I'm curious.

After all the threads I have read on rendering on this forum.

What skills do architects possess in general when it comes to modelling, which is after all an important consideration when it comes to producing photorealistic renderings.

To date I have read a lot of about exporting low poly SU models into high end renderers and pushing buttons, but not a lot about the construction.

So my question is, how proficient do you architects on this forum think you are at nurbs or box modelling in general ?

And do you think it is a skill worth paying for ? if yes, then what is general route you take at hiring or out sourcing this skill ?

Image herewith:

Box Modelling in Cheetah 1 hour

1 Physically correct area light added and texturing 15 mins

1600 x 800 pixel render 6 mins

Quad G5 non intel

wow

modelling is a skill we want to better at and know quite alot about but often dont have the time to committ to learning tbetter echniques...personally id pay for texturing and rendering over modelling-the form is probably something we'd want more control of.

there's a distinction between modelling - for design purposes, massing, understanding how a solution "goes together" and modelling for presentation/sales/promotional purposes.

"basic" modelling is part of the design process - like the thumbnail sketches or doodles done in the early stages of a design

photomontages, photorealism etc is the presentation component - back in the old days only the larger projects would warrant the expense of hand drawn/illustrated/rendered perspectives

so they are complimentary but distinct skills - the short answer - I'd outsource high level rendering/modelling, but keep the "basic" stuff in house

I'm not quite sure I understand your question. But here's my best shot at answering, anyway.

I like to believe I am pretty efficient with both Nurbs and Mesh modeling...in fact, I teach courses in SketchUp and Rhino, and I've worked as a modeler/renderer at a graphics firm that does high-end green-screen compositing with live actors into a CG environment. But as an architect, I have almost never been asked to do photorealistic renderings...this has been an activity outside the scope of my work (which is--or should be--defined very specifically in the owner-architect contract before the project starts, and amended or enlarged later with vast reluctance).

Last time this kind of a request (for a completely photoreal representation of an ongoing architectural project, for some kind of presentation) came to a team in which I was working, we put the client in touch with visualization firms we considered reliable and allowed them to work out their own agreement with said visualizers. As a courtesy, we shared my detailed SketchUp model (worked up over months of design studies, it was accurate down to the steel framing of the building) with the selected visualization firm, along with the current set of architectural drawings.

Interestingly enough, on this occasion I found (after the fact) that the "reputable" visualizers had refused to use the SketchUp model we supplied, and they had contracted with the client to both model and render the building. They told the client that the SketchUp model was simply not suitable for photorealistic rendering. Cynically, I think they simply wanted to add a substantial modeling fee.

This is my personal experience in the area, I should insist. In at least one firm where I was once offered employment, hoewever, there was an in-house visualization department, with staff CG artists. Presumably, this firm found it economical to have that kind of capability and probably they had a standard contract that included a certain amount of photoreal modeling/rendering as scope.

Modeling for concept development and generation of plans/sections, study renders along the way = in house for sure.

Rendering high-gloss images with a lot of photoshop and/or animation = in house if we have time (which you often don't), otherwise we outsource it.

Firstly, thank you all for the speed of feedback it is very much appriciated
and so far the comments has kinda confirmed what I have found out working in this field in the UK


Re: Lewis

"Interestingly enough, on this occasion I found (after the fact) that the "reputable" visualizers had refused to use the SketchUp model we supplied, and they had contracted with the client to both model and render the building. They told the client that the SketchUp model was simply not suitable for photorealistic rendering. Cynically, I think they simply wanted to add a substantial modeling fee."

That's an interesting area of discussion you raise there, as I have had a Firm send me SU files for rendering and they and I assumed that it would cut down on the modelling costs which would save money and leave me to do my "bit" ( the texturing and photomontage) It actually worked out more expensive on that occasion as the model was completely unusable as far as detail was concerned and half of the model had inverse faces which cause havoc on output.

But in general the models I have seen in SU have been a hell of lot better than the equivalent vector works and a few other 2D to 3D cad packages

Could also be a topic for a new thread on Architects preparing sketchup models for photo real renders over and above lighting and spacial studies which I know from this forum is an important part of the evaluation process.


"This is my personal experience in the area, I should insist. In at least one firm where I was once offered employment, hoewever, there was an in-house visualization department, with staff CG artists. Presumably, this firm found it economical to have that kind of capability and probably they had a standard contract that included a certain amount of photoreal modeling/rendering as scope."

I understand that the larger practices in the UK at least, have that service in house

i think it is becoming more common that young architects (esp those working on competitions or early design work) are expected to be using model/render/photoshop as part of their day to day tools.

in my experience in the offices i have worked there is however always one or two guys that are better at this task and so all in-house jobs are handled by them.

in my position i ONLY work by modelling/rendering/photoshop, but NEVER doing final presentation renders (except for competitions). it is always in-house design work that is investigated through images. they may also be quick montages or finding reference images.

when a client wants a 'selling' image they always go directly to a render office. (thankfully IMO)

Dear p2an

I suppose that it's a natural progression of Architectural Students coming out with more skills from college with regards to accepted CAD software.

It reminds me of when Photoshop was a skill in it's own right (the retoucher or photocomp artist) and then all of a sudden designers had to be proficient in it as well, along with 10 other software programs !

I used to think Christ !...surely no one can be good in all those apps.

So I guess it's inevitable that the photorealistic 3D bit creeps into your domain

as an example of a division between in-house work and render house work, i recently worked on the Camp Nou competition entry. i did 'design' renders to help our office investigate and develop our scheme, but for the final panels we used a render house to do them.
i find this division pleasing, as in-house you are really using the software as a design tool, then using the external render company to do the final presentation images.

Well here’s my take. I work with a company that believes adamantly in the philosophy of physical study models for general study and conceptual ideas, and Final models for presentation to clients as well as marketing. Because of the quality of our final models. Almost every client wants us to create a final model (which unfortunately doesn’t always happen). Use of 3d models where not really that prevalent here.
4 weeks ago I created a sketchup model of a physical model that made and shipped to Istanbul Turkey for the client. (talk about Art, Imitating life, Imitation Art…… or is it Life, Imitating Art, Imitating Life…)
anyway… I rendered it in maxwell and looked so much like the physical model my boss originally though it was a picture of the model we made. In fact he was so impressed that the next couple of days, he called Maxwell render and purchased a license with 4 additional node licenses.

Now we are currently trying to reach and equitable equilibrium between Physical and 3d models. Perhaps the SU/Maxwell models will be used strictly for final presentations and physical models for studies... but the point is there can definitely be a harmonious balance between the two. One can be use where the other is just not efficacious or practical and so on.

very interesting.