Follow

The public, for better or worse, tends to judge designs for the built environment based on how pretty they are. Architects and developers have been consistently lying to the public in their renders and marketing images.

I explore these ideas and more in my article on why we need a free _photometrically-correct_ 3D model repository, and why I've created one to share with the world.

thinkmoult.com/radiance-free-3

Architects are behind the times.

@thinkMoult How do you get architects to adopt photometrically correct renderings? I would think they'd have every incentive to lie.

@freakazoid I see a few routes:

1. There are _some_ honest architects who actually want to know what their designs look like. These are the less arrogant kind.

2. It should be a government requirement. After all, if a design has significant public exposure, an honest representation is a public right.

3. After it becomes more economical, clients will choose between hiring one who will only give them an impression of the design, and another who can tell them accurately. Who would they choose?

@thinkMoult On number 3, I think there's pretty good evidence that clients will always choose those who tell them an overly optimistic story, no matter how much the others tell them theirs is more realistic.

There's some precedent for number 2 at least in the US; the FAA has specific requirements for simulation software for determining risk to the public, for example. For public works projects, however, politicians will prefer overly optimistic renderings.

@freakazoid I'm not saying to remove the marketing images, but there should still be a honest representation in addition available to the public, in the same way that the application documents are made public.

I've noticed some clients don't like fuzzy images :)

Sign in to participate in the conversation
Mastodon

Server run by the main developers of the project 🐘 It is not focused on any particular niche interest - everyone is welcome as long as you follow our code of conduct!