Good evening everyone,
My problem in brief:
I am looking for “THE” 3D home design software that allows creating as photo-realistic house plans as possible. The program should also enable realistic furnishing of interior spaces and the design of the outdoor area. If possible, I want to be able to virtually fly around and through the design with virtual cameras, similar to a drone.
Ultimately, I want designs comparable to those published by various home builders in their catalogs. Unfortunately, it’s probably not allowed to mention names here.
The reason why (for those interested):
I would like to build a house, or rather my wife and daughter have been pushing me for a long time.
However, I have zero visual imagination when looking at drawings. The architects I met during initial contacts with building companies either did not understand or did not have the (financial) motivation to create a custom design with me. It was basically just house designs A through X from a drawer. They might generously move a wall or a window... “Try design No. 3, it’s very fashionable and popular…” That was all I was offered. A proper architect, if I could even find one, would cost me a large five-digit sum, because I’d have to engage them full-time for months.
To overcome these hurdles, I want to take on this task myself, working on the design evening by evening, virtually walking through and exploring the design, identifying needed changes, and adjusting until everything fits perfectly. Many years ago, I had the chance to create designs with the program Arcon, which worked reasonably well. But this program did not offer the current possibilities for photo-realistic rendering of designs.
What I don’t need...:
are pessimistic comments about how I wouldn’t be able to do it anyway. I’m not aiming to win an architecture award, and my lack of experience, feasibility, structural engineering, etc. is a different matter. I also don’t need any CAD or structural analysis modules, etc.
Let’s say others build model railways as a hobby, and my wife and I would like to design our tailor-made dream house.
Many thanks in advance for all serious advice!
Best regards,
MiHoe
My problem in brief:
I am looking for “THE” 3D home design software that allows creating as photo-realistic house plans as possible. The program should also enable realistic furnishing of interior spaces and the design of the outdoor area. If possible, I want to be able to virtually fly around and through the design with virtual cameras, similar to a drone.
Ultimately, I want designs comparable to those published by various home builders in their catalogs. Unfortunately, it’s probably not allowed to mention names here.
The reason why (for those interested):
I would like to build a house, or rather my wife and daughter have been pushing me for a long time.
However, I have zero visual imagination when looking at drawings. The architects I met during initial contacts with building companies either did not understand or did not have the (financial) motivation to create a custom design with me. It was basically just house designs A through X from a drawer. They might generously move a wall or a window... “Try design No. 3, it’s very fashionable and popular…” That was all I was offered. A proper architect, if I could even find one, would cost me a large five-digit sum, because I’d have to engage them full-time for months.
To overcome these hurdles, I want to take on this task myself, working on the design evening by evening, virtually walking through and exploring the design, identifying needed changes, and adjusting until everything fits perfectly. Many years ago, I had the chance to create designs with the program Arcon, which worked reasonably well. But this program did not offer the current possibilities for photo-realistic rendering of designs.
What I don’t need...:
are pessimistic comments about how I wouldn’t be able to do it anyway. I’m not aiming to win an architecture award, and my lack of experience, feasibility, structural engineering, etc. is a different matter. I also don’t need any CAD or structural analysis modules, etc.
Let’s say others build model railways as a hobby, and my wife and I would like to design our tailor-made dream house.
Many thanks in advance for all serious advice!
Best regards,
MiHoe
As a photographer, I probably have a different understanding of photorealistic applications than you do.
The original poster criticized Arcon last week. Well, I am familiar with it, and if the original poster is describing it as roughly "old-fashioned," I understand what they are not looking for.
The original poster criticized Arcon last week. Well, I am familiar with it, and if the original poster is describing it as roughly "old-fashioned," I understand what they are not looking for.
Yes, that is quite possible; the term photorealism is not clearly defined. As someone who worked for seven years in research on physically accurate real-time ray tracers, I may indeed have a different perspective on photorealism than you. Application area: medical technology.
But that is not the point. The original poster should review the suggested solutions and decide for themselves whether they consider it photorealistic enough. Why dismiss proposals and claim that nothing else or better exists, or that it’s only available for five-figure amounts? What if a few textures, light sources, imported furniture, materials, and bump maps are enough for them to render a “photorealistic view” for their own purposes?
But that is not the point. The original poster should review the suggested solutions and decide for themselves whether they consider it photorealistic enough. Why dismiss proposals and claim that nothing else or better exists, or that it’s only available for five-figure amounts? What if a few textures, light sources, imported furniture, materials, and bump maps are enough for them to render a “photorealistic view” for their own purposes?
ruppsn schrieb:
Yes, that might be true, the term photorealism is not clearly defined. As someone who worked for 7 years in research on physically accurate real-time ray tracers, I might have a different perspective on photorealism than you. Application area: medical technology.
But that’s not the point. The original poster (OP) should look at the suggested solutions and decide for themselves whether it is photorealistic enough. Why dismiss suggestions and claim there is nothing else/better available or only for five-figure sums? What if just a few textures, light sources, imported furniture, materials, bump maps are enough for them to render a „photorealistic view“ for their purposes?I am not dismissing anything. Let me clarify that.
The OP dismissed Arcon, which was once the architect software alongside CAD that allowed user-friendly switching from 2D to 3D. Nowadays, it still offers (in my opinion) the best 3D animations for house designs, even if the object libraries are outdated, albeit mostly for amateurs since it unfortunately has not been further developed. I know this because I have owned it since the 1990s. The OP knows it as well.
You are once again assuming things about me just because I summarized the OP’s wishes from the first lines and the deleted post and recognized that they will not be happy with the usual offers, or rather, will not get what is on their wish list, since everything affordable for an amateur is worse than Arcon.
You don’t always have to question every post and doubt users just because you believe it cannot be that someone knows something about certain subjects.
Off topic: Starting from the new year, I will count down from 10 the number of such skeptical posts here, and then I’m done—I just don’t enjoy this anymore! This competition of “I-know-it-better” and “how-do-you-know-that” stories is the death of every respectful forum.
Maybe you should reread your post (#8) and compare it with the earlier ones. Hopefully, you’ll notice something. I find your sensitivity puzzling. You brought up the job as an argument, so if someone else happens to have deeper knowledge of the topic due to their profession and evaluates some things differently, you tune out? That’s supposed to be respectful...
By the way, I’m not accusing you of anything; I’m simply observing what you write and interpreting what I read. When absolute statements are made, I take them as such and respond accordingly. If your expectation is that everything you write should only be agreed with and pointing out a plainly incorrect statement is not allowed, then personally, I can live with your dismissive approach. To me, respectful interaction also means allowing room for other opinions instead of claiming “That’s how it is!”, “which provides the best options for house designs,” “this is fundamentally the best for amateurs,” or “rendering trees is impossible on an average user PC” as if you hold the only correct viewpoint. To put it bluntly: this know-it-all attitude and the often accompanying absolutism really annoy me. And quite often, your posts on some topics come across that way to me, very clearly, especially when it comes to floor plans or similar matters. Take this just as free feedback and do with it what you will...
From now on, I’ll try to avoid threads where you post since it seems our communication styles just don’t mesh... so long and thanks for all the fish. End.
By the way, I’m not accusing you of anything; I’m simply observing what you write and interpreting what I read. When absolute statements are made, I take them as such and respond accordingly. If your expectation is that everything you write should only be agreed with and pointing out a plainly incorrect statement is not allowed, then personally, I can live with your dismissive approach. To me, respectful interaction also means allowing room for other opinions instead of claiming “That’s how it is!”, “which provides the best options for house designs,” “this is fundamentally the best for amateurs,” or “rendering trees is impossible on an average user PC” as if you hold the only correct viewpoint. To put it bluntly: this know-it-all attitude and the often accompanying absolutism really annoy me. And quite often, your posts on some topics come across that way to me, very clearly, especially when it comes to floor plans or similar matters. Take this just as free feedback and do with it what you will...
From now on, I’ll try to avoid threads where you post since it seems our communication styles just don’t mesh... so long and thanks for all the fish. End.
Hey you two experts (said sincerely 🙂):
Before continuing the debate about the best rendering engine, whether to use ray tracing or not, it’s worth pointing out the learning curve!
Professional software can be purchased for large sums or sometimes obtained for free (e.g., Blender). However, it is definitely aimed at professionals with extensive experience and training.
It’s a misconception that simply having professional software will guide you through the menus to produce ‘professional’ results. That’s why there are all these ‘hobby tools.’ With them, you may have to accept compromises in result quality, but thanks to their focus on amateurs, you can achieve fairly good results within a few hours.
Before continuing the debate about the best rendering engine, whether to use ray tracing or not, it’s worth pointing out the learning curve!
Professional software can be purchased for large sums or sometimes obtained for free (e.g., Blender). However, it is definitely aimed at professionals with extensive experience and training.
It’s a misconception that simply having professional software will guide you through the menus to produce ‘professional’ results. That’s why there are all these ‘hobby tools.’ With them, you may have to accept compromises in result quality, but thanks to their focus on amateurs, you can achieve fairly good results within a few hours.
@ruppsn
I admit that I might be stretching it a bit when I say it’s practically impossible for the user’s PC that....
I don’t know the OP’s PC, and I’m not 100% familiar with such PC applications (apart from the common ones).
I only derived the theoretical time required. My apologies.
I’m referring solely to the quality of Arcon, which the OP explicitly mentioned and used as a benchmark for comparison. And if you compare 5-6 user-friendly programs alongside Arcon, this program clearly performs the best by far.
You can definitely turn a developed perspective into a photorealistic image, but unfortunately, you can’t navigate photorealistically.
Arcon offers all the necessary tools for creating floor plans quickly and easily.
It includes furniture, materials, you can design gardens and plots, and it has a “sun position” function.
It differs from everything else in that it was originally developed for architects, not amateurs.
I noticed that you interpret a lot. But shouldn’t those interpretations be questioned with the author instead of assuming that your interpretation is exactly what was written?
Sharp word twists usually do the OP little good.
Otherwise: just compare posts ## 7 and 8.
If I had seen your post earlier, I would simply have agreed.
I admit that I might be stretching it a bit when I say it’s practically impossible for the user’s PC that....
I don’t know the OP’s PC, and I’m not 100% familiar with such PC applications (apart from the common ones).
I only derived the theoretical time required. My apologies.
I’m referring solely to the quality of Arcon, which the OP explicitly mentioned and used as a benchmark for comparison. And if you compare 5-6 user-friendly programs alongside Arcon, this program clearly performs the best by far.
You can definitely turn a developed perspective into a photorealistic image, but unfortunately, you can’t navigate photorealistically.
Arcon offers all the necessary tools for creating floor plans quickly and easily.
It includes furniture, materials, you can design gardens and plots, and it has a “sun position” function.
It differs from everything else in that it was originally developed for architects, not amateurs.
I noticed that you interpret a lot. But shouldn’t those interpretations be questioned with the author instead of assuming that your interpretation is exactly what was written?
Sharp word twists usually do the OP little good.
Otherwise: just compare posts ## 7 and 8.
If I had seen your post earlier, I would simply have agreed.
Similar topics