[POLL] What do you think?
-
Just a few short years ago we would be amazed at what the companies that spent millions on the IT could model in 3D. Now 11yo kids can do the same thing on their home PC for free.
-
Now if the Google bunch can give us 'plenty poly', 64 bits and unlimited core support I will switch my vote to "friggin amazing"
-
+1 !
-
Life is 3D.
-
@hazza said:
...can do the same thing on their home PC for free.
facetted, mesh based models created by SU and exact, feature based models made of NUBRS surfaces and volumes created by e.g. Catia or Pro/E or ICEM Surf are not really comparable...
... but you're right anyhow, feature based NURBS modeling is starting for a handful of bucks now:
2D / 3D CAD and Drafting Software | CAD Software for Mac and Windows | CAD Programs | Drawing Software | Architecture Design Software
2D / 3D CAD and Drafting Software, CAD Software for Mac and Windows, CAD Programs, Drawing Software, Architecture Design Software
(www.punchcad.com)
jm2cs,
Norbert -
@sketch3d.de said:
[
... but you're right anyhow, feature based NURBS modeling is starting for a handful of bucks now:
2D / 3D CAD and Drafting Software | CAD Software for Mac and Windows | CAD Programs | Drawing Software | Architecture Design Software
2D / 3D CAD and Drafting Software, CAD Software for Mac and Windows, CAD Programs, Drawing Software, Architecture Design Software
(www.punchcad.com)
jm2cs,
NorbertTry MoI, its user friendly, and a lot lot cheaper than all other mentioned here.
-
I remember when everything was done by hand, so to me it is amazing where we are today. I see one drawback, however - people who think because they can use some easy modeling software they can design a house/building, when in actuality they cannot.
-
Im sure people are going to realise that theyre are not designers eventually, in much the same way that just because you have word you cant necessarily write a decent novel, and a having a pen and paper doesnt make you an artist.
-
-
There is a difference Remus, Art has no disciplines so anyone with a pencil and paper can call their result a piece of art which can be argued based on taste by ones peers if it is any good or not. Design too has no disciplines as it too is just an idea represented, however when one intends to build from such designs we talk about another monster and then the design needs to conform to the disciplines of architecture and or gravity.
-
Id argue you are being too broad in your description of those disciplines, for design at least. Art is a trickier beast to grapple with.
Designing just for the sake of designing is nigh on useless, i think a large part of design is about being constrained by a clients wishes, costs, time etc. It takes a great deal of skill to be able to handle these things at the same times as producing a product that will sell and that is what is missing from the armchair designer.
-
A client's wishes, budget, timeframe, etc. are not constraints, but rather parameters of the program. An architect/designer strives to meet those pragrammatic needs, and to go beyond them to create more than a building - to create architecture. What I am refering to are those who designa building (and it's usually people designing their own house) who create buildings, not architecture, and horrible ones at that (bad space planning, horrible forms, questionable use of materials, etc.).
-
Remus, I agree the debate on what is art is one that will never get resolved.
Lets take my furniture 'designs' I did recently, they were not done with an intention to be manufactured but rather to explore the new tools in SU, I did not have any parameters or rules to conform to and thus I was not restricted. So besides the artistic intention behind them they are useless? Could they not serve as inspiration for a workable product? is artistic design not the foundation of great architecture?
I applaud Google for giving away a product that can interest and empower many folk that never before had the oppertunity or tools to discover their hidden design talents or lack of. Even a crappy design is a design nonetheless, so having the tools may not make one a designer, using the tools to release your creativity no matter how appauling it is does make one a designer, even if a terrible one it is.
-
@remus said:
@unknownuser said:
is artistic design not the foundation of great architecture?
I dont know enough about architecture to comment, but an often lauded phrase in the design world comes to mind "form follows function."
Dunno, Remus. The Farnsworth house is much more a sculpture than it is a house, imo. And Fallingwater wasn't built over a stream for practical reasons, I think. (Me thinks it gets rather impractical in the spring.)
-
Sorry, probably should have said "industrial design" rather than just design. edited it in for more coherence.
-
@solo said:
Lets take my furniture 'designs' I did recently, they were not done with an intention to be manufactured but rather to explore the new tools in SU, I did not have any parameters or rules to conform to and thus I was not restricted. So besides the artistic intention behind them they are useless? Could they not serve as inspiration for a workable product?
In my opinion design should be with the aim of bringing something in to the world. Anything less than that is coming up with ideas, they are nothing more than that unless they are then made in to something real.
Your chairs are not useless because of this, though. As you said they could serve as the inspiration for a great piece of furniture, but then anything can be serve as inspiration, there is a lot between being inspired and then making a real product.
@unknownuser said:
is artistic design not the foundation of great architecture?
I dont know enough about architecture to comment, but an often lauded phrase in the industrial design world comes to mind "form follows function."
Advertisement