Impression of Autodesk 2009 and the danger of CG Arch industry disappearing

[Jim Mann]

I am not saying the programs are now so smart it can "make art" by itself. I am saying the toolset are now on the architect's pipeline

 

Yep, but in your original post you said...

 

The impression I got after walking out of the event is that it seems specialist CG rendering jobs are now in danger, since many architects can get professional quality rendering at the push of ONE button

 

All we've argued is that we don't think the software is as good as being made out to be by autodesk and that we are not all as doomed as you make out. Personally, I'm not worried about it. I believe that I have the ability to produce better images with a better understanding of lighting, composition etc than an architect... but as I am a registered architect anyway thats by the by.

[Richard McCarthy]

But your talking about a "one button" render engine which we're arguing will never exist because there is so much more to be done than just hitting a button. Placing a camera, applying materials, lighting and animating are all things that require time to do, even if you don't have to tweak GI settings like in Maxwell you still have to spend time setting everything up. My argument is that Architects and designers are already so busy they simply don't have time to mess with all of this.

 

 

Autodesk Revit 2009 is supposely to come with high quality "pro" MR materials. And when you are designing in Revit, you are already assigning various objects its material properties (eg. walls - you assign different layers and its various material properties). And it looks like the MR included with Revit 2009 is very similar to Maxwell, a very simplified interface (sun position, rendering quality - low-med-high) but still let you control number of bounces and other settings. The setup you talking about are part of the worflow that is Revit - you are making a 3D building in the process of documentation.

 

 

And I don't think you should bet on the assumption that architects don't have "time" to do these jobs. If the convergence of two trend - softwares becomes easier and CPU continue to follow the Moores law, it is far more logical to keep the job in house since it is easy to setup, and there is no distance or coordination required outsourcing it, and you get total control and responsiveness from the project without having to add the cost of waiting from external source. And to be honest, I think rendering is one the most gratifying part of the whole design process, you get to see your design come alive, most architect would love to do this part of the job if they are given the toolset required and if it doesn't have significant learning curve. And from the look of it, both of these conditions have been fulfilled.

[jhiler]

Usually CG are done at the end of design cycle, when everything is finishing up and final design sent to CG viz specialist for the final quality renderings.

 

I disagree with this statement just from personal experience. Where I work we've started visualization before design documents were ever started on multiple projects. Not just for show pieces for marketing and sales but as the main design tool. Not every project starts this way, but some of the major ones have. We've used the 3d models to actually create our documents from (using plugins to create the line drawings and start our documents from those). Revit (ArchiCAD) will allow us to go back and forth between documents and renderings and is somewhat better than having separate design models and construction documents.

 

What everyone here is talking about is that a lot of the little details that the CG artist puts into an image (bumps, displacement, lighting, entourage, etc...) How to place items in an image and how much is too much are what makes or breaks images. It is understanding which way wood grains should run on objects or how light should act in a scene that the artists truly understand and just placing lights in Revit while technically accurate may not give the designer the look they want to portray to their client.

 

Designers know the look they want (usually in their head) and if someone is to just to the one-button render and tell a designer 'Well this is what the software said it is going to look like and it's accurate and you're not', they will not last long.

[Sawyer]

I think what will be lost soon is this incredibly complex system that we use now. What we do is incredibly complicated. Probably more complicated than it needs to be. I think coming soon will be simpler render engines with more streamlined ui's and materials and lights so its easier for the next gen of illustrators to work.

 

 

Now I think what we need to do is stay relevant. If our argument is that we create art that a machine can't do we may need to let clients know that we are here first and that we create art.

 

Are we needed? Yes.

Do they know this? Maybe.

 

If all cameras were equal we would all be creating the greatest photos with our cell phones. But we don't, we need good photographers to take the good pictures. But photography has been around for +100 years. People know what a good photo looks like. The fear is that architects will become used to seeing crappy renderings and to think thats ok. When someone produces an out of the box revit rendering everyone should should cringe. Right now they aren't - people are paying attention to the crappy work. Hopefully just because they don't know better.

 

 

 

Now this is where ASAI should come in and always be making sure that architects know that an illustration is a work of art not a product of a software program.

[Devin Johnston]

And I don't think you should bet on the assumption that architects don't have "time" to do these jobs. If the convergence of two trend - softwares becomes easier and CPU continue to follow the Moores law, it is far more logical to keep the job in house since it is easy to setup, and there is no distance or coordination required outsourcing it, and you get total control and responsiveness from the project without having to add the cost of waiting from external source.

 

I run the in-house team at my firm, we have over 50 licensed architects and just as many designers, each one uses ArchiCAD on a daily basis. The only renderings they ever produce are low quality and I mean low like something you'd see from scanline five years ago. They have the tools to create some very nice imagery but they don't because they are all working full time on projects. In my opinion if they have time to do renderings then they don't have enough work to do because they are architects not illustrators and it's not really apart of their job.

 

Most of the imagery we produce comes before DD, SD or CD’s; it's all about trying to entice the client, selling your ideas or outshining your competition in the interview.

[upshot]

All I have to say is (after growing up as a 'digital architect' starting with onion skin sketching over wire frames up to 'photo realistic' hdri lit scenes today) Revit has a huge learning curve... I spent three solid weeks testing the software and all the 'it's soooo easy' hype is hot air. Try it out... It will get you excited like an buying an exotic car at first but soon you'll realize that the time your spending conforming to it's rigid work flow and paying the overhead is money leaking out of your pocket. Yes there are and will always be 'revit experts' but it's far from a panacea for those who are not willing to sign their lives away to the autodesk overlord.

[Vince Paske]

Richard, it seems like every year you start or post in a similar thread about the "end of our profession!" due to some new software development.

 

The same arguments are thrown around...and the rest of us keep plugging along like we always have.

[Hidden_Pixel]

I don't know about others. But I have always found that people comfortable with their skill set and what they have to offer never worry about silly things like the demise of our industry. They are confident enough to know that what ever happens they will always have a job.

[Vince Paske]

I don't know about others. But I have always found that people comfortable with their skill set and what they have to offer never worry about silly things like the demise of our industry. They are confident enough to know that what ever happens they will always have a job.

 

Exactly.

Here's a thread from 4 whole years ago, and I like to think our industry is stronger than ever.

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/6184-future-architectural-visualization-4.html?=#post49483

[Devin Johnston]

I don't know about others. But I have always found that people comfortable with their skill set and what they have to offer never worry about silly things like the demise of our industry. They are confident enough to know that what ever happens they will always have a job.

 

Quoted for agreement.

[Tamir]

The funny thing is... nobody notice the fact that the Arc-Viz industry is a response to a PAIN!

 

Yes, in a busy architectural office, one doesn't always have the time to tweak, and re tweak an image until satisfactory results have been achieved.

 

Hence the sprouting of the cottage industry known as: Arc-Viz

 

In other words... as long as the Arc-Viz industry exists it will be "the target" of software manufacturers; who're saying; give me! the money you would pay your Arc-Viz guy... and i'll fix you up with the tools to eliminate him out of the equitation for next time.

 

Furthermore, despite the views of some of you; ARCHITECTS ARE ARTISTS!

where's some, so called, Arc-Viz artists are actually technicians; who have mastered the "setup" of a particular engine; the so called one button render, is in fact an imitation of the setup that that very technician will do!

And so, it comes as no surprise that the Arc-Viz industry is being re defined.

 

In my opinion, the future of this industry, lies in the cinematic - as opposed to static - experience it will be able to provide. On that level, the expertise, knowledge and tools needed, will be beyond the scope of most architectural offices.

[Devin Johnston]

In my opinion, the future of this industry, lies in the cinematic - as opposed to static - experience it will be able to provide. On that level, the expertise, knowledge and tools needed, will be beyond the scope of most architectural offices.

I agree that we are headed toward a more cinematic experience with our animations but saying that the arch-viz community as a whole isn't going to be able to do the work is IMO wrong. The tools keep changing as you said; things that would have taken weeks to do 5 years ago can now be accomplished in a day or two. As computers get faster we will be able to do more and as a result our imagery will become more complex, dynamic and entertaining. Most architectural offices that have in-house people are willing to spend the money on the hardware and software as long as that investment is returned, and if the client is asking for it and it benefits the firm they will usually go for it.

[Justin Hunt]

I havnt gone through the whole thread, so forgive me if I repeat anyone elses thoughts.

 

Have you watched the videos posted on the autodesk website, specifically the one on the Revit to max workflow? It clearly shows that the same scene in Revit takes an hour to render and 5 minutes in Max. Both look good,but have minor differences. You decide is it more effcient to render 1 image in an hour or 12?

 

Major thing is Revit is using the new Pro-Materials, which does make for point and shoot type rendering.

 

This is long over due, look at Achicad and Microstation, they have been able to render for years. Acad/ Revit has only recently been able to do this properly.

 

In our office its helped the 3D department by not clogging up the system with DD type work, rather concentating on presentation and DA stuff.

 

As to the FBX workflow, pity they are turning away from the power and flexiblity of the FIle Link Manage. Sure I keep my Revit materials (not always a good thing) but every time there is a change to the Revit model I have to re-import the file, rather than just a click to update. Would be nice to File Link FBX files.

 

As to vis studios, there will still be plenty of work regardless at how "easy" rendering comes. Not all architects are willing, have the expertise or budgets to do visualisation on their projects. There are plenty of develors who want high quality imagery done.

 

Adapot and evolve is the moral of this thread.

 

jhv

[Justin Hunt]

Add to my previouse responce.

 

In 3DWorld magazine (march 2008 issue) Nigel Hunt from Glowfrog brings up the point that Arch-Viz relies too much in GI and with GI renderers getting easier and more available to the masses our jobs are in jepody. (read the GI Joe Bloggs article on page 32)

 

Whilst I find his views nieve, he is pretty much saying what is being said here. What he and a few here dont understand is, Yes it is easier to produce imagery these days and more are doing it, but it is also freeing us up from wrangling with settings so we can concentrate on producing beautiful are. We are not "Point and Shooters" as he suggests many of us are.

 

Its not the software, its the user.

 

 

JHV

[Charles Gaushell]

I'm not concerned about firms doing better work in-house with a tool like this. Most over time realize that it is a poor revenue source, but a great design and preliminary presentation tool. So that doesn't impact us anyway.

 

If you are just providing "stuff" and not a service then you should worry. Are you a professional or a vendor?

 

Thinking through how it might impact any of us is a wise thing to do, but I'm not worried about it. The market is expanding, not contracting.

[Derek Entesano]

I also head up the presentation unit in an architectural firm and agree that the architects are skillful enough to produce their own imagery if they chose. But time really is a factor and like Devin am happy for them to produce 3Ds and basic concept renders to sell their progressing designs to the client.

 

The one button solution may develop to a point where it actually is a great render. It may generate a nice rendered building but seriously, isnt there so much more to a good image than that!

 

I dont think you will lose heaps of work to the architects but there may be a future trend for illustrators to be 'built in' to architecture firms. Sort of a reversing of the move a few years ago. Due to the close working relationships the designers can help to keep their design intent without it being bastardised too much!

 

I bill separately on marketing material so my value is always determinable. I also have a graphic designer and am heading towards getting a multimedia guy, so our kind of setup may be a more likely future competition. We only do our own designs though, thankfully there is more than enough of them!

[znotlin]

To say only cg rendering specialist (with many who has no background in architecture) knows better than a real architect how to present THEIR OWN design is a little absurd.

 

Would you also suggest that a defendant in court is their own best lawyer? Or that a writer is their own best editor? Or a composer is the best musician?

 

From my experience almost no architects are practiced painters and most think about buildings primarily as line, geometry and materials, not tone and color. Because that is how they are taught to think about architecture, and the tools that they use.

 

You may be michealangelo (or Saarinen, or Hadid) and do it all, but look around and see who has always done the iconic images of architecture before it has been built - and it has almost never been the architect themself. (Lutyens - Cyril Farey, Norman Foster - Hayes Davidson, Raymond Hood - Hugh Ferriss, IM Pei - Steve Oles, FLW - Marion Mahoney Griffin, etc...).

 

All due respect dude but your thesis is pretty weak. But you probably know that and were just looking to stir it up.

 

As far as the main thread...Photographers have gone through it too - at the turn of the last century when the Kodak Brownie came out and suddenly everyone was a photographic enthusiast. While everyone had the ready ability, the community was cleaved into hobbyists who were dabbling and serious artists who were disciplined in their craft and trying to put something of themselves in the work and carve out some emotion.

 

Photo real is a mathematical excercise and if that is your aim than look out, the computer will catch you. If making art is your aim than not so much.

[shaneis]

...As far as the main thread...Photographers have gone through it too - at the turn of the last century when the Kodak Brownie came out and suddenly everyone was a photographic enthusiast. While everyone had the ready ability, the community was cleaved into hobbyists who were playing and serious artists who were disciplined in their craft and trying to put something of themselves in the work and carve out some emotion.

 

Photo real is a mathematical excercise and if that is your aim than look out, the computer will catch you. If making art is your aim than not so much.

 

Excellent point. Interestingly, the two most expensive photographs of all time were shot at the turn of the last century and seven years ago - both times being right in the thick of "the death of professional photography". As I pointed out previously, when the layman tries to emulate the artisan, they find a new appreciation of the atrisan's gift.

 

Damn, I'm more worried about what the Crytek engine is going to do to us

[kris McIsaac]

We use Revit as our main design tool and I think Mental Ray will be of use for quick in house renders to assist in the design process but I will still be using Max for the hero shots for client presentations and marketing. I have always used Max/mentalray and never even touched acurender.

 

I am our only in house 3D renderer so I am a bit curious to see what will hapen to my workload, and also what others will produce

 

Mental ray in revit is like a big stereo with no equaliser - it will play music but you cant play it how you like to hear it. Revit = low fi Max(etc...) = hi fi

 

Does anyone know how many processors Revit can use. This may also be a hurdle if it can only use two like Viz 2008 (Revit 2008 only uses one)

 

There is also no good 3D entourage for Revit for use in renderings (yet)

 

Also dont think there is any HDRI function

 

One of the possible changes could be Architecture firms hiring more in house staff. I was hired as a draftsperson and since I showed them my first render that is pretty much all I have been doing.

[aaron-cds]

Furthermore, despite the views of some of you; ARCHITECTS ARE ARTISTS!

 

Lol, as an architect myself, I must say you probably don't know very many architects. Most are problem solvers, not artists.

[Nils Norgren]

I have heard this call ever since we started the company 13 years ago.

 

The photographer connection was made back in the thread, and that metaphor can be taken further, Paper, pencil, watercolors, etc. are accessible, but this never diminished what a truly talented renderer could do. Now that HD camcorders can capture a great picture, should the pros worry that everyone is going to make great looking movies, and they will be less necessary?

 

In many ways the better the technology gets the more informed the process is and the more need for talented users to get involved and help determine in what way to use the technology.

 

A client of ours had some arch-viz done by a large, talented Architecture firm and as soon as it was finished the client said they now needed professionals. The Architecture firm is still very involved in everything that is done, we do all the Viz work and they do the architecture.

 

The tools get better and better, but without a talented artist behind the lens (or mouse) there are a million bad decisions that can be made.

 

One caveat is that we don't work for architects for the most part, we mostly work for Developers.

 

my 2¢

 

-Nils

[Charles Gaushell]

Same here as Nils.

 

The good news for some of you in arch viz (mentioned earlier by someone) is that this may actually open up jobs within firms. If you are bent on being a sole contractor, you may have a harder time finding work.

 

We all always need to be flexible and look for opportunities. It is a matter of perspective (no pun intended).

[Tamir]

Lol, as an architect myself, I must say you probably don't know very many architects. Most are problem solvers, not artists.

 

My pleasure... if anything making you laugh out loud, is already worth this somewhat controversial declaration.

 

But after all, you are right, not all architects are artists, and I was trying to make a point and got carried away.

 

So let me re phrase; SOME ARCHITECTS ARE ARTIST! there; nice, neat and abstract.

[pickle]

I personally cant wait for a one button rendering solution so I can stop pissing around with all the settings for hours and get on with producing quality work.

 

If your worried that one button can replace your entire lively hood then you should really reassess what you do. Your stuffs shit hot anyway Richard, I remember looking at the rarewhiterhino site when I first started out 5 yrs ago, not sure what your worried about.

 

my 2 £s

 

Rich

[Jim Mann]

I personally cant wait for a one button rendering solution so I can stop pissing around with all the settings for hours and get on with producing quality work.

 

Rich

 

Ah,but you need to make sure that you get the button that's set up for you otherwise everytime you hit render, someone else's idea of how the image should look will pop out.

 

Jim