Adrian Bold

I'll put my hand up too. Our studio has been using Maya for Arch viz since 2003. It was a touch decision which way to go back then for a little setup but we've grown and Maya has served us well. Most of my key staff were originally max or autocad users prior, given the mainstream software used amongst universities. It's a niche we're in fellas, but i guess it means very little these days. Autodesk have made improvements, (and niggly stupid mistakes too)

Agreed that there is alot less talk in forum circles regarding Maya for this architectural use, but as long as industry support remains, we'll be sticking with it.

I wonder what this scenario would be like if MR was for Maya only? (another side note: Chaos: hurry up with vray for Maya betas pls!)

Adrian Bold

No problems with accuracy - all our work is to the Metric millimetre and its part of the service we offer, whether it be a house, freeway, skyscraper or postbox. (Side note to N.America: dump the imperial system already!)

I'm somewhat baffled by why some arch viz providers don't ensure this accuracy, regardless of platform. Its not that hard, and its one of the key benefit to a client to be able to rely on the spatial accuracy provided by CGI over traditional mediums, such as illustrations and scale models.

(sorry for double post, just read a few of the latest comments)

stylEmon

i agree, I model to the accuracy of the documents provided. Just recently, I was provided a topography map of the site, and finish floor elevations for the buildings. I enjoy translating this information from flat, 2-d drawings to 3d terrain.

Also, I anticipate the day when the US will use metrics... makes so much more sense.
What the hell is 3/32"??!?!?!?