3D modeling architectural question

[mdmn]

Just about to start back at UNI in Architecture from an IT background, yeah I know what was I thinking???

But apart from that what are your opinions on the 3D modeling programs out there (from an architectural prospective), for ease to use Vs. final outcome. Or just simply the program rocks

Thanks, seen some of the designs on this site..... Well what can I say?
.

[Merkin]

I use 3D Studio MAX for architectural work. I find it is intuitive and relatively easy to learn, especially for architectural stuff. It has a few nice features geared towards architectural work and also comes in a version made solely for architectural design and rendering called 3D Studio VIS. VIS is cheaper than MAX and has added functionality for working with Autocad though I don't know enough about it to say exactly what has been added. I suggest you download a trial of VIS from www.discreet.com (I think they have VIS for download, if not get MAX) and give it a go. There are heaps of tutorials on the interweb to get you started and the tutes and help that come with it are good too. Also look at downloading the free version of VRay www.chaosgroup.com which is a rendering plugin for MAX that makes the lighting look pretty :)

Good luck!
Brad

[Phil Meadows]

...is SketchUp (http://www.sketchup.com/) .

Download the trial version and start playing around with it...and for sure, check out the video tutorials. You'll be up and running in no time.

[lewiston]

The software you want to use depends on where you're going.
In bigger offices, such as Zaha Hadid, Frank Ghery, UNstudio etc. it has become standard to use Rhinoceros and MAYA. They cover the 3D modeling field pretty well. If you are heading in that direction I would suggest you should start using them at university too. My experience is that 3DStudio max is not that common among bigger offices...

[Merkin]

Hey Lewiston, how's it goin?

I have never hear of Rhino being used for Architectural work as it is a nurbs modeller and most buildings are made up of rectangular shapes which polys do best. This might be cos I am based in Australia but over here I would say Max is most common and Maya a close second for architectural stuff. Having said that, most people I talk to say that Maya is a pain to model in while max is super-quick. Conversely, Maya is a dream to animate in and Max needs some improvement. As for renderers, Max now comes with Metal ray and there are many other good rederers like VRay, Brazil and BMRT that range from free to expensive.

Not trying to step on your toes or flagellate Max but just want to give the guy who started this thread a bit more info. Where is he, anyway?

Brad

[MoP]

I'd have to agree with Merkin here, I can't see why anyone in architecture would want to use Rhino. Come to think of it, I can't see why anyone would want to use Rhino at all :P

3ds max has Maya beat on poly-modelling tools, which are probably what you'd be using most, I reckon. In fact, I think there's a version of Max called 3D Studio VIZ used primarily for architectural visualisation? Although I'm not sure if they make it anymore ... but it would be cheaper than the full 3dsmax package.

[diagetus]

Yep, I agree with Merkin too. AutoCAD and 3ds Max(Viz also) are all over the architecture previz industry. Rhino is definitely an excellent NURBS modeling tool. Go with Max (or XSI or Maya) for your polygon modeling. Rhino is used for precision modeling, product design, vehicle design. You know, stuff that needs structural integrity at the finest level. NURBS lend themselves to that very well. However, I must tell you that transfering NURBS from Rhino (version 3) over to 3ds Max 4 using native export/import tools is a real pain. I don't know if that situation has changed. If it hasn't, make sure you model is in only one package - unless you like headaches. NURBS have their place though. The more organic character stuff is usually done with polygons/subd's nowadays.

[raytracer]

In my opinion, the best software to use for architectural rendering is 3dmax/viz combined with vray. Since most people use autocad to design, its easier to translate to 3dmax/viz. Those guys at autodesk are tops in the archi design,drafting field. I use lightwave and I can tell you its a pain to transfer designs from cad. Some people use c4d,maya,etc but the workflow is just not fast. I also recommend accurender from mcneel and intericad 9 from yuan fang software. You can make archi presentations in an hour with those and the quality is not bad.

[lewiston]

That has become quite an interessting discussion, guys, although the initiator got lost at all :^^: .. I like it.

I agree with all you guys that Rhino not adequate at all for Polygon modelling. But in the architectural environment I was working and studying the last couple of years ( UCLA, 'Angewandte' Vienna, Greg Lynn, Reiser Umemoto, Coop Himmelblau, Zaha Hadid) Polygons were only used when it came to render NURBS models. This kind of architecture was purely NURBS based, due to the fact that the design was evolutionary or form oriented (what is commonly called BLOB architecture...). Therefore I was constantly working on Maya and rhino. In this context Rhino is very helpful when it comes to creating sections and other 2D images of NRBS models.
I wanted to imply that, when I started my post with '...it depends on where you are going...'

#what do you think?

[IanE]

I did architecture all throughout high school and all the engineering firms and companies I worked with all used AutoDesk programs and Lightwave... very rarely did they use 3ds Max or Maya... but that's Texas and Texas education has always sucked.

[KoBold]

I know nothing about architecture and the use of 3D software, but I'm seeing a lot of discussion of Modo being used for modeling architecture.
http://www.luxology.com/Architectural previs is a rapidly growing segment for 3D graphic artists and modo is already making great headway in this space. We recently had the opportunity to ask notorious modo architectural artist Juan J. Gonzalez how and why he uses modo. We even coaxed him to let us in on some of his secrets behind his blazingly fast production timelines. (Videos included!)

[Merkin]

I did architecture all throughout high school and all the engineering firms and companies I worked with all used AutoDesk programs and Lightwave... very rarely did they use 3ds Max or Maya

You are right - Autodesk make Autocad, the most commonly used draughting software for Architecture. They also make 3D Studio MAX and VIS under the name Discreet (though they are about to change to 'Autodesk Multimedia' or something). They have designed VIS to integrate very well with Autocad and if anyone was to start using 3D software for architecture, they will probably be using autocad and should at least have a look at VIS as they share common concepts and procedures which will make learning VIS alot easier.

Don't waste your time learning free software or some unknown or unpopular brand unless it is to get a specific job with a company that uses it because your time would be better spent learning popular software that will make you more desirable as an employee to a wider range of companies.

[Phil Meadows]

mdmn, you'll most likely be learning Autocad or Microstation at uni (and possibly SketchUp since it's rapidly catching on at institutions around the world). I have to say something about my experience with 3d programs though, as a person in the architecture field.

Autocad will do anything one requires for architectural models, with the exception of the Ghery type structures with complex curves and such. But it is very slow to learn. Viz, also an autodesk product, is essentialy 3DS Max without things like IK...stuff architects don't need to make nice still images of buildings. But it's what I call "corporately priced". Sadly, I use my copy as an $1800 file converter...even with a three-inch-thick tutorial guide, the learning curve is way too steep. VIZ is a waste of time...and I can extrapolate that MAX would be as well.

This is for modelling, understand. VIZ makes good photo-real renders. With another gargantuan learning for that half of the program. I dont' know why they make lighting and rendering a model so hard. There hasn't been an easy solution for rendering since Autodesk bought Discreet and killed their killer app Lightscape. But that's another story...one of corporate greed and...well. Let's not dwell on the past.

SketchUp (http://www.sketchup.com/product/casestudies.php) is easy. Easy-Peasy. In my desperate search to find a replacement for AutoCad when I went Freelance (no way I was buying AutoCad after the VIZ debacle), I landed on the SketchUp website and downloaded their 8-hr demo. No kidding, I learned the program in one sitting. I also became addicted in one sitting. After buying the program ($495), I found my productivity go up, my free time explode (I work from home now), and what did I fill that exploding free time with? More SketchUp.

SketchUp won't do photo-real renders, it's not designed to. The truth is that architects are returning to the non-photo-real rendering en masse. Clients respond better to them. Sketchup will do that.

I am eagerly expecting the release of Maxwell Render (http://www.maxwellrender.com/indexeng.html) for photo-real rendering, though.

[delta wolph]

My personal favorite modeler and overal 3d program is Cinema 4D from Maxon. I used to use Maya and Lightwave, but I can model, light, etc from C4D 5 times as fast easily. Much nicer to use.

[raytracer]

mdmn, you'll most likely be learning Autocad or Microstation at uni (and possibly SketchUp since it's rapidly catching on at institutions around the world). I have to say something about my experience with 3d programs though, as a person in the architecture field.

Autocad will do anything one requires for architectural models, with the exception of the Ghery type structures with complex curves and such. But it is very slow to learn. Viz, also an autodesk product, is essentialy 3DS Max without things like IK...stuff architects don't need to make nice still images of buildings. But it's what I call "corporately priced". Sadly, I use my copy as an $1800 file converter...even with a three-inch-thick tutorial guide, the learning curve is way too steep. VIZ is a waste of time...and I can extrapolate that MAX would be as well.

This is for modelling, understand. VIZ makes good photo-real renders. With another gargantuan learning for that half of the program. I dont' know why they make lighting and rendering a model so hard. There hasn't been an easy solution for rendering since Autodesk bought Discreet and killed their killer app Lightscape. But that's another story...one of corporate greed and...well. Let's not dwell on the past.

SketchUp (http://www.sketchup.com/product/casestudies.php) is easy. Easy-Peasy. In my desperate search to find a replacement for AutoCad when I went Freelance (no way I was buying AutoCad after the VIZ debacle), I landed on the SketchUp website and downloaded their 8-hr demo. No kidding, I learned the program in one sitting. I also became addicted in one sitting. After buying the program ($495), I found my productivity go up, my free time explode (I work from home now), and what did I fill that exploding free time with? More SketchUp.

SketchUp won't do photo-real renders, it's not designed to. The truth is that architects are returning to the non-photo-real rendering en masse. Clients respond better to them. Sketchup will do that.

I am eagerly expecting the release of Maxwell Render (http://www.maxwellrender.com/indexeng.html) for photo-real rendering, though.

I agree that autodesk is the leader in architectural programs as I said in previous post. Just get use to autocad's command line and 3dmax wierd and horrible interface and you'll get it after sometime. Its easier to coordinate with people in the field if you have these appz or even the lite versions. But I dont agree that you should buy sketchup just becoz its easy to use. There are easier programs out there to use for rendering like mcneels accurender, intericad 9, or even piranesi. These appz are easy to use, native to autocad dwg and cheap. You just can't beat a presentation that's almost the as built project that you can finish in a day. Sketch up just can't make those presentations and the client wont really get what you want to present. I like sketchup for concepts and massing objects. It might be more suitable for industrial designers. These days you have to be competitive with the presentation and companies are even hiring 3D artists that just concentrate on architectural renderings. Take a look at cgarchitect and the trend is getting as photrealistic as possible. And I believe that 3Dmax and vray are on top. So I'm waiting for vray to come to lightwave. Maxwell has potential. Lets hope they develop it to be another option for rendering.

[Merkin]

[QUOTE=raytracer]Just get use to autocad's command line and 3dmax wierd and horrible interface and you'll get it after sometime.QUOTE]

LOL! I think Lightwave has a weird interface! ;)

Anyway I guess you can see that everyone has a preference. I personally think that MAX has the most intuitive interface (I taught myself how to use it many years ago by pushing all the buttons and seeing what they did) But I definitely think it is the best geared software for architectural rendering on a professional level.

I don'y even think the guy who started this thread has followed it up - you there dude?

[MoP]

Merkin seems to be on the money again, I certainly wouldn't call Max's interface "horrible"... I use Maya for work, and I started out 3d using Lightwave. Personally I think Silo has one of the best interfaces for pure modelling at the moment, but Max's modelling toolset and ease-of-use have Maya and LW beat, in my book.

[raytracer]

OK, maybe horrible is too extreme :D. But my preference for workflow is less icons to push and more keystroke commands. That's why I like autocad and lightwave. I dont want to have to click icons to cut polys, turn on subdiv, etc. Even my cad gui is just a command line and the layer panel. Icons are for slow lazy people :P. I used 3dmax for a year b4 I modelled something that I could say was detailed like a car and took me almost 40hrs. I learned lightwave in 3 weeks and the toolset was just simple and to the point that I reduced the time it takes to model a car in 15-20hrs..But again I agree that 3dmax with vray is most suited with archi rendering. Working with other people is important and most of them use autodesk software.

[engineeredvision]

I've had 8 years experience with Max and about 5 years experience with Maya. I currently use both programs at my current job for the wide range of projects that I work on for a variety of clients. I can't recall how many times I've heard the arguement that Max's poly tools are far superior to Maya's. Either I don't know Max as well as I think I do or the many individuals that claim that Max poly tools are superior to Maya's don't know how to properly utilize Maya's polytools or aren't aware of the many mel scripts available for poly editing and creation. I can do anything in Maya with the poly tools that I can do in Max. Some tasks are actually easier and quicker in Maya compared to Max. About the only significant feature Max has over Maya is the ability to edge model by holding shift and dragging an edge, but even this can be done in Maya if you know how.

As far as the learning curve is concerned, I'll have to admit that Max is easier to pickup initially, but if you're in it for the long haul you'll find that Maya is more powerful once you master it and learn how to customize it. This is just my oppinion obviously. BTW, I'm currently comparing Max 6 to Maya 6 as I have not yet had a chance to work with Max 7 or Maya 6.5, so correct me if there have been any significant poly tool changes between these versions. Anyway, the choice between Max and Maya is certainly a choice of preference rather than a clear concise difference. If you want to see instantaneous results though I would probably lean towards Max as you'll probaly grasp its concepts quicker.

However, I still stand firm by my claim that Maya's poly tools are as good or better than Max's. The only time Max's poly tools were superior to Maya's was between version 1 & 3 of Maya. Now I would say that Max and Maya's poly tools are nearly equavalent in ability.

[secondest]

hey
im just finishing my second year of architecture at uni, and yeah, sketchup is the easiest tool for developing an idea. its fast, you can learn it in 10 minutes, really, and is in general... great. has its limits though, its not suited to "blobitecture" or stuff like that. after that i prefer Rhino for rendering though sometimes sketchup's simple renders work best..
www.sketchup.com