Don (not trying to speak for him)is able to design residential and some small commercial under a certain square footage (someone help me out on this one!) without having a license. Anything over that magic number requires a licensed architect to work on it.
SNIP
Definitely. Happens all the time.
SNIP
After doing this for quite a few years, I've found my own process that I feel comfortable with. Always begins with sketches, and then (depending on the schedule of the project or the level of developement required) go directly into CAD. Sometimes I don't even bother with 2D drawings other than plan drawings. I've even skipped the plan part and went straight from sketch to 3D for a REALLY quick study for a client. The 3D file can be used for elevations and sometimes sections depending on the level of detail incorporated. I've been looking at softwares like REVIT, but the current versions out there could not handle the complexities and size of the projects I work on. I'm sure that will changing in the near future. I'm all for getting rid of 2D drawings in CAD completely. Every drawing created from one file, now that's my kind of software. ;-)
"gruhn" wrote in news:tnxHe.68$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:
Oh, I'm thinking Compositing using 3D, as in, replicate the lighting in the photo, use it (the photo) as background/forground, with the modeled structure inserted into the photo, IOW the lighting on it melding with that of the photo.
Lighting *is* difficult. 3D cameras are mobile so that's not bad, but lighting can be a bear; you've got the "sun" complex of lights, the "sky" dome lights, shadow-coloring lights, ground reflection light, poss. other fill lights, and, when you go indoors for a view, floor and wall reflected light. Radiosity cane do a lot of the work but not always all. Bad lighting makes the best model look poor.
OTOH if it wasn't maddening, it wouldn't be any fun ;)
"Don" wrote in news:NyBGe.7141$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread3.news.atl.earthlink.net:
[ snip ]
formatting link
Is that any help?
Or, alternately, and I've no idea at all whether this is any help, but my
3D prog is supposed to be able to open, and save, DWG. If you want, I can send a msg with an attached DWG file and, if you can open and edit it, maybe I can try to open and then save the DWG you were sent...? Or would it be a problem since I'd be exporting it from a 3D prog rather than from a
2D prog...? Anyhoo, if you want to try it out, let me know.
Sorry, the only other idea I can think of is to scan it and then save it yourself...
I guess it depends upon a bunch of factors (project perameters, budget, needs, etc.). I did a copy of 3D renders last year for major residential remodel projects (budgets of $400k-$600k). While the construction drawings ran ~$5000 the 3D portion added another $1500. To clarify, these renderings included 4 views (still images) of a couple of different color schemes, no interiors were modeled or rendered and no motion renderings/movie/fly-bys. The quality level was photo-realistic (well, as close as I could get them) & detail level was moderately high (doorknobs, chamfered trim, shutter slats, etc. but did not include minor detailing such as flashing, window screens, client specific landscaping - they got what I chose).
Is that expensive? Depends. For the builder and homeowner it was money well spent. Being able to SEE what the finished project is going to look like and pick exterior finishes/colors prior to construction is potentially a big money saver.
Ideally you'd start with a CAD file. If you start with anything else the potential for error is higher. Also, you'll find that if you're just doing the 3D portion of a project you'll have a lot of question to ask/have answered because you're not involved in the rest of the project. Another thing to think about is who your client is and their needs. If your client is the Architect, then during the design phase a lot of changes will need to be made. If your client is a developer than you're rendering a finished design (therefor potentially less changes).
As a side note: I don't think a person that's great with 3D rendering necessarily means they'll do Architectural renderings great (though obviously they know the software well). Angles/views, lighting, "ambiance", materials, detail level, etc. is different for Architectural rendering than say mechanical renderings. Also, if the person doesn't know how to read a set of plans and spec book they're screwed.
Depends upon what you're looking at. The crap put out by Chief Architect or
3D home design is not worth much. SketchUp can give you reasonably good output vs. time spent but still isn't going to big the big $ renderings. The "pros" doing photo-realistic work are putting out some absolutely amazing stuff, and for that they get paid really well ($5000-$10,000/project for 3D rendering isn't that rare). But to get the big dollars you have to get the prime jobs and have the talent to do them really well. If you want to see the good stuff that people who do it for a living are putting out you should check out the Autodesk.Viz.Vizions group on Autodesk's server (especially look for stuff done by Fran. If you can match her ability to capture the "soul" of the space you'll get all the work you could ever want and can charge top dollar. Some other people's work to look at would be "CDI"-"Conceptual Design Studio" and "Fermi"-"F.Bertran", their work tends to be slightly less than phot-real but certainly presentation quality and they're kept constently busy). I've got a lot of bookmarked websites of people doing high quality work, if you'd like I could post some or you can just do a Google for architectural rendering sites.
"Michael \(LS\)" wrote in news:SyCHe.3194$ snipped-for-privacy@tornado.rdc-kc.rr.com:
[ snippage ]
I worte:
Well, I guess it *is* more work than I sometimes keep track of. ((And my thing is the details, I prefer that to using bump maps when possible.))
I wasn't thinking expensive for them - I was thinking more in terms of "hey, that's a good wage!"
[ self snip ]
Actually, that sounds pretty dynamic and potnatially interesting. ((I get bored quickly when things become rote.))
A lot of 3D (as opposed to CAD/CAM, which I assume is what you mean by "mechanical") emphasizes character modeling, and the tutorials etc. also emphasize that. I don't like doing character modeling. Even back when I was drawing by hand, I never bothered with trying to draw people. People are the little things you put into scenes of buildings to give a sense of scale and because people like seeing themselves so to speak, so they often prefer works that have people in them.
I haven't yet worked from a spec book or plans, that's the problem. How to practice doing that when you need to know it to get work, but you can't get work unless you know it (and where else would one get materials with which to practice). I did get Francis D.K.Ching's book about Architectural Illustration (plus his other books), be there are no examples of plans or specs.
OK, found it! Did a search and I'm looking at some of her work.
Now *THAT* is what I call 3D :) !!
I'm definitely not that good yet, to be sure, but I really (and I mean
*really*) appreciate you sending me that info, because what she does is what I would like to be able do, so you've given me a good solid example of what I aspire to do, and someone to emulate.
Sometimes everyone needs some inspiration ;)
I will definitely look! Thanks =8-D !
If nothing else, I really do enjoy seeing that sort of work. When done well, I think it can be very artistic.
I've tried searches but a lot fo the results aren't the sort of quality I've been hoping to find (meaning, that makes me want to run to the computer, and sit down and practice until I get NumbBum). A few links would be a great favor, if you have the time, but the VIZ site is definitely a good place to start. I'm flipping back and forth between typing and looking, and some of the work is really beautiful!
Sorry this spiralled into being just about 3D - the other info you and the others have provided is also interesting and educational, and I appreciate all of the posts -
"Kris Krieger" wrote in message news:%gNHe.972$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net...
It can be a very good wage, it also can be a crappy wage. Depends upon how your pay is structured (i.e. hourly, per project, a combination, etc.) If you charge on a per project basis what happens when the cliet wants to make changes? What happens when the changes never end? I'd recommend charging a flat fee (say for 4 still images) and then an hourly rate for any additional changes, supplimental views, etc.
When I said "mechanical" i guess I meant a bunch of different things. To clarify, forget "mechanical" and let's use the term "non architectural" (that way it'll include CAD/CAM, manufacturer renderings, game rendering, etc.) Basically, architectural renderings tend to serve a different purpose than some of the others. A solid understanding of what makes a rendering successfully for the client and their application is important (i.e. an Architect wants accurate lighting, especially if you're doing daylight studies. A developer OTOH wants an appealing picture to show investors/buyers and total realism isn't as important. So if one side of the building is going to be perpetually dark because next to it is a 10 story office tower, the Architect might want it shown with the dark side while the developer wants to make his project as nice looking as possible. Clear as mud?
People in renderings..... that's a whole discussion by itself. Some people love em, some hate em. People can give a better sense of scale but there's other ways to (i.e. vehicles, trees/plants, furniture, camera height/angle, etc.) What makes a building rendering "architectural" is that the building is rendered in such a way as to show off the building. That means sometimes "fudging" the lighting, showing/not showing landscaping (i.e. don't show that tree right in front of the house! Well, unless you screen it or just outline it), etc. Entourage is the term for this "fluff" but like lighting, it can make or break a rendering.
When I first got Viz I wanted to learn it from the standpoint of eventually offering rendering services to my clients. I worked through some tutorials to get a feel for just the basics and then decided to try a "real" job for free. I talked to one of my Architect clients and explained what I wanted to do, and asked him for a CAD file of a project that I hadn't worked on (I wanted something to work on where I'd have to ask the right questions). In exchange for him answering my questions I'd give him any renderings I did free of charge. He sent me the file for his personal cabin (which actually worked great because it was a small building but very high level of detail and custom elements). I worked through modeling and rendering it and learned a lot. Unfortunitely I had to move on to paying work before I ever got it finished but it was a great learning experience. Another one of my early renderings was for a pergola, very simplistic modeling but it allowed me to really play with lighting and materials (this also was done for free for one of my projects). All told, I rendered 3 of my projects (I was doing design/construction documents for the projects) for free. The clients all loved them (and when it's free they can't complain that they wanted green carpeting when I was showing it brown!). This was a great way for me to learn rendering while also being able to add them to my portfolio and also "advertise" my work to the Architect/Builder/Homeowner (one of the renders I did was for basement remodel and the homeowners put up the rendering on the wall of the basement so the subs and all their friends could see what the finished space was going to look like). Free work is a great way to learn, it's also great "advertising" but it isn't going to pay your bills this week, so for some people it might not be an option.
Yep. "Rumor" has it that a couple years ago she had a problem (IIRC, Autodesk(?) used one of her renderings in a magazine ad without her permission). Anyway, I think of rendering like photography. My mom takes snapshots, but the goal should be to take pictures you'd want to blow up, frame and hang on your living room wall. The "subject matter/model" is the same but the lighting, lens, focus, framing of the subject, background, etc, etc, all makes the difference.
Yep. I don't follow the Viz groups very frequently but when I'm working on a project there's no better place to go to get feedback and help. I don't know if Ted and Daniel still hang out there but there's nothing like being able to ask the author a question about something in one of their books (Google "Ted Boardman" or "Daniel Douglas" to see some of the best books written on 3D modeling and rendering).
True. One thing to keep in mind though is that a lot of factors effect the finished rendering (i.e. fee, how it's going to be used, time alloted, etc.) Fran's work is amazingly real (look at the coffee stains on the inside of her mug) but she also tends to spend more time on them. Michael (CDI) and Fermi are doing this stuff day in and day out so their work is maybe a better example of actual professional work being done. Their stuff doesn't normally look as appealing as Fran's but it's also done in 1/3 the time and tends to serve a different purpose (i.e. for a developer who's going to have it blown up to put on a billboard or large jobsite sign).
OK, here's some of my "portfolio" bookmarks (in no particular order):
formatting link
- Annoying flash site but great renderings
formatting link
- Slow slide show but nice work
formatting link
If that doesn't keep you busy for a while look at:
formatting link
- Sort of the "portal" to start at if you're not sure what you're looking for. Lots of good links to anything to do with CG (textures, models, portfolios, tutorials, etc).
"gruhn" wrote in news:17OHe.20$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:
Bump etc. only go so far. A good example is bricks. Maybe some programs can create bumps on edges, but in most of what I've seen, if only bumpmaps are used (displacement is, as far as I know, just a procedural bump map, not an actual surface deformer), the edge of the building doesn't look at all like brick - it's just the same old knife-edge thing.
That annoys me.
So for my current exercise, I'm making "panels" based upon a particular brick texture. I spent some time counting bricks on the sides of local places, and it seems to go 30 bricks vertically for a one story house. (I'll eventually just go buy some differnt bricks and measure them). So each panel will be 30 bricks in height and have a corresponding real-life texture. I can then use the panels to assemble the exterior.
THat way, at the corners, it will look like bricks, not that typical knife- edge look.
WHich is something else that bugs me. I like to use either the Chamfer tool or the Fillet tool to soften corners, because in real life, building edges can't cut paper.
Molding is another item where the corners and edges are telling.
The thing is that I got started by doing buildings for a game project (that went belly-up due to lack of management, but that's another story). They wanted things that would look right from any camera angle. I found early on that sometimes, modeling is the only satisfactory way to go.
Also, there are instances where light and shadow simply don't interact with "fake bumps" in the same way they interact with a modeled object. It's like trompe l'ouil . The eye is fooled for only so long.
Depends upon a lot of factors though. If you're far enough away it won't matter. I'd suggest before you reinvent the wheel you look into how other people handle it. (Just do a search of the Autodesk groups)
If you model it you're going to add significant modelling time and you're rendering times will go up as well (as they will with a displacement map). If you're going to render an animation than you'll be screwed! A short 60 second animation has ~1440 images, the more complex your lighting and modelling solution is the longer each one will take. Even at a low resolution it's fairly common to have a "render farm" do it overnight. If you're not careful you could end up with something that takes 3 minutes/frame, which will take 20 days to render! Then, once finished you realize there's a minor change or tweak necessary and you've got to re-render the whole thing!
A good learning exercise, but almost every job will be different so don't expect to be able to pop in panels. Bricks come in lots of different sizes/shapes/coursing so you need to know how to do it for each job.
Add some "noise" to the map (try a "smoke" map scaled appropriately to make it look more natural - slightly warped) and you can make it less "cartoony" looking (if you really want to get REAL you could add a simple nailhead bumpmap that's randomly repeated every 16" or so. The thing is, to make it truely likelike does take time, and some projects (most?) don't need that level of detail nor does the budget allow for it.
Another "trick or the trade" for Architectural Rendering is to only do what you have to. For example, that means don't model the entire interior for an exterior rendering. Sometimes things have to be "faked" rather than done right, which doesn't make it wrong, as long as the output meets (or ideally exceeds) the expectations of the client.
Yep. Radiosity is a great thing, but sometimes even that requires "fakeosity" to look perfect.
"gruhn" wrote in news:u4QHe.35$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:
Oh! Okie Dokie, thanks! I'll certainly look into this in more depth. (Interesting image BTW)
Well, the thing is that I like to do one model, and be able to have all views from it - all angles and distances - be taken from it, as opposed to making multiple models. If I need (or want) to have "innards", it's all the same model - for one thing, I like to be able to see through the windows. I know they can be painted planes with a shiny finish, tho', and that satisfies most folks.
I understand that Modern Times emphasize fast and faster, but I've been looking around to see whether there is still a niche for Detail Work.
OK, so, to make a short story long, it might help you understand if you knew that, before my hands got trembly (a separate long boring saga), I used to do pen-and-ink work ("wildlife art", in my case meaning birds adn occasionally insects) using a 0.01mm-tip KohINoor pen, and under a magnifying glass; a couple of professional artists saw some of my old work and told me that I "needed" to do it professionally, but the hands just don't work they way they used to. I also used to so something similar with oil paints on eggs, started as sort of a variation on the Ukrainian/Slavic traditions of Easter egg decoration. At any rate, so, I'm a detail freak - it's something of a sickness if you go by what other folks and the "medical professionals" have told me, esp. since I also tend to be a perfectionist when I decide to actually do something. ((Of course, I otherwise have the attention span of a gnat and all the social graces of a carrot, tho' I'm better than I used to be.)) Although the detail obsession made me a superb analyst (since I was able to pick up on things that others thought insignificant), I've yet to find any other earthly use for it - most poeple I've come across just think it's annoying and, well, stupid because it's not efficient, and tell me to "relax" - but it's more of an unfortunate compulsion than a choice. It's not "unfair" and it's not "everyone else's fault" or any of that sort of crap - it's just how Life goes sometimes. So, realistically, I also understand that I might (OK, will probably) end up doing my 3D as just an insignificant hobby rather than professionally, tho' I might possibly be able to sell a few models here and there, buildings and/or landscapes etc. for Poser folks, or something like that; I'll eventually put a few houses and whatnot up on a commercial "3D consignment" site I know of, and see what happens. The thing is that the
3D (etc.) is what I do, and is what I will do, regardless of whether it's for $$ or merely as a hobby. I love modeling buildings and their surrounds
- obviously, since I'm willing to forgo other things so as to plunk savings down on a faster computer - and that's just how it is, tho' I might try to expand a bit into critters. I do creative things because, regardless of whether they are or are not good enough to sell, I'm not able to *not* do them. So there ya go , my sad sad story
It'll be easier once I get a decent computer. My current graphics machine is only a measly 1GHz Athlon Thunderbird with 1.5 GB RAM (tho' Win98 only "sees" 999KB of it) :p . My Solstice present will prob. be a dual- core Athlon FX-57 with 4 GB Ram and an NVidia *7800 video card, which will make work and esp. renders go much faster. ((Plus be a heck of a lot of fun!)) I'm also finally able to start getting back to my Webpage (well, once I finish hleping with beta-testing a plug-in a fellow wrote for the 3D prog. I'm using). I have some new JavaScript I'm working up that I think will be better than what I had been trying, make a more "active" interface. But I digress as usual...
So that's the story behind my High-Poly-Modeling.
I like it when I see it. IMO it's esp. important when I'd playing with doing adobe-type of other "hand made look" things - I've been wanting, for example, to model that mud Musque in, what, Timbuktoo I think, I saw it on television and need to get some images to reference. Can't have knife- edges on something that's been made and smoothed by hand.
Poeple have long recognized that textures can't be "too perfect", but it's also true that computer-generated edges are often "too perfect". In this respect, I think hand-drawn structures are often better. ((Plus as I've mentioned, IMO at least some are in themselves an Art).
True. My own compulsion doesn't extend to what is not seen, only to what can/will be seen at some point.
Anyway, thanks for that info re: Displacement - I'm going to go look into it more closely. (Did I just make a pun...?)
"gruhn" wrote in news:5FSHe.56$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:
Well, technically, yeah, you're right. It also depends upon screen resolution.
OTOH, any work - whether it's an architectural illustration, or a movie, or a painting, or any other visual work - is supposed to draw the viewer into its world, and allow the viewer to suspend disbelief. However, for this to be done successfully, the work must be Internally Consistent. If it sets up a certain internal logic, it has to abide by its own logic.
So, let's say one models a structure that is an elongated inverted U of brick, and "inside" that another inverted U of glass panes divided by small protrusions of concrete, and inside that another inverted U again of brick, and the glass U is set in from the others. The sun is at an angle that shows the changes of depth. But let's say this depth is created using bump maps.
So, the front view looks fine, all well and good. But the client asks you to rotate the model to show what the sides look like - and suddenly, all those depth changes disappear and the edges are all flush and sharp.
The "world" of the image is internally in-consistent. And the result is crap. Doesn't matter how far away the camera view is. The inconsistency is there and also, it fails to show what the thing will actually look like. Now, the *client* might not realize this right off the bat - after all, the entire, the only, reason one presents 3D or perspective views is quite simply that the vast majority of people do not have good *2D* visualization abilities, never mind 3D.
However, the modeler should know better. It's the modeler's responsibility to do better than the average person.
Now, one can argue that the client won't notice if a whole-structure view doesn't show a slight ripple/"nubbiness' indicating bricks at the edge. OK, maybe that's "good enough". I don't know. All I know is that it wouldn't be good enough *for me* - meaning, if I did my render and all I saw was knife-edges, it's bother me a lot because that wouldn't be how the thing actually looks (or would look).
Even if one is modeling a SciFi scene, the rules of Internal Consistency still hold. Sure, there are movies that get put out where things get skipped over, and sure, probably most audience members don't notice - so it's "good enough". But *I* see them. I've seen it in any number of films, even some big-budget films, and it feels in my brain the same way fingernails on a blackboard sound. It makes my teeth hurt.
What looks "fake" is having a textured (brick, clapboard, etc.) siding/envelope illustrated, or something with stringcoursing, etc., and then seeing those knife-edge corners in the renders. That's what's in my old renders I'm sad to say, and I've been deciding whether to go back and re-work everything I wanted to load up onto my website, because it really irritates me. But what's far worse is that I've also seen that in renders that are supposed to be professional. What can I say, it's just something that bugs me .
Anyhoo, I have to look into those displacement shaders...
"gruhn" wrote in news:SR8Ie.26$ snipped-for-privacy@news.uswest.net:
Gadzooks! How old is it? My early 1990's one is a Pentium 450 MHZ...
Heh, you gotta stand some kids at road intersections with cans for The Gruhn Relief Fund ;)
((That just comes to mind because one odd thing here is that the busiest intersections are manned all day by people asking for $$. Everything from people claiming to be homeless, to kids with the perennial "help our school 'cuz we can't milk more taxes outta you" campaigns.))
"Don" wrote in news:6%rIe.664$ snipped-for-privacy@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net:
Yeah, but you also said you like to collect them. That I can see. I jsut don't understand how someone can work on them. Well, OK, basic word processing but..... .....OTOH I *am* a graphics weenie
"Whaddaya mean I can only get teo measly GB of RAM with your Athlon dual- core systems?!?! I'm going to look elsewhere!"
What can I say, I really do have to laugh at myself sometimes
When I got my 33 it was "getting old" and the DX2-66s were out but as noted starting to oops. The timing's about right.
Note that back then something like the 486, especially with it's onboard math proc. would have been "oh no, normal people don't need those. Servers only." and that would have been "true" and actually observed for some time.
Somebody else will have to check, but the P5 would have still been rumour at that point I _think_. (One google hit says 1993.)(Fall back to the "oh no, servers only" argument)
I remember Range and me standing around outside the office on Kildare Farm (:. 1993, 1994) talking about the almost afordable 1gig drives and how luxurious those 3giggers just coming out sounded. I bought a maybe 320 Meg jobbie around that time. Drove all the way to Greensboro to git it.
Are you sure about that 40G in '95? My dual 300 killer five grand machine in
1998 came with 6Gig.
That's a useful number of rams. I'm not sure any machine in this office here has over a Gig. This very machine is 1 Gig. I think the newer one is only haffagig. (The extra just isn't needed for what it's doing.)
See what I mean? You musta meant 40Meg.
I play with the 3d tools. 3d still will eat as much machine as we can throw at it.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.