after using the software for 6 years, i know that MAX is the best modelling software with the some of the most robust rendering capabilities, but my company is pushing sketchup on me like methadone to a heroine addict. the corporate monster loves standardization and the survey says that everyone loves sketchup. i hate sketchup. i think that it is analagous to permanent training wheels...you really can never fly with the software. u can make models quickly, u can put in NPR people & trees and grab free models from some poor shmo who loves google so much as to work for them for free, but it will never be as good as MAX [at least not until google buys autodesk...which is a scary thought]
that being said, i would like to hear from people who feel that i am wrong or who have experience with artlantis [side B of the pill being shoved down my throat by management].
the firm i work at likes to use sketchup and artlantis
it seems pretty comparable to other programs, especially for what they use it for here
i think the big thing is that its quicker to get to a final product for those people who know how to use it here
what sort of renderings to you produce? are you looking to make them super photorealistic?
i dont know how to use artlantis beyond opening a sketchup file in it and seeing that it renders the materials better than sketchup does on its own
but i've seen some pretty nice looking renderings come out of here from it
my opinion of them both based on limited experience:
sketchup and artlantis can get you to a nice photo looking rendering with minimal photoshopping
max can get you actual photo realistic renderings and can have an almost perfect final product, but in an office setting, the time to get there is too long compared to artlantis
Sketchup and Max are just entirely different levels of program.
Sketchup is a quick prototyping tool.
Max is a 3D modelling package.
There's no comparison.
i dont even see anything remotely comparable to the quality of max renderings on the artlantis or sketchup website galleries, which is why my reaction is so strong to management's ridiculous claim for it to be our new standard company wide.
philia- i agree and disagree with you...my max renders hardly ever go over the 30 minute mark since i fake most of my GI with skylight and add caustics in pshop, but you are spot on with your output remark.
i dont see the need for the wasted time spent making 'prototype models' when it can all be done in max with even greater efficiency once a few basic modelling techniques are learned...like using quickslice and extrude on a polysurface in MAX vs. push/pull in sketchup. i mean, you dont use microsoft paint to put people in a rendering; you use photoshop. and although learning photoshop was HELL those first few times around, it eventually became the norm.
in terms of 3d modelling, i get so frustrated with people who are not willing to extend themselves and use only the best tools that have almost no limit to what they produce [i.e. using ms paint instead of pshop].
you have to evaluate what is most advantageous for your business.
SketchUp is great for many firms. If the client requests higher quality output, then they hire a rendering firm.
Max is great if you are doing great renderings all the time, have huge resources (it'll kill the best graphics cards quickly, eat gigs of ram for snacks and drink every ounce of process power you can throw at it!)
If you aren't doing presentation renderings, then I think Max is slow. It can be a great modeler, but programs like SketchUp or FormZ are much faster.
Time is money. When I am designing architecture, I don't use Max. When I am making presentation and marketing renderings, that's when Max comes in.
As a design tool, I find it cumbersome.
There will always be a need for 'protoype models' in architecture - you need to see things to push the design, work with the client, make changes, etc. To do this in Max would be wasting tons of time.
Best case is you use both, export the model to Max when done for rendering (you'll need to establish a good work flow).
Remember, they aren't comparable programs. Both are great at what they do. Use the best tool for the job.
i think that what i am hinting towards is a 'one stop shop' approach to running a firm. i feel that the ability to produce high grade renderings in house is an invaluable resource and can be achieved by your every day CAD monkey these days...to have staff that can make the transition between MAX, aCAD, pshop doesnt seem like such a crazy request given that every student out of school knows these programs backwards and hopefully forwards as well.
at university, one's ability to represent their own work was always held in the highest regard...to now rely on someone else to produce the most accurate representations of my work is quite discomforting.
I completely disagree that it is reasonable to assume quality renderings "can be achieved by your every day CAD monkey these days".
That's like saying that because we can all drive cars we should be able to compete on a track against pros.
There's the saying "jack of all trades, master of none" and this is completely applicable to architecture.
It's very dangerous when you assume that everyone can do everything and can do it well. This is also why we get such crappy architecture websites and graphics - everyone thinks they can do everything.
I know this from personal attempts at learning everything (now I rely on people that really know their field well).
Just be careful making broad based assumptions like that. There's a reason that things like Hollywood have one guy that paints eyeballs, one guy that paints backgrounds, one guy that animates hands, etc., etc.
Aligning yourself with quality people is one of the largest keys to successful business, in any field. To try to do it all yourself, or assume your employees can, is setting yourself up for a nasty disaster.
interesting car analogy...but i think it falls short. you were definitely correct about web design and graphics [in many instances], but i am in no way claiming that architects should do it all. i am implying that we should do all that has to do with the representation of our respective works. the programs i mentioned - cad, pshop, max - are all primary foundations of architectural education for EVERY single graduating senior and has been for the past 6+ years [a rough estimate based on my graduation date]. it makes sense when you sequence them as such: 2d linework, 2d color work, 3d representation.
i think that we are the 'pros'. if we can design the building, it should be an integral part of our design process to create the most convincing representation of said building.
the trade of visual architectural representation is an essential part of architecture and those who are creating it. to shove it off to someone else is to remove a part of the process that has historically been the final icing on the cake. its like letting someone else run the last lap for you!
your points are all good but i do feel that the conversation should shift back to my actual intended point[s] relative to the effective visual representation of one's work and should move away from the 'jack of all trades' bit.
i agree completely with trace. the assumption that all recent graduates are highly skilled with the aforementioned computer programs is simply ludicrous. many students have exposure to these progams but many of my most talented classmates (m.arch class of 2005) barely touched 3d modeling programs. moreover, none of these programs was fundamental or even taught in class. what was considered fundamental was searching for and finding means of representation regardless of whether those means were paper mache, painting, or even sketchup.
there are many tools/methods for arch repesentation and few of us are capable of mastering all of them. trace is absolutely correct we he speaks of the architect aligning himself with quality people. in fact, if there is one skill where arch schools really fails it in preparing future architects to not only work with other people but also to manipulate and use them to the best of their respective talents.
moreover, final renderings/presentation drawings are not the last lap of the architectural process...the building itself is the last step and a well-done rendering is more typically a time cosuming side project that's better off out-sourced to a specialist in high-quality renderings. maybe more firms should take advantage of recent graduates with "skills"...but that's not the way it works in many places.
But of course, representation isn't just an end-of-process thing. Representation is part of the design process, and as such, representational tools like Max may be quite appropriate for designers, not just visualisers.
I think superduct should make a case that, while Sketchup is a good base program for everyone in the office, Max offers sufficiently more capability to be worth supplying it to those with a demonstrable need for it.
I of course agree that architect's need fundamental communication skills (basic 3D, basic modeling, etc.), it's just to expect polished, market-ready renderings/images is just not reasonable.
One thing I forgot to mention - it's all about time. Think about an architect that is also an engineer - there simply is not enough time in the day to do it all (certainly not well). So, as everyone will understand (or will soon), that time is money, it becomes a poor investment for a boss to have one person do the job of 3.
It's nice to want to do it all, and it's fun, but even if you gave up a life and sleep, you still could not get everything done well.
If you want Max (and I would, along with a few others), then you need to convince them why. Compare renderings, workflow, flexibility (like DWG linking), etc. If you get really ambitious, figure out some kind of way to demonstrate how Max will make you more productive, no one can deny effeciency and productivity.
The big one will be cost. $3500 per license vs. $500. If it's a corporate decision, think how fast numbers like taht will multiply (10 of Max = $35,000, 10 of SU = $5000 - that's a HUGE difference, and that's without things like VRay).
If you can convince someone taht it will make them more money quicker, they'll shoot. If not, then they'll think you just want to make pretty pictures for yourself without any of it helping the company (I've been in both of these situations - won one, lost one).
sketchup and artlantis vs. MAX 9
after using the software for 6 years, i know that MAX is the best modelling software with the some of the most robust rendering capabilities, but my company is pushing sketchup on me like methadone to a heroine addict. the corporate monster loves standardization and the survey says that everyone loves sketchup. i hate sketchup. i think that it is analagous to permanent training wheels...you really can never fly with the software. u can make models quickly, u can put in NPR people & trees and grab free models from some poor shmo who loves google so much as to work for them for free, but it will never be as good as MAX [at least not until google buys autodesk...which is a scary thought]
that being said, i would like to hear from people who feel that i am wrong or who have experience with artlantis [side B of the pill being shoved down my throat by management].
hopefully i am wrong. thanks for your comments.
lol
we use artlantis.
we like artlantis.
we make choices based on what's good for us, being a tiny firm, rather than what's being pushed on us by a corporate entity.
we don't use (s)ketchup or max, so no comparison shopping for me.
we always use the royal we.
the dude abides
Art lantis? good
Max ? Better
Cinema 4D ? Best
any thoughts ?
the firm i work at likes to use sketchup and artlantis
it seems pretty comparable to other programs, especially for what they use it for here
i think the big thing is that its quicker to get to a final product for those people who know how to use it here
what sort of renderings to you produce? are you looking to make them super photorealistic?
i dont know how to use artlantis beyond opening a sketchup file in it and seeing that it renders the materials better than sketchup does on its own
but i've seen some pretty nice looking renderings come out of here from it
my opinion of them both based on limited experience:
sketchup and artlantis can get you to a nice photo looking rendering with minimal photoshopping
max can get you actual photo realistic renderings and can have an almost perfect final product, but in an office setting, the time to get there is too long compared to artlantis
Sketchup and Max are just entirely different levels of program.
Sketchup is a quick prototyping tool.
Max is a 3D modelling package.
There's no comparison.
sketch up - 5 minute render
max 5 hour render - on a good day.
output
sketch up - render good enough for design purposes
max - client ready render
but artlantis can really up the anti. Giving the best of both worlds
Personally, I like Maxwell, and yes I know how long it takes to render an image on that program.
I'm still trying to figure V-Ray and Max out frankly.
i concur agfa8x...
i dont even see anything remotely comparable to the quality of max renderings on the artlantis or sketchup website galleries, which is why my reaction is so strong to management's ridiculous claim for it to be our new standard company wide.
philia- i agree and disagree with you...my max renders hardly ever go over the 30 minute mark since i fake most of my GI with skylight and add caustics in pshop, but you are spot on with your output remark.
i dont see the need for the wasted time spent making 'prototype models' when it can all be done in max with even greater efficiency once a few basic modelling techniques are learned...like using quickslice and extrude on a polysurface in MAX vs. push/pull in sketchup. i mean, you dont use microsoft paint to put people in a rendering; you use photoshop. and although learning photoshop was HELL those first few times around, it eventually became the norm.
in terms of 3d modelling, i get so frustrated with people who are not willing to extend themselves and use only the best tools that have almost no limit to what they produce [i.e. using ms paint instead of pshop].
damn you google. damn you.
you have to evaluate what is most advantageous for your business.
SketchUp is great for many firms. If the client requests higher quality output, then they hire a rendering firm.
Max is great if you are doing great renderings all the time, have huge resources (it'll kill the best graphics cards quickly, eat gigs of ram for snacks and drink every ounce of process power you can throw at it!)
If you aren't doing presentation renderings, then I think Max is slow. It can be a great modeler, but programs like SketchUp or FormZ are much faster.
Time is money. When I am designing architecture, I don't use Max. When I am making presentation and marketing renderings, that's when Max comes in.
As a design tool, I find it cumbersome.
There will always be a need for 'protoype models' in architecture - you need to see things to push the design, work with the client, make changes, etc. To do this in Max would be wasting tons of time.
Best case is you use both, export the model to Max when done for rendering (you'll need to establish a good work flow).
Remember, they aren't comparable programs. Both are great at what they do. Use the best tool for the job.
well put response...
i think that what i am hinting towards is a 'one stop shop' approach to running a firm. i feel that the ability to produce high grade renderings in house is an invaluable resource and can be achieved by your every day CAD monkey these days...to have staff that can make the transition between MAX, aCAD, pshop doesnt seem like such a crazy request given that every student out of school knows these programs backwards and hopefully forwards as well.
at university, one's ability to represent their own work was always held in the highest regard...to now rely on someone else to produce the most accurate representations of my work is quite discomforting.
im a pretty big control freak i guess.
but long live 'control z'.
I completely disagree that it is reasonable to assume quality renderings "can be achieved by your every day CAD monkey these days".
That's like saying that because we can all drive cars we should be able to compete on a track against pros.
There's the saying "jack of all trades, master of none" and this is completely applicable to architecture.
It's very dangerous when you assume that everyone can do everything and can do it well. This is also why we get such crappy architecture websites and graphics - everyone thinks they can do everything.
I know this from personal attempts at learning everything (now I rely on people that really know their field well).
Just be careful making broad based assumptions like that. There's a reason that things like Hollywood have one guy that paints eyeballs, one guy that paints backgrounds, one guy that animates hands, etc., etc.
Aligning yourself with quality people is one of the largest keys to successful business, in any field. To try to do it all yourself, or assume your employees can, is setting yourself up for a nasty disaster.
trace-
interesting car analogy...but i think it falls short. you were definitely correct about web design and graphics [in many instances], but i am in no way claiming that architects should do it all. i am implying that we should do all that has to do with the representation of our respective works. the programs i mentioned - cad, pshop, max - are all primary foundations of architectural education for EVERY single graduating senior and has been for the past 6+ years [a rough estimate based on my graduation date]. it makes sense when you sequence them as such: 2d linework, 2d color work, 3d representation.
i think that we are the 'pros'. if we can design the building, it should be an integral part of our design process to create the most convincing representation of said building.
the trade of visual architectural representation is an essential part of architecture and those who are creating it. to shove it off to someone else is to remove a part of the process that has historically been the final icing on the cake. its like letting someone else run the last lap for you!
your points are all good but i do feel that the conversation should shift back to my actual intended point[s] relative to the effective visual representation of one's work and should move away from the 'jack of all trades' bit.
i look forward to your responses...
i agree completely with trace. the assumption that all recent graduates are highly skilled with the aforementioned computer programs is simply ludicrous. many students have exposure to these progams but many of my most talented classmates (m.arch class of 2005) barely touched 3d modeling programs. moreover, none of these programs was fundamental or even taught in class. what was considered fundamental was searching for and finding means of representation regardless of whether those means were paper mache, painting, or even sketchup.
there are many tools/methods for arch repesentation and few of us are capable of mastering all of them. trace is absolutely correct we he speaks of the architect aligning himself with quality people. in fact, if there is one skill where arch schools really fails it in preparing future architects to not only work with other people but also to manipulate and use them to the best of their respective talents.
moreover, final renderings/presentation drawings are not the last lap of the architectural process...the building itself is the last step and a well-done rendering is more typically a time cosuming side project that's better off out-sourced to a specialist in high-quality renderings. maybe more firms should take advantage of recent graduates with "skills"...but that's not the way it works in many places.
But of course, representation isn't just an end-of-process thing. Representation is part of the design process, and as such, representational tools like Max may be quite appropriate for designers, not just visualisers.
I think superduct should make a case that, while Sketchup is a good base program for everyone in the office, Max offers sufficiently more capability to be worth supplying it to those with a demonstrable need for it.
I of course agree that architect's need fundamental communication skills (basic 3D, basic modeling, etc.), it's just to expect polished, market-ready renderings/images is just not reasonable.
One thing I forgot to mention - it's all about time. Think about an architect that is also an engineer - there simply is not enough time in the day to do it all (certainly not well). So, as everyone will understand (or will soon), that time is money, it becomes a poor investment for a boss to have one person do the job of 3.
It's nice to want to do it all, and it's fun, but even if you gave up a life and sleep, you still could not get everything done well.
If you want Max (and I would, along with a few others), then you need to convince them why. Compare renderings, workflow, flexibility (like DWG linking), etc. If you get really ambitious, figure out some kind of way to demonstrate how Max will make you more productive, no one can deny effeciency and productivity.
The big one will be cost. $3500 per license vs. $500. If it's a corporate decision, think how fast numbers like taht will multiply (10 of Max = $35,000, 10 of SU = $5000 - that's a HUGE difference, and that's without things like VRay).
If you can convince someone taht it will make them more money quicker, they'll shoot. If not, then they'll think you just want to make pretty pictures for yourself without any of it helping the company (I've been in both of these situations - won one, lost one).
Good luck.
great dialogue!
good convo everyone, thanks. you all made some great points...
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.