1
Minecraft as a architecture tool
Krylosindoxious
I use Minecraft ( MC ) for everything except for its intended use as a game. I use a difficulty of peaceful, because I don't want to deal with hostile MOBs where ever I am. I came up with this idea, "what if" a COPY of MC was made, and this copy was altered for architecture, It would serve as a abstract tool for designing models for planning buildings ( interiors and exteriors ), landscaping and terra-forming models too. The new program would not be called minecraft , and the original game would be preserved and continued on with its evolution of advances.
To continue, the modified copy of MC could be turned around as a learning tool as well to that someone can understand 3 dimensional space. MC upholds a law of physical space, the fact that only one object ( such as a block) can occupy one location at time. You cant explain a 3D environment on a 2D chalkboard because there is no way to see and feel and comprehend depth of a distance, such as the kind in a spherical coordinate system ( which is what MC uses ). So this is where MC has its advantage.
One thing that MC does not have is vertical layer blocks , not horizontal layer blocks like carpets. In the modified version ( which no longer looks and has the game elements of MC ), you have vertical blocks which can represent , plumbing, electrical wiring, network or communication lines ( telephone, ethernet, cable TV coaxial cables, etc. ), insulation ( fiberglass, tyvek homewrap ( whatever) ), wall board paneling, and so many other layers that are involved in building construction. Ventilation shafts.
Who would want mess with glue, wait for parts of a model to dry, patiently paint details, and have a clean up job from the mess in real life, when you could have a program based on MC, that can do all of that? This would make a great additional tool too have along with the program called AutoCAD.
Im sure that all of you have seen images of peoples buildings where a texture pack that is designed to be almost realistic, that when your walking through it, it can convince you of a place that you would want to build for your own in real life. That is what inspired me with this idea....
What do you think?
To continue, the modified copy of MC could be turned around as a learning tool as well to that someone can understand 3 dimensional space. MC upholds a law of physical space, the fact that only one object ( such as a block) can occupy one location at time. You cant explain a 3D environment on a 2D chalkboard because there is no way to see and feel and comprehend depth of a distance, such as the kind in a spherical coordinate system ( which is what MC uses ). So this is where MC has its advantage.
One thing that MC does not have is vertical layer blocks , not horizontal layer blocks like carpets. In the modified version ( which no longer looks and has the game elements of MC ), you have vertical blocks which can represent , plumbing, electrical wiring, network or communication lines ( telephone, ethernet, cable TV coaxial cables, etc. ), insulation ( fiberglass, tyvek homewrap ( whatever) ), wall board paneling, and so many other layers that are involved in building construction. Ventilation shafts.
Who would want mess with glue, wait for parts of a model to dry, patiently paint details, and have a clean up job from the mess in real life, when you could have a program based on MC, that can do all of that? This would make a great additional tool too have along with the program called AutoCAD.
Im sure that all of you have seen images of peoples buildings where a texture pack that is designed to be almost realistic, that when your walking through it, it can convince you of a place that you would want to build for your own in real life. That is what inspired me with this idea....
What do you think?
Create an account or sign in to comment.
16
1
hey guys hate to ruin the party but MC already has a form of what krylo is saying https://minecraftedu.com/
1
That is not what I am saying .... I am talking about a modeling tool not an educational tool that is a copy of minecraft, not designed to work like minecraft, in the context of the game theme. It's just a clone of minecraft.... it doesn't have to work like it - even though it looks like it. One is program that is meant to be used as a toy, the other is program which is a tool for the use of building abstract models
1
So... minecraft with microblocks? If I was a professional architect, I wouldn't show a client a picture of a house I built in minecraft. I used a program at school, and after about 2 days of getting taught how to use it, I could make some sweet houses.
1
Its not minecraft, its a clone of minecraft. A block can represent any size in the minds of the architect and the client - not what you see it as from the abstract model perspective.
1
This would just be pointless, imo. There are already modeling programs out there that work for architecture, and even ones designed for architects. This isn't a new idea.
1
None of those programs have a gui interface that use a simple method of object placing like minecraft.
1
I doubt those programs have a limited amount of variables that allow the placing system to be like minecraft, or physics that allow floating islands either.
1
No they dont, but the capability would be stripped out in the minecraft clone.
1
The problem with minecraft is that all of the walls are one meter thick. That's no good if you're trying to build anything with realistic dimensions.
There are already programs out there specifically for architects anyway.
There are already programs out there specifically for architects anyway.
1
Not if your just doing abstract modeling - measurements are not needed. A model is just needed to to show what it looks like. Thats what the MC clone would do. The actual work ( with all the measurements and details ) would have to be done on a program like AutoCAD. Thats where the work is done.
1
If you're going to use AutoCAD then why bother with minecraft?
1
The "Minecraft Clone", which is not the game version, is used to create abstract models of houses, buildings, or simply landscape/terrain formations. Its very easy
for someone to use minecraft to construct a building vs what some architects still use which are fully built models of buildings at a small scale. In the minecraft clone, a architect can use the program to develop a rough representation ( a model ) under what the client desires, to show how much space the building ( or terrain model )
covers. Its not a exact representation, because its abstract. Hence, its a abstract model. Think of it like, in the subject of English, when you write papers, you always construct the rough draft, and have someone else over view it to correct to go forward to the final version. In the relationship between the architect and the client, a person would use the minecraft clone to develop and redevelop the model, until it comes to an agreement that is what the client wants. You dont have to use blocks to repesent 1 meter of space , they can represent any kind of space between point a and point b. For instance , a single block wall between a doorway and a window could represent any distance. In addition, you can scale your model to be any size. A doorway could be 2 blocks by 6 blocks, instead - or whatever the architect thinks it should be. Remember, this is not based on the game.
The second advantage with minecraft is that you can walk through your building and see it from the inside as well as the outside. You can't do that with a physical small scale model. You would have to create a second series of images just to show what it would look like. Instead , one model , an abstract model would show what the building looks like on the outside as well as the inside.
After a client and the architect agree what the house should look like from the preview, then AutoCAD comes in to create the actual construction of the building using the minecraft clone's abstract model as a reference.
for someone to use minecraft to construct a building vs what some architects still use which are fully built models of buildings at a small scale. In the minecraft clone, a architect can use the program to develop a rough representation ( a model ) under what the client desires, to show how much space the building ( or terrain model )
covers. Its not a exact representation, because its abstract. Hence, its a abstract model. Think of it like, in the subject of English, when you write papers, you always construct the rough draft, and have someone else over view it to correct to go forward to the final version. In the relationship between the architect and the client, a person would use the minecraft clone to develop and redevelop the model, until it comes to an agreement that is what the client wants. You dont have to use blocks to repesent 1 meter of space , they can represent any kind of space between point a and point b. For instance , a single block wall between a doorway and a window could represent any distance. In addition, you can scale your model to be any size. A doorway could be 2 blocks by 6 blocks, instead - or whatever the architect thinks it should be. Remember, this is not based on the game.
The second advantage with minecraft is that you can walk through your building and see it from the inside as well as the outside. You can't do that with a physical small scale model. You would have to create a second series of images just to show what it would look like. Instead , one model , an abstract model would show what the building looks like on the outside as well as the inside.
After a client and the architect agree what the house should look like from the preview, then AutoCAD comes in to create the actual construction of the building using the minecraft clone's abstract model as a reference.
1
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
this
this is what i try to tell everyone
this
this is what i try to tell everyone
1
I agree with Firecycle, and I like your Deadman Wonderland pic
1
Well my argument in the first place was that this modification would make MC into a abstract modeling tool. In no way, would this cover all requirements that architecture would need ( that's why I said it would make a great companion for AutoCAD ).
I come from Berkeley, California, USA ( I don't live there anymore ) , where the college U.C. Berkeley is, and I would visit their building dedicated to their science of architecture, to see the what the students were building as real life models. Some of the models looked really good, and some other models looked incomplete or missed something.
But the point is, why mess with paint , glue, cardboard, and etc. - with the wait for things to dry and bond, when you have a program that can do all of that without the mess and clean up? You could have a video ( just like MC videos on YouTube ) where you could see the building from the outside and from the inside in a high resolution texture to show your clients. Minecraft makes it easy, just by point and click . The only other way that I know of which is harder but has better results is using Persistence of Vision's ray tracing program,( POV-ray) where you actually have to program your picture in 3D. However, POV-ray has a higher learning curve than MC. So the "sister" MC clone program would still be a better choice for architects who are just trying to get their feel for model designing . Plus with the ability to change textures like in MC, the program would double as tool for interior decorators. For instance you could have several pictures showing a Kitchen, some of them with different styles cabinets painted, and the other pictures would show the cabinets in different kinds natural wood grain with different kinds of stains and finishes. The arrangement of the Kitchen could be turned around to accommodate the need of the client, in different displays on the screen. This would be still, ( abstract ) architecture.
I come from Berkeley, California, USA ( I don't live there anymore ) , where the college U.C. Berkeley is, and I would visit their building dedicated to their science of architecture, to see the what the students were building as real life models. Some of the models looked really good, and some other models looked incomplete or missed something.
But the point is, why mess with paint , glue, cardboard, and etc. - with the wait for things to dry and bond, when you have a program that can do all of that without the mess and clean up? You could have a video ( just like MC videos on YouTube ) where you could see the building from the outside and from the inside in a high resolution texture to show your clients. Minecraft makes it easy, just by point and click . The only other way that I know of which is harder but has better results is using Persistence of Vision's ray tracing program,( POV-ray) where you actually have to program your picture in 3D. However, POV-ray has a higher learning curve than MC. So the "sister" MC clone program would still be a better choice for architects who are just trying to get their feel for model designing . Plus with the ability to change textures like in MC, the program would double as tool for interior decorators. For instance you could have several pictures showing a Kitchen, some of them with different styles cabinets painted, and the other pictures would show the cabinets in different kinds natural wood grain with different kinds of stains and finishes. The arrangement of the Kitchen could be turned around to accommodate the need of the client, in different displays on the screen. This would be still, ( abstract ) architecture.
1
there already is a game based quasi architectural programme, the building mode in the sims. similarly to minecraft it is restricted in shapes (square groundplan boxes, with only certain rotations of walls possible, one floor possible in each box, certain placable objects....)
also, archicad in a way is similar, in being 3d and having presets for extremely simple geometry, just that it is unnecessarily complicated to use, even though getting groundplans and any other view you may want being generated automatically
the issue with programmes like that is how they impact architectural shapes
when anything beyond simple geometry takes additional effort or is impossible in some cases the result is more boring box shaped houses
this is why microstation (and the 2004 v8 over its successor v8i) remains my favourite cad programme, even though it is not architecturally optimized:
the learning curve from simple to complex geometry is just in your head, not in roadblocks the programme gives you
so i"d be more interested in something with a featureset and interface working more like that than another box based cad programme. you could still have a no collision policy and import of generated terrain with it
also, archicad in a way is similar, in being 3d and having presets for extremely simple geometry, just that it is unnecessarily complicated to use, even though getting groundplans and any other view you may want being generated automatically
the issue with programmes like that is how they impact architectural shapes
when anything beyond simple geometry takes additional effort or is impossible in some cases the result is more boring box shaped houses
this is why microstation (and the 2004 v8 over its successor v8i) remains my favourite cad programme, even though it is not architecturally optimized:
the learning curve from simple to complex geometry is just in your head, not in roadblocks the programme gives you
so i"d be more interested in something with a featureset and interface working more like that than another box based cad programme. you could still have a no collision policy and import of generated terrain with it
