Collaboration with other software
About model and data exchange with 3rd party solutions: Revit, Solibri, dRofus, Bluebeam, structural analysis solutions, and IFC, BCF and DXF/DWG-based exchange, etc.

Revit 2011 & Autocad 2011

TMA_80
Enthusiast
Hi!

Ok, i know, I'm posting too much "other products" links....at least we keep updated ( Autodesk is even launching 2011 products !?)

So an update to the last year post 😉 :

Revit 2011
http://autodesk-revit.blogspot.com/2010/03/whats-new-in-revt-architecture-2011.html

this version seems to fix the ui interface problem, complete the "missing" options for the new freeform modeling tool (which i think is great) ...(no multithreading yet ?! )..and textured view option ...etc.

Autocad2011
http://www.cadalyst.com/cad/autocad/autocad-2011-a-look-what039s-new-13200
AC12_20 |Win10_64bit|
46 REPLIES 46
Mats_Knutsson wrote:

.......Apart from the obvoius fact that ArchiCAD soon will have a new rendering engine
Do you know this for a fact ( or at least as 'obvious' a fact, as you claim it to be) and by "new" do you actually really only mean that they will now finally let Lightworks users be able to use Radiosity (and outdated methodology, as it is) after 3 or 4 odd versions since they decided to integrate it half-baked as the default render engine?

Mats_Knutsson wrote:
I look at the huge base of single person or small companies that can't affort having their bulk designing tool render for half the day. There is a reason ArtLantis is popular. IF....a rendering engine inside the cad-program would be extremely fast...then OK...

Actually, part of the new reality of this modern post-global-recession economy is also that a lot f firms can't afford to outsource their rendering needs to freelancers, any more than they can afford to have to buy additional software (including Artlantis) to have to use themselves to do the renderings - and especially when that software will run on those same workstations anyway. It would behoove GS to develop or allow for a more integrated approach in this regard, rather than forcing the users to have to resort to third-parties or completely different software as is the usual modus operandi.

Integrating a new, or improving the render engine in ArchiCAD should't be so much of an issue as people seem to make it since other 3D and CAD software makers (most notably Rhino3D, Sketchup, and even ironically C4D) have been able to provide their users with access to the latest top-of-the-line rendering solutions (everything from Maxwell, to Fry, to Vray) from within the software at no extra cost to their own programming and R&D resources.
There's lots of third-party developers who are more than capable of developing "bridges" and plugins for AC to take advantage of all the powerful render engines out there, and which would not cost GS that much since the licensing fees would still go to the plugin developers and render engine developers.
Mats_Knutsson
Advisor
Bricklyne wrote:
Mats_Knutsson wrote:

.......Apart from the obvoius fact that ArchiCAD soon will have a new rendering engine
Do you know this for a fact ( or at least as 'obvious' a fact, as you claim it to be) and by "new" do you actually really only mean that they will now finally let Lightworks users be able to use Radiosity (and outdated methodology, as it is) after 3 or 4 odd versions since they decided to integrate it half-baked as the default render engine?

Mats_Knutsson wrote:
I look at the huge base of single person or small companies that can't affort having their bulk designing tool render for half the day. There is a reason ArtLantis is popular. IF....a rendering engine inside the cad-program would be extremely fast...then OK...

Actually, part of the new reality of this modern post-global-recession economy is also that a lot f firms can't afford to outsource their rendering needs to freelancers, any more than they can afford to have to buy additional software (including Artlantis) to have to use themselves to do the renderings - and especially when that software will run on those same workstations anyway. It would behoove GS to develop or allow for a more integrated approach in this regard, rather than forcing the users to have to resort to third-parties or completely different software as is the usual modus operandi.

Integrating a new, or improving the render engine in ArchiCAD should't be so much of an issue as people seem to make it since other 3D and CAD software makers (most notably Rhino3D, Sketchup, and even ironically C4D) have been able to provide their users with access to the latest top-of-the-line rendering solutions (everything from Maxwell, to Fry, to Vray) from within the software at no extra cost to their own programming and R&D resources.
There's lots of third-party developers who are more than capable of developing "bridges" and plugins for AC to take advantage of all the powerful render engines out there, and which would not cost GS that much since the licensing fees would still go to the plugin developers and render engine developers.
I'm 100% convinced there will be a new rendering engine soon. I don't know for fact... but GS can't leave those much longer. It goes in cycles. For many years ArchiCAD was the best renderer. ArchiCAD is imo still the best overall solution and at a much lesser total cost than the competition.
Btw anyone can afford Artlantis...even in a recession...right!? Artlantis is a clever choice whatever modelling platform.
AC 25 SWE Full

HP Zbook Fury 15,6 G8. 32 GB RAM. Nvidia RTX A3000.
Anonymous
Not applicable
i wouldnt buy artlantis cos its cost 860 $

i would buy OCTANE RENDER which is 90 $ and i will add to this GFORCE 480 Fermi which is 500 $ or Gforce 470 Fermi which is cheaper for 100 $

with this i will get best graphic card with 480 CUDA CORES (it will be 512)
and unbiased render which is faster then artlantis and trust me pics looks better many times and you dont need post procesing in photoshop

I tryed octane render and its simply beautifull to work with real time preview
of your lightning...materials...etc

all these renders that dont use unbiased method of lightning are part oh history especialy when you can buy a program for 90 $
Octane render is still beta but if you see pics then you will see how powerfull it is !
Anonymous
Not applicable
Stress wrote:
laszlonagy wrote:
Rod wrote:
Second that.
I "third" that.
4th.
Thanks for you insight Wes... been meaning to say that for a long time.

5th. I always try to learn new software that I don't know before. Revit and archicad and revit have their own ability and disability.
Mats_Knutsson wrote:
...........

I'm 100% convinced there will be a new rendering engine soon. I don't know for fact... but GS can't leave those much longer. It goes in cycles. For many years ArchiCAD was the best renderer. ArchiCAD is imo still the best overall solution and at a much lesser total cost than the competition.
Btw anyone can afford Artlantis...even in a recession...right!? Artlantis is a clever choice whatever modelling platform.
So what you're really saying is that you don't really know......for a fact,
that they will actually improve it.


Because, with all due respect, saying that ArchiCAD 14 will have a new rendering engine simply because GS can't afford for it not to have one any longer, is like saying that AC14 will have a new Stair tool simply because GS can't afford for their program not to have an effective robust version of so basic an AEC design and construction tool.
And yet from where we stand, there has been no improvement in that particular tool, as an example, for far longer than AC has lacked a decent render engine even.
And to make it even worse, more people actually use and need to use a good Stair tool than need a good render engine.

So what would really be their incentive to improve a tool which some don't even consider that important to begin with, when they haven't really even bothered to improve another tool (amongst many) which most people would consider vitally important to basic architectural design?

As for Artlantis, yes it's easy to use and learn, but for that price range, your better off adding an extra $50 or $100 and getting Sketchup Free with Vray and doing your renders there for more professional looking renders.
Anonymous
Not applicable
Bricklyne wrote:"more people actually use and need to use a good Stair tool than need a good render engine. "
Don't know if that is true overall.
Sure is the truth here as a mid to high end remodeling specialist.
So far anyway, the most basic AC rendering sells the jobs easily.
Not bragging, but I've had more work than I can get to this whole downturn.
It's the stair stool (intended) that causes me such pain.
lec
owen
Newcomer
Interesting you mention C4D Bricklyne .... VRayforC4D is NOT developed by Maxon - it is done by a very small team, yet it is totally integrated into the program. I see no reason why the same could not happen for ArchiCAD - I'm sure Graphisoft would not stand in the way. I believe more advanced rendering engines should be developed by 3rd parties so Graphisoft can concentrate on developing the modeling/documentation tools that should be part of the core program - things like a Revision Manager for example.

As i've said before ArchiCAD's core function is building modeling - not rendering. There are loads of better options (cheap and not-so) for rendering which can easily use an exported ArchiCAD model .. so as long as ArchiCAD is losing ground in the modeling tools department to the competition they should not be focusing their attention anywhere else.

just my opinion
cheers,

Owen Sharp

Design Technology Manager
fjmt | francis-jones morehen thorp

iMac 27" i7 2.93Ghz | 32GB RAM | OS 10.10 | Since AC5
owen wrote:
Interesting you mention C4D Bricklyne .... VRayforC4D is NOT developed by Maxon - it is done by a very small team, yet it is totally integrated into the program. I see no reason why the same could not happen for ArchiCAD - I'm sure Graphisoft would not stand in the way. I believe more advanced rendering engines should be developed by 3rd parties so Graphisoft can concentrate on developing the modeling/documentation tools that should be part of the core program - things like a Revision Manager for example.
.........

I know that VrayforC4D was developed by a third party developer - Ilab ; and frankly speaking all existing Vray bridges to other software and plugins have been developed by third party developers or enthusiasts rather than the developers of the host application or Vray itself. Whether it be VrayforSketchup or VrayforRhino3D (both developed by ASGVIZ and not Google or McNeel) or VrayforBlender (independant developer).

The exceptions to this being the 3DS Max, Maya and XSI versions which were developed by Chaosgroup themselves directly.

The point was that none of these third party developers would be able to developers these plugins without considerable support from the developers of the host application along with support from Chaosgroup - who themselves also get a decent amount of support from Autodesk for their MAX/Maya/XSI plugins. The kind of support I doubt GS would be capable of providing going by just how detached they are when it comes to customer support and client interaction. I mean, look at these forums for crying out loud - the inmates are running the asylum - so to speak.

I remember when the Nextlimit guys were developing the Maxwell plugin for AC, it was like a solo mission, considering the lack of enthusiasm and seeming or apparent lack of support they seemed to get from GS when they first broached the topic a couple of years back.

A lot of these render engines support a lot of features and require a lot of functionality that ArchiCAD doesn't either support or provide, and which it would be difficult to work around without significant support from the GS people.
At a basic level and as an example, you have the Material editing system in AC which is really archaic by modern standards and which, not surprisingly GS have refused or neglected to revamp for heaven knows how long. So much so that if you're the developer of a plugin for a Maxwell bridge from example and your users need to edit their materials and take advantage of Maxwell's full material editing features, it has to run a separate material editing sub-program or applet, outside of AC. That may not be such a big deal (mostly since the plugin developers have it running so efficiently and fluidly) But it becomes a problem when you need to or have to adjust your material mapping sizes, rotation and coordinates in real time and in your model and basically have to resort to guesswork and going back and forth between the editor and the program.
That's just one example.
There other things such as the fact that a lot of these render engines are able to handle considerably high geometry counts through tricks like displacement, and proxies, but then become limited by AC's notorious polycount limit.


And I wasn't suggesting that GS should develop the render engine themselves. Goodness no, they would utterly s uck at that; - they should stick to improving the program's core modeling and design tools and functions (or avoiding having to, by lopping those responsibilities to third-party peeps and developers while they chasing the business of corporate clients, but I digress).

I have always been a huge proponent of their outsourcing this particular task to more professional outfits (such as the ones above) - but it should be pro-active on their part (i.e. they should take the initiative rather than wait for these developers to make the plugins on their own when they don't see the incentive in it, thanks to GS's acerbic marketing, which leads people to believe that there are less AC users out there and therefore fewer potential customers for them), and it should also ideally be integrated - meaning that, rather than have someone go and develop a revamped high-end render engine or plugin for the program and then charge users extra for it ala Ecodesigner, MEP modeller, Virtual Explorer (some of which should really be integral to AC's functions to be honest), have the render engine built directly into AC or with the option of installing it as an integrated tool along with AC during first install and then either charge a premium per license which would then go to the plugin or render engine developers directly or allow them to download and install it later directly if they choose otherwise. This way, there would be no need for having to wait 4-6 months after an AC release for the plugins to be updated as well, if at all, like it currently is with certain plugins.
They already do it this way with Lightworks, except that with Lightworks sans-Radiosity (which I'm sure accrues an extra cost into the license you pay for AC whether you use it or not), the users are not exactly getting the most bang for their buck.


Unfortunately, for a lot of the improvements necessary in AC (including and not just limited to the rendering tools) to make it viable and competitive again (or to keep it so), requires not just a change in how GS relate with their third-party collaborators and indeed with their own customers. It also requires a drastic change in their collective corporate attitude and their outlook on the future of ArchiCAD and its place in the marketplace.

That's the bigger obstacle for them as far as I'm concerned - and one which could and very well will dictate the future, or lack thereof, of this program.
owen
Newcomer
Yes well put, agree with all of it ...

particularly the point that if Graphisoft are relying on outside developers to extend ArchiCADs core functions then they should be licensing those improvements for ALL of us - i.e roll them into the base ArchiCAD licenses. Devs would be happy, users would be happy and Graphisoft can outsource some work to resolve their obvious resourcing issues.
cheers,

Owen Sharp

Design Technology Manager
fjmt | francis-jones morehen thorp

iMac 27" i7 2.93Ghz | 32GB RAM | OS 10.10 | Since AC5
Anonymous
Not applicable
"Mats_Knutsson" wrote:
"Andri Buana Utama" wrote:

Start a new conversation!

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!