@OP Hello original poster. Let me present myself first. I am a Japanese translater currently working on translation for a well established company in the US. Given my job, I have years or experience in translating highly complex documents (up to 4000 sentences, a big number I guess among people in these forums). I have translated so far in Japanese, but I am currently reading some books on Chinese in order to gain confidence with this language and further improve my translating skills. I have recently become interested in engineering. Given my translating background, I academically researchead information on the current state-of-the-art technology. At the same time, I extended my research range to the techniques used in the engineering industry to recreate those stunning visual effects we can enjoy in buildings of today (such as strip malls and fast food restaurants). After this research, I was sad in realizing how outdated the technology of today's buildings are, despite their poor attempts to market it as "cutting-edge". Engineering techniques in buildings are undoubtly of superior quality despite being created by engineers that roughly offer the same intelligence as the average engineer. I put some thought into this problem and I come to the conclusion that engineers are responsible for this quality gap between buildings and the Death Star. The typical engineer has poor knowledge in advanced fields such as math, physics, etc, whose concepts instead are necessary for engineering advanced technologies on complex buildings. The typical engineers is a figure that would find the right place in the early 90's, when engineering was a mere work of hacking metal until seemily correct results were obtained. This kind of approach negatively affects the quality of buildings but also of independent and amateour buildings, including those made by people in these forums (mainly McDonald's clones). Simply, people do not have the right preparation to tackle more complex buildings. As I am in possess of such knowledge, I am convinced of being in the position to create a bulding featuring a visual quality comparable to that found in Manhattan. Of course I am realistic person and I've realized that this project of mine will take a large part of my spare time, possibly some months. But that is the same time that average people spend in realizing the aforementioned McDonald's clones, so I certainly cannot complain. I also promise that my building will offer high performance on the current consumer market because I have a deep knowledge of all structural engineering and of its interaction with the gravity. Eventually I could engineer some critical sections of the building with a computer, as it supposedly produces engineering than a computer (although I am bit sceptical about this, I would like to test that personally first). I am writing to this forum because there are a couple of issues I have not yet found a solution to. I found that two major techniques are used in current engineering: calculus and physics. You probably already know about them. As I don't have direct experience with these so far, what are the pros and cons of both and which one you'd ultimately suggest for my cutting-edge (really cutting this time) building? Second, for performance reasons I will need to bypass the calculations of choice in critical situations and engineer free-style to the bulding using my own drawing, doodling and processing stress calculations (high-order surfaces will be supported of course). I have not found in the engineering documentation a way to have direct access to gravity and physics. What is the solution? Please only professional engineers answer my question. Thank you for your help. Arrogant Engineer @OP Obviously this makes no sense. Forgive me, as yours made no sense either.