I use computer hardware everyday. Does this allow me to give relevant opinions on what are the best processes to build it? Some folks are thinking about it for decades.
Architectural rendering is overrated, it only exists as a way to sell the project to clumsy end users, investors and city planners. The same house but with a different sky, flying ducks, evergreen trees, people dancing and ferraris will look an order of magnitude better. The time wasted on this could be used to better the house itself. Don't forget also that what seems clearly an anachronism is not: 10 years ago computer hardware and software were not nearly there for the "3d revolution" you are asking for.
For a trivial example, the exact same house plan rotated by 90 degrees will have substantially different important qualities because of how the sun affects both light and temperature. There needs to be some way not only to communicate this to end users, but also take it into account during the planning and design process. Perhaps rendering is not the right tool for that and is overrated, but what methods do you suggest and use to understand and analyze these factors?
Those factors are always considered on a macro level when an architect makes a project. Only when they are critical, they are analysed on a micro level with specialized software. In most cases you can get very far with some rules of thumb:
North: indirect light, the coldest orientation (northern hemisphere of course)
East: morning light, good for bedrooms
South: lots of direct light, the warmer orientation
West: afternoon light, good for living rooms or even kitchens
I just want to understand if I will have the sun shining in my eye on summer mornings when I'm lying in bed, how the hallway will look at night, what the view will be from the kitchen and into the living space, etc. Just trying to place _myself_ in the house and see what I should fix before it's built.
You wouldn't buy a car after merely looking at its 2D projections and a sketchy looking rendering, so I don't think that asking to see how a house would look and feel before committing to building it is such an unreasonable thing to do.
> Architectural rendering is overrated, it only exists as a way to sell the project to clumsy end users, investors and city planners.
Right but isn't it overrated because it only exists as a way to sell the project? Surely the software could be improved to the point that you can use it to make decisions?
I use computer hardware everyday. Does this allow me to give relevant opinions on what are the best processes to build it? Some folks are thinking about it for decades.
Architectural rendering is overrated, it only exists as a way to sell the project to clumsy end users, investors and city planners. The same house but with a different sky, flying ducks, evergreen trees, people dancing and ferraris will look an order of magnitude better. The time wasted on this could be used to better the house itself. Don't forget also that what seems clearly an anachronism is not: 10 years ago computer hardware and software were not nearly there for the "3d revolution" you are asking for.