The Designers 3D CAD Shootout
|
The Designers 3D CAD Shootout |
|
Project :
A Conference Center for an Alpine Resort
Location :
Aspen, Colorado
for details on the design project criteria scroll to bottom of this page
Juror 1
This year the building project seemed simpler, and all of the teams seemed to develop the basic building faster, so it is surprising that all of the teams are missing at least some of the required drawings. There were more explicit required 3D elements - six this year as opposed to just two or three in past years -- and this was the first time that three stories of floorplans were asked for. Still, there were no bothersome added vignette design problems (a big improvement over the past two years of this event) and the teams were free to choose their own construction materials and style within the alpine theme on a relatively easy rectangular site. Even still, none of the teams designed the ramp on the lower deck, few did the 2D detail section of the fireplace, and almost none of the teams produced either the animation or the VRML web model. One issue that theoretically made the building design project easier - that of the provided building footprint (which was a 50'x150' rectangle) combined with the requirement for steep gables and dormers with decks, unfortunately resulted in eight design solutions that are extremely similar. Still, the resulting design projects are impressive for three hours of work, and watching them get created was extremely informative.
Arris Team
The Arris Team is always fun to watch, and every year has one of the most completely done design projects, and this year was no exception. Their dynamic, impressive, and clear presentations both while they were working as well as in the formal presentations the next day emphasized architectural design with great presentation technique, meanwhile you could tell, behind the scenes, there was some amazingly impressive and powerful technology and CADD. These guys sure make it look easy. The level of rendering has always been astounding, and if we had not watched them do it right in front of us we would have guessed that the rendering alone should have taken hours. The EZ visualization software, where you can dynamically show the rendered building and slice sections, is absolutely something every design principal should have for presentations. At the same time they developed a pretty nice set of 2D plans sections and elevations. For the design of the building, this team chose to magnify the required 3D entrance portico and incorporate it as a palladian gabled facade, which makes this design distinctive from the others. Also, unlike the other teams, this design is brick with heavy frame truss elements at the four main gables. The smaller dormers seem to have the required french doors, but don't seem to have decks -- possibly an oversight or design decision, perhaps we will see if it is a software limitation in the 3D CADD Web Challenge version. Altogether a wonderful job with extraordinary software.
ArchiCAD Team
The ArchiCAD team ended up developing a nice building design, more complete than is apparent from the submitted drawings online. The sole ArchiCAD team member who wonderfully volunteered to fill in literally at last minute wanted to stick to the letter of the rules and only submit the images he captured during the actual 3 hours of the charrette. During the presentations, though, he showed the entire finished building model, and that all the dimensioned plans, sections, and elevations were done - testament to the power and ease of the ArchiCAD software as well as his fortitude and design skill. To concentrate on the building design, he left four of the 3D elements out for strategy reasons (we look forward to seeing how he does those later in the online 3D CADD Web Challenge). The design also takes advantage of ArchiCAD's unique ability to simply designate the walls as log walls, for that rustic look, which we saw in the renderings during the presentation. For a design schema, this ArchiCAD Team initially wanted to do a kind of alliterative take-off of the existing adjacent hotel lodge - a great idea, but the fact that the source model was corrupted by AutoCAD, (which the ArchiCAD Team did not know) caused them to loose close to an hour of time in the three hour charrette. After abandoning that approach, they did a more modest log wall gabled with dormers design which worked out well. The design has a long deck on the valley side creating a veranda underneath, all settled nicely into a 3D modeled site - though we need to speak to that contractor about that grass seeping onto the porch.
TriForma Engineers Team
Actually it was astounding how much of the explicit detail engineering, including structural connections and sizing, mechanical HVAC ductwork, cost analysis, and schedules, was possible in such a limited period of time with MicroStation TriForma. Certainly their structural problem was somewhat easier given a rectangular building footprint, and, once the general building design program size was known the HVAC designer chose and started conceptually laying out the building systems before the actual architecture was known, so that all could work in parallel. The engineers went much further though, framing out that steep gable and dormers as well. Interesting that they chose steel framing, when several of the other teams went with either timber frame or even log framing, though the teams were free to choose, and certainly a very valid case can be made for steel being an appropriate choice. A lot of the final images, while different layers or something is turned on, are from the exact same axonometric view, so it is hard to distinguish them, so we wish they had taken more varied snapshots as they were in the process of working. After watching this team do their thing and looking at what they accomplished, there is no doubt that this is excellent software for an AE firm.
TriForma Architects Team
It seemed that the TriForma Architects team was kind of dominated by their sister Engineers team. Whether that is due to their gregarious team leader actually being one of the two engineers, or whether it had something to do with the software's abilities or their skills is unclear, but it seemed that the architects were somewhat restrained. The architects also worked, almost always, in a black screen wireframe view, which made it difficult to see differently from what the engineers team was doing. The fact that they were actually working on different parts of the same design makes it tough to distinguish what is what in the final drawings that are posted. In the presentations and during the charrette process, though, the actual work each team did and what they were transferring was a lot clearer and educational - definitely a case of "you had to be there". The design schema was to take off a replica of the existing alpine hotel lodge - kind of mirroring its massing, dormers and even a main tower element. It is not clear what finish materials the design team planned, and parts of their design seem unfinished - such as the walls not projecting up to the roofs of the dormers (let alone the french doors or decks) - so perhaps the extra time needed to coordinate with their sister engineering team took away from finishing some design tasks. We also seem to have only in-progress snapshots and not finished images - a great timesaver and good idea, but apparently they didn't schedule their time as well as some of the experienced teams - yet another part of that challenge. The architects team concentrated on the overall design massing, decks, space planning, the lounge area, and all of the required 3D elements, whereas they left the development of the rest up to the engineers, thus, the architects did a lot of work but it was not readily apparent because of how it was presented along with the engineers work.
VectorWorks Team
During the charrette, we had to go right up behind the team to see the impressive job they were doing, as, for some reason, the huge main screen couldn't project their work. The VectorWorks team had the most complete set of finished drawings of all the teams, and, in fact, again finished before the three hour time was called. Their 2D drawings all have a really nice elegant architectural look to them, and their rendered 3D images have a soft schematic design feel. For the design schema this team chose to make that required 3D entrance element two stories and use it for the connection to the existing hotel lodge, and to keep most of the dormers isolated on the roof and have a band of separate decks off the middle floor. With the steep gable squished down on the building, lowering its scale, the stone walls, and railings all give this design an attractive look in keeping with the alpine theme. This team also went further with the interior design, making a huge circular area for the fireplace lounge, and finishing off the curved diorama walls for the museum. They have several stairs in their design, but we didn't see where or if they did the U shaped ornamental stairs, and, if not, whether that is a software or time limitation. Of the numerous finished drawings this team did, my favorite is a rendered cutaway section which even shows all those inviting french doors, and lounge - a fabulous job altogether.
FormZ Team
Going into this challenge, we knew that FormZ is a powerful 3D modeler. What we didn't know is how good would it be at doing a whole building project. It was interesting to see how quickly the FormZ Team had a great appropriate frame building. In fact I was surprised they did not focus on those six required 3D elements and instead developed a comprehensive building design. The team constantly flipped between a wireframe and shaded view with various layers turned on, so, while I believe it is all there, the images finally posted seem to be missing this and that (such as walls) occasionally. The team also did not show us an animation, so it is not clear whether the RenderZone software does that, but they did impressively step through the model live during their presentation. The team also, at one point, developed sections and plans as slices through the model, which looked like strange purple lines in perspective, but somehow those 2D projections did not end up in their final submitted images online. Apparently a lot of designers who use FormZ use it to develop their designs and finish off the construction documents in another 2D CADD program -- the FormZ team opted not to do that, and to concentrate on the design problem. Their design schema puts the required 3D entrance portico on the short side as a kind of connector to the existing hotel lodge, and uses very heavy wood open timber frames as a design and structural element. While they have a nice rhythm of dormers, the decks that are supposed to be off at least one of those dormers are not evident. Perhaps we may hear from them whether that was an intentional design deviation, a software limitation, or a forgotten detail. It was also interesting that, minutes into the charrette, the FormZ Team is the only one which was able to get the 3D wireframe model of the existing adjacent lodge (which turned out to be a corrupted AutoCAD file) not only translated in correctly, but beautifully color shaded.
ChiefArchitect Team
The ChiefArchitect Team had a number of surprises for us. Despite being a newcomer to this event they ended up doing a great job and most of the drawings. Rumors beforehand that this software was only for doing two story houses and no custom 3D objects were entirely disproven, as we saw them quickly develop the three story building, do the required stair (3 different times), fireplace, and custom doors. Their presentations during the charrette didn't tell us much, though we could see the building progressing nicely, but the next day, with a lot to show they were captivating. The Team opted to go with log frame construction, which was a nice touch architecturally and also let us know that their software could do that easily. None of the images they submitted were super-rendered, though the mountain background in the color shaded views looks sharp, and they did not show any walk through animations, so we don't think the software does that. During the charrette they showed us how they could generate all the wood framing for walls and roof, with cut lists, all in just a few seconds. In their design, this team put the dormers lower on the roof, so that the dormer decks projected out from the exterior wall, and they combined two such dormers into a third larger one for a unique facade design. One curious thing is the beautifully done stone walls - from the exterior - which look like log framing - on the interior, with, more curious yet, log end pieces projecting in places that one would not guess, but it looks great. Overall, after watching this Team do such impressive work, I now plan to get ChiefArchitect and seriously put it through its paces on a project myself.
VersaCAD Team
This team ultimately produced some very impressive work, but it was tough
to see while they were working on it - despite very enthusiastic presentations
-- as the VersaCAD screen did not seem to change much and the 3D Joy screen
had colors that washed out to a faint yellow. It seemed that much of the
design work for the building project actually went on in VersaCAD's sister
software 3D Joy - perhaps by nature of our 3D oriented design problem -
and that just a few of the 2D drawings were actually done in VersaCAD. Regardless,
it surprised us how well this team (and software) worked together to produce
a nice building design. On first glance the design the VersaCAD Team submitted
seems kind of jazzy and modernistic, but looking further you can see that
they creatively took off from the style of the adjacent building but did
not attempt to replicate it - a continual and historic design debate whenever
putting a new building next to a significant existing one. The required
3D detailed door element for the museum becomes a central focus for this
design, where they opened up a lot of glass between the frames. Overall
a nice job by the design team and a wonderful introduction of the new VersaCAD
and 3D Joy software.
Juror 2
New 'coopetetive' format for CAD Shootout, successful in bringing together more vendors, just wanting a replacement for the emphatic albeit totally bogus punch-line "And the winner is!".
Overall observations:
Several competent, none graceful. None finished. Why black backgrounds? Why almost all based on click-click, when click-and-drag provides a more creative touch? 2D/3D integration and more and more specialized functions - not to say bells-and-whistles - have continued to be the focus of CAD software development. Meanwhile the tired traditions of black drawing backgrounds, click-click drawing methods, and 2D-dominant working methods have been left unchallenged by most vendors.
FormZ
To their great credit, the FormZ team did much more of their project in actual 3D views than any other team. This seems very important to realizing the promise of 3D CAD for improved visualization during the design process. 3D viewing seemed a bit awkward, as the expert users in the event worked to move around the model in working axonometric views. With 2D drawings easily taken off from the model, but non-associative, the FormZ team waited until the last possible minute to extract the basic drawings from the model, and then scrambled to clean them up and add dimensions in the closing minutes.
Chief Architect
With more or less the opposite concept from FormZ for balancing functionality, Chief Architect provides the easiest associativity of 2D drawings to the 3D building model. But this dimension of simplicity seems to come at the cost of working within a geometrically limiting design environment. I think this showed in the particularly clunky design produced by the Chief Architect team, with problems proportioning windows and balconies, which seemed to suggest more of a construction than a design orientation to the software. The capabilities for easy basic dimensioning of drawings, and generating the framing model were more impressive than the actual visualization capability.
The Chief Architect team apparently didn't complete any renderings, per se, but they produced some nice hard-line-style perspective drawings, one with a site photo in the background. The log detailing produced by the Chief Architect software is very nifty, though sometimes a bit wacky (inexplicable air logs, for instance). My biggest concern, however, is the painfully generic proportioning and detailing of the project by the Chief Architect team. It could just be a team and time effect, but it looks suspiciously like the software is exerting too much influence on the architectural outcome.
VectorWorks
More difficult to observe than the others due to a video connection problem. I like the general look and feel of VectorWorks, but couldn't observe in action how the nitty-gritty aspects of doing the project came together. In theory, the click-and-drag interface of VectorWorks (a natural, given its Macintosh heritage) gives a lighter, more creative touch to the CAD modeling experience than the traditional click-click approach. However, the lighter touch doesn't seem to have made it into the CAD Shootout project by the VectorWorks teams. The building the team modeled is simply awkward, seriously mis-proportioned. The white-background line-on-paper approach seems to mesh the CAD images more readily into design experience including other media. The result should be an overall richer, more design-oriented CAD experience - so better luck next time for VectorWorks!
Arris
The user interface and working methods of Arris appear to be very competent, but also very detailed and complex. This matched the approach the Arris team took to their design process during at CAD Shootout 2000. They developed a fair amount of detail in their project, but they used a process approach of modeling separate components to a high level of detail, and then combining them. That approach seems rather contradictory to a natural design process, which typically moves more broadly from general to specific. The lack of overview along the way provided by the separate development of parts is highlighted by scale mismatches between parts in the finished project, most notably the porte cohere which became truly huge when scaled near the end to fit with the main building.
The view angles of the perspectives and renderings are all a bit awkward, suggesting some combination of a rushed team and inarticulate viewing controls. To see all the rendered images with a black background seems archaic, as well as unnatural. In the main space of building, it is surprising to see such an undetailed stair -- I thought Arris included parametric stair tools to facilitate modeling in more detail. the interior perspective, and looking in through the window openings, reveals a variety of non-aligned pieces of building inside. The Arris project plans and sections completed were diagramatic model views, without dimensioning.
The overall exterior scheme of the Arris-built lodge is sound, while uninspired, and it makes good use of the sloping site with double decks.
VersaCAD/3D Joy
I couldn't tell what the division of labor was between the VersaCAD 2D drafting component, and the 3D Joy modeling component during the CAD Shootout, so I had a hard time evaluating the design/modeling process of this team and its software. The ultimate design presented was provocative, but rather loosely modeled (dormer roofs not fitting, for instance), and markedly non-contextual.
ArchiCAD
Apparently an external problem prevented the prepared ArchiCAD team from being able to participate. One person tried valiantly to fill the combined roles of two designer/modelers plus the spokesperson, but really couldn't keep up enough for us to evaluate the software performance.
TriForma
TriForma lost my respect for the purposes of this competition by ignoring the essence of the format. They did this by first setting up a double team, ostensibly to show architectural and engineering integration. Then as the event progressed they repeatedly showed the engineering part of the team in progress, demonstrating perhaps interesting functionality that had little or nothing to do with the assigned competition project. The idea of showing integration was intriguing, but the near-total neglect of the architectural work in progress left me with nothing to evaluate.
Autodesk
AutoCAD was conspicuous in its absence from the event. The conclusion
that the market leader didn't want detailed comparison with the competition
seems inescapable.
Juror 3
Only saw 12 minute per team project presentations. Therefore, all my perceptions are based on the presentation, and the material that is posted on the bricsnet.com project website, (when I could get it to work)
ArrisCad
The ArrisCad team gave a scintillating performance. (Although I had heard some rumblings of additional "finishing touches" from the end of day one to the presentations on day two, who am I to know??) Their design is probably the best developed, coherent, and well presented of all seven competitors. They've created the image of a building that has good scale, a nice composition, several dynamic elements, and variety. I particularly like the large gable extension towards the view, and a similar element reflected as a porte-couchere on the upper side. I like the way this team exploited the heavy timber structural trusses as an active design element. The use of materials is entirely consistent with the project brief, and it is well rendered. They site topography has been well modeled and presented, and the proposed building fits well with the site.
As much as I hate to heap praise on a result that was prepared with software that doesn't operate on a Mac platform, I'm afraid I have had to reserve my highest marks for the ArrisCad team. Congratulations
FormZ
The second team to present was the FormZ team who proved that FormZ is a hell of a lot more software than the hottest modeling and rendering software in the business . . . (at least that was my perception). The building this team created had many similarities to the ArrisCad team, and in many ways is a close second, in my way of scoring, to the Arris team. Heavy timber trusses, natural materials dormers and a large gable, even a porte-couchere. (Where these teams sitting in close proximity??) I have to say that the FormZ team's building lacked the coherence, scale, and elan of the ArrisCad team. Their trusses are really heavy, heavy timber, and they seem to be everywhere. I'm not satisfied with the porte-couchere at the gable end of the building, it works better and looks better in the middle of the building. However, that being said, I was very impressed with FormZ as a very effective design tool, and one that even we "all thumbs" principals should get acquainted with. The team didn't get a chance to demonstrate the 2D capability of the software, and the posted documents only illustrated perspectives, (although many where very effective section-perspectives that were generated quite effortlessly). By the way, in reviewing my notes from the presentation, I was very impressed with the FormZ as a site modeling tool as well. They were able to capture the terrain and render it with alacrity.
I was somewhat surprised to see FormZ in a Cadd Shootout, but their performance may give some firms pause to consider FormZ as a truly effective design tool that can also take on more than just modeling jobs. And besides, this is software that was born and continues to exist in the MacOS environment. (hooray)!
Chief Architect
Chief Architect was a real surprise. My only perception of this software was that it was a relatively inexpensive 2D/3D program that had very limited, maybe only small scale residential applications. I think the Chief Architect team at the 2000 shootout proved otherwise. They created a complete, competent building within the same parameters of much more costly software. Their presentation started with an interior rendering looking out, incorporating the mountain view. They had the requisite staircase and hand-rail detail, and most of the other requirements. All these positive comments however do not make the building a strong competitor for best in show. The stone exterior looked an awful lot like wallpaper, and the building had a cartoony look that was not apparent in any of the other software. Chief Architect also lacks a site modeling tool, (apparently it's coming soon), which along with no apparent shade/shadow tools emphasized an unsophisticated "look" to the renderings. The overall impression, is a rather pedestrian design attempt that could be part software and part operator.
Nevertheless, Chief Architect established a presence at the shoot-out as a very capable and economical solution to 2D/3D design and presentation needs. It's excellent software for sole proprietors and small offices that value a versatile and relatively complete package at a reasonable cost.
VersaCAD with 3D Joy
Literally, back from the dead, VersaCAD resurfaced at this shootout with an exciting and gutsy performance that almost works. This is the one team that pushed the limited range of design options further than any other team. Yes, there is the basic form, along with dormers, heavy timber trusses and all, but thrown in is a rotated glass three story storefront that demonstrates more software capability than the other orthogonal schemes. True, it doesn't exactly work, it's more than a little incongruous, but hey, let's have a little fun too. With the connection to the 3D Joy rendering software, VersaCAD doesn't have the look of a ten year old retread at all! The shades and shadows and rendering capability work as well as software costing much more than the relatively reasonable package. True, this team didn't get as far as they would have liked, and the site could have been better presented, but all in all . . . welcome back VersaCAD, we missed you.
ArchiCAD
Let's get all of the extenuating circumstances on the table at the outset! This was not the crack ArchiCAD team that vanquished the competition in 1999, With complaints of something akin to a splinter in the team captains index finger, the official ArchiCAD team pulled out of the competition. In a last minute heroic effort, an individual running ArchiCAD on his laptop, (I noted it to be a Windows machine), was literally pulled out of the audience (almost) to hold up the defending champions honor. Needless to say, although heroic, the effort of one individual working against teams of thousands (well OK maybe there were only three), and the clock, . . . was never able to put together the entire package. But, hey, let's give him some credit, he kept it simple and came up with a reasonable building, with dormers, a deck, and a pretty niftily modeled site, No, this wasn't a winning design or presentation, but if we doubled his effort, we may seen a scintillating performance for ArchiCAD.
I must state in all candor, that ArchiCAD is running in my office with incredibly amazing results. Next time out, let's get a full effort from the folks from Hungary!!
Juror 4
Arris
SW + HW Package $4,995 PC only
(Arris, EZ, LightScape, PentiumIII Computer special)
HW used PIII 733mhz w/256meg RAM - WindowsNT
FormZ
SW $1,500 - 2,390 PC / Mac
HW used PIII - WindowsNT
ChiefArchitect
SW $895 PC only
HW used PIII 450 mhz - Windows2000
VersaCAD and 3D Joy
SW $895 VC, $695 3D, $1,495 for both PC / Mac
HW used two Mac PowerBooks
ArchiCAD
SW $4,350 PC / Mac
HW used one ThinkPad PII w/ 192meg -- Windows2000
VectorWorks Architect
SW $1,400 PC / Mac
(VectorWorks, VectorWorks Architect, RenderWorks)
MicroStation TriForma
SW $ ______
Two teams - 2 Architects - 2 Engineers
Juror 5
Arris
Comprehensive well executed design covering all required elements showing the full featured power of the Arris system, including EZ internet (and internal networking) software. The overall cost plus hardware for the represents the best bargain available in the industry today. Special power in the sectioning capability of the software very ably demonstrated. The Arris team throughout the competition showed leadership quality excelling at all vignettes.
FormZ
Very strong in modeling and accurate site 3D representation. Great presentation capability and demo of its power layer by layer. 2D plan, elevations and sections not shown, and obviously not a strong point of the program.
ChiefArchitect
Modeling elements strong. Ability to extract elevations and plans seem straightforward. Many of the required elements were obviously there but the presenter didn't call attention to them. For its price, the program seems to be comprehensive and a real bargain. Extensive symbol libraries and ability to create and add symbols. Didn't see animation or VRML output.
VersaCAD and 3D Joy
Sections, elevations nicely done. Quite a few of the required elements not done. Team obviously got bogged down concentrating on a few elements. The presentation jumped around from generalities about program to just a few minutes on the required design project, back to generalities and product general demo. End result is that the program wasn't shown to be that versatile or strong. QuickTime slide show of design project pretty well done.
ArchiCAD
Nice overall model and rendered perspective of one view. Several elevations well executed. Floorplans also well done. Sections, again, well done. The lone team member was obviously having to scramble to complete elements and didn't get to them all, but did do quite a few very well. That he could do so with such little notice shows the strength of the software.
Juror 6
This year, the Challenge of the Architectural CADD Cup took on a different
approach; one that was felt would better compare different CAD design products,
demonstrating their relative strengths and weaknesses, and their appropriateness
for use in a particular type of architectural firm.
The audience member, knowing well the type of firm at which they work, would
then be able to focus on the many features demonstrated, and become their
own judges as to which CAD product was a ìwinnerî for their
office needs. So this year inaugurates a new concept, with all participants
designing to one programme, yet producing results that would interest different
architects, in firms of various sizes, and design cultures.
Here are some of my observations, and comments as a judge in the 5th Architectural
CADD Cup Challenge:
Team Sigma/Arris:
This team has had considerable experience in this design arena, and it showed
in both their intermediate and final presentations. The Arris team built
a 3D model, and then used its features to produce the required design and
documents. They also demonstrated its ability to hyper-link files, views,
and web-sites to any drawing ñ something that is gaining vast popularity.
Their final plans were a bit schematic in form (not too architectural looking),
but were complete. Their sections and elevations were beautifully presented
using ìeZî, a separate presentation, collaboration, and markup
tool also developed by Sigma. The ability of eZ to slide a section line
dynamically though their design model was not short of amazing ñ
especially if demonstrating design concepts and special modeling to a client.
This ìreal-timeî tool takes presentations further away from
static one-view renderings, and closer to an interactive documentation approach.
Their eight final renderings were also excellent, thanks to Arrisí
ability to directly export to Lightscape. Overall, Arris demonstrated great
abilities in a well-coordinated family of applications.
FormZ:
This team, unlike the Arris team, was a first-time participant to the shoot-out,
and consequently had no previous experience of the event, or its pressures.
None the less, they demonstrated masterful 3D modeling abilities, and used
the full muscle of their HP Kayak Workstation walking us through and around
their design as it was being developed, and in their final presentation
as well. FormZ showed extremely accurate modeling abilities, much as their
marketing touts, but in their final presentation, did not show the typical
plans, sections, and elevations, that were a requirement of the competition.
Either FormZ has not fully developed their 2D documentation ability, or
is comfortable as a design tool alone, perhaps passing technical documentation
to other robust 2D CAD applications ñ they did not make this clear.
However, as a 3D tool, it was quite apparent that this program was clearly
the best modeling software at the event. For design-oriented firms, with
an eye to dynamic presentation, FormZ was unmatched as a 3D design tool.
Chief Architect:
Also a first time participant, Chief Architect focused primarily on the
building itself. They did not show a site, perhaps due to time limitations.
They did produce a building design, although their plans were not fully
developed. The team demonstrated good 3D views, along with reasonable renderings,
exterior elevations, and 2D sections. Their 3D abilities were not OpenGL
or DirectX, and the software re-draws after a short delay. I found the 3D
views looked a bit ìcartoonishî and not as architectural as
Iíd like, but everyone has their preferences, and when conversing
with another audience member ñ they liked the Chief Architect depictions.
What impressed me the most was their ability to generate framing plans and
3D framing views that really showed off the building structure. This is
an ideal program for design builders who can best use its particular features.
VersaCAD & 3D Joy:
This team was also new to the competition; so just finishing with a modeled
3D building was an accomplishment. The team demonstrated Infra-Red networking
on 2 Macintosh G3 Power Books. The final presentation showed a limited number
of VersaCADís 2D plans and sections, while 3D Joy showed its modeling
techniques. VersaCAD is a 2D drafting package only. The rendering abilities
were somewhat simplistic. Both packages seem to be best suited for entry
level CAD users ñ especially if using Macs. VersaCAD comes with both
MAC and Windows versions on the Installation CD, while 3D Joy is a Mac only
application.
ArchiCAD:
Last years overall ìwinnerî had a disappointing showing this
year, but circumstances had things stacked against ArchiCAD. The most daunting
was the fact that the ArchiCAD ìteamî was just one person.
While all other teams had two people ñ with networked workstations,
ArchiCAD was working with a single PIII laptop. So, considering this handicap,
and with no division of labor, it was understood why many required elements
were not even attempted. Even the opportunities that the event provides
to demonstrate the softwareís features were diminished, as the ìsole
proprietorî worked feverishly to complete the basic building model.
Even so, team ArchiCAD, managed a completed site, reasonably developed floor
plans and elevations, and a rendered 3D view. It was unfortunate that audience
members did not get to see more of ArchiCAD, as it has demonstrated great
abilities in past shoot-outs.
Vectorworks Architect:
While any team may, at any time, have computer trouble, team Vectorworks
had an unfortunate glitch, which wasnít their doing at all! Using
two networked state-of-the-art Apple G4 workstations, and Appleís
newest product, their digital cinema TFT screens, this provided no analog
output for projection to the audience. As a work-around, a G3 laptop was
fed files each time a presentation was to be made. Unfortunately, as the
laptop was in energy-saving mode most of the time, it tended to shut off
its RGB output, and had audience members coming up to view their monitors
directly. But by final presentation time, the audience was able to see what
team Vectorworks had accomplished. They had well developed 2D plans, nicely
rendered elevations and perspectives, and fully developed the required 3D
design elements. Their sections were sectional perspective type. They also
generated a nice orbital animation movie. While their 3D site was fully
developed early in the program, it was never seen integrated with the finished
building during final presentations. Their final layout software did a great
job of integrating the finished drawings with given contextual bitmap images.
Microstation Tri-Forma:
This year, Bentley systems decided to support two teams: one architectural,
and one engineering team, both networked ñ but not networked to each
other. This was to simulate an architectural team working with a separate
engineering firm that did not necessarily work in the same office, building,
city, or even country! Files were shared via ZIP drive only. A flaw with
this approach is that in true-life situations, the architectural team has
some considerable design lead-time ahead of the engineering team. So that
the engineering team not sit idle for the initial portion of the shoot-out,
they started a structural and HVAC system somewhat independent of architectural
design. They demonstrated the ability to coordinate HVAC piping in 3D, along
with very detailed 3D structural models. However, at the final presentations,
they did not show the required architectural drawings, even the most basic,
such as plans, sections, elevations or 3D renderings. The software showed
powerful collaboration tools, and great technical abilities, but in architectural
design, this years TriForma team was rather disappointing.
Conclusions:
The most interesting observation of this yearís shoot-out was how
different software teams developed clearly different approaches to the design
problem at hand. From the purely architectural modeling approach of FormZ
- to the absolute engineering approach of TriForma. Audience members from
all areas of the AEC industry could focus their concentration on the particular
strengths they were seeking to find in a CAD design application. From the
one-person firm to the largest of multi-disciplinary firms, every member
of the audience could see how each team was working on the very same program,
all with the very real time deadline. This truly showed what could be accomplished
in such a short amount of time, given the mastery of a good tool, or group
of tools. As in previous contests of this type, all teams are winners in
some aspect of the competition. This year it was made clear to both the
audience and the participant teams that having only one tool in the CAD
toolbox may not be the answer to ones total CAD needs.
these are being uploaded right now so hit your reload / refresh button every few minutes
Program Criteria
This new building replaces a previous building destroyed by fire. It is connected by a bridge to the main lobby of an extensive mountain resort hotel. That bridge also serves as an entrance to the ski slopes in winter. The conference center does not have to be identical to the existing hotel but should be in keeping with a rustic alpine theme with exposed heavy wood trusses, steep gables with dormers, stone at bases, and wood railings. This new building is primarily a conference center with meeting rooms, but it will occasionally be used for other purposes, such as major ski events. Thus a significant emphasis should be on a large comfortable multi-story lounge area, that should be visually dramatic and include exposed wood trusses.
Required Spaces
A. Conference Meeting Rooms
B. Auditorium
C. Hourly Office Suite
D. Administration Offices for Conference Center
E. Changing Exhibit Space
F. Permanent Indigenous Cultural Space
G. Major Lounge with Fireplace and Open Stair
H. Bathrooms on each floor
I. Elevator
J. Egress stairs and ramps as needed
Required 3D Elements :
Stair
should be large, wide "U" shape, 2 landings, square, small risers - rustic
Fireplace
should be large, open, with seating all around, raised stone firepit with metal hood
Door
thematic alpine in keeping with hotel
Entrance
thematic alpine in keeping with hotel, based on graphic image supplied
Railing
heavy timber turned balusters, based on graphic image supplied
Gabled Dormers
with double french doors to deck
Required 2D Detail :
A section through the fireplace, showing the seating, firepit, and hood.
Theme/Style :
Rustic, Alpine, in keeping with the adjacent hotel
Suggested Spatial Layout :
Lower Floor - (10,000 sf total)
Permanent Indigenous Cultural Space (3,000 sf)
Multimedia Auditorium Theater (4,000 sf)
Admin. Offices for Conference center (2,000 sf)
Public Bathrooms
lower porch (valley side)
Main Floor - (10,000 sf total)
Conference Meeting Rooms (4) 15'x30' (1,800 sf)
Changing Exhibit space (5,000 sf)
Main Lounge (2 story)
with fireplace and ornamental stair (2,200 sf)
porch (mountainside) and decks (valley side)
Second Floor - (7,000 sf total)
Conference Meeting Rooms (10) 15'x30' (4,500 sf)
Hourly Office Suite (2,000 sf)
decks
Total approx. 27,000 sf
Add 15% for Stairs, Elevators, and Bathrooms on each floor