Workflow

[Bwana Kahawa]

Hi all,

I've recently been tasked by the architect firm I work for to investigate how to streamline our visualisation process in terms of how it fits in with the architects' CAD drawings.

 

Currently the architects develop their ideas in either SketchUp, CAD software (ArchiCAD or Autocad) or through myself in Form Z. As the project develops it is eventually drawn up fully in CAD, with the plans and elevations then exported for me to bring into FormZ and model the building again for the visualisations.

 

What this means is that we occasionally end up with three models of the building (all slightly different) - the original form developed in SketchUp, the fully detailed 3D CAD model in ArchiCAD, and then my FormZ model.

 

Obviously, this doesn't make economic sense in terms of running a business, so we're looking to cut out some of the steps, namely developing the initial ideas into full drawings in ArchiCAD, then exporting the model for import to FormZ (or other software) to texture, light, etc. for renders.

 

Already, I'm beginning to find issues with this workflow - too many polygons on building elements, curved surfaces converted to ugly angular elements, etc.

 

So, my query (mainly aimed at those of you working as in-house visualisers) is how this compares to your workflow? Do you make use of the architects' 3D models exported from CAD, or recreate the model from 2D plans? If you work from 2D, how do you avoid duplication of work and keep the visuals up-to-date?

 

Any feedback on this would be really appreciated! Thanks,

 

Derek

[Devin Johnston]

We've been using ArchiCAD for over 10 years and the way we do it is the designers handle all of the modeling. If your not doing it this way you need to ask why especially if your using a BIM software like ArchiCAD that was designed to work in this way. Also another good reason to have them do it is they are most familiar with the project and can probably get it done much faster than you can. It also helps to have these early models in ArchiCAD once the project begins to move into more advanced stages because eventually at some point someone is going to have to model it in the BIM program anyway.

[Bwana Kahawa]

We've been using ArchiCAD for over 10 years and the way we do it is the designers handle all of the modeling. If your not doing it this way you need to ask why especially if your using a BIM software like ArchiCAD that was designed to work in this way. Also another good reason to have them do it is they are most familiar with the project and can probably get it done much faster than you can. It also helps to have these early models in ArchiCAD once the project begins to move into more advanced stages because eventually at some point someone is going to have to model it in the BIM program anyway.

 

So does that mean you don't actually get to do much modelling yourself? It's purely a case of importing, then preparing for render?

[Devin Johnston]

Exactly I do almost no modeling and to be honest with the quantity of renderings we do there's no way I could do it even if I wanted to which I don't.

[danteprojetos]

My workflow is to model everything in AutoCAD Architecture, because I can use the model for the 2D drafting and it imports nicely in 3d Studio MAX for rendering.

 

I considered Revit or Archicad but the importing process was awful and it also had the disadvantage of spending time and money with learning. With AutoCAD Architecture, if you have good knowledge of AutoCAD you're good to go.

 

I may consider revit or archicad again but only if the import and file linking process is improved a lot.

[erickdt]

So then you're rendering in FormZ? If so, there's your problem right there. I love FormZ for modelling but it's not so great for rendering. MAX is leaps and bounds better (way faster, way better quality).

 

I'd suggest that you switch over to MAX and as mentioned before simply import the BIM model into MAX. I've never used ArchiCAD before but I am fairly sure that there would be a way for you to link your BIM files directly to you MAX model which would automate revisions across all files further decreasing the risk of losing information between models.

[Devin Johnston]

ArchiCAD does have a DWG exporter but it's not able to export complex objects with more than one material, if they would fix that bug then you could use file link. Right now you have to export everything as a 3DS file which works fine you just don't get automatic updates to your model.

[Bwana Kahawa]

That's the issue we've realised as we've started looking - we're very much committed to ArchiCAD so no chance of changing to Autocad. I currently render in Maxwell from FormZ but will happily change that part of the process. Currently thinking 3DS Max with MentalRay, then use VRay if I don't get on with it. Our IT guy is pushing more towards Cinema4D and VRay as he's heard it links better with ArchiCAD (dunno how true that is).

 

What's key is going to be speeding up the process from CAD model to render. They'll more than likely want to request updated visuals when designs get changed, so anything which links the info directly back to ArchiCAD would be ideal.

 

So 3DS is the standard way of using ArchiCAD data direct for renders? I've been experimenting but it comes in massively triangulated, and with all curves converted to facets...

[Devin Johnston]

That's the issue we've realised as we've started looking - we're very much committed to ArchiCAD so no chance of changing to Autocad. I currently render in Maxwell from FormZ but will happily change that part of the process. Currently thinking 3DS Max with MentalRay, then use VRay if I don't get on with it. Our IT guy is pushing more towards Cinema4D and VRay as he's heard it links better with ArchiCAD (dunno how true that is).

 

Don't let your IT guy influence your decisions unless he is more of an expert in rendering than you are. 3D Studio & Vray are the most widely used platforms for architectural rendering, in my opinion this is were you should start looking. I was a Maxwell user for two years and my suggestion is that unless you like waiting ridiculousness long periods of time for renderings that Vray could do in a few hours quit using it. Vray can do anything you need.

 

So 3DS is the standard way of using ArchiCAD data direct for renders? I've been experimenting but it comes in massively triangulated, and with all curves converted to facets...

 

ArchiCAD has a problem with curved surfaces especially terrain, there's not much you can do about it that I know of but since I'm not an ArchiCAD expert I don't know for sure.

[Tamir]

What's key is going to be speeding up the process from CAD model to render. They'll more than likely want to request updated visuals when designs get changed, so anything which links the info directly back to ArchiCAD would be ideal.

 

 

A good workflow is usually simple. With ArchiCAD that might be using the internal LightWorks engine. Contrary to popular opinion, with the right know-how, LightWorks would get you far in terms of image quality (you might want to check out Dwight Atkinson’s book LightWorks in ArchiCAD to see just how far you can push it). Note that last I remember, it could only make use of two cores, and so rendering times can be excessive. The most obvious advantage of using LightWorks is built in geometry update from ArchiCAD – just seat back, relax :-) and let the designers do their work.

The move to any other software should consider the need of remodel or cleanup or both, those can add up quickly. One thing about rendering is that after all, only the computer is working, and so even though it takes time, the artist can get productive in other ways. Remodel and clean-up require we seat there - and get frustrated - before we can go ahead and light. Waste of time.

Ideally you would have a dedicated material, lighting, camera and rendering pipeline that would accept geometry data out of ArchiCAD as a referenced link that is updateable, and be fast.

Your options are somewhat limited; LightWorks, Artlantis, Maxwell, and I think that’s about it. Of these three, Artlantis could be said to be the fastest, Maxwell will give the best visual quality, and LightWorks is... well, built-in. If it all comes to what is the most efficient workflow in terms of “time to final image”? There is no substitute to a GPU workflow.

I’ve been fortunate to be experimenting with importing models into MachStudio Pro as part of my work. The results are quite impressive, both in terms of quality and speed. I am waiting for a native ArchiCAD plug-in and meanwhile I use MaxonForm (C4D for AC) to save out FBX – which is supported by MachStudio. Even when using this long path from ArchiCAD to MachStudio; it is so fast, that final images are arrived at in far less time then any other workflow.

[Justin Hunt]

this is just a thought, does Polytrans support Archicad models? Off the top of my head I think it does. You are able to export out of polyrans to many differnent formats which could open the door to other packages.

 

It must be a nightmare to keep track of each model and the variations.

 

jhv

[Bwana Kahawa]

I'm beginning to get the impression that we're best off using Lightworks for the architects themselves to get rough, design renders out, which I'd oversee in terms of maximising what they get out of it. Then whenever they need high-end visuals, I'll end up exporting to something like 3DS Max to make any revisions and remodels needed, before rendering using Mentalray or Vray. Then if the design changes, as long as any tweaks I'd made to the model are kept in a separate folder or layer (or whatever Max uses - haven't used it since 2.5!) then it shouldn't take long to apply them to the latest design. Not a flawless workflow, but a helluva lot better than we currently do!

 

And yes, it is an absolute headache trying to keep track of it all. I often have several (usually dated) folders of objects within the FormZ model containing plans and elevations from different days!

[Devin Johnston]

Also remember that Lightworks can't do network rendering so your stuck using one computer and it's animation capabilities are almost non existent.

[Bwana Kahawa]

Also remember that Lightworks can't do network rendering so your stuck using one computer and it's animation capabilities are almost non existent.

 

Sounds a bit like FormZ and Maxwell, really....

[Ian P]

I think you need to separate the workflow rather than integrate.

 

the stuff that the architects do in 3d is all fine for getting a feel for the model but shouldn't really have much place in the vis process as they won't be fit for purpose, apart from very rare occasions (tight deadlines or exeptionally good base models) its always better to model your stuff native in your 3d package.

 

My suggestion for the work flow would be leave the design to them, let them leave the vis work to you, then model render and photoshop:D

[Kyle]

I would suggest using Revit Architecture suite for BIM modelling it has Mental ray as it standard renderer and also exports well into max if you need that extra touch with visuals as FBX files.

Unfortunately our company are looking into using SketchUp with plugins to turn it into BIM software and using the program called layout to do the 2D Cad drawings, because it is quick to learn, the designers seem to like it and of course....it's cheap. I do feel though that the SU way does have it's flaws for dynamically updating models and CAD drawings, especially when you have to have so many extra plugins to get it any where near true BIM software. I'd recommend Revit though. It's the future!

[Devin Johnston]

the stuff that the architects do in 3d is all fine for getting a feel for the model but shouldn't really have much place in the vis process as they won't be fit for purpose, apart from very rare occasions (tight deadlines or exeptionally good base models) its always better to model your stuff native in your 3d package.

If your using BIM software and creating your building in 3D how could it not be appropriate for the Viz process?

[markf]

As a freelancer i occasionally get models that were created in Revit or ACAD architectural Desktop or Sketchup. I'd really lik eto be able to use these but have found them to be very difficult to work with. I might be asked to do an exterior rendering and I get a model that has all of the rooms, doors, fixtures, furnishings, etc for the entire structure clogging up the situation. Also I get allot of surface's that need texture mapping co -ordinates. It's very tedious to have to orient wood grain correctly on hundreds of elements. Also things like roofs tend to import as one object vs separate roof, fascia and soffit with needed differing mapping.

 

I find modeling to be kind of tedious but neccesary for a good visualization. It does seem unfortunate that using an already completed model is so problematic.

 

Iif the person doing the modeling is not going to do the rendering there are always problems, omissions etc. Kind of like when someone else goes out and shoots the background photography for you. The others doing this do not have the same motivation to get it right. It's almost always better if you do it yourself.

[Devin Johnston]

Markf, I think your problem with past BIM models is that the people exporting them aren't aware of what the export setting do. In ArchiCAD there are several settings that have to be enabled in order to get a usable model, if they aren't then you have problems like you were talking about. I will agree that once you have the model it is difficult to edit it, however these are changes best left to the designers IMO.

 

This is all apart of the work flow that Bwana Kahawa was asking about, what since does it make to have your Viz guy remodel a project that has already been started by the architect? It may take a little time to figure out how best to export a model, or where they should stop their work so you can begin yours. The days of modeling a building from scratch are comming to a close, those that embrase new technology are going to be far better off than those that don't.