Second Life

[ArchTeque]

I am a Second Life geek. I admit it, but if you haven't checked it out already, Second Life is an amazing place to create and design architecture. It is fast becoming an amazing tool for BIM and other representation.

Of course, I personally feel as though the Second Life environment should be designed to adhere to its residents and apply to its own environment. So as my master thesis this last year I created the Second Life School of Architecture (no this isn't a plug). Check it out at [url]http://www.theslsa.com [/url]and let me know what you guys think about the potential behind this school.

[Architorture]

i don't know about all the cigar smoking...

[csintexas]

I have looked at second life a bit and I don't really see any point to it other than as a social medium.

I don't think it is possible to create virtual architecture because architecture needs reality to be architecture otherwise it is art. I do think virtual reality is a great way to study and help create architecture and will be more so in the future.

I do agree that there is no need to try and recreate real world building forms in a virtual world and it just makes the place more boring. For that matter why have avatars that look like people? Why have sky and earth? Why try and represent three dimensions in a two dimensional space?

[solidred]

Forgive my ignorance, but I was thinking 'second life' referred to an organisation of retired people... if, as I assume from the responses 'second life' means, instead, 'virtual life', I see little point to it unless it allows one to do and say things one could not in 'first life'... expand the boundaries a bit. However, I find that social conduct considered antisocial in 'real' life is considered every bit as unacceptable on the web. And it stands to reason for, behind the imagery, it's still 'real' life people... so why chat with a Lara Croft cartoon when one can chat with a real person who is, say, more beautiful and alot more besides? I don't get it...

[usarender]

This is a lousy idea. To create a school of architecture based on second life ?

What is to be said for free thinking design forms that can evolve on paper? Should we resign ourselves to becoming computer geeks?

It can be seen there are many such online free virtual worlds out there.

When you join these types of communities, they frequently force you, before gaining access to their worlds, to enter into agreements that many consider as outrageous, and unfair. (Details of this can be seen on recent posts in this community).

Just as there are those who oppose windows type software dominance as seen in major operating systems, we need to do the same with similar emerging companies that frequently seek to use what can almost be seen as "public domain", "freely accessible codes" and practically oblige users to agree to absurd conditions before entering such types of sites... thus guaranteeing they will not be held to account.

Why not help the world build a truly freely accessible global 3D world, where one is not exploited by single company or single corporate interest, but rather in a global system that is globally owned and operated, globally supported by the power of mass collaboration ?

Why be fooled any longer by these types of mini-world communities?

Should have we foreseen the danger of adhering to many software programs in architecture, we would not be facing now a dominating platform of cad that is heavy, antiquated, and unproductive for design, as seen in the standard platform of drafting we see today.

If we are not careful, we will be aggravating this error even further by encouraging young people to design with a computer rather then design with their mind.

I have seen many enter into competitions in these programs as well. The resulting architecture can be seen to follow no concept. It may seem nice as an experiment, and generate interesting geometric forms, but clearly follows no clear cut overall guiding design idea, as related to a context.

It ends up becoming architecture just for the sake of architecture, devoid of any context. Is this how we should train a young generation to view architecture ?

Furthermore, such communities are only stimulating x-rated areas and lewd public displays of obscene behavior. Should we as architects and designers encourage the young generation to believe that there is no need any longer for moderation and discretion? Should we admit to lower a moral standard in order to conform to a greater trend ? What will be of the younger generation who also wishes to partake of this experience ? They will certainly learn at a very young age all the worst the under-world has to offer in terms of moral decency, if this term exists in the modern world as we know it. Or shall we give in to Sodomy and Hedonism to achieve a greater architectural integration in what we believe is a storm of thought?

[Shred]

i've never played second life but i've seen really impressive demos of how you can build in it. so noob question - what are the best programs available right now to convey architectual ideas? and how much better can you convey your ideas using these more professional programs vs programs like secondlife's builder?

(sorry to jack this thread but wtf is up with you guys ^^^???)

[usarender]

The idea is not essentially how ideas are conveyed, but in what environment we wish to convey those ideas. Either we convey them in programs and places that will only augment the trend towards monopoly, or in a new systematic, joint, open platform and system.

Further, it is how the designs are developed that is the most essential question, not how the designs are presented.

The are various excellent software products for designing and visualizing architecture. What we need to avoid as designers is allow companies to monopolize information, monopolize the environment of exchange of ideas and tell us how we should think (under their system of conveying gestures and thoughts), live our lives and the software to use to design our architecture. If we follow the trend of things we will end up aggravating a global problem of anti-social behavior. We will aggravate the problem further if we train designers to study and learn how to design exclusively with such programs, taking away from creativity and further aggravating the monopoly of ideas.

Mr. Nelson

[P.C.]

Or tools and options need to be brought into reach, a more bold architecture maybe even allow the best designs to acturly win the contests. It is unwise to close the eyes to what change, change before a solution are there .
Still I find no reson for a bargain here, things have the value things share. When quality get better for free and even offer a cheapet item, emagine what it could have been worth, carrying the core quality future architecture must provide --- That is nice cheap houses, and a pæatform for develobing new sweet materials.

[P.C.]

Or tools and options need to be brought into reach, a more bold architecture- maybe even allow the best designs to acturly win the contests. It is unwise to close the eyes to what change, change before a solution are there .
Still I find no reson for a bargain here, things have the value things share. When quality get better for free and even offer a cheapet item, emagine what it could have been worth, carrying the core quality- future architecture must provide --- And that is nice cheap houses plus new production, and a platform for develobing new sweet materials.

[usarender]

I am all for the most bold designs winning the contests, and the most affordable, cheap building technologies to rule on how we build. We cannot simply stifle the process of intellectual development under a platform that is monopolized and in which design competitions are conducted to promote further monopolies on the way we design, live and breath architecture. Frequently joint architectural efforts in such worlds has lead to architectural concoctions of ideas with no clear concept. Should we have predicted the monopoly of the basic CAD platform we use today, we could have created a more open, freely accessible and free platform for the development of cad applications, without it being under the control of one business or group solely, as is the case with the prevalent CAD software in use today. Further, the result of the main software we use today in CAD is that it is antiquated.

[Richard Haut]

[usarender]

Richard's response brings up some very interesting points. It would be interesting indeed to see support in these communities, that the actual winners of contests names were published all over these forums, in such a way to shame the architectural "cliques", and those who refuse to publish anything but famous architects names.

[Richard Haut]

I don't think that one needs to avoid the famous names - often the comparison of their winning scheme compared to the shorlisted ones can be very interesting.

where I think that we would agree is that it should be a question of merit and, yes, some of the famous names do deserve their fame - but not to the exclusion of others.

[P.C.]

"Should we have predicted the monopoly of the basic CAD platform we use today, we could have created a more open, freely accessible and free platform for the development of cad applications, without it being under the control of one business or group solely, as is the case with the prevalent CAD software in use today. Further, the result of the main software we use today in CAD is that it is antiquated."

Yes architect firms got exactly what they wanted, some of the bigger firms even went into the software develobing and created their own platform and sold it on to even bigger software houses , "Point" for one wasn't that simply eaten by autodesk and the start for Revit ?
Anyway what has been wrong is the fact that nothing realy new has been develobed, this control has been there apriciated by the bigger architect firms as what the software is about is their buisness, it is not the small firms that has profited. I still see a gab between what architect programs focus, how everything is prepared for a spreedsheet rather than for building. And the little percenteage of the computers structural aid, it's great visulaising ability , where is that in fact being used ; to show the Lego blocks as supposed, or to push further understanding of the build structure.
Sorry to make this into a personal thing, but as I thru my time with computers have worked strait opposite these programs, who can then ever wonder how a single man could ever afford to develob further or even in real show the build results --- for one of these firms those money are nothing they are even taken off the tax -- , think about the money been put into just trivial things in an architect application but backed up by huge companies ; how on earth could one man with a good idea ever fight that.

Sorry again I just brought this up as an example, how to add the tools that would not be antiques , to a monster program lined up in paragraphs and rules, how could creativity in this sense, develobing strait opposite the trends , ever be possible for one man, ----- and true then think about the nonsense that is referred, said by stararchitects.
Maybe I shuld say sorry again, but there are so many things in Richard Haut's post,

[usarender]

I am not sure this last post was clear on many issues. Truly the biggest CAD platform we use today was not developed by ARCHITECTS. It was developed as a generic CAD platform during the time of DOS. It is antiquated, heavy, cumbersome and requires hundreds of applications upon applications to work for architecture. Sorry to say that, but everything is inverted in this type of thinking. Now, many big architecture firms, concerned with their business start developing application upon application to add to this software to make it work for their businesses, and way of doing things. This is the problem. Now, how "Star ARchitects" enters into all this, I can't see the relationship. There were several unrelated thoughts that were being considered, and the connection was being made in the sequence of thoughts. I can't seem to see a connection here at this point.