Streamlining 3D modeling workflows for Design and Architecture

How designers can bridge 3D visualization and technical documentation for maximum efficiency

In the world of Design and Architecture, 3D modeling plays a pivotal role in creating stunning visualizations and generating precise technical documentation for budgeting, manufacturing, or construction.

However, due to how the software has evolved over the years, many workflows remain disjointed and inefficient, often requiring designers to redo work across different tools.

Let’s explore the current landscape of 3D modeling workflows, their challenges, and how they can be optimized for better productivity.

The Two Main Workflows: Visualization and Construction & Manufacturing

3D modeling workflows can broadly be categorized into Visualization (Viz) and Construction & Manufacturing (C&M) pipelines, each serving different end goals.

Visualization Workflow (Viz)

The Viz workflow focuses on producing high-quality visuals for presentations, marketing, or immersive experiences. Starting with 3D modeling, this pipeline culminates in rendering and post-production.

Key Outputs:

• Static images or animations
• VFX and motion graphics
• Real-time rendering for games, VR, AR, or mixed reality

Popular Tools:

• 3ds MAX, Blender , Cinema 4D, Unreal Engine , Houdini and Maya

Geometry Representation:

• Tessellated surfaces (meshes), represented as connected points in space to form facets
• Prioritizes visual quality and performance over mathematical precision

Interoperability:

• Strong support for transferring projects between tools, e.g., using the USD format from the OpenUSD project
• Common to mix multiple applications in this pipeline

Construction & Manufacturing Workflow (C&M)

The C&M workflow is designed to generate documentation and machine-readable instructions essential for production.

Key Outputs:

• Technical drawings, bills of materials (BOM), building information models (BIM)
• G-code for additive and subtractive manufacturing

Popular Tools:

• SOLIDWORKS , 欧特克 Fusion, Rhino 3D, Revit, CATIA and Archicad

Geometry Representation:

• BRep (Boundary Representation) and NURBS (Non-Uniform Rational B-Splines) for precisely defined geometry.
• Typically parametric, enabling easier adjustments and iterations

Interoperability:

• Limited compared to Viz tools, making cross-tool collaboration more challenging

Notable Exceptions to the Rule: 3D Printing and Scanning

While most workflows fit neatly into Viz or C&M, some exceptions exist. Notably 3D printing and 3D scanning, because they often work with meshes, Viz tools are often used even if a 3D print is a manufactured object.

Where the Two Workflows Collide

The challenge arises when a project demands visualizations early on and production documentation. For instance:

Early Concept Visualization:

• Designers often begin in the Viz pipeline to create compelling visuals for client presentations. However, meshes created here are unsuitable for production documentation.

Production Documentation:

• To transition to manufacturing, designers must recreate or translate the work into C&M tools, often starting from scratch.
• This is where we still often see 2D drafting tools like AutoCAD being used, as a way for designers to document dimensions and geometry that their 3D mesh models cannot convey.

This results in inefficiencies, such as modeling the same object multiple times, wasting valuable time and resources.

When AutoCAD Ruled C&M

3D modelling evolved more quickly in the Viz pipeline before 3D tools became the norm in C&M. So, a common workflow was to have all technical drawings done in 2D drafting tools, notably AutoCAD, because of that, 3D modelling was only used for Visualization.

This legacy has persisted in some companies and professionals who haven’t transitioned into modern parametric CAD, and it’s one of the biggest causes of inefficient workflows.

Key problems:

Inconsistencies between visualizations and drawings:

• Because these two representations are made in an asynchronous way, it’s easy for one to evolve without the other being updated.

Prone to Errors:

• Derived from the asynchronous nature, it’s easy to lose track and forget to update production drawings with changes made for visualization.
• Pure 2D drafting can lead to inconsistencies between views, where one view is changed without updating the others accordingly.
• 2D makes it difficult to visualize interferences between parts.

Never enough time:

• The redundancy of the work is time consuming.
• Clients who work with professionals using a more modern workflow are used to quicker response times.
• The short amount of time to make changes will result in more errors and inconsistencies.

Added to this, some professionals believe that 2D drafting is faster than parametric 3D CAD, which is untrue. A simple box in 3D takes one operation with 3 dimensions, in 2D, for 3 views, it takes 3 operations (rectangles), with 2 dimensions each, totaling 6 dimensions. And the more complex the geometry is the more time it takes to represent it in 2D when compared to 3D.

In conclusion, this legacy workflow has very poor resiliency and it’s more time consuming, especially when it has to deal with changes and work in a non-linear way.

Where the Two Workflows Work

A different situation is that of creating visualizations for marketing purposes after the project has already entered production. The C&M pipeline has run its course and now it’s time for the Viz.

There is minimal overlap, and there are no modifications to the original project to be expected.

In Architecture this is normally when we see ArchViz artists coming in, in Industrial Design, renders often replace product photography in marketing materials.

This work is sometimes outsourced, specially in the ArchViz context, with only floor plans and elevations being shared with the Visualization artists.

Key Insights About 3D Modeling

Understanding the following facts can help streamline workflows:

Tessellation Is Easy, Conversion to BRep Is Not:

• BRep geometry can easily be tessellated into meshes, but reversing the process is complex and often impractical.
• Accurate dimensions and geometric relationships can never be reliably transmitted with meshes.

Similar Time Investment:

• Modeling in either pipeline takes roughly the same amount of time for comparable levels of detail.

Parametric Tools Are Powerful:

• Modifications are easier to manage with parametric models, minimizing the need for complete remodelling.

Redundancy Is Time-Consuming:

• The most significant time sink is remodelling objects from scratch due to poor workflow integration.

Proposed Solution: Always start in the C&M Pipeline

To overcome these inefficiencies, projects should ideally begin in the C&M pipeline. This approach ensures precision and compatibility with production requirements while allowing for seamless integration with Viz tools when needed.

Benefits of Starting in C&M

Efficient Geometry Conversion:

• C&M tools can export geometry as tessellated meshes for use in Viz tools, enabling high-quality rendering without recreating models.

Minimized Redundancy:

• Modeling the object once ensures consistency and reduces the need for repetitive work.

Streamlined Updates:

• Using tools with live-linking or bridging functionality keeps visualizations in sync with production models.

Tools and Features to Leverage

• Many C&M tools have built-in visualization capabilities.
• Third-party apps like KeyShot , Chaos Enscape , Twinmotion and Unreal Engine Datasmith can facilitate live linking for enhanced collaboration.

Case Study: A Unified Workflow in Action

Consider a furniture design project. By starting in Autodesk Fusion or Solidworks (C&M), the designer creates a parametric model suitable for further development if it goes to manufacturing. This model, still as a concept,? is then exported to Keyshot using its live-linking plugin. When the client requests changes, the designer modifies the parametric model, and the visualization updates automatically.

This integrated workflow saves hours of redundant work, ensures consistency, and delivers high-quality results for both manufacturing and sales.

Conclusion

For architecture and design projects involving both visualization and production documentation, starting and ending in the C&M pipeline is the most efficient approach. By leveraging the precision of C&M tools and integrating Viz tools for rendering, designers can minimize redundant tasks and ensure consistency throughout the project lifecycle.

This unified approach not only saves time but also improves collaboration between teams, resulting in better outcomes for clients and stakeholders.

What do you think?

What’s your approach to managing 3D modeling workflows? Have you faced challenges integrating Viz and C&M pipelines? Share your thoughts in the comments or let’s discuss how to optimize these processes!

Connect with me on LinkedIn.