“Advanced procedural modeling of architecture” by Schwarz and Müller

We present the novel grammar language CGA++ for the procedural modeling of architecture. While existing grammar-based approaches can produce stunning results, they are limited in what modeling scenarios can be realized. In particular, many context-sensitive tasks are precluded, not least because within the rules specifying how one shape is refined, the necessary knowledge about other shapes is not available. Transcending such limitations, CGA++ significantly raises the expressiveness and offers a generic and integrated solution for many advanced procedural modeling problems. Pivotally, CGA++ grants first-class citizenship to shapes, enabling, within a grammar, directly accessing shapes and shape trees, operations on multiple shapes, rewriting shape (sub)trees, and spawning new trees (e.g., to explore multiple alternatives). The new linguistic device of events allows coordination across multiple shapes, featuring powerful dynamic grouping and synchronization. Various examples illustrate CGA++, demonstrating solutions to previously infeasible modeling challenges.

1. Barroso, S., Besuievsky, G., and Patow, G. 2013. Visual copy & paste for procedurally modeled buildings by ruleset rewriting. Computers & Graphics 37, 4, 238–246. Google ScholarDigital Library
2. BeneŠ, B., Št’ava, O., Měch, R., and Miller, G. 2011. Guided procedural modeling. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 2, 325–334.Google ScholarCross Ref
3. Esri, 2014. Esri CityEngine 2014.1.Google Scholar
4. Esri, 2015. CGA shape grammar reference. http://cehelp.esri.com/help/topic/com.procedural.cityengine.help/html/cgareference/cgaindex.html.Google Scholar
5. Havemann, S. 2005. Generative Mesh Modeling. PhD thesis, TU Braunschweig.Google Scholar
6. Krecklau, L., and Kobbelt, L. 2011. Procedural modeling of inter-connected structures. Computer Graphics Forum 30, 2, 335–344.Google ScholarCross Ref
7. Krecklau, L., Pavic, D., and Kobbelt, L. 2010. Generalized use of non-terminal symbols for procedural modeling. Computer Graphics Forum 29, 8, 2291–2303.Google ScholarCross Ref
8. Liew, H. 2004. SGML: A Meta-Language for Shape Grammars. PhD thesis, Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Google ScholarDigital Library
9. Lipp, M.,Wonka, P., and Wimmer, M. 2008. Interactive visual editing of grammars for procedural architecture. ACM Transactions on Graphics 27, 3, 102:1–102:10. Google ScholarDigital Library
10. Měch, R., and Prusinkiewicz, P. 1996. Visual models of plants interacting with their environment. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 96, 397–410. Google ScholarDigital Library
11. Müller, P., Wonka, P., Haegler, S., Ulmer, A., and Gool, L. V. 2006. Procedural modeling of buildings. ACM Transactions on Graphics 25, 3, 614–623. Google ScholarDigital Library
12. Parish, Y. I. H., and Müller, P. 2001. Procedural modeling of cities. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2001, 301–308. Google ScholarDigital Library
13. Patow, G. 2012. User-friendly graph editing for procedural modeling of buildings. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 32, 2, 66–75. Google ScholarDigital Library
14. Prusinkiewicz, P., and Lindenmayer, A. 1990. The Algorithmic Beauty of Plants. Springer-Verlag, New York. Google ScholarDigital Library
15. Prusinkiewicz, P., James, M., and Měch, R. 1994. Synthetic topiary. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 94, 351–358. Google ScholarDigital Library
16. Prusinkiewicz, P., Mündermann, L., Karwowski, R., and Lane, B. 2001. The use of positional information in the modeling of plants. In Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 2001, 289–300. Google ScholarDigital Library
17. Schwarz, M., and Wonka, P. 2014. Procedural design of exterior lighting for buildings with complex constraints. ACM Transactions on Graphics 33, 5, 166:1–166:16. Google ScholarDigital Library
18. Steinberger, M., Kenzel, M., Kainz, B., Müller, J., Wonka, P., and Schmalstieg, D. 2014. Parallel generation of architecture on the GPU. Computer Graphics Forum 33, 2, 73–82. Google ScholarDigital Library
19. Stiny, G., and Gips, J. 1972. Shape grammars and the generative specification of painting and sculpture. In Information Processing 71, 1460–1465.Google Scholar
20. Stiny, G. 1980. Introduction to shape and shape grammars. Environment and Planning B 7, 3, 343–351.Google ScholarCross Ref
21. Stiny, G. 1982. Spatial relations and grammars. Environment and Planning B 9, 1, 113–114.Google ScholarCross Ref
22. Stiny, G. 2006. Shape: Talking about Seeing and Doing. MIT Press. Google ScholarDigital Library
23. Thaller, W., Krispel, U., Zmugg, R., Havemann, S., and Fellner, D. W. 2013. Shape grammars on convex polyhedra. Computers & Graphics 37, 6, 707–717. Google ScholarDigital Library
24. Whiting, E., Ochsendorf, J., and Durand, F. 2009. Procedural modeling of structurally-sound masonry buildings. ACM Transactions on Graphics 28, 5, 112:1–112:9. Google ScholarDigital Library
25. Wonka, P., Wimmer, M., Sillion, F. X., and Ribarsky, W. 2003. Instant architecture. ACM Transactions on Graphics 22, 3, 669–677. Google ScholarDigital Library