Hi
You must adabt a wider perspective.
Today's 3D modeling are build on at most 15 years experience and note, that most of what you see as modern technology, is in fact just the old way's just re-written into fast code, just the paper replaced with a screen.

Your old qualities offcaurse survive the transcript, anyway if the whole thing are just percived as a smart gadged to produce spetacular renderings the effect and innovation will serve limited --- we work in the computer stone age, and what is it that make you think, that the new tools that you havn't yet seen, shuldn't have the same quality as the tools develobed thruout centuries, why is it you think that the old qualities can't survive the real progress we ar yet to see, the new methods and the new perception with new way's to put things together ?

http://home20.inet.tele.dk/h-3d/kineserier.jpg

I'm a self proclaimed computer nerd and enjoy modeling and rendering. I get a rush from a really sweet rendering and then taking it to the next level in Photoshop. But at the end of the day, for my money, I'm much more excited by a gritty hand drawing like LTL does, or a nice ugly foamcore Dutch style model. Give me an OMA foamcore, green paper, sponge and orange people model anyday.

this is a very old discussion....but.....

A physical model is great and should always be done, but they are really,really, really slow and making changes is next to impossible. A computer model, on the other hand, is relatively fast (I can build a full 3D model of a house in a fraction of the time needed for a physical model), is extremely flexible, and it can be use over and over and over, from schematic desing through marketing.

Many large projects need a huge marketing campaign to either get approved or to sell. A physical model just won't cut it when the only way to see the building is via presenations, brochures, CD/DVDs, etc. You can never get a physical model to look 'real' and certainly can't really make it feel real. A great rendering, however, can do all of this using the same model that was built as a design sketch, then changed, then finalized.

Personally, my undergrad was all models, grad was all computers. I can design a building much faster in a computer (significantly faster), but I like to test the design in a built form at certain stages. I think you'll find many firms do this.

Models are seductive 'toys' and people gape in awe at them, but they are only useful to the immediate few that can touch them and only for a short period of time (until the design inevitably changes).

vindpust? aka___

If you take a step back from rendering and look at the benefits of 3d modeling you can see that you can create renderings, good or bad, and use the 3d model to aid and expedite the physical modeling process with templates (especially with difficult 3d geometry).

There have been school projects where I 3d modeled solely for the purpose of understanding the design at a greater detail and to guide the physical model and 2d drawings*. Good renderings can take time. Bad renderings can destroy your presentation board(s).

* This applies to boxy and blobby projects alike.

for me, it is any means necessary. unfortunately i am technically untrained to do complex computer models and too impatient to do precision cardboard models, but when time comes to develop the project, i manage to do it by rook or crook.
which one is more real? well, who can tell, except, i know its real when bruce osterman yells at the cement truck operator to pump the
sonofabitch.

I think its great that we have both tools to use to guide and communicate our ideas. I think one of the negatives of a computer model though is that it can sometimes be used to make a design seem better than it really is. Usually an architect or student that is good with presentation is also good with the design aspect, but that isn't always the case. There is nothing worse in my opinion when an uncreative, non-fuctional design is presented in a way (extreme perspectives, use of reflection, transparency, etc.) that makes it seem "cool." With physical models, usually the materials are practical tools (chip board, wood, etc.) that communicate the idea and form.

the sole fact that the model is three dimensional gives it inherent characteristics that a rendering NEVER will have... but both are important tools.

philarch is right though. a rendering can easily distort information. it's easy to make a bad building look great in a rendering, but hard to do the same in model.

yes, renderings can seduce you by the prettiness of it, but it also allows you to test what the building will feel like, what the space is really about.

Too many miss this point on their way to creating dramatic graphics. It's also about time and skill. Sticking transparent people in a rendering for scale certainly does little to help with the experiential nature of the space.

I love 'em both.