Very luminous. The shadows have that enviable color of realism so hard to achieve with other applications. This 3ds max is a great product!
However, I feel that the textures are represented too large - by about double the appropriate scale. This is a universal challenge since material libraries tend to do this.
But why do you show this non-composition? I'm attracted by the light effect and repelled by your treatment of the scene.
The entire point of making an image is to SELL by entrancing the eye and to not consider all aspects of the illustration downplays effort made in any other area. So many Archicad users seek comment on their work before it is resolved enough to be considered "work." I don't care if you think the buildings are boring - something informed your actions. What were they, and how would you tell us about them? Most architects know that a good rendering excuses a bad building. And a great building can be ruined by a bad image.
A good rendering has four basic aspects:
- composition
- light
- materials
- entourage
Until you formulate a "story" about your project and develop a composition with most elements assembled and arranged, you really don't know what sun angle to use.
That sun angle interacts with the surfaces you place, and those surfaces might need tweaking because of glare or shadow depth. This communicates building massing and overall feeling.
Until the final view is composed, nothing elese matters because fine renderig solutions are not generic, they are specific to a certain view at a certain time.
Many Archicad users think they'll get good in a rendering software and this new skill will remove them from the tedium of technology, but they will not succeed without attention to the artistic aspects.
Dwight Atkinson