u/-Av3nTad0R-

I often wonder whether I make my projects unnecessarily difficult by choosing concepts that are simply too large and complex.

Many of my concepts contain a huge number of components, surfaces, materials, colors, mechanisms, and technical details. This means that creating a convincing final rendering takes an enormous amount of time.

When I compare my work to projects by some of my fellow students, the difference can be significant. Someone might design an innovative bottle consisting of only a handful of components. They can spend much more time refining every material, surface, transition, and lighting detail. As a result, their final renderings often look extremely polished and almost indistinguishable from real product photography.

For my bachelor project, for example, I designed a mobility vehicle intended both as a sharing concept for retirement homes and for private use. It includes:

• An integrated sitting and standing assistance mechanism
• A split steering wheel that extends from both sides of the body, with the entire deployment mechanism designed and modeled in CAD
• Two displays integrated into the steering controls
• An intuitive user interface and physical controls
• A separate display for checking the vehicle in and out
• A trunk
• A foldable walking-stick holder
• Side mirrors that extend from the body when the vehicle is activated
• A newly developed chassis layout that allows the user to enter from the front
• Suspension, drivetrain, motor, transmission, battery, wheels, lights, and numerous interior components

At a concept-development level, relatively little is left undefined. I designed and modeled nearly every component required for the main functions, apart from elements such as the wiring harness, control electronics, chipsets, and other highly specialized electronic components.

I also researched and selected real, commercially available components wherever possible, including the drivetrain, transmission, braking system, battery, wheels, tires, and other technical parts. The dimensions and overall layout of the vehicle were then developed around these components rather than being based purely on visual assumptions.

In addition, I developed the chassis structure, suspension layout, steering system, steering geometry, axle arrangement, and general vehicle architecture. Because the user enters from the front, the chassis and running gear had to be arranged in a way that kept the central entry area clear. This meant that the technical package, suspension, steering, drivetrain, and body could not be treated as separate elements but had to be developed as one connected system.

Of course, I know that a concept like this is still far from being genuinely production-ready. If an engineer reviewed it, they would probably identify countless details that would need to be changed, strengthened, simplified, or completely redesigned. However, I believe that many of the underlying mechanisms and technical principles could work, at least conceptually.

I also have a technical background: before studying industrial design, I completed vocational training as a construction mechanic, focused on metal fabrication and technical assemblies. Because of that, I naturally tend to think about how components are constructed, connected, moved, and manufactured rather than designing only the visible exterior.

The seat alone consists of several moving sections, and the vehicle combines mechanical, digital, ergonomic, and service-design elements into one concept.

The project is also so extensive that I could easily fill 30 pages of my portfolio and still not explain every mechanism, component, design decision, and technical detail.

Compared with designing something like a bottle, it sometimes feels as though I am doing 100 times the work within the same amount of time. Every additional component also introduces another material, surface, connection, reflection, and detail that needs to be modeled and rendered convincingly.

I am happy with my final renderings, and I think they look good, but they are not at the level where someone might mistake them for real product photographs. You can still tell that they are renderings.

So my question is: Am I making my life unnecessarily difficult by choosing concepts that are too ambitious for a portfolio, especially if the final presentation still looks like a rendering rather than an ultra-realistic product photograph?

Would it be smarter for a portfolio to create smaller and more focused products that can be presented with near-photorealistic renderings? Or can the complexity, systems thinking, technical depth, and plausibility of a larger concept compensate for a rendering that is very good, but not completely photorealistic?

I would especially appreciate opinions from industrial designers, recruiters, engineers, and people who review portfolios.

I’m currently using a Kamvas 13, but it feels too small for me. I’m an industrial designer and sketch mostly with larger movements from my elbow, so I’m looking for a noticeably bigger drawing surface.

I’m currently deciding between the Kamvas Pro 19 and the Kamvas 22 Gen 3. Has anyone here used both?

My Kamvas 13 has around 166 PPI, and I can already notice the individual pixels quite clearly when drawing. The Pro 19 has around 239 PPI, while the 22 Gen 3 only has around 137 PPI.

Is the lower pixel density of the 22-inch model clearly noticeable when sketching? Since it has an even lower PPI than my current Kamvas 13, I’m worried that the pixels and jagged lines might be too visible from a normal drawing distance.

I’m also interested in how big the difference in drawing space actually feels. Does the 22-inch model provide noticeably more freedom for larger sketching movements, or is the 19-inch model already large enough?

And do the 90 Hz of the Kamvas 22 Gen 3 make a noticeable difference when sketching, or is the higher refresh rate barely noticeable in actual use?

Which one feels better specifically for sketching?