Prolly not sketchup - i'd say Max or Maya.

I love their renderings too.. i try n emulate em by photoshopping an autocad hidden line rendering onto my rendered images. I've heard that FOA uses archicad + formZ.

It looks like Rhino. And their renderings are not that good. Actually They suck.

is that why they put out such a tiny book?

i think it's formz it,s a good hidden line option, I dont think they images suck at all, i like the sketchy feel.

FOA use microstation.

i think they suk

FOA using microstation would be an interest piece of information. considering autodesk is advertising its products with FOA's Yokohama project interiors.

haha good one, john.
but I have to agree that the renderings are very poor, specially when you see the quality of the completed project.

i think they suk partly because they show indefinitions,
they are schematics,
all within their indefinition philosophy,
that they develop the project through the construction process even.

blah yadda blah

arent their renders typically just screen shots?

Could somebody post some?

John Jourden
I've been involved in some of their projects through a company i used to work for and i can tell you that they used microstation at the time. They - or the japanese contractor who produced the cd's for the project - might have swictched to autocad recently or made some kind of commercial agreement with autodesk but the renderings and drawings you see in all their books were done using microstation. A picture of Yokohama ferry terminal next to the name autodesk doesn't mean shit. TV commercials of Sharon Osbourne advertizing for cheap-ass ASDA supermarkets here in the UK doesn't mean shit either. She sure ain't shopping there, be sure of that.

wait a minute. did I say you were lying or something? I was just pointing out that Autodesk was promoting their products with images of FOA's work. And that my dear little attack dog is what what was interesting to me, especially if FOA uses Microstation. So now go get some alpo or a chew toy and cool your jets... you need a timeout

and another thing is Autodesk can't use an image for things of that nature without authorization from the parties involved, so it does mean something...

Gotan here...

Thanks!
as an eye candy...it pretty much sucks...but it does a good job in conceptual presentation in a 3d-vintage way

...vintage 3d...a new concept?

You didn't say i was lying but your comment hinted at some kind of mis-information from my part, kinda like me talking crap. At least that's how i took it, considering the slightly cynical tone of your post. Forgive me if i took it the wrong way or being over reactive. I was just replying to a question i happened to know the answer to... just supplying information you know... Not that i really care what software they use anyway, i'm just very interested in their work and therefore ended up reading this thread and taking part in it.
As for the fact that Autodesk can't use images of Yokohama for commercial purpose without authorisation you are absolutely right, i said in my post that they could have entered some kind of commercial agreement that benefits both parties since this building is such a landmark and will therfore be of interest to many fields, fashion shoots, car commercials, etc. That also includes software manufacturers. Now let's chill a bit, no need to get pissed off over such a small matters.

yeah....get back to work now!

here are some more RECENT images (2003):

can no-one google?

and for the autodesk embroglio: Autodesk needs to feed a global empire. Although Bentley is a minor threat, they still need to get people hooked onto their suite of products.

So they trade user licenses for promotional images. Zaha's landesgartenschau was the cover for 3DSMAX lite (or whatever it was called - the handicapped version of MAx). This was, of course, AFTER it was built........ relax brothers.

FOA uses w h a t e v e r skill their staff utilizes (I guarantee Farshid isn't importing geometry and placing lights). I think they're fine. simple delineation to show form without the optical illusions we see from other offices.

on an aside note... if some of the images look ancient... it is because they are. remember the yokohama terminal competition was won in 1995. not going for the vintage look, they are actually vintage.

jourden, have not seen that bottom image before, it looks bizzarely like a hybrid of their blue moon project in groenigen and the CCTV building. I m not quite sure anyone seems to know. . . . . I have seen alot of other practices with absolutely the same style of image recently, the only only program i can think of that has that type of rendering as standard appears to be sketchup but i m sure they are using something more sophisticated, in conclusion, not a clue

they're renderings vary greatly. i like these of the BBC Centre a lot and they don't look like they've been done like their 'sketchup' looking images... anyone know what rendered this one? max?

BBC Music Centre

i mean.. 'their'

actually, who cares. you know what i meant...

3D MAX...Some Yokohama renderings appear to be photoshop materials over a wireframe template.

why does everyone think rendering need to be super detailed and beautiful...

it gets the idea across right?

frank i totally agree with you, images are suppose to show the idea and give a feel of the space, i think the more abstract or sketchy ones do that better than photo real images cause the go straight to the point and capture the essence of what the project will or should be. The photorealistic renderings show projects in a perfect world with perfect lighting and the perfect angle. They are just as fake as any image. even a real photo of a built project doesn't show reality, it is allows distorted as it becomes 2D.

.dwg i think it's still sketchup with alot of photo shop, look at the trees

Yeah, I think sketchup is in there somewhere, rendered through Max or Cinema.