http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w_6Dxkkjr80
Rakela wrote:Seriously? You probably need a rendering engine outside of your AEC software then... for me, I get quality and ease included in the price of my software. No extra cash and no extra tutorials to learn a new program. I need good renders that can accurately display light in order to inform design and communicate to the client. Which I personally think is the major upside of MR in Revit. I hit render on Low settings and after 3 min I can see how light is displaying in a space.
doesnt cut it for me
Another thought is that since everything is integrated into one program and once all of my mats are set up in the model, I'm pretty much hitting a button and letting it render. That ease of work flow alone saves me time which isn't reflected in render time.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that MR in Revit is hands down the best render engine that is integrated into a BIM application. That being said, you'd be crazy to switch your software because of that. You could always export to IFCs and import into Revit to render
I am Kidding!!!
Chad, then Why did you pay for Revit? You could have stayed using pen and paper and saved that money. I can sketch in 3D and draw on paper a lot cheaper (and for some tasks faster than either AC or Revit) than using Revit or AC and I can use oils, pastels, acrylics, water colors, color pencils, etc.
Chad, then Why did you pay for Revit? You could have stayed using pen and paper and saved that money. I can sketch in 3D and draw on paper a lot cheaper (and for some tasks faster than either AC or Revit) than using Revit or AC and I can use oils, pastels, acrylics, water colors, color pencils, etc.
ejrolon wrote:Well, with all due respect, just because it doesn't interest you or rank high in your personal list of importance, doesn't necessarily mean that that applies to all ArchiCAD users across the board. Unfortunately in deciding whether or not to improve these tools in their future versions, Graphisoft will inevitably take the path of least resistance in assuming that you speak for the majority (which you don't) and hence justify not investing more in developing these tools or choosing instead to implement them half-baked ala Lightworks sans radiosity as it's currently implemented in ArchiCAD.
........
Nope, I'm not interested in that, because depending on the project I use AC's Sketch Render or Lightwork, Artlantis, C4D's Sketch and Toon, Advanced Renderer or Vray. Archicad main purpose is not Rendering, there are specialized applications for that.....
Whether you would want to admit it or not, visualization has now become an important part and aspect of architectural design today and not just for marketing as it traditionally used to be. The ability to affect design decisions based on a design space's accurate lighting conditions or accurate material application, representation and sample tests, is now an invaluable part of a lot of architects' design repertoires and tool-sets. The fact that ArchiCAD has Lightworks, the Sketch render engine and has always had Sun-shadow study capabilities attests to this.
It's basically just a question of whether the developers are willing to implement the best support system available: read render engine or system ( and clients will pay for it) or whether they assume that the majority opinion is the one you just voiced and hence justify limiting the development of this part of AC.
ejrolon wrote:Nobody is advocating switching over to Revit due to the fact that they now have a superior render engine, and certainly not at the cost of their atrocious workflow and typically migraine-inducing dialogbox-happy interface. But by your reasoning ( of the whole "swiss army apps" debate) why bother having Lightworks or even the Sketch render engine at all to begin with. Why even have the traditional internal render engine if visualization should not be an important element of the design process in ArchiCAD? Why not just focus development on enabling ArchiCAD to export clean models to as many applications out there more suited to this whole visualization thing which isn't important by your reasoning, in an architect's design process workflow?
If you consider switching to Revit because it uses Mental Ray and Archicad uses Lightworks then you Might be missing the point,
Perhaps it might be because at some point the cost of having to send out your models to professional CG Archviz houses for high quality renders and output, or alternatively, the cost of having to spend on professional visualization applications like 3Ds Max, along with the the training and/or staff to use it, - or watching other architects you compete with for projects and commissions, capable of producing similar quality renders in-house with more accurate and refined design-intent, win more of those projects from you, all becomes more expensive than can logically justify having just the one design software alone incapable of allowing you to compete fairly in an otherwise competitive field thanks to its intentional limitations.
Like I said before, visualization has always been an important part of design, whether through traditional methods (watercolour, paint, hand-sketches) or whether it's through more photorealistic modern methods that more clients are actually demanding to see and which more and more architects are using to improve and enhance their own design processes.
p.s. - incidentally, this is the same brand of reasoning which, for the longest time, was used to justify the lack of tools like SEO and Complex profile manager, followed the crippled implementation of it (CPM) when it was finally introduced in v10 - i.e. that users didn't need to model such complex forms and shapes in ArchiCAD because they are so rare in architecture. Like moldings, baseboards and cornices haven't been around in architecture for as long as slabs and walls. And think of how many other things one is able to model using those tools that are not necessarily Gehry-esque but still traditional or conventional architecture nonetheless. Sadly that's the same reasoning that's still being used to justify not further improving the modeling capabilities, and in particular free-form and organic modeling capabilities.
ejrolon wrote:Hm...I'd be willing to bet that you are not the person who pays for your softwares and their updates!
Nope, I'm not interested in that, because depending on the project I use AC's Sketch Render or Lightwork, Artlantis, C4D's Sketch and Toon, Advanced Renderer or Vray. Archicad main purpose is not Rendering, there are specialized applications for that.
Lot of the smaller firms cannot afford to pay for so many rendering programs on top of ArchiCAD. Even if they want to take it to the next step and pay for a rendering program, it'll have to be one of those few options, not all of them!
Also, those external rendering programs are fine for stellar one or two images to win the project or to convince the city people of your project, but I find that I increasingly need to show 3d information as part of my drawing set, and it is so much easier to have views set up in AC that updates to whatever changes I have, which I can then put into my working drawing set with only a few clicks.
Dwight wrote:LOL
I'll hold him. You punch.
You can have the laptop. I'll take the wallet.
Still looking?
