How much detail should you include about wall, floor and roof composition at different stages?
◦ Conceptual design
◦ Preliminary design
◦ Design development
◦ Construction documentation
You moved a design from Forma into Revit this week.
Most of the general building form, layout, and wall positions transferred well from Forma to Revit. However, I had to make adjustments to the levels, connections between different parts of the building, and several windows. This showed me that Forma is better suited for the early stages of design, where the focus is on exploring ideas, testing different building shapes, and understanding the site. Revit, on the other hand, is where those ideas become more detailed, with greater attention to how the building actually comes together.
Knowing this, I would spend less time on certain details in Forma next time, particularly the windows. I found that Revit offered more options and flexibility for window placement and design, so much of that work would have been easier to do after the handoff. I would still use Forma to establish the building shape, wall positions, and general layout, but leave more of the detailed design and construction decisions for Revit. I would also try to organize the different parts of the building more carefully in Forma to avoid having to consolidate so many elements after transferring.
Many manufacturers provide Revit families for their products.
Providing Revit families for free is a good way for manufacturers to advertise their products and encourage designers to use them. If a product is already available in a model and works well with the design, there's a greater chance it will actually be selected for construction. For designers, manufacturer-specific families provide more options and accurate details. They can help communicate design intentions more clearly, especially when coordinating with other disciplines.
I think generic families are more useful during the early stages of design, when you're still exploring options and don't necessarily know which products you'll use. Switching to manufacturer-specific families makes more sense as the design becomes more developed and decisions need to be made about constructability, cost, environmental impact, and overall building performance. Having more accurate product information also helps the different disciplines involved in the project evaluate how well the design meets their requirements. However, I think it's important to maintain some flexibility early on rather than committing to specific products before the overall design has been worked out. However, I would still avoid committing to a specific manufacturer too early, since that could unnecessarily limit the design options.
The core is located early and moved rarely.
The core needs to be located early because it contains essential elements like stairs, elevators, and mechanical shafts that need to serve the entire building. Its location affects circulation and the layout of surrounding spaces, so it makes sense to establish it first and design around it. If the core doesn't stack vertically, it can create challenges for structural support, MEP distribution, and circulation between floors. It could also make construction more complicated and expensive.
For my Week 3 layout, locating the core mainly forced me to reconsider the placement of certain walls and rooms. I had to make sure that walls weren't blocking staircases or other parts of the core, while also thinking about how everything would line up across multiple floors. This meant looking beyond the layout of each individual floor and making adjustments to ensure that the core remained continuous throughout the building.
Your Insight result did not match your Forma result.
◦ What accounts for the difference?
◦ Which number would you show a client, and how would you explain the gap?
◦ Does a more detailed model automatically produce a more trustworthy prediction?