Selling viz work for architects with AutoCAD?

[wannabeartist]

Hi all,

 

I've done mainly interior visualizations so far, for clients that don't use any CAD software, but I'm interested in going for the actual architectural visualization as well.

 

Being terribly ignorant on what can be done with today's CAD software, I'm a little confused on the rationale of doing a separate visualization.

 

What are the benefits for the client in handing over the designs for someone else? Especially if they are completely fluent with AutoCAD? For instance, it has mental ray - is it somehow more limited edition to the one that ships with 3ds Max?

 

Thanks!

[bjornkn]

Some of the architects are artists, and some are not.

It's like having ink and watercolors doesn't automatically make you a good architectural illustrator.

"My" architects never draw any other furniture etc than what's available in the symbol library, but a good rendering requires some work on such "details". Lighting is another area where they may not be able to do the job themselves.

If you look at what is being used here on this forum it looks like 99% are using Max/Vray (I'm not

However, I'm afraid that the dreaded "Make a nice picture" button is approaching faster every day now...

[wannabeartist]

Thanks for the reply!

 

That makes sense - Existence of tools is only part of the equation and of course the actual design work is more "core skill" for the architect, than making a nice render.

 

I really hope that button you mention is not quite in the next release of AutoCAD yet - it would be a shame

[LuckyST]

However, I'm afraid that the dreaded "Make a nice picture" button is approaching faster every day now...

 

 

off topic, but this is always an interesting theme.

 

 

applications such as sketchup and artlantis go only up to a point.

 

Sophisticated software like maya, max,... takes a while to master, and wont be available to every Joe (especially because of the $$).

I've been on max since 2.0 and every time the new version is released, it takes me a while to absorb. I cant imagine how it would be for me to start learning from scratch. my point is, that pro applications are to robust for most people to even consider using, and those who do, are welcome.

 

we'll also have new mediums to master. with RT technology advancing, I can see opening a new niche in 3d production.

hell... someone might make "2nd Life"/"facebook" in vray RT engine in few years from now....

we'd have a whole universe to build there.

[bjornkn]

applications such as sketchup and artlantis go only up to a point.

 

Sophisticated software like maya, max,... takes a while to master, and wont be available to every Joe (especially because of the $$).

I've been on max since 2.0 and every time the new version is released, it takes me a while to absorb. I cant imagine how it would be for me to start learning from scratch. my point is, that pro applications are to robust for most people to even consider using, and those who do, are welcome.

The problem is that when/if that "button" comes it won't be in Max, Maya, Lightwave or similar. It will be in Autocad, which the architects already knows and use every day. For SketchUp there is already a Vray plugin, as well as lots of other render plugins. Apart from the building itself, all kinds of furniture and props can be bought/found on the net, hence it really doesn't take that much effort/skills to make a nice render, at least not with an interior. Exteriors requires a lot more props, vegetation, landscaping etc.

Another thing is that he 2D architects are slowly being phased out now. New architects will already know how to work in 3D.

Our only selling argument in the near future will be that we can do it better

[wannabeartist]

we'll also have new mediums to master. with RT technology advancing, I can see opening a new niche in 3d production.

hell... someone might make "2nd Life"/"facebook" in vray RT engine in few years from now....

we'd have a whole universe to build there.

 

 

Yes, this is true - there's of course a huge amount of possibilities for 3d apps and artists in general, but I was mainly trying to find the selling points when dealing with architects.

 

I'm afraid, I'm going to get a lot of "Why? We can do it our selves!" -answers, when I start calling the local architects here. Of course, one should not be that pessimistic either - but I'll see what happens when I pick up the phone and start making those calls

[neko]

Another thing is that he 2D architects are slowly being phased out now. New architects will already know how to work in 3D.

Our only selling argument in the near future will be that we can do it better

 

not sure i agree entirely with that statement.

 

i think one of the things we're confusing here is architectural design vs architectural visualization. i think there will always be some firms willing to farm out their viz work, but 3D is becoming much more of a part of the design process (as bjorn is saying) that it becomes hard to let go, and expect someone without an understanding of design to complete it.

 

3D is a tool - in some places it functions as part of the design process, and in some firms much less so. this might be due to reasons stated above (costs/training/ability/staffing) or it might have to do with the design process itself (nothing replaces a rigorous, well thought out plan).

 

i would agree however, that more and more architects are capable of excelling with these tools.

Edited May 23, 2010 by neko

[wannabeartist]

Good point,

 

There might also be some differences in culture in different countries, comparing architects and their willingness to subcontract something they could, at least in theory, do by them selves.

 

From what I learned working in the software industry before, sometimes it was just about dividing work - We could done it ourselves, but subcontracting some parts of the software entirely made sense by faster time-to-market and better concentration on the parts we knew best.

[Brian Smith]

If you watch this video, you can get some other ideas http://3dats.com/market/

 

Some of the architects are artists, and some are not.

It's like having ink and watercolors doesn't automatically make you a good architectural illustrator.

"My" architects never draw any other furniture etc than what's available in the symbol library, but a good rendering requires some work on such "details". Lighting is another area where they may not be able to do the job themselves.

If you look at what is being used here on this forum it looks like 99% are using Max/Vray (I'm not

However, I'm afraid that the dreaded "Make a nice picture" button is approaching faster every day now...

[wannabeartist]

Thanks for linking that!

 

I'd better watch that a couple of times to get some good arguments, once I start calling around. Too bad, I don't have enough material yet to even consider such a marketing video - but at least I have a web site with some still images for now.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

As a side note... Well, maybe not a side note. I work in a large architecture firm, and we no longer hire designers or technicians that do not have the ability to work in 3d. They can have experience in SketchUp, Max, AutoCAD, Revit, etc... but they need to poses the ability to work in a 3d digital environment.

 

I do very little modeling these days. The majority of the projects I work on have a model that has been developed by the design team. We then take it and enhance the model, and detail it further, but the design team develops most of the model as part of the design process.

 

Instead of trying to convince the architect that you are going to build a 3d model for them, and it will enhance their design, perhaps you might want to consider convincing then that you are going to take their model, and give it a story and life. Basically you are going to pimp their model.

 

The more you can plug into their pipeline, the easier it is for them to work with you.

[wannabeartist]

Thanks for the input,

 

That matches with my (uneducated) ideas on the subject - the idea of rebuilding a 3d model already designed in AutoCAD, for example, doesn't sound like a very reasonable idea.

 

That said, I should probably get familiar with AutoCAD drawings. I use 3ds Max, but I have no real experience of using AutoCAD drawings as a starting point for modeling anything.

[bjornkn]

Yes, you should definitely get familiar with dwg drawings. At least that's what most architects use here in Norway.

You'll probably need to do a lot of cleanup. The very few 3D models I've received are usually a mix of very high res objects (like lots of 50,000 poly faucets, bath tubs, door handles etc, which aren't very relevant for making exterior renderings!) and very low res parts with lots of flipped faces and other problems. You should also expect to get a lot of objects/lines/polys drawn on wrong layers.

Expect to get some SketchUp models too. Many of them are very badly made IME.

SketchUp works great with DWG files BTW. It is my main modeler for architectural work.

My typical workflow is to import DWG files (2D), group/rotate them and make a 3D cage for reference/inference.

Next is to build directly on the ground floorplan, using elevations etc for reference/inference/snapping.

It is usually much faster than trying to fix a bad 3D model...

[wannabeartist]

Thanks again,

 

I need to get my hands on some DWGs and do a couple of portfolio projects first - it seems obvious now, that I need more hands on experience with "integration to AutoCAD" before I start calling architects. Same goes for SketchUp.

 

Things are a bit simpler, when dealing with hand drawn interior designs or background blueprints

[bjornkn]

Things are a bit simpler, when dealing with hand drawn interior designs or background blueprints

If you use SketchUp things are a lot easier using DWG files rather than blueprints/scans Not to mention the precision you get when you can use the dwg references for snapping/inferencing.

This is how a scene may look like when modelling from DWG files made into a cage.

[wannabeartist]

I can believe that, but of course it takes a little practice to get used to handling those files.

 

Speaking about them, is there some place in the net where I could get some free-to-use DWGs? I mean free in the sense that 3D work based on those can be published in a commercial portfolio.

[bjornkn]

Maybe http://www.cben.net/ ?

Or http://www.houseplanz.com/topsites.html ?

Or a Google search would probably find some?

[Brian Smith]

Our (3DATS) free tutorials (http://3dats.com/free/) contain dozens of free drawings that you could use. Our books contain hundreds.

 

I can believe that, but of course it takes a little practice to get used to handling those files.

 

Speaking about them, is there some place in the net where I could get some free-to-use DWGs? I mean free in the sense that 3D work based on those can be published in a commercial portfolio.

[wannabeartist]

Thanks for the links, Bjørn!

 

Brian, I have 2 of the books - they are great, by the way

But is it ok to use the example drawings as a basis for commercial portfolio work? Of course the images in my portfolio are not for sale, but it is a commercial portfolio for my business.

[Brian Smith]

Even if I didn't want you to do so, it would be perfectly legal. Feel free to use however you like. Thanks for the comments btw.

 

Thanks for the links, Bjørn!

 

Brian, I have 2 of the books - they are great, by the way

But is it ok to use the example drawings as a basis for commercial portfolio work? Of course the images in my portfolio are not for sale, but it is a commercial portfolio for my business.

[wannabeartist]

Great, thanks!

 

I've just been trying to be extra careful in my portfolio work to avoid any legal issues. Even though it's not for sale, it's still a marketing device, so I've made sure that all things like texture graphics and hdr-images are ok for commercial work.