Chris MacDonald Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Yeah it's me again, bashing Revit has become my second home. My girlfriend is surely sick and tired of hearing about it... With that in mind what I have found on the two projects that I've used Revit on is that I've had a considerable amount more time to spend on actually getting the vegetation to look right which has been quite a steep learning curve, but fun all the same. Here are some work in progress shots of a project, with a massive grey placeholder for the building: I particularly enjoyed adding "footpaths" through the grass, that was cool. And adding two seperate kinds of noise to the water to make it look like wind is blowing across the surface, etc. Obviously, with Revit having been mentioned there is always going to be something negative from me. I received the Revit file at 5:00 on a friday and the images had to be out on monday; beacuse everybody is of the mindset that "don't you just push a button and the model imports?". I spent most of my weekend trying to texture a shitty model - and don't get me starting on the cladding. Just wondering what other peoples experiences are, whether I'm alone with these frustrations or not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 I'd have liked to have really gone to town on the night one, with some really awesome lighting etc, but apparently we don't want to scare the "friends of the earth" mob that don't want us building on the site (a derelict mine!) so I wasn't allowed to include any fancy lighting because there is supposed to be a "dark corridor" for bats to fly through, despite the fact that it is situated in the middle of a forest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zdravko Barisic Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Excellent day/ night mood! ... Also, water mat is good, with water "moving". Is is poss to share displace/bump map? Thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 Also, water mat is good, with water "moving". Is is poss to share displace/bump map? Thanks. Certainly, it was pretty simple though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 The amount of advantage that Revit gives to a Max person is directly proportional to the competence of the person giving you the Revit file. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 I agree, to an extent. Ultimately the geometry it creates is nonsense; just take a look at how it interpolates the vertices on a circular column, or handrail for example. And I'm fairly sure that whilst you could in theory model anything you want in revit, the reality is that things such as cladding are often (and probably rightly so, from a Revit user perspective) done with a hatch rather than actual geometry - something that gives me a headache every single time, and results in the floor generator getting more than its fair share of work! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zdravko Barisic Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 certainly, it was pretty simple though... [attach=config]51417[/attach] thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Schroeder Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 True. But you have to remember that you are going from a parametric modeling system in Revit to a solid modeling system in Max, so there is bound to be some goofy geometry transitions. That being said, how Revit or Max import translates cylinders is beyond hilarious at times. The curtain wall system is another one that makes me want to go play in traffic. I think one of the bigger roadblocks with the entire Revit community is that when it comes down to their real honest need for a final product, that product only has to look good in 2D plan or elevation views. They are not thinking in the 3rd dimension. Or to properly quote Doc Brown, "You're not thinking fourth dimensionally Marty!" That 4th dimension being the time it takes to wrangle a crappy Revit modeling into a working 3d render. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Excellent job on the vegetation and lighting. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dande Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Just wondering what trees you used. They look great Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted June 9, 2014 Author Share Posted June 9, 2014 Just wondering what trees you used. They look great Thanks, they are a bit of a mix. There's a European ash that I modelled ages ago in Onyxtree, and the silver birch are from iTrees, but the rest of the trees are from Evermotion Vol 58 Summer Trees. Oh and the bushes are a combination of iTrees and iBushes. Most of them I've customised the shaders to tie in with how I think it should be done, though I'm sure there are many differing opinions on this. At its most basic I'll disable all texture filtering (using a script) and make sure all leaves are a vray2sided material, rather than using translucency, which is BS on an object that is a single face anyway. If I have time I'll spend a little while tweaking colours, and sit the diffuse bitmap inside a "Forest Colour" map that comes with Forest Pack Pro - wonderful for adding subtle hue variations to leaves & trees. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dande Posted June 9, 2014 Share Posted June 9, 2014 Thanks I use forest pack pro it great. I must have a look at itrees. Well done it looks brilliant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveG Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Hats off to you Macker, if you achieved that over a weekend! I think it would be a really very good piece of work even if it had taken a lot longer. How much information of that was in the Revit file, how much in your library and how much Revit stuff did you have to remodel? Is the build up suggested by the images indicative of the workflow, because if it was me (& I really only do interiors) I would do the building first and the vegetation last, possibly xref one (or more) scene into the other at the end. Just curious really, because I like the end result but know I'd struggle to get anywhere near that (& I meany ANYWHERE near!) with much more time than you had! Perhaps I should just stick with interiors ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted June 14, 2014 Author Share Posted June 14, 2014 Ahh, perhaps I worded it wrongly. I didn't do the entire thing over the course of a weekend; I had already spent a week or so modelling the site (lots of which not shown in the images posted here) so perhaps not quite such a spectacular achievement really, though thank you for the kind words! My point really was that I had no building to model, owing to the fact that it was being done by an architect within Revit yet I had been booked to work on this project so decided my time would be better spent putting effort into the site and surroundings. I had no other choice really, I mean what else is there that I could have got on with? The Revit file was just the building, no site. A major difficulty I faced was not having any proper proposed levels until very late on in the project; the existing levels are really nothing like what you see in the images. I too would usually start with the building (after all, isn't that the point of the visuals?) but given that somebody else was doing that, I couldn't. When I did eventually get hold of the Revit building I was really disappointed with the quality of the model, and the sheer number of polygons too; it really isn't very efficient at all but sadly it was far too late in the day to do anything about it other than try my best to rescue it with textures/shaders. I would love to go back and re-do the building myself one day, adding all the small details that really bring a visual to life. I suppose it was just a welcome break from having to spend all of my time working on a building, and trying to incorporate all of the end-of-the-day design changes that come large projects and then making a half-assed site to sit it on, which is usually the case. I try not to let architects see how much detail I put into site models because they always feel it's time that could be better spent on the building! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CliveG Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 Phew, that at least, makes me feel a bit less inadequate! Still it's good work nonetheless and probably ripe for a revisit as a personal project sometime, I'm sure you could drop a nicer building in that scene to do it justice. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
heni30 Posted June 14, 2014 Share Posted June 14, 2014 (edited) Yeah, so many architects are seduced by the money/work savings promise of Revit. One program gives you 3D DD + Const Docs + Professional renderings - all simultaneously in one package! Step right up folks! Er..........not quite. Edited June 14, 2014 by heni30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Matthews Posted June 17, 2014 Share Posted June 17, 2014 I don't think there will ever be a one-stop shop for design, construction, and rendering. I have less heartburn over this since Autodesk started doing the software suites. I had a project a couple of years ago that required an animation from a Revit model. After spending 5 minutes with the model I decided to remodel the entire building (animation path). I found that there is not nearly enough detail in Revit that the design team puts in to warrant rendering it except if the model is further away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CRD Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 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. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted June 18, 2014 Author Share Posted June 18, 2014 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. This is my workflow, importing it directly into max using the Revit import feature. I can't bind it in, because that will "break" the link between the architects model and the one I'm working on, thus updates don't filter through correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Matthews Posted June 18, 2014 Share Posted June 18, 2014 If I can use the Revit file then I use the suite workflow via the application menu. Prior to that I would export a 3D dwg file. If I need to add detail or geometry I will export it to a 3D dwg file and import it into sketchup for adjustments. Then I bring it into Max. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klonk Posted June 19, 2014 Share Posted June 19, 2014 I particularly enjoyed adding "footpaths" through the grass, that was cool. And adding two seperate kinds of noise to the water to make it look like wind is blowing across the surface, etc. Very interesting to see how you developed the environment. Did you add the foot paths in Photoshop or in 3D? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris MacDonald Posted June 20, 2014 Author Share Posted June 20, 2014 Very interesting to see how you developed the environment. Did you add the foot paths in Photoshop or in 3D? The footpaths were done in 3D, and were pretty easy too! In forest pro you can have open splines as exclusion areas with a scale and density falloff so that it doesn't end abruptly. Once I'd set that up, it was a simple case of just drawing in plan where I wanted footpaths. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klonk Posted June 20, 2014 Share Posted June 20, 2014 Very cool, thanks. Beautiful work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now