Derek Forreal

hope i'm not too late for this... if you want stylish, compelling and realistic renders then please have a look at some of my work: http://www.sandros.portfoliobox.me/ https://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/147326/walnut-kitchen?mode=Post&postID=1172514 https://community.foundry.com/discuss/topic/149036/morning-moods-added-sunny-morning?mode=Post&postID=1180989 i have experience with building, designing and visuals, which I think gives my images an edge. I'm based in Surrey (UK) too. thanks for looking.

precisely. ArchViz, much like Architecture itself can be so many things and the house in the forest is just one expression, and a beautiful one at that when well executed. who can forget their first time pouring over the work of Alex Roman, drinking in every detail and wondering how on earth he managed to do something like that? Forest Refuge is one of the earliest 'house in the forest' renders that i ever saw, and even beyond the already incredible static renders the project was then poetically brought to life in a series of unforgettable scenes in the epic 'Third and the seventh'. more than 10 years on nobody has even come close to releasing anything like that. is it just a collection of clichés, or a watershed moment in ArchVis? fair enough but most comments in this thread have a ridiculing undertone to them. absolutely. they really pushed both artistic and technical limits - lighting, materials, composition, post processing, model creation, poly counts, hardware requirements, mapping resolution, software (from CAD to SU to Max et al, ZBrush, Marvelous Designer and countless other apps and plugins). how many variations of Farnsworth House have been posted over the years? or Church of Light? some were naff but many pushed the art of ArchVis forwards and sparked lengthy useful and interesting discussions on forums like these. i think clients and customers are the last people i'd ask. most developer marketing images are plain awful but of course there are exceptions and certainly some of the images that John Dollus linked to are fantastic. i haven't got stuck in to a personal project for a number of years now but i have a couple of scenes i'd like to finish and both of them, while not strictly house in forest, do feature extensive vegetation. of course some of it is about escapism and picturing somewhere that i'd love to spend some quality time in but it's also as Scott Schroeder says above an exercise in pushing one's knowledge and learning new things.

so just because they don't reflect the work some of you get asked to do that means you should ridicule the renders that, let's face it, have made ArchVis what it is today? you yourself say that they are lovely, so why all the hate? to those of you having fun ridiculing, please go ahead and educate the unwashed masses and show us what a stand out, masterful piece of arch vis work should look like. fact is, whatever renders you look at - commercial, non commercial, residential, hobbyist, professional, whatever - great renders are few and far between and few of them get the juices flowing. so called professional commercial renders are hardly head turners; terrible 2d people integrations, flat lighting, poor quality materials, dull composition; these to me are far worse crimes than adding a few birds to your final render (not that i've ever done that myself). and finally we come to the story - the biggest cliché of them all that i've heard so much about but never actually seen in the flesh. so please, anyone, show me a render that tells a compelling story.

haven't heard from my client in a while so not sure but will ask him how things are going when i see him again and will post an update.

i think this is what it boils down to. like you say, he will have to read carefully the contract he signed to see exactly what was agreed. the bill that i saw though leaves no doubt as to what the £10k is for. it specifically says time spent on rendering by a 3D technician, with some 'supervision'. the design element is billed separately. it's down to him now. i had already given him my opinion and now you guys have confirmed so hopefully he will be able to get something back.

maybe i haven't explained the situation well enough - i'll try again. i'm currently doing some design work for 'Simon'. this work has nothing to do with the images i posted here and i was given this assignment well before the images in question were created. Simon has a high end building project going on, and needs several 'bathrooms' installed so has approached 'Well known bathroom design and fit Ltd' to specify and install the bathrooms. the company is well known and has a portfolio of high quality work so Simon pays a deposit of £50k to get things moving. after a few weeks 'Well known bathroom design and fit Ltd' contacts Simon and says: this company is not a visualisation company but a high spec and well regarded 'bathroom' company. a horrified Simon contacted me to ask my opinion on the renders and is trying to build a case to get his deposit back from 'Well known bathroom design and fit Ltd' as clearly they are ripping Simon off. Simon is not asking me for any discounts, nor will he ask me to do the same job for a fraction of the cost. apologies for the convoluted story but i hope that makes things a bit clearer.

i don't follow. i've been as candid as i can to this point. obviously i can't disclose the names of the companies involved (not yet at least) but essentially, one party thought they were being ripped off so asked me for my opinion on the images. he is trying to get the deposit back and wanted to be sure of his facts before proceeding. i told him the renders were terrible but given the status of the supplying company in this field he wanted to make sure i wasn't mistaken and i suggested posting on here, adding that i would be stunned if anyone suggested they were worth anything. what am i supposed to be hiding?

thanks for taking the time to reply - your thoughts echo what i said to my client. this is a genuine and serious post by the way and for the record, this is not a potential client comparing my work to these images and asking for a better price. i don't work like that and i'm lucky enough to pick and choose the projects i take on. i already do design/vis work for this client but these 'renders' are part of a package to include the design and supply of some high ticket items. the supplier of the items is world renowned, which is why my client wanted a 2nd opinion on the quality of the renders. he paid a large deposit to start the process of drawing up the technical details and producing the renders of these bespoke items and this is what he received. they have claimed billable time of 80 hours and a total cost approaching £10k including VAT - just for the renders - and this figure is to be taken out of the deposit. as legal action may well ensue i wanted to be sure i hadn't somehow missed something - anything at all - of value in these images.

a client of mine has sent me these renders and has asked me for my opinion on how long it would take to produce these and how much he should pay for them. i have told him what i think but he would like a second (or multiple) opinions to confirm what i have suggested. if you have a moment to look at these and let me know what you think that would be great. i'll post the claimed billable hours to produce these and total cost once i've had some input. thanks in advance. to be clear, this is the exact output delivered, at this resolution.

what are you using to convert to 3d? i use Photoscan to do basic scans of small sites and/or buildings and have been very happy with the results. if you're doing small objects the results should be even better. building scan tutorial: http://www.agisoft.com/index.php?id=33 small object tutorial: http://www.agisoft.com/index.php?id=32 there are also guides on how to take the most effective pictures: http://www.agisoft.com/support/tips-tricks/ finally, there are depth sensing cameras which are starting to become affordable. one was recently discussed here: http://forums.cgarchitect.com/80679-zed.html

i've been using standard camera shots and Photoscan to create 3d models of existing spaces onto which i have then added new elements. this has been surprisingly accurate and saves a lot of time getting things the right size and the right angles, especially with irregular shaped plots. it's time consuming though to process all the shots, and then level and scale the imported model and so on. this definitely looks like a big step up in terms of ease of use and seems even more accurate. even at that price it seems like a no brainer as a single professional 2D residential survey costs more, and then you have to build a rough model using that data, and it will never be even remotely as complete or as accurate as a scan.

have to say, that's exactly how it's coming across. and to that i would say that unless you have to use Max (those you work with insist), or you know there are specific tool(s) or features that you are missing, then what's the point of spending all that time learning different tools which essentially do the same things? there's an article just out on Ronen Bekerman where a user has created some fantastic images using SU and Vray for SU: http://el2.convertkit.com/c/gku94q65ps5he4eg/3ydpyg/aHR0cDovL3d3dy5yb25lbmJla2VybWFuLmNvbS9tYWtpbmctc2FybWllbnRvLW11c2V1bS8= you also have Thea right? Thea can output extremely realistic images if that's what your aim is. IMHO it's about understanding light, materials and composition way above using a given software. this forum is heavily Max/Vray biased, as is the industry, but they really are just tools. what's wrong with using ArchiCAD? does anyone honestly believe that you would become a better architect if you used Revit or Autocad instead of Archicad? or Rhino instead of FormZ, or Max instead of SU or MODO or Blender? maxed out in what way? is the modelling lacking? do you struggle with high poly counts? are your scenes or models becoming "too complex" for SU? do you want your renders to look different? i must admit i'm not a SU user so not sure what the limits are but i know the default set of tools is pretty limited. but from what i've seen there are plugins available that let you do pretty much anything.

what are you hoping to achieve moving to Max? you're asking the questions so you must be finding that the SU workflow is missing something?

i remember seeing you on the MODO forums when i first got into MODO - when it was 'modo'. i can totally appreciate that clients will give you files that you need to be able to open and use, but how many files can you just open, texture, light and render? i'm fortunate enough to be the end user of most of my own work. these days i have very little time for personal projects and most of my Vis is for real projects that i am building to sell on or for client builds. but some is pure Vis and in those cases all i really need is a PDF with dimensions. in some cases, a barebones model (floors, walls, roofs and openings) can be useful if there are some tricky angles or curves involved, and here, trusty file formats such as .3ds or .obj are more than adequate. let's face it, many of the best renders we've all seen are modelled off nothing more than a lo res jpg downloaded off the net. PDFs are more than adequate and honestly, if i'm given a DWG all i do is convert to PDF or image file and use that as it's much less hassle in most cases. furniture and entourage from the likes of Revit et al simply aren't good enough for final quality renders and are placeholders at best. in this regard model providers are gradually catering to a wider range of applications. i understand that but there are lots of freelancers and small studios too, any number of which might just be starting out and these users aren't locked in in the same way, but they are constantly encouraged to do so whenever the question is asked on here. and even in these large studios, of course i'm not suggesting they suddenly stop using Max and switch to some other software overnight. and i'm certainly not suggesting that they should switch to MODO, because it's not exactly feature complete either - no software is. but alternative software and processes could be introduced gradually, starting with one or two new recruits for example and seeing if there is any long term benefit. we need choice and we need improvement in the tools we use and this goes back to the OP - "what would you want in a new 3D creation application?". theoretically i'd like 2 key things - a fully featured snapping/inferencing/guideline engine, and a focussed comprehensive Architectural modeller, with powerful efficient tools that make tedious tasks such as modelling and texturing roof tiles, windows, stairs, cabinets, tiles, flooring and so on easier. it should handle very high poly counts with ease and communicate seamlessly with my main 3D software of choice. i think a plugin would be more than adequate for this and i'd be over the moon if it became available for MODO and i'd be willing to learn Blender if it was released for it. i think it's unrealistic to think that an all singing, all dancing, standalone modelling/texturing/lighting/rendering/BIM solution can be developed before it's time for me to retire.

you say you're fed up with old solutions and old ideas, so MODO would be a perfect springboard. regarding LWCAD, to say it's a plugin really is an understatement. it's pretty much a modelling solution in itself and has a vast array of tools, many of which are ArchVis specific. i've been hoping for a MODO version ever since i became a MODO user. http://www.wtools3d.com/product.php too many tools to mention but amongst others, full set of advanced CAD snapping and inferencing tools, realtime booleans, roof tools, roof tile tools, comprehensive window and door tool, and so on. LWCAD is a set of tools, not was. it has been going for years and the developer keeps releasing great updates. that Polyline Pro tool is useful i'm sure, but it's a single tool and can't even begin to be compared to LWCAD's suite of advance tools. i find it amusing that the vast majority of renders i see could easily be achieved using SketchUp alone and pretty much any render engine. yet if any new users come here asking for advice it's always the same response - get Max and Vray (though Corona is starting to gain some momentum). 3DS Max is essentially a hub for other tools and processes, and most of Max itself - modelling tools aside - is unnecessary for general Arch/ProductVis. so what makes Autodesk so critical to the AEC industry? ArchiCAD is a fine, if not superior, replacement for Revit, there are countless AutoCAD clones if you need 2D, and modelling the average house these days can be accomplished in any number of modellers - MODO, SketchUp, FormZ, Rhino, Blender etc etc. render engines are 2 a penny - which engine does Autodesk build again? in any case, for every great Max/Vray render there are 100 mediocre ones and just as many rubbish ones, so as always it's the artist using the tool rather than the tool itself that's important. of course Max has a vast collection of resources available, but how are things ever going to change if the cliche' response is to stick with Max because it's the industry standard? at the end of the day, i'm really not that bothered because i can do everything i need without having to touch anything Autodesk, and there are plenty of other users that would like the same. so, Mr Johnson, if you're serious about doing away with the old and embracing the new, give the MODO forums a try and ask there. i may be completely wrong of course but i think there are lots of users waiting for a quality CAD/ArchVis/Hard Surface set of tools. requests for LWCAD style plugins consistently appear on the forums and there is always interest.