ArchiCAD v VW as a 3D modeller

[Phil hunt]

Just been watching some videos on you tube re archiCAD

from a user experience which is best....or does one piece of software have its own particular benefits. This is the particular video

Thanks

[Phil hunt]

It seems that the 2 pieces of software are quite similar...very architectural orientated.....this is only a broad observation as I have never used archiCAD

[PVA - Admin]

They are considered internally to be our closest direct competitor in terms of feature set.

[Phil hunt]

Thanks Jim at least my observations were correct.....

[barkest]

Our students use VW and our Norwegian students use Archicad. In fact they are taught it in college so don't want to learn VW as they already have 2 years invested in Archicad. Going out on a limb and not having used Archicad the Norwegians do seem to be able to produce organic 3D objects and have done for at least the last 3 or 4 years whereas we just got the Sub-D tool. VW = more employment for our students and Archicad = more employment for the Norwegians when they go back home. Thats the reason we use what we do.

[fabrica]

They are considered internally to be our closest direct competitor in terms of feature set.

I thought Nemetschek owns both companies?

[zoomer]

I don't get it.

About 10 years ago,

neither Allplan nor Archicad were organic.

Archicad was all BIM only, Allplan was BIM and always had an additional solid

basic 3D core including Boolean operations.

VW had strong 2D Tools and more of a freehand touch. (Early Design)

If you drew 2D only in Archicad you were effectively using Bim Tools, just not caring

about Z heights and never leaving plan view. If you wanted 3D and something non

rectangular or tapered, someone had to program in GDL.

Revit, Allplan and Archicad being the first Apps where users risked working in 3D

and generate plans from a BIM Model.

VW 3D was more on the design side (create surface array and those things), finally

using (parts of) Parasolid Modeling Core and advanced Render possibilities.

In the last few years, both Archicad and Allplan with their strong BIM setups, closed the

gap with Parasolid or organic possibilities and have more C4D features than VW

(Allplan even GPU-Rendering)

I see no more differences in general focus nor in features, just in realization.

[Tom Klaber]

I thought Nemetschek owns both companies?

They are just a holding company. They also own Maxon and a couple of others. It has driven me nuts for years - and now I have given up hope on some sort of super program made from the best parts - or even an Autodesk like family of complimentary programs.

I always found it funny that Nemetschek insists on being part of the branding. It implies more of a strategic partnership that actually seems to exist. Really it just seems like they enjoy watching their holdings compete over the same space - duking it out cage match style.

[PVA - Admin]

They are considered internally to be our closest direct competitor in terms of feature set.

I thought Nemetschek owns both companies?

I can't get into it too heavily, but I will try to clear that concept up. Keep in mind the below are my personal views and not official wording or opinions of Vectorworks Inc or any company in the Nemetschek SE group:

Nemetschek SE owns both companies. However, it operates both in the same sort of way that Google and Apple are both under the jurisdiction of the United States (well it isn't a PERFECT analogy but close enough), there are a set of rules we both follow and we pay dues, but they are very much autonomous. For instance, I have never personally met anyone from MAXON or AllPlan or ArchiCAD or even spoken to them directly.

Nemetschek never sends an email to the CEO saying "Hey you can't have a tool that does X because thats a new feature in ArchiCAD" or "You guys need to implement 300 features this year minimum." They are never directly involved in our daily operations. Their interaction is strictly high level where the CEO and CFO prep quarterly reports and so on, and lay out large scale budget plans etc for approval, but not on the lower level like features actually included in each companies' software packages.

More recently, we are doing so well that our CEO was promoted from just running our company to being a board member of the group as a whole, they like how we do things and they want us to keep it up. Their owned companies are encouraged to compete against one another as if they were wholly separate entities.

[Tom Klaber]

That is a funny analogy.

Isn't it kind of a bummer that your parent company poached your CEO so that he could help your competitors employ the same strategies which, if successful, will mean the slowing of the growth and market share that got him promoted in the first place?

[PVA - Admin]

It was very much his call, he wasn't volun-told or anything like that. For a long time he served both duties, he was our CEO and he sat on the board at the same time, but as you can imagine that was far more than any one person could handle in the limited hours of the day. He wouldn't have left if he hadn't has Biplab's long experience and matching drive to take over after he left, I think that made his decision a LOT easier.

[digitalcarbon]

after watching the subject video. i have the same question i always have when i see people doing this stuff. which is "Where are they getting their dimensions" & "Where were the dimensions being typed in?" it looked like an "eyeball" job.

i have had some jobs where i have had to recreate old stuff and the first thing i have to do is bring in a scanned image of an old paper drawing, then format it to the correct scale then make a bunch of 2d guide lines to work with. (remember paper drawings are warped and never straight) THEN when i feel that i have a good understanding of the old image THEN i model in 3d.

example:

how accurate was the column in the "Dulles International Airport" column model?

the reason i get irritated with this stuff is that i always get sucked in and say "wow" then i try to do and realize that i really need a good way to deal with 2d images first.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that its nothing more that inaccurate 3d eye candy hence, worthless. please, someone correct me.

Edited May 23, 2016 by digitalmechanics

[PVA - Admin]

I suspect in this particular video, they DID enter correct dimensions manually but that those moments were mostly removed from the video via smash cuts. After a large majority of the vertex and edge selections and movements, a UI element like out Floating Data Bar appeared that allowed values to be input, and then the video cut to the next action and the previous item that was selected had snapped into its true location seemingly by magic.

However, the overall technique they used was solid and was one I have used in the past, where you basically make a 2D profile slide of the object you wish to model in 3D that is accurate as can be to start with, then use that as a base for much of your snapping.

[digitalcarbon]

ok, but no one ever shows that. and what happens is i show up at the office from seeing one of these videos and say to everyone we need to get this or that. then i look like an idiot because i can do it like they did in the video.

So lets see how AC handles 2d scanned images. VWs ability to allow me to really study scanned images and work things out in 2d really gives me confidence in what i am making in 3d.

and a lot of times i need to go back to the 2d guides as a kind of history of construction. some times i get new information that causes me to rethink my 3d.

[Benson Shaw]

The video is fun! The model emerging with funky sound track is engaging. Very nice work. The ArchiCAD series of modeling classics is an inspired concept, and well done.

But, I doubt that those few minutes of video represent real time modeling. I don't believe that a skilled and experienced operator could import the scanned drawings, and have that model completed in a few minutes or hours. Someone, or more likely a team, spent a LOT of time, probably days or weeks, choosing and testing tools and processes to be used for any of the elements modeled, struggling to match model elements to those pesky real life dimensions, deciding level of detail and what to omit or fudge, ordering the "scenes", and choosing how to present the package. None of this takes away from the considerable accomplishment. Rather, these comments represent my skepticism that this software is far more effective than Vectorworks (or other software) for such modeling.

I believe that Vectorworks or other software could be used for equally engaging and effective videos modeling classic architecture. Marketing and outreach decisions apparently prompted ArchiCAD to demo their product with such a project. Other companies use different approaches.

-B

[zoomer]

There are similar older VW Modelling Classics Videos from Computerworks.

Doing a lot with NURBS.

While modeling with NURBS is something that needs 50 times more time

than in video for me.

[Phil hunt]

i took a look at the you tube videos

excellent....not in my native language but i could follow the gist.....learned a bunch of things from these

going back to bensons reply that the video is fun....yes it is but so was the

subdivision videos from the 2015 seminar only short but was very slick

but sadly i believed the subdivision tool was so good and would be an asset...

(and i have really worked at this subdivision tool)....but there seems to be quicker

ways of achieving the same results

am i talking rubbish

please feel free to tell me so.....

can we have these nurbs videos in english please

they are indeed very informative and i think they would benefit others

thanks