We are trying to develop a “simpler option for Unreal Engine"

[flavioeiras]

Greetings everyone.

 

This is my first post, so nice to meet you all. I’m looking for anyone interested in trying / giving feedback on something we’ve been developing. It’s a platform to create walkable real-time rendered environments straight from the project file, without using any software.

 

The idea is simple: to give the “normal architect / 3d modeler” (who doesn’t want to learn how to code / or a complex workflow) the ability of creating an “interactive experience” of their project.

 

The point here is to hear if you think our concept makes sense. And to know if anyone would be interested in making a few tests with their own projects

 

About the concept, this is basically how it works:

#1 You have a plugin installed in your modelling software (Sketchup, 3dsMax, etc) which will “prepare” your file;

#2 Your file (.skp, .max, etc) is sent to an online platform that renders the scene and creates the “interactive presentation”;

#3 The presentation is sent to your email (under an .exe extension for example) ready to be used, no installation needed (can even be sent straight to a client);

 

And these are the Pros / Cons that we are evaluating, and that we would like to know your opinions on:

 

PROS:

 

1. Simple to create. Our goal is that the modeler can “setup” his file (by simply using a plugin) in less than 10 minutes. The point is eliminate the need for the whole “realtime engine workflow”, such as worrying about the UV maps, lightmaps, collisions, navigation UX, etc.
   
2. Easy to use. The interactive presentation itself (the .exe file) is designed so that anyone, from an architect to a child, can navigate on the project.
   
3. Accessible. Even though the visual-quality is simple, the bright side is that you (or your client) can run the presentation in a VERY basic hardware. Our current mark is that this presentation can be run on a i3 (2nd gen) processor / 2GB RAM / no dedicated graphic card.
   

 

CONS:

 

1. Visual quality. Definitely much simpler than what you can achieve by handcrafting an “interactive presentation” in a game engine for example. And obviously much simpler than “static render” (vray, etc).
   
2. Unnecessary (?). This is the highest risk. Since the visual quality is basic, we wonder if the modeler will find it inadequate to present it to his client. Or if they will just prefer to “navigate on the project” by simply opening the project file itself (I’ve seen Sketchup professionasl doing that, for example, when presenting to clients). If so, our solution becomes useless. Another risk is if the modeler simply doesn’t believe that there is any value in providing the experience to “walk around the project” to his client, believing that “static render” is enough.
   
3. Price (?). We’re trying to determine if the PRICE for this service would be an issue. In fact, if price WOULD be a problem, we’d be happy about it. Because if a lot of people would want to use “only if it’s cheap”, we can show this potential to investors. But anyway, we would like opinions on price. Our current idea is to charge a flat-fee every time the user sends a project file to create an interactive presentation, and our current bet is to charge U$19. How does it sound?
   

 

We have launched a 1st concept-video on Facebook last week, just to try some of the impressions. This video is targeted to make a test on future “potential clients”, we do not disclosure that this is still a “beta stage”. My point in making this post here at Cgarchitect is not commercial, so whoever is interested in giving us feedbacks or trying the platform, contact me directly

 

Link to the facebook concept video:

 

 

Cheers guys, hope to hear from you soon.

[flavioeiras]

Anyone? Up

[Nicolai Bongard]

Prepare for a depressing read:

 

Unless you can create something that is both better looking and easyer to use than the rest of your competitors there is no use in creating this.

 

The problem with the "easy to use" solutions we have today is that they tend to look like something that runs on a nintendo 64. While it may be sufficient to explain volumes, it lacks the wow-factor to sell a project to a client. They are used to stuff running on their phone that looks way better - how can an architect that costs alot of money not create stuff that looks better than a game on their phone? (common thinking among clients). The problem with the good looking stuff we got available (unreal) is that hardly any architect is going to bother trying to learn the workflow to create anything decent.

 

Since you are going for something that looks pretty basic, there are probably not alot of people who would pay anything for your service given they can achieve the same with the 3d view in their modelling software.

 

Archicad users allready have the the thing you are trying to create built into their software. They can just press file - save as - something.bimx to create a BIMX file that is small, looks horrible, is easy to navigate and requires no badass hardware to run.

 

For every other software that architects use there are allready competitors in place, but most of them focus on the "easy to use", so they all tend to look horrible.

So to have a chance you have to create something that both looks good AND is easy to use. No easy task.

[M V]

Not sure how what you are proposing is a "simpler option for Unreal Engine"? I was hoping that you were going to propose an easier way to leverage the power of Unreal Engine but make some sort of interface that would be built into SketchUp or Max. Now that would be interesting. I think most of the people you are going to meet on these forums are not your entry-level Joe Architect who has not even a basic understanding of material and lighting setups. What I want is a fluid and intuitive tool that takes my artwork to another level and gives me the ability to create cutting edge fully immersive presentations without the need of spending countless hours learning another engine. I think this is why Corona is such a big player right now - Super high quality and not a steep learning curve.

 

I would argue that Lumion is already doing what you propose and you don't have to load your file to some server in the cloud. Maybe I am old fashion but I never like loading my models on to a server. I like owning the software and having it on my machine. I don't know, I guess it helps me sleep at night knowing its there when I need it.

 

Also, I do think there are a few products already on the market that are doing what you are proposing as well. QRvr is one example.

https://qrvr.io

[flavioeiras]

Prepare for a depressing read:

 

Unless you can create something that is both better looking and easyer to use than the rest of your competitors there is no use in creating this.

 

The problem with the "easy to use" solutions we have today is that they tend to look like something that runs on a nintendo 64. While it may be sufficient to explain volumes, it lacks the wow-factor to sell a project to a client. They are used to stuff running on their phone that looks way better - how can an architect that costs alot of money not create stuff that looks better than a game on their phone? (common thinking among clients). The problem with the good looking stuff we got available (unreal) is that hardly any architect is going to bother trying to learn the workflow to create anything decent.

 

Since you are going for something that looks pretty basic, there are probably not alot of people who would pay anything for your service given they can achieve the same with the 3d view in their modelling software.

 

Archicad users allready have the the thing you are trying to create built into their software. They can just press file - save as - something.bimx to create a BIMX file that is small, looks horrible, is easy to navigate and requires no badass hardware to run.

 

For every other software that architects use there are allready competitors in place, but most of them focus on the "easy to use", so they all tend to look horrible.

So to have a chance you have to create something that both looks good AND is easy to use. No easy task.

 

 

Nicolai, thank you very much for your reply!

I smiled when I read "prepare for depression read". Well, truth is that we have enough cheerleaders (friends, relatives) We need some real feedback, to understand if we have chance of devolping something valuable. So I aprecciate you being straight.

 

I made some comments on your phrases, if you could please elighten me.

 

"While it may be sufficient to explain volumes, it lacks the wow-factor to sell a project to a client. They are used to stuff running on their phone that looks way better - how can an architect that costs alot of money not create stuff that looks better than a game on their phone?" Would you believe, then, that this MIGHT be a tool that would make more sense for specific niches? It's a feedback that I've heard sometimes. That we should focus this tool to corporate/industrial architects and draftsmen, basically those focused on "B2B projects", since in those cases it's USUALLY more important to understand the volumes and the concept than to provide the "wow realistic-factor". Do you think that makes sense? And if so, any advices?

 

"The problem with the good looking stuff we got available (unreal) is that hardly any architect is going to bother trying to learn the workflow to create anything decent." That's kinda where our hypothesis is. The hypothesis is that it does exist a relevant market of people who wouldn't learn a complex workflow - but that they WOULD like to provide a "walkable environment" to their client. I totally agree that all the "easy to use" alternatives create poor results (and yes, we're familiar with BIMX). We actually don't want to re-invent the wheel. We just want to stand out in between those "simple solutions", being the one "a bit better looking" among them, or "significantly easier". Something like that.

 

And one more thing: one thing that we haven't seen any competitor making-it-right, is creating an output file which is REALLY plug-and-play to the client. Even BIMX, if I'm not wrong, requires the user to have a plugin installed. Our output is an .exe file, and can be run by a crappy computer. Our hypothesis is that this could be a great value, since you could send STRAIGHT to the client. But maybe this is not THAT relevant, maybe architects usually DO WANT to present their projects face to face, using their own hardware if possible. Any comments on that?

 

Once again thank you very much. And as I said, if you're interested in giving it a try, let me know. And gimme your email address if possible, I can send you a coupom if you ever feel like trying the beta version, or giving it to someone else )

[Nic H]

check out some of the existing solutions I think they will be better options.

[Nicolai Bongard]

If you are going for only explaining volumes, thats pretty much what all your other competitors do as well, as hardly any architects take the time to tweak any settings or get into the software to make their models look good. So they just export the model to whatever software they choose and they end up with a model they can walk/fly around in. One of the few cool things bimx does is link drawings into the bimx so that you could see for example a section of a house and then view that area in 3d. Thats a pretty neat tool for explaining the drawings. Also, once again, in the cases where the architects are trying to sell a concept they bring their own equipment to do the salespitch/presentation, and they allready have the software required to show off their model. So it is a nonexisting market you are trying to sell into, they already got their needs met by their drawing application of choice.

 

If you are going for a "just a bit better" visual quality you still have a problem as you have to justify the cost of getting something "just a bit better" - why go for that if you can get almost as good/still crap for 0 money extra?

 

While a .exe sounds good in theory, it will have problems getting through a lot of firewalls/email systems.

Also, a ton of architects will have serious doubts sending their model out of the office, and they may not even be allowed to depending on the contracts.