Academic Value VRAY

[Poll]

Hi Tim! Thanks for your reply.

 

well its not a class. Its just that he's managing/administrating our design systems computer lab(http://www.ds.arch.tue.nl/Education/DSLab/). Also writes software for something called 'The desk cave' really good, and real interesting (http://www.ds.arch.tue.nl/Education/DSLab/Default.menu?menu=Desk-Cave) check it out.

 

that is also were his problem lies. He uses OpenSceneGraph to view models in the DeskCave. And he has to convert certain materials and their properties to openscenegraph compatible ones. And he sais that isn't possible with Vray. So he doesn't want everyone to use vray, because then the cave becomes useless. (and that would be a shame indeed, cause it's great!)

 

Anyway.. its true what you say.. they can't catch up to every new sofware innovation. But that's why they have to take students seriously, and apparently.. he didn't.... it's all about software preference too i guess.

 

it was just a discussion with this lab manager about the software, and my question to install Vray Free in the lab. (he was actually quite surprised that there was a FREE version!) Which I think is a great way to gain familiarity with new software, so applaud for that.

 

Thanks for the brief outline Tim! I will show him!

 

@Adriaan: ... OMG.. thats him! :| hahaha.. it's quite the academic look.. isn't it?

[Poll]

Oh, Does anyone know what I can tell the teacher about the compatibility of Vray Materials and Vray Free materials? (he really wants to know about every scenario before installing anything)

 

is it possible to view models in VrayFree made with Vray advanced, and the other way around?

[AJLynn]

Paul-

 

There are some steps you can take to make your Vray scenes much closer to physically correct lighting than they normally would be. It involves the levels of the lights, the physical camera and the RGB and reflectivity levels of the materials.

 

There were some great links... which I can't find. Somebody help me out here? Aaron maybe?

 

But anyway, I don't think there are that many people out there actually doing this using the same software we're using for visualization. There are lighting design packages out there that people who specialize in it use, and there's Ecotect which is great at many things and can use a (free for non-commercial work at least) Radiance plugin to do daylight factors, which a lot of architects are using.

 

But if you look at recent highly-computer-aided work from guys like Greg Lynn, Morphosis, Foster, Gehry - physically accurate rendering is not what it's about. Some of the guys doing the best new architecture, you look at their in-house rendering and it looks like the kind of stuff a sophomore who just got FormZ might do. It's much more about the computer helping to conceptualize the form and then being able to deal with complexity, like the work Gehry and Morphosis have done with Digital Project and tech-savvy fabricators where they've got ten thousand different versions of the same wall panel to make the really cool shape. So as far as your line of inquiry on the effect of 3D software on design, maybe you don't even need physically accurate rendering.

[Poll]

Ahhh Andrew. I think we are on the same line here! I totally agree on the power of conceptualising form, and dealing with the complexity recent buildings have to deal with. Even in the design phase, it becomes almost impossible to visualise (mentally) every effect of design decision on the end result. That is why I want to use 3d. To to 'experience' the building during the design process. And it's true that the recent Highly computer aided work actually has nothing to do with physically accuracy. We've got a good one in Holland too by the way (http://www.oosterhuis.nl/) if you're intersted . So indeed, I don't need physically accurate renderings during my design phase. I've worked with Ecotect too lol.. wasn't that the programm that could do sound and temperature simulations too? yeah.. something like that doesn't inspire me.. it's good for building physics.. and maybe that is what it is.. physically accurate renderings are better for building physics. I want a medium for making my ideas 'real'. and that's what i can achieve with max!

 

i'm getting more and more anxious to my little debate with the teacher...

 

tnx for your reaction!!

[JamesTaylor]

Paul-

 

There are some steps you can take to make your Vray scenes much closer to physically correct lighting than they normally would be. It involves the levels of the lights, the physical camera and the RGB and reflectivity levels of the materials.

 

There were some great links... which I can't find. Somebody help me out here? Aaron maybe?

 

the links Andrew's talking about are these:

 

http://www.chaosgroup.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=17824

 

http://www.chaosgroup.com/forum/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=15494

 

the 1st link really illustrates the point from start to finish, the 2nd, i haven't watched so can't say how good it is, but talks about Linear Work Flow which is another important concept. People usually seem to take a while getting their head round this and there are plenty of other discussions dotted around, i suggest google!

 

I guess an additional point as already mention would be that if vray has no place in architecture how come it is wide accepted as the Architectural Visualisation Industry Standard??? I'd suggest that 90% of highend work is completed with it...

[chiquito]

Paul, I take the liberty to join in.

I agrre about academics dissregarding things they do not handle correctly, call it rendering software, or drawing sofware (CAD), theres always someone whos going to have something to say "when we did it by hand... the feeling I can transmit this way... the warmth of the hand drawn stroke...the atmosphere...is that reflection acurate?...and so on"

The last one I heard, was from a profesor at my university (FADU-UBA) who had some crappy renderings, going with the folowing phrase " for an authentic look we have photographs". Its like, whats the problem admiting that you suck, and that there are things that you can not handle correctly? I cannot do a lot of things, (some mornings I have trouble convincing myself of anything...) but a lot of people can, and its good for them, and for me, since I look at what other do.

If it can be a double razor edge, for sure, but I believe that when used correctly, vray, radiosity or whatever, if the solution powers up the result, its a good tool. Great things have come out of it. Not everything that comes out is good, but shuting to any chance is narrowing down the options, and the whole idea is to widen up.

Now, the course has radiosity, not Vray. It could be more with the principles of artistic or theorical lighting (3 point lights, theatrical effects, etc). Its true Vray gets you a much better looking image, but theres not much technical thought behind it, if you think of it in terms of theorical analissis, that I belive the course (from the web page) is about? I might be wrong. Point six of the grading criteria, states the diferences in vray and radiosity results?

As for the research and studies, he shouldnt be able to complain when he sees a result (theorical), you could try with some photometer plug in, as to test correlations on decays and bounces, for to identical lighting measured presets you measure N amount of desviation, perhaps trying a preset environment? think if you could come up with an adjusting factor for this diferences. lets say a curve that could be calculated with mixing points and co-dependant events, that could give you a number for equivalent values on one preset and "nicer" images with another preset, etc.

You can try out lights form http://www.erco.com they have some nice ies lights, the whole collection is free to download, some software , Dali, to try settings, with all calculations on lux, degrees, charts, fallofs, etc, that should give you some ground points as to test up to what point are you being acurate and what is your dispersion in terms of lighting calculations.

Test it, he says its no good, ok, give him the chance to be right, test it, prove him right, and let him know he was right, everyone will see terrific images, no one will care for the calculations, he will be right, its not 100% acurate, but when using it well its close to 100%, and the images look much better. Since you can refer to theorical diferences and corrections he wont have a standing point. You will learn both theorical issues and practical ones, even if you prove him right, you will win. If you come to a scenario solution or preset that comes closer to a 100% acuracy, please share,

good luck!!!!

 

PD, If he was to aprove the use of Vray, he would be out of a job, think of the poor guy, he must have a family to feed hehe

[chiquito]

try http://www.erco.com for pre measured ies lights, you could use a photometer plug in to test the results for both radiosity and vray diferences, calculate this, and use a correction factor to see where you stand, if its theorical acurate.

Point six on the grading criteria of your course, asks for the differences of one rendering done with radiosity and one done with vray?

academis suck, we have a word for the in spanish " chupatintas" its like an ink sucker, they only bith, never take a chance, and never, ever, admit they not up to date with tecnology, blameing it on everything.

[chiquito]

sorry for the second response... I couldnt see the post... technology gap...

[brianzajac]

I don't think that was any personal blow or any blow any nature. They are the best in what they do and the comment was meant to deflect the teaching comment in a good light hearted manner (as it also was in a good light hearted manner i feel)

 

We took no offense in it. That kind of anecdotal saying is obviously a figure of speech. A few fall into that category of teaching because they can't do, but i think the vast majority teach primarily because they love doing it, as we do.

 

Quite an interesting thread.

[chiquito]

No ofense intended, just an anecdote. I did learn a lot from them, I still do and looking foward to learn even more.