2004-09-17 01:23 PM - last edited on 2023-05-11 03:12 PM by Noemi Balogh
2004-09-23 12:11 AM
2004-09-23 10:23 AM
2004-09-23 10:27 AM
Dwight wrote:Not to put down our own product here but ArchiShock3D is not a perfect fit for what was described here. ArchiShock3D is really a Web presentation tool - as such it has to cut a lot of corners to have a file size reasonably small and rendering rates "interactive" on many computer systems (even lower end).
ArchiShock?
2004-09-23 07:55 PM
Pavol wrote:
What is needed - and there is a work being done in this direction - is an off-line tool written directly on top of OpenGL. That can potentially provide much higher image quality and smoother navigation as well as plenty of other functions (layers,...)
Pavol
2004-09-27 10:43 AM
Burginger wrote:Finally, thanks to Buringer and Dwight, you can take a peek at the small movies I presented at the ArchiCAD University. They are the Do and Do Not, and should be seen in this order:
Being that this is a graphical discussion group thread, it would be very interesting to learn by seeing. Please post links to small animations you feel hit the nail on the head.
2004-09-27 10:44 AM
2004-09-27 11:15 AM
Burginger wrote:Couldn't agree more. What about vrml solutions? Such as www.zermatt.se for example.
I posted the thought long ago, "Can Graphisoft publish an ArchiCAD Model Viewer? Just the section with the OpenGL window, the cameras selectable, simplified navigation. This way we can just package the necessary elements up for our clients to view at their computer. Many newer computers support OpenGL. Every time I have a client in the office, they are very impressed with the OpenGL presentations done within ArchiCAD. I can only imagine what it would be like to present with the 30" Apple Display. If you swing the house around on that big monitor the client is liable to suffer from vertigo, stumble and fall down.
2004-09-27 11:25 AM
2004-09-27 05:58 PM
stefan wrote:Darn, when I'm good, I'm good
You've linked the same movie twice😉
2004-09-27 09:10 PM
Krippahl wrote:Maybe naming them Do and DontDo would be more obvious?
Darn, when I'm good, I'm good