You moved a design from Forma into Revit this week.
◦ What survived intact, and what did you rebuild?
The general building mass of my project stayed the same; what changed was how the mass was placed in the space. For example, the elevation was off, and so my base layer was stuck within the ground. Additionally, I rebuilt the roof to be a green roof rather than a simple roof with no layers.
◦ What does that tell you about what each tool is for?
The tools corroborate one another, but they are not standalone for designing an entire structure. Forma did well at helping to ideate a general sketch for the building I wanted. But when it comes down to the fine details of materials and technicalities of making said structure, Forma needs Revit. And I think with how complex Revit is, it is more helpful to come in with a base model from Forma that can be added on to and adjusted.
◦ Knowing where the handoff lands, what would you do differently in Forma next time?
I think I would make my design in Forma less detailed (such as with room plans, etc.), since these features are also available in Revit in far greater detail. It becomes complicated, with layers overlapping and errors within the model that did not convert smoothly into Revit format.
Many manufacturers provide Revit families for their products.
◦ What is the advantage to the manufacturer of giving them away?
It makes consulting with clients more proactive, as the manufacturer can simulate scenarios of their products and how they can be integrated into the client’s design. It is an extension of advertising, as it is showing how their products function in real-world construction and design settings.
◦ What is the benefit to you of using them over the generic library families?
It creates more detailed models for the build that reflect important design decisions throughout the process. Generic libraries do not capture the extent of real modeling that will happen at the construction site. Also, some of the generic materials are not ideal for certain build requirements that can not be met unless specific metrics are used.
◦ At what point does it become appropriate to switch from generic to manufacturer-specific?
It becomes appropriate to switch from generic to manufacturer-specific later, once the general design is approved and construction logistics are in mind. At that stage, you are now negotiating with manufacturers and other stakeholders about what is needed for the build. Those specifics are more useful farther down the line, but not so much for early-stage mockups that will be changed.
The core is located early and moved rarely.
◦ Why does it get fixed before most of the building?
The core is a must for any building; this includes stairs, elevators, and a shaft. These are requirements for any building, and violating them means the building won't meet code or function properly. Especially when considering the mechanical shaft, which cannot move around freely. It is a void within the building space that goes all the way to the top floor. With aspects of the building structure as fundamental as that, the design must build around it. Once it is moved, it becomes costly and time-intensive to adjust.
◦ What are the consequences of a core that does not stack vertically?
A core that does not stack vertically means the building will not be able to be constructed properly or safely. This will lead to several structural, mechanical, and plumbing complications later down the line that depend on these core aspects to connect different systems in the building. If these systems can not be integrated properly, the building will be unusable.
◦ What did locating the core force you to change about your Week 3 layout?
It forced me to change where my units were. Since the space in my design was already pretty tight, I had to be extra mindful of how I created floor plans that did not intersect core sections that could not be altered as I went up the levels of my buildings.