Anti-SketchUp! Snobbery [or Ignorance?]
-
Scott,
Why are you whispering?
Just kidding
-
I'm still trying to shoe horn SU into my projects. No-one asks for computer visuals of their project yet in Landscape Design.
I'll get you back Jackson, Let get 'em
-
@unknownuser said:
Scott,
Why are you whispering?
SHHHHHH....they might find me. :econf:
wow...didn't think it would be that small. I was bored during lunch so I was messin with things again. Hye what does this button do.....uh o.... I gatta go.
Just kidding
-
Jackson! Good to hear some good Scottish swearing on this subject!
-
My clients only see the finished jpeg or the occassional animation, and it's always been positive. I have, interestingly enough, gotten a "snobbish vibe" from architecture students when discussing the programs they use. Very few use SU.
-
I don't have this problem with any of my clients. Most of them are so wrapped up in the eye candy they don't care where it comes from. They are even more impressed when I show them how I save them money by generating the working drawings from the SU model.
I have heard complaints by some in academia who bemoan the fact that all the student renderings done in SU look the same. "If I see that man holding those two kids hands again I'm going to flippin' scream!" Like any software, if you use it straight out of the box you will get the same results as everyone else. Take a little time to model a few of your own 2D people, plants, etc. Download or make your own textures. Learn how Styles work. Learn a little Photoshop. Do whatever you can and make the image your own. Entourage and the "feel" of an image go a long way in separating you from the rest of the herd.
SketchUp can really sing if you let it.
-
just to play the devil's advocate---> i think the reason there is such a negative reaction to sketchup as a design tool (especially in architecture schools) is that it is not always taken in moderation with other tricks of the trade- sketch models, trace paper etc etc. Part of sketchup work "all looking the same" is the push-pull-y nature of the product.. you're going to get push-pully looking architecture because its just so easy to work that way! lets face it, gaudi would never have designed such beautiful, true to physics work if he had started with sketchup rather than his upside-down parabolic physical models.
-
@unknownuser said:
Part of sketchup work "all looking the same" is the push-pull-y nature of the product.. you're going to get push-pully looking architecture because its just so easy to work that way!
Mirjman I couldn't disagree more. With all due respect that is a very negative comment. Push-pull achieves the same results as extrude in any program so you are only right about one thing - buildings are usually vertical. You can't really compare students work to what actually get's built in the real world and Gaudi is an extreme opposite. Sketchup hasn't dumbed down architecture. If we we were all working for Frank Gehry then, yes I'd say the limitations of SU might be an issue, but Gehry uses Catia which is normally used for designing aircrafts. I'm pretty sure there won't be a licensed version for under $500!
Anyway I saw this yesterday at an exhibition, part of a proposal for a new marina development in Hull, I recognised the SU people, I wanted to ask the architect if he is predominantly visualising with SU but thought he might not want to admit that in front of the judging panel.
-
Just found this bunch of retarded miserable t***s on face book who've set up their own anti SU group.Good name though.
-
First, regarding the SketchUp Cons list. Doesn't handle curved geometry well is arguable. I produced the first model referenced below in about an hour. The roof in the second model in about the same amount of time. If Gehry were to actually work on a computer (he doesn't, his assistants do) I think he would be a huge SketchUp fan.
http://dws.editme.com/files/SeptOct2007/swirl%20builidng%201.1.jpg
http://dws.editme.com/files/SeptOct2007/Sassafras%20House%20Step%202%20for%20DWS.jpgThis has been a really interesting conversation. As someone who teaches young students to use SketchUp both in large groups (we've had entire middle school grades do projects with SketchUp) and in small CAD/Architecture class, there has been much useful information from you professionals out there using the program in the "real world" that I can share with the kids.
Sometimes I feel people think that if SketchUp is so easy to use it can't be a serious tool. This is - as others have pointed out - like saying paper and pencils are not serious tools because they are easy to use. Having easy to use tools just makes the study and practice of design - of what to produce with those easy to use tools - all the more important.
We recently had two architecture firms present designs for an addition to a building. The first firm used a SketchUp model as part of their presentation. The architect doing the SketchUp presentation was rotating their model around when one of the older trustees in the audience asked him to stop as it was making him feel queezy. This flustered the architect who from that point on had to move really slowly and cautiously around the model. (You don't want to get the trustees upset... they usually end up paying for most of the building.)
The second firm didn't appear to use SketchUp but they did make an old-fashioned 3-D physical model. When they pulled this out and asked everyone to gather around there was a palpable sense of excitement in the room. The oldsters in the room especialy seemed to like it. The architect presenting gently pulled the floors off one by one until just the basement level was left (a big issue in the design was bringing more light into the basement area) and then showed people how they could put their heads down by a window and see just how the new design would look from the inside. He had them in the palm of his hand.
We have a student who wants to study architecture and has produced some wonderful work in SketchUp. I sought him out and told him this story because I thought he should know how much the audience had appreciated the analog model.
I think the moral is that SketchUp is only one tool in the designer's toolkit and over emphasis on that one tool (which SketchUp's power and ease-of-use tends to foster) can be counter productive.
Fred
-
@fbartels said:
I think the moral is that SketchUp is only one tool in the designer's toolkit and over emphasis on that one tool (which SketchUp's power and ease-of-use tends to foster) can be counter productive.
obviously we're all biased here, but lets not be totally one sided. sketchup is not above most of the cons of any computer modeling programs, although they all have a part in a well rounded design process. gehry doesn't design in catia, it is a tool in his design process after crumpled paper and meticulous wood models that are transferred into the computer using a 3d digitizer in order to get the structure to work (whether you agree with that workflow is up to you, right?) its not the tool you use, its how you use it!
-
snob (snŏb)
n.
One who tends to patronize, rebuff, or ignore people regarded as social inferiors and imitate, admire, or seek association with people regarded as social superiors.
One who affects an offensive air of self-satisfied superiority in matters of taste or intellect.Mike
-
@unknownuser said:
its not the tool you use, its how you use it!
Mirjman, IMHO I think you and I are on the same wave length about this, sorry, my previous post sounded a bit harsh, I misunderstood. What I can't understand though, if SU is just part of the process, why do some people have a problem with that? Maybe it is better to just not publicise your process? I am a proud SU user though
@unknownuser said:
The second firm didn't appear to use SketchUp but they did make an old-fashioned 3-D physical model.
I like physical models too as in IMO they are so easy to understand.
-
@unknownuser said:
@unknownuser said:
its not the tool you use, its how you use it!
Mirjman, IMHO I think you and I are on the same wave length about this, sorry, my previous post sounded a bit harsh, I misunderstood. What I can't understand though, if SU is just part of the process, why do some people have a problem with that? Maybe it is better to just not publicise your process? I am a proud SU user though
It certainly is an odd attitude to look at SU as 'insufficent' in some manner.
If you do master work with SU or some other software, it should recognized as such. It would be like saying, "M. C. Escher uses a pencil? Oh, well. . .it's nice doodling."Similarly, from my experience, -some- who don't use an engineering or architectural graphic package everyday, but have 'drawn some lines' and 'added some text' several dozen times over the span of a few years have an odd attitude that such programs don't warrant recognition in the office environment. It's the, "Autocad? (or any graphic software). . . I've worked with it for years!" syndrome. However, those same few do have periods of 'seeing the light' when they come to the guy in the trenches everyday with the software wanting him to fix work that has been raped with exploding hatch and blocks ALL on the same layer, etc.
P: Cyberdactyl
-
This just tickles my nerves, SU is a great tool and although the interface is easy and it's available for free that does not mean that it's a kid's tool. I have had enormous discussions with the informatics staff at my uni over this.
They stick to maya for the sole reason that it is the best program for architectual visualisations. I disagree. Getting the interface down in maya takes you much longer than it would in SU. And the beauty of this all is that 90% of the architecture students DO use SketchUp in their design process. Eversince SU became big SU became the design standard.
The second argument they claim is that all presentations look the same. Again a false argument. Kerky, Vray, Podium and SU output combined with PS create numerous different results. And architecture students prefer these tools over maya and their mental ray. Why? Because 90% of the students use these tools so you can help eachother (shared information among peers is much better than a small staff knowing the program through and through). And these tools are much easier to master.
So if anyone comes to me with these arguments I just refer them to this:
And the gallery of this forum.
I must say that usually shuts them up quite fast. -
@robmoors said:
So if anyone comes to me with these arguments I just refer them to this:
And the gallery of this forum.
Very nice collection there.
P: Cyberdactyl
-
The sad thing about this attitude is that it is not based on either knowledge or experience, purely habit.
Now this may be controversial (especially on this site), but I would gladly welcome the day that someone trumps @last and produces better 3D software than SU- I'd be all over it like a cheap suit! I love SU because it's soooo damn good, not because I'm used to it.
Leave the jerks to ACAD, 3DS, Maya, etc.- they'll all be obselete in under 10 years anyway.
-
I think it is safe to say that most people who are "snobbish" toward SU are unaware of it's capabilities. I've gotten more than one "wow, you did that on SU?" comment.
Mirjman, your comments about SU in acadamia are true for all programs. I've reviewed quite a few student projects produced on autocad that were banal because their knowledge of the program was limited.
-
I'm Coming late to this discussion, but I do feel there is a bit of snobbery in relation to SU. Just like everything else, many people look at price as defining quality. Of course this is very wrong, but it is a fact of life. If you payed $5000 for your design software, you must be better and more skilled than someone who payed $500.
In my world I run into those, and another type of snob. These are the people who think that if you work on a computer you are a lesser designer. They consider you a "technician/craftsman" which they think of as the category of mediocrity. This means of course that you are incapable of creating something truly artistic.
I've heard this several times. Most recently I was told by a production that they wanted someone who could also hand draft shop plans with a pencil and paper. I said I could do it but why? "Computer drafting just doesn't have that artistic feel" they said. (In my work, plans used by the shop, invariably end up on the floor, and finally in the garbage.) My response was that this was not illustration or rendering, it was just information for the builders. In fact, as these plans are for movie/TV sets, the whole thing is fake anyway. Only the look of the finished product is important, not the look of the construction info. Ah, ignorance.
-
@unknownuser said:
Most recently I was told by a production that they wanted someone who could also hand draft shop plans with a pencil and paper. I said I could do it but why? "Computer drafting just doesn't have that artistic feel" they said. (In my work, plans used by the shop, invariably end up on the floor, and finally in the garbage.) My response was that this was not illustration or rendering, it was just information for the builders. In fact, as these plans are for movie/TV sets, the whole thing is fake anyway. Only the look of the finished product is important, not the look of the construction info.
The more we talk about this, the more laughable the idea of "industry standard production" becomes. The worse firm I ever worked for had a "traditional skills only" attitude. They hand drew, marker rendered and air brushed everything. Total waste of time.
The firm did have one token Mac Designer who only used Illustrator. I think the most futile human endeavour I have seen that didn't involve life and death had to be watching token Mac guy trying to do a two point perspective in Illustrator of a store interior complete with hundreds of "rendered" products. It took him about a week to painstakingly apply and tweak gradients, then he gave up. I left shortly after, the firm went bust a year later.
Advertisement