Noob modeling question ... (architecture)

[Jesp]

I was once told: pick a unit and work with it cause C4D uses scaleless units.
So if you just say you want to work with centimeter for instance?

[Lovas]

IMHO depends on whether you're working on a viz project of a simple house, a hotel, an airport or a whole city block. I sincerely doubt you'll find millimetres useful for the arch viz. Unless your project is based on details like door handles etc. you won't need such a level of precision - I usually use centimetres or even decimetres as the Unit.

[joe-joe]

yeah i am an architecture student (starting 2nd year) and i was using mil because the accepted drawing conventions tell you to use just one unit of measurement. we are not allowed to use centimeters (because it is not a proper SI unit or something).

the buildings i work on are small to medium - not stadiums. though i will switch to metres instead of stupid millimetres.

will c4d/my processor cope with this a little better or will it not make a difference?

any idea why C4D screws up vales to 24999.998 mm (instead of 25000 mm)??

i have noticed other applications (photoshop) do this sometimes also, why is it? it is a pain in the ass.

I emailed Maxon but they didn't know why!

[castroman]

what version are you using?

[Srek]

The general rule is to choose a unit that allows the scene to over all fit within the default world grid. If your scene is for example 100 x larger or 100x smaller than the worldgrid you are asking for trouble because of rounding errors, since CINEMA 4D is using floating point values to store positions ans sizes. The problem with 24999.998 mm instead of 25000 mm is such a problem. These problems occur all the time, but usualy they don't become visible or noticable if you follow the general rule.
Working in SI units makes sense for technical construction, but CINEMA 4D is not a CAD software. I think the "not allowing specific units" rule only applies to CAD applications, in 3D modelling and visualisation with CINEMA 4D it just makes no sense and prohibits you from working optimaly. Keep in mind that you don't create floorplans or similar with CINEMA 4D, in worst case you will be going to export parts made in CINEMA 4D to CAD apps and for those cases CINEMA 4D supports a multiplier on export to adjust to the needed range of values.

Cheers
Björn

[nycL45]

"...but CINEMA 4D is not a CAD software." and "Keep in mind that you don't create floorplans or similar with CINEMA 4D," quotes from Shrek

Not to be nasty or turn this thread into a war but these comments naturally cast doubt on the sense of using Cinema for archviz. Does it make sense to stay with Cinema when it is possible today to bypass these issues by exporting directly to a rendering engine with materials from the CAD modeling app, as is apparently the case with VectorWorks and Maxwell? I just know I am about to get slammed, but please understand that I like Cinema and I want to do more archviz modeling in C4D.

[STRAT]

i work in c4d using 1 c4d unit = 1 mm. so for 25 meters i'd type in 25000.
never suffered any probs.

[joe-joe]

thanks for all your responses.

in my opinion actually designing in a 'non-CAD' app such as C4D is much more productive than designing in CAD applications, which are slower to design a building in.

I don't mind spending time, after I have a design nailed, in a CAD application (I have vw, archicad and have used others such as auto). It is just my preferred way of designing;

[although of course I would love to save work by having the bulk of the 2D drawn at the same time as I design in 3D!]

1. pen and paper sketch.
2. C4D sketch model
3. physical sketch models
4. C4D detail model
5. CAD line art
6. Final physical model accompanied by prints and drawings and maybe a video.

--

I am using version v.9.1. I though about upgrading but I don't think the cost justifies it because the advancements aren't useful enough to me. It works fine! (usually :) )

--

I will try working with C4D units, but it is easier to remember and visualise if it is written with a metric value I use everyday. But if it stops the floating point error ... (architects and engineers hate the non-rounded numbers! :surprised )

:)

[nycL45]

...[although of course I would love to save work by having the bulk of the 2D drawn at the same time as I design in 3D!]...

Although newish, this is how it is starting to be done by most disciplines with larger projects here; start from the getgo with 3D and develop the 2D from the 3D and later, literally build from the team 3D (precise!!!, non archviz) model. A usable 3D team model created by the arch/eng is required at the end of Schematics for *use* by the owner/developer/contractor/subcontractors (later). Also, 3D parametric design (big in the UK) is gaining popularity with global 3D-based BIM (Building Information Model) gradually evolving and to be implemented soon.

In an architectural office, how is the project workflow & budget impacted if start in an archviz app and then use that file in a CAD app? Massing and form models developed in a cad-related app and then move into cad - yes. We have not tried C4D to VW (the exchange plug is one way) but are open to the idea.

BTW, C4D and units have been fine here.

Good luck with your studies.

[Srek]

Not to be nasty or turn this thread into a war but these comments naturally cast doubt on the sense of using Cinema for archviz. Does it make sense to stay with Cinema when it is possible today to bypass these issues by exporting directly to a rendering engine with materials from the CAD modeling app, as is apparently the case with VectorWorks and Maxwell? I just know I am about to get slammed, but please understand that I like Cinema and I want to do more archviz modeling in C4D.
I think you are mixing up Architectural Visualisation and Architectural Engineering. Visualisation is usualy based on models created with Architectural CAD applications, only sometimes complete models are created for this purpose in the visualisation app. In those cases the models are only usefull for visualisation, NOT for engineering.
Only exporting from CAD to a renderer is usualy not sufficent, you are missing most lighting and texturing options. Thats the exact reason why there are several exchange plugins to connect CINEMA 4D directly with Vectorworks, Archi CAD and Allplan.
Cheers
Björn

[nycL45]

I think you are mixing up Architectural Visualisation and Architectural Engineering. Visualisation is usualy based on models created with Architectural CAD applications, only sometimes complete models are created for this purpose in the visualisation app. In those cases the models are only usefull for visualisation, NOT for engineering.
Only exporting from CAD to a renderer is usualy not sufficent, you are missing most lighting and texturing options. Thats the exact reason why there are several exchange plugins to connect CINEMA 4D directly with Vectorworks, Archi CAD and Allplan.
Cheers
Björn

What I intended is that initiating a project in pre-schematics with Cinema seems to be a good workflow simplification in that as the design evolves, (changes, changes changes) all work is one app. Also, there is C4D's ease of use with previewing materials in the design phase. At a juncture, say the start of the schematics phase, the project goes off for archviz and also moves into the CAD world schematics phase to develop the 3D/2D elements that would be shared with the engineering disciplines, etc. Architects and engineers are now starting and working their projects right through the working drawings in 3D, not 2D.

Remember, I am not advocating a one-app-does-all. Cinema seems very close to being geared for use as a design tool as well as a presentation tool - and, that is how it being used here. Also, I thought that was an underlying purpose for the Cinema Architecture Edition?

Just some thoughts.

Cheers

L.

[Lovas]

There are two distinctive types of arch visualizations: one is developed during the project, it is rough and the model changes constantly. Its sole purpose is to help the architect (once they used to glue it from packing paper etc. some older ones use to do still do it - no they are not afraid of computers, come on :twisted:, they simply want to "touch it"...).

The other type is the final visualization that is made off the finished project and is intended to represent the project on site or in various public media or to attract buyers. It is a high-quality, detailed visualisation and it doesn't change.

It is important to be clear about which one of the two types of arch visualizations we are talking about here (interesting though, how many people, even in this thread, are not - no offence meant to anyone!).

For the first type you don't need a 3D software as the advanced architectural CAD programs like Allplan or Archicad can generate the 3D model of your building in the background as you draw the 2D technical project. You just switch to the 3D view and start to rotate or zoom the model. Some of them are even equipped with additional, quality rendering engines, besides the OpenGL engine - but they mostly fail on quality if you need any serious, precise texturing, quality lighting or adding details. As for the users of the old dinosaur called Autocad, any serious architectural studio using it will equip itself with the AcadBAU (once they tried the Architectural Desktop and found out it is useless as well :twisted: )

Advanced 3D programs like Cinema 4D, MAX, Maya etc. are intended either for the basic "sculpting" i.e. "3d-sketching" of the building (but I recommend using the SketchUp in that phase) or for the above-mentioned second type of the visualization. So if you do viz jobs for other architects, it is a sound practice to put in the contract a sentence about additional charges if the project changes once the viz work had started (otherwise you might end up doing the same viz project for months or even years as architects and their clients often are not able to stop with changes :D )

In my experience, and contrary to what the CAD software resellers will try to convince you, the 3D models, exported from CAD applications like Allplan, Archicad, Autocad etc. are mostly useless, except as a mere reference. The quality of a visualization is mostly based on details and CAD programs for obvious reasons don't generate such details and the generated models are even inappropriate for adding them. You're likely to spend more time purging, cleaning, connecting, optimizing and regrouping the generated elements into a sensible hierarchy that you can work with, than if you completely re-model the building in Cinema 4D.

Here's what I think the optimal procedure is when visualizations are involved in an architectural project:

1. Basic sketch of the basic idea; done by the architect using the technique known "pen on a napkin". Can be done anywhere (usually in restaurants, probably in connection with the amount of various stimulative substances, consumed or sniffed by the author during and after the dinner).

2. 3D sketches; done by the architect or its employee, based on the napkin sketches. Done using computer and the SketchUp software. It is recommended that most of the project is developed in this phase.

3. 2D technical drawings; They might include only the concept project or the complete project (we know how huge the latter can get and how many additional sub-phases it might contain...), prepared for the building site; Done by cad operators in the arch studio, using computers and an advanced arch CAD program, like Allplan, Archicad, AcadBAU, that automatically generates 3D model in the background. The opengl 3D images from it are used as "working visualizations" or "working models" both for the team or architects and for their clients. During this phase the changes are possible but should be avoided (I know, I know... :twisted: )

4. the final visualization; done by a separate studio, specializing in visualizations only. A high-quality, photorealistic vizualisation (forget about that cones instead of trees, handsketch- or waterpaint-look stylizations or whitewash-only models - architects might like them, but their clients don't, they want to see their building as it will actually look like!) with seamless compositing over site photographs. Done in an advanced 3D program, like Cinema 4D or Max, from scratch - i.e. all previous project material used only as a reference.
(Visit http://www.vismasters.com and take a look at some of better works in their gallery, if you're wondering what I'm talking about - I sincerely doubt that many of them were made by exporting and rendering a 3D model, generated by a CAD package...:))

Sorry for the long post, I hope someone find something useful in it...

[nycL45]

And, firm + project (client, type, scope, A/E budget, A/E schedule, etc.) drives the process.

[Knotian]

My 2 cents worth.---I've been using C4D for both Arch. work ( buildings ) and detailed mechanical models, with no problems. I'll set the units for inches for the mechanical objects and feet for the buildings (i'm still americanized - sorry), then when the scene is developed and I bring in the various objects there is no problem whatever the units of the final scene are (usually feet). A little more trouble saving the different objects, but it really helps for backups and revision control.

[CGTalk Moderation]

This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.