[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/3/ - 3DCG



Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



File: maxresdefault.jpg (272 KB, 1280x720)
272 KB
272 KB JPG
Is Lumion an overpriced meme kept alive by amateurs, or the future of real-time archviz and Unreal will be BTFO? Also, lumion 8 crack when?
>>
desu I think its worth a while to work in lumion, can't wait for crack, also I think a few people did crack it but are smart enough not to share, for the right amount of money from the developer, still, can't complain about Lumion 6.5.1, that's already available cracked
>>
>>591303
Why do people keep creating these shitty looking buildings? I swear to Christ, nearly every 3D artist has done at least one of these.
>>
>>592884
Because this is modern architecture, and rich millennials want to buy these sorts of houses. So archviz artists are rendering these sorts of houses for real estate catalogs.

Not my cup of tea either but that's just how the ball rolls. If people were looking to buy Japanese mansions or old-style European homes in droves, you'd probably be sitting here complaining that every 3D artist has created at least one of those instead.
>>
>>592886
Those are wayyy more visually appealing, though. Even if it was overdone, it'd still be better to look at than this boring white dystopian shit I'm seeing now.
>>
>>592884
this building was designed in 1951 by Mies van der Rohe. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farnsworth_House
>>
>>591303
>realtime
lol since when
sure you can preview with effects and fly around but the framerate is shit compared to a proper engine with decent optimization. Lumion is for video and image making with a realtime editor, but it's still a way away from a full-detail realtime interactive engine.
>>
>>592884
its one of the most iconic buildings in architecture history and this dickhead >>592886 has no fucking idea what he's talking about.

Lumion IS an overpriced meme tho. For that price you can get max+vray (you need max anyway) and a large library to boot and do the same thing. Sure the style stuff is nice but with some effort you can do this yourself.
>>
>>592903
In the very wikipedia link you posted, it says that it's a >very special work of modern architecture.

If you're saying I'm wrong because this isn't just some generic house, and actually "one of the most iconic buildings in architecture history", then great, I guess I'm wrong on the very pedantic literal meaning this generic-looking modern piece of architecture has.
>>
>>592884
>Why do people keep creating these shitty looking buildings?

Because they're literally the easiest shits to model.
Every fucking shit noob can do one of these in a matter of minutes.
>>
>>592900
I thought 7 and 8 have some sort of realtime export.
>>
>>592969
I didn't post a link, different guy.

It's not a generic modern house. If anything, it's the original that started the trend and deserves to be recognised for that. Plus, it's kind of an easy model to learn modeling and Archviz with.
>>
>>592884
>hurr durr muh classicism and ornaments
>>
>>593008
Somebody got butthurt. Yes, muh classicism and ornaments IS better than what we have today.
>>
What happened in the world that we started reducing "details" more and more and started pursuing minimalism in everything? Rec me some good reading if you know of any. Will we ever go back?
>>
>>593014
>2017
>wasting resources and energy on the creation of stone sculptures on walls
>>
>>593018
That's a pretty sad statement, actually.
>>
>>592886
With buildings like this, rich millennials are soon to be poor millennials.

What kind of retard builds a building where most of the outer surface area is covered in huge single panes of glass? Forget the cost of ordering and installing glass like that, imagine the heating and AC bill.
>>
>>593017
If McMansions are any indication, people want to go back but can't afford to go back.
Construction culture has changed significantly too. From building cheap cookie cutter, almost prefab homes for people to live in, we've gone to building and renovating homes using the cheapest methods and materials possible to increase profit margins.
House flipping is truly the worst fad in the past century.
>>
>>593017
the most expensive part of any construction project is labour, followed by regulations forcing people to pay a lot of money for things they would not have bought otherwise.
Ornaments and shit are not only out of style, they are way too expensive and nobody can really build them anymore.

Maybe now with 3d printing and robotics we might see a rise in ornamentation again. But whats the point?

>>593098
There's lots of different options to go with other than "single pane of glass". Ie, triple glass windows with gas in between. Pretty good insulation wise.
>>
>>593018
>>593119

>Ornaments and shit are not only out of style, they are way too expensive and nobody can really build them anymore.

>Maybe now with 3d printing and robotics we might see a rise in ornamentation again. But whats the point?

If I'm building a house I'd want to put ornaments in it, because I think they look nice, I'd be giving a niche job like a stone sculptor some honest work, and I think it's a great conversation starter with guests. I *would* want ornaments, I would want an open roman-style bath, I would want an elaborate garden with plenty of sculptures.

I think that any sort of architecture that isn't just sharp corners and painted slabs of concrete looks great, they all have their merits and modern architecture gets btfo by any of it. Often, this stuff looks like home improvement gone wrong, a workshop class experiment disaster, architecture that looks like a mess just for the sake of looking visually striking.

But opinions will differ, of course.
>>
>>593119
How can you say "what's the point"? They look beautiful, it's art. The building I live in is hundred years old and has some ornaments on the walls above the entrance and I'd like if it even had more of them. It makes it special and one of a kind. And it has it's own character. It's interesting to look at. I know it's extra cost, but hell, it adds to the culture. Now, everything looks the same. I'm not talking about some special modernist architectural works, but normal buildings and houses regular people live in. I miss that attention to details and complexity of individual pieces.
>>
>>593149
>>593172
Ornaments don't serve a practical purpose and are expensive. That's one reason nobody builds them. Another is that only a few people can still make them. And they simply are out of style, that is a fact. People like streamlined designs or flashy stuff. Besides, what kind of ornaments would you even build? More angels, leafs and gargoyles? Or just random shapes? Might as well put tribals on your building.

At the end of the day, building is about cost. People try to build affordable real estate and since ornaments are practically useless but cost a lot of money, they don't get build. Simple as that.

Now if you happen to be a millionaire, feel free to sculpt some ornaments in zbrush and have them put all over your house, but please come up with a modern interpretation and don't do some generic shit.
>>
>>593178
It's not whether about it's prohibitively expensive, or if it doesn't serve any purpose whatsoever, for fuck's sake. It's a type of decoration from a style, some people prefer them and will pay for them regardless of cost or whether it's """""in style""""" or not.

I don't like weird misshapen square houses and lots of glass, so if I have a choice to build my own house, I will damn well pay to get something more traditional in there. If that involves anges, leafs and gargoyles, then put the dang gargoyles in my bathroom staring right at my dong as I bathe and let's see if it works out.
>>
>>593183
>If that involves anges, leafs and gargoyles, then put the dang gargoyles in my bathroom staring right at my dong as I bathe and let's see if it works out.

By all means, do that. But the reason why we dont see much ornamental stuff being built is because its too expensive and not en vogue.
>>
>>593191
Its not en vogue because modern architects are dilettantes and they suck up to the corporate overlords so we see only these soulless, empty, glass, steel and concrete buildings. There is a reason for that, and its part of the psychological warfare against the ordinary people by the rich and powerful.
>>
>>593245
>architects are dilettantes
What's so skillfull about plastering gargoyles and flowers all over everything?

Also, get fucked, commie
>>
>>593270
Go read up about the free-masons you fucking capitalist whore, maybe you learn something.
>>
>What's so skillfull about plastering gargoyles and flowers all over everything?
It takes skills to do those things. You even literally said there are almost no people that know how to do that anymore. And what - designing white blocks is more skillful?
>>
>>593275
U mad bro.

Also, way to out yourself as a tinfoil hat retard.
>>
>>593342
I did not refer to the Masons because of muh conspiracy, i did because of their understanding of architecture, retard.
>>
>>593347
Amazing.
>>
>>593282
Creating them takes skill, but plastering them all over a building doesn't.

And there is more to architecture and buildings than their exterior appearance. In fact, the interior is much more important as it is what's actually inhabited by people.
>>
>Grandad why don't you like minimalism?
>Don't touch muh flower motifs you gobshite.
t. contrarians in this thread

You faggots won't understand it's a cycle.
>>
>>593367
I don't have a problem with minimalism, but if it is the only game in town it becomes boring quite fast.
>I-It-its a cycle, it rhymes
Go fuck yourself with an I-beam
>>
>>593365
>modern apartments with their low ass ceilings and small windows
Yeah, I can see that. It definitely improved.
>>
>>593374
This. I like minimalism, but... Well, basically what he said.
>>
>>593376
Would you rather want to have a somewhat affordable apartment even tho it might have low ceilings, or would you like to instead live on the street because you can't afford to live in the ornamental luxury apartments but at least they look nice from the outside?

Architecture and the AEC industry are a service as well or more so than art. I'd rather people live in ugly houses that they can afford instead of them not having houses at all.
>>
>>593412
This isn't a "where would you like to shittily live" argument though, this is a "what style do you like best and if you could have your own house/apartment, what style would you choose for it?" and "what style looks the best/is hardest to pull off when contrasted with one another?" topic.

You keep bringing it back to price for some dumb reason: yeah, people are living in apartments like this, but it's because it's cheap, not likely because it's their dream home or where they would like to live for the rest of their lives. There's no argument there, but it's not really relevant to the discussion.
>>
>>593425
Well, to me it seems like the most frequent question or complaint is why old styles are not being built anymore. The answer is not some consipracy or architects having no taste anymore, allthough these might play a small role in it. But the biggest factor is price and lack of demand.

Of course individual people will find the old styles appealing. But there is also a difference between admiring an old building and building a new one in that style. The new one will likely look fake and cheap as fuck.




Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.