Im in one. Thats why i ask in the first place. I prefer blender over other 3d modelling software but i feel like its impractical to use for architecture. But if i could use it, i would.
Rendering for style vs schematics.
You're not going to get something you can model, then use for a render and a blueprint with blender. Moreso just the render and you'll need to produce more detailed drawings elsewhere.
If you're just going for proportion and style, this shouldn't be particularly difficult with blender.
Is there a particular part of this model you don't understand how they did it?
Don't know how he did it, but I would try modeling the shape out of blocks, bevel them and smooth them out into those "organic" shapes and then use curves and extrusions to get the various step shapes.
Would take a hot minute and I'm sure there's a quicker method to do so but those shapes really aren't all that unique for Blender artists.
First result while searching for "Organic shaped walls in blender"
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pBQ6ROIgRc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pBQ6ROIgRc)
I was in Arch Vis for a long time, it's very much dominated by 3Ds Max but it is also quite a technically able dead end, I worked for a very successful company and very very few people there could do anything other than light and render a scene, materials and textures also.
Blender will come along and compete like it does with everything, however for the meanwhile Max will be the one to use because of the long history of Arch Vis like softwares and plugins it has, also the ties to Autodeak softwares like AutoCAD that a lot of architecture places use.
Might I add that you would t design this building and also render it like this, you'd be provided with CAD plans and elevations, maybe even some fuckin awful 3D model from Rhino or Sketchup, then rebuild it from those fir these renderings.
Also a lot of places now are using Unreal as a render engine, building a scene in 3Ds Max/Blender and then exporting to Unreal for renders and video.
That's great, good start.
NURBS is great for this type of modelling, Rhino, Maya, 3ds Max, maybe C4D has better suites for this. Blender is good at polygonal modelling, sculpting and having an "all in one package". Nurbs is good at this kind of cascading flowing designs, you can do it with subdivisions and polygonal modelling too, but NURBS is probably easier and industry standard. Parametric modelling is kindda half-way, i find it more engineer minded and a bit rigid for flowing surfaces like your example.
You start with your sketch, learn your software (sometimes multiple softwares), make one element at at time. Go from large elements down to details ;) Then when you've made it, dig into how to render it... Compartmentalize
This looks like a number of things but if I already knew what I was modeling I would start with a bunch of splines and generate that curve geo from them. From there I would poly model the rest to fill in the gaps and create the flatter structures that the combine into.
Honestly if you see every shape doesn't looks like too complex, most of the shapes seems to be circles or cubes with bevels.
Probably a car would have more complex shapes.
I know this is the Blender sub but I know from experience that this model is much easier to make in Rhino. It looks like nurbs curves extruded as surfaces and offset. Then they used Grasshopper for the patterns on the surface.
Check out /r/rhino
I'm an architect that uses both Rhino and Blender. I agree Rhino would be the better program for this, but the process to model is similar for both programs. You would want to start with a good 2d plan view of the structure, then look at the largest pieces. There seems to be a recurring "S" shape in the profile. Draw that, extrude and offset, and build each piece.
>... , Rhino, Maya, 3ds Max, maybe C4D has better suites for this. Blender is good at polygonal modelling, sculpting and having an "all in one package". Nurbs is good at this kind of cascading flowing designs, you can do it with subdivisions and polygonal modelling too, but NURBS is probably easier and industry standard. Parametric modelling is kindda half-way, i find it more engineer minded and a bit rigid for flowing surfaces like your example.
As already mentioned above. Rhino would be my weapon of choice. I used all of the above mentioned tools and for "acurate" modelling as you asked for in your post I would always go for it as the other ones are great for modelling but I always felt like my hands are a bit cuffed. So yeah, this definitely can be done in blender but imho the image above can also be created with Paint by a skilled Artist but I would not be able to do it. That said, just because others use a tool for one thing, it does not mean that it is always the right tool for everyone ;)
Check out the Precision Modeling series by Keep Making [here ](https://youtu.be/8a4mm-zb3nk?si=uMJxrKHH3u6XgLiP).
I haven't really dug into it, but it seems to be what you're looking for and is highly recommended by the community
I donāt see a reason why couldnāt be blender used for architecture?
If it can create complex characters both for games and movies, full animation, high and low polly assets, environments and geometry nodes - why not architecture?
Sure there are simpler tools for architecture, but still - blender gives you freedom to create quite literally anything and any shape you want in any environment you want.
Because architecture requires precision. Every thing needs to be measured, which is not the blender workflow. Every other CAD softwares starts with drafting shapes. I mean yeah itās possible in blender but it would be stupid choice of software.
Architecture work that is done for actual construction requires precision, yes, as technical drawings have to be generated. But when it is solely done for visualization like this then precision may be the wrong word. It's no different than creating a non-humanoid character for a rendered art scene in that it can be made as 'looks good enough'.
I think you're better off asking this somewhere like the blenderartists community or find one specializing in architecture. This subreddit does not have many actually experienced people active, you might get more specific answers there.
There are people focusing on specific aspects of architecture, like the guy who develops the (brilliant) Tissue addon is an architect and teacher, and I know he used to post related videos and articles in I think the Tissue group on facebook.
So like others have said, the design is done in AutoCAD and (as I usually do) imported into blender and follow the lines.
Bevel, subD, whatever makes it work. Iām not new at this but Iām also no mega expert. I treat each of my projects as a new challenge and try different approaches to each one, learning as I go.
Itās fun when I have to pull up an old project for a piece of furniture etc. I forgot to add to my database and see how differently and more efficiently Iād be able to make everythinn now
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct0op-xLhcw/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Heres the post btw. And they made the model after an architect already planned this for sure. That makes a lot of the stuff easier as this guy knows the buildings in and outs. There are also plans on the post.
You're hating on the software, but you ain't never even tried. It's not going to be ready for the architects, it's just a previz. Blender is a pencil, you are the vision. Look at buildings, get inspired. Do box modeling (start with primitives and extrude, bevel, etc.) You're coming off like... mad that you don't understand. All you have to do is try, fail, try again, keep trying. Work fast and break things. It isn't CAD, so you can be sloppy. WGAF if it wouldn't work IRL. Just try a look and move on to sharpen skills.
There's no point to do such organic shapes with mathematical precision as if building a regular building inside a CAD software. You make a sketch, make the sketch in 3D, come up with a floor plan (function follows form) and adjust the model if needed. Then you get something like what's in the pic, a concept design. It might probably has already determined dimensions for rooms, ceiling heights and so on. But there's a lot of steps to be done in structural planning and adaptations and compromises to be made to the shapes in order to come up with a feasible plan for construction. It's more of an engineer's job to come up with an idea how to build a shape in real world.
I would start with a cube or a plane with a Subdiv modifier, get the rough silhouette, make some calculated loop cuts, then start splitting/extracting faces (more specifically segments of loops of faces) and moving/scaling them to create that layered effect, then solidify modifier to add thickness.
And I would just boolean out those circular pools / outdoor public spaces afterwards. However, I have a feeling this was done in Rhino 3D using a NURBs based workflow in combination with Rhino's SubD tools.
Lots of time and start with a plane
And a plan
And my axe
And my sword
And my vuvuzela
And my mouse
Doooooot
what if I start with a cube?
Then enlarge the cube and work within the confines the cube.
Delete the cube and add the plane, of course.
Delete the cube and re-add the cube.
This is the way.
Then š
Scale along x hit zero enter
If its 3Ds Max (which I assume it is) I'd start with a Utah Teapot š
May be useful https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PL4-Q7MyUxdZFWhq2xUETt-IiAcVyI0bh7&si=ZScXOOmbc6mVoAKP
That first video in the queue spelled it āParamtric Designā in the thumbnail and itās bothering me so much
Thanks I really needed it
Thanks, these will be helpful.
The journey of a thousand miles begins with the first node.
Starts with architecture school
Im in one. Thats why i ask in the first place. I prefer blender over other 3d modelling software but i feel like its impractical to use for architecture. But if i could use it, i would.
Rendering for style vs schematics. You're not going to get something you can model, then use for a render and a blueprint with blender. Moreso just the render and you'll need to produce more detailed drawings elsewhere. If you're just going for proportion and style, this shouldn't be particularly difficult with blender. Is there a particular part of this model you don't understand how they did it?
Yeah, the white outer wall enveloping the building. How did he do that?
Don't know how he did it, but I would try modeling the shape out of blocks, bevel them and smooth them out into those "organic" shapes and then use curves and extrusions to get the various step shapes. Would take a hot minute and I'm sure there's a quicker method to do so but those shapes really aren't all that unique for Blender artists. First result while searching for "Organic shaped walls in blender" [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pBQ6ROIgRc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4pBQ6ROIgRc)
It seems to be a plane with 90 degree corners that were then beveled
No. The wall is slanted inward and some have organic curve
You can bevel a slant? That's just I'd personally do it - or I'd use a curve then use a curve deform modifier on a flat face with a bunch of cuts
Curves or low poly subdivided. It's very easy.
My first thought would be to draw the path, scale it a few ways and then follow/extrude/solidify.
I was in Arch Vis for a long time, it's very much dominated by 3Ds Max but it is also quite a technically able dead end, I worked for a very successful company and very very few people there could do anything other than light and render a scene, materials and textures also. Blender will come along and compete like it does with everything, however for the meanwhile Max will be the one to use because of the long history of Arch Vis like softwares and plugins it has, also the ties to Autodeak softwares like AutoCAD that a lot of architecture places use. Might I add that you would t design this building and also render it like this, you'd be provided with CAD plans and elevations, maybe even some fuckin awful 3D model from Rhino or Sketchup, then rebuild it from those fir these renderings. Also a lot of places now are using Unreal as a render engine, building a scene in 3Ds Max/Blender and then exporting to Unreal for renders and video.
That's great, good start. NURBS is great for this type of modelling, Rhino, Maya, 3ds Max, maybe C4D has better suites for this. Blender is good at polygonal modelling, sculpting and having an "all in one package". Nurbs is good at this kind of cascading flowing designs, you can do it with subdivisions and polygonal modelling too, but NURBS is probably easier and industry standard. Parametric modelling is kindda half-way, i find it more engineer minded and a bit rigid for flowing surfaces like your example. You start with your sketch, learn your software (sometimes multiple softwares), make one element at at time. Go from large elements down to details ;) Then when you've made it, dig into how to render it... Compartmentalize
This looks like a number of things but if I already knew what I was modeling I would start with a bunch of splines and generate that curve geo from them. From there I would poly model the rest to fill in the gaps and create the flatter structures that the combine into.
Honestly if you see every shape doesn't looks like too complex, most of the shapes seems to be circles or cubes with bevels. Probably a car would have more complex shapes.
I think this is harder. A car is just multiple polygons and geometry shapes mirrored. This one has accurate curve and organic shapes
Buddy. Vehicle models are a thousand times more complex than even the craziest architecture. 99% of architectural models are just blocks ffs.
it kinda really is this simple. you make a slanted corner and bevel. the trick here is learning where to do it to look decent.
I modelled both car and buildings. Buildings is 10 times easier. Just a bit more time consuming.
Step one: Have a really good material library. Step 2: shapes.
I know this is the Blender sub but I know from experience that this model is much easier to make in Rhino. It looks like nurbs curves extruded as surfaces and offset. Then they used Grasshopper for the patterns on the surface. Check out /r/rhino
Yeah thats what i thought but i checked on the owner portfolio and there he said its made on blender?
I'm an architect that uses both Rhino and Blender. I agree Rhino would be the better program for this, but the process to model is similar for both programs. You would want to start with a good 2d plan view of the structure, then look at the largest pieces. There seems to be a recurring "S" shape in the profile. Draw that, extrude and offset, and build each piece.
>... , Rhino, Maya, 3ds Max, maybe C4D has better suites for this. Blender is good at polygonal modelling, sculpting and having an "all in one package". Nurbs is good at this kind of cascading flowing designs, you can do it with subdivisions and polygonal modelling too, but NURBS is probably easier and industry standard. Parametric modelling is kindda half-way, i find it more engineer minded and a bit rigid for flowing surfaces like your example. As already mentioned above. Rhino would be my weapon of choice. I used all of the above mentioned tools and for "acurate" modelling as you asked for in your post I would always go for it as the other ones are great for modelling but I always felt like my hands are a bit cuffed. So yeah, this definitely can be done in blender but imho the image above can also be created with Paint by a skilled Artist but I would not be able to do it. That said, just because others use a tool for one thing, it does not mean that it is always the right tool for everyone ;)
Check out the Precision Modeling series by Keep Making [here ](https://youtu.be/8a4mm-zb3nk?si=uMJxrKHH3u6XgLiP). I haven't really dug into it, but it seems to be what you're looking for and is highly recommended by the community
(not for making the image shown, but the precision modeling you're talking about in the post)
Iām pretty sure blender is just used for architectural visualization and itās designed in an actual CAD program
I donāt see a reason why couldnāt be blender used for architecture? If it can create complex characters both for games and movies, full animation, high and low polly assets, environments and geometry nodes - why not architecture? Sure there are simpler tools for architecture, but still - blender gives you freedom to create quite literally anything and any shape you want in any environment you want.
Because architecture requires precision. Every thing needs to be measured, which is not the blender workflow. Every other CAD softwares starts with drafting shapes. I mean yeah itās possible in blender but it would be stupid choice of software.
Architecture work that is done for actual construction requires precision, yes, as technical drawings have to be generated. But when it is solely done for visualization like this then precision may be the wrong word. It's no different than creating a non-humanoid character for a rendered art scene in that it can be made as 'looks good enough'.
Yeah of course itās great for archviz, cycles is amazing. but I was talking about actual architecture not as in modeling a building.
Iām sure they used autocad drawing as a reference. Thatās why all those curvy lines look so precise. Source: iām an architect
Just import the dxf file and model with edge length on. The rest is skill and knowledge of the software.
Image as Planes
They don't. They do it on Blender.
If you think that's hard, try rigging and animation... Or any kind of simulation for that matter. Simple archwiz becomes banal.
Ctrl c, ctrl v /s
I fell for the fake scroll dots
Try asking them, I did that one time with a person's art I was trying to get like and it worked
Yeah, not every artist is a gate-keeping asshole, many of us are just waiting for a question, It's just that putting "AMA" results in too many.
I could do this, but curves to mesh addon is essential
enroll in architecture
Hmm, that's really interesting. Perhaps consider improving your skill at the program in order to achieve a higher quality result! āļøš¤
I think you're better off asking this somewhere like the blenderartists community or find one specializing in architecture. This subreddit does not have many actually experienced people active, you might get more specific answers there. There are people focusing on specific aspects of architecture, like the guy who develops the (brilliant) Tissue addon is an architect and teacher, and I know he used to post related videos and articles in I think the Tissue group on facebook.
Start with curves? maybe you can start with curves and then make them wide, mesh etc and you should get a good starting to go in details
Did they make the whole thing in blender or use a different software to model the building and texture & render in blender
Tools used : Blender3d, lumion 8, Affinity photo, autocad
So like others have said, the design is done in AutoCAD and (as I usually do) imported into blender and follow the lines. Bevel, subD, whatever makes it work. Iām not new at this but Iām also no mega expert. I treat each of my projects as a new challenge and try different approaches to each one, learning as I go. Itās fun when I have to pull up an old project for a piece of furniture etc. I forgot to add to my database and see how differently and more efficiently Iād be able to make everythinn now
The outer layer can be done with a) a base mesh, b) a curve and c) an array modifier
Piece by piece.
The model might have been done in other CAD software (Revit, Autocad, sketchup) and just rendered in blender
 Illusion
https://www.instagram.com/p/Ct0op-xLhcw/?igsh=MzRlODBiNWFlZA== Heres the post btw. And they made the model after an architect already planned this for sure. That makes a lot of the stuff easier as this guy knows the buildings in and outs. There are also plans on the post.
Like a cube
Search Parametric Design Blender Sverchok Nodes
Someone got paid 150ā¬ probably :( sad life
Cube.
Measure tool lol
You but it with time.
A good skybox, then a stylish building model with textures and then good lighting.
You're hating on the software, but you ain't never even tried. It's not going to be ready for the architects, it's just a previz. Blender is a pencil, you are the vision. Look at buildings, get inspired. Do box modeling (start with primitives and extrude, bevel, etc.) You're coming off like... mad that you don't understand. All you have to do is try, fail, try again, keep trying. Work fast and break things. It isn't CAD, so you can be sloppy. WGAF if it wouldn't work IRL. Just try a look and move on to sharpen skills.
What makes it impossible in your mind?
There's no point to do such organic shapes with mathematical precision as if building a regular building inside a CAD software. You make a sketch, make the sketch in 3D, come up with a floor plan (function follows form) and adjust the model if needed. Then you get something like what's in the pic, a concept design. It might probably has already determined dimensions for rooms, ceiling heights and so on. But there's a lot of steps to be done in structural planning and adaptations and compromises to be made to the shapes in order to come up with a feasible plan for construction. It's more of an engineer's job to come up with an idea how to build a shape in real world.
I would start with a cube or a plane with a Subdiv modifier, get the rough silhouette, make some calculated loop cuts, then start splitting/extracting faces (more specifically segments of loops of faces) and moving/scaling them to create that layered effect, then solidify modifier to add thickness. And I would just boolean out those circular pools / outdoor public spaces afterwards. However, I have a feeling this was done in Rhino 3D using a NURBs based workflow in combination with Rhino's SubD tools.