Who says clients don't pay for modeling?

[Chris M]

Originally posted by gpickren
The olden days are still here for many. For a comparison of just what you describe check this thread at the bottom.

I find a foamboard model to be an interesting craft exercise, especially if you printed the patterns with Chief, but I really question the value compared to a 3D model. It may be semantics and I am sure of the proper term but I would not equate rendering with modeling. I create a model (3D digital model) in order that I may render it (3D view with or without ray tracing, etc.) Chief does most of the modeling for us, especially on simple designs. Rendering is like photographing a real house. It is all about liighting, especially the interior shots. A cardboard doll house doesn't do much for me and I think this is where the concept of being able to charge for modeling came from. The architects have equated it to 3D design because most of them still think in terms of 2D production. In my experience the architects here using Chief are in the significant minority.

Most residential architects in Calfornia are still hand drawing their plans and prefer it. It is the artist mentality. They do not embrace technology and many feel that their artistic expression is limited by stock symbol components. True enough, but the contractor who has to actually build the house is pretty well limited by stock building components and one of the reasons for groken budgets is ignoring this.

http://www.chiefarchitect.com/chieft...threadid=10810

I guess its a mater of opion,but the debate is now raging over the internet,Theres always 2 sides to the story,Your welcome to post on that board-I guess?
Cheers

http://techboard.nemetschek.net/ubb/...;f=12;t=004541