Cinema 4D v Artlantis

[KeesW]

Could someone please explain why I should upgrade my old Artlantis license now that we have Cinema 4D in Archicad 18?

[Eduardo Rolon]

For some renderings Artlantis is faster. Besides that there is no reason

[Karl Ottenstein]

ejrolon wrote:
For some renderings Artlantis is faster. Besides that there is no reason

I feel that there are dozens of reasons to stick with Artlantis - especially if you have the Studio version (vs the Render version which only does static images).

The quality of CineRender (CR) over the standard rendering engine within Artlantis is dramatic, even if slower. With the special grass and the ability to do displacement shaders, the model itself can be rendered extremely nicely.

If your needs are limited to static model images that you can assign materials to adequately in AC, then stick with CR in 18. You can probably use bitmapped entourage (billboards) to enliven your images.

But, if you want 3D entourage casting believable shadows - e.g., 3D trees with 3D leaves, 3D people, food, dishes, cars, etc... then you know how easy it is to place and live-preview scale all of those things in Artlantis, which remains responsive even as you add these high polygon objects.

The Artlantis live preview of all shaders and illumination, to aid light placement, etc, is still unbeaten IMHO if you have a complex scene to set up.

All of that interactive 3D drag and drop, drag/drop and live adjust shaders, lights, cameras, etc is a big Artlantis feature. The media catalog that links directly to the online catalog where you can quickly download at a reasonable per-item price and insert additional shaders or entourage is also unique in Artlantis 5.

Batch processing. You cannot really get the equivalent of an Artlantis batch, which can be paused and resumed, with CR in 18. While a render can happen in the background, you are limited with what you can do in the foreground. For example, you cannot start an animation or sun study and then modify your view options.

VR for desktop/web or mobile (ivisit3d) as well as animation? with Artlantis Studio you have the ability to create VR tours, which ArchiCAD is no longer capable of (linked panoramic VR images - which used to be possible with QuickTime in AC). And, for animations, you have wide control over your path and the animation of individual objects in Artlantis - neither of which is possible in AC.

In general, I think one can set up scenes faster in Artlantis... and then batch render... than in AC/CR. But, I think the image quality of CR can be vastly superior - but without as much life from believable entourage.

So... depends on your needs, time, comfort/skill levels I think. 🙂

Personally, I like the quality of the CR illumination and the pop that the generated 3D grass gives so much that I plan on using both apps for now...

[Anonymous]

How would you gentleman go about batch rendering with CR? I've just started to get my rendering going fairly efficiently and I would love to punch out a few each evening!

[Andy Thomson]

Karl, a few years later - would you still say the same as above? I am frustrated by slow cinerender renderings in Ac (yes, LW was not as good but at least it was fast) and having just downloaded a demo version of Artlantis Render 6.5 I am shocked by how slow It has become. I used to swear by it (but it's been a few years since I had to render). Now I really need to dig in and do some research because it seems my pre-assigned shaders, lights and cameras no longer cut it on import in Artlantis 6.5 (I used to get excellent OOTB results this way) - and they have changed the interface and functionality just enough to cause a steeper learning curve - enough to consider alternatives. Do you still use Artlantis regularly?

A

[Karl Griffith]

andyro wrote:
Karl, a few years later - would you still say the same as above? I am frustrated by slow cinerender renderings in Ac (yes, LW was not as good but at least it was fast) and having just downloaded a demo version of Artlantis Render 6.5 I am shocked by how slow It has become. I used to swear by it (but it's been a few years since I had to render). Now I really need to dig in and do some research because it seems my pre-assigned shaders, lights and cameras no longer cut it on import in Artlantis 6.5 (I used to get excellent OOTB results this way) - and they have changed the interface and functionality just enough to cause a steeper learning curve - enough to consider alternatives. Do you still use Artlantis regularly?

A

I have been using Artlantis 6.5 with ArchiCAD very successfully. I was using the Solo version of ArchiCAD until this year, so I had no choice (no CineRender in Solo), but even with the full version I still find myself using Artlantis. MAinly because I haven't learned CineRender well yet, but I really feel that I can work very efficiently with Artlantis.

I have had no problems with ArchiCAD textures and cameras coming in properly (though I usually change them to Artlantis textures for more control). After the first export, I can update the model easily, and even create new versions of the Artlantis file using the original as a reference file to bring all the settings of the original file into the new file.

I think Karl O. is probably correct that CineRender can give you a more refined image, and, I think, it offers much more control over detailed settings. But because I don't get hung up in those detailed settings in Arltantis, I move along faster. The 3d entourage is important to me, as is the ability to use background and foreground images for context.

You are correct that 6.5 is slower than previous versions. With version 6 Artlantis moved to a physical rendering engine. This slowed down the program, and seems to have resulted in some loss of features. With 6.5 the ability to view the preview in a 'draft' mode was introduced to speed up work. And when generating final renders, you can now use other computers on your network to speed up the process. All in all, if there was a step backward with 6/6.5, I'd say there were also two steps forward - a net gain.

[Erwin Edel]

Haven't used Artlantis since ArchiCAD18 came out. It took me a while to get a workflow for reasonable render times 'out of the box' with our template set up with the surfaces correctly for the majority of our projects.

I was not unhappy with Artlantis, but it was another license for our office to keep up to date. I still have 4.5, but I probably can't even export to it any longer without some workarounds.

I wrote a bit about my workflow here:
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=268108#268108
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=267934#267934
http://archicad-talk.graphisoft.com/viewtopic.php?p=256296#256296

One thing I did keep from ye olde artlantis days: sometimes I make a separate PLN file for artist impressions where I hotlink the model of the building to a presentation file where I add all the furniture, trees etc, keeping the original PLN library clean of all the clutter that some of these sitework / furniture libraries generate. This kind of works like artlantis where you have all this stuff in artlantis file.

If it is something I can achieve with just standard library (sketchy silhouet stuff), I put them on a special renovation filter for each saved camera (presenation camera 1, presentation camera 2, etc) to keep my normal views free of things I do not want to see. This I would do in the one PLN, no hotlinking needed.

I do miss the special saved layers from Artlantis to photoshop. Those were great for minor changes in photoshop! There is option for alpha channel for the sky in cinerender, but that is all.

[Karl Ottenstein]

andyro wrote:
Karl, a few years later - would you still say the same as above? I am frustrated by slow cinerender renderings in Ac (yes, LW was not as good but at least it was fast) and having just downloaded a demo version of Artlantis Render 6.5 I am shocked by how slow It has become. I used to swear by it (but it's been a few years since I had to render). Now I really need to dig in and do some research because it seems my pre-assigned shaders, lights and cameras no longer cut it on import in Artlantis 6.5 (I used to get excellent OOTB results this way) - and they have changed the interface and functionality just enough to cause a steeper learning curve - enough to consider alternatives. Do you still use Artlantis regularly?

Hi Andy,

Honestly, I haven't done any renders since that post. I did continue to evaluate Artlantis 6 and 6.5 but began to lose confidence in the direction Abvent was taking. Except for ease of use, I was always more impressed with C4D in terms of maturity and excellent user support - but I've not evaluated it in many years, and should. I'm particularly curious how well the AC/CR data exchange/update workflow with C4D is with AC 21.

Karl

[Andy Thomson]

@Erwin - Thanks for your other posts here in ACT. I realized something you said about creating new materials from the 'library' - it appears that these are not mere images in the library but complete shaders for cinerender. I will try a few out. Making progress with settings - rendering full 2000pixel wide images in under 5 minutes on a residential project, and marquee'd interiors (room by room) in under 5 minutes. Physical options OFF for speed.

[Erwin Edel]

andyro wrote:
@Erwin - Thanks for your other posts here in ACT. I realized something you said about creating new materials from the 'library' - it appears that these are not mere images in the library but complete shaders for cinerender. I will try a few out. Making progress with settings - rendering full 2000pixel wide images in under 5 minutes on a residential project, and marquee'd interiors (room by room) in under 5 minutes. Physical options OFF for speed.

Yes, I duplicate shaders from the library and modify them as needed, this has gotten me about 95% of what I need for projects, the other 5% I typically have textures for bump and colour that are pretty self explanatory that I use. This is mostly for bricks, roof tiles and wood sidings, as I find the procedural shaders too complex to adjust.