CompuServe Messages

Brandon, Good comments! Here are my responses: <But we have shown it NOT to cost more, or if it does, the added worth or usefulness outweighs the added cost.> Cost more than what? Traditional hand renderings? I absolutely agree; 3D graphics can be done for the same or *less* money as spent on other rendering media. Typically, these renderings are done as an extra service to the client, and the cost is a direct to them so it doesn't affect the Architect at all (besides stylistic concerns). Unfortunately for me, in the history of my office (6 short years) we have not worked with many clients that wanted quality renderings. Often, simple colored pencil renderings/sketches were sufficient. <If used properly and applied as a tool for use towards a specific end, not as a 'glorified pencil' as some on the thread have lamented, it has the potential to revolutionize, for the better, the whole stinkin' design/approval/redesign/approval/etc. process!> I agree, and have made this case many times in the past; the communication power of accurate 3D imaging cannot be achieved through many other methods. But, again, put this into perspective (no pun) in terms of money. If my past history has shown that we are able to properly describe the building to all necessary individuals and educate them as to what our ideas will achieve through the use of traditional (very cheap) methods, why should we spend more to do it using this new technology? That's why I think that the widespread use will not be achieved until the tools are *much* more transparent to our process (thereby reducing the cost of their use). <How?? We complete projects usually within days, and what architectural project's schedule can't deal with that? None that I have seen, seeing as how most jobs (in an architect's office) take weeks and months to turn out.> Maybe I didn't say this very well… Anytime we add another person to a project, it costs us more money. If we are able to communicate what we need to the client with four people on the project, than adding a 5th to do 3D rendering will *cost us money*. This 5th person could be somebody (like yourself) in a out-of-house service provider, or an additional in-house user. Until the 3D technology becomes so transparent to our process that it does not need us to add another person to the project we cannot *afford* to spend the money. Is this easier to understand? >>You are approaching the problem of selling your service in disbelief that a potential client will not use it just because his competitor may. That's insulting. Different people do things for different reasons.<< <When did we say this is how we were approaching the situation? A couple responses on the thread indicated this attitude, but we never embraced it!> Perhaps this is *not* your position, but it came through pretty clearly to me in your initial message. I am relieved to discover this is *not* your attitude! >>Yes, the Architectural community has a lot of pride. But do not think your lack of Architectural clients is based on the fact that you threaten them with your superior skills.<< <When did we claim to have superior skills to that of an architect? We aren't architects and have never claimed to be such or to accomplish the same things!> I do not recall the specifics of your initial message, but this was a sentiment I remember near the end. Again, I'm glad to see this is not so. New questions: How is it *exactly* that you approach potential clients? If I was able to read the wrong thing from your message, perhaps your clients are making the same mistake in your mailings/presentations? -Mike.