=JobSearchViewJob&JobSearch_JobId=19137757&JobSearchType=JobSearch


User Interface Designer
This position is responsible for interaction design and ongoing analysis of product usability for both Revit and Desktop-based products. This role analyzes and reviews product requirements from a user interface perspective while mapping complex problems related to interaction design and information architecture.

[Andre Baros]

No offense taken, this thread has been very interesting. I just wanted to add that for every stupid move I've seen a contractor make, I've seen them rise to the occation with creative solutions to problems and a lot a quality craft (considered dead by many) still exists in the workforce.

Happy Monday morning!

[cosmickingpin]

You know what? If I was Form-Z, I wouldn't go try to build some reputation off challenging Revit. Stick to the easy meat like ADT or ArchiCad. BTW Form-z could really try to clean up their forum by adding subtopics, I took me a while to find this so called challenge in that gaint heap mess they call a discussion forum. And so what if they got the "lawnmower man" all psyched up and ready to model like a fiend and actually happens to best a revit user. So what? what would that prove? that one user of for-z was a little faster than one paticular revit user at producing, and only producing one specific model. BFD... They just want a blip to put on their advertising.

[michael.dewberry]

My point however is that over time, to become "one with the machine" so to speak, the UI must become engrained in the subconscious. Revits layout does not allow for this and in fact discourages it.


Hi Clarkitekt, I wholeheartedly agree that consistent UI is very important for developing proficiency with software. However, I'm not sure exactly what you mean in this case. Can you give examples of tools that are not consistently placed? How does Revit's layout discourage subconscious absorption for you?

We are always looking for specific feedback on user interface issues. Thanks!

Michael Dewberry
Autodesk Revit

[Wes Macaulay]

I have found that FormZ users have struggled more than other users with Revit's UI. Perhaps its UI lends to a different mental model than Revit's?

[Shaun v Rooyen]

My point however is that over time, to become "one with the machine" so to speak, the UI must become engrained in the subconscious. Revits layout does not allow for this and in fact discourages it. Now you ask, who cares, it's good enough and can be learned fast? Well UI on the computer is much like Architecture actually. It does matter. First to the end users overall satisfaction. By dis-allowing the subconcious to guide, it forces conscious decisions at every instance.

Clarkitekt, Maybe it's your subconscious, that doesn't get it. In 15 years of software analysis and extensive use, I have never come across software that is so easy and logical in it's UI, as well as so suited to our industry. If I wanted my subconscious to guide, I would slap mechanical arms on and go work on a vehicle production line. Part of the overall satisfaction I gain from Revit, is the fact that my conscious state is always alert/alive, and this fulfills a sense of achievement, not only in the software but in everyday tasks that get completed with such ease. So for me it's not as much as subconscious absorption that is required from software but more the logical processes that it should follow. Here-in lies the key to Revit. Find the logic and all the doors open.

[janunson]

I'm with Leonid that this is a waste of time - really...

If you were using Revit, what would the point of FormZ be? maybe building a form that you can't currently model in Revit... but otherwise, FormZ is a waste of time.


I think it's a worthwhile discussion to compare the two programs anyway. precicely because i can get things done in FormZ that i can't get done in Revit. I think some of the primitives and boolean functions in FormZ are worth looking at for future Revit development... There are shapes i can't get easily or accurately modeled in Revit that are a snap in formZ. Of course, the buildling arguement is rediculous... but individual complex geometry... We do have to do that in a building too... whether it's furniture or a funky building detail, column capitol, etc. It'd be nice to never have to leave the Revit interface.

just another $0.02...

[janunson]

Hi Clarkitekt, I wholeheartedly agree that consistent UI is very important for developing proficiency with software. However, I'm not sure exactly what you mean in this case. Can you give examples of tools that are not consistently placed? How does Revit's layout discourage subconscious absorption for you?

We are always looking for specific feedback on user interface issues. Thanks!

Michael Dewberry
Autodesk Revit

I think the one disadvantage in the Revit interface is that the same command isn't always at the same screen coordinates or available under the same key command in different circumstances -

I can't type the same key to start a line command in a plan view as in a sketch command as in a family edit... and the button is in a slightly different spot. same with some of the others... the subconcious thing the other guy was talking about i can understand, because in many programs i don't have to find the icon to start the command, there's a motion-memory thing that my hand knows how to hit that button w/out me thinking about it. with Revit, some commands require several clicks to arrange the design bar to get to the button, and some commands are in different places at different times, requiring that motion-memory to have multiple locations/motions based on the context... it does make learning to the point of automatic (meaning i spend no time thinking about the interface) a little slower.

Some commands that move depending on the context: Lines, Model Lines, even the buttons that allow you to pick different kinds of lines (curves, splines, etc. on the option bar) is in a slightly different spot on the screen for floors, walls, lines, stairs, etc. and the Design Bar keeps everything top-justified so that something like quit/finish sketch is at the bottom of the list every time, but a different place on screen....

The way Revit arranges these tools is very efficent for screen real-estate, better than most other products, i think, but that does lend to slightly different locations for items and some people learn software in a tactile way that makes that make a difference.

[Wes Macaulay]

We've run into two situations over the past three years where clients couldn't get a shape they wanted from Revit. One of the forms didn't get built: too hard to build.

While better modeling capabilities in Revit are a must, most designers won't need them.

[janunson]

I have found that FormZ users have struggled more than other users with Revit's UI. Perhaps its UI lends to a different mental model than Revit's?

Both pieces of software use the mental model "I'm using the best software out there, so these other ones are not different, but inconvenient."

..Seriously, though... I think you might be on to something... I love both programs, actually, and while they're both related to 3D modeling there's a fork in the road somewhere where you choose between 3D Modeling and Building Simulation, and Revit and FormZ are both about as far down different forks as software has gotten these days. FormZ still caries some Macintosh baggage w/ it's click style/pick style (based on 1 button only) and it is a very honed, analytical, organized heirarchical interface.. the pallate is organized into heirarchy, you build commands by setting options in several picks on screen, and even each object is a heirarchy of points, Lines, Faces, Solids, Groups that require an analytical concentration on what you're doing at what level.

I think Revit's commands are based on what an architect with a pencil and Mayline wants to do, and they're organized in a more procedural, narrative kind of way rather than the analytical, gridded heirarchy of FormZ... a definite difference in overal approach to interface.

[Andre Baros]

This thread seams to be on two tracks. UI and Forms.

Regarding forms, I don't think you need to be doing very dramatic forms to require better modeling tools. Every handrail we do could benefit from sweeps along 3d splines (not along a single work plane) every handle and we would benefit from a loft tool (revolves are only good for knobs) even ductwork would be easier with a blend tool which could use multiple profiles and a path. (We don't usually need to model ductwork unless it isn't straight) This is also not a case of modeling too much instead of just detailing it. It's faster and easier to draw a single 3d form than to work out a plan, elevation, section, etc. (the whole point of Revit).

The UI would benefit from the ability to lock a few things in place... and keep them locked.

[janunson]

We've run into two situations over the past three years where clients couldn't get a shape they wanted from Revit. One of the forms didn't get built: too hard to build.

While better modeling capabilities in Revit are a must, most designers won't need them.
I won't argue with you there... unless your Frank Gehry, you don't need better modeling tools for building elements in Revit! your client can't afford the construction! But limits are never a good thing, and in the squarest building of all, i might want to do some unusual built-in casework that requires shapes that are more easily built with more complicated modeling tools...

Here's another example - i need to do an elevated freeway next to my building because of the impact on design - In FormZ i could create the whole thing with 1 2-path sweep along a pair of 3D splines... i can't even begin to do that in Revit.

[Andre Baros]

No offense, and it's not just in this thread, but I'm sooo tired of Frank Gehry references with regards to modeling. There is a lot architecture, which is not square and is better than Frank Gehry which gets discounted by such comments. We're not doing "Frank Gehry" so we don't need mature tools, can't afford "Frank Gehry" so we don't need modeling tools, can't figure out how do use what I've already got so I don't need more. I agree with your comment about the freeway ramp, but there is a lot of architecture which isn't Frank Gehry which does need better modeling tools.

[janunson]

I would agree with you. We definietly need the better modeling tools. Frank Gehry is now just a figure of speach to represent form-driven, impractical, expensive construction... I agree that there's a lot of real architecture that could benefit from such tools. My own work included. That's why i comment.

My point was that the tools aren't needed for more complex shapes necessarily... they're needed for easier production, and rapid development of forms no matter the complexity.

[clarkitekt]

Definitely an interesting topic. There are several topics branching out here but I will offer a couple of opinions first and then make an attempt at answering Michael's inquiry.

Frank Gehry whether you care for the form/ideology of his buildings or not is pushing the building industry in a new direction. Now we could argue all day whether or not this is a good thing but I will leave it at that. I happen to think that he is pushing the practice portion in the right direction so respect what he is doing whether I like the final product or not. Being in Kansas City, we have had opportunity to work with, on several occasions, the A. Zahner Company, the fabrication shop that has brought to life many of Gehry's conceptions complex sheet metal conceptions. What is inter sting about this shop is that Zahner is by any account extremely technologically advanced. Their "shop" drawing process is completely in the 3d model. They also don't want paper drawings. They want an architectural model that conveys the design intent and the constraints in which they are able to work (the 3d "framework" that they are to fill in). They take this model and fill in the details that allows them to fabricate the components of the system. Every piece of metal, before it is sent out to the floor for fabrication, is digitally fabricated on the digital model of the building. Now where this gets really interesting is that they are cost competitive even on smaller (and less complex) projects. Because they are modeling every piece in place on the actual building model before they ever fabricate, they know exactly how much sheet metal they have on the building and exactly how much waste will be generated (and they can work to minimize this before it goes to the shop), they also have had opportunity to examine any trouble spots and generate a solution before fabrication and before it is a problem in the field (which can become incredibly costly). Because they have virtually eliminated errors, know exact materials and costs, they are able to bid competitively because they don't have to inflate their numbers to cover potential errors and omissions and field error.

Obviously the initial cost is steep and obviously not every builder out there will be able to push this far, but the technology is there for the taking but the cost benefit of a digital, date driven process is being proven by some leaders in the AEC industry. If you want further proof, you must only look as far as the Automobile industry, the ship building industry and the airline industry. While those models are not entirely applicable to buildings there are some very important lessons to be learned there. Cars today are quieter, more comfortable, economical, incredibly safer, more features (just think radio/tape/CD play, speaker systems, navigation systems, air conditioner, electric seats, heated seats, etc, etc), more reliable, and more fuel efficient than they were 30 years ago yet are relatively the same price or even less expensive when adjusted for inflation. How is this possible? Well for several reasons, one of which is that these companies are vigorous about finding and eliminating inefficiencies in the process. What is different between the house that was built last week and the one built 30 years ago? Can it make any of the claims listed above?

[clarkitekt]

Michael,
I am glad to see that you all are listening. I will have to post an answer to your question this weekend as it will take some diagrams and references to research (to back me up) to give you a thorough answer...all of which will take some time to generate and track down.

[clarkitekt]

Clarkitekt, Maybe it's your subconscious, that doesn't get it. In 15 years of software analysis and extensive use, I have never come across software that is so easy and logical in it's UI, as well as so suited to our industry. If I wanted my subconscious to guide, I would slap mechanical arms on and go work on a vehicle production line. Part of the overall satisfaction I gain from Revit, is the fact that my conscious state is always alert/alive, and this fulfills a sense of achievement, not only in the software but in everyday tasks that get completed with such ease. So for me it's not as much as subconscious absorption that is required from software but more the logical processes that it should follow. Here-in lies the key to Revit. Find the logic and all the doors open.

It is very possible that it is just my subconscious that "doesn't get it." But I doubt it. As I have stated before, I am not going to argue that Revit is easy to use. It is indeed very intuitive and logical. It could just be better.

Letting your subconscious guide: Maybe YOU do everything consciously in your every day work...but I doubt it. I very seriously doubt it in fact. Allow me to prove it to you...

As your eyes skim this post, consider what you are seeing as you read it. Do your eyes fall on each letter individually for consideration? I suspect not. I would venture that you read the words that are typed here fluently, stopping only occasionally to consider a particular word or combination of words which you have not seen before. I actually doubt that you have consciously considered each letter individually in a word for a very long time. Your mind, your subconscious, has "seen" the letters and the form of the words, before you consciously visualize the word, and assigned meaning to it. You are also subconsciously considering the context of what you are reading and generating expectations accordingly. These tasks are only passed to the conscious if there is some sort of conflict that uhkers. (Notice that you paused to consider, consciously, that misspelled word? Because you were subconsciously expecting a word with a very different form, the recognition task was passed from the subconscious to the conscious.) Without your subconscious guiding you, you will be consciously stuck with the arduous task of spelling out each word individually, building the word consciously, and then finally building the meaning of the sentences consciously. Obviously this would make the task of reading a tad time consuming. Like you, a prefer being "alert" and "alive"; cognizant of myself as I exist and interact with the world around me, but I am happy to leave the arduous tasks such as letter/feature recognition to my subconscious.

[Wes Macaulay]

I agree that there are inconsistencies in Revit's behaviour as noted in earlier posts: these minor quirks are now part of an experienced Revit user's regime. They should be fixed -- lines in sketch mode should be accessible by the same keystroke that the line tool uses. Some of these fixes might upset the apple cart for awhile but logic should always take the upper hand!

The mental model is harder to pin down. You'd need a product designer and an experienced user from each platform to articulate their idea of the modeling and workflow processes -- or what a form is: is it a wall? a floor? or a roof? In Revit these categorisations are needed to separate them for scheduling and behavioral purposes, but other modeling apps don't make these clear distinctions.

Any software developer is well-advised to sit down with as many potential users and find out what the most probable mental model is.

And I should add: I expect this is exactly what Revit's developers did.

[Shaun v Rooyen]

It is very possible that it is just my subconscious that "doesn't get it." But I doubt it. As I have stated before, I am not going to argue that Revit is easy to use. It is indeed very intuitive and logical. It could just be better. .

If the Lord dropped a piece of string from the sky, which allowed us to tug on when we were not happy with the weather, it would be pulled endlessly. No one person would be satisfied with the others choices.
nlm
_Y

[Andre Baros]

Ok, one more bit of information on form in architecture, and cost. The latest issue of Praxis (sorry I don't have it in front of me so I'm working from memory) listed something like 40 or 50 recent museums. Interestingly, the cost per square foot of the Guggenheim Bilbao was a LOT lower than many other buildings. Even taking inflation, and location into account, it was a fraction of the cost of the new MOMA (straight lines only). I think part of this has to do with how "smart" a design like Gehry's needs to be in order to get built, vs the "brute force" that a box sometimes gets away with.

No strings needed here, the weather is always good.

[hand471037]

Actually, I've been reading a great book on Mr. Ghery, that's all just interviews with him and such about his projects.

The main reason he's able to do the complex projects has little to do with the modeling tools, actually, and more to do with the actual BIM process he's using. He's able to, along with the skin fabricators, pretty accurately price his projects at an early phase. So when the client balks at the curvy forms, and says that they will be too expensive, or the main contractor says they will be too expensive, they have real numbers and data to back up that, actually, it will only add 10-15% to the budget.

And then they apparently say, hey, if you don't want to do it well then here's the building, here's the design, all the rooms and programming and such is worked out, so here, take the design, go build a box instead, take our name off and pay us for the time we spent so far, we don't care. But for 10-15% more than the box, you get the nice curvy building instead.

So, actually, the main 'enabler' of Ghery is the cost data, not Catia's 3D modeling abilities. While Catia certainly helps them arrive at that cost number, it's actually the 'BIM' approach that allows them to do what they do, for they have a pretty good idea of what it's going to really take to build it. pretty cool stuff I think.

[clarkitekt]

Actually, I've been reading a great book on Mr. Ghery, that's all just interviews with him and such about his projects.

The main reason he's able to do the complex projects has little to do with the modeling tools, actually, and more to do with the actual BIM process he's using. He's able to, along with the skin fabricators, pretty accurately price his projects at an early phase. So when the client balks at the curvy forms, and says that they will be too expensive, or the main contractor says they will be too expensive, they have real numbers and data to back up that, actually, it will only add 10-15% to the budget.

And then they apparently say, hey, if you don't want to do it well then here's the building, here's the design, all the rooms and programming and such is worked out, so here, take the design, go build a box instead, take our name off and pay us for the time we spent so far, we don't care. But for 10-15% more than the box, you get the nice curvy building instead.

So, actually, the main 'enabler' of Ghery is the cost data, not Catia's 3D modeling abilities. While Catia certainly helps them arrive at that cost number, it's actually the 'BIM' approach that allows them to do what they do, for they have a pretty good idea of what it's going to really take to build it. pretty cool stuff I think.

Precisely. It has nothing to do with the software and everything to do with the processes. Gehry's office and A Zahner from what I under stand don't use Catia exclusively or maybe as much as you would think. From what I understand, they use Rhino as much as they can and push what they need into Catia. Don't quote me on that though but I recall reading an article once upon a time about the process at Gehry's office...

[clarkitekt]

.

If the Lord dropped a piece of string from the sky, which allowed us to tug on when we were not happy with the weather, it would be pulled endlessly. No one person would be satisfied with the others choices.
nlm
_Y

No one person thinks or is ever statisfied with the same things; that is in fact the beauty of life. There are however some universalities that we, as designers, both in architecture and in this case considering the UI of a software, are able to work within. The human brain (or mind, depending on how you consider it) contains a universal framework from birth to communicate. Consider the following.

http://www.indiana.edu/~langacq/E105/Nicaragua.html

[jpolding]

.

If the Lord dropped a piece of string from the sky, which allowed us to tug on when we were not happy with the weather, it would be pulled endlessly. No one person would be satisfied with the others choices.
nlm
_Y
I disagree with the string metaphor.
When I lived in Mexico I would occacionally try to start a conversation by commenting on the beautiful weather (because that's all it was). Most people just looked at me like "duh" and promptly changed the subject.
On the otherhand, here in Canada, I not only have started conversations but have spoke for hours about the weather.
My point is...if the weather was warm and sunny no one would touch that string. And if they did I'de have to get my hockey stick and...

[Scott D Davis]

...if the weather was warm and sunny no one would touch that string.Except for the farmer whose crops are drying up in the drought because no one will pull the string....(for fear of beating via hockey stick! :o )

[J. Grouchy]

I disagree with the string metaphor.
When I lived in Mexico I would occacionally try to start a conversation by commenting on the beautiful weather (because that's all it was). Most people just looked at me like "duh" and promptly changed the subject.
On the otherhand, here in Canada, I not only have started conversations but have spoke for hours about the weather.
My point is...if the weather was warm and sunny no one would touch that string. And if they did I'de have to get my hockey stick and...

ah well...i'm one of the few who tends to prefer cooler and more dramatic weather (clouds, rain, snow and wind...)...so i'd've shot the bull with ya over the weather down there (i would have likely been complaining about the heat and humidity like i do now.)

[Gadget Man]

... Interesting things to consider. Fun, this imagining the future is eh?
Yeah, That's what they were saying then... (see picture below) ;-)

[Haden]

Yeah, That's what they were saying then... (see picture below) ;-)
I think Jerry deserves the gold star for this one! :lol: Where did you find this image? I would love to get an enlarged copy to frame and put on the wall!!!

[iru69]

I think Jerry deserves the gold star for this one! :lol: Where did you find this image? I would love to get an enlarged copy to frame and put on the wall!!!
How about the original instead?

Still... the 1954 version is a classic...

[Haden]

How about the original instead?
OK -- now I have to know where that came from.:?:

[iru69]

OK -- now I have to know where that came from.:?:
http://www.snopes.com/inboxer/hoaxes/computer.asp

[Gadget Man]

All right, as it turns out, it WAS a hoax! But I was absolutely fooled too... along with (I am sure) thousands of other people. But that is not a point!

The point is, that while this particular model might not be created then and there, it is absolutely realistic to assume that the people (or majority of them) would imagine 50 years ahead just this way (if not worse)!

Boy oh boy! At Monash University (Melbourne) there is (was) on a display a computer storage device in form of an aluminium disk 5 mm thick, of about 0.5 meter in diameter (from memory - it might be bigger), capable of storing a "whopping" 1 Mb of data! And what a success that was then!

I am sure that hips more of such "pearls" is on display at various places. That only proves, that we shouldn't try to predict, what is going to happen to the technology in the future.

[jpolding]

Except for the farmer whose crops are drying up in the drought because no one will pull the string....(for fear of beating via hockey stick! :o )
Okay, I'll let the farmers pull the string, but only at night...or else.:evil:

Maybe a submarine console would be better for controlling the weather.:lol:

That picture made my day!

[jpolding]

ah well...i'm one of the few who tends to prefer cooler and more dramatic weather (clouds, rain, snow and wind...)...so i'd've shot the bull with ya over the weather down there (i would have likely been complaining about the heat and humidity like i do now.)
Snow? Atlanta? Where's my hockey stick!:)

[janunson]

Yeah, That's what they were saying then... (see picture below) ;-)
Speaking of which - here's my new Revit Computer. Hopefully it'll keep up!

[bowlingbrad]

Speaking of which - here's my new Revit Computer. Hopefully it'll keep up!

It doesn't hold a candle to mine!

[aaronrumple]

...even better.

I could have picked up 8 of these free about 5 years ago. They sell for at leat $1200 on ebay now.

[bowlingbrad]

You're right, Aaron. Much better.

The Altair had blinking lights...