Architectural imaginings
16 messages in this thread
>>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.
Well if you are saying that we do not create things in 3DS that only live in
our minds maybe you are right, I mainly use it as a tool to see how the design
will look before it is build, and mainly to show others s they can get rid of
reading and understanding 2D architectural drawings????
However I love to fantasize and regulary create things that do not exist in the
real world, astonishingly these are never buildings but mostly objects
sculptures or robots???
Christophe
To some degrer that's what I mean… I know I worded that poorly 🙂
I'm just saying that most of the time the CG animation is either done
by somebodywho didn't do the original architectural art, or the
person who did the design AND did the CG animation, is usually using
the animation as a boost to a design process that's going on outside
of the computer, and will have a final product that is NOT the
animation, but a finished architectural work. Don't get me wrong
here – I'm not downplaying the visualization value of CG animations
in the design processs – far from that. They're extremely valuable
for that, and that's one of my uses. However, what I was trying to do
was point out two things: one, that there still is a seperation
between the design process and visualization tools, due to the time
delay and step required for each animation, if you know what I mean.
This will change with technology and the movement towards real time
interactivity with design tools. Two – that often a visulization
tool is just that – a tool for a design that has nothing to do with
the work on the computer itself, at least in the end product.
Sometimes one creates fine architectural art on the computer, or
creates scenes to live in movies, videos or games, but rarely.
"Usually" is a key word in what I was saying. But note; usually if
one creates a fantasy on the computer, for whatever reason, the
architecture is the backdrop, and second consideration to what else
is going on. There's an interesting world to be discovered in
architectural creations done FOR the virtual world as a means of art
in itself, and as a specialty. The more CG work is created, the more
room in each particular discipline in the design of each facet, and
one will be able to explore ideas in architecture on a screen as one
would explore them in the real world today – with less consideration
for the cost of brick and marble, and how much each new corner adds
to the cost of labor… not to mention BOCA 🙂
I understand what you say, but one thing is blocking some things of what you
want to do. That is money, you will find very few people that will pay for a
world that does not exist in reallity at this time, only the game developpers.
I guess they should turn more to us architects doing 3D-worlds it would be
great.
It is true what you say why 3D is mostly done, I design most of the buildings
and visualize them mysself or I visualize buildings for other architects or
builders.
However it that way it is seen as a tool, but in the architectural branch it is
still underused and certainly underpayed, advantages however can be great on
many fronts: selling a project, even control of the project in 3D, also showing
the workman that build a building what it looks like because they mostly do not
know and often do not care.
Christophe
>>I understand what you say, but one thing is blocking some things of what you
want to do. That is money, you will find very few people that will pay for a
world that does not exist in reallity at this time, only the game developpers.
Heh heh… no kidding 🙂 That's one of the main reasons WHY there aren't that
many people doing thingss like that – there's no OBVIOUS way to make all that
much money doing it. However, my point is that the potential is VAST for those
who are moving in that direction in the future, and there are ways to make it
work, but it's not that easy. And hey – if it was apperent how to make decent
money at it, you'd have LOTS of people at least attempting to do it, whether
they were any good at it or not. No matter down which path you put money, many
people will follow. Some who hope against hope to create something brilliant
and only need the ability to make a living while doing it, and many more who
think "it sounds good", and are motivated primarily by the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
>>I guess they should turn more to us architects doing 3D-worlds it would be
great.
The problem is identifying the "they" who could fill in that pronoun there!
>>However it that way it is seen as a tool, but in the architectural branch it
is still underused and certainly underpayed, advantages however can be great on
many fronts: selling a project, even control of the project in 3D, also showing
the workman that build a building what it looks like because they mostly do not
know and often do not care.
Well said. Just as a tool alone, the potential is barely even begginning to
get tapped, and mostly because of the lack of money being poured towards it.
Largely the problem with money in CG in ARCHITECTURE, sspecifically, is the
singularity of clients, when compared with a movie that can be sold and re-
sold. You have undoubtedly noticed that one can drum up far more interesst and
thus money in doing an animation for a prototype apartment or villa of which
many will be sold and built, than for one single high rise. that's because
with the prototype of many, there is need to sell many units, while the high
rise only typically needs to be approved by a single board or committee,
sometimes an individual.
When the production of CG animation becomes less labor and time intensive,
you'll see it sweep the building trades like a whirlwind. As you said – even a
laborer could be the target of a video detailing how a certain consstruction
goes together.
And then, there's always AUGMENTED reality for such things waiting for the
technology to get there 🙂
Christophe
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<I guess they should turn more to us architects doing
3D-worlds it would be great.
It is true what you say why 3D is mostly done, I design most of the buildings
and visualize them mysself or I visualize buildings for other architects or
builders.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
There's an architectural firm in Houston called Architectural Image whose
partner-in-charge of "whatever" decided it was a good idea to archive all it's
meshes of structures created from the early days of 3d CG!
Now the firm supplies background for clients such as Disney………The article
I read says their architectural
business is becomming almost a background business! <SOB!> There's a vast
industry of CG potential
only a small part of it revolves around the FLW ego which is beginng to become
slightly transparent!<G>
Gary
Jerome,
I found this whole thread fascinating, if I understand everyone corectly the
idea is that we should all be using 3ds as a sort of "freform design tool", now
I'm no architect but over here that would probably create merry hell with the
clients, most of the people I deal with, all seem to have very predefined ideas
as regards what they want in their home, now occasionaly you will be bound to
find someone who really wants an unusual home, and this is where 3ds could
really excel as an architectural tool, but mostly I feel we have to accept that
for the time being 3ds will have to take its place as a highly useful but not
really creative presentation tool. Maybe as v5 goes to NT we will get an even
easier acad>3ds>acad link this would I tjhink help in the design process and
would probably alow those original thinkers amongst us a little more creative
thinking !…..
what do you think ?
David
David and All –
Pardon my jumping in here but as a former employee of one of the
largest architectural firms in Maine (about 45 employees), 3D work in
architecture was not used to it's advantage. The largest jail in
Maine was designed by the firm – one of the new theory, free roaming
designs where prisoners deemed to be in the same category of risk
management were allowed to freely roam a specific enclosure – with
their guard inside with them. During the design process there was a
need to see if there were blind corners where the guards could not
see the prisoners from their usual watch stations. This work had to
be farmed out to another company because none of the architects knew
how to use 3D! A video was produced and shown to the client (no blind
spots!).
I found that with all the ACAD stations in use that the design work was still
done on paper and tissue overlays by the architects and then the work given to
draftsmen who performed the actual computer work. Not one of the registered
architects used a computer for design. Some of the engineers used it for HVAC
and lighting work.
3D could have been used to great advantage for a flythrough of the jail. The
owners just never seemed interested in anything like basic training, just in
pushing out the end product. They never seemed to realize that with the right
training and having the architects design right on the computer, the at the
production would have increased tremendously.
Oh well – I don't have to listen to it anymore <G>
Anne
>> During the design process
there was a need to see if there were blind corners where the guards could not
see the prisoners from their usual watch stations. This work had to be farmed
out to another company because none of the architects knew how to use 3D! A
video was produced and shown to the client (no blind spots!).
Exactly. My earlier points being that the worlds of architecture and 3D, while
in the beginning stages of overlapping, are still far more seperate than they
soon will be. And heaven knows about those doing even more abstract
architectural creations than thos being used as visualization tools. But as a
whole, there aren't THAT many people waist deep ion both architecture and
animation – they're normally experts at one and novices at the other. Sure,
there are some people brilliant at both, but consider – mosst of them are
likely to be here on this forum, or working with people on this forum. But
they're in a minority compared to the number of architects inn the world.
>>3D could have been used to great advantage for a flythrough of the jail. The
owners just never seemed interested in anything like basic training, just in
pushing out the end product.
Heh – the pramatic mind at work. Many architects fall into that category, much
more interested in efficiency and production than exploration of either ideas
or new methods of production. Myopia results. I'll go out on a limb by making
this comment, but consider – it usually takes an established firm to land
something as responsible and federal as a major jail. Consider who you're
dealing with here. What kind of architects would pursue commsions like jails if
they were already established, and didn't NEED the work desperately? (unless it
was a very creative, unusal kind of jail, but I haven't seen a creatively
designed jail yet). Such architects are going to be more pragmatic and profit
oriented than being your off the wall, cutting edge, sometimes impractical
dreamers.
I've seen what you're talking about, there. But fortunately there are a wide
variety of attitudes out there…..
>>I found this whole thread fascinating, if I understand everyone corectly the
idea is that we should all be using 3ds as a sort of "freform design tool", now
Yes, I'm suggesting that 3DS can free the designer's spirit for SOME, but
certainly not ALL! I mean it CAN be used to that end…
>>I'm no architect but over here that would probably create merry hell with the
clients, most of the people I deal with, all seem to have very predefined ideas
as regards what they want in their home, now occasionaly you will be bound to
find someone who really wants an unusual home, and this is where 3ds could
really excel as an architectural tool
You're right about the vast majority of clients out there – they are fairly
predisposed to certain design characteristics. However, consider a couple
things: The architect serves, also, as a design conssultant and educator as
well as functional engineer. A person might have a given idea, but ther
architect can make suggestions and help the client alter designs they like to
better suit their needs. 3DS is well suited to the task of making suggestions
to clients, as few people can interperet space from a set of blueprints.
COnsider, also, that an elite few out there come to an architect with needs,
tastes and constraints, but don't dictate the exact particulars of each and
every style and form. You don't think the clients of Frank Lloyd Wright, for
instance, came to him with those designs in mind, do you? They were familiar
with Frankie's work, and knew that it was his style they appreciated, and gave
him the constaints and parameters of their design and let him go to work. Many
people with highly evolved senses of art will either design it themselves, or
approach such a talent. It all depends on the kind of career path you lead.
Are you talking about the majority of architects out there, or just a few
instances that you see as potential….?
>> mostly I feel we have to accept
that for the time being 3ds will have to take its place as a highly useful but
not really creative presentation tool.
Again, same comment. You're right that that will be the majority of its role
in the marketplace as a whole. We need to keep in mind that it can easily be
much more for certain people on certain career paths, as well. That potential
in itself is exciting, becuase any one of us might achieve that kind of use of
it.
>> Maybe as v5 goes to NT we will get an even
easier acad>3ds>acad link this would I tjhink help in the design process and
would probably alow those original thinkers amongst us a little more creative
thinking !
Heh – why do you think I've been so vigorously championing the cause of a
better boolean engine and auto mapping features? Such things would revolounize
the effeciency of 3DS in the architectural end of things. I also would like to
see a little more CAD accuracy, but a good case can be made for ACAD, with its
plug ins, taking over such a role. Some might even say most modeling shoudl be
done in ACAD, and much of it should, but here's still a ton of things which are
crying out to be lofted with that great lofter in 3DS, and cry for the ablity
to have boolean opoerations done on them that currently cannot. As for auto
mapping, the benefits are obvious. There are other things, but why re-has them
here? Suffice it to say that I look forward to not just what 3DS is now, but
what riding the wake in it into the future will soon bring.
To Jerome & Anne and everyone else whose intreasted.
I think that one of the problems 3D work in general is so underused is that
most people/architects/engeineers whatever are taught from an earl age to
produce drawings on flat sheets of paper i.e. 2D and therfore they get into the
hang of thinking in flat planes without the Z axis, because of this when they
have a CAD package placed in front of them they stick with what they know, I
dont know how the educational system handles it elsewhere in the world, but
over here you only tend to get to learn how to work in 3D once you have masterd
2D drawing, now unless like myself you are a fast learner at CAD you hardly
cover 3D work at all, this is probably the biggest mistake educational
establishments currently make, if the students were taught 3D work earlier
more of them would use it, but thats just my humble opinion !…….
Of course one of the other problems is getting an output you can take to your
clients, fortunatly this is becoming easier and perhaps more improtantly
cheaper, most clients dont want to watch a computer screen or come to your
ofices, they'd much rather see a nice selection of renderd pictures or better
still a videtape and pictures, with the availability of cheap high quality
inkjets the stills are certainly becoming cheaper and easier to produce, now if
only getting output to tape was as cheap <Whistful Sigh> perhaps next year
?…….
Anne I was intrested by your comments, now I have one, I don't imagine for one
minute that your former associates learnt by their experience and had someone
employed/trained in the use of 3D construction, if they didn't it just goes to
show how narrow minded that people can be !…….
Jerome personaly I use ACAD & AEC for construction with a little 3DS for those
arkward details like complex handrails and the like and of course for the
rendering, I found I just couldn't get the accuracy I wanted using 3DS for
interior detailing on its own the ACAD lets me construct items like for
example a display case and place it exactly in a room, what do is export the
room mesh to 3DS and adjust the faces to suit then reexport the room mesh back
to ACAD and frreze it for placement of the interior details, but what I'd
really like is a faster method of doing this, that's what I ment by my previous
coments, If i could have both progs running under NT (anyone got a spare 256 MB
ram ging cheap) plus say animator studio and Photoshop ( Better make that 512
MB ) I'd be a happy man. oh and whilst i'm at it a background video compiler
that would create and output a walkthroug straigh to tape in say 20 mins ( I
Know I'm dreaming but maybe in a year or two, who knows ) so anyone else have
any ideas ?
I mean how do we increase the usefulness of 3DS to architects / designers
whatever ?
For that matter what do we really want that we dont already have, or cant
afford ( there's that 512 mb Ram again) more importatly how do we convince
potential clients that they should use our creative genius instead of fred's
who still uses pen and paper and the back of old cigarrett packs and table
napkins to present his designs until we manage t convince our clients that
because we use CAD we can do at least as good a job, were geting nowhere fast.
what makes us so special ? after all other people can use a computer can't they
?…………..
Well hopefully this little message should provoke one or two more intersting
responses, over to you guys…………………
David
David.
<people/architects/engeineers whatever are taught from an earl age to produce
drawings on flat sheets of paper i.e. 2D and therfore they get into the hang of
thinking in flat planes without the Z axis, because of this when they have a
CAD package placed in front of them they stick with what they know>
No, I do not think that Architects and the Engineers involved in building
design are unable to think in 3D. The ability to think 3-dimensionally is a
pre-requisite to this profession.
I think the reason these people do not move easily into 3D CADD is because most
software does not have a good 3D interface. Often, the method employed for
indicating views is as difficult as the modeling process itself. And, modeling
in many 3D CADD programs is not as easy as it should be.
Remember, the *real product* of an Architect/Enginner you hire IS NOT to
produce interesting presentation drawings. The *real product* is a REAL
PHYSICAL BUILDING. Presentation drawings are important for client
communications, and construction drawings are important for contractor
communication. And perhaps 3D computer graphics are not yet well utilized, but
the USE of 3D computer graphics has to be less involved than it currently is, I
think.
Also, realize that in school drawing is only *one* of the aspects taught to
potential Architects/Engineers. Architecture and Engineering principles are
what we are supposed to learn and is the reason we are there, and how we
communicate our ideas can take many forms: Ink, guache, watercolor, pencil,
etc. We do not go to school to learn how to utilize all presentation
techniques, but to learn about the design and construction of buildings.
That said, I agree that institutions could spend more time familiarizing
students with 3D computer graphics, but as I hinted above, Architects/Engineers
are not going to school to become illustrators and mastors of these tools, but
to become Architects/Engineers. Once there is easier to use 3D CADD programs,
which allow us to focus on the art of Architecture and not the art of producing
3D images, the schools and professionals ought to utilize the technology more.
-Mike
To anyone and everone as well as michael <G>
Whoa there Michael!
I never said that Architects etc. were unable to think in 3D I was just saying
that they stick with what they're taught, in some ways this ties in with your
comments as regards ease of use, or rather the lack of it, in 3D CAD programs,
I think that the efforts anyone who wants to use 3D in architecture has to go
through tend to force people to stick with 2D, especially as many companies
can't justify the time it takes for a member of staff to become computer 3D
literate. Mechanical engineering is gradually encoraging people to use 3D as a
lot of other systems e.g. MAchine tools (CAM / CAE) can cope with the data via
a post processor.
Speaking as a mechanical engineer who also does CAD work for archiects etc. I
feel I can see more benefits than perhaps the architects realise, now I'm
probably gonna get crucified for this but……..
Surely as an architect your first prority is to your client, now if the client
is trained to view drawings then you have no problems, but say your designing
shall we say Bill Gates's next home and he says to you "Michael, What sort of
view will I have from my bedroom window when I get up on a spring morning" you
could say "Well bill its gonna be a nce panoramic vista across ……….."
or you could get some photos of the site and produce a rendering from inside
the bedroom looking out…..
I know what I'd rather see….
Ol I accept that getting the thing built is ultimately the aim of the
architect, but surely you have to get the client to accept the project first,
It is in this area that 3D graphics excels, the only other area that it can be
considered useful is when you want to develop a design of an unusuall idea,
say a freeform type construction, or a design that has to utalise an unusuall
site, here 3D capabilities really come into their own,and I think this is what
Jerome was talking about, I suppose in the end it really comes down to the
fact that you either need them or you don't or wether you have the time to
learn how to use the system or not ?……
Replys / Coments ?……………
Good comments, David.
I think we agree. The cost of starting work in 3D is high for training, etc.
and this tends to push people away from it. In my office, there is 1-2 people
who are familar with 3DS, a bunch who know CorelDraw, Photoshop, etc. So, we
*do* have some resource to use on projects. But, even though we have gotten
over the learning curve and our time on each project should be less, we don't
use it as much as I wish. I think this is because the *wrong* people are able
to use it. I think that for this to become a real tool, it means that the
Desingers and Project Architects need to use it themselves to explore their
ideas on their own. This won't happen until the learning curve becomes lower.
You are absulutely right about our first priority being to our client. Our
second priority being to our budget. There is a constant balancing act about
when/where/how to move outside of our scope, and when/where/how to put our
*own* money into a service for the client. We want to ensure the client
understands what we are showing her/him, and we for each instance we strive to
choose the method that offers the best combination of communication and cost.
Using your example, for instancen about showing Bill Gates what the view out
his Bedroom might be, I might choose to take the picture of the sight and then
simply sketch over it freehand (using an ink pen) to develop the view. And
then do some quick color xerox work to make a composite.
That *might* be less expensive than going into 3DS and modeling it. Both
methods might provide adequate communication. If finishes and lighting were to
come into play there would be no question that 3DS is the best choice. So, we
are always trying to fit the best technology to the process: Color pencil,
marker, ink, computer or crayon.
See, for us (and for others I assume) the problem is this: *I* can do the work
in 3DS far quicker than others in the office. If *I* am unavailable and
someone else has to do it, it may not be as cost effective. That, of course,
is a training issue. But, the software could be easier to learn, and require
less training. Additionally, if *I* am not the one doing the design it may not
be a useful process… As I said above, it is not useful until the *designer*
is doing the work.
So, like I said, I think we are agreeing on everything here.
-Mike.
Michael,
yep we are agreed, actually one point in favour of 3DS's migration to Windows
is that more people are familiar with the Windows interface than a custom DOS,
Unix or whatever one, Of couurse I am now fervantly hoping that V5 of 3DS will
indeed conform to these standard arangements.
My appologies by the way somehow I forgot the cost factor, actually I hadn't I
simpl assumed that 3DS renderings would only be worthwile on larger projects
where greater funds would normally be available.
David
In terms of cost… Despite the fact that we are a very large National Firm,
our *office* has projects which are generally in the 4-10million dollar range.
There *is* the opportunity to find the cash to support 3DS in Presentation
work, but not enough for Design work (we always seem to be very tight in
Schematic Design). I just wish this could all become more integrated to the
process, so the cost of producing the model and mapping would become abosrbed
in other tasks.
We have used it on smaller projects successfully, but it was subsidized by
donated time and dipping into marketing budgets.
I also can't wait for R5/Windows! We just got a beta Win95 shell that works on
NT3.51…. Very slick. And FAST.
-Mike.
Michael,
yeah nice budgets, but I wonder how much goes towards things like secreterial
expenses etc. One of the advantages of working from home is that I dont have
multiple office staff working for me, I dot have huge office rents & so on.
By working in an office a good sized chunk of the budget goes towards those
sorts of expenses, therfore you cannot allocate these funds to actuall design
work! work it out sometime & I think you'll agree.
A win95 shell for NT3.51…!!!!!…… sounds good, trouble is in the UK we
will probably see it about six months after the US, getting new sotware or even
upgrades is a nightmare over here, you'd never belive that the UK has the
fastest growing PC market in Europe! As an example I finally got my 3DS R4c1
bug fix last week and thats fast at only about 4 months after the US……..
Oh well perhaps cos I'm on such a low budget I cant get the software fast
enough, a 4M dollar budget would cover all my work for about the next 60 years
at current prices <SOB>
Best wishes,
David