cdos00

Wow, that image hits hard. Great work. I would also be interested in seeing some raw files and maybe a little explination of how you pulled it off. I would think there was extensive work in CS3 to get such a well integrated image given the different Entorage pieces and integration into the background image. Honestly, one of the ONLY truly GREAT images I have seen on the boards as of late. So many of the other images are for viz purposes only, this one actually transcends viz and steps into the realm of art. Great job man. Keep it up.

I am not at all surprised by this Adam. It is unfortunate, but I think Bentley think thinks it can "be" a viz software...I have some bad news for them, we are still 5 years away from BIM software being able to produce reasonable renders and I don't think they will EVER replace software like 3ds, Maya, and the like when it comes to high end viz.

I have read a lot of articles about being able to send directly to CAD/CAM from Rhino, but not Revit. I am sure we will eventually get there with that program (and the rest of the "BIM" software, but it is going to be a while!)

Actually I believe this isn't just held to "bricks" This comes back to the basic question "what unit are you using to build with" When I use the term unit, I am not speaking of a unit of measure...but a unit of "being" for example: the reason our modern wheel-to-wheel width on cars is the size it is, is because it fit into the grooves a wagon made...the wagon was the width it was because it is the comfortable width of two horses running together... So, before you draw anything, before you dimension anything...you should know what your "unit" is. to use an example of "units" in the building industry, I bring up the traditional japanese tatami mat that was the basis for japanese architecture for so many years. It poses a little bit of a "chicken and egg" question, but whenever possible you should have knowledge of the building materials ASAP.

I agree with Kaan, the ceiling or something is off. The proportion of the space seems seriously off. I understand the 8' ceiling but that isn't the issue.

I agree, it is quite a nice image. I think the colors are a little too saturated for my personal taste, but It is definitely well executed. Please share your process.

Actually the tutorial on this page does a WONDERFUL job of explaining how to use the 'round corners' option in the A&D Material. It is also one of the main reasons I will be switching all of my materails to A&D materials. http://www.aecbytes.com/tipsandtricks/2008/issue28-3dsMax.html Additionally Scott @ Digital Architect has a great movie that explains it. http://www.scottonstott.com/vodcast/Episode021.html (the movie takes a while to load, be patient) Cheers!

Yes, having the trees would rock. I would like to get some for SU as I have typically just dropped them in post export in Photoshop. THANKS in advance!!!

I believe what he is refering to is an anaglyph (see below) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaglyph_image If you google search for the term there are plenty of resources to help you produce such an image, as well as places to purchase the various "glasses" needed to view them. Good luck! We have used this process with limited effectiveness in the past. I think it is actually kind of fun, it takes you back to those days of the red/blue glasses...kind of cool.

I think it is an awesome image, however I do agree with the two pieces of crit here. I think the MB people and car detract a little from the overall image. However, I do like how you have taken blue and made it the primary color in the image, it really sells a "feel" for the image. Good job, keep it up.

Bravo AJ, I completely agree with your statement. I do love Architecture, it is the only path for me....but I also understand it isn't the only path for everyone. I was also in the same position that Nathan was in about two years ago, I was considering taking out a bunch of student loans and getting a NAAB accredited degree...but the Architect I was working for at the time said "you already have 5 years experience, at this point the things you are missing from design school are the 'theory' parts and the tough skin of getting 'torn apart' by jury" He advised me to take a couple of art classes and architecture history classes and then start designing stuff and getting it in front of my peers... I am working on that second part. but I will get there.

NEC, I am in CA and working on getting registered to begin the testing and IDP portion of the licensing process. My advise to you is to go online and RESEARCH!!!! Everyone here has given the process a terrible "light", although I do agree with some of the points, I take issue with a lot of what has been said. 1. Don't go into Architecture if you want to get rich. There are other ways to do such a thing. 2. YOU DO NOT have to have a 5-year NAAB accredited diploma in your hand to be an architect. (visit this website: http://www.cab.ca.gov). California is one of the only states left that allows an "experience only" path to license. 3. I do agree, that you can get a lot out of finding a job at a firm and learning whether or not this is actually what you want to do... for me, I couldn't be happy doing anything else in life. but that is just me. So keep researching, if you find something that you need clarification on, I will monitor this and answer the best I can. Good luck to you!

I am in complete agreement with both AJLynn and Tommy L. You opened your mouth and inserted your foot on this one. Cloaked_Spectre, I can understand your frustration but you pretty much asked for it. Take the suggestions from Tommy, after closer examination I agre with every one of his Crits. Especially number 15. As a Viz expert it is your job to take the Architects vision and REALLY sell it. Unfortunately the overall lighting scheme makes me feel like I want to get a blanket, go curl up in a closet and sleep through the storm...I don't know if that was what you were trying to convey, if it was you are successful! (although I don't know that I would ever want to convey that when "selling" a design.)

Firstly, let me start off by saying. The image isn't bad. Now, let's get to the crit. I have to say, all of my crit has to do with the items in the image that have nothing to do with the design. This can be seen as both a good thing, and a very bad thing. Yes, your design looks nice, the perspective matches your sky and for the most part, the composition is decent. (although, I would say you have a little too much foreground for the rule of thirds) What is wrong? your RPC's detract from the image in every sense of the word. The vehicle, people...plants. Everything seems "hell-bent" on ruining the building you have modeled. I may seem to be a bit brash on this, but I would say if you integrated the comp layers a little better into the image it would REALLY work! Finally, and this is a very last and somewhat minor annoyance, the black border is not even around the image. It isn't huge, but it does give a VERY strange "aspect" to the image. These critiques honestly could be fixed with a little level balancing and or some overlays in photoshop to help "integrate" your entorage with your rendered geometry. Keep working at it, you will get it. Sorry to be so harsh.

It is how they get you guys to upgrade to BIM. (joking of course) I have been doing most of my models in Sketch Up instead of doing it in XM just because I am afraid of attempting to learn a new modeling program (I have always modeled my solids in Acad before switching to a MS house.)

Wow, that is all really quite nice. By any chance do you have a tutorial describing how you get this result? In general you have an amazing level of detail in your "watercolor" technique and I have never been able to quite get my stuff looking that good. Thanks in advance!

Firstly, Great looking image. While the color scheme is not something I am wild about I think you pulled off the materials very well. now, for the crit: Is the track light really creating those "light rings" on the wall? It almost looks like the angle of fixture to "light artifact" is not straight. Maybe just tilt your light in the modeling program to drive the light artifact down the wall a little more. Additionally, it looks like your environment contrast is out of sync with the amount of light that is coming in the window in your space. You should probably adjust the brightness down a bit to match it closer. Just a few suggestions. great job on the image though.

I agree. The composition is lacking. I believe the image has no TRUE point of interest. Nothing is quite "defined" enough as the point of interest of the rendering. I believe if you put a table and chairs in front of the window you could create an interest in the scene. Secondly the curtains seem to be blocking out light from the window. The penetrating light is very chopped up and doesn't quite achieve it's goal of giving depth to the interior space. If you worked on the translucency of the curtains and had a table for that light to fall on (and flow over) I believe you would significantly increase the point of interest. Just my two cents. I think your lighting setup and your texturing are VERY NICE! Good job!

Nice John. I agree. I believe if you only work in the little bubble world of viz, then modeling exclusively in MAX is fine. However, NONE of us only work in that bubble. File link is good, as is Autodesks acquisition of software and the integration of those software packages into a common workflow.

Sawyer ScalpelMAX is developed by CEBAS software, I have included a link below. I haven't personally used the software but it looks AWESOME! http://www.cebas.com/products/products.php?UD=10-7888-33-788&PID=6

I agree on all points and positions already stated. I believe File Linking is allowing the industry to develop MANY different combinations of workflows. Not every iffice has someone who is dedicated to modeling. Often times it is just "somebody" on the team. It is easier to teach someone to model in a program they are already used to (Acad) and then teach them the skills needed to render than to try and teach them to make geometry in a whole new way on a different platform. Unfortunately I am still an Acad modeler, I just haven't take the time to learn MAX the way I should. I can get my renders out, I can get MOST of my geometry made in ACAD and that suits me. for now.

Dan, I am sorry you took my comments in a patronizing manner. They were not meant to be that way. I agree with Mike, there is always going to be the possibility of having a 150MB file, however, they should be the exception to the rule not the standard of the rule. If they are becoming THAT common maybe there is a better way to model it or a better package to model in. The point I wanted to make was that sometimes we get into a "routine" of how we model and we fail to realize the progression of the overall industry to other avenues of executing large modeling functions. Again, dan, please don't take this the wrong way. However, I was blown away the first time I used file link within MAX. That is one of the strongest integrations of two programs I have EVER seen. Especially considering they actually came from different origins (Autodesk vs. Discreet). Honestly, if you are modeling in AutoCAD the addition of file link almost makes the purchase of MAX automatic. The ability to go back and change your geometry within AutoCAD and have it automatically update within MAX without having to reload/import the new geometry is awesome. Just my opinion though.

My firm also uses Microstation. I am up in Sacramento, it is also a large firm (190 people) We have a BIM solution (Bently Architecture) however, only two of our five studios are standardized on it. Mostly we still model in Microstation and then export via .dwg to be linked to 3ds MAX. Some of the people also model using sketchUP and then import via .dwg into MAX for final rendering. On a personal note, I am quite interested in the new features of Acad 2007, my office also has ACAD installed on select workstations to aid in the crossover to our many consultants who use ACAD. I have always worked on ACAD and just recently (january) made the switch over to MS. I love it as a cad program, but I still prefer to model in ACAD...It just seems like a better solid modeling package. just my two cents.

Dan, In response. I understand that 3dsOUT is the way a lot of people transfer information from a modeling software to a rendering and output software however, the format is Very much out of date...The program which originated that file format does not even exist any longer. At some point in time progress needs to be embraced. I am sorry if that leaves some people in a bind. However, to go onto forums and call for people to stop using a package all together is a little bit rash. I mean, in reality the rendering software packages have adapted in allowing .dwgs to be brought in. Secondly, about the 100MB file size. I understand that there are projects that require a significant amount of detail, however, if you work in max you can easily create normal maps to create at least a decent amount of detail in an item without having to model out that many polygons. If you are using it for analysis and environmental considerations maybe there is a package out there that can do this in a more efficient manner. The fact that your computer has "awesome" specs won't help you if you are not efficiently using the resources available to you. The most powerful computer in the world isn't going to help you push an inefficient model through the pipeline. Please do not take this as an attack on you. It is not meant that way. All I am pointing out is possibly something you have overlooked. There are plenty of people on these forums that produce AMAZING work, some of them have 5+ year old computers and hardware. They just understand how to make the software work in the most efficient manner and therefore can leverage the resources available and eke out every bit of power. Back to the issue at hand though. I do not work for Autodesk however, I have worked in the more technical side of the software (running the IT side of a 17 man firm) for 7 years. I have recently moved to a 190 man firm to focus more on my architectural progression. I feel that Autodesk has the best program on the market hands down. Regardless of new release bugs, AutoCAD is by far the most powerful package out there. This is all evidenced in the fact that autodesk holds the market share in almost EVERY facet of architecture and design. With the acqusition of the Maya package, Autodesk is further bolstering this point. In closing, I understand your frustration, I just wanted to offer another point of view to this forum which was quickly heading toward the unanimous lynching of AutoCAD 2007 in what I consider "amazing haste" Please take my contributions as I have described in the last paragraph, not in a manner that you interpret it.

Wow, you guys sure are throwing down a product that has quite a few years under it's belt developing the INDUSTRY STANDARD SOFTWARE PACKAGE. It just seems a little silly to be "Writing them off". Almost every new program coming out has bugs and has issues, UNLESS, you control the absolute specs of every hardware package your software will be installed on (i.e. apple). There are just too many variables out there to be testing the software on ALL the different possible configurations. As far as the size of your models goes. HOW IS IT POSSIBLE to have a 150 MB model?? What are you working on? Fully detailed models of NYC with all of the furniture included??? 150 MB of AutoCAD file is a LOT of information. Maybe you should streamline your modeling process before throwing down the software. I mean with normal/bump/displacement, there is no reason to have objects with HUGE polycounts, secondly if you aren't rendering to output of 12' x 12' posters most printers cannot replicate that level of detail ANYWAY! In response to the lack of 3dsOUT ability. What do you expect Autodesk to do? Just provide you with a medium to go between for all of the different rendering packages out there? Even IF the format in question is FAR outdated and incredibly inefficient? Really? Are you guys surprised that Adesk has folded the "all powerful" .dwg format directly into MAX cutting out the "middle man"? Just another perspective on the situation. Don't freak out and flame me, just consider it.