 |
| Why can't my system be aware of its surroundings? The machine has no understanding of 'place' or 'time', on relationship to the context of what we are trying to create. The machine tools should be focused on doing what they do best and ought to be able to do so in the context of what is being developed. It should be my window on what is not yet built. I want to be able to go down to the ocean and start working on a project that is to be built there. -Hello machine, we are going to build a pier here. |
|
 |
| Let the machines do what they are good at and humans what they are good at. If tools were more procedural it would be possible build what you need to realize your vision, not be limited by the marketing and economic constraints of its maker. -Unless 1000 users want that feature we are not going to put it in the software. A framework to make your own tools, yet still usable by designers and not only programmers. But then we are really talking about a language; letters build words, words build content, all infinitely variable. Today we spend far too much time designing the letters. |
|
 |
| What's the point in developing yet another really cool design tools when the bottleneck of a project lies elsewhere? Rather than creating A-life based structural optimization tools we should make sure the modeling of business and process parameters is just as integrated in the tool as any other part. I would love a system more connected to the aspects of AEC that really make a difference; cost estimation, manufacturing, assembly and evaluation of design constraints. A system that lets me dynamically model with money in the same way i model with objects. Does this make sense? |
|
 |
| CAD systems of today don't learn anything from its users. We store the things we make for future reference and possible reuse, but the system itself doesn't benefit from all the hours spent using it. It does not help us collect the things that are really valuable. How could this be achieved? Self-documenting systems that generate searchable content? AI expert-systems? I don't know nearly as much as I would like to about the practical aspects of this. |
|
 |
| CAD ought to be like cooking. I don't want to spend my time designing the broccoli before I cook a nice pasta. I want to bother more with composition and how to make this happen together with a group of people. Sure a lot of research has already gone into this and there are plenty of products out there. And yet, most architects offices are strictly based on militaristic hierarchies, a chain of command & execute. Perhaps the collaborative part of future design tools is something one should develop as a social platform, a culture rooted in the logic and patterns of working together. Or? |
|
 |
| Tools that take a more active role in your work without becoming silly wizards. Automatic DB searches while you model and give you examples of similar solutions. Agents that help you explore endless variations within constraints. Tools that help you visualize exceptions and limitations. |
|
 |
| Time as a naturally integrated part of the modeling of buildings. Everything has a lifecycle, if machines are to help us develop the creation of a product, they should also help us understand the lifetime and death of it. This is done today from an economic point of view; Product Lifecycle Management, Total Cost of Ownership etc. My view is that it should play a greater part in the design process and thus be part of a CAD toolkit. |
|