TommyJ

https://secure.axyz-design.com/product-category/3d-people?swoof=1&q=/product-category/3d-people&product_tag=abu-dhabi

thanks Juraj. I was thinking along the same lines, and it's interesting to have the blurriness of the situation confirmed by someone else. If it were a photo or a 3d image of one of my buildings, I'd definitely just bank on fair use applying, I'm just a little nervous about advising a client the same way.

I'm working with a client at the moment who's an interior designer. We were discussing the copyright implications of showing artwork and/or photographs on the walls and I wasn't able to give her a solid answer. If, for example, you or the client put a print of a Jackson Pollock on the wall, take a photo of it and then put that photo on your website, are you technically committing copyright fraud? The same question would apply to a CGI scene if you found a jpg of some art and displayed it in a render any help appreciated.

I'd completely forgotten about Terragen - will have a look at that instead

We're architectural services with some viz - don't know if that qualifies for your list Johnson James Ltd - near Liverpool, UK johnsonjames.co.uk

I feel your pain. I wish there was an alternative to Vue for landscapes and skies. For close up, architecture-level rendering and modelling, I would use virtually any other software.

It's been a while since I messed with Vray, and my version is probably out of date, but as far as I can see, you can't export point clouds with Vray and you can't display proxies as point clouds either. Corona renderer does offer than option however. Can you just increase your 'faces in preview' so the object is more legibly displayed?

Oh.. and happy new year to everyone too

Has anyone else had any issues with Cornucopia? I downloaded Vue Pioneer a few months back to evaluate for an animation project. It seemed to be going well, so I bought the RenderUp module to see how it coped with larger resolutions and spherical maps. For some reason the licensing for the module caused an issue and it seemed impossible to authorise with the codes from Cornucopia (my workstation is not online) Anyway, I can excuse problems with software, especially given the additional difficulty of activating software on an offline computer. What I find harder to accept is how bad Cornucopia's customer support is. Has anyone else had issues with them? The current response time for an email to them is two weeks. Most replies are very short, not helpful and do not show any understanding of the products or issues - frequently suggesting opening menus and screens that do not exist. I was considering buying Vue xStream but have been waiting for a solution to the RenderUp problem for more than two months, which is unprecedented in my experience. I need to use Vue because the animation involves an aircraft, so needs realistic clouds, skies etc. I'm not aware of any other software that can do the job of skies and environments anything like as well as Vue. Does anyone else know of an alternative? Also, does anyone know where they're actually based? Their blog says Oregon, USA but invoices etc have no address on them.

No good can be gained from digging up historical bickering my friend.

I remember putting a Glock 9mm surrounded by bullets on a sofa for a client's brochure once (as an internal joke), then forgot to remove it for the final images.

hard to disagree with that

problems can arise from the opposite - architects believing they do understand 3D, and could probably do it better than a 3D person, if only they took the time to do it.

I'm very happy for you. However that isn't the reality for the majority, which is why I personally would not recommend focusing purely on CG. Though I would support your comments regarding working as a 3d person in-house for an architect. That's the stuff of nightmares.

In my experience, it's always better to work for a developer. However I would add the caveat that it depends upon the size of the architect. I've provided design services and 3D viz for architects since the early 2000s and I can say that, without exception, the bigger the architect is, the harder they are to deal with. A larger firm will be more likely to over-promise and under-quote in order to get the work (since the kind of contracts that are large enough to sustain bigger practices are few and far between) which means they will usually be over-worked and quite disorganised. As a sub-contractor you will get the information later, with a tighter deadline and more last-minute changes working for a big practice. The guys from MIR have an interesting approach to avoiding this scenario, but they have an unusual amount of power over clients given the standard of their work