10.03.08 tirade #3
sketchup is not that awesome
Not all 3D modeling programs are created equal. Some are easier to learn than others, while some require almost a degree in computer engineering to use to their fullest capacity. But most importantly you should be able to recognize when to use a certain program to accomplish a certain task. This is where we want to talk to you about SketchUp.
SketchUp is a fantastic program if you recognize what it was designed to be used for. For 3D sketching. SketchUp really is like 3D paint. It gives designers the ability to very, very quickly put together a massing model to later refine in another program. Don’t get us wrong you can take a project from initial design to production documents in SketchUp.
If you find yourself in the latter category of users who find they are using one program to create a majority of your documents in SketchUp then you are doing your designs a disservice. Now before you think we are being software elitists we will admit that we use SketchUp and we have used it a lot. However, you would never know it because rarely does any of our SketchUp work make it up for presentation during a review.
So to justify the statements we have made above we are going to give you some quantifiable reasons as to our position on SketchUp.
SketchUp is stingy and doesn’t like to play well with others. SketchUp is a facet based modeling program. Meaning, if you model a box primitive in SketchUp, the box is made up of six faces each with its own entity data. This allows for the users to very quickly edit any geometry in their models, this is the reason for the mass appeal of this program. However, when you try to take any models out of this program into a more precise “solid” or “NURBS” modeling program the SketchUp modeled geometry will be imported as meshes or some other unnecessarily complicated geometry. This conversion extremely limits the future usability of the geometry. More often than not one will find themselves remodeling geometry because the SketchUp geometry is unusable.
Another reason to limit the use of SketchUp in the development of your design process is because it limits the quality of images that can be produced via renderings and line drawings. I have seen on various occasions students and professionals print sections straight from SketchUp without editing. We should all know better. Almost as important as the design is the manner in which the designer chooses to present their design, and to be that hands off with a projects presentation is to be just as hands off with the design.
More importantly when users of SketchUp go to render their SketchUp models in a professional rendering program like Vray, Mental Ray, or Maxwell render, they will run into a plethora of issues. A majority of these issues will center on UV texture mapping, which is iffy in facet programs and scaling maps consistently. This issue is quickly disappearing as software gets more advanced but currently these rendering issues are still present.
Even with all these negatives SketchUp is still a viable solution when it comes to 3D modeling. Just recognize its position, and use it accordingly. If you feel that other programs are too difficult to learn, don’t worry everyone opens a program for the first time at some point. The important thing is to use what you know till you know how to do it better. If that thing you know is SketchUp, well then you are going to have to use SketchUp. Just don’t limit yourself to that one program. Please, for our sanity.
contributed by William Burks co-founder of deprocess.org
09.10.07 tirade #2
potential in polymathic people
I’ll admit that the inspiration for this piece came after reading Mindy Wagner’s article posted on webdesignerdepot.com. Feel free to preface this post by reading that aptly named “In Defense of The Jack of All Trades“ post. As its name suggests, the post speaks about individuals in today’s workplaces who have a foundation of experience in numerous fields (design in this case), but not expertise. I thought it would be appropriate to apply this to the practice of architecture and my own experience as an architect intern.
Broad experience in areas of work related to your own was noted in the post as having the possibility to contribute to one’s success; your deeper understanding of collaborators processes as well as your own makes you more valuable. I can personally attest to this trend. I’ve worked in at least five architecture/planning offices. In each case I was hired with a task in mind, i.e., digitizing hand drawings, digital modeling/rendering, drafting, modeling, and diagramming. At every position I held I found myself with additional responsibilities, i.e., designing websites and logos, troubleshooting hardware and software, and providing consultation for hardware/software purchase.
I’m assuming I’m not an anomaly. If this is true, there is a discrepancy between what potential employee’s skills are evaluated and should be evaluated. Being well versed in other areas of technology and design has great value today; it has made me a valuable asset, despite my typical intern status. However, this value has always been revealed after a considerable length of employment. Perhaps there should be some way for employers to gauge this value during interviews. In all I’ve had, there have been no questions, regarding my competency of contemporary technology trends and possibilities. In fact, It is detrimental to an office to employ individuals disconnected from the evolution and use of free modern resources (e.g. F1, Google, Wikipedia, Forums, etc.) I’d like my full potential to be seen by my future employers. It would be wise to identify such potential in an interviewee; after employment their resourcefulness comes with a residual increase in staff productivity and competence.
I think the days of the *designorant IT guy are soon to be dead. With employees saturated with experience in contemporary design technologies, businesses and firms will be able to speak design to and through their employees to create their web presence. This new generation of employees will be the liaison between BSOD and boss. These new designers will be the syringe that injects technological competence and computational process into the design office (if offices are to still exist). Assuming this is an inevitability I highly suggest that you participate in this pivotal moment in the design industry.
*designorant - \di-‘zig-n(ə-)rənt\ adj. | Incapable of communicating via design language.
contributed by Jody Verser co-founder of deprocess.org
photo credit: ©2008 Polis Poliviou Photography via Flickr
09.10.07 tirade #1
computational justification
I am tired of having to justify the use of computers as a design tool.
We are on the verge of the year 2010 and I find myself on a daily basis having explain why it is better to have used a computer rather than the "traditional" design process. By this time in our evolution as a species we use computers to accomplish so many things and yet they are shunned by a majority of the architectural design community. And I have no idea why.
I would like to stack it up to a lack of understanding of the computational design process. However, I find architects asking me questions like, "I still don’t know why you need a computer to design when there are already traditional design processes in place to achieve the same result." With that question/statement the person looking for justification is saying they know how computers can aid in the design process, but they see no value in those computational processes.
While I can understand the confusion when it comes to computational design, I finally understood it at the end of my fourth year in school; I don't have any tolerance for those who judge it without any sort of true investigation into these new processes.
Those who sit on the side-line and feel it appropriate to claim they understand the process and then demand some sort of justification for these processes, are the individuals who seem to perpetuate the computation stigma. When the truth is that they have no understanding of computational design process. They give themselves away with these questions, because if they understood the benefits of these processes they wouldn't need any justification for their existance.
So here it is my last quantification for computational design.
The computer is just a fancy drafting bar. That is it. It is a piece of technology that only puts out what you put into it. Nothing more and nothing less. If anything, it is up to those who see no value in computational design to prove to me their own beliefs. After all they are the ones who think "computers make stupid architecture." I want those people to prove that the computer and not the designer was the culprit behind this supposedly "stupid" architecture. Regardless, stupid is such a "dumb" critique of anything, there is no substance, how am I supposed to respond to that statment?
"Nuh huh it isnt stupid, you are stupid..." Now they have brought me to their level.
In fact, many architects use computers incorrectly. Those who just use the computer as a means of representation are not taking advantage of all the potential contained within those little black boxes. They are better off hand drawing all their images. There really is no justification under their own definitions of "appropriate design methods" for them to even get close to a computer. They are the ones who need to justify their use of computers to us. They need to explain it to us, those who are pushing for computational integration of architectural design processes, why they are slowing architectural innovation down.
If you are curious to understand the computational design processes then say that. Don’t approach that which you don’t understand with a closed mind. I will be the first to admit that computational design has a very steep learning curve, but that is not a reason to avoid it. In fact there is a whole community out there to support the effort of those who are looking to learn about these new design methods.
If you haven’t noticed yet, you are in just one of those communities.
contributed by William Burks co-founder of deprocess.org
photo credit: ©2008 Adam Little via google image search
