UK visualisation

[luft]

Has anyone else noticed a slight slow down in the business at the moment?

[FlytE]

I think the slow-down is general and across the board. Im doubtful it will improve much either as so more visualisation is done in house.

[IC]

Do you mean since Christmas or before that?

 

The construction industry in general slows down between December and February when sales slow down.

[IUI Design]

Within the Archietctural Visualisation fields there 'may' be a slow-down, but remember this topic was posted yesterday and at the same time 2 adverts appeared on the job board here looking for visualisers in the UK.

 

From a personal standing, I work primarily as an Architectural Technician and do some job running occasionally (when the boss lets me out!). Since coming back to work after Xmas, I got my first phone call from an agent at exactly 9.01am on my first day back about possible positions available in my locality!

 

Since then, I get on average about 2 calls EVERY DAY!. Okay, although these positions may be for Architectural Staff (ie.Technicians/Architects), there may also be places for 3D Visualisers. Although I am looking for work as an Senior Architectural Technician, I have been approached recently by a practice wanting to utilise my 3D skills, even though I'm a better Technician than a Visualiser.

 

I think I made a good move a couple of years ago when I side-stepped into Architecture, as up until then I had graduated as an Interior Designer and worked as an Interior Designer/Space Planner, but I realised VERY quickly that jobs for Interior Designers were few & far between and that the money would only be 'adequate' at best.

 

My advice is, if you can do a day-release/evening course in Architectural Technology (onc/hnc etc.) then this will vastly improved your 'employability' ratio. as good Architecural Technicans are much sought after through out the UK and you could always do 3D Visuals for the company you work for or freelance your services out.

 

Good-Luck to all!

 

Ifty

[FlytE]

Also I think theres a massive difference in different 'areas' of the UK. Here in scotland there seems to be precious little going at the minute. Thats not to say that there isnt anything going, or that with a little bit of time you wont get something.... but there definitely seems to be alot more opportunity in england just now.

[IUI Design]

Hey Andy,

 

I was born, lived, studied, and have worked in Glasgow .

 

Let me tell you a little story about 'Glasgay'............

 

After graduating in Interior Design at 'Caly' I looked for jobs all over Glasgow as a CAD Technician, even to the point where I said I would be willing to work for FREE!! After a year of sending out close to 300 CVs and only obtaining 1-2 interviews, in the end all I got offered was a position as an Interior Designer at B&Q in Paisley!! , so you can imagine how I felt, IE. REALLY PISSED OFF!!

 

So I packed my bags and left to visit my uncle+aunt in Manchester where I secured a job as an Interior Designer for two years. After 2 years of 'home sickness' I left and went back to sunny 'Glasgay' >> What a BIG MISTAKE!! Nothing had changed, I wanted £15k but the partner of the architectural practice would only offer me £14k!!! Boy...things have got better since then!

 

I can now command a salary in the region of £30-35k as a Senior Architectural Technican and I have had offers also to come back to sunny 'Glasgay' for similar sums of money! ...............I donny think so!!!

 

I hope to save some money here in Manchester and then move back up tay Glasgay to do postgarduate studies at Strathclyde University on the MSc in Architectural Computing, so you see....I do still love Glasgay!, It's cleaner, safer than Manchester and the overall quality of life is better, but when it come to professional life, it still has a lot of catching up to do!

 

Regards,

 

Ifty:cool:

[Jones]

In the long run, in-house ought to kill off archvis. Software and computers are increasingly cheap items, and most decent architectural schools teach their students how to use at least one 3D cad program, as well as all the standards (photoshop, vectorworks, so on and so forth). Drawing boards are pretty much obsolete these days. If you look at the AA website (http://www.aaschool.ac.uk/), to name a good one, there's some pretty good stuff on there. Though they perhaps don't learn the software quite as thoroughly, they are trained designers, and a more versatile employee. Their wages (especially when you're first trying to find work as an architect) are lower too. I'd be interested to know how many people in the archvis business trained in architecture, and if that number is increasing. Of course, I may be a bit biased on this issue as an architecture student, but in my mind, it's a 'when' not an 'if'.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

In the long run, in-house ought to kill off archvis. Software and computers are increasingly cheap items, and most decent architectural schools teach their students how to use at least one 3D cad program, as well as all the standards (photoshop, vectorworks, so on and so forth).

 

I am a little confused by this statement. Are you saying that all Arch Viz should be handled by the architecture team, and that arch viz in itself is overated? ..or are you saying that Arch firms should only outsource their images to freelancers or Viz firms?

 

Arch Viz is not really needed to the extent we do it within the discipline itself. Arch Viz is a communication tool that is used for design communication. Whether it be with the client, the public, or to raise money from private investors. If the design team can not realize what they are designing without the use of high quality images, then there is really a problem within the design team.

 

I am still very much an advocate of designing with physical model, and sketches. I don't think the design tools for the computer can fully acheive the concepts that you can by sitting down and working with your hands. I think you are still to limited with the tools the computer has to offer. To often the design will reflect what you have easily available to you on the computer.

 

The tools are getting more fluid with the introduction of products like Sketch-It, but it is not like having a pen and pad of paper in front of you. You can't tear through 20 concepts in 5 minutes, with each concept being saved for you to flip back through in milliseconds. think of working on a sheet of paper, and how fast you can sketch different things, and at the same time reference individually all of the things you have sketched so far.

 

The mind works a lot faster than you can actually input information into the computer.

 

Anyway, I am off on a tagent, but bottom line, Arch Viz, and the design process are seperate entities, that in my opinion, stall each other if you try to do them at the same time.

 

 

I'd be interested to know how many people in the archvis business trained in architecture, and if that number is increasing.

 

The Arch Viz industry need not fear everyone in Architecture being trained in 3d. In my opinion, it only helps, because you have an appreciation for what it takes to develop finely tuned images..

 

The Arch Viz industry needs to fear more the movie industry guys that might be moving into the field. They are trained in how to convey a message in an image. How to convey emotion in an image. How to work with light in cetain ways. How to make the viewer feel like they are imerssed into an enviroment.

 

These are all things that people trained in architecture don't often deel with well. To often in Arch Viz, it is about reproducing the 2d drawings into a 3d image. Anyone can pick up a camera and snap a picture, but it takes special talent and knowledge to be a proffesional photographer.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

to continue with my now off topic rant... over the years i have learned that all the way up to the later stages of the design, eveything should be shown in a little sketchier or non photoreal manner. the amount of time it takes to produce a final image during schematic design is rediculous when you look at the problems it causes.

 

if you show a client a final images during schematic design they tend to either become locked into that image, and only want to talk about paint colors or types of wood... or why is the ceiling so bright, when in reality they should be talking about the concept of the design, or the functionality of the layout based on how they are going to use the space.

 

the other thing that happens by showing a client a supposedly photo real rendering during the schematic phase is that the tend to think the building has been designed, and they are reluctant to say what they are actually thinking. they often don't speak up about things they don't like about the project until a lot later. since they are not trained in the field, they are inimidated by the size and scale of the project. it's permenence. often it won't be until later stages of the design development or construction drawing phase that they will garner the confidence to address these issues.

 

i have seen it happen several times since i entered this field.

 

in my opinion the Arch Viz process should develop in the same way that the actual design develops. at early stages, the visualizations should only be suggestive of what it could be. what it might be. they should not show spec'd elements, or clear representation of final materials. Arch Viz needs to slowly build the asperations of clients, until you show them the final image fo what their project is going to be.

 

don't forget. often the client to the architectural firm has no real knowledge of architecture outside of what they think they know. the design development is also about teaching the client the design process, and how you design a building. he learns from the entire process, and comes to appreciate the work that goes into it.

 

when you show them the final image of what you are about to build, it will be worth more, than if you showed them 50 photoreal images from the begining.

 

schematic drawings typically don't show anything defined. they only convey ideas of design, and ideas of layout. not details of the articulation and finishes of the building.

 

anyway, i don't know how this relates back the initial question of the thread. it doesn't. it was just my rant about the way things often work in Arch Viz, and why it is a vital aspect of communication, but not a vital aspect the design.

[luft]

Mmmm, this is what I'm worried about. Visualisers are no longer required to communicate design proposals, as this is done on the fly during the design process by the architects. We are just left with the marketing visuals (if the budget allows).

[Jones]

I would never advocate a replacement of any parts of the design process by creating visuals. Archvis stuff is just to communicate a finished design to a client or the public. Architecture students can increasingly create images that are as good as those made by an archvis specialist, so why pay the high rates for that when you can get an employee to do it. Better still, an employee who's part of the design team. It's more and more standard to create quite detailed 3D models as part of the design process anyway.

[IC]

My experience, in architecture and visualisation, has been working for developers. I've commissioned 3d work from viz firms and from architects who offer the service as part of the design process.

 

I'd say that 95% of the work I've had done by in house viz guys has been good enough for interim submission work and for explaining designs to the less technically minded staff (generally sales staff).

When it comes to the finished marketing images, however, a higher standard is almost always expected and where does this come from? Viz firms and freelance specialists.

 

There are some in-house guys out there whose work ranks among the best but mostly these positions are filled by people who have 'dabbled a little in Max' and can knock out half decent stuff. Sorry if that offends anyone but its true.

[IUI Design]

 

You said it Ian!...........

 

From my experience, I've yet to come across a 'qualifield' architect who can churn out Photorealistic (finished visuals) to a high standard. Probably because architects spend on average between 7-10 years trying to qualify as Architects (ps. before you all bite me, I've seen very few students become Chartered Architects within the 7 year system - It usually takes an extra 1-3 years).

 

I would never call myself a professional 3D Visualier, but I can model fairly competently in Autocad & 3DS Max, and at the moment I'm learning VRay. So there may come a day when I can be as good as some of the guys here.

 

Ifty

[ist00]

interesting debate... although I contribute little here I do read rather a lot.

 

I am a part2 and been working in 3D/engineering/architectural (wearing many hats or just doing what architects do, truely multi-tasking?) work since 1994, I picked up 3D studio as an additional tool to sell myself to practises, but transpired to be more than that. I was a rare bred then, not so now. I wandered more towards engineering market but still get involved in architectural pieces. I have notice moreso in the last 3-4 years a huge surge in architectural and indeed any sort of viz work, high end engineering houses included. This went in tandem with universities and businesses accepting the valid need for visualisation, I agree as more and more business (general) are measuring their need for this work by outsourcing or taking the decision to take it in house, given the amount of fresh new people coming in with the skill set already there. Business economics I guess is the deeper seated reason, but I see this as the third generation, and yes I have noticed a drop back in visualisaiton work too across the industries not just architectural.

 

I could argue Autodesk play a huge part in this, the way in which they will manage autoCAD versus Viz versus Max and the cross pollination will really decide much of the outcome. In fact it already has... I have to agree with Ian it has pretty much got it and it comes down to quality and competancy. To spice it up try a bit of diversity, keeps me on my toes, or in reality pays the bills!

 

my shillings worth...

[IUI Design]

Hey ist00!

 

You were'nt at Robert Gordon University studying architecture ?

 

I was there between 1994-95 (2nd Year Architecture/Tutor David Mclean).

 

 

Ifty

[Jones]

I suppose that I'm not really talking about the current state of architectural practice, but the future. People start learning maya in the first year of architecture courses these days. go to http://www.projectsreview.com and have a look at some of the stuff there (diploma 4 has some particularly good 3D work). It may not be polished visuals, but it shows a clear level of ability in the field. The hardware and software is getting cheaper than it used to be, and easier to use too. As somebody said, it takes the better part of ten years to qualify as an architect. If you start on a 3D package in your first year, and use it as a pretty major part of your workflow for the whole of that time, you're going to get quite good at it.

[IUI Design]

The only problem with Maya is that if you look at jobs in the UK and even worldwide, the majority of architectural visualisation offices will use a combination of 3DS Max, Photoshop & Vray. Maya/Cinema 4D/Lightwave are in the MINORITY!

 

Well, there will be people who will say it is easy to cross-train!!

Well I've just been for an interview at a 'premier' architectural office and was made an offer of a job, but I declined - My reasons : they use Microstation & Vectorworks along side 3DS Max. Max I'm okay with but I'm not happy to cross-train to microstation or Vectorworks - I can be a bit more choooosy these days!! :)

 

My advice has always been that you should look at the job ads at the back of Building Design/Architects Journal and I guarantee that about 75% of the jobs will request AutoCAD for Architectural staff and 3DS Max for Visualisers. Occasionally you get asked for things like Cinema 4D, Form Z etc. but they are few and far between. This is why I don't understand the logic behind Strathclyde University teaching Form Z on their MSc Architectural Computing course, when instead it would make more sense to teach 3DS Max with AutoCAD or Microstation. Inturn this would make their students 'more employable'.

 

Before all you Microstation fans bite my 'ass', here in Manchester there are only about several offices using this software with the majority of Architectural offices (incl. structural+M.E. offices) using AutoCAD, HURRAY!!

 

 

Regards,

 

Ifty

[4DM]

The variety of software available keeps developers on their toes, and the competition should lead to improved products across the board.

 

If everyone just used AutoCAD and 3DS Max, there would be less pressure for improvement.

 

I'm happy using VW and C4D, to me it really makes very little difference in the end - they all do the task one way or another, and ultimately what I'm after is a 2D image brought into Photoshop.

 

What happens there often sorts the men from the boys as it were.

 

As a freelance it's easier for me, I admit, but who knows, that job you turned away might have been fantastic, software notwithstanding?

 

Might be a good idea to be flexible and learn as many skills/apps as you can, especially if the market is contracting? Just a thought.

 

Cheers,

 

D.