Just got this fancy error display after attempting to Enable Energy Model.
"The zone does not have a mass floor as its bottom and will be classified as unconditioned space. If this was not your intent, either join the form in the mass family to another form that has a mass floor, or add a mass floor to the mass instance touching the bottom of the form."
Any suggestions?
Thursday, August 8, 2013
Monday, August 5, 2013
Probe 5, Part 1
Ok.
Probe 5 brought up a few issues that I think are worth noting.
First, there always seems to be a debate when trying to decide what tool to design with. At this point (and it may be due to a lack of skill with the Revit tool) I prefer to draw up some ideas by paper and then move to the digital.
Massing has proven to be a slightly double-edged sword, where it becomes difficult to transition between the project and the "family creation" mode. I find also that though I can think conceptually with massing, I immediately focus on details in the project window.
Illustration issues also came up. I had a hard time using the coloring tools, though thankfully my classmates were able to assist.
I also seem to still have some problems with the schedule an the equations we had to use to calculate efficiency.
Probe 5 brought up a few issues that I think are worth noting.
First, there always seems to be a debate when trying to decide what tool to design with. At this point (and it may be due to a lack of skill with the Revit tool) I prefer to draw up some ideas by paper and then move to the digital.
Massing has proven to be a slightly double-edged sword, where it becomes difficult to transition between the project and the "family creation" mode. I find also that though I can think conceptually with massing, I immediately focus on details in the project window.
Illustration issues also came up. I had a hard time using the coloring tools, though thankfully my classmates were able to assist.
I also seem to still have some problems with the schedule an the equations we had to use to calculate efficiency.
Tuesday, July 30, 2013
Post #1 of the series "BIM, A Learning Process"
So today's first reading was a talk by Thom Mayne, Morphosis, given at Santa Monica, CA.
In this lecture, Mayne briefly recounts his experience within his own firm, and the transitory period from purely two-dimensional documentation process to three-dimensional modeling.
Through this, says Thom Mayne, all the fields involved in the process (architect, engineers, fabricators, etc.) are able to analyze the project (structural systems, solving connection details, building envelope, etc).
Thom Mayne then goes on to answer questions from the audience, once again emphasizing the importance of computerization and parametric modeling.
The second reading was a Report on Integrated Practice by Chuck Eastman, given at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Eastman delves deeper into the world of Parametric Modeling and Building Product Models.
Much of what is discussed perhaps requires a more in-depth understanding of the subject, though it isn't impossible to decipher with my limited knowledge.
Chuck Eastman's essay takes particular interest in the collaborative effect this technology can provide, due to it parametric approach and across-the-board documentation capabilities. As mentioned in the Thom Mayne analysis, Eastman claims the ease with which concepts can be described across a variety of disciplines.
Eastman also exposes BIM's workflow capabilities, beginning with the data mining of the model, to the analysis-base application (which provides the necessary data to inform the project, such as environmental, technology, etc), then back to the BIM model.
This diagram shows it best:
So today's first reading was a talk by Thom Mayne, Morphosis, given at Santa Monica, CA.
In this lecture, Mayne briefly recounts his experience within his own firm, and the transitory period from purely two-dimensional documentation process to three-dimensional modeling.
Through this, says Thom Mayne, all the fields involved in the process (architect, engineers, fabricators, etc.) are able to analyze the project (structural systems, solving connection details, building envelope, etc).
Thom Mayne then goes on to answer questions from the audience, once again emphasizing the importance of computerization and parametric modeling.
The second reading was a Report on Integrated Practice by Chuck Eastman, given at the Georgia Institute of Technology.
Eastman delves deeper into the world of Parametric Modeling and Building Product Models.
Much of what is discussed perhaps requires a more in-depth understanding of the subject, though it isn't impossible to decipher with my limited knowledge.
Chuck Eastman's essay takes particular interest in the collaborative effect this technology can provide, due to it parametric approach and across-the-board documentation capabilities. As mentioned in the Thom Mayne analysis, Eastman claims the ease with which concepts can be described across a variety of disciplines.
Eastman also exposes BIM's workflow capabilities, beginning with the data mining of the model, to the analysis-base application (which provides the necessary data to inform the project, such as environmental, technology, etc), then back to the BIM model.
This diagram shows it best:
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)