I am a total nitwit in programming, so I thought I might ask people on the forum if something similar already exist, or if it is difficult to make

Being interested in Classical Architecture, it would be very helpful to have a script with which one can automatically create columns, following certain specifications.
For example, if you would have archaeological data for a Tuscan column with a 40cm high Attic base, a lower diameter of 90cm and an upper diameter of 88,50cm it should be possible to automatically create a column answering to these data (missing parts filled in following the standardized proportions of the chosen order).

In my imagination, the perfect plugin would contain:

• a choice of the base (round, square, attic, doric, ionic, corinthian, composite)
• if possible specifications of all the parts of the base (size and number of scotia, torus,...)
• options on the column (number and style of flutes, round or square, with or without entasis, height/diameter,...)
• choice of capital (tuscan, doric, ionic, corinthian, composite) with a possibility to adapt the height
• choice of entablature (order, height, some details to be adjusted (frieze, automatic addition of evenly spaced dentils and/or modillions,...)

I know it's a lot to ask, but I'm sure it will help loads of people

greetz,
Tom

*** EDIT ***
I got a mail saying that CityEngine has something similar for complete temples. Unfortunately it doesn't run on my computer (it needs OpenGl 2.0 and my intel chips support only up to 1.4.0) and you probably need the Pro-version to export files in a format which can be imported by SU.

Looks interesting!
Did you get your inspiration partly from the Esquiline wing of the Domus Aurea as well or is it just a coincidence?
(the central square you have put over the remains of the so-called "House of the Domitii" reminds me of the pentagonal court, as well as the peristyle on the higher level; the Esquiline wing's first floor also had this pavilion like structure, according to Laura Fabbrini).
I like the idea where Carandini puts a similar structure between the artificial lake and the vestibule, though I don't really agree with him placing the "coenatio rotunda" there...

About the living quarters: there are many remains of neronian times below the Domus Flavia and Augustana. It is almost certain that Nero built a large reception hall where is now the Aula Regia, and the nymphaeum ("baths of Livia") could have been part of a triclinium, the same concept being reproduced on a larger scale by Domitian.
Since the official part of Domitian's Palace is certainly based upon an older neronian lay-out, I like to think that the residential part was as well... Certainly because one of the walls I mentioned earlier, which is 2% out of axis with the rest of the palace, seems to built on foundations older than the rest of the palace, 1st century AD.
I am still working on the late phase of the palace (severan/maxentian), once that is done I plan on doing the early flavian phase and have a shot at what the neronian phase could have been... But that's far future

@hepf said:

And add to all that the fact that a lot of the older plans have drawing and prospection errors. Total stations and GPS are rather recent, and not even those are always used correctly ... I have that sort of problem in the roman villa I am working on, destroyed when Via dei Fori Imperiali was created by Mussolini, in the 1930's. The plan and prospection was made in a hurry, they had just three months to dig and measure, I can't trust the plans the whole way ...

Yes, that's why I didn't want to just scan a plan from a book and draw over the lines.
Just last week I was finally able to find a copy of Petrignani's measurements. They seem to be quite accurate, a bit too accurate even (hence my problems with off-axis walls etc).
I cross referenced the plan with some less detailed but more recent measurements, like Macdonald and Finsen, and started drawing (leaving out Dutert since only a very small part of his plan seems to be correct...).
The best would be to get a hold of the more recent work of the German Institute of Archaeology (DAINST), but those are impossible to get hold of for an amateur like me

I read about the damage they did to ancient remains constructing the Via dei Fori Imperiali... It's a shame, but we can be glad that some pictures and plans have survived, even if they aren't very accurate. I hope they do a better job now while constructing the subway

Thanks for the column by the way, I'm sure it'll be useful.

Ok, thanks!

I already know that the 2m difference is due to re-use of the foundations of an older building, so I'll try to keep that in the model.
One of the papers I have here claims that some of the other differences (between like 40 and 60cm) are due to either minor landslides or the weight of the roof pushing the walls outwards, but they would have been constructed rather "correct". So I could justify correcting those, as well as anything smaller (mostly in decorations, like niches or the width of windows).
Cool, I'll correct the plan and start building.

I have a rather strange question for all of you...
When you make models, which do you esteem more important? Accuracy or beauty?
Trying to make a model of the Palatine palaces, I just came across a very detailed plan of the remains by Petrignani. I started over for the 5th or 6th time, laying out the ground plan following his measurements (keeping in mind a small error margin and the absence of wall decoration, which adds thickness to the walls as well). But I came to the conclusion that many features which are supposed to be symmetrical really aren't. A couple of centimeters can be corrected without anyone noticing it, but some of the features are between 40cm and 2m out of axis (which is really visible in the model, and hell for constructing the actual walls).

It would be easier to ignore any imperfections and make a "perfect" model (at least 1/3 can be made by copying and/or mirroring another part, reducing the file size as well), but it won't be "correct"...
I can't decide on which way I should take, any comments or advice are absolutely welcome

Tom

@hepf said:

I don't know if it can help, but I made up a very simplified one for the Pantheon, and I think it looks good ...

lol I'm getting depressed seeing your work being fantastic, and then seeing my crappy work on the Palatine next to it, starting over for the 5th or 6th time.
I really need to convince myself to try not to be too detailed... It would be great to use your corinthian capital in stead of hamernhanks and karlfucious' I found on the warehouse. They're beautiful, but just too big to handle (including the Apollo precinct there are more than 300 columns in the model...). I'm sure you'll say I can, but I always prefer to ask
In any case, I don't think my model will ever get finished and certainly not published anywhere ^^

Regards,
Tom aka fluffy

Ah ok, I didn't know the small temple was flavian. I remember reading an article some years ago about archaeologists finding Augustus' birth house. The article included reconstruction drawings of the temple and the augustean meta sudans. I just assumed that this was the temple for Augustus that replaced the shrine because it was mentioned in the text.
This is exactly the kind of thing I'm trying to learn more about

For the overpass connections, I'm not convinced. Of course, since most buildings in Rome have been broken down to pavement level or completely transformed into a new building, it is impossible to have proof of such structures. But I don't recall seeing them in better preserved cities like Ephesus, Pompeii, Herculaneum or Tivoli either. I don't say there were none, surely there were, but I don't think they were that common. But that's my idea...
Can't imagine why they would connect the temples of Heliogabalus and Venus&Rome, but it does look nice.

@hepf said:

Yes, that's tricky. Of course I will include it in the Domus Transitoria, but what is it? It's too luxurious to be a service criptoporticus. And the explanation that some domus had a summer underground residential section doesn't convince me. So I was trying to imagine at least une quarter open on a garden, the slope allows for that towards the forum.

You would place the garden at the end of one of the four "arms" then?
It is striking that this same kind of hall is repeated in the Oppio-house and later in the Domus Augustana, at the lower level, and the Domus Flavia, one of the entrances to the peristyle opposite the temple of Apollo.

@hepf said:

And Svetonius says the Transitoria was at least intended to link up with the Ortii Maecenati, so it should extend that way over the Velia and towards the Oppio hill. And what part of the Tiberiana was standing at the time, and how was it connected to the rest? Lots of guesswork ...

Just as for the Domus Aurea, I don't think the different parts of the Domus Transitoria were actually connected to one another.
Besides the cryptoportici there's no real link between the Domus Tiberiana, the House of Augustus and the Domus Flavia/Augustana either. My interpretation (and the most widespread, I think) of Suetonius is that the Palatine and the gardens of Maecenas were linked through property (gardens and the likes), not as one actual building. I guess the Palatine complex remained the private home of Nero, while the Oppio complex was more a show off for guests. There is no real necessity to have a "private link" between both buildings.

Seeing your work on that ramp, I am automatically thinking of the one between the Domus Tiberiana and the Via Nova. In the older version from Caligula you could even imagine the same little bridge between it and the temple of Castor&Pollux

While I'm at it, what do you think about the place of the Temple of Augustus (and later to all divine emperors)?
I know the temple next to the Meta Sudans is often regarded as it, but I can't imagine such a relatively small building to be a temple for the emperor. When Suetonius writes that the shrine for Augustus was replaced by a temple, he doesn't actually say that the temple stood on the same spot. He could have ment that the temple took over the religious function of the shrine.
But where it actually was... The most intriguing places I read people placing it are on top of the destroyed house of Augustus (the large foundations could serve that goal and the spot seems logical) and another one is on the "Domus Tiberiana". That platform reflects perfectly the platforms of the temples of Claudius and Heliogabalus (three platforms, three temples, three emperors), while no remains of a palace have been found under the Farnese gardens (ok, they haven't had a chance to dig yet, but I'm curious about what they would find).

That's really cool, I never though of it as an annex to the Vigna Barberini site but it seems more than plausible...
I see you get your drawing from Ricardo Mar's book, I think it's time to re-read it (though my Catalan is not very good lol)

If you are doing a model of the Domus Transitoria, will you be including the house which is partly beneath the Temple of Venus and Roma? It is supposed to be the house of the Domitii, though I have no clue what they base that assumption on...

I just noticed you were talking about the rectangular foundation of the temple/ramp and not the so-called "coenatio rotunda"... sorry bout that...

@Elysium: the small temple you see on Gismondi's model is actually there, but more North-West than the circular structure they "found" recently, west from the bath house. It is missing on the map above though.

I always thought that the circular structure would be some reminiscence of the famous tower in the gardens of Maecenas. I agree with Marco that it is a bit far fetched to have this huge brickwork structure just to support a dining room. There would have been easier places to build it.
For the circular feature below the Domus Flavia, I quite like the idea of Carandini who thinks it might have been an aviary. A circular building on an "island", with a bridge as an entrance. The same idea would be used in Hadrian's villa, in the "Teatro Maritimo".