From: ccav38@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("I.Ballouz")
Subject: Re: Immersive Environments (VR) and Design
Organization: University of Strathclyde
Date: Tue, 13 Oct 1992 15:37:44 GMT


In article <1992Oct12.133939.19918@ncsu.edu> rwzobel@unity.ncsu.edu (Rick Zobel) writes:
>ccav38@ccsun.strath.ac.uk ("I.Ballouz") writes:
>
>>rwzobel@unity.ncsu.edu (Rick Zobel) writes:
>
>>> (Stuff deleted...)
>
>
>I agree completely that Virtual Worlds Technology is too
>costly and too immature at this stage to be utilized at the
>level of the private architecture firm. I also agree that
>it is still at a point that it would not be effective in
>the university level (in the design department) unless the
>school could afford technical staff, or technical based
>graduate students to be hired exclusivly as support staff
>to run it. (This is changing quickly as tool-kits are being
>created which bring access to the software aspects down to
>a level where anyone with moderate programming experience
>can create applications.) 
>
>My statement that very few people are interested in the potential
>of the technology stems from conversations where designers
>stated that they "were not interested in what their design
>really looked like, and the mind's eye picture they held was
>the only 'true' embodiment of their design." I have had this
>conversation more than once, believe it or not. My hope is
>that these are just the views of paranoid designers who can
>only justify their designs by convincing themselves and
>others that their designs cannot be adequately visualized in
>any medium, and thus can never be truely critiqued on their
>ideas.
>

I don't think those people are really the majority. 
I beleive once these systems have become as known as other CAAD
systems, architects would find this technology very useful.
I agree totally with what you said bellow about the advantages of
the CGIE systems.
There will always be however some people who prefer other styles
in their work and some, for sure will stick to traditional methods.


>The argument that worries me more is that CGIE (VR) is "just
>another type of computer graphics, and offers nothing new
>to architecture or design." This is a prevalent attitude
>among designers, especially in academia.

Those people are dreaming. Even the basic drafting systems have had
some influence in architecture, academic and practice.
I beleive personnaly that once the applications spread further and
the architects have got used to them, a proper evaluation of these
systems will take place. New methods of using computers for design
and for evaluating designs will be more available.
This might take some time. We should remember that tradtional methods
have evolved with us and have a long history. 

>Having spent many, many
>hours inside immersive environments designing, experiencing
>space, editing spaces and looking at it as a medium for
>creative design, I would say that this medium has a great
>deal to offer to architectural design above and beyond screen
>based CAAD, 2D or 3D. The two most powerful additions
>being the ability to experience space as we experience it in
>the "real world", and allowing us the use of our normal interface
>to the world to be used as the interface to the computer. This
>combined with the ability to use this technology as an information
>visualization tool (expert systems) sets this technology up
>as a very powerful tool for designing and understanding architecture. 
>
>I believe that this technology has the potential to fundamentally
>change the way that architecture is designed, visualized and
>critiqued within the next 20 years. It will be interesting
>to see how this technology grows as it becomes more and
>more affordable over the next few years.
>

True, but I beleive that there will always be a gap between what CAAD
can achieve and between the real thing. I am sure on the other hand that
computers can take us further for an objective evaluation of our design
, more than any traditional method, and also they will be useful aid
tools for the deisgner in the future.


>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.
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.

>Rick Zobel
>NCSU School of Design
>Architecture Department
>


I. Ballouz
-- 
*******************************************************************************
* IBRAHIM BALLOUZ            **           DEPARTMENT OF ARCHITECTURE          *
* ccav38@uk.ac.strath.ccsun  **  STRATHCLYDE UNIVERSITY GLASGOW SCOTLAND U.K. *
*******************************************************************************