Krippahl wrote:
As an old school architects, I am against "make believe".
Although I like some images generated by "sketchy" software, be it ArchiCad, ArchiSketchy, Piranesi or whatever, it has always bothered me that I have this very rigorous computer model and then I hide it behind a make believe hand drawing.
Of course, at certain times of a job, you can not be to specific, for instance with materials, otherwise you could alienate your client.
The way I handle this, I do some renderings in AC or ArtLantis, but I take away all the materials and use a generic "white paper" material, even for furniture.
Using a small angle camera, my model looks like a cardboard model, so it is quite enough to explain the volumetric idea without getting into any detail.
This works fine.
Like I said, the "make believe this is not a digital thing" bothers me deep down, and probably gets a negative subliminal message across: Digital things are not good enough.
Couldnt agree with you more. Weve all seen full CD's hand drawn, and weve all sketched stuf fon a computer before, the distinction between schematic and Full Documents lies somewhere else, other than in the separation of computer vs. paper.
I do the same thing that you do: I had to model a Theater with a balcony, and render an animation walking through it, post renovation. But were still in Schematic design, and didnt want anything to appear as *set in stone* for matierals / colors. I just gave everything a light green / tan finish with neutral material properties, and animated. They see the building *sketch* with out thinking its a finished design.
If i hand sketch a drawing, and its roughed out by hand, thats fine. But i wouldnt go out of my way to make it *look* that way, if i modeled it on a computer. The work i did is the work i did.
