Jump to content

Looking for feedback concerning architectural models... no, not the CG kind.


Hazdaz
 Share

Recommended Posts

I am in the process of trying to start a 3D printing business, and I am wondering what some of you guys that work directly for architects would think about this service. Having a 3D rendering of a building is one thing... having a real 3D physical model of a building is a whole other matter altogether.

 

I actually think that CG arch-viz people (you guys) are as much of my potential client-base as architectural firms.

 

I would be very curious to hear any comments you guys might have.

 

Right now this whole venture is so new that I do not have any good examples yet that I can post up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The technology is still in its infancy. The models are getting better, but still have a long way to go. We are slowly starting to use them, but still with mixed reactions. Since we are a larger office we have the capabilities for 3d priting in house, but of course this is not going to be the case for the vast majority of firms.

 

Right now, IMO the Zcorp powder based models looks a lot better for architecture than the the resin models. The color options on these model are still bad for the most part, they color don't have a sophisticated look to them.

 

Also, concerning color, ...several of our designers don't like to put the glue coating on the models because it takes away from their white pristine-ness, and makes them a darker gray. This means they are extra fragile, and break easily.

 

You might want to consider a rapid prototyping company, over a solely 3d printing company. I think it will give you the most room for expansion, flexibility, and growth.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I appreciate the feedback, especially from someone that has done this before.

 

Well the venture that I am looking to start would be multi-faceted in that I definitely want to target the arch field, but also other industries too (such as rapid prototyping).

 

While I agree that the technology is just now starting to really grow, I wouldn't quite say that it's in it's "infancy." For me, that would imply that it isn't quite ready for "prime-time" and I would have to disagree with that. The technology is very sophisticated and very usable for many, many applications right now. I actually think the software end of it (3D models) is more of a limiting factor than the printing technology itself.

 

You mentioned that you guys don't always use color, and I can understand that sometimes it would make sense to go monochrome, but I think the colors can really make a model pop. I plan on outputting architectural models very shortly, but this is all so new that I don't even have any printed out yet.

 

I had not planned on posting any pics of test models that I have done simply because they were just that - TEST models, but at the same time, I am rather excited by the prospects, so I figure why now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ABS is very useful for some purposes, but for this industry I don't think it are quite the best solution. Being able to print in color is a big plus in my opinion... ABS doesn't offer that option AFAIK.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We we're looking at purchasing our own unit in house before the market and project load tanked. Personally I've been waiting for the mcor matrix 3D printer to get released.

 

We push to do everything as green as possible, which most 3D printers aren't. However this one uses paper and glue to build the models, so your waste which is just paper is completely recyclable. Not to mention the stock is as cheap as paper.

 

http://www.mcortechnologies.com/index.html

 

If you do take this up as a printing service, the sustainability benefit could be a nice selling point on your brochure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^ yeah, I remember researching that printer, but it looked like it never got officially released. Also, I believe that it was another monochromatic machine.

 

The good thing about some of these 3D printers is that the material not used is 100% recyclable to the next project. Also they don't use a ton of power or other resources, so they really aren't that much worse than a large regular laser printer.

 

I could definitely see "green" being a selling point with many architects.

 

If you don't mind sharing info like that, I would be curious to hear what kind of volume did your company predict (at least before the crash), if they were serious enough to look into buying a unit themselves??

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We we're looking at purchasing our own unit in house before the market and project load tanked. Personally I've been waiting for the mcor matrix 3D printer to get released.

 

We push to do everything as green as possible, which most 3D printers aren't. However this one uses paper and glue to build the models, so your waste which is just paper is completely recyclable. Not to mention the stock is as cheap as paper.

 

http://www.mcortechnologies.com/index.html

 

If you do take this up as a printing service, the sustainability benefit could be a nice selling point on your brochure.

 

What a nice printer.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
Right now, IMO the Zcorp powder based models looks a lot better for architecture than the the resin models. The color options on these model are still bad for the most part, they color don't have a sophisticated look to them.

 

Also, concerning color, ...several of our designers don't like to put the glue coating on the models because it takes away from their white pristine-ness, and makes them a darker gray. This means they are extra fragile, and break easily.

 

 

I agree. Z-Corp seems to make the best machines for producing prototypes on.

 

I would also recommend a general rapid prototyping business rather than simply a 3dp business targeting only architecture.

 

From my experience however, the color has looked fine, maybe not the best, but definitely acceptable by any means. The glue coating, however, is a absolute necessity, especially with regards to architecture. There are simply too many thin layers that would be too fragile without the coating, and most models would likely eventually break. However, I have had no negative experiences with the glue coating, and I would even say that it makes the colors come alive a bit more (although, the white does darken slightly).

 

Hope this helps, and good luck with your venture!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, as someone working in a practice... well, I think its not a viable business. We have no interest in these. any sort of prototyping the students can model - that or it exists in 3D space and we do a QTVR or animation. If someone sent me an email sayingt they're going to do us this as a service, right into the delete folder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

well, as someone working in a practice... well, I think its not a viable business. We have no interest in these. any sort of prototyping the students can model - that or it exists in 3D space and we do a QTVR or animation. If someone sent me an email sayingt they're going to do us this as a service, right into the delete folder.

 

QTVR and Animation don't provide a tactile visual element, which is the beauty of a model. Actually, QTVR and animations are better with a model sitting on the table. It is all about being able to place your self in the space. This is where QTVR and animation fail just as much as they succeed. They typically lack a sense of knowing where you are actually at, having a model to fill in this gap is extremely powerful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QTVR and Animation don't provide a tactile visual element, which is the beauty of a model. Actually, QTVR and animations are better with a model sitting on the table. It is all about being able to place your self in the space. This is where QTVR and animation fail just as much as they succeed. They typically lack a sense of knowing where you are actually at, having a model to fill in this gap is extremely powerful.

 

I would have to agree... At least to the extent where I would say that it is a viable business. There is simply another means of understanding the model when you can feel and see it in person. Additionally, some people will be more interested in this tactile element where as some other people may be more in touch with a visual element. I definitely see worth in being able to create architectural models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

QTVR and Animation don't provide a tactile visual element, which is the beauty of a model. Actually, QTVR and animations are better with a model sitting on the table. It is all about being able to place your self in the space. This is where QTVR and animation fail just as much as they succeed. They typically lack a sense of knowing where you are actually at, having a model to fill in this gap is extremely powerful.

 

I would have to agree... At least to the extent where I would say that it is a viable business. There is simply another means of understanding the model when you can feel and see it in person. Some people may respond better to this tactile element where as some other people may respond better to a visual element. Likely, the best option is to have both elements, but I definitely see value in being able to create architectural models.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

CRAZY HOMELESS GUY - I think you hit the nail on the head. Renderings and animations are great, but you are still looking at something on a 2D screen. Unless you are really into 3D technology, chances are you aren't going to get the same visual impact with a rendering as you would an actual physical model. Not that one is "better" than the other, but they have different types of impact. Ideally, both could be very handy and if prices were low enough, it could be feasible.

 

I actually appreciate PROTOSWIFT for bumping this thread that I started a few weeks ago. It's been slow going trying to get this process all started, mostly because I have been caught up in other things. I actually was going to go pick up more raw material tomorrow, and then something else popped up and now that is gonna get pushed back again at least for a little bit. Grrr.

 

I'd love to show you guys some actual results besides the test parts that I posted originally.

And again, if anyone has more feedback/comments, please post them. Even if they are simply to state that they think 3D prints are not for them - that's fine too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...