critical analysis of the absence of interior - Bilkent University

More documents

Recommendations

Info

1970s computers were not widespread and were barely used for calculation and documentation. In 1970s, architects and designers used the available computers and CAAD software for only specification writing and drafting purposes due to computer’s accuracy and speed. In 1980s, several companies like Autodesk, VersaCad, Summagraphics, Microstation, and others released software that supported drafting aspects of architectural design (Kalay, 2004) while augmenting the computer use in architecture. Also, the developments in the computer technology affected the use of CAAD software in architecture. Once employed as pure 2D drafting systems, when architects met with simple 3D shapes and forms, and elementary rendering features, they began using CAAD software not only for drafting, but also for modeling purposes. Additionally, at the end of 1980s, several modeling features such as ‘smooth shading’, ‘shadow casting’ and ‘solids modeling’ features, distinguished CAAD software from only being drafting systems (Richens, 1992). Furthermore, 1990s brought the general affordability of 3D modeling, rendering, animation and multimedia presentations (Schmitt, 1999). Nowadays, computers are almost indispensible parts of design and presentation phases of architecture. 2.3 Classification of CAAD Software Despite the context of this study covers a categorization of CAAD software as ‘general purpose’ and ‘domain specific’, it is worthwhile to classify CAAD software based on modeling methods such as ‘geometrical’, ‘parametrical’ and based on 11
‘building information modeling’ (BIM) to understand the development of 3D modeling methods and the terms that are mentioned in this study. In the 1970s, the development of CAD software took two different routes: ‘geometric modeling route’ which supports mainly the needs of mechanical engineering applications in the automotive and aerospace industries; and ‘building-specific route’ which supports the needs of the construction industry (Kalay, 2004). To start with, ‘geometric modeling’ is the simplest form of modeling approach which includes wire frame modeling, surface modeling and solid modeling. Firstly, wire frame modeling is the oldest computational representation of geometric forms in which the shapes are represented by a collection of the edges and vertices of the shapes represented, leaving to the viewer the task of inferring the volume and other properties of the shape from these outlines (Mantyla, 1982; Kalay, 2004). Wireframe models are easy to use but weak in the representation of objects in terms of well- formedness, generality and completeness (Kalay, 2004). Secondly, surface modeling is based on wireframe models that could later be patched by the surfaces. The objects created with surface modeling method includes only the surface representations of the 3D object and if cut, it exhibits its empty interior and interiors of the faces which it is composed of (Woodward & Howes, 1997). Surface modelers are especially developed in order to expand the surface properties such as its smoothness. However, since most of the surface modeling software did not assist most CAAD operations, another modeling method is developed. In the late 1970s, solid modeling method is developed to build complex volume enclosing sets of surfaces with ‘boolean operations’ (union, intersection and subtract) from simpler solid objects (Whitted, 12
Page 1 and 2: PROPOSAL FOR A SOFTWARE MODEL BASED
Page 3 and 4: ABSTRACT PROPOSAL FOR A SOFTWARE MO
Page 5 and 6: ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Foremost, I would
Page 7 and 8: 2.4 CAAD Software used in Interior
Page 9 and 10: LIST OF TABLES Table 3.1 Comparison
Page 11 and 12: Table 4.5 ‘Other’ features of t
Page 13 and 14: Figure 3.16 Distribution of satisfa
Page 15 and 16: Figure 3.45 Percentage distribution
Page 17 and 18: Through the history, interior space
Page 19 and 20: individual packages. Yet, an agreem
Page 21 and 22: are chosen for their different purp
Page 23 and 24: graphics of the old computer system
Page 25: group supports the use of CAAD soft
Page 29 and 30: in ‘parametric modeling’ is non
Page 31 and 32: fields, such as; architecture, engi
Page 33 and 34: 2.4.1.1 AutoCAD AutoCAD is a full-f
Page 35 and 36: plugged into the software. Nonethel
Page 37 and 38: Due to the limited information abou
Page 39 and 40: take 2D drawing printouts, one has
Page 41 and 42: There are available plug-ins, objec
Page 43 and 44: 3. CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CAAD SOFTWA
Page 45 and 46: 3D objects include ‘planes’,
Page 47 and 48: out the plan view of the object int
Page 49 and 50: Further parts of this study also ex
Page 51 and 52: Table 3.2 Comparison of ‘transfor
Page 53 and 54: Next feature is related to ‘rende
Page 55 and 56: in this section are based on the sa
Page 57 and 58: Table 3.7 Comparison of ‘transfor
Page 59 and 60: Table 3.9 Comparison of ‘renderin
Page 61 and 62: Table 3.11 Comparison of features i
Page 63 and 64: 3.2.1.2 Questionnaire Based on the
Page 65 and 66: Although 25% of students does not u
Page 69 and 70: A typical architectural project pro
Page 71 and 72: Furthermore, in the conceptual desi
Page 75 and 76: Table 3.15 Reasons of discontent fo
Page 77 and 78:
Table 3.16 Reasons for utilizing a
Page 79 and 80:
Initially, students are questioned
Page 81 and 82:
After confirming the necessity for
Page 83 and 84:
68 Figure 3.22 Distribution of pref
Page 85 and 86:
Table 3.18 Students’ needs in ter
Page 87 and 88:
Among all of the features and attri
Page 89 and 90:
• Although students acknowledged
Page 91 and 92:
of interviewees are specialized in
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 3.26 Percentage distribution
Page 95 and 96:
the number of professionals using a
Page 97 and 98:
Table 3.21 Reasons for discontent f
Page 99 and 100:
Table 3.22 Reasons for utilizing a
Page 101 and 102:
Page 103 and 104:
Table 3.25 emphasizes the insuffici
Page 105 and 106:
Moreover, unlike students, professi
Page 107 and 108:
Page 109 and 110:
94 Figure 3.44 Distribution of pref
Page 111 and 112:
The quality attributes derived from
Page 113 and 114:
The findings of the interviews that
Page 115 and 116:
4. PROPOSED MODEL This chapter intr
Page 117 and 118:
4.1 Features of the Proposed Model
Page 119 and 120:
Table 4.1 ‘Drawing’ features of
Page 121 and 122:
Next, in ‘view’ feature analysi
Page 123 and 124:
Table 4.5 ‘Other’ features of t
Page 125 and 126:
Table 4.6 ‘Ease of use’ attribu
Page 127 and 128:
Finally there exist, some quality a
Page 129 and 130:
Besides, the model introduces a new
Page 131 and 132:
model should integrate these requir
Page 133 and 134:
commonly used interior architectura
Page 135 and 136:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 3D Animation Glossary.
Page 137 and 138:
Kurman, D. (1998). Sculptor - How t
Page 139 and 140:
APPENDICES 124
Page 141 and 142:
A.1 Questionnaire Full Name : .....
Page 143 and 144:
14) Would you be interested if you
Page 145 and 146:
7) In the project development phase
Page 147 and 148:
APPENDIX B 132
Page 149 and 150:
B.2 Some Examples of Interior Archi
Page 151 and 152:
5. A sample bathroom drawing produc
Page 153 and 154:
LIST OF TERMS Add Operation Unifies
Page 155 and 156:
Layering An operation that helps to
Page 157 and 158:
Transformation The process by which
show all

critical analysis of the absence of interior - Bilkent University

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?