3D/CAD Design and Animation
I began as a hobbyist computer programmer in the late 1970's, when we had VERY slow computers, no graphics to speak of (often only 4 colors) no disks or CD's, no mouse, and very few commercial applications. If you would like to see how a person who "hated" math got past that hurdle, to get into 3D, here's the story. Those were "the bad old days", computing-wise, but taught me a lot about hierarchy, logic, efficient use of RAM, and various tricks for reducing rendering times. These were good lessons, because in those days, we typically used every bit of RAM, and it was never enough. My first computer had 4K of RAM. (!)
In the mid 1990's I quit programming and became strictly a "user", because we finally got good consumer-level tools that were affordable. While working for others in design shops, I typically used higher-end software, like "AutoCad". Later, I found that I could do what I wanted to do using much less-expensive 3D tools, like "Carrara". Although the software hasn't really changed much, the speed of modern computers makes it seem that they're much better.
Why use 3D?
In the 1980's, when I was writing "glorified function plotters", I told all of my non-geek friends that "3D was the wave of the future". They all thought I was insane, but today, it's everywhere. Hollywood makes the most extensive use of it, using the combination of 3D animation as a substitute for remote (or impossible) locations, as well as substituting models for actual actors and props. When the best versions of that are combined with traditional mattes, "blue screen" and other masking techniques, motion-control cameras, etc., the results can sometimes be difficult to distinguish from reality. I predict that we'll ultimately see this as a dispute in a court case. Someone who can afford it will be accused of creating false (digital) evidence, and a whole new set of laws will have to be created to analyze and "verify" that.
But... 3D/CAD/Animation work, even under the best of circumstances, is not "easy", and it's not "fast". So think about this before diving in. When working with still images, there are a variety of ways to achieve "3D" results, using only "2D" tools, like PhotoShop. For animation purposes, 3D becomes the better choice, simply due to the number of frames required.
The scope of your project:
Every piece of 3D work does not have to be a "masterpiece". It doesn't have to be "photorealistic", either. Often, simple images convey the message quite clearly. So, What is the ultimate usage of your work? Is it for a local client's one-time flyer, or is it for a major Hollywood production? As an individual, or a member of a small team, you CAN produce work that rivals Hollywood's best, but the difference will be the VOLUME of that work. At major motion picture studios, there are large teams sharing the work, and large "rendering farms" of fast networked computers helping to keep things on a reasonable timeline. Think before you leap!
Examples of my work:
My original interest in 3D was simply the attraction of the earliest (NASA) images I saw that included ray tracing. (realistic depictions of things like reflection, refraction, shadows, and atmospheric effects) As an entertainer (lifelong musician) I saw the visual impact that could be added to promo materials and actual shows, and as an aviation fan, I saw an opportunity to express my design-related ideas in the 3D environment. Much of what I've done has been on a small budget, so you will appreciate the tips I share on my CD's. (See the Products page.)