Architectural imaginings
36 messages in this thread
Jerome:
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
So many who create architecture in 3DS are doing so either subordinately as
mere background for something esle they're creating, or are simply plugging in
someone else's designs for an architectural visualization they're doing for
someone else. Yet, surprisingly few are pursuing CG animations and modeling to
promote the art of design in architecture in itself.
__________________________________________________________________
I am not at all sure of what you are trying to say here. It almost sounds like
you are suggesting that 3DS is not being incorporated into the design process
in architecture, is this close? Are you suggesting that most architectural 3DS
stuff is outsourced to consultants? Are you saying that the people using 3DS
are usually not the lead designers? Just trying to understand.
Bob
What I'm trying to say is that few people seriously involved in 3DS
are using it in the design PROCESS, or as a tool to THEMSELVES create
a work that is an end unto itself. Often, designers of architecture
either outsource the animation work to others, or do it only after
the fact to show a client. If such work is outsourced, then the
people doing the animation aren't designing the architecture, they're
designing the animation for another's architecture (which is an art
in itself, don't get me worng). If the animation is done in-house
after the fact, then the animation wasn't an end in itself, or
intgral with the design process.
On the other hand, those who create animated architecture for CD rom
games and the like, are often concentrating on the game, and the
architecture is mere background in their minnds, for the game itself
is their work. Often 2D illustrators create the backdrop pastiche,
while the CG animators spend their time trying to make those freehand
illustrations look like that in 3D in the game.
My point is that with the amount of architectural design there is out
there in various disciplines, there's room for a serious animator who
can create architectural design right on the computer ass part of the
animation; either to be used as inspiration in the design process, or
as serious arhcitectural design to live in movies, VR, or games. With
the other disciplines doing their things, there's room for such
architectural design work as a field in itself. My point was also
that few people use the computer as a tool to create the
architectural work in the first place, often it's an animator doing
thier thing on another's artwork in the case of architecture. Their
are, of course those that do, but they seem rare.
Hope this is a little clearer, and I didn't come across differently
than I intended! -jk
Jerome:
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
What I'm trying to say is that few people seriously involved in 3DS are using
it in the design PROCESS, or as a tool to THEMSELVES create a work that is an
end unto itself.
__________________________________________________________________
I thought that might be what you were saying but I wasn't sure. FWIW,
this isn't true for me nor for most of the architects I know who have
used 3DS. Could be that I live and work in an atypical environment,
Princeton, N.J. (Factoid: Princeton per capita has more architects
than any town in the U.S.) I just spent 3 weeks putting together a
bunch of stills and a long animation for a design competition, the
primary method of presentation was 3DS renderings and the best design
feedback during the process was seeing these images. I find out
tomorrow if the entry was a winner. Anyway, I don't see my approach
as being too unique amongst my competitors and peers. After a
presentation I gave at a New Jersey AIA meeting last month I fielded
many questions from other architects who are currently using 3D as a
design tool or are about to embark on this path.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
If such work is outsourced, then the people doing the animation aren't
designing the architecture, they're designing the animation for another's
architecture (which is an art in itself, don't get me worng).
__________________________________________________________________
Even in this scenario there is a feedback/response cycle which IMO still makes
the 3D work a design tool, but certainly not as immediate of a method as DIY.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
If the animation is done in-house after the fact, then the animation wasn't an
end in itself, or intgral with the design process.
__________________________________________________________________
I haven't been at this that long but I have never had the luxury of animating
anything after the design process was finished. Everything I have animated has
undergone some change to the architecture after the animation has been
presented to the client. This puts all of my animation work somewhere in the
design process be it at concept or design development.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
My point was also that few people use the computer as a tool to create the
architectural work in the first place, often it's an animator doing thier thing
on another's artwork in the case of architecture. Their are, of course those
that do, but they seem rare.
__________________________________________________________________
I definitely have to disagree as I am sitting here scratching my head trying to
think of even one architectural firm nearby that doesn't use CADD. I'm sure
there are a few firms which don't exploit their 3D capabilities, I've been
trying to bring my firm along this learning curve. I'd have to say from my
perspective the opposite view is true, that most architects are using the
computer as a tool in the design process. Somewhere between the extreme of my
viewpoint and yours probably lies the truth of this matter.
Bob
>>>Everything I have animated has undergone some change to the architecture
after the animation has been presented to the client.<<<
That is a pitty, I have some that where build exactly as I modelled them, we
even used the images to match the materials and the interior.
Although these are exeptions.
>>>This puts all of my animation work somewhere in the design process be it at
concept or design development.<<<
That is true, it is a tool as is airbrush, etc… The purpose is to show what
will be build.
>>>I definitely have to disagree as I am sitting here scratching my head trying
to think of even one architectural firm nearby that doesn't use CADD. I'm sure
there are a few firms which don't exploit their 3D capabilities, I've been
trying to bring my firm along this learning curve. I'd have to say from my
perspective the opposite view is true, that most architects are using the
computer as a tool in the design process. Somewhere between the extreme of my
viewpoint and yours probably lies the truth of this matter.<<<
I have to disagree a bit on this with you, overhere a survey was done with
architects about 1 year ago it turned out that on about 10.000 belgian
architects only 28 percent uses a PC for CAD, and I find this dissapointing,
then consider how many of those use it effectively????
I mysself design on PC from scratch. I just wonder how many truly do????
Architects often use it more as a tool to draw, they often do not see it as a
help in the designproces, they mostly see it as something to draw quickly
with???
These are some of my viewpoints, probably also not perfect however I think that
CAD is still very underused at least overhere.
Maybe due to the Belgian architectural landscape of small bureaus averaging 2
to 3 architects or even less.
Christophe
Christophe:
We work so fast around here that building designs keep changing well after they
are built let alone animated. <G> I should have given a little context to my
comments.
I work for the 4th largest architectural firm in the U.S. We have over 250
architects in a dozen offices. We have a CADD literacy rate of 95% and turn
out 90% of our design work and working drawings via CADD. We do not design
everything in 3D nor does every design require 3D modelling or animation.
When CADD was introduced at my firm over 10 years ago the first CADD manager
had the vision to buy a system which worked under the concept that CADD was
really a graphic database, not just a way to draw lines. Even today this
'intelligent' method of creating CADD files is not nearly as prevalent as the
'dumb' method. More systems have this capability but I haven't seen any
overwhelming move to exploit those capabilities. IMHO, it will be the Facility
Managers who will change this. So, I agree with you that many architects tend
to see CADD as a way to draw quickly and not much more. 3D CADD is often
viewed as icing on the cake and not a viable design tool but this one we have
seen change and been a part of the revolution, haven't we?
Bob
Hmm… you seem to feel that I was saying that almost no architects
use computers (not jusst 3D computer animation) as an active part in
the design process. I didn't mean to say quite that. I agree that
many architects use CAD, but few use its 3D capabilities, and even
fewer use 3D CG imaging as a substantial force INTEGREATED with the
design process. More often, it's an OCCASIONAL visualization tool at
various stages in the design, and much more often it'ss used for
presentation to clients and other communcation. Now THAT is getting
more common than ever – the use of computer to present. However, I
wonder just what percentage of firms nationwide use this on a regular
basis. Certainly, MANY do, but even more do not, at least regularly
and in-house.
I just wanted to clarify that I was saying "not many" in my ealier
message, not "almost never"
The only thing I referred to as "almost never" (but it's still done), is the
work of architecture as it exists in the computer being the main end of the
project, or at least the major focus of it. Even if you consider a person
using a computer animation of a building somewhere along the design process to
help themselves and other co-workers visualize the spaces, the animation is a
TOOL being ussed by the architect much as he uses his pencils and triangles,
just in a different manner. I'm referring to speculating about design ON THE
COMPUTER, all in itself. The equivilent of sketching ideas, but carrying these
ideas far in development; either as a project to expand one's understanding and
stretch their mind, or as an excercise in sheer creativity just for the
enjoyment of it, or, better yet, being able to get paid for doing this by being
able to sell the resulting architecture to VR companies, movie studios, or ass
fine art.
The difference in our stance comes mostly, I believe, from the difference
between viewing how much the computer is used in architecture, and how the
computer is used to FREE the architectural spirit in man, even if it'ss neevr
built in real life.
Also – don't get me wrong; I'd LIKE to see more architectural
creators exploring the vast potential of this media beyond simply
using it as a tool towards another end. I just haven't seen that
many, but I would ssuppose a GREAT percentage of those who ARE doing
such are on this forum 🙂
Jerome:
From your message :
>>Hmm… you seem to feel that I was saying that almost no architects use
computers (not jusst 3D computer animation) as an active part in the design
process.<<
Here's the quote from your message dated 6/13 which gave me that idea:
>>My point was also that few people use the computer as a tool to create the
architectural work in the first place, <<
I think this is where the confusion started.
From my vantage point there is a lot of 3D work being done within the context
of the design process. No, I don't think 3D is being used to its potential
everywhere but peer firms and many small firms have embraced this technology.
Bob
Robert,
I have found the programs we have available (ACAD, 3DS) to really get in the
way… They require too much planning/administration of the process and are
not intuitive enough, too technical, too many steps to get to a reasonably
complicated massing (especially in 3DS), etc. So, in other words, we and our
software are not yet at the point where it is integrated into our design
process.
How do you use 3D in your design process. What software do you use?
-Mike.
>>I have found the programs we have available (ACAD, 3DS) to really get in the
way… They require too much planning/administration of the process and are
not intuitive enough, too technical, too many steps to get to a reasonably
complicated massing (especially in 3DS), etc. So, in other words, we and our
software are not yet at the point where it is integrated into our design
process.<<
I do not think you will do visualisation and animation without having any work,
remember a building is a complex object to put in 3 Dimensions??
Christophe Van Oyen
Architect
<I do not think you will do visualisation and animation without having any
work, remember a building is a complex object to put in 3 Dimensions??>
Of course, you are correct. However, what I have been hoping for is software
which *helps* us design. Often, I see the attempt to use the software fail
becuase the process of using it has become `the ends' rather than `the means to
the ends'.
*I believe* that 3DS is not a great design tool. It is great illustration
tool, useful for illustrating the design once it has reached a certain stage.
But, the initial massings, articulation, and fenestration study is cumbersome
in 3DS. I think this is so because of the use of seperate modules for
modeling. You know: create some 2D geometry, move it into lofter and make it
3D, study it in the editor, and if changes are made move back into the lofter
(if needed) and start again? It takes quite a while to build this stuff and
sidetracks your energies into making sure that you are approaching the modeling
process properly. In other words, the process of working with 3DS interferes
with the creative process.
Notice that I did not say 3DS was not powerful in it's visualization
capabilities. Just that I/We have found it difficult for the design process.
Also, notice that I did not discuss any IPAS routines. We own very few of
these, and maybe *that* would make a difference.
Also (for higher realism images (away from conceptual massings, etc)), I have
been disappointed with the use of packages, like the old ASG, which promised
libraries of prebuilt 3D components, but then were not very useful. Perhaps
when we finally upgrade to SD7.1 things will improve. I understand that KETIV
has a nice package.
Anyway, how have *you* been succesful at integrating 3DS into your practice.
Could you share some of your techniques?
-Mike.
Yes you are right 3DS is not suited for the design process it mearly
illustrates the design afterwards.
I however do design straight in ACAD13 at this time even sometimes in 3D using
ACIS solid modelling and this does give fast results.
We have to remember that 3DS is mainly an animation package and I do not think
it is therfore suited to design a building it is suited to design smaller
things or objects used for animations for publicity etc…
Designing a building does require more accurate measurement in my opinion, in
these situations 3DS is not suited because it does not matter if everything is
exact it just has to look good.
I am using the KETIV Blocks an Materials CD-ROM and as far as I know it is the
best CD-ROM suited for architectural Visualisation I know, I use it very often.
Integrating 3DS in my practice is difficult because a lot of the time the
design process does not offer the time for Visualisation.
However I also do it for other architects, more and more of them are asking for
it overhere.
Christophe
Christophe:
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
Yes you are right 3DS is not suited for the design process it mearly
illustrates the design afterwards.
__________________________________________________________________
I think you and others have narrowed the discussion of 3DS's usefulness to how
quickly one can update your building's geometry within 3DS. (FWIW, I don't use
the 3DS modeller for the creation of anything but simple boxes and planes, I
create all of my geometry in a different package.) This is an important issue
but not what makes or breaks 3DS's usefulness in a design environment.
Recently I generated a series of color studies (over 30
variations/combinations) to pick the materials for a building we recently
designed. This very clearly made 3DS a *DESIGN TOOL*. A few months back I
animated the shadows created by various skylight designs for an atrium we were
designing. This very clearly made 3DS a *DESIGN TOOL*. Two weeks ago I
animated various approaches, views, walk-throughs and composite stills of a
building for a design competition. 3DS was used to pick concrete color,
lighting locations, size of sun screens, size of other major elements, glass
color, tree size, etc. I do not understand these ideas that 3DS is not suited
for the design process, in my toolbox it is vital.
To say that 3DS is just used to illustrate a design after it is complete is an
argument one could easily use to describe a _colored_pencil. <G>
Bob
PS. We won the competition, our new client loved the 3D work!
Sounds like you make great use of 3DS, Robert! I have just recently used 3DS
for helping in material selection for a interior renovation. Worked well…
It helped the client (and us) see the relationships between the different
palattes when they were applied to the space. Some combinations of paint and
carpet loooked very dull/dirty/exciting. We would not have been as succesful
as we were if we were simply using a Finish Board. We had our workstation at
one of the meetings and the client and I worked through some new schemes
together. It was truly an interactive process.
3DS is certainly a powerful design tool in this respect. It sounds as though
you have utilized it for similar functions… Mostly lighting / materials. It
appears that we have both used it for activities that happen some steps after
the initial design inspiration occurs.
I guess my complaint is the modeling. While 3DS has very powerful lofting
features, I think the seperation of the different modules really gets in the
way of the creative process. I wish that I could create and change building
geometry as quickly in 3DS as you can change material / lighting / camera
characteristics. I would like a program that really helps you design and
communicate the building massing and creation of space and articulation. This
stage of thinking might be best to describe as the `chip-board model' phase.
Focus on building form / articulation, and perhaps mock up some important
interior spaces. Here, rendering quality is secondary to facile manipulation
of the building. If the images looked only like beige cardboard that would be
just great!
Perhaps there is no program out there that can do what I am thinking, and maybe
3DS *is* the best compromise of power, quality, and price. I don't know. I am
getting a copy of ALLPLAN soon and maybe I can evaluate it against 3DS for
design activities.
I'd love to see some of your images. Have you thought of uploading them here?
-Mike.
BOB
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<To say that 3DS is just used to illustrate a design
after it is complete is an argument one could easily use to describe a
_colored_pencil. <G>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
BRAVO!!! ROFL, Gary
Your comment about the lack of accuracy in 3DS as being a problem is
interesting. I have often thought that this might be a blessing for conceptual
design! Or is it more that the drawing tools are not there like in AutoCAD?
Osnaps, etc.?
Do you find that desinging in AutoCAD is easier because you are more familar
with it than 3DS? (I am assuming that you have had AutoCAD longer than 3DS)
Or is it easier editing tools that works for you? If so, could it be that if
we just pressed on we would be as capable in 3DS? Or, do you really think that
3DS is not suited to design?
I have not looked into the Ketiv blocks. Are they mapped?
-Mike.
>>Do you find that desinging in AutoCAD is easier because you are more familar
with it than 3DS?
Well I am familiar with both, but if I need to integrate Visualisation of
Buildings with construction and design plans then I need to do the real
modelling out of 3DS, just because it is more accurate and I can use the 2D
drawings is undrlayers for the 3D model. Which Is more difficult to do when
going to 3DS, because I would need to have converted all lines into polylines
to be able to get them in 3DS and extrude them.
Know with the Region and Modelling Acad 13 capabilities etc… we are helped
quite a lot.
It maybe is just that having architectural background makes us more related
with that very perfect exact measurement.
Also snap possibilities in AutoCAD are to my viewpoint much more flexible and
extensive then in 3DS.
Lets just say 3DS is not really made to work with construction 2D plans, and
eventually this is what I need to go to 3D, so most of the 3D work I do in
Acad.
I do think 3DS is suited as a deisgn tool, I have done design changes to
projects due to the Visualisation process but mostly related to materials and
seldom to the 3D model.
Remember I'm just looking from an architects viewpoint.
Also what I do not see is how one can do a exact 3D model from scratch in
ChristopheDS, and then using that model to go to exact construction drawings, I
think one would never get 100% perfect results, I guess some people might argue
about that, but at least I think it would be time consuming to check evrything.
Christophe
>>I have found the programs we have available (ACAD, 3DS) to really get in the
way… They require too much planning/administration of the process and are
not intuitive enough, too technical, too many steps to get to a reasonably
complicated massing (especially in 3DS), etc. So, in other words, we and our
software are not yet at the point where it is integrated into our design
process.
Agreed, that it's tough right now, especially for those not serioussly familiar
with 3D animation. People in the 3D field seem to lose sight that the things
they're doing seem very difficult and counter intuitive to others who aren't
familiar with such packages.
I believe ease in use for the average architect, engineer and designer is
coming, though. It's just a matter of taking the time to develop more
interactive interfaces. I agree most software seems to be written with those
who are already familiar with 3D animation in mind, sos that they can get power
out of it as much as possible in the manner in which they're accustomed.
<Agreed, that it's tough right now, especially for those not serioussly
familiar with 3D animation. People in the 3D field seem to lose sight that the
things they're doing seem very difficult and counter intuitive to others who
aren't familiar with such packages.>
You summed that up very well. I know some 3D artists who think that everyone
in a any visually related field should become an expert in the use of some
specific package just because they use it in their jobs as
illustrators/renderers/animators/etc. These people are *very* effective with
the software, because they use it every day, and most of it's features relate
to the way they were taught to think and problem solve.
<I believe ease in use for the average architect, engineer and designer is
coming, though. It's just a matter of taking the time to develop more
interactive interfaces. I agree most software seems to be written with those
who are already familiar with 3D animation in mind, sos that they can get power
out of it as much as possible in the manner in which they're accustomed.>
I also agree. The new SD7.1 looks promising (mostly because it is just better
than the old ASG). I think that a *BIG* jump will have to be made, though.
Something like a professional version of Chief Architect, for example.
Something were the use of 3D is almost incidental in the requirements it places
on you as you try to focus on your job/projecct responsibilities.
Are you aware of any reasonable packages?
Architrion? Archicad?
-Mike.
Mike:
For creating design sketches through working drawings our offices uses GDS and
MicroGDS. Both packages (one for VAX/VMS + Alpha workstations and the other
for PC's using Windows or NT) offer 3D modelling and rendering. There is a
degree of complexity in using either product, administration is vitally
important to the point where every project we do has a designated CADD lead.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
How do you use 3D in your design process.
__________________________________________________________________
To prepare for the eventuality of 3D work and for snappy graphics we draw all
walls and similar graphics as closed blocks, in ACAD I think POLYLINE is the
equivalent concept. This allows a team member to extrude into 3D any graphics
desired. We plot out piles of hidden-line wire frame views during the early
design stages. For rudimentary lighting and color we use GDS, for higher
quality stills and for all animation we go with 3DS.
Bob
We used to have GDS, and we got rid of it when it MCDAC put it up for sale.
Our transportation Engineers moved to Microstation and the Archtitectural side
moved into AutoCAD.
Small world, huh?
We have tried similar things in AutoCAD…. Using certain techniques in
advance, hoping that we will have the need/money to produce a fullblown 3D
model. Sometimes it works.
How large are your projects? We are not able to justify a formal `CADD lead'
Instead, we share the responsibility. Although, now that I think about it, it
always seems as though one of us is performing that role on our own time,
anyway.
Would you like to upload some of your images?
-Mike.
Mike:
Are you a former GDS user yourself? You'd love MicroGDS.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
How large are your projects?
__________________________________________________________________
There is quite a range, current projects for our firm include a 15 story urban
bank in Wilmington, Delaware, some assorted laboratory renovations, a couple of
tenant fit-out jobs, the huge Sydney Harbor Casino complex in downtown Sydney,
Australia, a 9 story R&D office building in Kansas City, and a residence for a
rich CEO in nearby Far Hills, N.J.
The CADD lead on all of our projects is always a person who wears a couple of
hats, often it is the Project Architect or Project Coordinator but sometimes it
is the Designer. Rarely is the CADD lead the Project Manager but this will
become less of an oddity in due time. CADD lead is just added responsibility
to one's usual role, it often keeps you on the hot seat and is often a
thankless yet vital role in a project's success.
/_______________________From your message________________________\\
Would you like to upload some of your images?
__________________________________________________________________
I would need to get client approval and I am not motivated yet, perhaps when I
need a new job <G>.
Bob
Ok, I understand a little better – when I said "the computer" the first time, I
should have stated computer 3-d modeling and/or 3d computer graphics isn't used
MUCH, and even more rarely is 3-d modeling used as an INTEGRAL part of the
design processs, as opposed to a periodical use. Even the firms using them use
them more or less occasional capacity than will eventually be the case, due
mostly to the time required for each particular animation… but, that's just
today…
>>From my vantage point there is a lot of 3D work being done within the context
of the design process. No, I don't think 3D is being used to its potential
everywhere but peer firms and many small firms have embraced this technology.
I'm not denying that I might be wrong about that – but from my vantage, to
clarify what that is, it appears many firms ARE getting into it strongly, yet
the are a great many more that are not much, or not at all. Naturally, if
you're in the field of CG, you might be encountering many more people involved
than not… sselectivity amoung those we associate with and all 🙂
As a registered project architect in a design firm and co-founder of a 3D
computer graphics and animation firm I can offer additional insight into some
of the questions that you are discussing:
Old School:
The majority of principals running architectural firms are from the "old
school" where everything was done by hand. Since they have not taken the time
to "change-with-the-times" they are reluctant to use 3D as a design tool.
Therefore, in my office, the project architects that have been out of school
for ten years or less utilize the 3D capabilities built into our CAD program
(we use Datacad which has an excellent and easy to use 3D modeling package) for
massing studies during the schematic design phase. We then plot a hidden line
removal of the appropriate view that we sketch over.
Freehand Drawing:
As an architect, I have no desire to let my drawing skills totally subside and
believe that the sketch base mentioned above is the most intuitive way to use
the current 3D CAD packages for design. Let's keep in mind that "design" is a
process that requires you to get many ideas down quickly. Freehand sketching is
the only way to do that. However, I look forward to the day that you can
freehand sketch onto paper and a digitizer simultaneously – with a program that
can convert your 2D info. automatically (or with a few simple commands) into a
3D model. Any bright programmers available?
Project Type:
Another issue is whether the project type requires intense 3D design. Let's
face it, a warehouse doesn't require a lot of design study. On the other hand,
a theater, church, museum, etc. – if it's done right – will require many hours
of design sketches. Like I said earlier – a simple massing model makes for a
great sketch base.
Usage:
Like I said, our firm primarily uses 3D design tools for bases. However,
speaking as an expert from the photorealistic side of 3D (my company PARADIDM
PRODUCTIONS specializes in architectural, broadcast, and game graphics) I know
that I can create a more dynamic and realistic rendering and/or animation than
your best architectural illustrator (you can see some of our examples in the
CADKEY area or contact me at 75252,1112 or 901-685-7703 for information). As
with any medium you are still going to have those that prefer the "natural"
look of hand illustrations. Of course you can always run your 3D renderings
through numerous paint programs to achieve that same look.
Well, there you have it. That is my opinion on architectural imaging. The moral
of this story is – get better commissions so you can build more 3D models
(don't we all wish) and take over your firm so that you can make all decisions
concerning computers.
Charles T. Gaushell, NCARB, AIA
Paradigm Productions
FYI – at Paradigm Productions we use:
Datacad for Dos – Cad and 3D modeling (architectural modeling)
Imagine for Amiga – rendering and animation
Lightwave 3D for Amiga – rendering and animation
Numerous Paint and conversion programs for both Amiga & PC
Paradigm Productions
P.O. Box 770188
Memphis, Tn 38177-0188
901-685-7703
email 75252.1112@compuserve.com
PMJI,
Charles , I'm a dealer in Green Bay Wisconsin who's all but given up on trying
to get through to the local Architectural Community…in fact my former
business partner was an Architect who run's a 50 Man A&E Firm….To Date I've
had little success talking to other Architects regarding the use of 3D Studio,
Would you be interested in either publishing something in our Newsletter of
perhaps we could use some of what you've said in leu of do so.
Just a thought.
Murph'
I would be more than happy to help you out and maybe get some free advertising
for Paradigm Productions. However, we don't use 3D Studio. Call us rebels, but
we prefer Datacad for 3D modeling and Imagine and Lightwave for rendering and
animation. You can see samples of our work in the Cadkey area of the CAD/CAM
forum or the Game Developers forum.
If you are still interested, let me know.
Charles Gaushell, NCARB, AIA
Paradigm Productions
3D Computer Graphics and Animation
>> Call us rebels, <<
How bout' if I call Ya' Johnny. <g>
Awww…..Geeezzz,
I've got this picture in my mind of Nick Adams in a Rebel Outfit carrying a
T-Square, Now I'll never get rid of that image….Aaaarrrrrggg! <BG>
Murph'
Some very good points, there. A more organized way of how I might have
expressed some of the concerns of architectural design in an office…
>>Old School: The majority of principals running architectural firms are from
the "old school" where everything was done by hand. Since they have not taken
the time to "change-with-the-times" they are reluctant to use 3D as a design
tool. T
How very true. Some are reluctant to even use CAD to its fullesst, much less
3D modeling. There's the comfort of familiarity with technique, not to mention
the learning curve in itself. It's refreshing to hear of firms like yours that
at least allow the new up and coming talents to pursue new methodology…
>>Freehand Drawing: As an architect, I have no desire to let my drawing skills
totally subside and believe that the sketch base mentioned above is the most
intuitive way to use the current 3D CAD packages for design.
Oh, again, very true. NEVER should we feel that freehand drawing and
ssketching could ever be replaced by the computer, even if the computer is used
to enchance the freehand drawing process (which is always a possibility).
Interactivity between hand and eye will always be a crucial step in great
design – and we can never get TOO automated, lest we lose the "feel" of the
design taking shape in our hands.
>>Project Type: Another issue is whether the project type requires intense 3D
design. Let's face it, a warehouse doesn't require a lot of design study. On
the other hand, a theater, church, museum, etc. – if it's done right – will
require many hours of design sketches.
Heh – I coudl write a volume or two on that. That's actually a large portion
of why not as many architects have already gotten into 3D modeling as there
could be. Not THAT large a percentage of architects out there are fortunate
enough to work primarily on projects that stimulate the soul and are fired by
thought other than the pragmatic.
Computers can indeed find a place in the process from massing studies to
phtorealstic presentations, to renderings that could be a product in
themselves…. the possibilities exceed the time I have in which to discuss
them 🙂 But it looks like you're involved in some very interesting things, as
I am working my way towards spending a greater percentage of my time…
Send me mail if you would like to discuss this further…
Jerome,
You should check out the Cadkey forum to find out more about what we do at
Paradigm Productions and how we do it.
If you need any help let me know.
Charles T. Gaushell, NCARB, AIA
Paradigm Productions
901-685-7703
>>You should check out the Cadkey forum to find out more about what we do at
Paradigm Productions and how we do it.
I would be interested in that, I will have to do it sometime soon. You sound
like an interesting group…
-jk
Jerome,
What kind of work are you doing?
>>What kind of work are you doing?
In this case, just an interior of a room with many monitors and a few
keyboards. Tonight, I want to render it out while I sleep, and I need a map to
make the keyboards look halfway decent. Don't seem to have any lying around,
however.
I might have a keyboard map. I'll take a look and let you know.
Do you work for a company or is 3D just a hobby for you.
Charles Gaushell
Paradigm Productions
Charles:
Your methods and descriptions are very familiar and similar to my experience.
So why doesn't your software list include 3DS? <GD&R>
Bob
Bob,
Sorry I haven't responded sooner to question :
<Your methods and descriptions are very familiar and similar to my experience.
So why doesn't your software list include 3DS?>
One reason is that we started doing 3D work four years ago and the programs
available for under a zillion dollars were limited. We chose start out with
Imagine on the Amiga platform because it was a reasonably priced professional
level program. We have since also started using Lightwave 3D, which as you may
know is used heavily in Hollywood.
I have no personal problems with 3D Studio other than the price per performance
ratio. Lightwave kills it. Sure 3D Studio has some benefits over Lightwave, but
vise versa. We are about to move to the Windows NT platform and Lightwave will
follow us with a killer rendering machine, the Raptor (faster than six pentium
90mhz machines).
We may add 3D Studio at some point, but for the time being there isn't any
reason to spend the money and learn a new program.
What kind of work do you do? What do you use?
Charles Gaushell, NCARB, AIA
Paradigm Productions
>> What I'm trying to say is that few people seriously involved in 3DS are
using it in the design PROCESS, or as a tool to THEMSELVES create a work that
is an end unto itself << Hear, Hear! I wouldn't limit it to 3DS though, it
applies across the board for CAD and CG in architecture. Very few offices use
3D for design, and most still place CAD grunts at the bottom of the food
chain. Theoretically, the possibilities are much more expansive. Have you
seen William Mitchells books on architectural CG? Lots of possibilities.
You're right – I don't place 3DS as the only example of this at all. As you
said – it's CG in general that's only beginning to be explored to its potential
for archioetcture and architectural art.
No… I haven't read William Mitchells books. I will have to make a note of
them. BTW – ever seen Lebbus Woods' explorations of architecture anfd art in
the future? Very abstract, well imagined ideas. I wouldn't mind doing
explorations of a similar nature on the computer. Devil may care if it
actually gets BUILT or not. Wonder if Lebbus is on CIS anywhere…