From: rwzobel@unity.ncsu.edu (Rick Zobel)
Newsgroups: alt.architecture
Subject: Re: Immersive Environments (VR) and Design
Date: 13 Oct 92 18:29:29 GMT
Organization: North Carolina State University Computing Center

ccav38@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("I.Ballouz") and rwzobel@unity.ncsu.edu 
(Rick Zobel) continue their discussion:

>>>> (Stuff deleted...)

>>There are a lot of major stumbling blocks that need to be 
>>examined before this new technology can be used effectively.
>>But we have the advantage that we are at the beginning of this
>>technology and its influence on Architecture, and can look
>                                                ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>ahead at what should be and make it happen, rather than looking
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>back at what could have been...
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
>I don't understand what you do you mean here. I hope You aren't one
>of the over_enthusiasts who believe that CAAD will bring magic solutions
>to hard problems.

No, I don't believe there are any "magic solutions" to the hard
problems inherent to architecture. However, with CGIE technology,
there can exist new means for aiding the visualization of these
problems. If a problem can be presented more clearly to the 
designer, there is a much higher liklihood that he/she will
be able to find a good solution. This is true at every level of
the design process. My greatest hope for this technology is
that it will create new tools to assist in the understanding
of the spatial ramifications of design, as well as sophisticated,
customized tools for the creation and editing of space.

What I was speaking of above (that you underlined), is our
position as designers in relation to 2-D CAD and in some respects,
3-D CAD, versus design based CGIE's. Once a boulder is rolling,
it is difficult to change its direction, however, if you are the
one who pushes the boulder to get it started rolling, you have
a great deal of flexability as to the direction it should roll.
Architects are in a position now, where because of market pressure
and installed base, it is very difficult to introduce 2 and 3
dimensional CAD products, so, many good ideas get shelved with
the wish that they had been 3 years earlier. With CGIE technology,
architects have probably about 2 to 5 years before products
are affordable at the public level, and 1 to 2 before they are
available at the coporation level. We have time (very little)
to get involved in the design of these systems so that they
meet our needs as designers, rather than being just a 3D CAD
system for a generic user which happens to use a Head Mounted
Display for viewing. With the underlined comment, I was merely 
advocating that architects be the ones that push the boulder 
off the mountain...

>Frankly, I beleive that CAAD systems is having an impact and will 
>continue to have in the future on architects.
>However, I don't think myself that we necessairly have to break clean
>with the past in order to advance the cause of CAAD.
>I think CAAD is only a natural thing that architecture must takes on
>board for the present and for the future.
>We had photography, model making and now CAAD. I believe this natural.

I certainly don't advocate a clean break with the past either!
However, design in 3-space (except for modeling clay) is a 
completely new means of design. Most of the third dimension is
imagined in our mind's eye view, and then abstracted and put
into two dimensional media, or 3D media which is completely
out of scale with our bodies. I believe that this new medium
(when it advances far enough to be called a medium) will provide
a natural means of visualizing our mind's eye pictures. I
agree with you that it is a step in the natural evolution of
architectural design, and architects can either have a hand in
forming it, or sit back and let it roll in.

-Rick Zobel
NCSU School of Design
Architecture Department 
Newsgroups: alt.architecture