!Restored: lightworks vs artlantis vs cinema4d vs ...

[Anonymous]

Hello,

there is a poll somewhere on a similar topic, but I prefer direct comments on what is the best rendering according to taste.

I am posting three examples of what the latest versions of LW, ATL and C4D can do on interior design.

LightWorks:
http://www.lightwork.com/lw_image.php?img=fukui_kitchen_640

Artlantis:
http://www.abvent.com/community/galeries/images/web_1156502732.jpg

Cinema4D:
http://www.maxon.net/pages/solutions/images/architektur/vernissage_02/ponce_kitchen.jpg

It jumps to my eye that cinema4d is the best, followed by Artlantis. Lightworks is simply not photorealistic. There is no information on the time taken by each render. Real-time rendering is not a joke, and lightworks may have had to compromise. It is not clear to me how ArchiCAD would cope with the different object files. I do not want to insist any further on this, but I find the "import" approach way too cumbersome. Native support for c4d, for example, would do best. Indeed, it is not clear to me how one would use an .gdl object in ArchiCAD and have it mapped into a different .c4d object in the renderer, the latter one being the one I meant to use in the first place.

Comments please.

Bob

[Dwight]

To be fair to LightWorks, however, you should select a product from their top-of-the-line imaging features, not their basic plug-in-made-for-a-draftsman features.

For example:

That kitchen scene (still hokey) with better LightWorks rendering:

http://www.lightwork.com/lw_image.php?img=GI_fukui_640

And two featuring their Global Illumination qualities:

http://www.lightwork.com/lw_image.php?img=lounge_specular_640

http://www.lightwork.com/lw_image.php?img=gallery_fg_640

[Dwight]

Cinema 4D has a distinct advantage as an image maker because of the sophistication of its materials. When you see a great Cinema rendering it is because the artist spent a lot of time not only playing with the light, but controlling the hundreds of material surface reflection settings to be found.

Huy yuy yuy.

This factor alone makes Cinema stronger than, yet way more complex relative to Artlantis.

[Anonymous]

Dwight,

the improved LW renders still seem of a lesser quality than Artlantis or c4d, to me at least. On c4d, for architectural renders, I think no one would be interested in spending long hours to make a decent realistic render. Perhaps Artlantis is a good compromise? Again, not knowing the time for each example, it is difficult to judge. I am looking for a recent reference that weights the quality of the different engines based on time spent on the same drawing, but I had bad luck so far.

The very best renders I have seen thus far were made using 3ds max + v-ray, obviously on a PC.

See the following examples (you need to register):

http://www.evermotion.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=54905
http://www.evermotion.org/index.php?unfold=gallery&unfold_gallery=2

They are much better than c4d. By comparison, they look like real photographs. Revit is going to be a hell of a competitor for AC10.

Bob

[Anonymous]

Let see how the competition is doing...

Revit's internal AccuRender:
http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/images/kitchen_large.jpg

So, Revit's basic rendering, as clear from the above example, is as bad as it gets. Just like, or possibly worse, than ArchiCAD. However, how is Autodesk coping with the problem?

>10. Autodesk Revit Building uses AccuRender® raytracing and radiosity as a rendering solution. Can I use Autodesk Revit Building with Autodesk VIZ or Autodesk 3ds Max?

>Users can transfer geometry from a Revit Building model into the Autodesk® VIZ or Autodesk® 3ds Max® application through DWG file export. The Autodesk VIZ 2005 Interoperability for Revit plug-in imports the DWG file exported from Revit 7 or Revit Building 8 and maintains material assignments. Because this functionality is incorporated into Autodesk VIZ 2006 and 3ds Max 8, the plug-in is no longer necessary.

On the ArchiCAD front, a step in this direction was made by cinema4d, so they claim...

Bob

[Electric Flute]

If ArchiCAD could export DWG by materials, the transfer would be as good as Revit. The 3DS export already has it, but MAX just import DWGs with the "File link Manager" tool, making 3DS not the best file option export.
This limitation was already discussed HERE

What a shame Graphisoft!

[Rafal SLEK]

Electric wrote:
... would be as good as Revit.
...
What a shame Graphisoft!

I know Revit a little (I got certificate after workshops) and it isn't so good as you speak of.

[Djordje]

jdk wrote:
Revit's internal AccuRender:
http://images.autodesk.com/adsk/images/kitchen_large.jpg

I am surprised by this, as AccuRender (used to use it long time ago) can produce stunning imagery.

A shameless plug of a colleague: http://www.ars3d.com/

A case of crippled implementation, as in Archicad flavour of LW? Or the people just don't know - or have the time - to do proper rendering?

[Rakela Raul]

A shameless plug of a colleague: http://www.ars3d.com/

what a nice site, and quick !!

[Electric Flute]

Rafal wrote:
I know Revit a little (I got certificate after workshops) and it isn't so good as you speak of.

No! I'm not talking about revit itself, I never used it!!

I'm talking about the DWG export limitation of AC ok? I just called Revit because jdk wrote some informations about it's Interoperability between Max.
Please, read my post again.