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

[Jim Mann]

While VFX gets a lot of press, there are only so many licenses they can sell. So they gear their licenses towards their audience. When they realized that archviz outsells vfx by a factor of ten, max started dying in the vfx world.

 

Thats interesting to hear Chris...and a shame if it really is true. I had always seen the VFX stuff as being the pioneering work and the only reason that the viz tools were any good was because the features developed for vfx eventually filtered down into viz packages. I wonder if autodesk would have bothered developing HDR, GI algorithms etc if they hadn't come about through vfx beforehand?

 

Almost makes me want to switch to Maya on principle, but then Maya is now in the hands of the omni corp too.

 

Jim

[Justin Hunt]

actually VFX have been traditionally way behind on these, its been arch viz pushing GI and hdri

 

jhv

[Adrian Bold]

actually VFX have been traditionally way behind on these, its been arch viz pushing GI and hdri

 

jhv

 

Not sure what your sources are for this comment Justin, i think the advertising industry for bluechip brands and film studios have been pushing hdri with characters and products with top results long before the average archviz joe could afford to cotton on, nevermind the low market expectations and budgets commonplace in arch viz to give rise for many to push this any faster.

 

Not that this is a good or bad thing. your comments earlier about reworking a viz's 3D work doesn't surprise me either. Given my belief this is more pertinent to a local scenario maybe you and i could discuss this privately? I'd love to hear more about your background and future plans too, we might share alot more similarities!

[Adrian Bold]

...Almost makes me want to switch to Maya on principle, but then Maya is now in the hands of the omni corp too.

Jim

 

Yep... we still have our first box packaging that has Alias|wavefront on it. Principles will always outlast trends, but looking back 3DSmax could have been a smarter choice if we'd stuck to producing content for property alone. Its funny, but for a few clients in the know, using Maya has led them to us and kept our operation more boutique than the slapstick approach by many other viz studios. I think i can safely say we've won quite a few gigs because of our implementation of Maya!

 

Pipeline is much of a muchness nowadays, but i do applaud some of the interface improvements Autodesk has implemented. (we hardly touch the 3D paintfx features that drove us to Maya in the first place.)

[Justin Hunt]

No one source, just picked up comments on varouse forums and magazine articles. It seems only recently that vfx houses can warrent the extra time needed with using GI etc. Many still use old school methods.

In a recent article in 3D world magazine, it actually critisies the arch viz community for its over relience on GI.

 

PM me if you want to talk privatly, would also like to hear you ideas

 

jhv

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

I would agree that HDRI mapping is more for design visualization product shots and such, but I would say that the prominence of GI engines are highly pushed by design visualization at architectural scale. I can't tell you how many threads I have read where the VFX guys are pissed that AutoDesk is spending so much time increasing the prominence of Mental Ray. Many of them see no need for something like GI.

[Bruce Hart]

Oh I agree that more often than not the Revit models are a mess, going further they are even a mess within Revit because sometimes its easier to bastardise a part from an unrelated family just to get the geometry for something else, instead of creating a new family/part etc. As such the information gathered from the model is inaccurate. Prime example is one modeller striped the legs off a table to use the top for a sunscreen (dont ask why). Then when ever a schedule would be pulled off the model there would be a list of a few 100 tables

 

Rolleyes eh?

 

I note the following about this little side point:

 

1. Nobody's perfect (without exception). Even so called "magic button" pushers can learn a lot, just as visualisers on this forum have over time.

 

2. The Revit person you are referring to in our office has long ago stopped using this work around, and probably used it at the time due to not knowing fully about mass elements and families. Ironically, I pretty sure his workaround worked just fine anyway, for the type of drawing he needed to produce.

 

3. You specify fields to be displayed in Revit schedules, and I don't think tables would be shown by default. It was a non issue at the time.

 

4. What's cool about the Revit user you are referring to, is that he gets a lot of stuff done for the office, and works with people in a polite and patient manner with good humor. To date I'm not aware that he has had any heated arguments with the designers, and nobody has refused to work with him so far. IMO, this cooperative and congenial attitude is a MASSIVELY more important issue than how you have built or named your polygons.

[Justin Hunt]

Bruce you are right on all points, although I think you are missing what I was saying.

 

One of the major selling point in Revit (and other Bim software) is that its a fully integrated system. Meaning that by being "intelligent" it is possible to get a whole lot more information out, quickly and automatically, than what is possible with out BIM. That relies allot on the information put in. If by necessity short cuts are taken to get the job done, all well and good. The down side is that what should be automated now isn't, eg the schedules. Whether it is table or doors is irrelevant.

 

Another point I would like to defend myself on is that I was not trying to single this user out but rather trying to highlight the impact such practice can have. We both have very high regard for the work produced by this person and I by no means wish to diminish or demean that in any way. I have quite openly said as much to him and many other people as well.

 

In fact we both know that that example is the same we use when illustrating the pluses and minuses of Revit to those who have been sold the spin .

 

Perhaps I should have said Model instead of Modeler, my bad.

 

I'll also let point 4 go as this is not the place or discussion to bring it up. Yes I am first to admit that I am not the easiest person to deal with as I like to air my views strongly.

 

I totally agree with you the "magic button" pushers have allot to learn, is that not the whole point to this thread? There is a hell of allot more involved in getting a pretty picture than just pushing buttons.

 

Arch viz is in a very exciting place at the moment. The playing field is getting more and more competitive every day. As such we have to be allot more intelligent in how we work. As long time 3D'ers it is also part of our responsibility to teach and share the knowledge, so that the industry as a whole becomes allot more professional, quality improves. As we know 3d is ever evolving and we need to be as well.

 

jhv

[Nic H]

lol do you guys work together?

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

people always joke about sending an email to someone who works 10 feet away. now we are communicating by message board to people who work 10 feet away.

[Mat@MDI-Digital]

Iv had a quick read and I thought Id might as well chime in.

 

I dont work in the same area as alot of you guys, 95% of the arch work I do is 3 or 4 bedroom houses for British propery developers. 9.9/10 these have 4 windows/4 walls and maybe a garage. Some of our clients actualy want use to produce very basic looking images so they can use our images across many developments. For example, our biggest client actualy asks for no garages, no wall details (other than a basic fence) very basic foliage, they ask for this for 2 resons....one, they save a bit of money, and two, the house CGI can end up looking quite generic so they can reuse the image again and again for many different developments where that style of house is used/dulicated.

 

I think this is one part of the industry that will be hit the most by "one button look good" programs, Infact Iv seen some awfull work produced by architects that has gone into brousures just so they can save a few £100 (litraly) on paying someone else todo it better..if thats the attitude of some of housing developers then a program like Revit might be the perfect option for them.

 

But, Iv known this for ages, and Iv been expecting it for a long time, Im not bitching about it, its up to me to adapt to the changing market...and I think I can do that.

 

I would like to say though, that most people in the industry/on this forum have very little to worry about, over the years I have seen architects make awfull yet simple mistakes, its not there fault as such, just that you guys know when this look strange/odd, have an eye for composition/colour/lighting that 90% of the population just dont have. Sure some of you may lose out on a few ££$$ here and there, but on the whole I dont think you have much to worry about.

Edited May 11, 2008 by Mat@MDI-Digital

[Justin Hunt]

yes three feet away from each other

 

jhv

[Bruce Hart]

yes three feet away from each other

 

jhv

 

OK - I'll calm down now No hard feelings Justin

[Justin Hunt]

None taken, in the future I'll choose my words better.

 

jhv

[Brian Cassil]

I can't say that I have read every single post on this thread because it's just too long and many of the posts are several paragraphs so I apologize in advance if I'm missing something, but this is what I have gathered so far:

 

1. Revit has mental ray with render presets in 2009

2. A few vis specialists are worried about this replacing their jobs

3. Most vis specialists are not too worried

4. Freelance artists view internal vis artists as inferior

 

Does that about sum things up?

[Justin Hunt]

about sums it up, with one more

 

it impotant to keep on top of the game before the game gets on top of you

 

jhv

[Revit3D]

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.

 

I was only able to skim over the thread, so i'm pretty sure this was already answered, but the process that Revit uses to build, ensures that the materials of just about every object that they're using already match what was wanted.. Now, I work for a reseller of Autodesk down in Florida, but I'll tell you that a Revit rendering will never replace a Max rendering and I seriously doubt that Revit will take away more than 1% of the projects that are currently being done in Max/Maya/etc.. What Revit is doing is allowing projects that would "never" have gone to the Design Visulization route in the past, to get some "basic" renderings instead of the basic shaded mode renderings.. It's helping out the groups that wants to do sun studys and lighting analysis, but never needed a full rendering..

 

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.

 

You hit the nail on the head here.. Revit is going to make the Design Visulization field get a better idea of what their client wants in terms of the building itself..

 

As for another post that i saw earlier, the FBX format is an incredible format to be able to use, but I saw some concern that it's still not able to be used to "Link" the file still back with Revit and Max.. Autodesk is working on that, but the FBX feature was a long process to get into Revit and I just think that the group putting Max 2009 together didn't think that the Revit people would have it done in time.. Just a theory, but, I'd be willing to put money on it based on answers they gave to us at Autodesk Tech Camp last month..

[Abel Oner]

In all honesty, none of their renders/presentation materials look that good.

In no way better quality than what a professional and trained visualizer can provide. So it can give shadows/materials and the light can bounce but you can get the same basic feel from free sketchup software and you've been able to get just about any possible quality 2-d from cad since M-color.

I think Revit is great and I look forward to playing with and using all of this new software.

The big offices that employ professional visualizers will continue to do so. If this makes the preliminary design process and communication with client easier and more accurate, that's probably for the best!

[Justin Hunt]

[quote=

 

As for another post that i saw earlier, the FBX format is an incredible format to be able to use, but I saw some concern that it's still not able to be used to "Link" the file still back with Revit and Max.. Autodesk is working on that, but the FBX feature was a long process to get into Revit and I just think that the group putting Max 2009 together didn't think that the Revit people would have it done in time.. Just a theory, but, I'd be willing to put money on it based on answers they gave to us at Autodesk Tech Camp last month..

 

Glad to hear it, seeing how useful the FLM is (once it was working) I was a little concerned that it was being ditched for FBX.

 

jhv

[Ray]

I can't say that I have read every single post on this thread because it's just too long and many of the posts are several paragraphs so I apologize in advance if I'm missing something, but this is what I have gathered so far:

 

1. Revit has mental ray with render presets in 2009

2. A few vis specialists are worried about this replacing their jobs

3. Most vis specialists are not too worried

4. Freelance artists view internal vis artists as inferior

 

Does that about sum things up?

 

Regarding #4, internal vis artists or architects playing as vis artists? Because if it's the former, I take exception to that!

[Brian Cassil]

Regarding #4, internal vis artists or architects playing as vis artists? Because if it's the former, I take exception to that!

 

I am speaking of the impression I am getting from this thread that many freelance artists seem to view internal vis artists as having that position because they can't make it as freelance artists becuase their artistic ability is not capable of doing so. Ray, beleive me, as the leader of a group of visulization specialists in a large architectural firm I take exception to this rhetoric as well. As I'm sure Strat, Crazy Homeless Guy, Devin, and Matt Clementson do too.

[Devin Johnston]

Agreed Brian, I've seen amazing work from freelancers just as I've seen equally amazing work from viz teams in an Architecture firm. The idea that one is better than another is ridiculous, each has its positives and negatives and it completely depends on the skill level of each artist as to how good they are. Freelancers think that because they can "pick and choose" their projects this some how sets them above the rest of us but in actuality I think very few freelancers have this ability since starving isn't a very attractive option. I've worked on both sides of the coin and let me tell you I'd rather take job security over artistic expression any day, if that makes me a traitor to my profession I'm ok with that.

[aaron-cds]

Agreed Brian, I've seen amazing work from freelancers just as I've seen equally amazing work from viz teams in an Architecture firm. The idea that one is better than another is ridiculous, each has its positives and negatives and it completely depends on the skill level of each artist as to how good they are.

 

True. Not all in-house vis artists do bad work. However, you can't deny there are some terrible renderings that get published from architecture firms. The "magic" render button is just going to make it a little easier for them. It's still not going to get them a great rendering because there's much more to it than a clean gi solution.

 

I have nothing against in-house artists. I was refering to the wanna-be artists in a previous post, not all in-house artists. Certainly not you, Brian.

 

I was an in-house guy for five years before I started my business. My renderings got a lot better when I was able to buy the hardware, software, 3d models and textures I needed to create better renderings. It's hard to be on the cutting edge of technology when you have to ask permission to upgrade and buy stuff all of the time. Now I just have to ask my wife.

[Devin Johnston]

True. Not all in-house vis artists do bad work. However, you can't deny there are some terrible renderings that get published from architecture firms.

I've seen equally bad images from freelancers mainly because they have no one to bounce ideas off of and have to rely only on their own perceptions of what makes a good image.

 

 

I was an in-house guy for five years before I started my business. My renderings got a lot better when I was able to buy the hardware, software, 3d models and textures I needed to create better renderings. It's hard to be on the cutting edge of technology when you have to ask permission to upgrade and buy stuff all of the time. Now I just have to ask my wife.

It sounds like you were working for a company that didn't support you; under those circumstances I'd find it hard to produce good work too. That by no means is what I would expect from a company that sees the value in visualization.

[FlytE]

At the risk of being flamed like a burger on hot grill in this fine weather, im going to play devils advocate here.

 

Does the situation concern me? Yes and No.

 

The reason it does concern me is that every year they are STRIVING to make 3D software easier to use and this is only aimed at people who either dont have the time, the skill, or the general inclination to use such software. Sketchup revit and new impression features on autocad etc are all intuitive and straightforward, and BIM... regardless of how in depth a model/project is, pretty much a model already built. As far as rendering goes, ive not experienced this one button render phenomenon but ive no doubt that there are tangible results produced from it if other developments are anything to go by. But either way it is still easier than it used to be.

 

I mean, im reading alot of posts here and there is alot of back-patting, self-reassurance and team chanting about how visualisers should not be concerned. I mean c'mon!! Are you serious!?!? Of course we should be!!! If Architects dont concern you .... what about all the in-house office juniors, students, part-ones whatever you want to call them? These are the guys with the time on their hands and the drive to do this stuff. Also.... gone are the days when architects HAD to rely on 3D visualisers for this stuff, whether it was good bad or ugly. Nowadays most of them ARE quite happy with low level stuff because generally thats all they need.... enter sketchup.

 

On the other side of the coin I am more than happy with what I do, and more than confident that there is a long bright future in this industry. The reason that I'm not so concerned about these kind of developments is that archviz is a business like anything else and in business you have stay ahead of the competition and evolve to do so, therefor I will be pushing into realms that I know that those guys cant compete with me on - interactive multimedia, high-end animations, green-screen etc

 

But for gods sake whatever we do, lets not "group-think' and convince ourselves that somehow we are all immune to change because it just isnt like that these days.

 

Now before anyone responds, let me cover myself in burger relish....