Arch Viz production duration

[Guest royterr]

I know that this could vary widely but is there any timeline for high end arch viz projects?

I already heard that some clients could give you up to 2 month to deliver your final animation? is that too long? Or can go for 3 or 5 months for high end projects? I there any standards in the north american and european industry?

[John Dollus]

It varies greatly but I have yet to encounter a client who has the attention span for a 5 month animation project.

[Guest royterr]

It varies greatly but I have yet to encounter a client who has the attention span for a 5 month animation project.

 

Is 3 or 4 months acceptable for a high end project?

[Justin Hunt]

Often we get asked to finish within a month, however once they start reviewing it does tend to stretch out.

 

The worst case I have delt with was an initial 3 week program stretching out to 3 years. Many factors were involved but mainly because The client wanted an animation way to early in the design process, we were still designing at the end of the 3 years.

 

jhv

[Nic H]

i couldn't handle a 6 month job!

4 - 6 weeks is normal for most of our larger jobs.

if it cant be done in that time then we get more people on it

[Devin Johnston]

I just finished one that was supposed to take 3 months and ended up taking 6. It was also a case of them wanting an animation too soon before all the design had been worked out, they were incredibly picky. The project ended up taking twice as long and costing 40% more than I'd initially estimated, fortunately all the delays were the result of the client's actions and they did pay for the extra time. It's always better to overestimate time and cost than have to go back to the client and ask for more money, they don't usually like this even when it is their fault.

[Guest royterr]

s

I just finished one that was supposed to take 3 months and ended up taking 6. It was also a case of them wanting an animation too soon before all the design had been worked out, they were incredibly picky. The project ended up taking twice as long and costing 40% more than I'd initially estimated, fortunately all the delays were the result of the client's actions and they did pay for the extra time. It's always better to overestimate time and cost than have to go back to the client and ask for more money, they don't usually like this even when it is their fault.

 

Now you guys are taking about fixed images and animations, but what about real time? Will clients accept to give more time for interactive viz? specially that it can take more time to produce? will they give 4 or 6 months for photoreal realtime experience? And what if all this was on a provided on a mobile platform? Will they value innovative experiences?

[Scott Schroeder]

s

 

Now you guys are taking about fixed images and animations, but what about real time? Will clients accept to give more time for interactive viz? specially that it can take more time to produce? will they give 4 or 6 months for photoreal realtime experience? And what if all this was on a provided on a mobile platform? Will they value innovative experiences?

 

No, No, and double no. Clients really don't care about real time, unless you find that .01% that do. The fact is, real time can take a while and making changes can be a pain in the arse. They need images that everyone can see and understand. Most of the clients need their images sooner than later, so real time just really isn't feasible. Besides, as much a a proponent of real time viz as I am, most real time stuff is light years behind where stills and animations are.

[Devin Johnston]

Yep, in 12 years of doing this I've never had one client ask for a realtime walkthrough. Even with all the engines out today it's impossible to match the quality of a high end animation.

[Guest royterr]

I guess clients want to "hook" potential buyers/investors and that's why arch viz animations are commissioned and I agree with all the advantages that simple animation could provide.

It's just that the interactive dimension can't be ignored, after playing a game like "heavy rain"

I noticed that being inside a fancy flat walking around gives a completely different sensation, you are being invited to be part of the experience not just a viewer, isn't that important (for reaching the potential clients emotions)? for marketing? changing a material on the spot, selecting the time of day, customizing a certain element? offering a unique user experience for each project? opening the door to a new world of possibilities? specially today with the the widespread of tablets, smart phones and other modern platforms? don't you think that your clients in the end just follow the public trend ?

Its already happening In the automotive industry with virtual trials of new car models, like an interactive add on tablets.

And if there is no potential for real time, than why the booming of real time architecture softwares like, lumionRT,twinmotion,lumens just to name a few.

Edited January 28, 2013 by royterr

[Nic H]

but can you imagine how boring that would be?...and it would need people not necessarily familiare with gaming to engage with something they do not want to be engaged in.

 

 

its very very ugly compared to precomposed / rendered animations as well.

 

if i 'played' an 'arch vis' 'game' i wouldn't be interested in changing the colour of cupboards - Id be wanting to kill the 3d kids, burn the house down, get drunk on cg beer and run over the neighbours.

[Guest royterr]

but can you imagine how boring that would be?...and it would need people not necessarily familiare with gaming to engage with something they do not want to be engaged in.

 

 

its very very ugly compared to precomposed / rendered animations as well.

 

if i 'played' an 'arch vis' 'game' i wouldn't be interested in changing the colour of cupboards - Id be wanting to kill the 3d kids, burn the house down, get drunk on cg beer and run over the neighbours.

 

well, this is not a game at first place.

it's a real immerseve walk through.

Regarding the graphical difference, it's just a matter of time before real time catches up, you look at quality like "CRYSIS" environments, it's no really that far a way

[Scott Schroeder]

You would be amazed at the amount of people who will struggle with simple first person controls. Just because you think everyone is a gamer, isn't necessarily so. Your average middle age real estate buyer probably has never picked up a controller or use the WASD controls.

 

You haven't looked up the cost associated with the CryEngine 3 have you? Do you realize that just because you can download for free doesn't mean you can make money with it and not have to pay licensing and royalty fess, right? Unless you have a place that prints money as a side business. You are looking at an easy $500,000 -$1 million licensing fee for the CryEngine 3. Again it comes down to the resale argument. Yes, there are some very high quality engines out there that are starting to give pre-rendered video a run for their money. However, you can't really re-sell an architectural walk through as you would a game.

 

When you have a game that can make 2-3 million in resale, a $500,000 yearly licensing cost isn't that bad. Yet, when you are putting out walk throughs at $4-6k a pop then licensing fees become quite limiting. If you start charging for real time that is more than pre-rendered video you won't get any business. Your client will go, "Wait, so you are telling me I have to pay much more for a deliverable that isn't as good as video? And I have to wait an additional 4 months for it?"

 

Have you stayed current with how much the games industry is being gutted right now? Just look at the recent THQ meltdown, the cost associated with the higher end engines is becoming almost too much even for the major studios. Yeah, if you are IW and you have the Call of Duty machine at your disposal and can make 1 billion in a week, you aren't in too bad of shape. But these days, games that can't sell 1 million copies are considered failures. Take a look at Gas Powered Games Kick Starter page, they are looking at $1.2 million in funds just to get the game off the ground. Now, tell me, what viz studio has that kind of cash just burning a hole in their pockets?

 

Cost and our pipeline will keep us out of real time for some time. Creating environments for games is different from arch viz. They share similar workflows but they are also different. Twinmotion and Luminon are not booming in any sense. They are still very niche. I don't know of many major viz firms that use them as a primary rendering engine. I know of several that have looked at them, but then realize that doing it the way we have been doing it is still the more cost effective way.

 

To lightly touch on the mobile apps with these engines. The requirements are even stricter. Most of the UDK mobile apps have a full poly budget of 250,000 polygons. That's it, which that is a tree in most of our scenes these days. So you can't go jamming your poorly made Revit or SketchUp model in there and expect it to run anything less than awful. You are also limited on your textures, you can't put your 8,000x8,000 pixel image in there.

 

You just can't beat good ole stills and animations.

[neil poppleton]

Yep, in 12 years of doing this I've never had one client ask for a realtime walkthrough. Even with all the engines out today it's impossible to match the quality of a high end animation.

 

Not full realtime but image quality rendering 360 interactive walkthrough. Worth a look Devin. We have been amazed with its simplicity and ease of production.

[Guest viniciusphilot]

Here in Brazil, Archviz clients usually want their job done in 5 working days or a week (for 2, 3 or 4 still images, the whole package). We also have a local culture of wanting things before the project is finished, so it takes a lot of revisions and corrections. It's very important to have a contract in which you make clear that revisions will be charged separately, otherwise you might end a year working for free.

[Crazy Homeless Guy]

Honestly, if you expect to have 4-5 months to finish a project hen you should move over to games or VFX. The longest Viz projects run 2 months, most are 1-2 weeks.

 

If you have 2 weeks for a project then you need to be able to finish the production of the real-time in 5 days. The rest of the time is for client revisions, admin, and coordination.

 

As for real-time itself... nothing mind boggling has been shown for arch viz real time and until that happens real-time is a non-factor. You either need to come up with a real-time concept that has not been done or one that does not look CG.

 

If you are serious then I would avoid going down the path of desktop first person shooter perspective and start thinking about how you can take advantage of the gyroscope in tablets to create an experience that is based on a persons physical movement rather than relying on someone ability to understand WASD controls. You might be surprised at how quickly a client will become engaged with an image that react to his physical movement.

Edited January 29, 2013 by Crazy Homeless Guy