I think free-form designs can and should be done in BIM. That will simulate the necessary process to make the design buildable. Just like the builder, you will have to break it down into little pieces. I could certainly do the Guggenhein in ArchiCAD, but it would be a lot of segmented pieces on a helix frame that would be written in GDL. ArchiCAD may not be any good for the initial concept design, but you're talking about 1% of the overall project effort. The rest is in the details!

Someone had to figure out how to build it out of modular building materials. If you leave it to the contractor, he'll bring it in 2 years late and 300% over budget. Frank could do that, but I couldn't. I would model it for constructability, and Rhino, C4D, 3DS, etc. simply can't help with that.

Da3dalus wrote:
I could certainly do the Guggenhein in ArchiCAD, but it would be a lot of segmented pieces on a helix frame that would be written in GDL. ArchiCAD may not be any good for the initial concept design, but you're talking about 1% of the overall project effort. The rest is in the details!

The Bilbao Guggenheim was not designed with computers. The plain hand-drawn sketches were translated into physical mockups (clay? wood?), traced into 3D points, converted into 3D surfaces using Rhino and fully modeled into a construction model in CATIA. And AFAIK, the plans and sections are mainly AutoCAD 2D drawings.

Use the best tools in each part of the process (or at least, in how far they work for your approach of design). If you want to start in SketchUp or with paper, do so. If you want to start in Rhino, AutoCAD or even ArchiCAD, then do so.

Da3dalus wrote:
.......... I could certainly do the Guggenhein in ArchiCAD, but it would be a lot of segmented pieces on a helix frame that would be written in GDL. ArchiCAD may not be any good for the initial concept design, but you're talking about 1% of the overall project effort. The rest is in the details!

Someone had to figure out how to build it out of modular building materials. If you leave it to the contractor, he'll bring it in 2 years late and 300% over budget. Frank could do that, but I couldn't. ......

Well, technically speaking, the Guggenheim Bilbao (and by extension the Walt Disney Theater in LA) is anything but 'modular' in its design and construction. Otherwise you wouldn't need ten thousand dollar CATIA ( and Digital Project) software to rationalize and document those forms. To accurately work out and document the large variance in the curvature of those forms and geometry, they had to use a lot of custom and specialized fabricated unit parts.
And yes, as mentioned earlier the actual design was in reality a more traditional sketch-paper/wood/clay model process which was then digitized and rationalized using a raft and arsenal of software including Rhino, CATIA and AutoCAD.


And no, you could NEVER do the Guggenheim in ArchiCAD or with GDL. For one thing, from a software-technical standpoint, ArchiCAD (or conventional BIM software) canNOThandle the ultra-high polygon count of the model, let alone the necessary degree of parametricity and parametric relationships necessary to maintain a live model. Otherwise Gehry would have used the far cheaper ArchiCAD (which did exist then or even years later when he did Disney) rather than licensing the far more expensive CATIA engine.

Additionally, a design of that level of complexity and peculiarity requires a higher level of accuracy and detail in the documentation process - certainly far higher than ArchiCAD (GDL or not) is capable of producing and handling in order to keep the construction costs feasible, let alone manageable within a perpetually changing and revising design environment. Speaking of which........

Da3dalus wrote:
If you leave it to the contractor, he'll bring it in 2 years late and 300% over budget. Frank could do that, but I couldn't. ......

Lastly, you may not be aware, but the Guggenheim Bilbao actually came in, under budget and ON schedule. (The Disney Theatre in LA on the other hand went over budget but that had more to do with factors out of the control of the design and construction team, such as budget and cost overruns caused by the 1994 Northridge earthquake, which halted construction and drove up costs - as well as multiple design changes requested by the client).

This, obviously, was thanks, in no small part, to the use of CATIA which was already proven technology in this kind of workflow, in the Aeronautical design and Nautical (Ship) design Industries - where they have large design and R&D budgets and much higher stakes on the efficacy and safety of the finished product.
AEC design software (including everything in BIM) is lightyears behind, in comparison. So you couldn't really even begin to contemplate being able to document, let alone design a project of that level of geoemtric complexity in ArchiCAD or even a Revit or Microstation for that matter.

Back in the day when CATIA was used to design Mirage fighter jets, I remember reading that what made the software so powerful was that it could define the location of an infinite number unlike its competitors that could only approximate points. I thought 'defect' this due to polygons ultimately being a representation of a surface. CATIA sounds like it deals absolutely with a virtual surface.

Is that true? True still? Is that why it costs trillions of dollars to use?

Clarence: do you know anything about cost overruns and improperly manufactired assemblies at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Does anyone know what that was about? The inside poop, as it were?

but....we all want our bilbao !

Aaron wrote:
Back in the day when CATIA was used to design Mirage fighter jets, I remember reading that what made the software so powerful was that it could define the location of an infinite number unlike its competitors that could only approximate points. I thought 'defect' this due to polygons ultimately being a representation of a surface. CATIA sounds like it deals absolutely with a virtual surface.

Is that true? True still? Is that why it costs trillions of dollars to use?

Yes, that's how CATIA used to work back in the day, but that was not necessarily nor primarily the reason for the its power or the cost. And it has since undergone (at least one) a major or massive overhaul from that particular engine: - I believe when they upgraded from version 4 to version 5.

Incidentally, an interesting anecdote about this software engine's overhaul has to do with the direct effect it had on one of Dassault's (the developers of CATIA) biggest clients. When the Airbus was being designed, since different parts of the plane are contracted to different manufacturing plants across Europe (partly to do with the fact that the Airbus is a multinational or at least multi-country effort), this was occurring just as Dassault were upgrading the software, and certain manufacturing parts upgraded their CATIA versions to the new engine in version 5 while others kept working in version 4 and the result was one of the most expensive and infamous blunders in the construction industry when the separate manufactured parts couldn't fit together due to the different ways in which CATIA v4 and CATIA v5 calculated or geometry defining the holes that the rivets go through in connecting the various parts. It was fractional error and really very very minor discrepancy, but nonetheless one that added up to billions of dollars (or Euros) in re-designs, re-simulations, etc, and an embarrassing set of delays and overall cost overruns for the Airbus corporation. Needless to say, they have since instituted a common coordinated software upgrade policy for all their various plants across Europe. Boeing have been looking to avoid suffering the same design pitfalls with their own 787 Dreamliner design, which is also being manufactured all over the world as they have sub-contracted the various parts of the plane to different manufacturing plants - and indeed completely independent firms and companies, outside their N. American plants.

But yes, Dassault Systemes have since upgraded the software since version 4 and it actually calculates geometry differently (more accurately? more efficiently?) now that before. I also heard that it underwent another overhaul for the recently released version 6 as well.

Regardless, CATIA's power and cost, aside from the 3D engine which is powerful as it is, really lies in the modular software structure that they have adopted which allows them to develop several separate modules for separate functions which then run fluidly atop the main base 3D Engine. This allows their customers to easily customize the software to their individual needs while also streamlining how it handles and manages information across the board. The modular approach is something that GS could greatly learn from in terms of how they dispense their limited R&D resources for developing various tools for ArchiCAD - to some extent I see that they seem to be adopting this approach as well when you consider the MEP module, and to a lesser extent the VBE explorer. I have always long hoped that they would adopt such an approach to developing other features that are often clamored for by users, but which may not necessarily be considered to be nor fall under the core functions of the design and modeling engine - such as a rendering module possibly developed by a ASGVIS/Chaosgroup, but licensed by GS users directly ala Vray in Rhino and Sketchup; or a Mass modeling/ conceptual design module or a Energy calc. module, a Take-off/Quantization module, etc etc etc.
All of which would keep the main engine light and streamlined while giving the customers the option of purchasing (and directly paying for) additional modules as they see fit for their individual needs and their firms.

Dassault systems is not that large a firm neither.

Aaron wrote:
Clarence: do you know anything about cost overruns and improperly manufactired assemblies at the Art Gallery of Ontario. Does anyone know what that was about? The inside poop, as it were?

I may be wrong, but my understanding of that situation was that it was more of a bureaucratic kaffafel on the bidding/construction end of the project (i.e. Ontario provincial govt. rules and issues vs. the private sub-contractors) more than it had anything to do with Gehry's design or project delivery. It's not exactly that complex of a design anyway (morphologically speaking) aside from the curvy curtain wall/facade and the spiral stair feature that he designed.

But then again, he is currently involved in litigation over MIT's Stata science research building that he designed (they're suing him over some leaks of something of that nature.) - although again therein lies the issue of the lack of control of the design once it goes into construction, and the contractors decide to cut shortcuts, use inferior materials or methods (as he contends happened in this case under the client's(MIT) direction, to cut down construction costs).