The future of Architectural Visualization

[alaburb]

perhaps this thread in the Real Time Viz section could shed some light on this discussion:

 

http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/showthread.php?t=6769

[Dijhili]

I agree with MBR. Architect have too much to do as is without having to worry about rendering and learning material building and radiosity. I am not an architect but have worked for different architecture firms to see this. Between building codes, engineering issues...crap they got enough headaches as is !

 

[Richard McCarthy]

I think in not so distant future that arch viz as a specialised profession will disappear. New generation of architects (take students for example) "ALL" (almost) know how to use MAX. We grew up in this environment... so it wasn't so hard for us to understand those jargon. It is almost essential nowadays for arch student to present his stuff in CG form.

 

Another factor is that CAD software and now becoming increasingly bridging the gap of CG and CAD. Architectural software especially, have all now integrated renderers that let people just do basically 1 button press rendering operation. Softwares like Autodesk Revit, ArchiCAD, Architectural desktop. Most architectural CAD software is evolving towards the route of BIM (building information modeling) concept so it isn't very hard for an architect nowadays to just draw a wall, specify the wall (concrete? timber 200mm?), and the wall itself is already inbue with material information (texture, bump, specular) and you simply click time of the day, and location and you get a nice GI render. As for the people arguing NPR renderering, it will be next stop in the integration of those software... (looking at it, ADT already have VIZ built in... Revit v7/8 is possibly will have VIZ integration as well)

 

From historical perspective... decade ago, it's essential to have manual lighting skill to be good CG artist. It may still stand true nowadays, but I think with more efficent and optimised GI renderer and faster CPU, that skill isn't as important anymore. (particularly in Architectural visualisation field I feel...) How many times did we all go "woooo" and "ahhhh" in amazement of someone who render some photo-realistic rendering? People who had used Lightscape knows it's easy to do such renderings because it's just lighting simulation, you give the "condition" to an environment, and let the machine do the magic. This process is very similar to what BIM is, so I wouldn't imagine it's very hard to integrate both. (think of Revit integrate with Lightscape )

[Richard McCarthy]

I agree with MBR. Architect have too much to do as is without having to worry about rendering and learning material building and radiosity. I am not an architect but have worked for different architecture firms to see this. Between building codes, engineering issues...crap they got enough headaches as is !

 

 

What if it's as simple as pressing the "render" button?

 

In Revit (and ArchiCAD, and even cheapy like FloorPlan 3D), you only have to tell the location and time, and nice GI render (well, nice enough for AccuRender R3 LOL) will come out. Material information (walls, floors, ceiling, columns) are all built in to the model when architect draft it, Lights are dropped in place (IES lighting info is built into those lights) even TREES are generated on the fly (one particular nice feature of Revit's Accurender)

 

 

There is an issue of quality vs time vs cost. If an architect can see his rendering while he is drafting and it doesn't cost extra (like contracting the render out), I think MOST architect would prefer to have this level of control to himself. After all architects are control freak by nature (we have to be)

 

For most Arch Viz rendrerers, we all have a receipe for cranking out our best renderings... These are nowadays just a button called "presets" we only tune it slightly to get better rendering out of it. I don't think most architect are that IMPATIENT enough to even not learn how to press the render preset button and have a few tweaks to have REASONABLE (again, issue of quality vs cost) rendering. To get a contract or job in arch viz field in the future, I imagine the quality of rendering you offer simply have to be leaps and bounds times better at much lower cost....

[Vince Paske]

I've been looking for that magic "make really nice rendering" button, sounds like it's right around the corner.

OK, since everyone can push a button and take a picture, does that make them photographers and their pictures worth publishing? Funny how many extremely well paid Professional photographers are still out there despite the number of easy to use camera's.

My point is, good renderings are more art than science, no matter how sophiticated the software or fast the computer. There will always be a market for high quality renderings.

[Sawyer]

Bah!

 

Architects have always been able to do high quality renderings. Pen & paper. Most are good at it too. But they don't. Most can draft but they still higher drafters. People who are good at what they do are motivated to learn and do all they work we do here will always have a place. Thing is the technology may change.

[Iain Denby]

Bah!

 

Architects have always been able to do high quality renderings. Pen & paper. Most are good at it too. .

 

I've not seen any evidence to support this!

[John Dollus]

I agree with Sawyer. I also know of a few very gifted architects that are quite capable of producing amazing works but do not use the skills they have in their current position. They still rely on 'professional' illustrators to produce renderings they need.

[Richard McCarthy]

I've been looking for that magic "make really nice rendering" button, sounds like it's right around the corner.

OK, since everyone can push a button and take a picture, does that make them photographers and their pictures worth publishing? Funny how many extremely well paid Professional photographers are still out there despite the number of easy to use camera's.

My point is, good renderings are more art than science, no matter how sophiticated the software or fast the computer. There will always be a market for high quality renderings.

 

I guess you havn't look hard enough ..... Look harder

Yes, there are photographer that are extremely well paid, but how many is there?... and how good are they really?...Does it really justify their fee? If you are thrusted into those situation, I bet you could take as good picture as them. eg. War photographer, wedding photographer (LOL). The most celebrated, and highly paid one nowadays are ... pornographic photographers... heh.

Many of those photo are extremely shaky anyway, and they come up with the excuse of "spontaneousness".. etc. etc. Really, art itself is just really upto people's taste.

 

Another thing, you don't think ARCHITECT goes though 5 years (many other countries, it's 6 - 7 years) of intense education that, along the way, acquire atleast some reasonable artistic sense ?? We maybe even more well train in term of art education than most Art degree (which only last 3 - 4 years) (let along most "CG artist" doesn't even have a degree and are mostly "self- taught")

 

You would probably say education does not make an artist, but I think you will find that education give you the edge as a more disciplined objective artist than one without ANY education.

[Devin Johnston]

You may be right in that in the future renderings and even animations will become much easier to produce, and that the architect may be able to do this from the very same software that is used to produce construction drawings. One thing that hasn’t been mentioned is the fact that if these companies that produce this software are going to endow their programs with these abilities, what do you think will happen to the "render" programs that are already established like Max? I think what you will see is a completely new field emerge within the next few years that will take us beyond where we are today. The development of virtual environments that you can interact with is at our door step right now, with the tremendous increases in computer power it won't be long before those tools become available either through plugins or stand alone applications. Once it is cost effective enough for companies to invest in this new tech. our job will be transformed and we will be creating simulations instead of animations.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

This is basically what ADT is. ADT is an Autodesk product. It is basically AutoCad with true 3d functionality, and Viz built into one. It is still a young product that has not fully emerged, but will someday.

 

3dmax is going no where. Arch renderers are a second thought to Discreet. Discreet caters to game developers, movie/commercial/special effect industry before architecture.

 

The catch is, yes firms will be able to combine all of there entities into one fell swoop, eliminating the need for individual render houses. They will even be able to easily do all of their animations, but they will be hiring technicians to handle this sort of jazz within the office enviroment.

 

There will still be a need for Max in the arch community because Viz does not object animation/sun study. Just camera movement.

 

And if you don't beleive that firms are working towards this direction, you will be surprised. Whether you see it good or bad,it is true. I work for a firm now, and this is the direction I am eventually worjing towards. You could say I am out to sink the industry, but the truth is, my goal is to revolutionize the way it works in an office enviroment.

 

This is going to happen whether I am part of it or not, so I may as well try to be at the front of it. You can not settle where you are, you will get burnt.

 

Now that being said, there will still be a role for Arch Vizers, but it will primarily be with small Arch firms, which has more or less been true for several years anyway.

 

I have never used Triforma for Microstation, but it is my understanding that this automated workflow model was there intention with that product.

[Devin Johnston]

Ok, I'm not sure what you are getting at, are you saying that firms are going to be getting rid of their Arch Viziers because the software is going to demand it? I would have to question that assumption simply because of what has been stated previously. With all of the things that an architect has to do why add the burden of rendering and animations to the job when they can have one or two people in house who's only job is to do this? And you can't tell me that an experienced Vizer won't always be able to create better renderings than a computer, there is a thing called creativity.

I also wasn’t clear about what you and your company are working towards. What do you mean you are "out to sink the industry", the industry will evolve as the tools do. Why do you think that the Vizer’s role will only exist in small architecture firms, who will be doing their job in the large ones?

[Vince Paske]

I guess you havn't look hard enough ..... Look harder

Yes, there are photographer that are extremely well paid, but how many is there?... and how good are they really?...Does it really justify their fee? If you are thrusted into those situation, I bet you could take as good picture as them. eg. War photographer, wedding photographer (LOL). The most celebrated, and highly paid one nowadays are ... pornographic photographers... heh.

Many of those photo are extremely shaky anyway, and they come up with the excuse of "spontaneousness".. etc. etc. Really, art itself is just really upto people's taste.

 

Working with graphics and marketing departments for a while now, I've seen professional quality photo's, and non-professional. It always seems obvious to me which are taken by pro's and which aren't. Comparing porn to architectural photography is pretty far out there.....I think you may have to look harder at what it really takes to produce good photography, especially of architecture.

 

Another thing, you don't think ARCHITECT goes though 5 years (many other countries, it's 6 - 7 years) of intense education that, along the way, acquire atleast some reasonable artistic sense ?? We maybe even more well train in term of art education than most Art degree (which only last 3 - 4 years) (let along most "CG artist" doesn't even have a degree and are mostly "self- taught")

 

You would probably say education does not make an artist, but I think you will find that education give you the edge as a more disciplined objective artist than one without ANY education.

 

I don't know, I have 6 years of Architectural education (M-ARCH) and so do a lot of people I work or have worked with. Some have an artistic edge, some don't. Some can draw great free-hand sketches, some can't. Other's are great with the computer and CG graphics, other would rather study code, or work with clients, or figure out how a building is constructed. I don't agree that by having an intense architectural education it gives you more artitistic sense. I know of so many Architects, even in school (when you'd think they be leaning towards the artistic apsects) would concerns themselves with budget, fullfilling program,time and materials and not really care too much about how it looks. Some even paid other people to render their thesis projects, because it really wasn't about the rendering to them.

I think CHG is right and I experienced it first hand - that larger firms are looking at in-house talent. But generally, the people who are doing this stuff in-house (from my experience) have a unique combination of design, artistic, communication and computer skills. Not all students have this combination. I also think that software isn't becoming any easier to use - software companies need to generate revenue so they add new features or change things around. Most architects don't have time to keep up with the CG software.

[JEZ]

Hello Everyone,

 

I am new to this forum, but have already found it extremely useful. I teach Architectural Computing to both Architecture and Interiors students in Canterbury, UK. I am currently reviewing the necessity for animation skills within the Architecture degree programme. I find it interesting that many of you feel that, in future, visualisation will take place in-house, but do you envisage that this will be carried out my dedicated personnel or by the Architects themselves. As has been mentioned previously, many Architects are now equipped with these skills (partly my fault!). Should animation continue to be part of an Architect's education? Also, how do you all feel about the value of VR within the design process? Is this something that should be explored during the educative stage of an Architect's career?

 

Hi i am also new to this forum, i am conserned becouse i have the need to move my career forward in to 3d architectural/Machanical visualisation and it seams that for a small time Designer it could be very bleek wit all this in house talk there are not meny plaeces in Devon to get work like that.

 

What would you say i could do about it.

[Jeff Mottle]

Hi i am also new to this forum, i am conserned becouse i have the need to move my career forward in to 3d architectural/Machanical visualisation and it seams that for a small time Designer it could be very bleek wit all this in house talk there are not meny plaeces in Devon to get work like that.

 

What would you say i could do about it.

There will always be small shops and freelancers, but as the industry moves forward you will have to provide a service that the in-house teams can not. Whether that be additional services, quicker turn-arounds, or better quality is up to you. In a crunch many in-house teams will outsource, but if they are going to be fronting some serious cash to take the work outside, it had better be something special. You will also have to contend with the large dedicated visualization shops too.

[hockley91]

There is an important element about all this that I believe sets us all apart from each other. There's a technical and artistic aspect of this that goes beyond what you can learn in school as an architect.

 

I graduated in 1996 with an architecture degree, and 3D was in it's infancy at my school.

 

It's taken me since then to be where I am now in ability and knowledge. Hiring someone right out of college to do rendering work is a very bad idea. The development of your 'style' is very important in what makes us stand apart from each other. That takes years.

 

There is a lot of 'average' work out there. It's kind of like the movies. You can always tell a good director from a bad director.

 

Where I'm at, there are not a lot of firms with great 3D departments, at least to my knowledge. They have departments, but with really cheap labor and the results are cheap as well.

 

I don't see us ever going to work for a larger company, if they will not be willing to pay us our salary since we can make more money on our own.

 

If larger firms continue to hire cheap labor (right our of college), quality becomes an issue.

 

I don't know, what do you guys/gals think?

 

Hockley91

[trhoads]

As opposed to hockley91, I graduated in 2000. VIZ was a big part of what our school taught, it was afterall, an art & design school, that did stress the presentation and artistic side of architecture, and not just the nuts and bolts of it all. Drafting class and construction drawings were not the majority of required classes. As a result, I had a good foundation for 3D work right out of school, but did not get a chance to use it for 2 years. I worked on it on my own in the evenings, learning through trial and error. In my current position, I am the in-house 3D visualizer, and it has worked out really well. I am by no means as good as some of the other contributors on this site, but I can hold my own. Our clients are happy with the renderings I produce, they use them for marketing and presentations, and in the end they are more comfortable with the designs, and I don't have to be one of the top 5 renderers out there. In my opinion, if architecture firms can find qualified and trained people to be their in-house renderer, they will. This keeps it all in one office, models can be used for design tools, and not just used for presentations to clients.

 

Right now, it costs our firm less for me to do the computer models and renderings, than it used to for hand watercolor renderings. That results in lower cost to clients. That makes a happy, and hopefully, a return client.

[hockley91]

Interesting what 'Throads' stated.

 

Maybe there will be two areas of 3D visualization that will separate "us" from "them".

 

There is the 'design tool' side of visualization where the idea is helping fine tune a design, and help in building analysis. Then you have the 'illustration' area where the idea is to produce a final rendering.

 

Maybe, as time goes on there will be specific departments for visualization work, somewhat like what's in CG studios now. (Modeling, Lighting, Materials, Shade & Shadow).

 

There probably will be more organization in this field as time goes on. It's varied right now without any structure.

[Sketchrender]

Hi I have read this post with great interest, and have a few words to add to the converstation.

 

I have been working as a 3d arch' technician in house for the past four years, in ireland for one of the largest architectural comapnies.

My original qaulification is an architectural technician, and have worked as a arch' technician for about five years before I started doing 3D.

I have to sa, at this moment in time, I am loosing interst in the job.

As a company member for now going on 8 and half years, I still feel like an outsider and a neccessary evil.

You are not part of the Team so to speak.

You are given a rediculus deadline and expected to reach it.

I personally don't see a future in the job, I love it, I have read every article, every review on the latest technology, software hardware, what the future holds etc.

Think about the daily job, for a second you are given plans sections and elevations, you have to look at them build it in your head, picture every nuck and cranny of the building in a matter of hours and then build it on computer and bring it to life.

Most architects or technicians are given days to get there head around a project when they go on to the job.

It takes a certain type of person to do this job, and be good at it.

 

I really do love the job and all that goes with it, but I don't think the JOB is given any real credit in the office or for that matter any office and financialy either I don't think it is given the credit it is dew.

 

I am sure the other graphic guys feel the same way, who work in house for architects.

 

 

This may read a bit bitter, and my appologies for that.

But i am having serious doubts about the overall future of the job.

The last few jobs I have completed, the model was used in house and then handed out to three other companies for final viz work, the flashy work.

When you know that if the time was given to you,you could do the exact same and better, and save a lot of money in the process.

 

Has anybody else felt the sane way about the job?

let me know if you have,beacuse it will turn in to a hobby I think in the future, and not the dream profession I once thought it was going to be.

[sky]

I'm currently a second year architecture student (undergrad) and I have to say that everyone in the class is involved 3d work at some level. In fact it is practically mandatory for any final that one brings in 12" X 18" full color renderings. Several classmates have bought color plotters to save on printing costs.

 

So I would expect a big rise in the upcoming years of architects with solid computer skills. Many are relying on their skills to get in the door and then eventually become designers.

 

But the increase should only be beneficial to all the veterans of the field. Students like me come to this site to learn from the pros.

 

In the future I can see many pros becoming teachers rather than producers.

[hockley91]

Obviously things have changed considerably since the fall of 1996. Imagine what the next 8 years are going to be like?

 

I am still thinking even more now that there will be concept designers and illustrators.

 

This field can definitely be categorized. Any other thoughts people? Am I way off base with this?

[Frosty]

It's taken me since then to be where I am now in ability and knowledge. Hiring someone right out of college to do rendering work is a very bad idea. The development of your 'style' is very important in what makes us stand apart from each other. That takes years.

 

 

I dont consider myself one of the best, but I'm no slouch.....I finish school on Monday

[ShaunDon]

Quite frankly, until a revolution in interface is accomplished, the new generation of 3D architects -- which I have met very few of; our firm hosted a meeting of young architects from Boston and northern New England, many of them not too long ago out of school, and in a group of 20 only one said that he used 3D in his daily workflow. But I'm digressing hugely already.

 

Until 3D is made a whole lot easier and time efficient, the new architects who rely on 3D will simply be outperformed by the veterans and a roll of tracing paper. The best architects that I know I have never seen in front of a computer. They don't need 3D for the majority of their work. And I, an extremely experienced modeler (a HELL of a lot more experienced than I think any successful architect would ever have time to be) am involved during the design stage, I'm constantly tripping over myself to catch up with the sweeping changes they've made in 20 minutes with a pen and a couple markers.

 

I see the quality of the in-house guys who work with architects improving greatly, yes. And programs like RevIt and ADT are now and will in the future do an even better job of streamlining the CAD/visualization process. But I also see new technologies always permitting us (the independants) to go further, to develop better images, or interactive presentations and tight promotional web-content for investors and marketting agencies. This market for visualization will only grow, and I don't see now nor expect to see many architects developing this stuff in house to try and meet the demand.

 

It's easy to see the kind of work we do now edged out in the future by newer technology. But I'm at a loss to imagine the enormity of how much more we will be doing by that point in time. Just don't stop learning as fast as you can is the bottom line I suppose...

[luckytohaveher]

I have to sa, at this moment in time, I am loosing interst in the job.

As a company member for now going on 8 and half years, I still feel like an outsider and a neccessary evil.

You are not part of the Team so to speak.

You are given a rediculus deadline and expected to reach it.

I personally don't see a future in the job, I love it, I have read every article, every review on the latest technology, software hardware, what the future holds etc.

...

But i am having serious doubts about the overall future of the job.

...

Has anybody else felt the sane way about the job?

 

I was for years in a similar situation. With ALL early adopters, you are faced with difficult economic constraints, impossible production requirements, and most importantly the 'mad scientist' stereotype. However, you have time, technology and fate on your side. I have seen really talented people using ADT 4.x and VIZ together with Vray on a robust computer. It is amazing! With Moore's law doubling the speed of your system every 18 months or more (See Nvidia's gelato system) the nature of the production cycle WILL CHANGE. The difficulty for you is you are still producing in an 'early adopters' production cycle. Move as quickly as you can to master all of the various tools for your particular production system (ADT/MAX/VARY I hope). Then when the charts cross between methods and cost to the next production methodology, FULL 3D BIM (Building Information Model), you will be the benefactor of the current technology curve at that time. Right now you are building models and rendering like the hand built cars from 1900-1925. Really soon, in terms of a 'career', there will be a transformative move to BIM. This will be similar to cars being producted on an assembly line. Then as the master of the toolkit, you will be able to ride the technology curve for an additional wave.

 

Most importantly, I would recommend two things. First look for a new job. Find an employer who has realistic expectations for the productivity for one person. Having worked for some large firms for years, you may need to look to a boutique or smaller firm specializing in design. Second, no matter what don't give up. All 'technocrats' will come increasingly valuable due to production methodology and demographics. In the U.S. approximately 50%-60% of the licensed architects will retire over the next 10 years. Remember you have Moore's law at your back and vast intelligence (anyone who can do that job for years must). Time is on your side! At this point, would you bet against Moore's Law? Just find the right 'gig'!

[Sketchrender]

Thank you very much for the reply, It is encouraging to think that i will be of some value in the future.

I think I will discuss the issue of time on projects and limiting the amount I work on a week, which is quite often two and that's from start to finish.

 

One think dose interest me...

you siad that I should be using ADT max and Vray........?

Not thyat i am arguing this, but is this the recomendation for the right software to use to get on in the future.

I agree with you, I am using formz and microstation, and hate the sight of microstation it is a cad package, and not user friendly at all.

Formz is not handleing big projects at all for me anymore, quite often now on a weekly basis files are getting close to 20mb and formz will not handle anymore than that I am finding.

 

So I would like to hear your opinion on ADT and Max for a start.I was thinking of switching to Max on it's own, but do you think I also need adt, if so let me know why, and do you have any idea of prices, as I will have to put it too the mangers.

 

 

thanks again...

 

intereting reading....what is your background by the way. are you free lance?

phil