cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Document & Visualize forum

Integrated rendering engines - is it still on?

Rob
Graphisoft
Graphisoft
Just a reflection on a very old topic perhaps. Do we really need integrated high-end rendering engines in AC? Considering the latest GS 'attempt' to implement one with rather disappointing result I am not entirely sure if we should have this kind of feature in AC itself anymore. I mean we can keep status-quo or 'as is' and focus on some other more important and missing features especially when I found this link (new ADESK cloud-based rendering farm) http://labs.autodesk.com/technologies/neon/

I am quite interested in ways you handle viz these days guys... outsourcing, stand-alone apps etc.

give it a go in my poll....
::rk
7 REPLIES 7

Anonymous
Not applicable
I've been doing some work with the LightWorks engine lately and find that it can be set up to produce good, reliable output with a minimum of fuss (the production that is, the set up is quite another matter).

I think there are lots of ways to improve what is existing without a major overhaul or introducing whole new rendering engines. I also find that the really high end rendering is a rather arcane specialty in itself and is usually best jobbed out to specialists.

It is a bit like architectural photography. Most architects can take pretty good pictures and will do some of their own project photography, but for the top end stuff they hire a professional photographer.

There is no way ArchiCAD can compete with C4D, Maya, etc among rendering pros so it makes the most sense to provide serviceable rendering within the program (with usability improvements) while also improving the interoperability with the pro rendering apps.

David Collins
Enthusiast
I'll take the radical stand on this one: I do all my serious rendering in Artlantis, but a lot of my 3d presentation material is pulled directly out of the 3d OpenGL window in ArchiCad

I think all the outdated and partially implemented rendering engines should be removed altogether from ArchiCAD and the 3d OpenGL view enhanced to function as the sole "good enough 80% of the time" rendering tool. There should be no rendering time at all in ArchiCad: just the real time 3d view and the "save as" button.

"Good enough 80% of the time" means no computer generated "shaders", no bump mapping, no atmospheric effects, no animation and no radiosity: in short, all the time-wasting stuff 80% of the clients never see or care about anyway. For serious high end rendering, export the model to software designed and resource-dedicated to just that purpose.

With openGL shadows now enabled in 14, we're getting there: interior light sources with the ability to throw shadows would do it, along with a greatly improved materials menu and texture library and maybe something along the lines of Artlantis' heliodon sky.
David Collins

Win10 64bit Intel i7 6700 3.40 Ghz 32 Gb RAM

GeForce RTX 3070
AC 26.0 (3010 INT FULL)

Rob
Graphisoft
Graphisoft
"Good enough 80% of the time" means no computer generated "shaders", no bump mapping, no atmospheric effects, no animation and no radiosity: in short, all the time-wasting stuff 80% of the clients never see or care about anyway.
Actually that is my sentiment too.
With openGL shadows now enabled in 14, we're getting there...
If we could achieve OpenGL quality built in AC at the level of VBE I would be happy as...
::rk

Anonymous
Not applicable
David wrote:
I think all the outdated and partially implemented rendering engines should be removed altogether from ArchiCAD and the 3d OpenGL view enhanced to function as the sole "good enough 80% of the time" rendering tool. There should be no rendering time at all in ArchiCad: just the real time 3d view and the "save as" button.

"Good enough 80% of the time" means no computer generated "shaders", no bump mapping, no atmospheric effects, no animation and no radiosity: in short, all the time-wasting stuff 80% of the clients never see or care about anyway. For serious high end rendering, export the model to software designed and resource-dedicated to just that purpose.

With openGL shadows now enabled in 14, we're getting there: interior light sources with the ability to throw shadows would do it, along with a greatly improved materials menu and texture library and maybe something along the lines of Artlantis' heliodon sky.
I agree with the spirit of or post - although I consider GI/radiosity to be completely essential. I use C4D for my rendering and I am amazed at the quality results it gives VERY quickly - with GI. I would add to your idea that maybe GS should copy the Maxon modules/bundles strategy so that there is a clear and seamless option to add functionality to a core program. GS already sort of does this with the selection of products although it isn't quite marketed as such.
I wonder how much lightworks adds to the price?

Anonymous
Not applicable
With my i7 (and it's not even the fastest by far) AC's Lightworks default settings was quite fast on a two story SFD and feel I would be glad to wait a bit longer for some more EASY OF USE/functionality/quality.

Don't shoot me, but;
I personally would not mind a $100 bump in yearly subscription cost for full step up of Lightworks engine within AC,
especially the EASE OF USE functions.
lec

Wokka
Newcomer
David wrote:
"good enough 80% of the time"
I'm with this crowd. I do both jobs, Architectural documentation and Architectural visualisation. For general modelling and giving the client what they need to concentrate on during the design/BIM process, good OpenGL stuff is fine. Maybe (just) a little GI/radiosity is good for that warm fuzzy feeling image.
With visualisation, the reason a good image is good, is not just the software but also the operator. Once you get involved in VRAY type imaging, just the material handling alone requires a thesis work You can keep it simple, but your not getting the full advantage out of the software. There are great complexities in this form of imaging and it's a big step in time and money to jump too. Also, any good reliable rendering program (Vray, Maxwell) that will spit out great images is expensive, not $100 onto the budget, closer to $1000 (AU).
I basically believe ArchiCad is for designing and documenting buildings. Thats what we pay for. The extra cost and RD resources thats involved in getting a few images should be spent on starting at the wish list from version 6.5 and work on them and just ensuring that the links to rendering software are updated and maintained (after the maxon debacle)

Cheers.
Warwick Lloyd-Martin
3 D E N V I R O N M E N T

www.3de.com.au

> Windows 7 Pro 64bit
> i7 CPU 920-2.67Ghz
> 6GB RAM
> ATI Radeon HD 5700

>ArchiCad 4.55>20 AUS
>Cinema 4D R18
>VRAYforC4D R1.9

Anonymous
Not applicable
Hi Rob, thanks for the autodesk link, it has got lots of info and the overview is very convincing.

Start a new conversation!

Still looking?

Browse more topics

Back to forum

See latest solutions

Accepted solutions

Start a new discussion!