"The consumer isn't a moron; she
is your wife. You insult her intelligence
if you assume that a mere slogan
and a few vapid adjectives
will persuade her to buy anything"

David Ogilvy

Time has come to share my impressions and reflections that have been accumulated from use of the Case of drawing instruments (AutoDesk Architectural Desktop). About this line of AutoDesk software I already wrote earlier.

In my earlier reviews I not once stated bewilderment concerning claim AutoDesk to name the Case of drawing instruments (Architectural Desktop and now Architectural Studio), as "architectural".

I do not stop my attempts to understand this question comprehensively, including first of all, at an ideological level, i.e. at a level of an author's plan: declared and also actually embodied.

I do that with thought and interested, but with cautious discretion, but always keeping in mind well known Machiavellian Intelligence

Participating in various Internet AutoCAD specialized "chats" and "necking-parties", including this, applying be basic, I almost did not find out there architects. The found architects, as a rule, are individual owners of microscopic firms - workshops, a professional theme of designing as such ignore. A trade secret, probably.

They discuss separate problems only of draftsmen. Their questions, finally, are reduced to how to draw this or that element, to create this or that kind cut, section, plan etc., how to group (compose) a drawing sheet (draft, scheme)  and how to print (plot) it, etc.

The source of all such problems, is in essence, is the novelty of the AutoDesk software, insufficient knowledge of it, and also presence of many and various versions of this Case of drawing instruments (AutoDesk Architectural Desktop) in the hand of people. There are a lot of student's youth in such "chats" and "necking-parties".

But nevertheless main origin of said problems seems to be ideological one

AutoDesk, that becomes more and more relief obvious, appeared not at a level of actually architectural problems as industry at all, on which decision it threatens. On the sense of the ideological constructions that I can judge on the Case of drawing instruments, observing its development, the firm so has remained mainly a software one.

Probably, the best is to provide AutoDesk with own architectural business, as suitable place for breaking in of AutoDesk ideas. Then high-grade research-and-production association would turn out. "The theory without practice is dead, practice without the theory is blind".

The Subscription service and integral libraries

The sheer poverty of libraries of the styles which have been integrated into the Case of drawing instruments (AutoDesk Architectural Desktop) is evident. Attempt AutoDesk (through the Point A) to earn also on updating of libraries looks as attractive as a cheap repellent trick. Yahoo, for example, gives public mach more content just for free.

The matter is that styles the firm stores on a server, which gives access only on an annual subscription, which is expensive. The subscription was finished, and good-bye!

Styles is not that other, as three-dimensional (3D) "smart objects " such as walls, doors, windows, slabs, piles, columns and others. The basic lack of styles consists that they "Property" do not give any information on such parameters as the sides size, perimeter and the area. Certainly it can be measured and calculated, but why waste time that can be easily automated?

The List of styles is rather poor also. It is unexpectedly poor, through as announced in AutoDesk software the presence of such styles is declared as the main tool of essential reduction working hours. By the way, looking throw the wall style list, I understand that San Carlos located company have never even seen a wall with stucco, shingle or siding.

By means of the built-in "Style manager", styles easily can be moved from one drawing into another ("drug and drop"). On software market it not difficult to buy "Drawing Archive Manager", which for some reason is not present in the Case of drawing instruments (AutoDesk Architectural Desktop).

I have gone the other way. To support my library in an actual condition, I have simply created a special empty drawing file and I pump up it constantly with the all styles available on a firm server. So as not to rummage in archive of drawings, to find out the necessary style. And so all styles in one place and always at hand. Have time to move only where it is necessary.

The Case of drawing instruments (AutoDesk Architectural Desktop) allows to create styles by user also. Thanks. But it already absolutely other direction of activity. I also can to make pencils, and even with eraser, and rulers. But what the sense to do AutoDesk library job?

A lot of "third party" firms appeared, trying to sell different libraries of "styles". But business has quickly died. Appeared that there is nothing substantial to offer. The furniture, appliances, sinks, etc. Come across small architectural forms like garden furniture, lampposts, postboxes, fences, and other insignificant minutiae, trivia.

"Spatial idiocy"

Very languidly develops AutoDesk its new very interesting approach to designing - from three-dimensional (3D) models to two-dimensional (2D) to drawings. Novelty here that the architect is suggested to concentrate on that, as makes essence, the contents and sense of his speciality, namely - creation 3D architectonics of constructions or a complex of constructions.

Why it is necessary in 3D models? The matter is that a lot of people suffer gap of spatial thinking and imagination. Also there would be a flaw of a trouble, if it one big bosses would suffer only?

For a long time just for them designers already  have learned to do breadboard models and to mould from them hydroelectric power stations, factories and factories, buildings and constructions, microdistricts and even the whole cities.

According to architects "spatial idiocy" is their occupational disease, which they will concede to nobody.

Direct result of "spatial idiocy" are large amount of architectural mistakes and "discrepancies" in the drawings, when separate details are never joined into the roofs, when technological channels with pipes and cables in them are impossible to lay, when the equipment loses a support, does converge and as though "hangs in air", when rooms do not have not enough normative volume (room), etc.

No freedom may be without control

"Spatial idiocy" is free or it is involuntarily cultivated there and then, when the design organization is too fond of crushing (specialization) separate technological stages and forms of design works, that are correct from the point of view of the organization of the designing conveyor.

It is correctly perspective from aspect of the organization of work by homeworkers. If they work in Internet, what is the difference where employees physically are?

But such approach is necessary to accompany with technological crushing by global and deep technological administration, supervision with technological scheduling, establishing of internal drafter standards and building codes. Modern networks allow to solve such collaboration problem easily.

And certainly prosperity of "spatial idiocy" is promoted by delay with updating cash park of computer facilities of architects. I more recently have constructed to myself a 2 CPU (Intel Zeon 2.2) workstation which allows to create the project in the unique big file that provides an opportunity to twist, spin it and examine this projected object from the different aspects. Thus usually unevident mistakes of the project easily and quickly come to light.

Problems of integration

If the architect make his design not on a virgin soil of the Moon or on the open spaces of Siberia and the Far East he must embed his imperishable product in an existing architectural landscape where very frequently lives a certain society, i.e. to him will come to be integrated in the disturbed ant hill. Here as in hockey - like on the ice are adult, decently and attractively dressed up gentlemen, but it is necessary to throw a washer and it starts....

It Is usual immemorial conflict between aggressive new and conservative usual. As is known, in itself the belonging to new or conservative does not necessary mean the preestablished and predetermined correctness or there progressiveness.

That life proceeded, that and another should be renounced not only for principles. In our case it is important to note, that it is necessary to renounce space, which by definition is 3D. Process of embedding - typical process of harmonization of interests.

And so far as we speak about architecture as conducting characters architects here act. How does AutoDesk helps architects to solve said problem? And in any way, more precisely, almost not in any way. Let's consider problems to which actually and process of harmonization of interests breaks up.

Aquariums and measuring patterns

The Task № 1. To create three-dimensional model (3D) of district on the basis of surveyor maps and geological researches (soil reports). Such model in the elementary kind can be submitted by a certain slab which the top part is relief map of district (3D Terrain model).

More complex model shows a geological structure - an original puff pie where all are submitted composing "pie" of soils, and also underground waters. It can be simulated on the basis of materials of geological (soil) reports.

The most complex and the most approaching to a reality will be a model which will show spatial position of all underground facilities: engineering communications, tunnels, roots of the big and protected trees, etc.

By means of the Case of drawing instruments (AutoDesk Architectural Desktop) it is impossible. In set there is no such standard tool sharpened for the resolving of this task.

To tell the truth, AutoDesk, offers for this purpose more very not cheap packages. But why for then name the Case of drawing instruments (AutoDesk Architectural Desktop) "architectural"?

The Task № 2. To build an proposed construction in legislatively certain and determined spatially limited by "building envelope" which is certain geometrical cored (sunken) geometric body like parallepiped , the truncated prism, etc. By the way about "the truncated prism". Among a standard set 3D primitives there is no truncated. They can be constructed, the smart firm parries. A little more smarter - just add truncated geometric bodies into the set of primitives.

To repeat creation it is possible directly from creation of the world, but why waste time and life on recurrence banal? And if it is serious, for this purpose there is an idle time AutoCAD, and what was pretentiously named architectural. I.e. the supplied specialized toolkit intended specially for architects.

On a plan of city (municipal) legislators inside "building envelope" also should the offered construction will be placed. I in the former reviews have named such tool "aquarium".

Of dialogue with local architects I had a steady representation that their overwhelming majority does not know about existence of such task in general.

Though task is quite trivial for densety populated places where for a long time already it is impossible to ignore presence of neighbours, airports with their air space, Cities with their underground facilities, etc.

Legislative restrictions on "building envelope" suppose set of exceptions, i.e. allow to protrude of an envelope. Such protrudes are limited both on length, and on height. Whether it is possible to supervise such breaks operatively? How it is possible, you ask, if the aquarium is not present in the Case of drawing instruments at all?

The Standard tool - an aquarium - is not present, and everyone make it himself, using 3D models and their groups. But stop is farther. The case of drawing instruments not gives opportunity to control said protrudes. So why it is named "architectural"?

The Task № 3 is very similar to problems of the The Task № 2. Speech here goes about realization of the concept - a construction and environmental geographical,  geological (in the true sense this concept), and also engineering-geological (underground communications and other facilities) - are a symbiosis unit like conglomerate that wants to transform into agglomerate.

The problems of interaction of the natural complex with the construction during life cycle of a construction must be solved accordingly, i.e. too in a complex and together.

At this approach to not do without at all a underground aquarium. I repeat.

The standard tool - an aquarium - is not present, and everyone contrives to construct it by himself, using 3D models and their groups. But why architect must do that job?

The case of drawing instruments not gives such opportunity. So why it named "architectural"?

The Task № 4. Try to measure a three-dimensional dimension of a spiral staircase, for example. When it is necessary to provide normative height of a ceiling above a head. Or other three-dimensional dimensions.

Professional comment. How in general without 3D toolkit to supervise space-planning decisions in conditions of normative restrictions on heights, dimensions, volume, a "building envelope" ?

The General miscalculation of AutoDesk in the field of three-dimensional modelling - absence appropriate three-dimensional (3D) measuring and calibration tools such as measuring cramp, spigot (cork) and pattern, caliber, template as in mechanical engineering.

Such tool is not present in one program of firm which is supplied with ability to operate with three-dimensional models (3D).

The Task № 5. Restrictions on cabin of branches of protected trees radically can force to reconsider hall concept of the buildings. More complex position with the root system latent in thickness soils.

Roots configuration and spatial position, and also prospect of development, can and complicate acceptance of decisions by a underground part of a building in general and on technology of its construction in particular.

It Is necessary to not forget, that the damaged (injured) root system can not only bring ruin to a tree, that is dramatic, but it is completely not tragic.

Fortunately, the flora belongs to the renewed resources. But the weakened tree may and frequently does falls on a construction, with consequences following from this fact both for the construction and for lifes of its inhabitants.

It Is necessary to note, that concerning importance of the big and protected trees, in AutoDesk there is no precise understanding. Than another can explain poverty of library of models of trees? Than even to explain absence of available models of mechanisms of fine tuning of models. Both crones of trees, and their root system. Never saw in AutoDesk even a bright representatives "green parties". Astounding and striking ignorance!

Opponents frequently become those whom have overlooked to invite in allies

Transition to the new concept of designing - from three-dimensional (3D) to two-dimensional (2D) to drawings - allows model precisely separate actually architectural problems from draftsman tasks such as creation two-dimensional (2D) paper drawings which it is easily possible to receive from 3D models at any stage of life of this model.

One more property 3D models of a construction is remarkable - it allows to begin discussion of a plan practically from the very beginning. It very much saves time. It is known, that a lot of time architects "cook in own juice ". Here creativity is not аt all.

Actually, specially meeting with a group of architects, the Client, City, public organizations of neighbours and ecologists etc. with the Delphic method of brain storming can create such model directly with a course of discussion.

Technically and technologically this is not impossible. To get a specially equipped hall will be quite enough. The blessing, with engineering of problems is not present. "Game costs candles". Involving a discussion at the earliest design stages will remove many problems, concerning the future approval of the project.

And the main thing will help to calm involuntarily disturbed human ant hill

The Academic questions of architecture which assimilate it with Art, in conditions of Cities cease to be unproductive exercises on a theme of the ideal and abstract aesthetics of the Fine past. And become quite real and applied, having their own beauty, " tested not only algebra " as it is pleasant to quote to technocrats, but also public opinion.

The effective Example - architects of New York, as self-evident, represented on court of the Public some architectural concepts of constructions which it is planned to erect, where the World Trade Center was destroyed  on September, 11, 2001.

The Public has told the word. The majority of conceptual offers "have dug" on the spot on a place. While remained two. But the public yet will return time to this question. It is remarkable, that who organizes this public not other as the City, elected which administration is terribly interested in the social piece.

The Architectural beauty opens, fortunately, not only devoted. Strong lines, equation of proportions, fidelity to the elected style, a palette of color scale, harmony with a natural complex, quality of civil work, etc. similarly to music may fetch the feeling of admiration even at those who never specially was trained in architecture and does not know all peripetias and intrigues of "integration battles" accompanied the final approval of the project.

Inhabitants of a City, whom in a rate of all has put around erecting construction, territories, the countries will like the feel of participation, from which the feeling of lawful pride of architecture of own City grows. On this base the present not loud and not ostentatious patriotism is based.

Whether those, who tries to equip architects with software, are really ready to transition on new 3D the concept of designing?