3D Warehouse Modeling

I'm currently working on a project for my Senior Design class. Our project
goal is, basically, to help plan the warehouse layout for an IT related firm
that is moving to a new facility. An essential part of our project will be
offering the company several alternatives for different layouts. In order
to make our presentations as clear as possible, I'm hoping to make a 3D
model of the warehouse, so that we can do a 'visual tour' of the facility
and to give our clients a concrete idea of the solution that we'll suggest.
Does anyone know of any programs that would be useful for doing this?

 

ADT 2006 or 3Dmax

 

How did you arrive at that idea?

I personally find plans, sections and elevations much
better and faster when it comes to appreciating the relationships
within a building. I am not alone in this.

The convention of showing architectural
ideas in this way is thousands of years old. Granted, there are some
who have trouble with them, but concluding that 3d is more
"concrete" or "clear" could use some substantiation, IMHO.

There is a thrill in seeing a beautifully rendered 3d image, but in
my experience, the impression left by these sorts of things is
limited compared to that by the traditional P,S, & E.

 

Something else on which we agree completely, Michael.
___

 

My thinking (and granted, I have virtually no familiarity with the CAD
field) was that we'll be making presentations not only to the clients, who
will themselves be very familiar with the building, but also to faculty
members and fellow students who will most likely never actually see the
facility. I figured that giving the faculty and students a virtual tour,
following the same path that a part that's being shipped would take, would
help the people who will be grading us get a better idea of the process flow
model that we will have designed. Of course, there's also just the 'gee
whiz' factor, as was mentioned. This would all be in addition to all of the
plans, etc. This is all new to me, though, and if you think that a 3D model
wouldn't serve the purposes described above, I'll certainly think about
that.

 

I guess it depends on the point of the class and program. If it is
modeling/rendering then you are likely on the right track. If it is design,
as I understand it, the answer is not so clear.

If you want to clearly convey the relationships between parts of your
program, P,S & E are the way to go. Having said that, when I was in school
there was a saying, "If you can't dazzle'em with drawings, baffle'em with
bullshit." Presenting a rendered 3d model could score points in both of
these ways, especially if it's really good. They may not see flaws in the
plans because they're staring a gorgeous rendering. It's not unlike what
'magicians' do...they direct your attention to away from what they don't
want you to notice.

If you have a good design, and the audience knows how to read plans, the
traditional approach is the way to go, IMHO. The reasons for why things are
as they are is more apparent. The limitations on models is that the focus of
the viewer is chosen for him/her. The "point of view" of a rendering is a
tyrannical is some ways. With a plan, they can look at whatever they want,
whenever they want, in whatever way they want. They can say to themselves,
"What if this went here, like this, instead of there...?" Also, your time
could be spent resolving the design, instead of producing drawings that may
not be required.

A "fly through" is like guided tour where everyone has to hold on to a rope,
and wear name tags.... It's a bit like when Dorothy and company finally get
their audience with the Great and Powerful Oz, and spend it staring at a
projection, and the doorman (the real Wizard) tells them, "Pay no attention
to the man behind the curtain!"

 

Though I was young at the time I clearly recall a similar type of resistance
to the move from paper to CAD.
It's inevitable, 2D drawings (lines & arcs) will one day go the way of the
paper-based drawing.

If you think that the 3D model loses the 2D drawing then you misunderstand
the 3D model idea. The 3D model can provide the 2D detail dynamically - this
means you change your 3D model once & all elevations, sections, etc change
as well.
The 3D model is effectively an inventory of the build components, this means
you know what you need before you start building, you know the cost, you
know that the components fit.

Currently, the major problem with 3D models is that it can be cumbersome
especially if drawings are not managed.

 

If he's doing a presentation model for a school project then I'm ready to
bet my car that it won't be a parametric model. The point of my post was
that orthogonal views are better for understanding buildings quicker, and
that 3d views are not more 'concrete' or 'clear'. My second point is that if
they aren't asking for 3d, and depending on the point of the program, he
might better spend his time designing and resolve the project to a greater
extent.
I never said that " 3D model loses the 2D drawing" nor that there is only
one "3D model idea", and I've seen and drawn all kinds of models.
A take-off is not mentioned as part of the course requirements either.

Don't get me wrong, someday parametrics may replace orthogonal drawing-just
not today, at school, for a warehouse exercise that doesn't require it.

 

If he's only at school level then maybe keeping it simple would be best, but
talk of "facultys" suggests higher level education (just guessing - could be
a language thing).
Obviously, timescale, resources & effort would be a deciding factor in all
this.

However, the OP was asking whether it would help his presentation.
I'm certain that a reasonable 3D model & viewer (with realtime
walk-throughs) in combination with plans would make much better visual props
than plans alone. Even without the realtime walkthrough, combined with the
2D elevations: a video flyby & a few rendered scenes would certainly help.

He has the inclination to go 3D, I would encourage rather than discourage.

The way you talk of 3D views gives me the impression you don't fully
understand a 3D model, or that you can't comprehend what an interactive
realtime 3D viewer can do. Unless, of course, you're confining yourself to
presentations on paper.

 

My "school" would include any program at any level. As for discouraging him
on 3d, that started on the premise that he held unsubstantiated ideas about
the nature of these representations. My advice to him about resources an
requirements is based on wanting him to do the best at his task, which I
assume is to get a good grade. Based on this, and the fact that I don't know
the type of program he's in, my advice has been 'qualified'.

My comments about 3d and points of view stand on a little bit of real
experience designing buildings, in school and in the real world. I've done
3d models that choked the computers of various eras, and I've drawn
perspectives on paper. I still do both today, when appropriate. I also know
how to allocate resources to tasks in order to economically achieve
objectives. This was the point of my post.

 

There seem to be some questions as to the level / nature of the project my
group is pursuing. We're taking the capstone course in Industrial
Engineering at a major engineering university. This is the class that we're
supposed to take to synthesize everything that we've learned over the past
four or five years in school, and we're acting as, in essence, a mini
consulting firm for our 'clients.' The company that we're working with is
one of the largest, globally, in its field, and the guidelines for the
course are that the recommendations given by groups like ours should save
the firm somewhere in the neighborhood of $175,000. In the traditional
Industrial Engineering methods, our abilities are quite high. In the area
of modeling, however, we know very little.

My intention with a 3D drawing wouldn't be to simply do a walk-through tour,
and turn that over to the company and ask them to implement it. We're
definitely going to make use of whatever traditional 2D drawings,
schematics, etc. are necessary. The 3D wouldn't be a replacement for all of
the traditional representative models, just a supplement. In fact, the
model probably would not be completed until well after we make our
recommendations to the company. My goal is just to make the facility 'come
alive' for the other students and for members of the faculty committee who
will never see the warehouse. I'm also just interested in learning how to
do 3D models, so that's part of my motivation as well.

I've taken a look at some of the suggestions that have been given as far as
software, can anyone give me an idea of how intuitive these programs are, or
make a suggestion of some that are more intuitive? As I've said, none of us
have any real experience with 3D modeling, but we do have a few months to
work.

Thanks for the input.

 

Is this to culminate in a real building, or is this make believe?

As for intuitiveness, Sketch Up may be the ticket. http://www.sketchup.com/
(Definitely *not* a parametric modeler, but cheap, and quick.)

 

It's a real building.

 

The learning curve to do that is very long and steep. He doesn't have a lot
of time.

 

Why not sub it out to someone who knows what their doing? It leaves you to
worry about important stuff.
Do you have a budget?

 

Try http://www.sketchup.com/

 

ADT 2006