Forum Replies Created
April 24, 2015 at 1:48 pm #151973
Funny you should mention that, my masters thesis was on a very similar topic. Here’s a link to the short form paper: Graphics and detail
The tl;dr version: For the general non-design educated public, a “middle” level of detail is adequate for delivering information about a prospective design, and in the absence of even that level of detail, a low-detail massing model style of graphic can convey a large part of a proposal.
I’m working on gathering funding for another study that measures just what you’re talking about regarding public perception of different styles of graphics, both digitally and hand produced. We’ll see how that turns out…
In the design studios I teach, I preach diagrams and descriptions over empty pretty pictures and for the most part, the students understand. There is certainly still a necessity for beautiful showcase images for marketing and describing character, but more often than not they seem to perform worse in information and concept delivery when compared to more diagrammatic imagery, at least during conceptual and design development stages regardless of production method…April 24, 2015 at 2:44 am #151975
Thanks for the support! Initial results from the student body at Purdue seems to show an equality in perception between the two styles (it’s way too early with too small a response set to make conclusions though). They so far seem to reject the notion that hand drawings are exclusively loose and digital renderings are exclusively stiff. Whether this is due to familiarity with various tools, improvements in digital input methods (pen tablets?), or a general comfort with digital products, is unknown. But the ratio of responses for both sets between the two extremes is where the analysis will be of use, not necessarily in a direct comparison between the hand and digital raw numbers.
It will be interesting to see how those ratios change (if at all) between age and experience groups as well. If responses show a more equal distribution between warmth and coldness (for example) of one style of drawing in one age group versus another, that might signal a trend that can change the professions production and presentation styles as older age groups retire. I will certainly use the data, just not in the most obvious “one versus the other” relationship.
This also is the first survey towards what I hope will be a long line of research studies and I will be sure to refine my methods based on respondents feedback and on any conflicts or gaps in the data. Again, thanks for the comments!April 24, 2015 at 1:14 am #151977
I appreciate your frustration with the questions, I can assure you that I don’t have an agenda with this study. These type of “forced choice” questions are common in social science research and the results gathered will not be used to try and point out that more people think one methodology is “better” or “worse” than another regardless of which association you’d place with each response set. Instead it is the proportion between responses that will matter (in this case). There are existing stereotypes around both hand and digital graphics, many formed from outdated methods of production and this study aims to see whether those opinions are still rampant today or whether trends are shifting one way or another.
I would argue that your point against the idea we have to sketch everything for others to understand it is valid. We communicate ideas graphically to clients in order to remove ambiguity and miscommunication in a built work. An image, whether it is a sketch, physical model, or rendered image is our information delivery vehicle. This study does not and can not take into account the variability in client experience (regarding what is “adequate” as you say), at least not at this stage. First, it should query the profession in order to help us understand what we ourselves are working with.
I still thank you for your feedback and will take it into account during the analysis and description of the data. Thanks for your time!April 23, 2015 at 2:42 pm #151979
Not to pre-bias my own study, but this study hopes to be the first in a line to quantify our response to graphic representations created through various media. We can likely all agree that a poor rendering is a poor rendering regardless of creation method or technology, but the general consensus I am aware of is that a sloppy hand drawing has “character” while a sloppy digital image is simply “bad”. I’m not arguing that either is better or worse than the other, just that there is a perceived difference and I’d like to attempt to measure what that actually is…
In that vein, I’d argue that there is a more critical eye for digital drawings (not necessarily in technical CAD drawings, that’s a different issue altogether). Whether that’s because of a loss of the basics of design imagery (horizon, line hierarchy, proper perspective, tone and color, etc.) or due to “uncanny valley” style issues with digitally produced graphics, is a question for a later study.July 24, 2012 at 12:28 pm #156918
One easy(ish) thing to do is to get your hands on some GIS data for the city, then scan for vacant lots.
-If there is a large concentration of vacant lots in a small area, analyze and try to find out why, then design an intervention to revitalize the area.
-If you notice a liner pattern or vacancies, consider an “emerald necklace” style project.
-If you don’t find any pattern and can’t find any lots that interest you, take a look at the cities comprehensive plan for future development and see if you can use it as a backbone for a project.
Then again, I’m not too sure what your masters report is supposed to look like. Is it a research document? A design project? A set of design guidelines? Be a bit more specific in what your report requirements are and the community will be able to help.June 12, 2012 at 3:56 pm #157288May 1, 2012 at 12:17 pm #157676
I’d be somewhat wary about the AMD chips. Historically, AMD GPus had issues with some 3D modeling programs, though the built in graphics processing on the new FX series CPUs are pretty interesting (they can be disabled in BIOS if you use a standalone card).
If you’re looking for a budget build, why spend the money on a workstation level card? I’m willing to bet that unless she gets heavily into advanced 3D modeling (NOT sketchup…) she will never see benefits from the card. I’d suggest a CUDA capable consumer level card instead to save you ~$50.
AFAIK, none of the programs you’ve mentioned can handle anything more than 4 cores at a time and the majority only use one. Consider an i5/i7/Phenom II build at last years top of the line technology. It will serve her for 2-3 years without noticeable issues (if properly maintained) and allow you to put money towards other more important things in the meantime.
Just my $.02…November 27, 2011 at 4:07 pm #159421
Check HERE for examples of professionally done renderings. When you click on a post, you’ll get a series of images as well as a short blurb on the software used.
I agree wholeheartedly with ida & April here, go with what has the deepest user base. Take a look at the other forums on cgarchitect or dig around youtube for a while and you’ll get an idea how well specific software packages are supported by the global user base.November 15, 2011 at 11:46 pm #159352
I think you’re going to have to be a bit more specific as to what you’re looking for…November 9, 2011 at 11:44 pm #159482
But don’t forget that if the situation becomes abusive, be sure to keep an (off-site) record of situations with dates and descriptions in case you need to file a hostile working environment suit…October 21, 2011 at 12:32 pm #159672
Thanks, that’s what I figured from my limited messing around with Revit. I wonder if anyone has counted the number of “customization time” it takes to get a LA office up to speed with Revit or Civil 3d (or Vectorworks Landmark)…October 19, 2011 at 1:58 pm #159681
How have you found Revit for landscape drafting & modeling? Have you found the software to be capable of handling the thousands of plant cultivars an office might use or the hundreds of different plants that may be used in a single project? Is the component system robust enough to deal with the variety of plant symbology (or not depending on firm style) necessary to create a CD quality planting plan? What about topography? How is Revit when it comes to tracking spot elevations and/or topo lines?
I’ve never used Revit in a production environment so I’m curious to see how well it’s worked for you. What kind of projects do you usually use it for?October 19, 2011 at 12:39 pm #159683
1. AutoCAD & Vectorworks, though I’ve used a few others in the past.
2. AutoCAD is the North American CAD standard and since it’s owned by AutoDesk, it has a robust suite of supporting software that it (mostly) integrates with (3D modeling, BIM, etc.). Vectorworks is as close as we LA’s have for a landscape oriented BIM drafting program, and while its rendering quality isn’t the greatest, it’s (built in) 3D modeling suite isn’t too shabby.
3. Because AutoCAD has such a massive user base, and since it’s cost of upgrade and re-training is so large, AutoDesk is forced to maintain outdated legacy systems and processes in their software. AutoCAD and it’s various flavors (Civil 3D, Land Development Desktop, Architectural, Revit, etc.) rely on plug-ins and cross compatibility is a major issue when sharing drawings between firms and disciplines. In order to keep AutoDesk’s many product lines separate and profitable, they seem to purposely limit advancements in their standard AutoCAD package and are instead making it more difficult for sub-contractors on a project to share work since each office may have been forced into a different software package.
4. I’m a Vectorworks fan for it’s ease of use and set-up, it’s fast and accurate take-off capabilities, and it’s basic 3D modeling. BUT I have to teach (and use) AutoCAD or one of it’s many variants so that my students are prepared for the market sector they will be entering.October 12, 2011 at 12:29 am #159810
Not to derail this thread, but other than funding sources, average class sizes, and racial demographics, there is no demonstrable difference between public and private colleges.
Having said that, I agree with your points. The Colorado river has seen it’s flow reduced from roughly 22,000 cu. ft./sec in 1903 to less than 4,000 cu. ft/sec by 1980. I have no clue how much lower it is today… Because of this, 6.5% of California’s total electricity use is dedicated to pumping water into the cities.October 4, 2011 at 3:43 pm #168674
I believe that you’re taking a lot of extra time using your current methods. depending on which program you’re exporting (or if you aren’t including any interactive elements, printing) to .pdf to, you should have the option to adjust compression and exclude layers. If you intend your portfolio to be printed, then keep it at 150ppi and at the actual physical size of your intended document. If you intend it to be a 100% digital document, then you can lower the resolution down to 100-ish ppi (or keep it at 150 if you want people to be able to zoom in a bit) but adjust the physical size to better match actual screen sizes.
It helps to create portfolio specific images for your final document, so take that 24×36″ drawing and resample it down to 3×5″ or whatever size it will actually be in your portfolio, then save it out as a .jpg or if you’re concerned about color clipping, use a layerless .png or .tga.
If you have Acrobat Pro (and not just Acrobat Reader) you can adjust a .pdf’s file size by using the “reduce file size” or “create optimized” options under FILE – SAVE AS.
I have managed to get my 20 page 11×14″ portfolio down to 6.25MB with no noticeable loss in quality or clarity.