Architecture / Home Design Software? 78
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."
q3radiant (Score:3, Informative)
Re:q3radiant (Score:2)
Re:q3radiant (Score:2)
Re:q3radiant (Score:3, Funny)
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.
Re:q3radiant (Score:1)
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).
hard to make a good GUI for that... (Score:1)
Re:hard to make a good GUI for that... (Score:1)
Re:hard to make a good GUI for that... (Score:1)
You might try BMP2MAP... (Score:1)
Consumer software (Score:4, Informative)
> 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.
Re:Consumer software (Score:2)
3D Home Architect.... (Score:2, Informative)
Re:3D Home Architect.... (Score:2, Informative)
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
Re:3D Home Architect.... (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re:3D Home Architect.... (Score:1)
I'd stay away from Broderbund (Score:2)
Hammer? It's a nice editor (Score:2, Informative)
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)
Re:Punch is decent (Score:1)
Re:Punch (Score:1)
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
Re:Punch (Score:1)
http:\\glengineer.tripod.com\addition
with punch.
Hire an Architect (Score:2)
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
Re:Hire an Architect (Score:3, Insightful)
Cycas (Score:5, Informative)
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/
Re:Cycas (Score:1)
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 like 3D Home Architect (Score:1)
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)
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 (Score:1)
- 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)
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:2)
I haven't, we use Architectural Desktop 3.3. Now that AutoDesk owns both, we've heard Revit will be the prefered parametric solution towards the future, but I don't know much about it. Have you used ADT enough that you could give us a brief comparison?
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:1)
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
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:2)
An outsider! He will pay the ULTIMATE price!
Yes. The ultimate price.
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:3, Insightful)
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
Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:1)
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.
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:2)
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
Architecture creativity? (Score:3, Insightful)
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)
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'
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:5, Interesting)
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.)
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.
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:2)
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
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:2)
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'
Re:Floorplan, and a pencil (Score:3, Interesting)
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
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:1)
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
Re:Don't. Use a pencil. (Score:2)
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
Model your house and have a little fun with it (Score:1)
Rampage (Score:1)
I found rampage [kaejae-worx.com] the perect package to model any contruction work.
If you know AutoCAD... (Score:1)
Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
Re:Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:2)
Re:Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:1)
Re:Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:1)
Re:Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:2)
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!
Re:Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:1)
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.
Re:Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:2)
I agree that many houses are not well built. However the presence of codes means that the worst houses of today are better (when built) than the worst houses of 100 years ago.
Re:Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:1)
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
Re:Don't fall into the enginner trap (Score:2)
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
Take offs (Score:1)
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
Re:Take offs (Score:2)
Punch! Super Home Suite (Score:1)
However, I do know that he also tried "3D Home Architect" from Broderbund and liked the Punch suite much better.
The 3D home design packages are fine. (Score:2)
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
3D Home Architect (Score:1)
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
more advice (Score:2)
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
I used Lego Creator once... (Score:1)
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
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
The Sims (Score:1)
very last post (Score:1)
ViewBuild for sure (Score:1)