marc

Very nice work on that Art Deco tower! (Although I have to admit I like the original base done in gmax the most.) Perhaps this tower should be textured to look abandoned and shattered just like Detroit's Michigan Central RR Station?

Superb work, Ardecila! The only suggestion I have is to tweak the aluminum material/texture on the tube- it looks a bit crumpled and dented right now. Other than that, great work! If you still need reference pictures, I have a copy of Architectural Record which wrote an extensive article on this structure a while back and has great pictures. I can scan them if you like.

Originally posted by: Micah In Europe, the population is very close together. In America, it's very spread apart. The areas that are like Europe (sprawl, megalopolises, etc.) have had transit for some time now. As for the rural areas, they simply rely on highways for mass transit or simple roads.quote> True, population density does introduce a demand for mass transit, but until the 50s, most rural towns in the US had railroad or interurban trolley service. My hometown in NH (current pop c.a. 4000, 1950's pop c.a. 1000) had rail access until it was cut in the 50s. Thousands of small towns across the country experienced the same phenomenon. The US's 19th/early 20th century rail network was the envy of the world and reached literally any village in the US until it began to decay. More specifically, the Interstate Highway system and GM actively helped stamp it out. You're correct that our population is relatively spread out in comparison to Europe. But the vast majority of our population does not live in rural areas as they so like to claim. Almost all of us live in suburban and exurban zones, which are definitely dense enough to support some means of public transit. But developers prefer to promote highway access and lollipop dead-end road and feeder networks in order to keep automobile transportation dominant. In many parts of the country, this type of sprawl-like development is the only legal way to build, so developers actively eliminate the feasibility of mass transit (before it even has a chance) in order to maintain the automobile as the only practical means of travel.

Originally posted by: Micah In Europe, the population is very close together. In America, it's very spread apart. The areas that are like Europe (sprawl, megalopolises, etc.) have had transit for some time now. As for the rural areas, they simply rely on highways for mass transit or simple roads.quote> True, population density does introduce a demand for mass transit, but until the 50s, most rural towns in the US had railroad or interurban trolley service. My hometown in NH (current pop c.a. 4000, 1950's pop c.a. 1000) had rail access until it was cut in the 50s. Thousands of small towns across the country experienced the same phenomenon. The US's 19th/early 20th century rail network was the envy of the world and reached literally any village in the US until it began to decay. More specifically, the Interstate Highway system and GM actively helped stamp it out. You're correct that our population is relatively spread out in comparison to Europe. But the vast majority of our population does not live in rural areas as they so like to claim. Almost all of us live in suburban and exurban zones, which are definitely dense enough to support some means of public transit. But developers prefer to promote highway access and lollipop dead-end road and feeder networks in order to keep automobile transportation dominant. In many parts of the country, this type of sprawl-like development is the only legal way to build, so developers actively eliminate the feasibility of mass transit (before it even has a chance) in order to maintain the automobile as the only practical means of travel.

Originally posted by: muffinpunk787Also part of the assignment is to include 'Green Building' or using enviromentally friendly materials, designs, etc. Any ideas or techniques for this?quote> Be very careful with this requirement. Most architecture students have no idea what "green design" really is and fall into the typical cliche trap of putting a bunch of solar panels on the roof as if expecting those will solve all their problems. A lot of buildings today are certified by the LEED as "green," when in actuality they are not. Numerous shopping malls have been designated as "green," for example, and while they do offer some innovations such as wastewater reuse, passive heating and cooling, etc, the damage and consumption the mall encourages offsets the meager benefits it offers. For example, a "green" shopping center may still be surrounded by a vast asphalt parking lot. For your project, I would emphasize easy reusability (like Jason suggested) and modification. This will cut down on the labor and material needed when it comes to remodeling. Since most buildings today are designed to be torn down in 25 years or so, an easily modifiable/reusable building would be very green. You can consider on site solar power, but if the site is surrounded by anything (hills, buildings, etc) that would create shadows throughout the day, don't even bother. More important would be to consider passive heating and ventilation techniques. If you're in the northern hemisphere, for example, limit the windows to the north and provide ample windows on the south facade. Put overhangs over them so that the winter sun can enter through the window but the higher summer sun is blocked out. If you put deciduous trees in front as well, they will shade and cool your building in the summer and let the winter sunlight through to heat it. Skylights are overrated and will let in the hot, uninterrupted summer sun. They will also suck heat from the building in the winter. A better system would be some sort of adjustable vents/louvers to create a "stack effect" and let out hot interior air in the summer. This system can be closed in the winter. A system of clerestories on the east/west/north facades would let in ambient light better than a bunch of skylights. Although HVAC is wasteful, since this is a dentist's office, you will most likely need some sort of air ventilation system. Originally posted by: OdainsakerTo be the green, your best bet will be with creatively conserving your particular site, choosing materials and construction types (no imported hardwood from the Amazon, or glass boxes in the desert), providing ample natural daylighting or supplemental daylighting where possible, while also providing enough building shading and venting to minimize cooling costs. Any dental/medical function may require a particular type of internal HVAC environment, controlled lighting, medical waste control, and water and power use that you may or may not be able to avoid. Existing off-the-shelf catalogue parts tend to be more economical than trying to re-engineer history's most elaborate heroic arch and custom fancy truss. Keep it simple. quote> Right on.

Originally posted by: muffinpunk787Also part of the assignment is to include 'Green Building' or using enviromentally friendly materials, designs, etc. Any ideas or techniques for this?quote> Be very careful with this requirement. Most architecture students have no idea what "green design" really is and fall into the typical cliche trap of putting a bunch of solar panels on the roof as if expecting those will solve all their problems. A lot of buildings today are certified by the LEED as "green," when in actuality they are not. Numerous shopping malls have been designated as "green," for example, and while they do offer some innovations such as wastewater reuse, passive heating and cooling, etc, the damage and consumption the mall encourages offsets the meager benefits it offers. For example, a "green" shopping center may still be surrounded by a vast asphalt parking lot. For your project, I would emphasize easy reusability (like Jason suggested) and modification. This will cut down on the labor and material needed when it comes to remodeling. Since most buildings today are designed to be torn down in 25 years or so, an easily modifiable/reusable building would be very green. You can consider on site solar power, but if the site is surrounded by anything (hills, buildings, etc) that would create shadows throughout the day, don't even bother. More important would be to consider passive heating and ventilation techniques. If you're in the northern hemisphere, for example, limit the windows to the north and provide ample windows on the south facade. Put overhangs over them so that the winter sun can enter through the window but the higher summer sun is blocked out. If you put deciduous trees in front as well, they will shade and cool your building in the summer and let the winter sunlight through to heat it. Skylights are overrated and will let in the hot, uninterrupted summer sun. They will also suck heat from the building in the winter. A better system would be some sort of adjustable vents/louvers to create a "stack effect" and let out hot interior air in the summer. This system can be closed in the winter. A system of clerestories on the east/west/north facades would let in ambient light better than a bunch of skylights. Although HVAC is wasteful, since this is a dentist's office, you will most likely need some sort of air ventilation system. Originally posted by: OdainsakerTo be the green, your best bet will be with creatively conserving your particular site, choosing materials and construction types (no imported hardwood from the Amazon, or glass boxes in the desert), providing ample natural daylighting or supplemental daylighting where possible, while also providing enough building shading and venting to minimize cooling costs. Any dental/medical function may require a particular type of internal HVAC environment, controlled lighting, medical waste control, and water and power use that you may or may not be able to avoid. Existing off-the-shelf catalogue parts tend to be more economical than trying to re-engineer history's most elaborate heroic arch and custom fancy truss. Keep it simple. quote> Right on.

3dsmax 9 IS compatible with the BAT4Max. The "3dsmax.ini" file is now in a different location than old max versions (now typically "C:\Documents and Settings\szarkm\Local Settings\Application Data\Autodesk\3dsmax\9 - 32bit\enu") so just edit the filepaths in the scripts to point to this new location wherever necessary. EDIT: BTW, that's the first time I ever heard anyone using AutoCAD for BATting. I think it's too clunky for true 3D work, but perhaps you're using it with Architectural Desktop or something like that, which makes it a lot easier.

Originally posted by: ILL Tonkso I'm going for something minimalist (again you have Scipio to thank for that). quote> Nice work! Though this can't really be considered "minimalist;" it's more "deconstructivist" as minimalism died out from the public view in the early '70s.

Nice work, QTips! Looks like we have another promising BATter emerging, and it's great to see 4 years after the game's release so many people are still interested in creating custom content for it! I like the detail you put into modeling the window frames, and the wall textures look great. However, I think the roof texture needs a little work to reduce the apparent "choppiness" in the vertical gradients. Try reducing those using Photoshop and put in a minor horizontal gradient instead. Nevertheless, this is excellent work and I am looking forward to more progress!

You know, after naively arguing my opinions in the "Anthropogenic Global Warming is Nonsense" thread, I just realized "What's the point?" None of us, no matter how much we argue and flame, are going to convince our opponents of our beliefs- we're all very much set in our own ways and there's no point in trying to convert an anonymous internet poster. And furthermore, none of us are scientists, researchers, or climatologists, so our opinions and conclusions are worth zilch in the world of science. Let's just leave the research to the actual researchers. After all, a bunch of sc4 addicts like us have nothing useful to offer to the study of this phenomenon anyways! Since this debate won't be ending anytime soon, we might as well save our energy for later, or redirect it to something more productive.

Originally posted by: GMT the only lie about global warming is that cars and planes are the reason. but, as recent studies show, cars are only at about 12% and planes at about 5% of the worldwide co2-emmission, all the other 82% are from industry, households, powerplants. quote> You bring up a very good point which is still almost universally ignored. Although transportation and industry are contributors to global warming, the BIGGEST contributor is the housing industry. As the recent 2010 Imperative forum in NYC discussed, architects cause far more damage to the environment than the oil and automobile industries do. In a way, architects and urban planners are responsible for much of the automobile's CO2 emissions, since the sprawl-centric suburban developments (which emit tons of CO2 on their own) that most US architects design encourage even more use of CO2-spewing gas guzzlers. We would reduce CO2 emissions much more with "green" buildings and environmentally-sensitive urban planning, although auto efficiency and mass transit should still be supported. Originally posted by: wagusmaximus I will ask YOU, whom are these global warming scientists paid by? they get a paycheck somehow. What party is AL GORE a member of? ... I seem to remember in suday school that GOD did the same thing a long time ago: And I will establish my covenant with you; neither shall all flesh be cut off any more by the waters of a flood; neither shall there any more be a flood to destroy the earth. Genesis 9:11 quote> ^ I can't help but laugh when a right-winger dismisses the research and objective studies conducted by scientists as completely worthless but then promotes a book of fairy tales as if it's more credible and believable: "Those "scientists" have recorded increased CO2 emissions in ice sample data, rising ocean levels, and rising temperatures; but what do they know? Their "data" is wrong. But, LOOK, in the BIBLE here it says THAT; look that sounds IMPORTANT, it must definitely be TRUE!!" What should we have faith in: A fairy-tale book with questionable contributions and stories written during the dark ages or reports composed by dedicated scientists who have spent entire CAREERS researching the minuti of climatology and earth sciences? I will always trust the scientists. To all bible thumpers: You say that man-made global warming isn't believable but the story of Jonah being eaten by a whale and surviving is absolute truth? Riiiiggght.

Nofunk, the Ellsworth Lofts look absolutely stunning! I think this building is actually flexible enough to be residential, commercial, or industrial.

Originally posted by: Jasoncw Yeah, I would significantly reduce the contrast with the roof. quote> I agree, but I would expand upon that a bit. As well as reducing the contrast, I would modify the saturation slightly so it wouldn't just be pure shades of black. Add a hint of brown, yellow, or even green into the roof texture to suggest age, dust, grime, etc. The front facade of the building turned out amazing! Edit: Unless, I'm missing something, why does it say "Danke Schön" on the side of the building? Usually graffitists leave a message other than "thank you" on the walls. But it adds a nice touch of irony.

The Chase Building looks awesome, Jason! I like the work on the sign in particular- it's one of the first that doesn't look blocky and unfinished.