CompuServe Thread

Gosh, I take one day off with a cold and you folks sneak in 70 some odd messages on Architectural Animation before I get to jump in with my two cents (Canadian) <g>? Speaking as someone who works for an Architectural firm and who spends about 50 to 75% of his working day using 3D Studio for just the purposes you've been talking about, I just have to jump in. -Yes, because we're being squeezed for fees, it's difficult for Architects to hire some one to do 3D work unless we're sure the client will pay for it. They pay for the hand renderings done by free-lancers as well as those expensive plastic models but there isn't the track record for computer graphic work yet. I really don't think you can blame the architects on this one, especially after this reccesion. -There is a good reason to bring this kind of work in-house. In the initial design phase, things can get pretty fluid and nothing really beats having the 3D machine just down the hall, instead of across town. Changes can be transmitted and viewed just that much faster. With free-lance work, you just have to make sure the information you give out is right the first time or suffer delays. We already went through this with model making. For design development, we have our models built in-house because of speed and ease of communications. For the final presentation models, we go outside to professionals but we make sure we have very specific information for them to work from. Last minute changes cause grief for both ourselves and the model maker. -Natural renderings have a look and feel that is very different than 3D computer work. Sometimes better, sometimes not. Physical models have there own effect as well, different from 3D computer work. We've found that depending on what we're trying to say, it's appropriate to use combinations of these media to get our point across. I don't think 3D computer work is going to replace anything, just muscle in on the territory of more traditional methods. Bruce Meikle WZMH Architects