1. If you enroll in any program, you'd get the free student versions of most of these programs. They last about a year and prints will have a stamp on them that says "for education purposes only". But you wouldn't have to buy them. I haven't heard about a school that teaches you all these, but I think the people that produce the software offer workshops, maybe that would be something for you?

2. I think you can go well without working with 3D programs. Most of the ones you name are for the conceptual phase only anyway, so if you work in later phases, you won't need them - except for the BIM software.

It does have its advantages, and I think many projects wouldn't be possible or would take longer without the computer, but I don't feel as if we really saved a lot of time using it - we just expect more and want everything faster, so in the end it's the same amount of work as before.

The whole question about "do we need blob buildings" I would put into a number 3). Obviously, you don't NEED buildings to look like that. It's the same as asking "do we need this new piece of music" or "do we need another abstract painting". Architecture is a form of art, and artists express themselves and their view of the world.

my question is...do employers need to be educated more to hire good people without looking for specific software packages...

so many jobs ask for people to KNOW bim or revit or rhino or whatever before even submitting a resume. i've learned every piece of software i know on the job..most within a week or so...isn't it more important what buildings i've built? each firm is completely different anyway... in the time it takes to learn file structure and everything else you can also learn their software..

lars - that would be silly - we know that young people are only good for their 3D and their ability to fix our outlook e-mail thingy... they couldn't possibly have any good design ideas, would want to actually go on site and learn how a building comes together, or would be capable of bringing in work.

what is important is that they spend all their time in front of the computer so we can hover over them and tell them how to do things even though we don't know wtf we are talking about - and we want them to do things in 15 minutes because jimmy used to be able to do that when he was here.

Really hate this and one of the reasons I am "leaving" the profession.

I am 26 and I don't know how to use 3DsMax (made a course a few years back and absolutely hated the feeling of wasting hours in front of an abstract virtual set); though I know Indesign (lov'it), Rhino (OK) and wouldn't mind to learn basics of Revit. I think I am more two-dimensional person.

Fortunately I am moving thru Project Management and there are whole weeks when I don't even open CAD program in the office. What a pleasure when everything is around MSProject, Outlook and Excel.

But if you are young and want to continue in the design profession, seems pretty hard (specially in the current economic situation) if you don't know the latest software; it is your main advantage against senior people.

However with a few years experience, it will be more important your management/organisation skills rather than just software (unless you are completely focused on production). It is always easier to outsource 3Ds than management.

Best just go to tech school for the software training; don't think a university education means anything. Think this economy has brought to a head the crises between hand/computer drawing. Sketching is useful, but that is only valuable if you design. Intern jobs, i.e., producing CDs, rely solely on computer abilities.

Speaking to Lars's point: in this market, employers don't have to choose between software knowledge or intelligence/capabilities. Although a folks with both are still a minority, there are enough of them out there to satisfy demand.

3d modeling is over-rated....you can always source out if you need the fancy pics to go with the hottness....

design/detailing should be the main concern....regardless of what medium is used.... sketching/watercolor/etc....

Let's tackle this one by one:

1. I'm curious as to whether there exists a 1 year post grad course or other intensive course either in the US or internationally that provides a solid grounding or even expertise in ALL of the more widely used digital media that employers are looking for today. Revit , 3D Studio , Rhino , Photoshop , V Ray , In design , Illustrator , any other software that is the industry standard in architectural animations. I could learn them all one by one including usage of free tutorials but this would take a long time. I could spend my hard earned on a copy of every package and set myself back 15 -20k

Anyone here done something like this. Its not so much so that i can get a job but more so that i can enter major competitions in a solo capacity. Does anyone know of any courses like this in countries which are relatively cheap to live in for a year? ie. India , SE Asia , China , Central or South America ?

There is an abundance of 3D modeling and rendering programs on the market now that all essentially do the same thing. It's not really necessary to know every single one of them, especially if your only concern is for personal use. Teaching yourself the basics (which is all you really need to know) of one modeling program will at worst take a few weeks. Personally I would recommend Rhino because it offers you the most flexibility, it's pretty cheap ($1000 vs $5000 for any Autodesk product) and the range of plug-ins (some of which are free) will provide you all of the tools you would need to do the work you are planning on doing. Also, it doubles as a drafting program so you get a built-in bonus.

Revit is really only necessary if you are looking for an office job, and it seems like most employers are only interested in hiring if you already have office experience with Revit, so teaching it to yourself is a lost cause.

Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign... once you can do one you can do them all. You can probably skip InDesign anyway, unless you need to put together a publication.


As for the second question:

I think you are really trivializing the impact of computers on the profession by only focusing on one extreme end. Computers have done a lot more for us than "amazing photorealistic renderings of over the top glazing reflections, coloured lighting , cut outs of sharply dressed model types and perfect blue skies with puffy white clouds downloaded from photo stock libraries?" Think about how much faster a set of drawings can be produced, or how quickly revisions can be made? Consider how BIM technologies are starting to make the construction document phase more comprehensive, thus avoiding timely and expensive errors in the field during construction. I could continue, but I think the list would endless.

I'd also like to point out that without computers you wouldn't be able to have this conversation with everyone in the Archinect world.

tools are useful; computers are tools.......I fail to understand the Luddite debate. ...especially at a socio-economic time where efficiency is the key to keeping a business a float...how can people *still* be fighting tools that can save the profession?

i understand the feeling that one needs to know everything, which is of course unrealistic. for me it is a work in progress, but right now i look at it this way:
- it depends on what types of firms you are targeting -- if corporate, go with the autodesk standards + sketchup -- if high design boutiques or low design firms, there is more flexibility, try to figure out what the people you want to work for use and learn it or survey the lot, pick the ones you like and get to be crackerjack with them
- at a minimum, PS, , plus one conceptual design tool, one documentation/BIM tool, one data management tool, one spec writing tool, one presentation tool
- of the 4-8 tools you settle on, you need to be absolutely crackerjack with one or two at a minimum, preferably three or four ---
- beyond the minimum, where your expertise is greatest is where you'll most likely end up

for instance, a minimum complete software toolset might be:

Conceptual: sketchup/rhino, vray, PS
BIM: revit
data management: triforma
spec writing: master spec
Presentation: vray+PS

>Does anyone know of any courses like this in countries which are relatively cheap to live in for a year? ie. India , SE Asia , China , Central or South America ?<

I took private lessons in 3DS Max, Visual Basic, and PHP programming when I was staying in Bandung, Indonesia. The costs are extremely light compared to USA. Of course it helps to know the language.

For doing something like that just speaking English in SE Asia, I'd try Kuala Lumpur or Manila. Look at computer/architecture schools in the area and arrange to hire one of their teachers.

correction:

data management: newforma

@msudon:"how can people *still* be fighting tools that can save the profession?"

Save the profession? Are you serious? Save it from what? Being employed?

It's no secret that all of these software packages improve workflow, communication of ideas, project efficiency, etc... They also come with a promise of reduced staff. Fine. I'm all for automation of mundane coordination tasks.

Being an expert in AutoCad, Revit, Sketchup, Rhino, 3DMax, vray, Adobe shit, etc, is no small undertaking. It probably takes years to master them, And I would strongly question anyone who knew all of them in their mid to late 20's. Why? It tells me that they have had very little time to learn how a building actually comes together.

Here's the catch: Apps like Rhino, Sketchup, 3DMax, vray, all of Adobe, etc are primarily used in the Schematic Design stage of the project. Which accounts for what? 15% of the architect's fee?

Yes, SD is probably the most fun stage of the project, but you will hardly have a serious architectural career without pushing a number of projects all the way through. Once you do that you become overqualified for spending any serious time pulling 3D shapes around.

"Being an expert in AutoCad, Revit, Sketchup, Rhino, 3DMax, vray, Adobe shit, etc, is no small undertaking."

I think this is a part of the problem. How many really are? Many suggest it, but those that are expert in more than two or three I find to be few and far between.

My bread and butter has always been that with two or three tools I am lights out fast which is always a help at crunch time or during early concept work, especially in meetings, where I can model at the pace of the conversation and use it to advance the meeting.

But it seems that things are so bad right now, even if you are crackerjack with one or two or three or four, it feels as though it is not enough.

And as you mention, there are so many other important things to know, steelstuds.

The other thing that gets me about this stuff is the cost. Not a factor for sketchup and not really for rhino. But to pay for max or maya or revit or Architecture and the subscription and not use most of its functionality is such a huge waste - especially when margins are cut so razor thin. The stuff most architects do with a $4000 piece of bloated software like max that is relatively difficult to learn and requires up to a couple grand in extra add-ons just to make it efficient can almost always be done with an easy to learn $1000 piece of software with a faster workflow.

I did this today in SketchUp.

And I don't really know what I am doing either and I don't think that I am that good.

very nice. what render engine?

Va-va-va-va veeeee-rraayyy.

I've tried to learn others but I've found them too cumbersome or 'toned down.'

I think what is intimidating about vray is that v-ray gets you to think about your materials as physical elements rather than as decorative objects-- is your surface a glossy fresnel reflection or a satin-like mirror reflection, what is the refractive index of that material, et cetera.

I think my point is as someone who was not formally trained in the field and who has basically had to learn everything in a typical erudite fashion.

I don't think my work is even good or sellable... but you never get anywhere if you don't try.

I quit being a graphic designer for some of the same reasons you all have expressed-- I particularly dislike how software and visualization methods are often 'trendy' and laden with fads.

My primary struggle was that many of these fad periods in graphic design always revolve around difficult and cumbersome software. I mean... does anyone remember when everyone and their mom use to use club-flyer-esque faux-rendered lettering?

When I was "keeping up with the pace," I soon realized that the people who originally pioneered a new visual style had been perfecting it fore months to years before it finally became mainstream. And as quick as it rose, it fades away.

But the bottom line is that no matter what visual style you choose to employ or what gimmick you slap onto your documents... is that the method should be primarily used for conveying data, ideas or concepts.

Some "data" expression falls into the qualitative rather than the quantitative... and is therefore art. But most of the time, the data is quantitative and represents a tangible real world asset.

And in that case, sometimes less is more but less can also be a bore.

Personally, I hate hate hate using entourage, card trees and other phony elements.

It adds a version of stylized realism that I can't gaurantee.

--- I don't know if the tiny little pathetic saplings planted will grow into beautiful picturesque trees.
--- I don't know if everyone in and around your new shiny building will all be office workers dressed in nice suits or tourists having fun.
--- I don't know what style of street lamps they use in Trenton, New Jersey.

However, I will add those elements if they are fundamentally important to things like lighting schemes, shadowing, to inform that there will be in fact those objects there or I can make some gaurantee of how those objects will relate to a specific project.

The point I am making here is this:

Entourage can literally add dozens of hours (from making the cutouts to scaling them to adjusting perspective) of the billable variety to a customers bill.

Faux landscaping is highly misleading. It's the renter's equivalent of smothering toothpaste on plaster work.

Obscured massings can make projects seem better or worse than they are.

When it comes down to it, the bigger reason a lot of the more complex modeling programs are used is to handle exactly this kind of bells-and-whistles work that's frankly unnecessary.

And as a graphic designer and former media worker, its inappropriately misleading.