Wnat would you want in a new 3D creation application?

[Chris Johnson]

Having worked for almost 2 decades with old software in the architectural DCC field I'm totally burned out on existing applications. I find almost all the solutions to be old, and have old ideas.

 

Personally I'm interested and plenty able to put together a new platform for architectural DCC. I just need to know what people want?

 

So a few questions:

1. How important is the platform OS? (Windows, Mac or LInux or all of the above)

2. Any need to use a touchscreen for creation?

3. Integration with mobile platforms. Any use for this?

4. Residential construction?

5. Or commercial construction?

6. Ease of use?

7. Would you like it to be more generic like max, maya?

8. Or more specific like revit?

 

 

Would love to have a discussion here on this subject.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Chris Johnson

[Chris MacDonald]

1. How important is the platform OS? (Windows, Mac or LInux or all of the above)

 

Personally I (and everyone else in my office and every other large office locally) use windows.

 

2. Any need to use a touchscreen for creation?

 

It depends on what kind of tools you plan on the software having. For sculpting in 3d, yes probably.

 

3. Integration with mobile platforms. Any use for this?

 

An app for taking/sending files to clients?

 

4. Residential construction?

 

Why would we want to invest in a package that ties us to a specific type of construction?

 

5. Or commercial construction?

 

See above.

 

6. Ease of use?

 

Yes please?

 

7. Would you like it to be more generic like max, maya Or more specific like revit?

 

I think this is the crux of it. I doubt very much that you'll be able to decide whether it should be one or the other until you've decided who you're aiming this at. Architects, or visualisers?

 

If you're aiming for that golden middle ground then I bid you good luck, but you're up against two practices that are deeply entrenched in their current software's. Getting an architect to move away from AutoCAD to Revit is difficult enough - so getting them to move to an entirely different software ecosystem is going to be nigh on impossible. And the same with visualisers.

 

Are you working under the assumption that architects have the time/skills to create the visuals that visualisers do? Or that visualisers should be able to create their own working drawings? I'm not sure what you're aiming for.

[Scott Schroeder]

It is going to be almost impossible for you to uproot an company's existing software workflow. Just one day of downtime for us is equivalent to our entire year's cost for Vray. Throw a week's worth of downtime in and you have our entire yearly software cost. This is why software, some say better software, like Modo and Blender haven't really taken off in the middle to larger companies. It simply isn't cost effective to shut down for what you really gain from that new piece of software.

 

Many architect's struggle with Outlook. So if you can make it simpler than Outlook, then you are at least on the starting line.

[Devin Johnston]

These are all good points, one thing your software should do is be able to open any scene no matter what software it's made in and convert it materials and all automatically. Like Scott said most firms don't move to other platforms because of the amount of time it takes to convert everything to that new platform. It should be extremely simple to use, get rid of all the endless tweaking of settings and complex material shaders. This is where people spend the majority of their time, instead of creating better images there worried about how much noise is in their scene.

[beestee]

I think there is a good opportunity to approach this right now. Making breakthrough technology that has cropped up recently the focal point would be key to making it a success among it's peers. Build it in Unreal Engine, distribute through Steam, make creation in VR a priority. This would bring something new that the current big contenders would struggle to integrate for much longer than it would take to develop in an intuitive fashion from scratch.

 

Whatever the final feature set is, it be a monumental task and there are no guarantees that the industry would jump on board just to reiterate what Scott and Devin have said. It would have to offer something important that is not easily available otherwise.

[Francisco Penaloza]

Not with the intention of fighting here, but idea seems pretty bold or big, to have one single solution IMO.

as mentioned by others, bringing a new app to a such large industry is not that easy. Multi million dollar Autodeks still struggling to connect 3D Max with REVIT. how this can be solved by a single software??

 

it may be the next big entrepreneurs thing, hopefully, but IMO ( and I also have about 20 years on this) is not that simple and I don't think it can be done in one stop, yet. What an architect/developer need is complete different than what an artist need.

 

A version of 3D Max that work like REVIT would be horrible, but if 3d Max have creations tools such wall, windows etc like REVIT would be great.

I would be more efficient to piggy back (AKA plugin, extension and what not) and add missing features, like CAD for Lightwave, I really wish those tool were in 3d Max. But so far no company had taken this approach, MODO is a totally different modeling tool for other industries and Blender, well can do great stuff but not flexible to work with AEC industry really.

 

Time ago there was this small construction company that develop a great BIM like tools for Autocad. You could build entire houses in a fraction of time that you would with vanilla AutoCAD. and the details of libraries was great that minimum has to be done in 3D Max to make those model render the right way.

 

From what your intentions are, all the points you posted are necessary, except maybe the touch features, but if you want mobile devices then it should be necessary and add to that list stylus compatibility. Because those Apple Pro are selling like hot pancakes.

[Chris MacDonald]

A version of 3D Max that work like REVIT would be horrible, but if 3d Max have creations tools such wall, windows etc like REVIT would be great.

I would be more efficient to piggy back (AKA plugin, extension and what not) and add missing features, like CAD for Lightwave, I really wish those tool were in 3d Max. But so far no company had taken this approach, MODO is a totally different modeling tool for other industries and Blender, well can do great stuff but not flexible to work with AEC industry really.

 

This is probably where the money is at the moment. Just look at what a success plugins like VRay, Forest Pack Pro and Railclone have become - we as an office have a licence for each and if any of management asked if they were really necessary I'd have to tell them that I wouldn't be able to do my job without them; they are that ingrained in our workflow.

 

As Francisco mentioned there is a gap in 3DS max for architecture related things such as doors and windows - but the problem with creating stuff like this is that they can often be too prescriptive; I need to be able to edit the profiles of the doors and windows, and have the automatically update, and already be rigged, with ironmongery, etc. It's a tough ask.

 

Even Sketchup is having a plugin developed to do it fairly well (though still a fixed number of styles):

[M V]

Speed of SketchUp with the Power of Max.

[Derek Forreal]

Speed of SketchUp with the Power of Max.

considering the huge ArchVis base using Max, i'm really surprised there's not a LWCAD style plugin for Max yet.

 

@ Chris Johnson, would you consider a LWCAD style plugin for MODO? even starting out with a 'basic' toolset (push/pull etc) and inferencing engine SketchUp style would be fantastic and i've no doubt you'd be most welcome on the MODO forums.

 

MODO would be a great base to work off and has all the supporting tools already there UV, surfacing, rendering animation etc.

 

are you intending on creating all these functions from scratch? if you wrote a decent plugin wouldn't you be able to charge more for it than you would for an unknown software startup? what about BIM? that's huge in itself... are you planning on merging the two?

[Scott Schroeder]

Just get Polyline Pro and you'll be set.

 

http://forums.cgarchitect.com/79192-3ds-max-tool-polyline-pro.html

[dantevargas]

Even Sketchup is having a plugin developed to do it fairly well (though still a fixed number of styles):

 

Oh man I want something like this for 3dsmax so much.

[Chris Johnson]

Writing a plugin to something like Max and then making the plugin portable to another 3D Platform is harder than writing base package that is itself cross platform compatible. I don't know what that I'm interested in a plugin per se. But I don't know, a modo plugin could be a fun place to start.

What do you mean by LWCAD style plugin?

[Francisco Penaloza]

LWCAD was a set of tools created in plugin form to give Lightwave similar tool found in any CAD software. Like Scoot mentioned Polyline Pro, wich is great but LWCAD did have same functions and many other tools.

 

For instance 3dMax line work is very basic, you can't spec section distance, only main aver all length, or spec radius and many more. Polyline Pro is a great solution to this. But what about procedural walls, windows, doors stairs to name some.

 

I also think is a bad idea to create a plugin and then try to make it stand alone, my point was it will be way harder for a small developer to start a new CAD/ 3D Modeler app than just create a set of tool to cover those missing functions.

 

If you want to make a few bucks you could create something similar to LWCAD to MODO, I know that there are a lot of people waiting for that in MODO community. But investing in MODO to be a replacement of 3D Max for Arch Viz, I don't know about that, MODO is a great general modeler and plus, but interaction with anything Autodesk is very clumsy at best. Not even integration with sketchup is out of problem.

 

If you are talking about anything related to AEC industry, everything is touched by Autodesk, so or you play along or you'll have hard time.

Just ask Maxon

[Derek Forreal]

a modo plugin could be a fun place to start.

What do you mean by LWCAD style plugin?

you say you're fed up with old solutions and old ideas, so MODO would be a perfect springboard.

 

regarding LWCAD, to say it's a plugin really is an understatement. it's pretty much a modelling solution in itself and has a vast array of tools, many of which are ArchVis specific. i've been hoping for a MODO version ever since i became a MODO user.

 

http://www.wtools3d.com/product.php

 

too many tools to mention but amongst others, full set of advanced CAD snapping and inferencing tools, realtime booleans, roof tools, roof tile tools, comprehensive window and door tool, and so on.

 

LWCAD was a set of tools created in plugin form to give Lightwave similar tool found in any CAD software. Like Scoot mentioned Polyline Pro, wich is great but LWCAD did have same functions and many other tools.

LWCAD is a set of tools, not was. it has been going for years and the developer keeps releasing great updates.

 

that Polyline Pro tool is useful i'm sure, but it's a single tool and can't even begin to be compared to LWCAD's suite of advance tools.

 

But investing in MODO to be a replacement of 3D Max for Arch Viz, I don't know about that, MODO is a great general modeler and plus, but interaction with anything Autodesk is very clumsy at best. Not even integration with sketchup is out of problem.

 

If you are talking about anything related to AEC industry, everything is touched by Autodesk, so or you play along or you'll have hard time.

Just ask Maxon

i find it amusing that the vast majority of renders i see could easily be achieved using SketchUp alone and pretty much any render engine. yet if any new users come here asking for advice it's always the same response - get Max and Vray (though Corona is starting to gain some momentum).

 

3DS Max is essentially a hub for other tools and processes, and most of Max itself - modelling tools aside - is unnecessary for general Arch/ProductVis. so what makes Autodesk so critical to the AEC industry? ArchiCAD is a fine, if not superior, replacement for Revit, there are countless AutoCAD clones if you need 2D, and modelling the average house these days can be accomplished in any number of modellers - MODO, SketchUp, FormZ, Rhino, Blender etc etc.

 

render engines are 2 a penny - which engine does Autodesk build again?

 

in any case, for every great Max/Vray render there are 100 mediocre ones and just as many rubbish ones, so as always it's the artist using the tool rather than the tool itself that's important.

 

of course Max has a vast collection of resources available, but how are things ever going to change if the cliche' response is to stick with Max because it's the industry standard?

 

at the end of the day, i'm really not that bothered because i can do everything i need without having to touch anything Autodesk, and there are plenty of other users that would like the same.

 

so, Mr Johnson, if you're serious about doing away with the old and embracing the new, give the MODO forums a try and ask there. i may be completely wrong of course but i think there are lots of users waiting for a quality CAD/ArchVis/Hard Surface set of tools. requests for LWCAD style plugins consistently appear on the forums and there is always interest.

[Francisco Penaloza]

Derek, I agree with most of your point, when I was quoted but, the main difference of using MODO, Cinema 4D and what not is the environment that you work.

Here in USA ( not being arrogan, I am from Chile actually just using USA as a location) most of the AEC work is done with Atuodesk product, we love it, we hate it, is not the point, some way some how it works that way here. Believe me I tried several times to work outside the grid, for a while when I freelance for years, I tried Cinema 4D and any free obscure CAD app, to stay legal and don't break the bank, but one after the other my clients send me REVIT files, Rihno files (those works better actually) AutoCAD files, and always had to spend lot of time cleaning and optimizing before I start to rendering. for a while I was on Mac's running MODO, since early version I had great hope for that software, but again for me, I felt I could use that time with my life and family instead flipping normals.

 

I am very open to changes, and hope MODO and Cinema 4D become better tools so 3D Max becomes even better. But so far it is what it is.

and again my main point of participating on this thread was to give some input when some one come here and said, I am tired of all software I will make my own, it seems a little far fetched, unless they can show some samples of what they can produce... or at least say what it is so wrong and how they can fix it.

Like politics

 

Glade to heard LWCAD stay a live, I haven't use Lightwave in years and last time I heard about it, it seems dead. Glade to be wrong on that one

[Scott Schroeder]

Autodesk is critical to our industry because simply put, they got here first and they were the best solution back when most of us were kids and playing with our Ninja Turtles Pizza Thrower toy. They established themselves a long long time ago and it's cost prohibitive to make the switch. I know how expensive it would be if our 50 person firm decided to ditch the Autodesk love bus, I can't image how expensive it would be for massive firms like Gensler and AECom. The switch would probably bankrupt them.

[Derek Forreal]

Believe me I tried several times to work outside the grid, for a while when I freelance for years, I tried Cinema 4D and any free obscure CAD app, to stay legal and don't break the bank, but one after the other my clients send me REVIT files, Rihno files (those works better actually) AutoCAD files, and always had to spend lot of time cleaning and optimizing before I start to rendering. for a while I was on Mac's running MODO, since early version I had great hope for that software, but again for me, I felt I could use that time with my life and family instead flipping normals.

i remember seeing you on the MODO forums when i first got into MODO - when it was 'modo'.

 

i can totally appreciate that clients will give you files that you need to be able to open and use, but how many files can you just open, texture, light and render? i'm fortunate enough to be the end user of most of my own work. these days i have very little time for personal projects and most of my Vis is for real projects that i am building to sell on or for client builds. but some is pure Vis and in those cases all i really need is a PDF with dimensions. in some cases, a barebones model (floors, walls, roofs and openings) can be useful if there are some tricky angles or curves involved, and here, trusty file formats such as .3ds or .obj are more than adequate.

 

let's face it, many of the best renders we've all seen are modelled off nothing more than a lo res jpg downloaded off the net. PDFs are more than adequate and honestly, if i'm given a DWG all i do is convert to PDF or image file and use that as it's much less hassle in most cases.

 

furniture and entourage from the likes of Revit et al simply aren't good enough for final quality renders and are placeholders at best. in this regard model providers are gradually catering to a wider range of applications.

 

Autodesk is critical to our industry because simply put, they got here first and they were the best solution back when most of us were kids and playing with our Ninja Turtles Pizza Thrower toy. They established themselves a long long time ago and it's cost prohibitive to make the switch. I know how expensive it would be if our 50 person firm decided to ditch the Autodesk love bus, I can't image how expensive it would be for massive firms like Gensler and AECom. The switch would probably bankrupt them.

i understand that but there are lots of freelancers and small studios too, any number of which might just be starting out and these users aren't locked in in the same way, but they are constantly encouraged to do so whenever the question is asked on here.

 

and even in these large studios, of course i'm not suggesting they suddenly stop using Max and switch to some other software overnight. and i'm certainly not suggesting that they should switch to MODO, because it's not exactly feature complete either - no software is. but alternative software and processes could be introduced gradually, starting with one or two new recruits for example and seeing if there is any long term benefit.

 

we need choice and we need improvement in the tools we use and this goes back to the OP - "what would you want in a new 3D creation application?".

 

theoretically i'd like 2 key things - a fully featured snapping/inferencing/guideline engine, and a focussed comprehensive Architectural modeller, with powerful efficient tools that make tedious tasks such as modelling and texturing roof tiles, windows, stairs, cabinets, tiles, flooring and so on easier. it should handle very high poly counts with ease and communicate seamlessly with my main 3D software of choice. i think a plugin would be more than adequate for this and i'd be over the moon if it became available for MODO and i'd be willing to learn Blender if it was released for it.

 

i think it's unrealistic to think that an all singing, all dancing, standalone modelling/texturing/lighting/rendering/BIM solution can be developed before it's time for me to retire.

Edited May 17, 2016 by derekforreal