Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Graphics Software

Architecture / Home Design Software? 78

Posted by Cliff from the building-your-own-home...virtually dept.
shroudedmoon asks: "I'm looking for a solution to create a printable floor plan (line drawing) and 3D walkthrough of a house that I'm preparing to build. I've got a rough design on paper that I want to tweak on the screen, and then show to my architect/father so that he can create the finished and buildable blueprints. I've know there are consumer packages out there like 3D Home Architect from Broderbund, but I've heard that the graphics and navigation are less than spectacular. I also recall a Slashdot article, a couple of years ago, about the possibility of using the editor of one of the 3D shooters (Doom, maybe?) as an architectural tool, but I can't seem to locate it. Just curious if anyone out there has had any experience with anything similar, or which of the current 3D Shooters might have the best editor for something like this."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Architecture / Home Design Software? More

Architecture / Home Design Software?

Comments Filter:

  • q3radiant (Score:3, Informative)

    by dj.delorie ( 3368 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2003 @10:05PM (#6681853) Homepage
    I use q3radiant for all my 3-D designs. Scale: 1 unit = 1 inch for large items (house, shed), 1 unit = 1/8 inch for furniture. I've got scans of various woods, plus scans for the colors we use (paint, carpet) and a photo of our fireplace for the house model. I even have a perl script to produce a "cut list" for certain types of furniture projects.
    • Cool. Is it possible to print something looking like blueprints from this?

    • Re:q3radiant (Score:3, Funny)

      by jpsst34 ( 582349 )
      That's pretty cool. Did you create a playable Q3A map of your house? If so, what did you put in the toilet? Quad Damage?

      Could you post the map of your house somewhere so I can download it. Also, in the map, could you label where you keep your jewelry, money, and fire safety box? And could you post your address, directions to your house, and times when nobody is home?

      Thank you.
      • http://www.delorie.com/quake3/ [delorie.com]

        I mod'd my players to fit through the doors, so you might have to use noclip mode. Sorry, no furniture.

        We have no jewelry, money, or anything worth putting in a fire safety box, and I'm always home. Make sure you get the right house, as most of our neighbors have shotguns (ex-military/police).

  • The problem lies in trying to control things in 3D from a 2D view. The only great GUI for that is the first-person shooter... You're gonig to have user-interface difficulties no matter what program you use.
  • It's a bitmap to quake map converter. I've never tried it, but it appears to use different colors to distinguish between different floor and ceiling heights. Click here [txcyber.com] for the webpage.

  • Consumer software (Score:4, Informative)

    by uradu ( 10768 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2003 @10:29PM (#6681965)
    > consumer packages out there like 3D Home Architect
    > from Broderbund, [...] I've heard that the graphics
    > and navigation are less than spectacular

    True, especially for older versions. Newer ones are quite good, though. Still, for a quick-n-dirty layout you could do worse than spend $10 on 3D Home Architect Deluxe 3.0 at Wal-Mart. It takes a lot of the drudgery of drawing walls and structures out of using a package like AutoCAD, where making radical design changes can be pretty expensive (time-wise). Plus it can export to DXF, if you want to keep working with a more "serious" tool (I just tried it, and my house plan loads fine in AutoCAD 2004, and all the object entities were preserved). It's got a definite Windows 3.1 interface, but for $10 it does quite a lot. I'm completely renovating an 1890s house and am using it for laying out new floorplans and playing what-if, and it works just fine.
    • I am a large fan of 3d Home Architect, 4.0 was nice but missing a few things, they switched engine companies in 5 and now have a better interface but it's more cad like now and even harder to get exact dimensions. I use it mostly to relay a design concept or general floor plan layout.
  • I've tried Broderbund's 3D Home Architect, and I've found that the design is horrible. I tried making a simple floorplan for an apartment so I could see how/where furniture can fit in, and it was such a headache. The obvious thing a user would do is to draw the lenghts of the walls they measured, and then plug in the furniture. But when I did that, I found I was coming up a few inches short, even though I knew certain things would fit. That's because the damn software would draw the walls with the space
    • When we were just playing with the idea of planning our new house, we found a copy of 3DHA 3.0 at the local public library which worked fairly well for getting floorplan ideas on paper.

      As we got more serious about trying to get a good set of ideas to our architect for final plans, we thought we'd splurge for the latest version (5.0 at the time). We thought the updated 3D rendering would be a lot of help in deciding what worked and what did not in terms of laying out the house. That was the worst $50 I've
      • That's because ostensibly it's for designing a house, which means you have to consider more than just the visible dimensions of a room.

        It's not a great tool, but at least they got that right. I use AutoCAD for everything I do, but then I have to use it at work so I'm pretty quick with it.

    • Re:3D Home Architect.... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by cybermage ( 112274 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @01:43AM (#6683064) Homepage Journal
      But when I did that, I found I was coming up a few inches short, even though I knew certain things would fit.

      Sounds like you were getting centerline dimensions for the walls. In other words, the software was taking your dimensions and assuming that they were from center of wall to center of wall. If you've done any architectural drafting, this should make total sense. But, if you want to compensate, add 4.5" to each measurement you make that is from wall to wall. It is most likely that the software is using that figure for nominal wall thickness. Here's why:

      Typical framing material = nominal 2x4 studs (actually 1 3/4"x3 1/2" finished)
      Typical sheetrock = 1/2" thick.

      The dimensions you provide the software should be from center of wall to center of wall. Since two walls are involved in each measurement, add two half-thicknesses to your measurements.

      The reason why center to center is so important, BTW, can best be illustrated by measuring each room in a house and then comparing those figures to exterior dimensions. You'd be surprised at the amount of "space" in a house that is consumed by walls.
    • I discarded 3D Home Architect when I discovered there was no way to have it accurately make an interior 2x4 stud wall sheathed with 1/2" sheetrock come out with its correct dimension. The program insisted on calling it 4" thick when it should have been 4.5" thick.
  • I previously used this editor Valve Hammer Editor 3.4.exe [valve-erc.com] for Half life map making, but it works for Quake and other bsp using games. It has what they call 'furniture' items, which are libraries of pre-built meshes. These may be useful to you or may not (many are lab items for half life ect..). Anyway, this is a nice editor and of course any FPS is nice for previewing the house.

    Here's a halflife and other fps tools page url: http://www.valve-erc.com/content/?page=utilities [valve-erc.com], which you are sure to find use

  • Punch (Score:2, Informative)

    by Hungus ( 585181 )
    You asked about FPS but I have recently started using Punch Software's [punchsoftware.com] applications and like them. One interesting bonus is the ability to print out sections to make a cardboard house so while its not an FPS you could simulate one with some old actionfigures :) Seriously though its great software and comes with a 90 day no questions asked 100% refund policy. Now thats great! I often wonder how many people just use it then return it? Well its a keeper for me.
    • Punch seems to be one of the better ones out there, but that doesn't mean too much. It does have the 90 day refund policy and 30 days (I think) of free telephone support, but I didn't seriously start using it for a month or two after I bought it. I would have used the free telephone support had I started using it earlier, b/c I have had some very strange problems...mostly due to the ceiling height being 9 feet. Also, the roof has been giving me trouble, especially for the wrap-around porch and a first fl
    • I bought the Punch 3D home suite and found it to be complete and utter shite. The user interface was exeptionally limited and non intuitive, and it's overall capabilities were far less than what one ought to expect from mondern commercial software. Its like they released it before it was even half done.

      My wife wanted to use it to work out the decorating for the home we are about to buy, but we found the limited and uneditable set of graphics for surfacing tiles rendered the entire excecise moot. Set aside
    • I've used Punch for several years. It's not great-ware, but it's OK-ware once you get used to its idiosyncracies. I did this:

      http:\\glengineer.tripod.com\addition

      with punch.
  • You're prepared to spend large sums of money making a building. You'll be stuck with this building for some time. Hire an architect. An architect will have experience and expertise in areas that you won't. Even if the basic design is yours, the mundane things that can ruin your life can still be handled by a professional.

    I think it's interesting that because everybody has everyday experience with buildings, they assume that a high degree of expertise is not needed to design one. There's a reason that
    • many people neglect to read linked articles before posting but it appears you didnt finish reading the question...he says he wants something to SHOW his architecht...architect...he has one..

  • Cycas (Score:5, Informative)

    by snopes ( 27370 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2003 @11:24PM (#6682319) Journal
    I can't sing great praises of it, but I found Cycas to be very capable and it runs well on Linux. I was able to use it for very accurate floor plans prior to moving into my house. I traded emails with a guy that designed (and apparently built from) a new kitchen with it and was planning his dream home with it.

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

    It uses POVRay to render and is partially free beer.

    http://www.cycas.de/
    • I will sing high praises of cycas.
      It is purose built for adchitecture rather than being a generic CAD system.
      Just like any good CAD program you don't learn it in one day but it is really nice to work with and can produce very nice eye-candy. (it uses pov-ray, but you don't need to known anything about povray to use it)

      Sam
  • I tried several, including one from DataBecker and one from Punch. I liked 3DHA the best.

    Pros:
    * Very consistent behavior. I can get floorplans that exactly match my measurements. The others were a bit too wizardy, and they would mess up my plans.

    * Doesn't require too much studying or screwing around to figure out the interface.

    Cons:

    * Rendering is not that great, and the walk-throughs are a bit strange. I wish it worked like Quake, but oh well...

  • ViewBuild (Score:3, Informative)

    by The Munger ( 695154 ) on Tuesday August 12, 2003 @11:28PM (#6682344) Homepage
    Well first thing I should say is that I used to work for ViewBuild. That said, ViewBuild [viewbuild.com] is an ass-kicking piece of software for whipping up designs fast.

    It doesn't do the floor plans - yet. Since it's very plug-in friendly (everything down to the "Quit" menu option is a plugin - though they're packaged away), I'm sure the guys are working on it. Since this is Slashdot, many of you may be keen to know that it uses Python as a scripting language.

    The main focus of ViewBuild is getting a design up as quickly as possible, and be walking around it and editing it as fast as your machine can push it. Some of the stuff people have been building in it is just incredible. It's a lot faster than traditional CAD packages. The difference is that it isn't focused on accuracy. It's more like a drawing package where you're more concerned about how it looks than if two sections are lined up at 60 degrees and are 6.225 feet long.

    It has a few geek-cool features as well, though I don't know what made it into the final package. Multiuser mode was really cool. We had a whole group of people wandering around editing the same building.

    Python scripting rocked. You could build a plug-in in no time.

    It really pushed the graphics hardware. We used OpenGL, and made things really fast.

    So, my (probably biased) vote goes to ViewBuild.
  • GtkRadiant is the latest version of the Quake3 level editor. Other games are supported of course.

    - Latest version can be downloaded here [qeradiant.com]
    - Or by using the download selector [qeradiant.com]
    - The list of supported games [qeradiant.com]

  • Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by digitect ( 217483 ) <digitect&dancingpaper,com> on Tuesday August 12, 2003 @11:58PM (#6682556)

    Disclaimer: I'm an intern architect currently taking my architectural registration exams.

    There's two reasons not to use software to represent your designs. First, it's much slower. Unless you're a professional, you can't possibly draw contract document quality drawings with software at the same speed that you could with a pen and a good parallel bar. Even as a professional, drawing with CAD is about the same speed as by hand. The real advantage is working collaboratively (file reference sharing) and making modifications once everything already exists.

    But the better reason for not drawing with some software package is that they don't design. A floor plan is just a fraction of the total picture! Just because you put lines on a page doesn't mean it can be built. There are countless details even in simple residential construction that can cost you *serious* dollars if you instruct a contractor to build something one way and in process it's discovered that some adjustments will be necessary. (Best example: Sydney Opera House. It was 700% over budget, because it required computer calculations even to design, during the 60's, and was re-worked three entire times before being completed, something like 10 years off schedule. Yet it stands today as the most significant architectural icon of the entire continent, despite remaining a miserable place for opera. :)

    Rather, you should draw by hand. Having to make the marks yourself will force to you ask a lot of questions. These are questions that you need answered, questions that no CAD software can answer. An experienced architect can draw an accurate floor plan in just an hour. I've seen interns take more than a week to resolve a bathroom. It's a matter of what you know, not the manual act of drafting. Using a software to draw glosses over many of the questions you need to have a handle on prior to signing any contracts.

    Trust me, I work on incredibly expensive laboratory buildings every day for a very large international firm and I know that there does not yet exist software to construct something in 3D that can be accurately sliced into construction details for bid or construction. (I've got AutoDesk's AutoCAD, Viz and Studio on my machine at work.) There are numerous vendors who, through smoke and mirrors, will attempt to peddle their products at such, even at the high end. But I've found none that can stand up to the prodding of an experienced architect in less than five minutes. Maybe some day, but not today. And certainly not for an amateur.

    Which leads me to my final point: software will *never* be able to design in the highest sense of the word (at least not until AI is beyond human capability). Design is more than scientific, it is creative. There is no mathematically correct layout for the most efficient space, much less the most beautiful. Add in user personality, material efficiencies, fire protection, accessibility, re-sale value and durability and the whole thing becomes this big balancing act, best handled by an experienced architect. There's a reason architects do 5 years of school, 4-5 year internships and take a 9-part exam here in the US before even becoming licensed. And like a brain surgeon, you probably don't want to hire an architect whose still wet behind the ears.

    I love using the Sydney Opera house as an example of great architecture because it fails in every way imaginable for what we expect in a building, except one: beauty. Despite all its failings, it is the best investment Australia ever made because of the incredible richness that it expresses.

    Design with your mind and use a pencil. Draft it with a computer only after the design is finished.

    • Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:5, Funny)

      by glassesmonkey ( 684291 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @03:55AM (#6683514) Homepage Journal
      I originally responded to this using a pencil and paper. Each word written allowed me to reflect on what I was really trying to communicate as I manually wrote each letter. Using a keyboard could not have prompted me with the right questions of what to write next, not in the same way that a blank paper can. Sure there is spell check, but is that really the same as choosing words I already know how to spell. Truely, a keyboard with a backspace key can *never* be as useful a tool for any one trying to communicate with the written word. Writting with quills and ink bottles is more creative and the end result could never be achived by hardware and software. As a matter of fact, your should print this out in a script font and read it outdoors in the daylight in the same manner this was written.

      • Ok, I'll laugh. But for the record, verbal/oral communication isn't spacial. There's quite a difference between the iterative process in writing a paragraph and drawing form and space. I think my point is to not let the tool get in the way of the brain. We've all written plenty, but designing buildings is a completely different realm.

        • I think my point...

          If you don't know for sure what you mean, how should the rest of us?

          In seriousness, you make a good point, but as I see it, the main use for these tools is for a homeowner to be able to rough out their current house and then make a change, using the 3D view to see how it looks. It's cheap, reasonably fast, and somewhat easy.

          Yes a pro with a pencil will probably be as fast as or faster than even a pro with a PC, but the same does not hold true for a n00b. They will make constant use
      • Sure there is spell check

        An outsider! He will pay the ULTIMATE price!
        Yes. The ultimate price.

    • There's design, there's engineering, and there's style.

      Pencils are great for style and design.

      CADs are great for engineering and design.

      When you're working from a picture in your mind of what the house should look like, a pencil sketch is the fastest way to record it.

      When you're working from a notion in your mind of how a house should function and be laid out, a pencil would let you sketch it out quickly, but you probably will want to soon render it into the CAD to do additional fine tuning edits.

      When
    • I've got a rough design on paper that I want to tweak on the screen, and then show to my architect

      He's already used pencil and paper. He now wants to tart it up to impress his Dad.
      It's going to take a long time for him to animate a 3D walk through with a pencil.

    • Many, many years ago I worked on Computer Aided Architectural Design systems. The systems I worked on designed many major buildings.

      The person here is asking for something to help them sketch something out for the architect. They are not asking for final plans. An architect can draw, but not everyone can. In any case, the person wants to explore a new design.

      The engineering and Bill-of-Materials aren't needed here just something that will give the architect an idea of what the client wants. the client

    • Why not blend the two. Its not a exculsive situation.

      Draw using a pen and paper, then once you are done scan it in. Import it into a serious design tool. My friend does this with SGI tools. Check out how Nike designs its shoes.

      Thats the problem with architects, they are creative but only in one way. Programmers are this way too, but they don't disillusion themselves by thinking there isn't a better way of doing things. When I was in architecture school they would be blown away by Doom quality graphi

    • Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:5, Interesting)

      by wfrp01 ( 82831 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @10:41AM (#6685583) Journal
      you can't possibly draw contract document quality drawings with software at the same speed that you could with a pen and a good parallel bar.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

      • Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:5, Interesting)

        by digitect ( 217483 ) <digitect&dancingpaper,com> on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @06:19PM (#6690111)
        You're certainly not the first architectural sophist to posit their ineptitude is really a skill.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

          A journey of a thousand miles starts with a single step. If the OP's going to go slow anyway, he may as well be picking up CAD skills along the wa

          • Heh, thanks for the thoughtful response. Reading back, I can't believe I'm defending paper so fervently! But I've been learning lately how CAD has been hindering my creative abilities.

            Up until just a few years ago, I never drew on paper, I did everything in CAD. But then when I went back to school for my 5th year, I found it a little difficult to be as creative as some of the younger students around me. (Despite being only 33 myself at the time.) So I decided not to use CAD in school, and although I didn'

    • Back about 3 years ago, I was in a situation - Buy a new house, or add on to the one I was living in

      Started with a few quick pencil drawings, and that SEEMED to work.

      I then went out and did 2 things

      1)Bought a copy of "Floorplan", which I liked, and used it to model the existing house as best as I could

      2)Payed an architect for a consult on zoning rules for my house

      I then spent a few weeks desiging an idea that I liked - Nope, not down the the exact inch, but close - doing walk throughs, deciding on gene
    • That's elitism.

      With the right libraries of detail and generic sections and knowledge of local codes anyone with half a brain in thier head can pump out good plans.

      I worked in the construction industry and CAD industry for a while and let me tell you that 70% of the drawings that come out of an Architect's office have something major wrong with them.

      Here is a wonderful example. Bon Marche Eugene OR, there was a sliding security grate for the main entrance. The engineering plans had it un-rocked. The archi
    • I would argue that better tools are a word processor/spreadsheet and scissors. The word processor is for you to write a description of the various functions and relationships for your space. If you really want to get fancy, use Visio to create a diagram to depict the relationships of the spaces, views, emotions, whatever.

      The scissors are for you to cut out pictures of things you like.

      Then take all this crap to an architect, and talk to them. Show them what you have come up with so far. Pay them for a
  • I've used Worldcraft in the past, which is the editor that came with the first versions of HalfLife. I did model my house (which wasn't build yet) in it, and included several nice 'breakable' things like windows, openening doors, and even breakable walls. Being able to copy stuff, I actually modelled the entire block (4 houses) with simple gardens and stuff. After showing it to my girlfriend how our house was going to look like, I shot it to pieces with my shotgun. And yes, she still lives with me :-) Did
  • It's not exactly current or a 3D Shooter so feel free to mod me off-topic, but ...

    I found rampage [kaejae-worx.com] the perect package to model any contruction work.

  • ... you can create the 3D model in AutoCAD, and install a package called Accurender [cadenceweb.com] which gives very good results in a relatively short time.

  • Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bluGill ( 862 ) on Wednesday August 13, 2003 @07:28AM (#6684251)

    I build houses for a living (just found a programing job, so that will change in two weeks). We have a real problem with houses for enginners. Most want to build a thousand year house, but don't care to learn what makes a house work. They end up specifying the strongest materials, without knowing that those materials are strong, but cause the house to rot out, and their "thousand year house" ends up unsafe less than 10 years.

    Mind you, climate has a lot to do with it. Build in a desert and I don't think you will have this problem. We in the industry have no confidence in the ability of any house that meets code (without bribing inspecters...) to not rot out. At best a few will be around for 100 years, but we fully expect that most will not, despite looking for materials that wick water away.

    Last advice: Make several acceptable drawings, and once you think you like a few, see if there is a print out there already that is close enough. Many home drawn prints are great in most ways, but end up shoving a lot of problems in an extra large, oddly shaped closet because things don't fit togather the way they want them to. Of course if you can't find any print you like, the architech will design that wierd close for you...

    • I guess they just don't build them like they used to. Almost all the every place I've been has homes close to or older than 100 years old. Heck, even my house is over 50.
      • There's a flaw in your logic. The crappy houses that were built 100 years ago no longer stand. Of course, every house built 100 years ago that you see today was built well. That doesn't mean that every house built 100 years ago was built well.
        • No it doesn't mean that every home built 50-100 years ago was well built. I can say that driving through many older residential neighborhoods in America all of the houses were well built - and all are still standing! Know Why? Because there's a long line of original houses stretching up and down the streets! Try East Portland (OR), Minneapolis (MN), Rochester (NY) if you don't believe me....

          • Having remodeled old houses, and built modern houses, my option is that a modern house is (in general) stronger and better built than the old house. However those old houses breathed, while a modern house is so tight that any water in the lumber will sit there, causing the house to rot. That is modern houses that don't survive are a victum of the quality of construction being too good!

            • a modern house is (in general) stronger

              That's a regional thing I believe. In the central portions of the USA, newer construciton tends to be of higher or at least similar standards as in the past. The coasts - particularly California and the East Coast megapolis construct the most expensive piles of crap ever to use a 2*4. We're talking serious constructiion flaws in a 1/2 million dollar home. It's ugly. And sad.

    • As an structural engineer currently doing Data and Business Analysis I must respond. The current trend with buildings including materials and costings is going to bit people in a few years. Here in New Zealand we have the Leaky Building Syndrome where the introduction of new materials and methods (and in a lot of cases dodgy developers) has caused a major water integrity problem with new structures.

      So what, engineers may want to build things a bit more rhobust and this will blow out the cost in the short

      • A well insulated house will not save you any money if the insulation causes the house to retain water and rot in 10 years. I don't know the climate in New Zealand, but I suspect it is not as extreem as the one I'm dealing with (minnesota, USA). Double glazed windows are not an issue, law requires something better than what used to qualify as double glazed. Here we look at the payback of Low-E glass. We have a real problem here with houses being built so tight that any water that gets in the walls (say

  • Instead of doing everything from scratch, why don't you see if you can find a house that is similar to what you want at a site like this [dreamhouseplans.com].

    Or, go to Home Depot or Lowes and finger through a "450 Two Story House Plans" or similar book. If it has something you like, then buy the book (they usually cost less than $15).

    If you buy a set of blueprints, you can then to takeoffs pretty easily.

    The downside is that the plans will cost you $500 - $600 for a single copy, which, in the scheme of building a new house, i
  • FWIW....My father used the Super Home Suite [punchsoftware.com] from Punch Software when he was having his house built. I don't have firsthand knowledge of this software, but he seemed to think it was quite capable (and his house is still standing!).

    However, I do know that he also tried "3D Home Architect" from Broderbund and liked the Punch suite much better.

  • Don't worry about a "spectacular" graphical rendering. I assume that you want to make a 3D model so you can get a feel for what it'll feel like to be in the finished building. Great, I'm with you there. I do the same thing.

    BUT... Really, all you need is a renderer that does basic shading. You don't need textures of any sort, to say nothing of of a gazillion-polygon-per-second engine with NURBS support and bump-mapping. Remember, this is a 3D rough sketch.

    Pretty much any consumer-grade 3D home desi

  • I used 3D Home Architect about 4 years ago to redesign the floor plan to our new house. It's not the greatest program out there, but I was actually delighted that I was able to accomplish my goal in a short amount of time.

    The nice thing about it is that the whole program is centered around house design, so it makes many tasks easier than if you used a more generalized, expert tool like AutoCAD.

    The one thing I remember having trouble with is getting wall segments to line up just right to account for t
  • You might consider using straight OpenGL to do it. Just keep track of your position and angle of sight with variables, and render your scene. I've designed buildings like that before. It is very similar to a 1st person shooter, but without the rocket launchers. (it would be cool to frag your house though).

    Another very good option, used by a lot of architects, is ray tracing. You don't get live animations, but the still images are excellent - photo quality if you are good. There is a really good open so
  • No joke! Really!

    I was suddenly struck by an urge to model what my kitchen would look like if I tore out the pantry between the kitchen and my living room ... I didn't have any 'architectural' software available (spur-of-the-moment, y'know), but had purchased 'Lego Creator' for my young son not much earlier.

    It actually didn't work out half-bad - walkthroughs, animated characters... great stuff ;-)

    At US$5 a pop on Amazon, it's worth a shot...

    Lego Creator [amazon.com] - and don't blame me if you forget about yo
  • A fun alternative would be to use The Sims. It can't do anything that is structurally complex, but you will be able to try out furnature layouts, carpeting, and wallpaper.
  • Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net], Grumpy Watkins [uklinux.net],
  • But i am biased because It is my company but also because i hate all the software out there that provides a stupid 2D cad interface.....this is the Noughties right? That is such a clunky way of doing things. Our viewbuild software has had over 6 years of refinement, tweaking and use so i'm not making the stuff up - We can build anything from a doghouse to multiple city blocks and be walking around it adding landscape or interiors quicker than it takes to read the license file on some of these CAD packages

Slashdot Top Deals

Software production is assumed to be a line function, but it is run like a staff function. -- Paul Licker

Close