3ds is used mainly for visualizations. most firms either use sketch or rhino to design and some use revit(but seems more of an american thing). At least that's what i have gathered over the years.

I don't think it is worth it now to learn 3ds max. you'll be pigeon holed as a renderer or animator if that is your angle of attack.

It is however vital for a grad to know some 3d modeling program. i think if you are going to learn something learn rhino. the work flow from rhino to CAD is much more integrated than 3ds max which is not a CAD package. but then again it depends on what role you want to play in the firm.

also. personally speaking it seems like 3ds plays a legacy role in some older firms because that was an industry standard before Sketch up and Rhino became more popular.

I don't think SU replaced Max, replaced FormZ perhaps, but not Max. Max has always been a high end visualization program (that's what we use for renderings).

Learn it. In this world, you need anything that you can get to help make yourself more valuable.


I am shocked you didn't get exposed to it in school! When I was in a school, we had to take it and that was back at v2!!


Not knowing a 3D software, esp. as a young grad, will put you at a large disadvantage.




I can't speak to everyone, but we have never been sent or asked about a Rhino 3D file (to render from). We get SU and Revit all the time, though, even some Max files.

If you are young and comming out of school, 3d visualization knowledge is a must.

Of all the interviews I had back in 06 and 07, every single architect interviewing me about 3d skills.

Not sure what school you went to but at my school professors generally 3d stuff in studio unless it really lended itself to the study and research of your project.

Some students had prior knowledge in programs like max and sketchup so if you were interested (which I was) you would want to just ask your colleagues and they would help you. My school also offered a modeling and rendering class which i took and it really helped get me started with max. But the most help i got was from other people and just spending countless hours figuring things out...

Also a bad trend I saw in school was other students being extremely judgemental about their colleagues using computers as opposed to traditional methods...

At work I am definitely always busy producing digital models (mainly using sketchup) and doing rendering with max. Very easy to get pigeonholed....

Well, only certain type of firms use rhino. sketch up is certainly more prevalent. But i doubt anyone uses 3ds max as a design tool these days. again, id like to emphasis don't throw all your eggs in the 3ds max basket unless you are interested in doing visualizations. Most of the time people who are doing the actual design will be using sketch up and rhino and passing it onto the MAX guy to render because thats what most/all rendering companies use

I think Rhino will become very prevalent in the near future. it has everything going for it. As a student, it's the only program you need to produce anything up to SD level drwwings, rendering, diagrams etc.

With the new parametric add on and MAC os compatibility in the near future this will be a really useful tool.

you should learn max - learning it will not pigeonhole you into renderings, either - alot of firms rely on their designers to know max so they can conduct realistic design studies on their own

Personally, I have found knowing 3D to be empowering - the faster you can show your ideas the more valuable you are.

You might not need to get to pro level rendering (although, again, I find it shocking you are a recent grad and haven't learned at least the basics), but showing design ideas will help you as a designer.

I chose to pursue the 3D because I knew it would get me jobs and continued in that direction because I enjoyed it more than drawing (in cad) all day.

How you shape your direction is up to you, don't worry too much about being locked into anything. Learn the tools, they will empower you to make the choices.

i think the studies/simulations jk3hl mentions are the most salient point ---

during conceptual, you do renderings of varying quality to convey ideas quickly, to explore options and to increase the rate of iteration --- if a very high quality render is required, unless you are expert in arch viz, which is a different set of skills, it will almost always be cheaper and faster to hire a pro arch viz person than let the in-house people do it

so for 90% of conceptual design, rhino + vray (and grasshopper or similar), and even sketchup+vray and sketchy physics is enough, with faster workflows, easier to learn/use and much cheaper

but 3dmax may be of value during conceptual design if you are studying things like flow of people through spaces, among other simulations you may run, or if you really do want to become an arch viz person

Let me also preface this with the fact that I graduated in Interior Design.....gasp!

Rhino, Maya, Sketchup and Revit were the main programs used throughout my school career. So I am not completely out of the loop...but I definitely don't feel completely proficient any one of them. And now with the max.....

I feel I might be losing a battle here. It's been 2 years. How is one supposed to compete with all the new grads? Do I need to go back to school to learn these programs just to get an interview?

I won a national portfolio competition this year, and it based solely on my conceptual skills, and graphic design sensibility. So what happened to just being a good designer and letting the technical skills follow? I understand that firms may be trying to get the most bang for their buck in this economy and hiring those who can play a variety of different roles. Its not all that surprising. But won't they take a chance?

I can't help but feel totally screwed. So what do I do?

From a firms perspective:

You - little 3D rendering experience, little real world experience

Someone else - good 3D rendering experience, little real world experience

Who would you choose?


All firms need 3D renderings, that's just part of presenting. Most of the upper management and designer's won't spend the time to do it, so they need someone else to do it. That means paying my company to do them, which can add up, or finding a young computer whiz.




Learning - you don't need school to learn any software. There are plenty of books, online tutorials, forums, etc., for you to become an advanced and proficient whiz.

If you already know those other programs, Max should be no problem. You don't need to know how to get the inverse kinematics of some character to work! You just need to know how to build a building and make it look decent, maybe animate a single camera flying around.



it's not as difficult as you are thinking. Given your other knowledge, it shouldn't take long to get the basics under wrap.

I wouldn't try to know every program. Sketchup, plus ONE other that has better curvy modeling, animation, rendering, parametric, etc abilities--Max, Rhino, Maya; maybe not Form Z--

I spent a bunch of time learning 3D stuff in school--my first "job"? haven't touched it. go figure.

People here are right, you only need to know max to do visualizations, you don't really use max to design because most firms use cad, revit, sketchup to do most of the designing.

But the recent explosion in max requirement is because firms cannot afford to hire 3d experts anymore, they want to hire architects with expert 3d renderings skills, so they want two rabbits for the price of one! And they will not stop looking until they do find such a person.

that makes complete sense, zen maker

but i have difficulty coming to terms with the fact that the vast majority of what people do with max can be done:
- with a faster workflow
- with easier to learn software
- still rendering out through industry standard render engines
- with software that is orders of magnitude cheaper to buy and maintain
- with software that loads more quickly, is less bloated and runs more quickly, even on older/less powerful machines

when i hear that 3dmax is required for visualizations, i hear "this will take a little longer and/or be more cumbersome to execute just because we don't want to abandon our platform or because we haven't done our homework on the state of 3D viz tools"

which leads to the opposite of saving time and money and sets the technical threshold for staff unnecessarily higher

Okay, I am officially in no man's land with this train of thought... but I think it is one I'd like to express and maybe receive some validation on?

I dislike 3DSMax (I think I have made this apparently every week for the last month) and Rhino to a certain extent because drawing (of the point to point variety) is excessively difficult.

I have done some like Max work and I have a feel for what it does.

However, I have seen some modeling and some work in max that is beyond baffling-- not impressive baffling-- but how does that even work baffling.



Example: I've seen the "wires" on some models where when those wires are sudivided... they turn from 8 lines in a super realistic apple. However, that 'data and math' behind that object are still pegged at 8 lines.

I'm not sure how that works when going from a modeling/cad program to a solid surface program to fabrication.

In Rhino, Sketchup et cetera... the geometry actually has to exist to get an output.

But with Max, I feel like I always have to assume that that geometry actually exists and it isn't some fancy algorithm trick. However, without significantly altering your export options... some of that geometry seems to be "made up" because importing a max object without triangulating every face results in shear utter horror.

However, I feel more secure with a rhino or sketchup file if I had to take an idea from a model straight to fabrication.

And to me, I've always wondered what or how a lot of the fancy Max (and other program) visualization translates over to a solid modeler or an actual fabrication machine.

pretty sure max files are not accurate enough for fabrication machines. Not saying it cant be accurate but it's just too cumbersome to use max for accurate modeling when there is other easier to use programs (rhino, autocad, sketch up etc).

the biigest reason why people ask for max is because the people asking are 40-50+ and in their days MAX was the only thing around for visualisation. Now days Vray can be used with anything so there is really 0 need for max. But the legacy firms are not agile enough to move with the times.

I dont understand why people dont just model in CAD, for anything thats not Zaha. autocad since 2007 have nearly max/maya like interface and you can model almost anything with relative ease. You can even loft a maya blog if you really wanted to.

The firms that want MAX skills only make boxes anyway. its buffles me why they dont just buy vray for sketch up and be done with it. or add rhino for another few hundred bucks. Kids coming out of school are using rhino these days

3D is as accurate as you make it, plain and simple. If you build strictly from a cad file, it will be as accurate as the cad.

With renderings, your goal is speed. This is both in the construction of the building (we rebuild 99% of the models that clients send us, whether they be SU, Revit and many of the Max files) and the rendering/computer time.
So if we don't need to see 50% of the building, we don't build it. No point in wasting time and worry about overlaps or things like that, you won't see them, and that's what matters in the presentation.

What is good for Revit is horrible for rendering. SU has its own set of problems when it comes to rendering well.




I agree that the modeling abilities of Max can be cumbersome, but the flexibility is so far beyond SU that there is no way we'd ever think of going down. Also, there is a robust selection of models out there (client wants his 750iL in the rendering, not a problem, or maybe some military vehicle, some specific lamp? Got it).


Comes down to time/money. Max is fast and powerful for sophisticated animations, it is the industry standard and that won't be changing anytime soon (about the same time Autocad no longer is the industry standard...no coincidence they are owned by the same company!)

Max is overpriced, overly complex for most, but for the pros it is an essential tool.

by pros, you mean prof arch viz people, correct?

but what are your thoughts on tools for staff arch's during concept design?

yes, viz pros


For design, I've always liked FormZ, but that's kinda old by now (I am just super fast at modeling/changing things, much faster than any other program). SU and even Revit for design. Max is a cumbersome beast for design.



Keep in mind that there is always a point where it needs to look good for a client, for their investors, for the public, for marketing. SU looks nice to all of us, more or less, but to the general public it looks fake and boring. Add VRay and it gets much better, but by that point you might as well be using Max, which will give you more control and flexibility.

Like everything, you just have to evaluate the pros/cons at each point. When it comes to pretty renderings (not just showing a design) any firm will be billing for that cost, whether it be done internally or outside.

Not knowing 3Dmax is like a trader don't know anything about option. From the beginning, you have risk of doing sth urological and unethical.

Isn't BIM software like Revit more important for getting an entry level job these days?

I taught myself 3DS Max, though I actually learned a bit of 3DS Viz from a friend at school first. I wish I had access to vray...I'm still trying to figure out mental ray or whatever the standard renderer is.

I'm glad I do know 3DS so I can use it for my portfolio and such, but I wish my school had offered Revit before I graduated, I think most firms won't even look at your work without it.

I'm of the view that one should be functionally literate in all the major packages. I don't mean you need to be a rendering expert, but as an experienced professional you really should know how to operate all of the platforms your team uses, at at least a basic level. That means everybody should have at least some basic literacy in Acad, microstation, Revit 3ds max, Rhino, Sketchup + the common industry standard renderers (vray, mental ray, etc.)... and probably a degree of more specialization in Acad + one 3d platform of your choice. You won't get pigeonholed as a 3d jock just because you know one of these platforms.. it just indicates that you took the time to learn one of the basic tools of the trade. Remember, some major firms (like Skidmore) will actually do a CAD and a 3d modelling test for employment.

trace is correct!

It is all about speed, especially when working at interior design firms or producing renderings for interiors. Max provides exceptional modeling tools, from a box you can build a complex chair, and save all the layers of your creation so if you need to ever modify it later you can just go down in layers and you are back to basic boxy shape.

99% of the time clients want unique furniture that is not available in 3d library, and you have to model it fast, and since you have it all in layers, it doesn't have to be accurate from the first try because you can always go back and modify it later. I am pretty sure there are other software that can do that like blender and cinema4d, but since max is standard its pretty much impossible now for a firm to go shopping for cheaper software, besides they are all tied to a contract for yearly renewals anyway, so they get some sort of discount for upgrading max versions.

But, for architects, I think Revit and Sketchup is the best choice. Revit has pretty nice rendering engine built in (mental ray), and I think vray will be available soon too. Sketchup already has vray, and it is easy to use, but again, Sketchup is easy and fast, but it is very cumbersome to go back and modify your scene and furnitures to clients desires.

Max 2011 has some new interface improvements that should make it easier to use, I haven't tried it yet, but I heard its quite different from all the other versions, so Max is upgrading to fit the needs of many artists and including architecture firms.

I would stick with max!

I preface by saying that for design work and modeling, I don't like Max

BUT

I would take a contradicting stance when it comes to fabrication. One of the pitfalls of Rhino is that your not modeling solid object and your models have the potential to have holes or cracks (minuscule, like when points don't line up because you used a perpendicular snap instead of an endpoint snap and now they are .001 in apart) what can happen is when you write the CAM software, it can read that as an surface elevation changed down to the bottom surface of your model, the result is that the router bit plunges down into your material, which is then followed by a string of explicatives because now you have to start over with new stock material. On the 3d printing side, sometimes you can even get your prints to go through without first cleaning up your model in a program like solid works..


All of that is avoided in Max because you are modeling solid objects, not surface objects....

tagalong,

Max is a subd modeller as opposed to a nurbs modeller, but they both manipulate surface/skin data (although differently). subd objects tend not to fracture quite as badly as nurbs objects, but neither approach is good for fabrication.

If you want to fabricate, suggest using something like Digital Project (the Catia derivative)...

urbanist, under what circumstances do you find it better to work in DP or similar?

granted that any digital fabrication I've done so far is small scale (large furniture size), small quantity, but i've never needed anything more than rhino

it is true that the rhino file (on the equipment I've used) ends up in a solids modeling CADCAM app before going to the equipment. but it doesn't mean that i have to model in it for the process to be efficient

however i assume from your response that, if you know from the outset that you will be CNC fabricating a large system, then you should model it from the start in a solids modeler

is that a fair understanding of your point?

or are you saying that most/all digital fabrication should be handled by solids modeling?

not sure I fully understand your question. IMO a solids modeller would eliminate a layer/step of often problematic translation from Rhino (and to a lesser extent from a subd modeller like 3ds). But there are other reasons to work in nurbs or subd other than the eventual convenience of fabrication.

Isn't the common sense test of whether your subd or nurbs model will have trouble fabricating is whether or not that model can be successfully imported back into acad?

my experience (admittedly limited) tells me a solid modeller is not necessary for much digital fabrication b/c:
- whether grasshopper blobs 3D-printed
- or sheet stock cut & sculpted with a CNC milling device
- or laser cut steel components

rhino has always worked just fine for me, without any problems, though again, my experience is limited

in addition, all of the solids modelers of which i am aware are fairly expensive pieces of software to own and maintain, so unless one absolutely needs to use them, it seems more cost-effective to go with something like rhino

so my question is, given your description, in your experience, what is the source of problems? that is, under what circumstances do you find working in a solids modeler essential? is it twisting w shapes and then sending the file to be fabricated? is it requiring bent glazing? is it for fabricating very intricately detailed, installation-size fiberglass, plastic or composite material pieces like Evan Douglis does?

put another way, given that the pedestrian stuff I've done doesn't require it, and accepting that there are circumstances under which real solids modeling is essential, I'm asking for your perspective on how you determine that something warrants solids modeling?

I don't do much fabrication anymore.. I used to. But in general (for other reasons) I worked in acad (2d surfaces) -> max (3d projection, detailing) -> acad (cleanup) -> fabrication (3d). The lack of solid models makes the cleanup step essential, for complex forms.

My limited experience with DP (in grad school) was very good, allowing one to eliminate the second acad step, in which case the production chain of applications becomes acad -> DP -> fabrication... as there is no need for your router to interpret/translate your surface-only data into solids.

i have a general question for people currently using 3dmax (please, not those who've tried it a few times)

after many years of use, i have very mixed feelings about autodesk and its products --- that said, a lot of what they are coming out with more recently, whether the new conceptual tools in revit, the complete revamping of autocad, or the new features (and some revised workflows) for 3dmax looks like they've stepped up their game -- it all has me thinking I may start investing more time with these tools again, after a couple years hiatus

that said, i read on another forum (may have been cgarchitect, cannot remember) that the improvements with 3dmax with respect to a smoother workflow for modeling and texturing are incomplete at best, and that it feels like it has not achieved what it portends

can anyone confirm or deny this sentiment? do the new features function as suggested or is it just hype?

that's a tough question. I work in a big company environment where tehnology choice decisions - like what 3d Modelling and animation platforms get used - are made by specialists and on financial basis. Our procurement requirements with autodesk above all. I use 3ds because that's the package that our IT dept have designed into our workflow and PM systems, so that t does work smoothly. I'm very impressed by autodesk workflow mgmt precisely because it has been custom configured to work with all of our other systems. Autodesk suites (acad, viz, max, revit) works for us precisely because they can be adapted whilst Rhino and SU don't - because they're one trick ponies. I know that's not much of an answer for the independent or small firm user, but it does speak to autodesk's true strength (as a flexible corporate toolset for the AEC industry).

What school did you go to that you graduated and still hadn't heard of Max?!



NotreDame?

Its crazy how many complex software programs we (architects) need to understand now just to survive, and all this apart from understanding how a building comes together, which in itself is a extremely technical and complex problem...

this thread reminds me of a post i read on joelonsoftware:

Don’t look for experience with particular technologies

Once I was on a panel at NYU giving students advice on careers in I.T. My advice, excerpted from this article, was that before graduating you should make sure to learn how to write well, maybe by taking a creative writing course, and take a class in Econ so that the business side of the business isn’t a mystery. I also recommended at least one low-level programming course in C or Assembler just to help you understand how computers work at a lower level.

On the panel with me was a nice chap from a local headhunter, in fact, one of the better tech recruiters in the city. His speech consisted of 15 minutes of tedious alphabet soup. “We’re seeing a lot of XML, some C++, SOAP and WSDL are getting hot but you’re not seeing as much COM or even ATL.” And on, and on, until my eyes were spinning. This was a fellow who entirely thought of the world in terms of keywords on resumes.

To top programmers, the most maddening thing about recruiters is their almost morbid fascination with keywords and buzzwords. The entire industry of professional headhunters and recruiters is bizarrely fixated on the simple algorithm of matching candidates to positions by looking for candidates that have the complete list of technology acronyms that the employer happens to be looking for. It becomes especially infuriating to realize that most of these recruiters have no idea what any of these technologies are. “Oh, you don’t have MSMQ experience? Never mind.” At least when real estate agents prattle on about Subzero refrigerators and Viking stoves, they at least know what these things are (although any stainless steel refrigerator counts as “Subzero” these days). The easiest way to catch-out a technical recruiter is when they inevitably insist on 5 years of experience with Ruby on Rails, or refuse to consider someone for a “Windows API” job when they only have “Win32” on their resume.

The reason recruiters do this is because it’s easy, it can be computerized, and it’s the only way they know how to judge developers.

For almost all software development positions, though, it is the worst possible way to hire.

Our philosophy is that we’re hiring for the long term, and any technology you happen to know right now may well be obsolete next year. Furthermore, some of these technologies are very easy to learn. If I needed to hire someone to do Ruby development, someone with extensive Smalltalk and Python experience who had never even heard of Ruby would be a lot more likely to be successful than someone who read a book about Ruby once. For someone who is basically a good software developer, learning another programming language is just not going to be a big deal. In two weeks they’ll be pretty productive. In two years, you may need them to do something completely different in a programming language which hasn’t even been invented.

Well put. I feel this is why architecture school (which is essentially a trade school) is so difficult and cant realistically prepare students for what they will really be doing in a job. Its trying to learn a new trade every year...

Rue -

A very apt post to be sure. The takeaway being that the truly worthwhile employers prefer wisdom over knowledge. They want someone who can think critically over someone who is merely a producer well versed in the production methods of the day, yet inept at the larger picture.

In our profession, this is only half of the equation.

Employers who have a firm and need to hire young people most often have a good idea of their business model, and their larger agenda and how they fit into the design and construction world. They're looking for someone who can provide a service they currently require. And why shouldn't they? When you have a project that requires, contractually, a render, why wouldn't you hire someone brilliant at rendering?

Likewise, being good at rendering is a service a young architect can provide in order to get his foot in the door, so to speak. And after he or she proves useful at providing knowledge, he or she should be incrementally trusted to take on more responsibility with more weighty tasks. For example, I rendered for two years at my current office, renders that got client buy in. As such, I'm now trusted with running projects. [Design scheduling, procurement, details, managing the consultant team, informing selection of the GC etc.]

The point is that it is possible to enlarge ones role in an office, but one needs to provide a service to be allowed that opportunity. If I had my own office, I would never, ever, hire someone applying at any level [nevermind low level] who couldnt fill a role I immediately needed, and was posting the vacancy ad for. Be that rendering, or core design, or fee management, or contract analysis.

I think in architecture you need both wisdom and technical knowledge. The two inform each other. Afterall, the mere name comes from a confluence of 'chief' or 'head' and 'builder, carpenter'.

The firms that don't think critically about technology wind up like
DickBuschArchitects . Or Gehry, depending on which they subscribe to.

Learning Max can only help the OP, it can't hurt him.

http://www.dickbuscharchitects.com/

RueRavignan & jplourde:

excellent points

on the one hand, the shear number of programs that we "should know" seems to be getting absurd and the components of the list changing too quickly to be worthwhile to invest much in --- so it seems it is better to focus on larger, slower changing principles and non-standard skills

on the other hand, times are tough and we all need marketable skills to get the opportunity to practice more broadly

along these lines, i'll say that my biggest assets so far have been the capacity to synthesize data into facility studies and being able to write well

there are lots of people who can render to an acceptable level

there are not as many who write well or quickly synthesize lots of data

Being able to formulate abstract ideas into a readily understandable format [for example a cohesive written narrative] and being able to make sense of large quantities of data are both learned skills, just as rendering is.

The point is: wisdom is WHY are you doing the render, writing a narrative, or creating a brilliant excel sheet, and knowledge is HOW to do it. There's a reason computational scripting is called scripting.


Certainly, some people have more natural aptitude for certain forms of production, and all can fill some valuable role in a particular context. If I had that imaginary office, I wouldn't be hiring a kickass writer to do renders nor vice versa.

Yet, if someone proves him or herself in a 'small' task, that's proof they might be able to take on larger ones, no?

i wouldn't criticize looking for a specific skill. but requiring knowledge of a specific software title seems limiting to me.

Perhaps the office has invested a sizable sum in a certain number of 'seats' for a specific bit of software and they therefore require a worker who knows that software and can readily conform to office standards?

For example, at my firm Microstation is an absolute must for operating on a day to day basis, even within the office, nevermind consultants, and it is an increble boost to new applicants at low level, and why shouldn't it be?

The office does offer training however. But I think that's rare among most firms.

max seems like it is good to know --- its like the difference between people who say "they build things" b/c they spent a semester working on a habitat for humanity house versus people for whom building was a career for a while or who do it on the side

or the difference between people who say they speak other languages b/c they can pick their way through a le monde article (or what have you) versus someone who, if a stranger stops and asks for help or directions, or a client to discuss a design, can switch into conversing in the other tongue without missing a step

i think the same is true of what it means to be an arch viz person --- it is a career by itself ---

i meant, "max seems like it is good to know" ... but how many really know it so as to be proficient? and of those who claim to "know it", how many also claim to know 10, 15, 20 other apps as well? I find it hard enough to find people who know just one, two or three applications very well

its like the difference between people who say "they build things" b/c they spent a semester working on a habitat for humanity house versus people for whom building was a career for a while or who do it on the side

or the difference between people who say they speak other languages b/c they can pick their way through a le monde article (or what have you) versus someone who, if a stranger stops and asks for help or directions, or a client to discuss a design, can switch into conversing in the other tongue without missing a step

i think the same is true of what it means to be an arch viz person --- it is a career by itself ---

No architect really has to know how about particle systems, or leveraging ambient occlusion versus rendertimes, or caustics; you're right, that's why visualization is a whole profession in itself.

But architects are generalists, right? So doesn't it stand to reason that it's beneficial to be able to operate a wide range of skills? And likewise, pertaining to this discussion, software platforms? I think it's impossible to be an expert at every single platform, but likewise, you cant just say 'screw technology' that's suicide.

This is why on contemporary CV's when people get all the way down to skills and softwares they differentiate between 'Fluent in' and 'Knowledge of'. I haven't used Revit on a project from inception til post occupancy, but I can open the program and zoom around and create plans and detail views, so it goes on the resume under 'Knowledge Of'.