is Architectural Modeling the worst job in the 3D world
blackpikex
for about 12 Years. First of all it was just wire frame hidden line
images from Autocad and as the viability of using 3D Studio became more
apprent I used it.
One thing I have noticed over the years is that when I first produced
line drawing from AutoCAD people were impressed, they never bother to
scrutinise the images. When I produce a visual using Max on a computer
that probably has 1000 times the processing power of the computers that
I did the line drawings on, The images I produced are more realistic,
but the more realistic the visual are, the more time the client spends
trying to find fault in the image.
It's almost as if by using the computer to produce a very realistic
image, I'm doing some kind of magic trick, and the architect has to
prove that I haven't tricked him buy pointing out faults in the image.
Conversley if I use Autocad to knock up a quick wire frame image of a
building, and use the wire frame image as a basis for a water colour
painting. The client spends practicaly no time in scrutinising the
image. The client doesn't seam to mind that lots of detail is missing,
due to the nature of water colour paint.
For instance most of the water colour images I have produced don't show
each brick. Yet if I use the computer to show each brick on a computer
generated visual, the architect will spend the time to make sure the
brick mortar lines in with the head and cills of window openings.
Buy providing a more detailed image. The more likley that the architect
will spot something wrong.
You also meet clients or architect who completely loose focus on what
the whole purpose of the 3D visualisation is. For instance is it rearly
necessary to show the brackets that hold the rainwater pipes to the
wall. Is a potential house buyer not going to conside buying the house
simply because the brackets aren't shown on the rainwater pipes?
To produce a quick water colour visual for a client takes about 3 days
and I charge about 300 - 600 gbp, and more often than not there are no
revisions.
To produce a realistic architectural visualisation take me about 3
weeks and cost about 1200 gpb
Another problem I have with architects is they simply don't understand
dpi. Most of the images I render from max are rendered to print out at
300 dpi on an A3 sheet. Yet if I supply the images on a cdrom or by
email the architect will use phoroshop or similar to Zoom into the
image, so that each pixel of the image is about 1mm square, the
equivalent of printing the image out the size of a tenis court. Then
they start looking for faults.
one word that should strike terror into any architectural visualiser is
BUFF. I have spent whole days re-rendering buildings trying to render
the correct colour BUFF for a particular client. The problem is that
each person has there own individual idea of what colour BUFF is.
The main problem with architectural visualisation is that every body
spends there whole life, living and experiencing the real built world.
And as I have show above, most architects expect a computer rendered
image to be perfect, as if the building was built and someone took a
photo. Trying to trick a brain that has evolved over millions of years
using a dumb box of switches to simulate the built envoronment is just
about impossible.
Even if there were computers that were powerful enough to opticaly
simulate a building and all its macro level detail. It would still take
several 100 man hours to place all the bits that make a built
environment look real, like cutlery and phones and pencils and all the
other bits that humans use in a built environ ment.
The people at Industrial Light Magic or Digital Domain have it easy.
Knowbody knows exactly what a X wing fighter rearly looks like or a
dinosaur for that matter. Yet every body has experience curtain,
leather sofas, china cups etc
The other problem with architects is they expect a photo realistic
image yet usually they are only in the concept design stage of the
building design. Which usually means that you as the 3D visualiser have
to fill in the gaps. more ofen than not you will be expected to be an
expert in interior design, lighting design, landscape architecture,
graphic design and a keen observer of human behavior. Just plonking in
any RPC content isn't going to work.
To sum things up Architectural Visualisers have the hardest job in the
3D world. Game designers have it easy because they only work with low
polygonemodels and get months to design a character consisting of say
1000 triangle faces. People working in the film industry doing special
effect have it easy because they have access to million pound budjets
and the best hardware available and they have plenty of time to, and
usually alot of work has gone into a film before it gets anywhere near
a rendering pipeline. Architectural visualisers work to limited time
and budjets and usually they are working of drawings that are being
changed on a daily basis and have half the information missing.
I am interested in hearing from other people from other sectors of the
3D industries. It would be interesting to find out what gripes game
designers and people working in the film industry.
gruhn
> brick mortar lines in with the head and cills of window openings.
There's a difference between "stylized" and "wrong." One is acceptable for
it gets an idea across, the other is a miserable failure because it gets
something that is not true and potentially damaging across.
> Buy providing a more detailed image. The more likley that the architect
> will spot something wrong.
By providing a more detailed image, you increase the liklihood that you've
done something wrong.
> Another problem I have with architects is they simply don't understand
> dpi. Most of the images I render from max are rendered to print out at
> 300 dpi on an A3 sheet
Do you mean 300 pixels per inch or actually dots?
> equivalent of printing the image out the size of a tenis court. Then
> they start looking for faults.
Tell them they are fucking morons and refuse to work with them in future.
> the correct colour BUFF for a particular client. The problem is that
> each person has there own individual idea of what colour BUFF is.
I have paint boxes from four different manufacturers with an unknown number
of shades of beige. I live in Phoenix, Arizona and have to understand them
all as different.
> And as I have show above, most architects expect a computer rendered
You have not shown this.
> The people at Industrial Light Magic or Digital Domain have it easy.
> Knowbody knows exactly what a X wing fighter rearly looks like or a
> dinosaur for that matter
Tell that to them next time they are modeling a human and they will mock you
from here to the Bay of Bengal.
> The other problem with architects is they expect a photo realistic
> image yet usually they are only in the concept design stage of the
Sounds like an education problem.
You've mentioned the water colors as successful. Have you considered
rendering in ways that aren't trying to approach photo-realistic?
> To sum things up Architectural Visualisers have the hardest job in the
> 3D world
Perhaps you might consider switching to a career as a web designer.
> Game designers have it easy because they only work with low
> polygonemodels and get months to design a character consisting of say
I apologize to the rest of the community for having fed the troll.
blackpikex
the time the discussions relate to getting max to do a perticular
thing. Most of the people using this group use max at work or want to
use max at work? so why is it a troll to try and discuss non technical
issue relating to clients expectations. Fundamentaly I think my initial
posting was to highlight a problem in that many architect don't
understand the whole garbage in / garbage out thing. Why do they expect
a detailed 3D model of a building, when they can only provide me with
half the information I need. Why do they feel the need to have a 3D
visualisation showing every tiny detail to a client. Showing or not
showing brackets on rainwater pipes for instance, probably won't be
noticed by the architects client. I was hoping to see if other
visualisers have had similar problems.
gruhn wrote:
> > generated visual, the architect will spend the time to make sure the
> > brick mortar lines in with the head and cills of window openings.
>
> There's a difference between "stylized" and "wrong." One is acceptable for
> it gets an idea across, the other is a miserable failure because it gets
> something that is not true and potentially damaging across.
all 'stylized' visualisations are 'wrong' if the architect is expecting
a 100% photorealistic visual. What I am trying to understand is whey do
they expect a 3D visualisation to be 100% photorealistic when they
would also accept a 'styalized' water colour as right. Why don't they
accept 3D visualisations as a style.
>
> > Buy providing a more detailed image. The more likley that the architect
> > will spot something wrong.
>
> By providing a more detailed image, you increase the liklihood that you've
> done something wrong.
>
> > Another problem I have with architects is they simply don't understand
> > dpi. Most of the images I render from max are rendered to print out at
> > 300 dpi on an A3 sheet
>
> Do you mean 300 pixels per inch or actually dots?
actual dots, the images I render are around 3000x2000pixel so there is
0% chance of aliasing on black join lines shown on white cladding.
>
> > equivalent of printing the image out the size of a tenis court. Then
> > they start looking for faults.
>
> Tell them they are fucking morons and refuse to work with them in future.
yep I so would like to do this, but I would loose clients
>
> > the correct colour BUFF for a particular client. The problem is that
> > each person has there own individual idea of what colour BUFF is.
>
> I have paint boxes from four different manufacturers with an unknown number
> of shades of beige. I live in Phoenix, Arizona and have to understand them
> all as different.
I have all the Pantone books,RAL swatches and several paint swatches
from UK paint manufacturers. Its a pity lots of my clients don't.
>
> > And as I have show above, most architects expect a computer rendered
>
> You have not shown this.
you are right on this, I haven't proven it.
>
> > The people at Industrial Light Magic or Digital Domain have it easy.
> > Knowbody knows exactly what a X wing fighter rearly looks like or a
> > dinosaur for that matter
>
> Tell that to them next time they are modeling a human and they will mock you
> from here to the Bay of Bengal.
Which movies do they have 3D CGI people in as a main character.
JAJA binks from starwars ?
The cave troll in lord of the rings ?
and all the characters in that Final Fantasy CGI film are obviously CGI
The best I've seen is gollum in lord of the rings, but Gollum isn't
that Human.
>
> > The other problem with architects is they expect a photo realistic
> > image yet usually they are only in the concept design stage of the
>
> Sounds like an education problem.
I think that somehow this idea that computers produce photorealistic
images has crept into the expectations of architects. They see all the
clever stuff that ILM do and think they can have it for 10000th of the
cost.
>
> You've mentioned the water colors as successful. Have you considered
> rendering in ways that aren't trying to approach photo-realistic?
I have been doing this in photoshop using various combinations of
filters and layer blending. I have also tried printing on to a special
paper that smudges the ink in a way that looks like a water colour.
Clients have paid for the images produced this way, but most of my
clients want 100% perfect photorealistc CGI for some reason.
>
> > To sum things up Architectural Visualisers have the hardest job in the
> > 3D world
>
> Perhaps you might consider switching to a career as a web designer.
I presume you are joking. My spelling is useless and my grammer is
worse.
and the last time I looked, web designers get paid peanuts unless they
a very good.
Jan Gruetz
if the client is "crazy", ANY job in 3D is the hardest.
(like changing stuff hours before deadline...)
so, NO! you do not have the hardest job in 3D ;o)
my .02
Jan
John Ortt
> > > generated visual, the architect will spend the time to make sure the
> > > brick mortar lines in with the head and cills of window openings.
> >
> > There's a difference between "stylized" and "wrong." One is acceptable
for
> > it gets an idea across, the other is a miserable failure because it gets
> > something that is not true and potentially damaging across.
Have you considdered trying the "Southpark" Approach.
After the first series which was done with traditionnal animation the studio
switched to CG but deliberately downgraded the end product to give a more
simple image in-line with the original.
Could you do a similar thing for your clients?
For example could you try applying blurred brick textures so it is harder to
see where they edges are etc......
Maybe by showing them the simple version, upgrading to the photo-realistic
version will be seen as the conceptual-aid it is intended and not a
photograph.
Don't know if this is applicable but I hope it helps.....
Good Luck,
John
Hrvoje
job...it's the client. My inital client wanted everything done yesterday, he
was one of the local architects that actually never seen the kind of work I
do. His designers did things in MAX but those visualisations looked worse
than early 3D games. He was my first client from Croatia, before that I
worked long distance. So I decided to give it a try. Well, needless to say
that this SOB thought that I could do a presentation of a flat in 2 days,
plus give him photorealistic renders with soft area shadows (hell he didn't
know what those are, but I told him I'll put nice shadows, my mistake). And
not on or two, he wanted renders from every damn corner of the house :-) And
than the next morning he came and said to change several things, and then
expected me to rerender that till that afternoon. I mean DUH, it's not like
I have quantum computer here (not that it would help lol). I mean my
crapiest work was 10 times what he had so far, and he wanted those
soooffftttt shadows, but I told him that it's not phisically possible. At
the end we ended up softening edges in Paint Shop lol
Payment, he payed me what he pays his other laim designers. I was outraged,
but did couple of more jobs for him, and then just gave him new prices that
I wouldn't charge the devil to...so we parted :-) But now, I have this new
architect. She originally worked in Paris, though she IS from Croatia, and
she returned. She worked with my quality of work and knows what it takes to
make it, and what ammount of time. I love her, I mean she's the best client
I ever said. Main thing you need to hear from a great client is what she
told me..."I would rather wait and give you more time, so I have excelent
renders than to push it". That's totally opositte from what that SOB told
me.
Well, so, it's the client, not the work.
don't loose faith lol
"Jan Gruetz" <jgfo...@epost.de> wrote in message
news:d7pj7m$tho$04$1...@news.t-online.com...
blackpikex
idiot clients
Blushoes
there there...
architects are a funny bunch i tell you.
i used to be one for a short while, and then decided to move down the food
chain to do 3d.
u see, architects are actually by training taught to see and solve details.
they can pick on
little details that can cause hours of additional work with no real
perceptible difference in the final image.
its true 3d gives em more points to pick on.
this is not their fault per se.
its a fault of the medium. 3d renderings.
it wants to be so real that the architect gets mentally locked into
realistic details.
they can't NOT look at the details because it is there. not like
waterpaints which aren't there at all.
thats why i feel NPR renderings sometimes are better bang for buck although
they are way not popular
here where i work.
"blackpikex" <black...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:1118081728.8...@g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...