What is the most important skill for architectural visualization?

[Fran]

Thanks Justin. I didn't mean to sound defensive about style. But everyone has their own idea about how things should turn out. Mine is just what turns out. I think architects and designers will operate in different design areas and each will have ideas about how things should turn out - and shop accordingly. That is why EBIII is so successful in his practice and I am in mine.

 

Josephus - I own both VIZ and Max. I use Max with Vray 1.47.03. I do very few exterior renders and no animation. You might want to ask about that in our Vray forum here. One of the strong points people often point out about Vray is speed of animation rendering. And thanks.

[Fran]

It's not about conceptual style vs. photorealism, both require this most basic and most important skill which really boils down to communication and interpretation.

 

I think my realistic style is a product of my technical training. If I was schooled in design and more experienced with conceptual thinking (rather than nuts and bolts of how things go together and whether that wood looks real), my work would probably reflect it.

 

Obviously a high end residential interior is going to warrant a different approach than a commercial skyscraper or a city master plan. If someone were to ask me to render a conceptual sketch of a residential interior, I certainly could do it and would enjoy it very much. I've just never been asked.

[josephus]

I didn't mean to sound defensive about style. But everyone has their own idea about how things should turn out. Mine is just what turns out.

 

I've been in the creative side of the arch profession for quite a while now, and whether I design a home for a client or paint a watercolor portrait, from time to time I still feel like I'm coming up short when someone else isn't lifted three feet off the ground by my work. I have to remind myself that the work was done for that client, and I'm thrilled when even after living in the home I designed ten or fifteen years later that the clients are still as excited as when it was first completed.

 

I like what you said "Mine is just what turns out", and each of us has a unique "turns out" that appeals to some and maybe not others.

[Devin Johnston]

Photorealism is about #525 on the list of priorities as well. In fact, I've not once heard an associate say 'Let's use these guys because, damn!, they make their stuff look just like a photo'. The fascination with photorealism ended about 5 years ago for most of the major architecture firms.

 

I'm pretty sure you’re totally wrong about this, if you were right then render engines like Maxwell, Vray and Final Render would be dead. If anything the fascination of photorealistic imagery continues to grow more and more each year. I've yet to see a client disappointed when I present him with a photorealistic image of his project, and I've seen more than once a client ask for a more realistic representation of his project. I'm not saying that personal style plays no part in creating imagery and that stylized imagery doesn’t have its place but to say that photorealism is #525 on the list makes me question what those other 524 more important items are. Obviously the whole point of doing this work is to express the design intent, but most savvy clients I've worked with know what they want and how they want it to look and photorealism is always on the table as a very important and necessary tool.

[Justin Hunt]

What I have found interesting in the Realism v Conceptural debate over the years is the shift back and forth between the two.

 

A few years ago the architects I was working for at the time made a dramatic switch from real to conceptural. They couldn't justify the time it took to get good renders and were convinced (in thier own minds) that conceptural was quicker.

 

When I started I made a huge push towards the realsm specturm and was very successful is doing so. A few years later the director of design desided that conceptural was the way to go. Overnight things changed, in my opinion for the worse.

What was happening was a "Chalk" model was being made and developed with the design, all well and good. As the design devolped the model would get chopped and changed, sliced and diced, eventually becoming a mess. Here comes the problem. At the end of the process the designer would then promise the client photorealistic, marketing images (at no extra cost), in the belief that its all just a click of the button. He couldn't / wouldn't understand why we had to start from scratch . In the end the 3d visualising took up more of the budget than it ever did before and took twice as long.

 

This isnt a unique situation, I have encounted it too many times. Only now I am better prepared for it. Although every now and then I get the silly comment of " it looks too good to be conceptural.":rolleyes:

 

JHV

[vizwhiz]

Alison

 

has anyone mentioned drinking beer (or etc)

schmoozing with the boss (over a long weekend)

 

not actually admirable 3d Traits

but hey real people hire real people

 

i dont drink, dont schmooze

 

just joking

 

**

 

Technical skills help

but so does Listening

 

and giving The client what They want

probably can go a long way Too

 

i hope some of The above Threads

has been helpful, obviously different people

 

have different opinions

 

**

 

be True To your own self

and just go for it

 

randy

[FlytE]

Truthfully Im not sure what my style is. I find it difficult to analyse my own work from the point of view of finding a discernable style.

 

I love looking at photorealistic work and am always working to try and get my own renders closer to it, but I also find artistic more illustrative work also very interesting and rewarding. I do find that with my current office workload/dynamic that it is a luxury to be able to sit down and do a photorealistic interior.... even photoreal exteriors are not that frequent. But then saying that, I tend to be quite heavily involved in using 3D modelling as a design tool.

 

It is for this reason that i would tend to back up the recommendation to have a degree in architecture. Being able to bring something to the actual design of a building, as well as helping to market it or secure its planning permission is something i find very rewarding, but then thats probably largely down to an architectural background and is maybe not necessarily everyones cup of tea.

 

My advice is to be honest with yourself about what you like and what you want to do, and persue it vigorously. If you want to get into archviz, then build a portfolio using industry standard software - again my recommendation is max. With a decent portfolio and a bit of drive you will find yourself on the road to a career in archviz.

[Justin Hunt]

My experience with the design development process in 3D yes it is a fantastic tool, sometimes too good and far too often this becomes a problem.

 

The dangers a 3Dvisualiser faces in the DD stages is that it becomes expected that the 3D guy can do everything from the design to resolving the design, create images, elevations, plans and the final submission document.

 

I am sure many of you have been caught up in this situation. There is a three week deadline to get a DA submission in . A team of a designer, caddies and 3D visualiser is put together. The designer - designs, the caddies , 1 for the plans, 1 for elevations and 1 for sections and the 3D guy to build the model to aid in the design process and produce renders. All well and good.

 

Two weeks into the project, the designer is pulled off to work on other projects, yet still hasn't done a design for this one. The Caddies are produciing what the should, slowly and 3D is sitting twiddling his thumbs waiting for information.

 

Two days before the deadline. All hell breaks loose, crisis meeting is called and it is decided that not to worry as the plans and elevations can be pulled of the 3d model, renders can still be made. But first the design must be resolved so 3D guy can you do something? Instantly the team of 5 is down to 1, still no design and oh yes we need a 2 minute animation as well, but the client needs to see it all in the morning so he can make comments and final changes before submission in the afternoon.

 

So having a thick skin and a good sence of humor and irony is problably the top of many peoples lists.

 

JHV

[Sheldon]

Hi Anybody out there?

have a couple of questions related to this topic..

1) What softwares does a 3D architectural visualizer need to possess?

 

I am a student who has learnt 3ds Max and Maya..Read alot about Revit being used in a lot of firms in India. Need to do something in modelling texturing lighting.. as in related to career in the above field..

[ivanjay]

I am an Executive Vice President with a design firm and I can give you some insight..... Again, this is just my firm and my believes. A lot of people feel differently.

 

A good 3d artist is VERY hard to find. Reason being is many like to freelance. It is more difficult because being a 3d artist is a very broad term. For example, we are a foodservice design firm. Someone that understands architecture does not understand the importance of what we do. Great, the space will look wonderful. But a restaurant comes to life with food, people, and small items (table settings, salt shakers, flames by equipment, etc.) So unless you specialize you would not think of that....

 

This is where the CAD background comes into play (I know a stretch it would seem). It gives you versatility. As a person responsible for hiring I never just want a 3d artist. Because I do not have renderings every day of the week. So yes, I need you to be able to jump into CAD and pump out some production work. Not necessarily at the same level as the others, but nonetheless it makes you useful in many ways. In employment, versatility + skill = salary. The more skill OR versatility, the more compensation because you are worth more to me as an employer. You can fill two shoes...

 

I am only 28 so this is not coming from an old generation way of thought. Technical, manual drafting skills are essential. I see CAD people apply for job after job and all they know how to do is draw lines in CAD (I am proficient in CAD and 3ds max so there is basis to my comments). They do not UNDERSTAND what they are doing. CAD has taken the art out of drafting and made it a technical task based skill. A true draftsman who is proficient in CAD still has a drafting table and still uses tracing paper to sketch their ideas. Once the concept is born, CAD is the tool to make it finite and technical.

 

Why is this important to a graphic artist? You are going to receive CAD documents from architects for visualization. Their will be gaps, holes, incompleteness, and technical errors. If you have a solid foundation you will be able to fill these voids on your own and develop the visualization. The results....

 

Faster visualizations that are more thorough and accurate.

 

Personally, I think the ultimate skillet for a visualization artist is (not necessarily in this order):

 

1. Drafting capabilities

2. Architectural understanding

3. Visualization Drafting/Drawing/Modeling/Texturing Skills

4. Graphical editing skills (photoshop, etc.)

5. Interior design skills

 

That bunching will really give you the best start in my eyes.

 

I have one cg artist on my hands... Just hired another that is multitalented. He is blowing my cg artist out of the water.

[CoolieJC]

After poking around the forums, I think resurrecting this thread is better than starting another, so...

 

I'm fresh from undergrad (sorta... May 2010) with my B.A. in Architecture. I'll save the sob-story background and just say that after 100+ rejections I have to try something new. I'd really like to be a freelance arch viz-er. Here is my question:

 

What is your favorite workflow? Is it best to use different programs for different parts of the process? Does limiting the pieces of software you use save you time and headaches?

 

It seems the most popular method is to take dwg data and use Max to build, texture, and then render it with either V-Ray or MR. Problem is, I have only modeled in Maya and have done very very little texturing.

 

I'm also quite good in Rhino, but taking my data from Rhino to 3ds Max hasn't worked well for me. I can get the geometry but it's lacking any sort of surface to texture. I can't seem to convert files in a clean and time efficient manner.

 

I would prefer to model in something I'm familiar with besides Max (probably Rhino) since it feels so damn awkward and counter-intuitive, but it seems like Max is second to none when it comes to texturing, setting up the rendering, and creating something that's generally more clean and organized.

 

Not to mention, when you model in Max you can set up your real-world units to match your bitmaps and have your surfaces setup with grids and such. I have no idea how you would even get your NURBS model to cleanly convert to polygons and then get that kind of control for your UVW Maps (without buying that 500 dollar conversion plug-in on Rhino's website).

 

I think it's going to be a whole lot of me sitting in front of 3ds Max pounding out tuts until I fall in love with it.

 

Thoughts?

[Andy Hickes]

"And all I want to do is take some blueprints and make pretty pictures. " That is exactly all I ever wanted to do. If you want to do it bad enough you will succeed. Wanting to "make pretty pictures" is a nobel and very worthwhile life goal.

[Andy Hickes]

I like your photoshop restoration skills.

My work is uses mostly photoshop on architectural images. I have someone else do the 3d images for me to work on.

[cgfx]

"And all I want to do is take some blueprints and make pretty pictures. " That is exactly all I ever wanted to do. If you want to do it bad enough you will succeed. Wanting to "make pretty pictures" is a nobel and very worthwhile life goal.

 

same here

 

but now, i'm kinda stuck in a bad place

 

on one hand, i am doing exactly what i like, but i'm getting crappy pay which hardly covers my expenses, not to mention future investments

 

on the other hand, i'm getting offer in other places - but they request more of a 'generalist' kind of guy, from conceptual to drafting to overseeing project execution; things which would drawn me away from 'making nice pictures'

 

does any of you guys ever found yourself in such position? what did you do/what would you suggest i do?

[Iain Denby]

Photorealism is not the be all, end all of architectural visualization.

 

It's an obsession that has consumed a whole great big bunch of renderers, and is a real shame. There are dozens upon dozens upon dozens of folks that can make their scenes photorealistic, but about 1% of those folks actually come up with interesting, creative, and innovative ways of presenting their work. Given enough time and practice, anyone can pretty much master the photorealism that so many people hold to such a high standard.

 

By all means, learn the techniques so that you too can produce life-like scenes. But take care to also put just as much effort on coming with cool and creative ways to set yourself apart. Developing a personal style is about 1000% more important to me than making sure my vRay living room looks just like the one in that nifty tutorial - and thus, just like everyone else's living room.

 

Hurrah!

[cmrodrigo]

of course background but the most important is DETAILS, ARCHITECTURAL ISMS ( IMPRESSIONISM) in every design you make it must be in your hearth and mind to create a distinctive design output we can say it has a drama to have or make the scene more realistic and the veiwer can feel each every detailed and what you want to express.

[davidtenna]

I want to know does construction technology training today covers the field of constructing the green building,Which is quite popular on the international level.

[Helen Ni]

I think all are very important. Drafting, hand drawing skills and computer graphics are different stage, while computer graphics is the highest stage. My boss learned architecture in college. In college, he was always drafting and hand drawing, seldom computer graphics. When he graduated, he founded Frontop whose business is mainly CG, like architectural renderings, achitectural animations, digital sand table, virtual reality, etc. Now Frontop is successful. From his experience, I think drafting and hand drawing skills are basic. But in final, you need to master computer graphics.

[hockley91]

Eveyone is different so it's going to be a different answer I think for each person.

 

I think imagination is very very very important. If you can draft that's great. If you can hand draw that's great. If you can use computers that's great. If you can do renderings, that's great. If you have no imagination then all of those skill set's will not mean so much. If you have a great imagination and can picture in your head what you are trying to achieve and then it becomes a reality (well...virtual reality)....then you have what you need in this field.

[Bruce Hart]

Apart from the technical and artistic skills mentioned - good interpersonal skills are also needed. In working with architects, it's a given that they are going to change things a lot and late in the day. Design can be a very iterative process. So a good bed-side manner and patience is a must - especially if you work in-house at an Architectural firm.

 

Clairvoyance comes in handy too