Jump to content

stefkeB

Members
  • Posts

    150
  • Joined

Personal Information

  • Display Name
    stefkeb
  • Country
    Belgium

stefkeB's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

10

Reputation

  1. I create my architectural models with ArchiCAD. There you have nice options of slicing the model (and still filling in the cut plane, which is something often missing with clipping options). It has a mediocre rendering engine, but plays nicely with Cinema 4D or 3ds Max. But it could be done with "any" software: ArchiCAD, Revit, AutoCAD, SketchUp, 3ds Max, Maya, Cinema4D, Blender, Rhino...
  2. While most non-specialist users of 3D Game Engines will not get anywhere near "photo-realistic", it depends on the purpose. Many architectural offices are steering away from full-on rendering (for which specialists are required - such as the typical CGArchitect member) and rely on SketchUp-style images. Clean. Abstract. Evoking a sense of space and ambience. In that context, there will be specialists focusing on getting every last bit of screen and shader FX and intricate texturing and modelling work to get a compelling realtime environment. And then you get these huge game development teams who work months or years on a single title. This is not the quality you can deliver as a small visualisation office for architects or city councils or clients. However, you should focus on the added value realtime can bring: wandering around, interactivity, what-if, changing textures on-the-fly, changing lights etc. Maybe it doesn't really matter too much anymore that the result is like a game from 10 years ago. I used to love wandering around in Tomb Raider, because of the atmosphere of the environment, even with crude low-poly characters and basic textures without even bump mapping, let alone real shadows or specular effects. As for 3D printing: architects who use models as part of their design process can use Laser Cutters more easily to cut out facades and floors to assembly a clean and precise model. Much more accessible and cheaper than 3D printing. The purpose is communicating the design intentions. This is different from specialist services, who create huge detailed competition models but require several weeks and the design is not allowed to change anymore.
  3. Considering gaming engines, Unity is quite accessible. With the free (Indie) version you can do a lot, but it lacks some of the Pro features for more photo-realistic looks. E.g. free version: decent shaders (diffuse, specular, normals, support for Substances), basic realtime shadows (hard shadows for directional lights), good workflow (integrate FBX or Collada models, update models from CAD/BIM software and reload automatically), quite powerful, intelligent scripting (without scripting, not so much you can really finish), integrated Asset store, integrated BEAST light mapping w. AO and soft shadows Add to that for the Pro version: bounced light and final gathering in Light mapping, area lights (for light maps), full screen effects (e.g. AO, bloom, tone mapping), shadows for all light sources, blending between realtime and baked shadows with dual light maps, … Price is reasonable. For me, the workflow integration is very valuable. I can load an ArchiCAD BIM model through Cinema4D and host it as FBX inside Unity. I can still update the ArchiCAD model, merge it in Cinema4D which keeps changes and update the FBX model in Unity. Using Revit/3ds max works similar. SketchUp Pro is also straightforward to integrate. REALIS3D is a realtime architectural visualisation system based on Unity. An out-of-the box solution such as BIMx for ArchiCAD works also very well. It's a one-click thing though. Its good for casual users, but allows no in-depth customisation.
  4. I have published a book that I believe might be of interest to cgarchitect users. But the forum rules specifically forbid any commercial posting. So is that a no go? It's on architectural visualisation and a particular game engine. Maybe I already breach the rules with this question...
  5. I assume it is nice, but I can't run the viewer/webplayer on OSX. Have you looked at Unity3D as a cross-platform game engine with web+standalone publishing?
  6. Complex Profiles or Wall Accessories could be the solution.
  7. Can you show a screenshot (possibly with some Photoshop sketch on top of it)?
  8. Respect for the sheer scale of what you are transferring. That said, to me the UV-mapping simply works for most of the ArchiCAD elements, especially those who are not oriented according to X or Y axis. The support for this mapping along with the export according to materials are two reasons to stick with 3ds files. Having to assign UVW-coordinates for all these entities is unfeasible, especially when all "concrete" walls will become a single object, yet different parts need different mapping. But I'm only myself, although I teach students ArchiCAD.
  9. Nice explanation. Do you rely on the UV-mapping that is received from the ArchiCAD model? This is one the reasons why I keep using the 3ds-exporter from ArchiCAD. Having to reassign and especially remap all materials inside 3ds max can then be avoided.
  10. You could try to use the "Realistic Sun" in the Rendering Settings. This takes longer, but will have a more dome-like lighting quality. This can be augmented with the dedicated LightWorks Lamps E.g. Window Light, which behave as an area light, which can be set to manual or to use the sun/sky light color and direction. This is often used to create a light source at the inside of a window, for more realistic interior lighting (akin, but not equal to GI effect). There is no indirect lighting supported in ArchiCAD. The Skylight, however, is another approach to improve lighting in shaded areas, where they would stay dark with the default settings. That said, I usuall use external rendering software for quality (e.g. Abvent Artlantis for ease-of-use and Autodesk VIZ for high-end, if I have the time).
  11. I mostly use ArchiCAD and SketchUp, but have used AutoCAD and ADT too. There was a SketchUp importer for ADT. Not sure if it is still available now. It also exists for ArchiCAD. It translates vertical faces to walls, slanted faces to roofs and horizontal faces to floors. Not bad... but... I would suggest NOT to import SketchUp models in AutoCAD or ArchiCAD or whatever... The SketchUp model is efficient inside SketchUp itself. SketchUp is fast and if you pay attention, you can produce pretty clean models. But you have to know what you are doing. Many of our students make sloppy, messy SketchUp models! The efficiency of SketchUp is mostly felt with exterior volume models. The moment you go inside the building, it starts to loose some of its efficiency: things start to get in the way. I do model in SketchUp, but recreate the BIM model from scratch inside ArchiCAD, to make it efficient and not cluttered. You could reference the SketchUp model in AutoCAD Architecture and use it as a snapping reference. For renderings, I can export the SketchUp model to Artlantis (where I can update changes through geometry merging) or VIZ (where I prefer to use the 3DS format, but no linking -- maybe DWG would work fine for you). FWIW, the podcast from http://go-2-school.com has a good overview of SketchUp. Be sure to watch the PhotoMatch issues, showing how to translate Photographs in 3D models. Recommended viewing.
  12. If your textures are not using the MS-DOS 8.3 filenames, they will be truncated in the old 3DS file format. So you might have to reapply them in 3ds max. They should maintain their mapping from SketchUp, though... (the 3ds format is really old and thus has certain historic limitations)
  13. Kent Larson - Louis I. Kahn: Unbuilt Masterworks http://architecture.mit.edu/~kll/Kahn_book.htm using Lightscape for photoreal (even in current context) reconstructions of some of Kahn's designs. Still a major milestone for me. The availability of programs such as AutoCAD and 3D Studio on a regular PC, instead of on UNIX workstations. Quake and Unreal, to allow realtime scene navigation (including the tools to create your own scenes) might be regarded as milestones to some. BIM. Although it might not be regarded as being novel from the point-of-view of visualization/rendering/animation, it's methodology allows modeling of a 3D building and at the same time preparing technical construction drawings. Most packages have decent (but limited) rendering capabilities these days. 3D Controllers? The Space Navigator is currently having a huge impact. SketchUp: modeling for the rest of us. Radiance for lighting simulation (probably together with Lightscape). Non-photorealistic rendering (e.g. Piranesi) Raytracing and Radiosity and now all GI methods. But they only came after Phong shading and Hidden Line renders, which are still a necessity. Renderman and the Shading Language (which generated the large evolution in realtime shaders currently).
  14. While I don't agree with the harsch wordings on the animations, I do agree that animations were the Z-value of a wall goes from zero to the actual height has no connection with architecture. This totally destroys the effect. When the texture is projected (so in the beginning we already have actual-sized) bricks and then the geometry grows up (keeping the bricks at their correct size) you would have a more convincing construction simulation, even though it is only a CG animation. I think the idea to incorporate some visual narrative in otherwise boring architectural animations has its value, but in many cases, the visual style is too much based on the camera freedom and theme-park action-rides... Architectural animation is still a very difficult task...
  15. Actually, I prefer the Half-Life2 realtime version. Not the YouTube version but the actual game running it. It is not as photoreal as this movie, but it is interactive and you don't fly around like a bird... Remember that the majority of people will probably never visit it in real life, so to me the immersive visit inside Half-Life was a real eye-opener on how this house can be experienced. I feel that the movie was not having the same effect... I admire the movie result, but the camera movements are too much stressing the fact that we are watching a computer animation. They are fairly nice and smooth, but the paths are totally focused on visualization rather than resembling a more or less realistic architectural visit. This seems to be a trend in architectural visualization, while many movie effects are commonly replicating actual camera moves (that could have been performed in reality). While you could insert some impossible moves for effect (e.g. flying through a baluster in Panic Room), most moves are based on physically plausible movements.
×
×
  • Create New...