2024 Technology Preview Program:
Master powerful new features and shape the latest BIM-enabled innovations
2004-09-01 03:06 PM
2004-09-10 09:42 AM
2004-09-10 09:02 PM
rm wrote:The integration of LW into AC provides a quick, easy solution to obtain quality images for the vast majority of users. There is no export/save-as to an external format (which is itself slow), opening a separate application, and a separate app to learn. Sure, many of us have a variety of external rendering solutions for doing very large images or to utilize more powerful techniques.
Lightworks while a good step forward was only a half step. Buy making it part of AC, instead of a free standing package like Artlantis is it forces you to put AC away while a rendering task is being performed.
2004-09-10 10:06 PM
rm wrote:Its great to see that I'm not alone in some of these observations, rm. Personally, I don't ask for much really (of course , other than ...sharks with freaking laser beams attached to their heads
.............
It is amazing to me that we still cannot extrude along a path, or lathe a shape, or rotate in 3d without learning GDL or buying many additional tools just to name a couple of modeling shortcomings.
In my opinion, 9.0 should be called 8.5. Some perfume and lipstick was added. Yes you should enjoy some efficiencies with this version. Not sure how some have quantified this as 20%, not yet anyway.
But we still don't see any terrain modeling improvements ( oh, I'm sorry, I keep forgetting the earth is flat, just ask Christopher Columbus, he works at GS ), stairmaker......well we all know what a piece of garbage that is, and adding Lightworks while a good step forward was only a half step. ................ . . . .
Regards.
Karl wrote:While I wouln't entirely argue the fact that Lightworks will be an improvement ( I mean, given what they had before was it really had to come upwith anything other than an improvement really?) for most users not predisposed to learning a new rendering software or exporting their models, I do have to wonder; if the introduciton of Lightworks is an improvement by virtue of the fact that it reduces or eliminates the necessity to have to export your model or use third party software to obtain quality renders, how then is it that the same reasoning doesn't apply to advanced modelling tasks and having to accomplish those with not just a third party software, API plugins, and of course the almighty GDL script. If convenience is spelled out by having the ability to do all one needs to accomplish vis-a-vis drafting to documentation to rendering, from within ArchiCAD, then why is this not also good enough for modelling and creation of 3D models ( regardless of complexity), which, really, is ( or should be) ArchiCAD at its essence?
The integration of LW into AC provides a quick, easy solution to obtain quality images for the vast majority of users.There is no export/save-as to an external format (which is itself slow), opening a separate application, and a separate app to learn.Sure, many of us have a variety of external rendering solutions for doing very large images or to utilize more powerful techniques. .................Most users (I'd wager 99%) will be thrilled with LW. Personally, I want the convenience of an internal solution and am happy with GS's decision.
Karl.
2004-09-10 11:02 PM
2004-09-11 05:33 PM
2004-09-11 07:16 PM
Scott wrote:Scott, I agree in part. However, that was not my point. Rarely do we ever concentrate all our effort on one project at a time. The main benefit of having a separate rendering package is while project "A" is rendering, and this may take hours depending on the complexity and size of the rendering, we can model or work on cds for project "B" concurrently making us much more efficient and profitable.
As far as having a separate renderer allow the user to render and continue to work on the model, my opinion is that if you are rendering, do you really want to move forward modeling? Isn't the rendering part of the design process? I wouldn't want to render something, and while it's rendering, make changes, and then re-render again because of the changes. I'll render something, then look at it, and then make the changes based on the discovery of something in the rendering.
2004-09-11 07:21 PM
Rashid wrote:Rashid,
For the life of me I don't understand why GS does not takeover Cigraph and integrate their entire Archi-line. There are obviously some very sharp programmers at Cigraph so why re-invent what's been done quite well already?
Rashid wrote:
Then again Most Cipraph apps answer needs any AEC program should have built in.
2004-09-11 10:55 PM
I would be concerned that GS would drop the ball on further development of the add-ons if they were in charge of them.That's a chilling lack of confidence in GS.. earned with each release.
2004-09-12 02:20 AM
Rashid wrote:I view it as an extreme compliment to Fabrizio and Cigraph!
That's a chilling lack of confidence in GS.. earned with each release.
2004-09-12 05:03 AM
Bricklyne wrote:I don't quite understanding why profiler will not do that roof. attached is a curve that was done using profiler (it is 250m long). The trick is to always use splines. The resolution of the curves is far superior. Ie splines for the profile and magic wand a path that is a spline as well. Hope this helps, albeit a little too late.
To illustrate my point, I have attached an image of a proposal for an addition, that our firm did for a University building to expand the current seating capacity of the Football ( that would be the American (or rather Canadian eh) variety)) Stadium. The addition is of corporate boxes and the roof is a double-curved roof (curving laterally and in plan)- ignore the team logo. In order to accurately present the shape and form of the roof, I was forced to resort to the painful and painstaking method of the mesh-tool. Anyone who has tried the curved roof tool over large areas or worse yet, Profiler; probably feels my angst regarding going about something of this nature in ArchiCAD. Now I know that someone is going to retort that this would have been much more easily accomplished in GDL, but given the time-frame of this project, and the impending deadlines, this simply was not an option. So I had to do with the mesh tool what would have (should have) taken about 10-15 times less time with the curved roof tool or Profiler were they working as they should be. This despite the fact that such a form as this, is nowhere near as outlandish or eccentric as some of the stuff you would find within Gehric vicinity.