The future of Architectural Visualization

[gnuhong]

With so many designers/architects know how to do 3D these days, what do you guys think about the future of Architectural Visualization?

[kid]

architects/designers use 3d in a different way to an illustrator. 3d is a design tool, for exploring spatial relationships and other stuff through out the conceptual process.

 

more often than not (atleast for myself) a 3d concept/sketch design model is not very well suited to use in making sophisticated visualisations.

 

and architects/designers usually do not have the time available that it takes to turn a 3d model into a final illustration. they're payed to do other things.

[mbr]

Architects usually don't want to take the time to do the renderings, as it takes away from the other, more important parts of the projects.

 

It kind of goes back to 'doesn't matter if you 'can' do everything, it's simply not worth it to'. Time is the factor, and most architects (all of my friends, and myself, for the most part) do not have the time to learn.

Next is resources. It's rare an architecture firm, except the larger ones, will have the money to invest in the software and hardware. This means that firms that have a renderfarm and can crank it out become increasingly valuable.

 

Where there is competition is overseas. It's hard to compete with lower and lower prices. But it's business, and as with any business, as technology becomes more accessible, more people will do it, and that will drive prices down. For example, my business partner and I are considering a laser cutter for $10k, that would save us money, but those that rely on the business of cutting will have new competition, everywhere.

 

It never ends, really, and when you look around you, you can see it with WalMarts, Starbucks, etc., etc. Like it or not, it's part of capitalism.

 

I think those that are here now and can grow, and afford the faster stuff will thrive, as the demand for 3D will outpace the new blood (at least in my naively optimistic view).

 

Smile, it's a new profession (relatively) and you are at the forefront!

[Jeff Mottle]

I think that in the next 5-10 years we will see much more of the arch viz work being done in house. It's almost the norm for most medium to large firms to have CG work done as part of the planning, design, approval, marketing process and with more architectcts coming out of school with CG training, it will only be a matter of time that it will be more cost efficient to have full time staff in-house to do this type of work. Especially if you have to do it all the time. I think only the large CG firms that are capable of doing the entire suite of digital marketing materials, handling very large complex projects, or delivering extreme quality deliverables, will be left in the long run. I think we will see far fewer freelancers and smaller CG shops.

[gnuhong]

MBR probably right, but at same time I also have the same worries like Jeff.

 

At the long run, there will lots of jobless CG artists. Many small-mid size CG studio will falls. Graduates will hard to find jobs. etc.

We will face end of CG industry faster than expected, I believe.

[fred_bock]

I think in the next 5 ... it's all in the hands of the new architects !

In all architectural companys i see recruiting new architects, they demand them to know arch viz, and photoshop, (along with other stuff like net presentation...).

Small cg firms will have to offer a lot of different services, from modeling to web hosting, from animation to dvd mass delivery ...

i think we have to create a professional assosiation to get more credit in what we do. get big or get gone !

[Donkey81]

architects/designers use 3d in a different way to an illustrator. 3d is a design tool, for exploring spatial relationships and other stuff through out the conceptual process.

 

more often than not (atleast for myself) a 3d concept/sketch design model is not very well suited to use in making sophisticated visualisations.

 

and architects/designers usually do not have the time available that it takes to turn a 3d model into a final illustration. they're payed to do other things.

 

 

I agree 100%

[bigcahunak]

My vision is the same as Jeff's.

I believe that today's new architect already got the training and will to do CG as an aditional service to their clients, and that in 5-10 years these architects will be in key positions in their firms to decide so.

Also, modeling is already a game (sketchup anyone?) but with future software development I believe materials, lighting and animating would also become much easier to controll.

[Ernest Burden III]

I think only the large CG firms that are capable of doing the entire suite of digital marketing materials, handling very large complex projects, or delivering extreme quality deliverables, will be left in the long run. I think we will see far fewer freelancers and smaller CG shops.

 

That is my feeling as well, so I guess I had better take creating art and books more seriously, and stop wasting my time on rendering for architects.

[mbr]

I am not so sure I agree with Jeff 100%. I am an architect, and only have worked in architecture offices, from 15 people to 2500 (250 in my office). Only the large one had a dedicated 3D guy, and he was set up with multiple computers and paid very well. But they still outsourced. I modeled my building, but I would never have time to render it well or animate it. It's simply about time. Only 1 out of 100 grads want to do renderings, it's not a matter of knowing how, it's a matter of wanting to. Most look at it as a deadend - time spent on a program that could have been spent learning more about architecture.

 

I do think the field will continue to consolidate, but I see no reason why small firms will have trouble. From what I can see, there is nothing a 4 person firm can't offer that a 400 person firm can, for the most part. As long as the technology is up to date, it would take an extremely large project to make a difference. Effeciency will play a large part, down the road.

 

The real money is in other fields for visualization, but I've yet to see anything posted on here and only know a handful of firms that even do other types of projects. That will be the future.

[Jeff Mottle]

From what I can see, there is nothing a 4 person firm can't offer that a 400 person firm can, for the most part. As long as the technology is up to date, it would take an extremely large project to make a difference. Effeciency will play a large part, down the road.

 

This is where I see the larger firms being able to take the cake. Most large CG frms produce much more than just the renderings. Most also have the in-house capabilities to create the entire marketing campaign and all of the digital creatives for it (Copywritting, Interactive DVD, websites, design/brochure collateral, design services, renderings, animations etc etc._. This may not be as applicable to in-house architectural work, but it is definetly applicable when it comes to dealing with land and real-estate develoeprs who are often the ones who commission large projects. If they can they will use the architectural firm as it means a single point of contact and when designs change as often as they usually do, that means time saves and money spent. I know of one firm here in Calgary already who have already launched an in-house marketing/CG firm to get this work. I would not consider Calgary to be anywhere near a leading city for CG, so I think it's fair to say that this is just the tip of the iceburg that will surface.

 

My 2 cents.

[Troy]

I went to school for architecture and have worked at a number of firms. In the middle of my schooling I realized that I enjoyed doing the presentation work alot more than 2d CAD work. Since I graduated in 2001 I have noticed a huge trned of the Arch firms hiring other students right out of school to do 3d renderings. The problem is saying you can do 3d and actually doing it in a rapid production enviroment are two different things. I agree that the architects dont' have the time to really spend to get a final illustration ready for presentation. It is a very helpful tool for them to visualize spatial relationships and material choice, but I still feel there is a need for a dedicated 3D guy or even a team. My company is co-located with a large arch firm. It works out well since we are always just across the hall to ask any questions or get instant feedback. I feel that arch firms are going to try to hire people with 3d skills and it is our job to show them how much better a rendering can be if it is done by someone who specializes in that field, rather then just being a secondary skill. It is a very hard field to remain on the cutting edge. Hopefully the will leave it to the specialists.

[thinice]

I am running a dedicated visualisation firm in KL, Malaysia and these are my observations

 

1. Most architectural firms will have inhouse modeler/renderer in the future, mostly for quick visualisations.

 

2. Inhouse modeler/renderer will never match the capability of dedicated firm such as ours

 

3. Clients (developers) are increasingly comfortable dealing with us directly.

 

I feel that the days of freelance modeler/renderer are numbered unless you can provide artisticly distinct images.

 

As a visualisation firm, in the future we may take certain type of jobs (concept proposals etc) from architects or from advertising agencies(marketing kits etc).

 

The other obvious option would be to seek work in an architects' office. Just do not expect the same kind of harware/software or the type of work as in a dedicated firm.

 

Thinice

http://www.realismstudio.com

[thinice]

And one more thing, if you want to stay small, network!

 

For example, although I don't have it on my staff, I could easily accept professional video shooting, professional voiceover, copywriting, translation and printing assignments through established contacts.

 

I don't make money on these assignments but if it helps me land that juicy 5 minutes broadcast quality walkthrough, then it is worth the hassle.

 

I am now looking for somebody who can do simple character modeling at reasonable cost as that seems to be the no. 1 request I get from my clients these days.

 

Thinice

http://www.realismstudio.com

[Fred]

All of these posts are really great for me. I am just now looking to get into this type of career and all the replies are really helpful.

 

Can anyone tell me what a newbie should focus on when entering this field?

 

 

Thanks again,

 

Fred

[Devin Johnston]

You need to first decide which render platform you want to work with, and then take some classes or at least get some of the great books that are available and try to do all of the tutorials you can get your hands on. Even if you can't get all the way through them you will still learn a lot form the attempt. It would really be nice if you could get a job working for a company that already has a lead visualization guy, this way you will be able to learn from someone who has been in the field for years. It's going to be a long process but if you’re dedicated then the rewords will come.

[Fred]

I appreciate the reply Maxer. I am looking at 3D Studio MAX 5 and possibly AutoCAD 2004.

[ShaunDon]

In my experience we've done work with firms that have in-house 3D guys -- they are, as everyone's already noted, an integral part in the design process now. Even some architects themselves are giving us their sketchup models as reference. Of course the level of detail is usually far too low for a rendering, yet at the same time it's great tool for us to see the project immediately and it means the office we're contracting for has some idea of the way we work and it helps us to work together better. They know what we need to get the job done.

 

I'd also like to add that truly spectacular visualization artists (and I'd die happy if I were one in 20 years) are one of a kind and I doubt will fit into a corporate architecture office. Being in an office that visualizes damn near anything, not just towers and housing developments, the more diverse the projects you work on, the more tools and the better eye you'll bring to architectural work.

 

Shaun

[luckytohaveher]

There is actually a much much larger system at work here.

 

In economics there is a law/theory called the 'S' Curve of adoption. It relates to the development, adoption, and implementation of a given technology based on market development and market penetration at a given time. Essentially it is this:

 

1. The first few percent of adopters and users are willing, because of personality and other benefits, to put up with difficult and expensive technology. This fuels the economic sub-system of development which grows the technological base and refines the solution.

 

2. At some point, the tools get strong enough and cheap enough that 10% of the potential user base will have it. At that juncture the market 'explodes' for the product. Within a relatively short amount of time, usually the same time as the 0-10% the market will grow to 90%. This is with dependable technology that is out-of-the-box and exceedingly cheap give the economic benefits derived.

 

3. At the 90% or so market penetration the market becomes saturated. From there, at about the same time duration, there is adoption from 90-98%. This is a mature market with only refinements coming. Anyone seen the last 7 or so versions of Autocad? How about Windows NT, 2000, XP, etc. It is a game of repackage, remarket, retweak -- without real and significant development.

 

I believe that we have just crossed the 1 to 2 line in the architectural market. With ADT4, Max, Vray, XEON 4 GHz, gigabit networking, and cheap print technology, the tools are now sophisticated enough that you don't need a 150 point I.Q. to use them -- let alone the trouble of working on an unstable production product. Most of the people worried about where this is going are the early adopters who have invested a tremendous amount of personal and real capital to the field to develop it this far. The animation market is mature and is now racing to the 100% saturation mark.

 

The saving grace for the early adopter is that the market will literally grow by a factor of 10 during this next phase. It isn't that the architectural offices will displace work being done. It is that there will be 10 times as many renderings done. Essentially all buildings designed will have full 3d renderings and animation. The tools will provide it.

 

This has happened many times with cars, light bulbs, microwaves, athletic shoes, etc. There is nothing new under the sun in economics. The trick is to have a map where things are going.

 

The trick for all early adopters who wish to stay in the market will be to own the companies that produce the content and make it cheap, quicker, and faster. While the market will grow 10x they won't be willing to pay $10K per project to fund them. They will need to be in the $1K range. The technology will provide that pricing.

 

So in the end, adapt, optimize, and grow. It is the nature of an exploding market that will quickly become mature.

 

Good luck!

[Howard Griffin]

Hello Everyone,

 

I am new to this forum, but have already found it extremely useful. I teach Architectural Computing to both Architecture and Interiors students in Canterbury, UK. I am currently reviewing the necessity for animation skills within the Architecture degree programme. I find it interesting that many of you feel that, in future, visualisation will take place in-house, but do you envisage that this will be carried out my dedicated personnel or by the Architects themselves. As has been mentioned previously, many Architects are now equipped with these skills (partly my fault!). Should animation continue to be part of an Architect's education? Also, how do you all feel about the value of VR within the design process? Is this something that should be explored during the educative stage of an Architect's career?

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Hello Everyone,

 

I am new to this forum, but have already found it extremely useful. I teach Architectural Computing to both Architecture and Interiors students in Canterbury, UK. I am currently reviewing the necessity for animation skills within the Architecture degree programme. I find it interesting that many of you feel that, in future, visualisation will take place in-house, but do you envisage that this will be carried out my dedicated personnel or by the Architects themselves. As has been mentioned previously, many Architects are now equipped with these skills (partly my fault!). Should animation continue to be part of an Architect's education? Also, how do you all feel about the value of VR within the design process? Is this something that should be explored during the educative stage of an Architect's career?

i wouldn't focus on teaching animation or even rendering techniques. i would focus more on how you can further study and develope a building using computer modeling as part of the design process tool, and not just as a presentation tool. the software is and will continue to develop to the point where good results are easy to acheive in both rendering and animation.

[Peakyfreak80]

I also see the decline of our field coming soon, and I have only been in this industry for two years. The major problem I see is the clients need for things to be ever faster than the last time. Faster rendering times, faster computers, faster modelers, etc. I understand the business aspect and these things happen, but I still see it as the major factor in our decline. Soon enough, our building process will become almost completely automated.

 

But on the other hand, I think there is a solution. Instead of constantly trying to make things "faster," why don't we try and make them better. Because as we all know, faster usually doesn't mean better. What I mean by making things better is coming up with better ways of visualization, which I know companies are surerntly working on. How long have we been using a mouse, keyboard, and monitor? How long have we looking at three dimensional spaces on a two dimensional screen?

 

With the decline of the two dimensional world will come a three dimensional world. It will be up to us to adapt.

 

(Phew! I'm done now)

[kicks]

[Devin Johnston]

I agree with the idea that sometime in the next 5 to 10 years we will move from 2d images into a virtual system of building visualization. The technology already exists to immerse your self in a 3D world, and the hardware that connects you to that world is being refined as we speak. When you consider the fact that by the year 2050 a desk top computer will have more processing power that all of the human minds on earth, it's really just a mater of time until we can create in the computer any environment we want in real time, anyone seen the Matrix! It's up to us to stay on top of new technological developments, and push the companies you work for into investing and using these new ideas and technologies.

[luckytohaveher]

I agree with the idea that sometime in the next 5 to 10 years we will move from 2d images into a virtual system of building visualization.

 

It is happening NOW, at least in the high-end and highly developed market segments. There is real and substative development happening on a continuing basis with the increasingly easier to use tools. The high-end firms, at a management level, no longer see the 3d realm as science fiction based speculation -- but instead as a real and substative tool for use. It is happening now in the U.S., at least in the very high-end projects, and will continue to trickle down into the various market segments over time. Like a Glacier, the movement is hard to detect at a glance. Next year however we will again be that much farther down the path.