Had a project last year where the client just couldn’t wrap their head around the floor plan—kept changing things halfway through. We started using simple 3D renders, and suddenly the lightbulbs went off. It didn’t solve everything, but it definitely cut back on the back-and-forth.
I’ve seen some shops go full 3D from day one, while others still rely mostly on 2D drawings with a few visual aids. Personally, I still start with 2D for speed, then move to 3D when I sense a disconnect or want to clarify a detail. Visit us: 2D & 3D RENDERING SERVICES:
Curious how others are handling this. Are you finding real value in 3D renderings, or is it more of a “nice to have” in your process? What’s worked for you?
I don’t do a lot of architectural stuff but no matter what I’m modeling for clients, it’s always 3D. Most clients I’ve worked with can’t accurately “read” 2D plans and elevations because that’s not how they see the world. Show them perspective views of the 3D model and the fog lifts. Another benefit to going 3D immediately is there’s less chance of induced errors especially when the model does change. If the plan and elevation views you need come from the 3D model, there’s no way they can’t agree. If you are drawing plan and elevation views in 2D they can disagree and it may not be obvious. Some years ago we had a house designed by an architect. He only did 2D elevations and plan views. I decided to create a 3D model based on his drawings and discovered that the roof lines for the plan, front and a side elevation didn’t agree. There’s no way the roof could have been built to match the three views. It wasn’t at all obvious in the views he supplied. When I asked him about it, he said he didn’t notice it either.
I start designing floor plans in 2D either pencil on trace or in PowerCADD - that’s a basic way of thinking for myself, but, yes, the sooner I can show 3D to the client, the better. Usually, the earliest thing is the exterior shell while interiors take longer to work out.
Sometimes 2d sketches with pencil in my sketchbook, but often I am doodling iso views of how things fit together. Otherwise 3d from the start.
I always use perspective interior and exterior views as well as traditional plans and sections.
Rendering is only done for a choice few projects, unless it is one of my larger clients - we often develop plans together and for them I will model the schematic design, assemble simple plan, elevation and section views and then render interior, exterior and environmental - but these are for their catalog / sales channels.
Hi Roberthood,
For my architectural works, I typically start with an architectural 2D CAD programme, as most projects I undertake, are for extensions & alteration works to existing buildings & thus requires plans & elevations etc as existing to concieve an intial draft proposal overlay & then refine it once the client approves it for final issue. However, as you note & for some projects, I then import certain proposals into SU for a better understanding if a client needs further clarity.
In the UK, most of my works require Planning & then Building Regulation approvals prior to building & therefore 2D Plans are required for this process.
Subject to how a proposal evolves, I also extract 2D Plans & elevations etc from the SU model in SU-Layout.
Therefore for me, its really down to each project & clients ability to understand a proposal.
This link explains this subject deeper:-
Same here — I prefer having a solid 2D plan in AutoCAD as a foundation. It’s something I know I can rely on, and it gives the project a strong backbone. I find that SketchUp can become quite messy, especially when working quickly. That said, I’ve also gone straight into 3D at times.
For most of my projects, I start with 2D site layouts from topographical surveys. I scale them 1:1 in AutoCAD and then import them into SketchUp. I keep the 2D layout on a separate tag that I can toggle on or off, but I find it provides the most reliable reference — especially on large projects where there are a lot of underground services shown on the plans.
From there, I use the topo points and invert levels of the pipework to begin modelling in 3D and the site starts to take shape.
I use the 3D model as the basis for nearly all the visual design deliverables. I start a project by setting up a Geolocated site with ‘placeholder’ projected plan image draped over the Property extents terrain mesh. Then I send the entire working SU model to LayOut to get the final Master Plan sheet size, orientation, scale, etc…which forms the basis of the all the work that comes in later. Sketches, slope analysis, etc can all be placed over this scaled 2d Master Plan, the ‘re-loaded’ any time inside of the working SketchUp model.
I next build out a series of ‘design typologies’ - Architectural (buildings and structures) , Transportation (ie streets and paths), and Open Space (ie parks, natural areas, plazas, etc. These typologies are later placed within the working model in order to capture a series of views that tell the project story best. The views are exported from SU and hand drawn over the top in Photoshop.
This process may looking overly complex but it’s actually streamlining the entire production process, unlocking the ability to pick, build out, export, and sketch a perspective rendering in just a couple hours or less. This works great for design charrettes where time is of the essence. Of course it works better when you have the luxury of time to refine and add detail that may get missed in a tight charrette deadline.
2 Likes