AVworks/art•lantis -- align texture? [and more!]

[__archiben]

i have recently been modelling and rendering one of our latest projects for the client's marketing drive.

i had downloaded and was using the AV works 2 beta for 'snapshots' as i working to give it a test drive. i have now exported the finished model into art•lantis 4.5 and was quite disappointed to find that my textures no longer retained their set origins.

i haven't really done any presentation rendering since my college days: not that long ago, but long enough that a lot has changed! what, if anything, am i missing?!

the project is currently on site and so is developed enough that the complete masonry package is resolved down to full/half block modules and windows/doors course in accurately. i have created an image of a large area of the blockwork to ensure a convincing variance in the blocks when rendered. ensuring that the blocks in the texture map properly to the detailed block setting out in the model is a subtlety that i feel gives an extra depth to computer generated images, and at this stage of the job a worthwhile exercise.

whilst i was working and trying out AV works, i was able to set the texture origin in archiCAD and got some good results: however, the final rendered output is substantially better in art•lantis but i cannot for the life of me get the textures to consistently map as i'd like throughout the entire scene.

is there a way of doing this, or is it really the case that i just have to fiddle with the scale and origin until i find the optimum compromise?

sorry for the rambling explanation, but i thought that a bit of background may help understand what i'm trying to acheive. okay: that's the question part over . . . i've also got a few comments about the AV works/art•lantis/archiCAD trilogy that follows in post two . . .

~/archiben

[__archiben]

the archiCAD/AVworks/art•lantis managé-á-trois continues:

so, as i mentioned above, i've been trying out AVworks whilst working in archiCAD and am now using art•lantis for the final images.

aside from the above question, i'd appreciate anybody's comments, feedback or corrections(!) on the following:

• AV works is a fantastic add-on to archiCAD that seems let down more by archiCAD's handling of light than by it's own rendering engine (is it really the same art•lantis rendering engine?). i know that a selection of actual lamps comes with AVworks, but i'm really after daylight images and have only used a couple of brighteners to boost the ambient light in a few places without washing out the whole image. the daylight images i'm getting with art•lantis are considerably better than with AV works.
• in another post, alain picard writes that the AVworks interface isn't as easy as in art•lantis. i actually prefer the consistency over the control of the archiCAD materials, particularly with the effects available in the AVworks extra tab. quite frankly, i find controlling the art•lantis materials quirky at best: sure - it's easier to globally control the materials in the file.
• even after quite a bit of tweaking in both applications, i am finding that AVworks handles refraction far better than art•lantis, but art•lantis handles reflection better. i am convinced that the former is due to the separate archiCAD-like, split control over reflection and refraction, and the latter again the fault of poor quality of light in archiCAD.
• with AV works, i really appreciate the material definitions being kept within the project database - this is as it should be! i know that art•lantis' reference files help to maintain a consistency when future images are required, but the idea of a globally shared materials definition appeals to my purist ideals!

maybe i'm completely wrong in these assumptions and observatiosn, and am missing some vital training, or maybe there are some things here for wishlists that could benefit both graphisoft and abvent . . . but before i start writing anymore, i would appreciate your comments . . .

thanks for listening!
~/archiben

[Rob]

AV works is a fantastic add-on to archiCAD that seems let down more by archiCAD's handling of light than by it's own rendering engine

Exactly as you say. I have been asking guys in Abvent to tweak the numbers of internal artlantis light variables to a sort of lumen-wattage definition to make it easier even with existing archicad lights by simply pasting 'tweaking' routine in master script... that would be so easy then for anybody to make an 'presentable' rendering without knowing all those micky-mouse variables...
As I know so far there are attempts to make AC lights more useful in ArchiLumos application (which unfortunately I haven't had opportunity to work with...) by adding 'tweaking' routine for the wattage-lumen definition as well as importing ies files (I suppose to the degree but that's ok...)

Talking about AV works material definition I have found a bit 'dodgy' definition of glass material and the rendered results of it (yes there is something strange about refraction/reflection ratio but I did not have time to test that up properly).

I do not know why but for some reason I hate to work with Artlantis - may be it is the file exporting stuff or the UI, however, the AV-works interface is an example of perfect and seamless implementation of an add-on into Archicad. The speed of it as well as the ability to use AC materials and settings are the (revolutionary, I believe) at the field of poorly maintained AC rendering capabilities. So after all I think AVworks has got fantastic opportunity to take over the existing and unbelievable obsolete AC rendering engine.

[stefan]

About the Art*lantis texture mapping:

I tested a lot of rendering software with ArchiCAD (and devoted a part of my website to it) but the lack of reading the correct mapping from ArchiCAD was a big disadvantage in Art*lantis. Surely, it can be "tweaked", but since all of them are allready in place in ArchiCAD, there is no reason to not import them correctly.

Apart from one or two other applications, all of them could import correctly mapped geometry.

[__archiben]

thanks guys.

i was actually hoping that you would tell me i'd overlooked something and that textures could be aligned accurately in art•lantis!!!

is there anybody from abvent reading this who would care to comment? it seems like a terrible oversight . . .

~/archiben

[Dwight]

"I do not know why but for some reason I hate to work with Artlantis -
may be it is the file exporting stuff or the UI,"


Those French. They have a different interface for everything!

[with thanks to Steve Martin]

[Ignacio Azpiazu]

Is there anything in Artlantis as a standalone program I will miss if I go the way of AV-Works?

[I have been working for about two years on Artlantis 4 and I am very happy with the interface and the speed and the shader/texture tweaking it allows. I am quite happy with my results themselves and the speed at which I can produce them. I may be needing something like C4D especially for interiors and will try a demo, but I feel I might end up missing the ease and flexibility of the shader/texture tools.]

[Dwight]

AV Works, relative to Artlantis, lacks:

1: the absolute number of reflections and ray tracing

2: real-time material and lighting preview

3: finesse of shader adjustment

[Dwight]

Reasons for moving to a full-featured application like C4D include:

1: Total sophistication in material creation and mapping
2: Model adjustment after import !!!!
3: Ease of animating model elements [door moves, for instance] instead of mere [and lame] "fly-through"
4: faster rendering and multiple processor capability
5: More capacity for subtlety - truly pro - Artlantis is only about 2/3 of the way there.
6: stability and predictability.
7: Higher polygon capability means real trees, etc - C4D has okay volumetric trees.....

[Dwight]

Please post some results of your Artlantis work.