Cadalyst - January 2008 - (Page 42)

aecinsight In this article 3D Systems Google SketchUp rapidArc www.3dsystems.com Adobe Systems www.sketchup.com Graphisoft’s ArchiCAD www.rapidarch.com Robert McNeel & Associates’ Rhino www.adobe.com auto•des•sys’ form•Z www.graphisoft.com LGM Model www.rhino3d.com Roland DGA, Advanced Solutions Division www.formz.com Autodesk www.lgmmodel.com Microsoft www.rolanddga.com/asd Stratasys www.autodesk.com CADspan www.microsoft.com Nemetschek North America’s VectorWorks www.stratasys.com Z Corp. www.cadspan.com www.nemetschek.net www.zcorp.com This case is confirmed by results of a survey included as an appendix to Panos’ thesis. Regardless of age, years of experience, size of firm, or types of projects, 60% of respondents identified pencil and paper as their favorite tools, with 80% starting their design process on paper. The runners up included SketchUp, 3D physical models, 3DStudio Viz/Max, AutoCAD, ArchiCAD, form•Z (figure 1, p. 41), Revit, and Photoshop. Other favored tools ranged from the expected such as Maya, Rhino, and VectorWorks to surprises such as Microsoft Excel and Word (for conceptual design!). Adobe InDesign and Illustrator were not mentioned (perhaps because the Adobe Creative Suite was being revamped at the time of the survey), and Autodesk Impression had not yet been introduced to the market. By a two-to-one margin, respondents used multiple software packages (rather than just one), despite frustration with data exchange between tools. Sixty-three percent believed computer tools allow them to design “better,” whereas 22% said faster but not better; 10% saw no change, and only 3% rated the effect of software on conceptual design as negative. Aspects of their work that respondents rated improved by digital tools included visualization, communication, exploration of more alternatives, exploration of more complex geometry, improved perception, more organized thinking, and “getting inspired.” Putting It Together Renée Cheng, head of the School of Architecture, College of Design, University of Minnesota, is among the most thoughtful and insightful observers and teachers of processes through which design ideas are mediated by technology. Cheng says students today “come in with great fluency in digital tools, so that schools of architecture no longer need to teach computer skills or specific software.” However, she notes that “students don’t choose tools well and often stick with them too long — they get stuck but don’t always know enough to know that they’re stuck.” The teacher’s job, then, is “to push students to use different tools and media . . . to ask different questions about the design.” In Professor Cheng’s view, “any tool is more powerful if it is part of a cycle of digital and analog, going back and forth, rather than a linear progression 42 January 2008 | cadalyst | www.cadalyst.com from sketching first, then digital modeling, with no return.” She encourages her students to do the same with 3D models and digital tools, “3D printing the model, sectioning it on the Figure 2. 3D printing, typically by a proband saw, modi- cess called stereolithography, closes a loop fying, and gluing between digital representation and physical models and is especially useful for studyit back together ing design relationships at the conceptual before remodelphase. Theater design created by H3 Hardy ing it in the Collaboration Architecture; concept model computer.” by LGM; model photo by Jon Grinney. Although prices from vendors such as Z Corp., 3D Systems, Stratasys, and Roland continue to decline for 3D printers and cutting machines that generate physical models from software, the hardware still strains the budgets of design schools and design firms alike. This area is where service bureaus such as LGM (figure 2) step in with services to prepare digital design models for printing (CADspan) as well as Web-based services for getting relatively simple models done quickly from 2D or 3D files (rapidArch). Some design software vendors such as auto•des•sys (form•Z) also offer 3D printing services to their customers as another means of closing the representational loop and doing the DEED. Acknowledgments I’d like to thank Panos Parthenios for his permission to excerpt his research and Renée Cheng for generously sharing her expertise. C Industry analyst and consultant Jerry Laiserin helps AEC/O businesses — and the technology providers who serve them — build smarter through the integration of technology strategy and business process. E-mail him at jerry@laiserin.com. http://www.3dsystems.com http://www.sketchup.com http://www.rapidarch.com http://www.adobe.com http://www.graphisoft.com http://www.rhino3d.com http://www.formz.com http://www.lgmmodel.com http://www.rolanddga.com/asd http://www.autodesk.com http://www.microsoft.com http://www.stratasys.com http://www.cadspan.com http://www.nemetschek.net http://www.zcorp.com http://www.cadalyst.com

Table of Contents Feed for the Digital Edition of Cadalyst - January 2008

Cadalyst - January 2008 Contents Editor's Window Cad Central Chasing the Dolphins CAD that Won’t Break the Bank AliasStudio 2008 — Design and Visualization Software VectorWorks 2008 — CAD/BIM Authoring Software Dell Precision M4300 — Mobile Workstation What’s in Store for 2008? Low- or No-Cost CAD Goliath Reinvented Doin’ the DEED Cad Cartoon Issue Indexes The Return of Hot Tip Harry

Cadalyst - January 2008

For optimal viewing of this digital publication, please enable JavaScript and then refresh the page. If you would like to try to load the digital publication without using Flash Player detection, please click here.