Rendering

[Anonymous]

I cant understand why ArchiCAD has such a poor renderer, this is surely costing Graphisoft huge amounts of lost sales to Architectural Desktop et al that link to VIZ render and 3DS Max

I personally use ArchiCAD and Max together, but there isnt a very good link between the programs, probably because they are from competing companies.

Have graphisoft thought of including something like Mental Ray with ArchiCAD in the same way as Max 6?

[Djordje]

rm wrote:

Djordje wrote:

However, ArchiCAD is NOT modeling&rendering software, which is pretty popular misconception about it. It is the architectural CAD software, for the architectural design and construction documentation production.

It is NOT an unfounded misconception given GS printed advertising in US Architecture magazines. I KNOW you are familiar with their website, it DOES everything possible to lead prospective buyers into believing that AC IS your one-stop source for Architecture Software.

Hmmm ... I remeber the above quote, don't remember the lower one ... and the contextis changed. BUT - you obviously havea bone to pick, specifically with Graphisoft, and you chose me instead. I wonder why? The above is my opinion, like it or not, as advertized by anybody or not.

rm wrote:

In the typical workflow, it is very probable that the final renderings, which take as much specialized knowledge and time as the design and the construction documentation production, will be done by a dedicated person with a software of their choice, using the same ArchiCAD model. Here is where the proper link becomes essential.

Your assertion is off base from what GS is advertising. Maybe this happens in larger offices, but again, that is NOT AT ALL what GS is advertising!

Well ... are we discussing GS advertizing or the facts as we see them? I personally have never seen an adin any of the US magazines, so can't say I know what you are talking about.

It is my opinion that high end rendering is a specialized skill. It is also my opinion that ArchiCAD does NOT have to have high end rendering. it is my opinion also that the existing "photorealistic" rendering engine is ridiculous at best. And I agree that rendering only for large projects - not small residential practice you mention - should be a process in itself.

So please take the advertizing issue up with GS US or whomever paid for the ads, and don't quote a completely different thread for your point's sake.

[Anonymous]

I'm not sure I should get into this little imbroglio, but I guess I can't resist.

If the issue is Graphisoft's advertising claims then I am not too qualified to comment as I have rarely seen them. But, if they are in fact inaccurate, this issue is more about that, and their credibility in the marketplace, than about the quality of its rendering capabilities.

I think everyone agrees that ArchiCAD's "photo rendering" capability is nowhere near as photographic as other more specialized programs. I don't think very many people agree that this is a problem. In actual practice I have found that many firms don't use computer rendering at all, most that do are satisfied with ArchiCAD's output (either as-is or with photoshop enhancement), and the few that need the higher quality output are quite happy with Artlantis, Cinema 4D, etc.

The problem with computer rendering in Architecture is that the renderings are most needed in schematic design and early design development when the model is still relatively undeveloped. Most projects cannot afford the time (nor are clients willing to pay the fees) for fully developed models of every design alternate.

In my experience the most popular package for architectural rendering is still a box of Prismacolor pencils and Pigma pens, closely followed by watercolor and ink (and markers are still good for a retro look). I have even seen ink drawings rivaling those of centuries past.

Firms that need frequent, high end computer renderings will probably still prefer their choice of specialized software, and the firms that prefer hand rendering aren't likely to switch because ArchiCAD's internal engine is improved. So I think the actual need for such improvements is fairly low.

I would like to see improved rendering in ArchiCAD (mainly raytracing and improved alpha channel effects) but only if it comes at no expense to the improvement of more important features that affect real day to day production issues like PlotMaker layout update speed, the marginally useful label tool, teamwork & library loading speed, and so on.

[Dwight]

Catching up after a busy week returning from ACUWest, I have found this rendering thread.

1: ArchiCAD's rendering engine is seriously outdated, but the simple [and currently free] AV_Works can provide reflections and raytracing capabilities within ArchiCAD. If you look hard, you can find Archilumos that is also a plug-in that does radiosity.

2: GS is not incorrect when they say that ArchiCAD can do basic renderngs - it just takes a lot of material tweaking and plenty of hard work and artistic skill to please the eye. You might start by increasing the specular reflectivity of your materials, softening and yellowing sunlight and adding a complimentary color to ambient light. Graphisoft published an inexpensive book that helps with this:"Illustration In ArchiCAD."

3: There is no software where the image just falls out of the box, and the renderers we all admire as being "hi-end" provide a daunting amount of material control - mastering these applications suggests that it is time to consider a new, more highly remunerated career as an illustrator.

4: Regardless of whether a firm can afford to "outsource" renderings, fees should reflect the additional effort taken to image the design beyond merely sketching it.

[rm]

Djordje wrote:

Well ... are we discussing GS advertizing or the facts as we see them? I personally have never seen an adin any of the US magazines, so can't say I know what you are talking about.

It is my opinion that high end rendering is a specialized skill. It is also my opinion that ArchiCAD does NOT have to have high end rendering. it is my opinion also that the existing "photorealistic" rendering engine is ridiculous at best. And I agree that rendering only for large projects - not small residential practice you mention - should be a process in itself.

A. I suggest you read my post again, I never mentioned "small residential practice." However, small, medium, or large, architecture firms generally all need the same tools.

B. You missed the thrust of my post, which is GS advertises that the software package is a Complete Solution inclusive of photorendering, not just modeling and construction doc package.

C. I don't have a bone to pick with you, I simply addressed YOUR statements as follows:

Djordje wrote:

However, ArchiCAD is NOT modeling&rendering software, which is pretty popular misconception about it. It is the architectural CAD software, for the architectural design and construction documentation production.

Djordje wrote:

So please take the advertizing issue up with GS US or whomever paid for the ads, and don't quote a completely different thread for your point's sake.

I am not sure why your accusing me of misquoting you. The following is YOUR posting in this thread, dated, in its full context!

Djordje wrote:

Posted: Tue Nov 25, 2003 5:40 pm    Post subject: Re: Rendering


Andydob wrote:

Good point, the only problem is that AutoDesk Revit has a competetive advantage over ArchiCAD in that the same company also owns 3DS Max

AFAIK it includes AccuRender, which is an independent product? Last version I checked (5) does not have much more connection to the discreet (no, not the same company, except it is also bought by Autodesk as Revit is) products than ArchiCAD. Then again, I might be wrong? I tend not to read the marketing texts too much ...

It is true that ArchiCAD's rendering is bad for these times. Was quite adequate in early days, and still is for quick and drity shots, especially the Sketch one.

However, ArchiCAD is NOT modeling&rendering software, which is pretty popular misconception about it. It is the architectural CAD software, for the architectural design and construction documentation production.

In the typical workflow, it is very probable that the final renderings, which take as much specialized knowledge and time as the design and the construction documentation production, will be done by a dedicated person with a software of their choice, using the same ArchiCAD model. Here is where the proper link becomes essential.

As Stefan said, I personally am more interested in the engineering aspects and tools of ArchiCAD being rich and abundant and working flawlessly, than the rendering part.
_________________
Djordje

ArchiCAD 8.1 R2 Windows 2000 SP4, XP SP

Given you status as a moderator, and the FACT that qoute highlighted in red is your statement, it is a bit disapointing that you accused me falsely.....h'mmmmm seems odd, doesn't it

Robert Mariani

[rm]

Dwight wrote:

3: There is no software where the image just falls out of the box, and the renderers we all admire as being "hi-end" provide a daunting amount of material control - mastering these applications suggests that it is time to consider a new, more highly remunerated career as an illustrator.

Dwight, is anyone suggesting an image should fall out of a box? Are you suggesting that a firm shouldn't try to offer "hi-end" renderings as part of their service? IF that is your point, which I'm not sure I am reading this right, why not stop showing any presentation work, why stop just at renderings? What do you need an architect for, their not artists, they just click buttons and "make blueprints", right?

4: Regardless of whether a firm can afford to "outsource" renderings, fees should reflect the additional effort taken to image the design beyond merely sketching it.

I completely agree with you, fortunately we do structure are fees to do so in house. But as I'm sure you know, there is a phenomena occurring with the internet where Architecture firms that have don't work in a 3D paradigm as in AC, outsource modeling and renderings to artists and illustrators all over the world at a cost of pennies on the dollar, usually produced with AutoDesk products. I don't have a problem with that per-say, I just want to compete with those firms in house, where we can control, layout, views, rendering techniques, and overall presentation techniques better. Our practice is always focused on doing each project better, more efficient, and raising the bar on quality of the overall service package inclusive of presentations.

If GS is going to sell to us a product will that is supposed to let us produce the model, the cd's, the renderings, the bill of materials all out of one package, unlike AutoCADD, then I expect it to happen. And yes, rendering can be a profit center, but only if the tools we have are efficient.

BTW, I personally believe that the rendering tool should be separate from AC but easily integrate, along the line of the Artlantis model. Why, because it would allow a practice to set the rendering parameters up on a machine in an office designated to rendering, without tying up a machine that could be used by an architect, or interior designer, using AC. I think that is a more efficient model, unless the rendering engine could render in the background without affecting your work in AC.....yeah right good luck on that one!

Regards,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.


Robert Mariani

[Djordje]

rm wrote:
I am not sure why your accusing me of misquoting you. The following is YOUR posting in this thread, dated, in its full context![//quote]

Not accusing. Mea culpa. But still, I don't see how you got to the advertizing grudge following my post?

rm wrote:
In the typical workflow, it is very probable that the final renderings, which take as much specialized knowledge and time as the design and the construction documentation production, will be done by a dedicated person with a software of their choice, using the same ArchiCAD model. Here is where the proper link becomes essential.

Given you status as a moderator, and the FACT that qoute highlighted in red is your statement, it is a bit disapointing that you accused me falsely.....h'mmmmm seems odd, doesn't it

It really does ... but no conspiracy there. I still don't understand whom are you quarelling with? Also, what does the moderator status have to do with it (maybe I should have deleted the thread, huh?)? Nothing personal, anyway.

IMHO, Dwight is utterly right - very high end renderings require dedication and time that is usually not available in the always tight architectural practice, never mind the software. As much as the standard engine is outdated, it CAN work (see the book Dwight mentioned and an example where two Arabian genlemen are on a terrace - that is my rendering that Dwight used as an example how to make a proper image).

So, the only question really is - whether ArchiCAD should have a real photorealistic rendering engine (raytracing - see AV Works, fresh edition available as of yesterday) or not? The answer people would give is probably affected also by the following:

What is the number of raytracing renderings you do per project?
Which phase of project you do the renderings at?
What is the project frequence?
What is the average project value?
What is the billing?
Etc ...

AV Works and ArchiLumos prove that it is more than possible to have very high end renderings coming out of ArchiCAD itself - but believe me, I personally need a very fast raytracing inside ArchiCAD because anything else, including even Art•Lantis often cannot make the deadlines I usually have.

So, to everyone his own ... and an opinion is not wrong if it is not yours. Just different

[Dwight]

But of course, these rendering engines are add-ons that will cost more than the basic ArchiCAD package and I sympathise with the sense of betrayal regularly expressed about lousy renderings from ArchiCAD.

Yet, in this year's Graphisoft calendar many excellent ArchiCAD rendered projects are featured, including some mysteriously [and impossibly] rendered in Zoom GDL. Must be a typo. Or an outright lie.

I suggest for design development renderings that instead of neurotically relying on photorealism, users consider the sketch renderer and simple photoshop tricks to disguise the lack of completeness in design while maximizing the feel [storytelling qualities] of their work.

[rm]

Djordje wrote:
Not accusing. Mea culpa. But still, I don't see how you got to the advertizing grudge following my post?

No grudge here, one should not confuse a differing opinion with a grudge.
I'm confused by your focus of my "grudge" as oppossed to simply addressing your comments that I disputed as being unfounded, and reads as follows:

Djordje wrote:
However, ArchiCAD is NOT modeling&rendering software, which is pretty popular misconception about it. It is the architectural CAD software, for the architectural design and construction documentation production.

As this is your opinion about the software, one easially contradicted by Graphisofts own web page, http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/ , I am pointing out that your opinion, in this case, is not at all in line with what GS is advertising.

And right off of the GS website

" http wrote:
Instant visualization: ArchiCAD®'s rendering tools are simple to use; no expert knowledge is required to product stunning results......

Yeah, this one is pretty funny:lol:

Djordje wrote:
It really does ... but no conspiracy there. I still don't understand whom are you quarelling with? Also, what does the moderator status have to do with it (maybe I should have deleted the thread, huh?)? Nothing personal, anyway.

No, you shouldn't delete your thread, but you might want to be a little more carefull before accusing anyone publically of something they did not do. As far as my comment about moderator goes, I read a couple other bulletin boards ( architecture, motorcycling, photography, software ) where there are assigned moderators. Short of the moderators addressing abusive behavior on the boards, I rarelly see them addressing the forums anywhere near as often as you do. In your case you tend to contribute a lot of useful information. However, IMO some of your comments can be intrepreted as you are THE VOICE of GS, whether that is deliberate or not. Unless I am wrong, your an architect trying to make a buck ( or euro, or whatever) like the rest of us are, unless your an employee of GS too.

Djordje wrote:
So, the only question really is....

Here is that authoritative VOICE I was talking about, might want to try throttling that back a wee bit, you might attrack a larger audience.

Djordje wrote:
So, to everyone his own ... and an opinion is not wrong if it is not yours. Just different

That is a cute theory, but are you sure you really want to sell that an opinion cannot be wrong, no matter what the opinion is? You got to be kidding me here, again see GS webpage link herein.

Regard,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.


Robert Mariani

[rm]

Dwight wrote:

I suggest for design development renderings that instead of neurotically relying on photorealism, users consider the sketch renderer and simple photoshop tricks to disguise the lack of completeness in design while maximizing the feel [storytelling qualities] of their work.

Design Development is preciselly where we do like to extract photorealism, and it has nothing to do with being neurotic. I'm not sure what your definition of "design development" is. But in our case, the model is 99% complete by the end of DD phase, and 95% of the finish materials are selected, so "photoshopping" an image generated in GS sketch render engine does not meet the needs of our clients. Plus the GS sketch render ( again rendering engine is sllllllloooooow ) takes too much time to generate large images. Our clients maybe seeking additional funding for a project, or looking to use the images for presales in development where they are expecting photorealism, and images for sales propoganda. We often sell new projects off of are renderings for buildings that have not yet been erected.

Heck for that matter, we find ArchiSketchy much faster and useable for schematic design presentations ( Thank you Cigraph )!

Regards,
Architects Design Forum, Ltd.


Robert Mariani

[stefan]

I love high-end rendering software, but while working in ArchiCAD I constantly render images in the ArchiCAD default engine, because of it's integration. Sure, it's not the best, but the message is quite clear.

When I doing presentations (even in the design phase) I quickly convert into Cinema4D or 3ds max and play with it there. I'm glad that ArchiCAD exports 3ds-files, which at least respect the mapping from the ArchiCAD model. It's exactly this mapping that can get cumbersome when exporting a DWG-file or when exporting to Art*lantis.

I also teach AutoCAD and VIZ (which is now sold & marketed as an integrated solution: ADT/VIZ Render). It is usable but it has it's limitations. To have top-quality work and animation, you still need the upgrade to VIZ or 3ds max (that are not cheap at all).


--> So I suggest to use ArchiCAD (combined with AV_Works) for all rendering tasks in the design phase and combine it with Cinema4D; Lightwave, Autodesk VIZ or anything else when doing presentations where you need that extra power.