Here are 12 Reasons why your should avoid rendering in your office at all costs.
1. You Will Lose Track of Time
You can really get lost in your modelling. A whole work day can go by without you even realizing it. Worst of all, you can spend hours on a task that you expected to take a half an hour. In the end, you will find yourself staying later into the night while your coworkers punch out at 6.
2. More Demands on Your Time
There seems to be a very unfair expectation that employers have on the amount of time that it takes to complete a digital model. I have seen employers consistently assign a brand new 3D model to be completed and rendered for print in a two day period. While that may not seem like a short amount of time, we can easily forget that a considerable amount of time is going to be spent tweaking the vantage points and materials. Also, the employer will inevitably be requesting changes to the design or look once they see your progress prints.
3. The Employer Doesn’t Have Knowledge of the Software
There in lies maybe the biggest problem. Most of your supervisors will be older and have not been personally exposed to modelling software. They often feel as though computers have made things more instant or automated, when the truth of the matter is that computers have really just complicated things.
So as mentioned above, the employer will give you these assignments and constantly make changes to the model before you are done. Often times, the changes that they request will require near full remodels, so they can really be detrimental to getting renderings complete. This brings me to my next point
4. You Will Find Yourself Re-doing Things Over and Over
As you present various schemes and changes to your clients, you will find that you will have to model the same things over and over again. It is not unusual to have to go through 3-5 different drawing files in one day.
5. You Have to Sweat the Details
Aside from actually constructing the forms that make up the building massing, you also need to concentrate on those tedious details. Reflections, shading, material colors, mullions… you name it, are all items that must be coordinated into your rendering in order for it to come off as a believable form. Clients have little capacity for imagination and you really need to paint as clear of a picture as possible. The details are going to take up most of your time.
6. You Are On Your Own: No One Else Can Help You
Unfortunately, digital models practically have individual signatures embedded into them. What I mean is that it is easy to tell that one person modelled one drawing and another person was the author of another. When you are presenting multiple schemes, the same person really needs to be developing each one. It is the only way to deliver a professional presentation to a client. This means that none of your colleagues can help you out with the work load.
7. You May Have Knowledge in One Software But Not Another
There are so many different 3D software out there. I could name nearly ten of them but there are constantly new programs coming out that trump the others. I personally was used to using Formz when I came out of school. My first firm used 3D Studio Max and expected me to hit the ground running. I ended up having to learn the new interface while trying to keep up with my assignments. This led to longer nights at work that I would have rather spent back home of at happy hour.
8. You Lose Your Personal Space
Because your boss will be wanting to make those changes, he is basically going to be sitting on your lap and punching holes in your LCD screen. They just get sucked into your computer screen while you are still sitting at your desk! They will be putting their faces 3 inches away from your screen so they can inspect your work and you will most likely get familiar with the smell of their breath. To make matters worst, they will just stand there while you are frantically making their changes, even though it may take you 10 minutes to do so. You really just have to sit there and take it because its hard to tell your boss to buzz off.
9. You Won’t Be Working on Important Tasks
So while you are making pretty pictures, your friends in the office will be doing real work. Creating presentation images is indeed important and you will still be a valuable member of the team, but, in the end this won’t amount to anything more than an image that makes your client “oooh and ahh.”
10. You Will Learn Less
This is similar to the last point. While you are modelling, you won’t be doing any detailing, space planning, or structural coordination. Really, you are going to be missing out on all of those “important tasks” that will make you a more complete architect. There is no 3d Modelling section on the exams.
11. You Will Be Under-Appreciated
Because you won’t be involved in those other tasks that really result in a final set of working documents, your contribution won’t be recognized as much. 3D modelling is expected to be a simple automated process and the crazy amount of time you pour into your assignments will be diminished by your employers high expectations.
12. Professionals Do It Better
Seriously, they do. You could spend a solid month on a model and it won’t look as good as when a professional renderer works a day or two on the project. You don’t have the skill-set or the digital library to trump the professionals. From personal experience, I have seen a professional rendering firm model the entire Dubai Waterfront Development overnight…from scratch. These are the images that you have probably seen for a few years now, including the early images of the new world’s tallest building. That’s right, they were done in a span of one night! Could you possibly compete with that?
Nice topic. Hard to argue. I have to say though, I've worked with groups on different renderings. You have to be militaristic about using the same lights, cameras, environments, to get comparable renderings. Its possible for sure, once you convince everyone to do the same thing.
As for the old folks breathing down your shoulder, I know one thing is for sure, a boss that can understand a screenshot is a good boss.
Number 10 is the strongest part of the argument I believe. Working with the old pro's over sketch paper will get you much further along.
While your points are definitely valid, I have to think that there are some other important ideas that make renderings worth while.
1. Old school bosses that sketch in plan and elevation don't always figure things out three dimensionally. Going 3d, even if just for internal use, is worth the work. You begin discovering the million little details that were not discovered in the 2d form. It pushes the design process along into something spatial and a more coordinated design. Sweating the details is a really important step in the design process and the sooner you do, the better off you will be.
2. Renderings are not only useful in one phase of the project. Modeling and rendering CAN be used to push and develop a project, if it is used throughout the whole process. It also helps to have the renderings at the end of pre-design and design development for the client to sign off on. Clients are inevitably more able to visualize based on renderings in addition to 2d documentation than 2d alone. It's best to have things out in the clear. Not everyone has the ability to visualize depth, material, transitions and based on black and white line drawings and specifications. When you work in 2d exclusively, the culmination of all details of the project can be missed by the client, operators and can lead to changes down the line.
3. A lot of your arguments lead me to think that you are talking about a larger firm where you are more likely to get pigeon holed into doing limited tasks for an office. In smaller firms, you can't just do one thing. So, learning less, being slowed down, being under appreciated, etc kinda go with a lot of positions.
4. Building 3d models forces a person to think 3D and developing this ability hones your ability to visualize difficult 3d situations in 2d drawings. So, you could argue that you could surpass the people that are doing the other "important" things that you were talking about.
Just as a side note, I used to work in a model shop (physical models) in undergad. We made models at pre-design and design development. Even if it is just a study model, it helps understanding spaces, material transitions and multiple iterations pushes the project forward. Whether it is physical or digital, 3d visualization is an important tool to designing.
yeah I call bullshit on a lot of things "Young Architect" has to say. dude doesn't seem particularly savvy. # 1, 4, 7, 8: these seem to be incredibly archaic ways of thinking about modeling.
I agree with All and 21 even though you are arguing different points you are sort of arguing the same idea. I won't do 3d modeling where I work. My bosses are older and have no concept of what it takes to get where they want to be with a rendering. So I can't discuss time frames with them they have no concept of what they are asking for as a workload. Generally they want a model tomorrow or by the end of the day based off of extremely unfinished drawings that are also not drawn in any manner that would make it easy to build a model from. When I make them go to someone else they give them a time frame that's realistic and they have no choice but to listen to them.
The larger problem however is that they are thinking of a model ONLY as a rendering. They don't even have the ability to conceive of developing a 3d model to help inform design decisions. This is really the largest problem. Unless they can re conceive how to work in this manner they will never gain a value from modeling in 3d. Since they can never understand what it takes to model something i don't believe they will ever make this jump unfortunately. Without working with the program its very hard to think through what is easy or hard to change and where the value lays in what level of finished product.
Essentially you both listed two different modes of working. All Blacks is talking about developing a model only after the design has been done and only to show renderings of it. 21Ronin is talking about using 3d modeling in the process of design which can also be used to get these renderings but provides more info during design. I think this method has the most to offer and creates a higher value for the time spent modeling the building.
Realistically my office will never make that jump since I can't even make my boss understand that using autocad is not just a way to digitally represent hand drawings and to realize that accuracy is important. He doesn't use snaps or layers and changes dimensions rather than change the drawing. This is the essence of the problem. Unless the people in charge can rethink the process then these digital tools really don't help much at all.
we; as Architects, have to manage our client's expectations during the design and construction process. We need to let them know exactly what they're getting for the money they're spending and help them figure out exactly what they want instead of what they think they want. Some clients are better at understanding this than others just as some Architects are better at creating a transparent process that engages the client.
The same is true for a "renderer" in a firm: you need to manage your boss' expectations. They aren't the expert; they usually don't know how much work goes into a render (CG can take longer than hand methods sometimes). They are counting on you to know what can and can't be done. You need to be blunt (but professional) when they start asking for things that just can't be done based on your current skill set, timeframe and or complexity of the project. The trick is learning what you can deliver and what exactly is needed to get the message your boss is trying to get across.
There are two types of (3D) modeling: design and visualization. Design modeling requires high levels of accuracy and detail but the images produced (if any) don't necessarily need to be "gooey" (even if you're working on material tests), the models are usually heavy (large file sizes and poly counts) and not optimized for quick rendering. These models are usually for internal use only and invaluable for the progress of the design. Visualization modeling doesn't necessarily need to be highly accurate and you're allowed to "cheat" in order to get the image to "look right" (modeling only the surfaces seen by the camera, details are texture-based instead of geometry-based, etc.), the models, textures, lighting, etc. are optimized for fast rendering. These models/images are designed to sell the idea, to communicate a feeling, an experience.
Your job is to work with your boss in order to figure out which you're expected to produce. It should be a two-way conversation, outlining the pros and cons of your boss' wishlist with you providing suggestions on ways to meet the wishlist within your available resources.
lots of odd ideas in the first post. even when i did renders in the early 90's and was the only one using the software my boss understood better than that. i understood my role better too.
the problem is a bad boss compounded by misconceptions of a (possibly) bad worker.
first of all, if you are hired to be junior staff then i am sorry your role is not going to be lead designer. get over it. second, in our office as much as possible we try to use 3d, physical and CG models, as design tool. renderings are a side effect. any office that doesn't do that is possibly out of touch. at best they are missing opportunities, most of which are described above.
rehiggins describes great way to work. all work inside a firm should be a conversation. in our case it sometimes involves shouting, but in a good way...
our best render-guy is also the person to whom we assign the largest projects and the person we look to as the most likely to be next partner...for what it's worth.
As a 3D Artist myself, I believe that 3D should be left for professionals. It is okay to do basic 3d stuff for your design decisions, but once you have a decision, and need to sell it to the client, it is best just to hire a professional!
Very many times, I have seen architects trying to make a rendering, and things get messed up, time is wasted, and then the office is trying to hire a professional 3d freelancer to come up with a quick fix. Unfortunately, when things are messed up, there is no quick fix, and things have to be re-done from scratch again, so there is even more time and money being wasted.
Also, I would add another point,
13. Troubleshooting - when 3d model gets heavy and is poorly optimized, weird things start to happen, like "crashes", "slow performance", and my favorite "the screen of death". So instead of blaming your company's PC, just hire a professional to do the work for you!
I agree with jump that 3d modeling, physical or computer based, is a design tool and that renderings are the side effect of that tool. The art of creating a well composed rendering can take a lot of time if you don't know what your doing, have inefficient equipment, etc...
What bothers me is that isn't it the architects role to adapt to the changing technology and to learn the new tools provided to them? The whole idea of the "master builder" which is nonexistent concept now. That is one of my main problems with the profession. Isn't outsourcing 3d modeling and rendering just another example of architects giving up an area of control to another field.
In my opinion it's better for the architects to adapt and learn the new technology and really take pride in all aspects of the work including the modeling and the rendering, and do it efficiently.
Whats next just one guy sitting in an office with trace, emailing that sketch to a company who does schematics, another for design development, another for cd's, modeling, graphics, etc.... where does it end?
When does the profession say we are taking architecture back and we will adapt and do all of the work.
There are some points here but there is something left out here...
The person working in 3D and rendering is doing three things, aside from pushing a mouse that are pretty *high level*...
#1. they are visualizing the space... something a sketch or cad section or plan might not do: articulate the feeling of the space, the scale of it, how it is like to move through it...
#2. the renderers / visualizers are *DESIGNING* the thing... if the design lead is hovering over you as a renderer, it is because they get *one thing* which is that, there are things being figured out as the model develops. There are dimensions and proportions and material and representational ideas that are being inputted every step of the way, and the person driving the mouse is actually the one designing it. It's perfectly understandable that senior design architects, who from actual design experience have alot more experience, know what they are doing presumably are going to want to have theire input heard... As well they should, because chances are, if they have been around doing this for 25 years, they are probably better at design than you are... I think these days some of the most successful designers are normally experienced in design, and have full trust and collaboration with younger staff who push the tool for them...
If you outsource your rendering, you are *in part* outsourcing your design. Rendering *is* design decisions. One reason to keep it in house is, maintain control over your design work...
#3. trenderers are *COMMUNICATING* the design, and without communicating it, it doesn't really exist... A rendering can make the project. It wins the client, or if it is weak, it fails to win anybody. This makes or breaks the project potentially, not the rendering itself, but the whole communication package, *sales* tools, etc. that get the client on board, make them know and understand what cool shit they are paying for, or... if it fails, loses the client, competition, etc... you can point at a good rendering (computer rendering or hand rendering) and understand it and emotionally and rationally understand value that may not exist on a spreadsheet...
Also, I think you can get faster at rendering if you invest the time and effort... I think there needs to be the structures in place to build knowledge and share information about 3D visualization within an office, because the way people learn the fastest is by working with others or talking to other people who have done something... it grows exponentially with more people who can do something...
yeah chinese firms are cheap and quality is pretty good, some are really good, some are alright...
but you tell them one thing and you may get something else... As I said, outsourcing is okay, but there are aspects of design communication that you are shipping out, not just your pretty picture... Also, communication takes time...
I know some people prefer to work with local rendering firms, even if they cost 4 times as much as chinese simply because of the face time and ease of communication and design understanding that comes with meeting face to face...
yes, for day to day client's meeting, china's rendering company is good enough... for those high profile project or for publications, then u may wanna consider doing it locally or in house...
I'd sure be careful about outsourcing 'Rendering Jobs' to China. I've been in China for 10 years now and I've seen Chinese firms gloat about 'their' latest design proposals. After a closer look at those design concepts, they failed to remove the original North American logos from images hidden in the Pdf and CAD files. I won't list any names in this thread but I've seen it pop up multiple times in the past decade.
Also, they are obnoxiously revising North American concepts and submitting them as their own in a variety of international competitions. This reinforces my previous thread 'Piracy in Firms...'.
Keep in mind all the sites we visit are being watched and deconstructed by the second!
I personally think that it is best to have a designer do renderings for everything except marketing images. Up until that point, marketing, I don't think that the exceptionally high quality renderings are necessary to be able to present to a client. At the end, when the design is "finalized" (if there is a time when that happens) or has undergone design development, I think the rendering companies are more than able to produce a higher level rendering. I don't think there is any arguing that. The decision making required in the beginning of the project (or DD) is too important to have someone outside the office that may not know the preferences of your firm.
I agree with the statement above: renderings should be done by the designer.
I was originally hired by my current firm as a freelance renderer. They needed a few shots to help a client raise money for their project and they thought they could just give me a few plans and elevations and get the images they wanted.
As I was going through the given information, I noticed that there were holes in the design--I brought this to their attention and worked with them to get enough decisions made so that I could create the renderings.
I don't think junior staff should be working on renderings, or at the very least should not be the lead (especially on BIM projects). Therein lies the problem: most senior staffers (the ones with the experience) haven't seemed to keep up with the tools of our trade. I've seen this in other firms where the top guys can barely find the power button on a computer to now where the "old time" CAD guys are refusing to learn a BIM program.
Education doesn't end with your degree; it's your responsibility as an Architect to continually learn and foster your curiosity
yo all blacks! u are giving too much away!
the best part about rendering is me telling the renderer what i want. i need my cheap interns to feel important of what they are doing, FOR ME!
i kid, but its totally true...
i do rendering myself and know it well. i think 3d max is the worst rendering software for architects. rendering is altimately about lighting and it is perhaps the worst aspect of 3dmax. u are making things look good, but not really using realistic light fixtures that is logical and achievable. i am not even go into vray, the time it consumes is outrageous.
not to sound old, but i think photorealistic renderings really limits imagination, it presents no room for possibilities. this "this is the way it will look like" attitude lack many of refinement required to realize an actual building. it is to final of a product that does not speak of the process, even if they did take alot of thinking to generate.
i like to do representations with revit and sketchup. it is quick and dirty and allows more of a constructive conversation with the clients. the conversation with relistic rendering in front of clients often becomes "i think the glass is too green, " or "the carpet is too red," or " the tiles are not shinning enough."
i agree with niro. i actually love the "cartoonish" quality of the default sketchup render. lay people seem to understand that "that's what it will look like[/i"] without literally meaning "[i]that's what it will look like" when it's appears to have been rendered with a box of crayolas.
The thing I like about Vray is that it has the ability to do both. Vray Toon allows you to do the more graphic renderings with outlines and all. Vray (regular) allows the more realistic renderings. The thing about 3ds Max is that the controls for the cameras and animations is far above the competition. I really pick and chose what I use for modeling vs rendering. I use Rhino for modeling (and Vray for Rhino) and minor renderings to test forms/proportions, etc and I use Max to render with Vray.
if you want the professional level of any modeling...give it physical/3d/markers/etc.... you need to realize that you get what you pay for.... don't be cheap and try to add/change things at the last minute and not expect to not pay for it....
when i give prices, i quote a base price then itemize the others..this way the client knows what they can afford and how long it might take....
Nov 16, 09 5:09 pm ·
·
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.
Twelve reasons to NOT render!
Here are 12 Reasons why your should avoid rendering in your office at all costs.
1. You Will Lose Track of Time
You can really get lost in your modelling. A whole work day can go by without you even realizing it. Worst of all, you can spend hours on a task that you expected to take a half an hour. In the end, you will find yourself staying later into the night while your coworkers punch out at 6.
2. More Demands on Your Time
There seems to be a very unfair expectation that employers have on the amount of time that it takes to complete a digital model. I have seen employers consistently assign a brand new 3D model to be completed and rendered for print in a two day period. While that may not seem like a short amount of time, we can easily forget that a considerable amount of time is going to be spent tweaking the vantage points and materials. Also, the employer will inevitably be requesting changes to the design or look once they see your progress prints.
3. The Employer Doesn’t Have Knowledge of the Software
There in lies maybe the biggest problem. Most of your supervisors will be older and have not been personally exposed to modelling software. They often feel as though computers have made things more instant or automated, when the truth of the matter is that computers have really just complicated things.
So as mentioned above, the employer will give you these assignments and constantly make changes to the model before you are done. Often times, the changes that they request will require near full remodels, so they can really be detrimental to getting renderings complete. This brings me to my next point
4. You Will Find Yourself Re-doing Things Over and Over
As you present various schemes and changes to your clients, you will find that you will have to model the same things over and over again. It is not unusual to have to go through 3-5 different drawing files in one day.
5. You Have to Sweat the Details
Aside from actually constructing the forms that make up the building massing, you also need to concentrate on those tedious details. Reflections, shading, material colors, mullions… you name it, are all items that must be coordinated into your rendering in order for it to come off as a believable form. Clients have little capacity for imagination and you really need to paint as clear of a picture as possible. The details are going to take up most of your time.
6. You Are On Your Own: No One Else Can Help You
Unfortunately, digital models practically have individual signatures embedded into them. What I mean is that it is easy to tell that one person modelled one drawing and another person was the author of another. When you are presenting multiple schemes, the same person really needs to be developing each one. It is the only way to deliver a professional presentation to a client. This means that none of your colleagues can help you out with the work load.
7. You May Have Knowledge in One Software But Not Another
There are so many different 3D software out there. I could name nearly ten of them but there are constantly new programs coming out that trump the others. I personally was used to using Formz when I came out of school. My first firm used 3D Studio Max and expected me to hit the ground running. I ended up having to learn the new interface while trying to keep up with my assignments. This led to longer nights at work that I would have rather spent back home of at happy hour.
8. You Lose Your Personal Space
Because your boss will be wanting to make those changes, he is basically going to be sitting on your lap and punching holes in your LCD screen. They just get sucked into your computer screen while you are still sitting at your desk! They will be putting their faces 3 inches away from your screen so they can inspect your work and you will most likely get familiar with the smell of their breath. To make matters worst, they will just stand there while you are frantically making their changes, even though it may take you 10 minutes to do so. You really just have to sit there and take it because its hard to tell your boss to buzz off.
9. You Won’t Be Working on Important Tasks
So while you are making pretty pictures, your friends in the office will be doing real work. Creating presentation images is indeed important and you will still be a valuable member of the team, but, in the end this won’t amount to anything more than an image that makes your client “oooh and ahh.”
10. You Will Learn Less
This is similar to the last point. While you are modelling, you won’t be doing any detailing, space planning, or structural coordination. Really, you are going to be missing out on all of those “important tasks” that will make you a more complete architect. There is no 3d Modelling section on the exams.
11. You Will Be Under-Appreciated
Because you won’t be involved in those other tasks that really result in a final set of working documents, your contribution won’t be recognized as much. 3D modelling is expected to be a simple automated process and the crazy amount of time you pour into your assignments will be diminished by your employers high expectations.
12. Professionals Do It Better
Seriously, they do. You could spend a solid month on a model and it won’t look as good as when a professional renderer works a day or two on the project. You don’t have the skill-set or the digital library to trump the professionals. From personal experience, I have seen a professional rendering firm model the entire Dubai Waterfront Development overnight…from scratch. These are the images that you have probably seen for a few years now, including the early images of the new world’s tallest building. That’s right, they were done in a span of one night! Could you possibly compete with that?
Nice topic. Hard to argue. I have to say though, I've worked with groups on different renderings. You have to be militaristic about using the same lights, cameras, environments, to get comparable renderings. Its possible for sure, once you convince everyone to do the same thing.
As for the old folks breathing down your shoulder, I know one thing is for sure, a boss that can understand a screenshot is a good boss.
Number 10 is the strongest part of the argument I believe. Working with the old pro's over sketch paper will get you much further along.
this was from the blog young architect... always a great message
In our office, rendering is part of the design process, and the kids doing Max are also the ones who are getting there ideas into the projects.
While your points are definitely valid, I have to think that there are some other important ideas that make renderings worth while.
1. Old school bosses that sketch in plan and elevation don't always figure things out three dimensionally. Going 3d, even if just for internal use, is worth the work. You begin discovering the million little details that were not discovered in the 2d form. It pushes the design process along into something spatial and a more coordinated design. Sweating the details is a really important step in the design process and the sooner you do, the better off you will be.
2. Renderings are not only useful in one phase of the project. Modeling and rendering CAN be used to push and develop a project, if it is used throughout the whole process. It also helps to have the renderings at the end of pre-design and design development for the client to sign off on. Clients are inevitably more able to visualize based on renderings in addition to 2d documentation than 2d alone. It's best to have things out in the clear. Not everyone has the ability to visualize depth, material, transitions and based on black and white line drawings and specifications. When you work in 2d exclusively, the culmination of all details of the project can be missed by the client, operators and can lead to changes down the line.
3. A lot of your arguments lead me to think that you are talking about a larger firm where you are more likely to get pigeon holed into doing limited tasks for an office. In smaller firms, you can't just do one thing. So, learning less, being slowed down, being under appreciated, etc kinda go with a lot of positions.
4. Building 3d models forces a person to think 3D and developing this ability hones your ability to visualize difficult 3d situations in 2d drawings. So, you could argue that you could surpass the people that are doing the other "important" things that you were talking about.
Just as a side note, I used to work in a model shop (physical models) in undergad. We made models at pre-design and design development. Even if it is just a study model, it helps understanding spaces, material transitions and multiple iterations pushes the project forward. Whether it is physical or digital, 3d visualization is an important tool to designing.
Very good points, that's why I have a business! ;-)
yeah I call bullshit on a lot of things "Young Architect" has to say. dude doesn't seem particularly savvy. # 1, 4, 7, 8: these seem to be incredibly archaic ways of thinking about modeling.
I agree with All and 21 even though you are arguing different points you are sort of arguing the same idea. I won't do 3d modeling where I work. My bosses are older and have no concept of what it takes to get where they want to be with a rendering. So I can't discuss time frames with them they have no concept of what they are asking for as a workload. Generally they want a model tomorrow or by the end of the day based off of extremely unfinished drawings that are also not drawn in any manner that would make it easy to build a model from. When I make them go to someone else they give them a time frame that's realistic and they have no choice but to listen to them.
The larger problem however is that they are thinking of a model ONLY as a rendering. They don't even have the ability to conceive of developing a 3d model to help inform design decisions. This is really the largest problem. Unless they can re conceive how to work in this manner they will never gain a value from modeling in 3d. Since they can never understand what it takes to model something i don't believe they will ever make this jump unfortunately. Without working with the program its very hard to think through what is easy or hard to change and where the value lays in what level of finished product.
Essentially you both listed two different modes of working. All Blacks is talking about developing a model only after the design has been done and only to show renderings of it. 21Ronin is talking about using 3d modeling in the process of design which can also be used to get these renderings but provides more info during design. I think this method has the most to offer and creates a higher value for the time spent modeling the building.
Realistically my office will never make that jump since I can't even make my boss understand that using autocad is not just a way to digitally represent hand drawings and to realize that accuracy is important. He doesn't use snaps or layers and changes dimensions rather than change the drawing. This is the essence of the problem. Unless the people in charge can rethink the process then these digital tools really don't help much at all.
In short. Everyone is right. Yay!
Haha, your boss is failboat, ReflexiveSpace.
we; as Architects, have to manage our client's expectations during the design and construction process. We need to let them know exactly what they're getting for the money they're spending and help them figure out exactly what they want instead of what they think they want. Some clients are better at understanding this than others just as some Architects are better at creating a transparent process that engages the client.
The same is true for a "renderer" in a firm: you need to manage your boss' expectations. They aren't the expert; they usually don't know how much work goes into a render (CG can take longer than hand methods sometimes). They are counting on you to know what can and can't be done. You need to be blunt (but professional) when they start asking for things that just can't be done based on your current skill set, timeframe and or complexity of the project. The trick is learning what you can deliver and what exactly is needed to get the message your boss is trying to get across.
There are two types of (3D) modeling: design and visualization. Design modeling requires high levels of accuracy and detail but the images produced (if any) don't necessarily need to be "gooey" (even if you're working on material tests), the models are usually heavy (large file sizes and poly counts) and not optimized for quick rendering. These models are usually for internal use only and invaluable for the progress of the design. Visualization modeling doesn't necessarily need to be highly accurate and you're allowed to "cheat" in order to get the image to "look right" (modeling only the surfaces seen by the camera, details are texture-based instead of geometry-based, etc.), the models, textures, lighting, etc. are optimized for fast rendering. These models/images are designed to sell the idea, to communicate a feeling, an experience.
Your job is to work with your boss in order to figure out which you're expected to produce. It should be a two-way conversation, outlining the pros and cons of your boss' wishlist with you providing suggestions on ways to meet the wishlist within your available resources.
<3 the word failboat!
lots of odd ideas in the first post. even when i did renders in the early 90's and was the only one using the software my boss understood better than that. i understood my role better too.
the problem is a bad boss compounded by misconceptions of a (possibly) bad worker.
first of all, if you are hired to be junior staff then i am sorry your role is not going to be lead designer. get over it. second, in our office as much as possible we try to use 3d, physical and CG models, as design tool. renderings are a side effect. any office that doesn't do that is possibly out of touch. at best they are missing opportunities, most of which are described above.
rehiggins describes great way to work. all work inside a firm should be a conversation. in our case it sometimes involves shouting, but in a good way...
our best render-guy is also the person to whom we assign the largest projects and the person we look to as the most likely to be next partner...for what it's worth.
well, at least you have time to write 12-point manifesti while you wait on voxelization!
Totally agree with this post!
As a 3D Artist myself, I believe that 3D should be left for professionals. It is okay to do basic 3d stuff for your design decisions, but once you have a decision, and need to sell it to the client, it is best just to hire a professional!
Very many times, I have seen architects trying to make a rendering, and things get messed up, time is wasted, and then the office is trying to hire a professional 3d freelancer to come up with a quick fix. Unfortunately, when things are messed up, there is no quick fix, and things have to be re-done from scratch again, so there is even more time and money being wasted.
Also, I would add another point,
13. Troubleshooting - when 3d model gets heavy and is poorly optimized, weird things start to happen, like "crashes", "slow performance", and my favorite "the screen of death". So instead of blaming your company's PC, just hire a professional to do the work for you!
I disagree with this to some extent
I agree with jump that 3d modeling, physical or computer based, is a design tool and that renderings are the side effect of that tool. The art of creating a well composed rendering can take a lot of time if you don't know what your doing, have inefficient equipment, etc...
What bothers me is that isn't it the architects role to adapt to the changing technology and to learn the new tools provided to them? The whole idea of the "master builder" which is nonexistent concept now. That is one of my main problems with the profession. Isn't outsourcing 3d modeling and rendering just another example of architects giving up an area of control to another field.
In my opinion it's better for the architects to adapt and learn the new technology and really take pride in all aspects of the work including the modeling and the rendering, and do it efficiently.
Whats next just one guy sitting in an office with trace, emailing that sketch to a company who does schematics, another for design development, another for cd's, modeling, graphics, etc.... where does it end?
When does the profession say we are taking architecture back and we will adapt and do all of the work.
There are some points here but there is something left out here...
The person working in 3D and rendering is doing three things, aside from pushing a mouse that are pretty *high level*...
#1. they are visualizing the space... something a sketch or cad section or plan might not do: articulate the feeling of the space, the scale of it, how it is like to move through it...
#2. the renderers / visualizers are *DESIGNING* the thing... if the design lead is hovering over you as a renderer, it is because they get *one thing* which is that, there are things being figured out as the model develops. There are dimensions and proportions and material and representational ideas that are being inputted every step of the way, and the person driving the mouse is actually the one designing it. It's perfectly understandable that senior design architects, who from actual design experience have alot more experience, know what they are doing presumably are going to want to have theire input heard... As well they should, because chances are, if they have been around doing this for 25 years, they are probably better at design than you are... I think these days some of the most successful designers are normally experienced in design, and have full trust and collaboration with younger staff who push the tool for them...
If you outsource your rendering, you are *in part* outsourcing your design. Rendering *is* design decisions. One reason to keep it in house is, maintain control over your design work...
#3. trenderers are *COMMUNICATING* the design, and without communicating it, it doesn't really exist... A rendering can make the project. It wins the client, or if it is weak, it fails to win anybody. This makes or breaks the project potentially, not the rendering itself, but the whole communication package, *sales* tools, etc. that get the client on board, make them know and understand what cool shit they are paying for, or... if it fails, loses the client, competition, etc... you can point at a good rendering (computer rendering or hand rendering) and understand it and emotionally and rationally understand value that may not exist on a spreadsheet...
Also, I think you can get faster at rendering if you invest the time and effort... I think there needs to be the structures in place to build knowledge and share information about 3D visualization within an office, because the way people learn the fastest is by working with others or talking to other people who have done something... it grows exponentially with more people who can do something...
in other words, these things get faster with more practice like anything...
render at china is alot cheaper and good enough to entertain client...
yeah chinese firms are cheap and quality is pretty good, some are really good, some are alright...
but you tell them one thing and you may get something else... As I said, outsourcing is okay, but there are aspects of design communication that you are shipping out, not just your pretty picture... Also, communication takes time...
I know some people prefer to work with local rendering firms, even if they cost 4 times as much as chinese simply because of the face time and ease of communication and design understanding that comes with meeting face to face...
yes, for day to day client's meeting, china's rendering company is good enough... for those high profile project or for publications, then u may wanna consider doing it locally or in house...
I'd sure be careful about outsourcing 'Rendering Jobs' to China. I've been in China for 10 years now and I've seen Chinese firms gloat about 'their' latest design proposals. After a closer look at those design concepts, they failed to remove the original North American logos from images hidden in the Pdf and CAD files. I won't list any names in this thread but I've seen it pop up multiple times in the past decade.
Also, they are obnoxiously revising North American concepts and submitting them as their own in a variety of international competitions. This reinforces my previous thread 'Piracy in Firms...'.
Keep in mind all the sites we visit are being watched and deconstructed by the second!
Cheers!
I personally think that it is best to have a designer do renderings for everything except marketing images. Up until that point, marketing, I don't think that the exceptionally high quality renderings are necessary to be able to present to a client. At the end, when the design is "finalized" (if there is a time when that happens) or has undergone design development, I think the rendering companies are more than able to produce a higher level rendering. I don't think there is any arguing that. The decision making required in the beginning of the project (or DD) is too important to have someone outside the office that may not know the preferences of your firm.
I agree with the statement above: renderings should be done by the designer.
I was originally hired by my current firm as a freelance renderer. They needed a few shots to help a client raise money for their project and they thought they could just give me a few plans and elevations and get the images they wanted.
As I was going through the given information, I noticed that there were holes in the design--I brought this to their attention and worked with them to get enough decisions made so that I could create the renderings.
I don't think junior staff should be working on renderings, or at the very least should not be the lead (especially on BIM projects). Therein lies the problem: most senior staffers (the ones with the experience) haven't seemed to keep up with the tools of our trade. I've seen this in other firms where the top guys can barely find the power button on a computer to now where the "old time" CAD guys are refusing to learn a BIM program.
Education doesn't end with your degree; it's your responsibility as an Architect to continually learn and foster your curiosity
yo all blacks! u are giving too much away!
the best part about rendering is me telling the renderer what i want. i need my cheap interns to feel important of what they are doing, FOR ME!
i kid, but its totally true...
i do rendering myself and know it well. i think 3d max is the worst rendering software for architects. rendering is altimately about lighting and it is perhaps the worst aspect of 3dmax. u are making things look good, but not really using realistic light fixtures that is logical and achievable. i am not even go into vray, the time it consumes is outrageous.
not to sound old, but i think photorealistic renderings really limits imagination, it presents no room for possibilities. this "this is the way it will look like" attitude lack many of refinement required to realize an actual building. it is to final of a product that does not speak of the process, even if they did take alot of thinking to generate.
i like to do representations with revit and sketchup. it is quick and dirty and allows more of a constructive conversation with the clients. the conversation with relistic rendering in front of clients often becomes "i think the glass is too green, " or "the carpet is too red," or " the tiles are not shinning enough."
lordie...
i agree with niro. i actually love the "cartoonish" quality of the default sketchup render. lay people seem to understand that "that's what it will look like[/i"] without literally meaning "[i]that's what it will look like" when it's appears to have been rendered with a box of crayolas.
The thing I like about Vray is that it has the ability to do both. Vray Toon allows you to do the more graphic renderings with outlines and all. Vray (regular) allows the more realistic renderings. The thing about 3ds Max is that the controls for the cameras and animations is far above the competition. I really pick and chose what I use for modeling vs rendering. I use Rhino for modeling (and Vray for Rhino) and minor renderings to test forms/proportions, etc and I use Max to render with Vray.
if you want the professional level of any modeling...give it physical/3d/markers/etc.... you need to realize that you get what you pay for.... don't be cheap and try to add/change things at the last minute and not expect to not pay for it....
when i give prices, i quote a base price then itemize the others..this way the client knows what they can afford and how long it might take....
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.