#Architectural Animation?
12 messages in this thread
Brandon,
Earlier today, I sent a message to Andrew McClary containing my view into how
and why Architects do not use 3D tools more often. Now, having read your
initial messages in this area I will respond to you about your particular point
of view.
First, let me state that I am a young Architect, who has worked at a nationally
ranked firm for nearly six years (since leaving school). During this time, I
have researched, selected, and purchased a 3DS workstation (started with
3DS1.0), and trained a number of individuals in it's use. Unfortuntately, *for
lot's of reasons*, it has not gotten the use it should until just recently.
—————————
You are asking why you cannot sell this service to Architects. Are you
interested because you see Architects as representing a particularly lucrative
market for 3D work, or because you yourself have ties into the Architectural
community? Hard to separate, I bet.
I believe the reason Architects do not utilize this technology is mostly
because of money. If it costs more to use it, why do it when you already have
an established/successful methodology in place? Will it greatly increase the
quality of the final product (the actual, physical building). Maybe. Will it
increase the quality of any aspect of the process of creating the building.
Maybe. Will it cost more than those quality increases are worth. Probably.
The problem as I stated to Andrew, is that the way in which this technology
interfaces with our process is too time-consuming and problematic. Once the
technology matures to a point where it's use is an easy extension of our normal
daily process, we will be able to adopt it w/out so much added expense
(training, wasted & duplicated effort, etc.)
Ok. My view of the situation, right or wrong. I bet we can talk for along
time about that!
Now, ahem. The WRONG WAY TO SELL ANYTHING IS BY TELLING YOUR CLIENT THEY WILL
BE LEFT BEHIND IF THEY DON'T BUY NEW-FANGLED GADGET `X'.
Sorry. Didn't mean to yell.
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. In business, they
should always be based on business decisions. It may be that a well placed
successful Architectural firm DOESN'T NEED THIS to sell themselves to clients
because of other factors inherent in their clientelle, the way they deliver
service, or outstanding past reputation.
After all, I can ask you why you don't have a MAC/AMIGA/ALPHA/SGI running
WAVEFRONT/TDI/ALIAS/TOPAS loaded with 32/48/64/128mb RAM and running through a
PAR/BETADECK/VISTA/BAHR-SCAN-CONVERTER. Well? Why don't you. Your competitor
down the street has that thing. Isn't it obvious you will lose business to
him?
Hardly.
The long and the short of it is that I will purchase a service, tool, etc. if
the value it adds to my operation exceeds the cost of it. Until such time that
I can do this economically either in or out of house I won't use it.
Perhaps you can break through to these clients which are sitting on the fence.
But, to do it, you have to *understand* what they need to accomplish *their*
tasks on *their* projects, and sell your service based on their needs seen
through their eyes. Not on your view of what you think they need.
And since you opened the can o' worms <g>… 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. Rather,
they are probably looking at the $ involved and that is why they are not using
you at the level you expect. Nobody but another Architect who can offer the
entire range of Architectural services can really `steal' business from an
Architect.
-sigh-
Just to set the record strait in case this is all mis-interpreted: This
message sounds more negative and upset than I really am. This seems to be a
good thread, keep it going!
-Mike.
Michael,
Quoting your recent post to Brandon:
< Sorry. Didn't mean to yell. >
Mike, apparently your backspace key isn't working either.
( just kidding!!! ) 🙂 <BG>
< This message sounds more negative and upset than I really am. >
That's good… can't wait to see you when you have a bee in your bonnet.
<This seems to be a good thread, keep it going!>
DITTO
I've enjoyed the discussion here on the topics you, he & others have addressed.
I just wanted to pop in and say MORE!
Kevin Gibson
Animation Nation <tm>
Wait kevin…………. Did you get all of that? No?
See, my backspace key *IS* working!!!
<g,d,r>
Yes, I think this is an excellent thread as well, and hope it helps create a
clear sense of what must be done for this technology to better be utilized in
Architectural work.
-Mike.
Hi Michael,
>>You are asking why you cannot sell this service to Architects. Are you
interested because you see Architects as representing a particularly lucrative
market for 3D work, or because you yourself have ties into the Architectural
community? Hard to separate, I bet.<<
'Six o' one, half dozen of the other'<g>. Although we are not licensed
architects, we have been involved in the architectural community for a combined
40 some years, either in an architects office, or as a drafting service
supporting architects' and engineers offices. We have done just about all of
it, from Civil, structural, electrical, mechanical, architectural, etc. etc. as
well as inspecting and project management. We started a couple years ago
offering the 3D rendering services to the construction industry, because we saw
the opportunity to add a great deal to the design and visualization process, at
every step of the way.
>>I believe the reason Architects do not utilize this technology is mostly
because of money. If it costs more to use it, why do it when you already have
an established/successful methodology in place?<<
But we have shown it NOT to cost more, or if it does, the added worth or
usefulness outweighs the added cost.
>>Will it greatly increase the quality of the final product (the actual,
physical building). Maybe. Will it increase the quality of any aspect of the
process of creating the building. Maybe. Will it cost more than those quality
increases are worth. Probably.<<
Lets see, now…Disagree…Disagree…DISAGREE!<G> 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!
>> is that the way in which this technology interfaces with our process is too
time-consuming and problematic.<<
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.
>>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 you can break through to these clients which are sitting on the
fence. But, to do it, you have to *understand* what they need to accomplish
*their* tasks on *their* projects, and sell your service based on their needs
seen through their eyes. Not on your view of what you think they need.<<
I couldn't agree more! That is how we have always approached our clients.
>>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!
>> Nobody but another Architect who can offer the entire range of Architectural
services can really `steal' business from an Architect.<<
Again, we have never claimed to be architects, or to do architectural work, we
just do the animation/renderings (and sub-contract drafting and design). That
is the segment of their business I was referring to 'stealing', not their
'business'.
>>Just to set the record strait in case this is all mis-interpreted: This
message sounds more negative and upset than I really am. This seems to be a
good thread, keep it going!<<
No prob! Thanks for your input, and yes, lets all keep this one going. I know
I'm learning a lot and I hope some of y'all are too!
Regards,
Brandon
DesignTec
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.
Hi Michael,
>>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?<<
Yes, I see your point now, and it is a valid one.
>><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<<
The 'skill' which I have referred to in several messages, especially the one to
which you are referring, is the 3D computer imaging and not architectural
practices. I don't mind saying that in the area of 3D visualization, we do
have 'superior skills', or should I say, superior resources with which to
create these images, than the vast majority of architectural firms.
>>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!<<
'Came through pretty clearly' where? I don't recall mentioning anything about
trying to get architects into a 'they did it first so we gotta follow' contest.
One of the replies said something to that effect, but we didn't. But it is
true that architects, just like every other business, will follow local trends
to compete. This is not the basis for any of our marketing strategies, but if
it happens, we won't cry over it.
>>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?<<
As you indicated in your original reply by using repeatedly the term *their*
needs, that is how we have approached marketing our services. Our emphasis has
been on *their* wants and needs, and how we can fulfill them cheaply and
efficiently, and transparently to *their* client.
Regards,
Brandon
DesignTec
Brandon,
Like I said, I'm glad to hear that I read the wrong information from your
message.
<'Came through pretty clearly' where? I don't recall mentioning anything about
trying to get architects into a 'they did it first so we gotta follow'
contest.>
I don't have it on the workstation I am currently working on (I am at home now)
so cannot comment on specifics, I just have a memory of something like "maybe
they will do it when their competitors do." I can review the thread when I get
to work next week and comment with more concrete information, if you like.
Keep up the good work w/ this thread! I am learning more about how others use
and expect to use the technology, which will hopefully help me justify a little
more equipment come the first quarter '95!
<bg>
-Mike.
Michael,
PMJI,
>>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.
We just recently showed a client a color board of materials that were
proposed for his lobby. He had this real puzzled look on his face.
Then I pulled out or 8.5×11 color rendering (Using Accurender) and
his face lit up. "Now this I understand!" he exclamed. We could then
begain a serious discussion of the interior materials.
Absolutely correct. The power to communicate to the client is
incredibly powerful. Of coure (as must have been pointed out here
someplace) the ability to communicate with the same ease to the
project team is equally important. Alot of people think that this 3D
stuff has to be produced as part of some sort of deliverable; but it
*is* okay to produce it and use in internally, and then *throw it
away* as things change. Just like trace.
The big problem for me is finding a way to utilize it (procedures in
place, training performed, proper modeling software, extension of
regular process, etc.) that is as cost effective as current
communication techniques. Perhaps soon we will arrive there?
Michael,
>>The big problem for me is finding a way to utilize it (procedures in place,
>>training performed, proper modeling software, extension of regular process,
>>etc.) that is as cost effective as current communication techniques.
>>Perhaps soon we will arrive there?
For me, thats where the quick study models are useful. I must admit however
there more useful to me (when I'm the project architect) than to my partner. He
keeps the images in his mind. This sometimes results in unexpected
inconsistencies with the design. <IMHO>.
I can't help but wonder if r13's build-in solid modeling and editing tools will
improve the 'construction' of these models.
Ken Thrasher, NAAUG AEC SIG Steering Committee
I wonder about the new ACICS stuff as well. We have the older AME installed in
a couple of machines, but it is very slow, and created some quirks. I wonder
if we will ever be able to properly work in 3D, and only worry about 2D as a
projection through a viewport for plotting?
I wonder if the databases can ever be made small enough for appropriate
performance. Or, do we simply wait for the hardware to continue on it's upward
speed trend?
-Mike.
> He keeps the images in his mind. This sometimes results in unexpected
inconsistencies with the design. <IMHO>. <
Boy, that's a nice way of putting it! <BG>
— James — MAP —