CRD

I only occasionally use it in Photoshop. Mainly when I move the keyboard and I'm in heavy Wacom mode, it can be easier to zoom/pan and use the extra buttons for some often used shortcuts. But it's not as much of a shocking experience as using it to navigate 3d. On the other hand, I'm not sure I would use the Powermate in PS either if it was only going to control brush size or zoom. The Spacemouse does nothing in Illustrator, Premeire, or After Effects and I've never used Vectorworks. To throw another option at you, I knew a guy who works with video and he had a Contour ShuttlePro that he liked. Seems similar to Powermate with extra buttons. Can't go wrong with extra buttons.

They are very different in their uses. The powermate is only a knob that spins and clicks while the 3dconnexion tilts along 6 axis to rotate your view/object. I have a spacemouse and I think its a great way to navigate in 3D space and find the best camera angles. I have never used a powermate but it looks like the only function in a 3d program you could map to it would be straight zoom, like the middle mouse wheel. What are you hoping to do with it? Is there a certain action that you are hoping one of these devices will do well that you can't do now? For me it was navigate 3D space smoothly. If you want to edit movies with a shuttle wheel, then the powermate is for you.

Check these articles on the Autodesk. They basically say that the native Revit units are always Feet and you should have your Max units set to Feet before import. http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/3ds-max/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2015/ENU/3DSMax/files/GUID-010D97F3-A50E-42D2-BD55-6EB0F239EBFE-htm.html http://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/3ds-max/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2015/ENU/3DSMax/files/GUID-67B557D9-EF1A-4AAD-9F38-23AC2E7B8871-htm.html

What is your workflow for getting the Revit model into Max? If you are getting a dwg exported from Revit, then I've found it's good to turn on the ACIS solids option so that Max can add more faces to curved objects on import. My new preferred workflow is to link the Revit file directly in Max, then I usually bind it after that but it can be left linked for updating. This seems to give me a much better organized file than importing a dwg or fbx.

XnView is my current viewer. I like being able to open up different images in tabs and flip between them instead of having multiple windows open. It does have a few quirks that I may be able to fix if I tried to look through the settings hard enough, but it's slightly annoying that it displays all images with alpha channels cut out, so most of my exteriors don't show skies. Also, there are some images that flip 90 degrees like there is an auto-orientation happening that I can't figure out why a 3d rendering would trigger it. Overall, I'm happy with it, especially for the price. I used to be a ThumbsPlus guy back in the day till they went paid only.

I believe the noise might be caused by an overbright tiny light. The problem is that this light is so small that it only gets hit by some of the rays being shot into the scene. If you are using a VRaySun, there is a check box to make it invisible.

So if BB isn't being work on, why do I see these threads about BB not working right after installing Max2012? I've been holding off installing 2012 until the SP arrives in June, but some of the chatter about BB has been disturbing. I'm resigned to them not improving it dramatically, but I would like it to work. And like someone else mentioned, I don't have the budget to buy and maintain a 3rd party solution. Here's a thought, AD's recent MO has been to buy 3rd party plugins for the Extension/Subscription update. Maybe they could buy and implement one of the 3rd party render managers?

As a test to see if it might be a material, make a rendering with the Override Material option using a simple grey material. If that rendering has an error, then it's not the materials and you should start checking the lights. Also something to look at is to make sure that all objects have a UVW map that need one. I seem to remember some odd artifacts related to UV maps.

I recently had a similar bright blue render error and I traced it down to a combo of Light Cache and some materials with pure white in the diffuse. I would comb through your materials and make sure that none of the diffuse colors are at 255 on RGB or have a texture that is overbright. I think it's related to VRay attempting to render the scene with real world settings and nothing is pure in the real world, so the math gets messed up leading to an artifact. Good luck.

Like most answers, it depends. I agree that the amount of work needed to make an entire scene look as good as you can make a still or a canned animation look, takes an enormous amount of effort, in addition to new software to learn. So I don't see the effort being worth the trouble for a strictly aesthetic purpose. But in the functional world of healthcare, where I do most of my work, the idea of creating a single bed floor of a new hospital and letting the nurses and doctors take it for a test spin, is very appealing. So I'm about to approach VR from the point of view of design validation instead of aesthetic appeal. Then supplement that simplistic VR with realistic stills or animations for approval of finishes. There is still a wow factor associated with VR and anything that creates that reaction in a client has a value.

Not to start a flame war, but since AT&T is not an option for me, I got a Palm Pre with Sprint and I've been very happy with it. I've never had an iphone, but since most of the Palm people are now ex-Apple people, I feel a little like I have an iphone sibling with a different form factor.

Set the track matte to Luma with the name of your alpha's layer.

The quality of the hole in the displacement is connected to the quality of the displacement settings. I find on precise stuff like this that the 2D mapping is much cleaner. The 3D mapping ends up too chunky, which is fine for rocks and the like. Switch to 2D mapping and match the resolution to the pixels in your map and it should be smooth. As for the questions about will it show up, I prefer to create it in a way that mimics real life and then let the VRay sub pixel sampling sort out the detail. This way you can zoom in or out, or animate as you please. But to counter my own argument, sometimes if it's backlit and you are going to be far enough away, I'll blend between a vraylightmaterial and a metal screen. So there's no transparency involved, it's just mapped to look that way.

An alternative to mapping is to use the vray displacement set to 0.5 inch with the water level set to 0.1 inch. The water level will delete any mesh below it, so you will get physical holes. The positive is you are not messing with transparency and it has a thickness and will sometimes catch specular highlights. A down side is that if you see the back of the mesh, it's still just one sided, it has not been "shelled" or made solid.

You should also check the scale of your new acad import. A lot of the physically correct settings are size dependent. I would also recommend the switch to IRmap + LC and if you have the time, turn on the Detail Enhancement in the IRmap.