Tom, Horses for courses. I think that there is a lot of room for parametric versus dataflow (GC) versus constraints solving (DDD, Civil Cells, PCS, PCM) versus rules-based (D++ or iLogic or CityEngine) versus ArchiCAD's Priority Based Connections versus T-Splines Sub-D's cage modeling versus Siemens/LEDAS/CoCreate's Direct Modeling etc etc to co-exist. The problem is that we are faced with the need to manage, control, sculpt more and more information. A lot will need to be given over to 'fly-by-wire'. Yes, the more you automate, the more can go sideways... but do you really have a choice long term? Every approach or paradigmn will have its limitations. At some point you will need to change gears. You may start something out using GC to quicly script something in the initial stages is exactly what you need. You may very likely find that the pre-packaged compartmentalised parametric objects that PCS create are good enough for most things... or you may find that the bi-directional constraints solving is the only way to go. You may even find your tasks worth investing in a KBE expert system like D++. You may not be a "big believer" but that is beside the point if you are developing a 'platform' tech like Mstn. Revit and others have taken parametrics very far, and few Revit users will go without parametrics even if they moan constantly about its faults... and even learn to use constraints sparingly to limit conflicts and speed problems. With Dynamo, they are now adding the GC-style 'dataflow' paradigmn to its portfolio of tools.
↧