Anyone actually using VW for early conceptual modeling?

[Patrick Fritsch]

Just curious if anyone out there is actually using VW for early conceptual modeling?

My current workflow is SketchUp to VW, but I thought I'd give a try to start directly in VW on this new residential project I have. My conclusion to date, after 2 days in, much easier to push out several conceptual design iterations in SketchUp.

I'm just wondering if most out there have come to the same conclusion or should I keep trying in VW.

[CipesDesign]

I use VW's for everything. It allows me to model and trouble shoot at the same time. And it allows me to flow seamlessly into construction drawings. For me there is no point in producing a 'pretty model' if the thing can't actually be built (or requires too much re-working in order to build). This fits my workflow quite nicely. I am very disciplined about dimensions (and everything else) even in the early concept stage. But that's just me. Others may have differing opinions.

[Patrick Fritsch]

Thanks Peter, that's what I was hoping to acheive as I work to an accurate scale from the start, it's the only way for me as well. Guess I'll keep at it.

Question, are you working in wireframe mode when you model? It's kind of hard on the eyes compared to sketchup!

Maybe I'll have to come to oregon for a crash course!

[Kizza]

I've adopted a similar workflow to Peter in my last two projects - seems to work quite well.

Hidden line rendering should be the default (or at least have the option to make it so) although you could set up a 3D saved view with the render settings you desire.

One peeve:

If you have created a massing model and you decide to change its height after creation, the roof doesn't move with the wall.

I think wireframe is essential in VW because it doesn't have live sections. When I trained in Revit, I don't think I used anything but Hidden Line when designing.

[CipesDesign]

When designing I mostly use a combination of Top/Plan and OpenGL with the Flyover Tool (or number keys for really quick iso views). That gives me fast looks at Plan and Elevations (actually 3d, which is far better, but same idea). Along the way I nearly always create a number of sections in order to study, trouble shoot, prove & improve the design.

[VincentCuclair]

Jup, everything done in VWs. If you don't do everything in VWs why are you using VWs in the first place? If you already do conceptual in SketchUp you should be doing drafting in Revit or ArchiCAD!

Everything here is done with geometry, except for the rough plans these are done using walls:

Edited July 3, 2013 by Vincent C

[Patrick Fritsch]

Thanks Vincent for the encouraging images, I guess I'll keep at it in VW It's probably just that I'm not as comfortable using the tools in VW. I agree totally w/ the potential benefits of using VW for the entire design process, just got a little discouraged while trying to re-learn a new tool.

[brian-rwc]

It would make a big difference in using VW for conceptual modeling if you could actually work and edit geometry in perspective views rather than be confined to just isometric, plan or orthogonal elevations. Creating perspective views in VW is never as easy or free flowing process as in Sketchup. You have to wait for the views to regenerate and it's never instantaneous. It would be nice to be able smoothly navigate through 3D views as with Sketchup. Editing on the fly is obviously easier with Sketchup as well so it's no wonder it's the preferred choice for conceptual modeling.

So many design decisions in our office our made by a trial and error process with project managers standing around a workstation telling the designer or "CAD person" how to revise the model while they wait around there watching them make the change. I am sure it can be frustrating for person editing the Sketchup model but I think it would be close to impossible if trying to do the same with VW. Not saying that is the ideal process but I can't see the project managers surrendering their ability to do that.

It would be nice if VW could adopt the same capabilities as Sketchup in that regard. I recognize that VW's 3D modeling capabilities may be more advanced overall than Sketchup's but it's the initial ease of conceptual modeling that will always allow Sketchup to get it's "foot in the door" with VW getting no consideration on the 3D side of things. It never matters at that point that there would be long term benefits in creating models in VW in the first place.

[Gytis]

Very nice clean work Vincent.

[Christiaan]

Jup, everything done in VWs. If you don't do everything in VWs why are you using VWs in the first place? If you already do conceptual in SketchUp you should be doing drafting in Revit or ArchiCAD!

Everything here is done with geometry, except for the rough plans these are done using walls

Nice work Vincent. I would have thought if you're modelling everything with freeform geometry instead of walls etc. then there's not much difference modelling it in Sketchup, no?

[VincentCuclair]

I would have thought if you're modelling everything with freeform geometry instead of walls etc. then there's not much difference modelling it in Sketchup, no?

Thanks guys, I was waiting for that question :grin:

Well, you need to judge beforehand how many changes will be made and how exact the presentation needs to be. Obviously this varies from project to project as well as the size being of importance.

Generally I try to use as many PIOs as possible from the start in small projects, the amount of different variations of walls, roofs, windows, etc, are generally limited so creating them the first time takes a little more time however they look more realistic in presentations and if changes are needed it is fairly easy to do this quickly.

In large projects (like the one I posted) a hybrid of 3D and PIOs is most effective I find, obviously using as much PIOs as possible is preferable however not always fast. In this case 3D modeling can speed up things quite a bit however 'redoing' things later is necessary. In the above case the use of 3D geometry was a good one because it shows the concept of the building well without to much drafting needed. Quite some large changes were made on the way so remodeling was fairly easy without having to take to much account to Stories etc etc. The client decided to discontinue the project in the end so again the choice of 3D modeling in this case was a good one.

Another method I use is creating Symbols of whole building'sections'.

In the above project, large parts of the project are repeated, all be it with variations in material and lesser geometry. When this is the case I create a building section and save it as a symbol and simply copy paste to the correct place, if I then need to make any major changes, I only need to change the symbols and the changes are applied to all similar building parts.

This method gives me the possibility to use more PIOs at an early stage which can then later be reused by simply 'dissolving' the symbols and placing the correct objects on the correct Layer and continuing from there.

There are several ways to use this method, either divide the building complex up into vertical parts or horizontal parts or both depending on how accurate you want the result to be and how many symbols you want/need to keep track of.

Edited July 4, 2013 by Vincent C

[Dieter @ DWorks]

@Vincent C: you can also use DLVP instead of symbols with the added advantage of overriding the classes.

[Patrick Fritsch]

Calm down there Mr StructuralBGuy, Read the title to my post you will notice Vincents response is much more appropriate and helpfull than yours. Next time if I ask for "what are your feats lately" your response would be appropriate.

[Patrick Fritsch]

Want a medal?!

Please stay civil!

[gester]

sbg, when you don't like it here, why do you waste your valuable time for us?

nice work, vincent. i appreciate the sharing of the workflow description. it's very helpful.

rob

Edited July 7, 2013 by gester

[Jonathan Pickup]

Can I remind you all about the community guidelines:

In general, be courteous, respectful and helpful.

[Patrick Fritsch]

BimGuy I'd apreciate if you did not hijack my post unless you are willing to share pertinent info on how your current conceptual modeling workflow is done w/ VW.

If you simply want attention or have a great need to whine, start your own post. You're not impressing anyone here.

[VincentCuclair]

An existing command that can be helpful (to a degree) for this phase of the project is the 'Model to Floorplan' command.

(......though after all these years one would have expected it to have been developed much further to include for example Slabs and a Roof......and perhaps even integrate a Bubble Diagram/Adjacency Matrix in combination with Interior Walls and Spaces for example.....?!)

Edited July 8, 2013 by Vincent C

[VincentCuclair]

@Vincent C: you can also use DLVP instead of symbols with the added advantage of overriding the classes.

That's an excellent tip Dieter! I'll remember that one!

[Patrick Fritsch]

Vincent & Dworks, great suggested methodology. I'm starting to get my head space around this. I will be showing the client 2 (maybe 3) variations of the Residence's exterior massing with their respective interior layouts. The bldg footprint and roof geometry changes in both so these methods should work as I don't want to do too much detailed stuff at this point.