VIZ Render in Revit 6.0?

[Scott Hopkins]

There has been a lot of speculation that Revit 6.0 will dump the use of Accurender in favor of AutoDesk’s own “VIZ Render”. VIZ Render, currently used by Architectural Desktop, is supposedly a stripped down version of VIZ 4. I am wondering what key VIZ 4 functionality features have been left out of VIZ Render. Presumably if AutoDesk switches Revit from Accurender to VIZ Render there should be an increase in functionality not a decrease. It would really be disheartening if they took out important features, like animations for example, as an incentive to buy the full VIZ 4 program. Does anybody know the differences between VIZ Render and VIZ 4?

[brantf]

hey scott from what you are used to in revit with accurender viz render has all the features and them some. There are actually very few features missing from the viz render. The majority of people that purchase a full seat of Viz now do almost renderings exclusively. But this is what autodesk has to say(not that it's a big help)...........................VIZ Render
Available exclusively as a feature of Autodesk Architectural Desktop 2004, VIZ Render was specifically created for the architect. VIZ Render is optimized for visualizing the data created in ADT 2004 so the architect requires a minimum of special training to develop state of the art physically accurate depictions of an evolving design. The value of VIZ Render is in its close relationship to the Building Information Model.

Autodesk VIZ 4
VIZ 4 is a visualization solution targeted at the broader design community. Architectural, mechanical, and product designers can make a variety of images and animations with VIZ.
VIZ 4 can be thought of as a subset of 3ds max with a few additional tools specific to design and interoperability with other Autodesk design products

[Scott Hopkins]

Brantf

Thanks for the reply. If it happens, I am actually looking forward to switching over to VIZ Render. From what I have seen the VIZ renderings are superior to those of Accurender.

[Steve_Stafford]

They certainly are vibrant, I love the brick material maps...

[brantf]

Accurender is great for it's simplicity especialy compared to any version of viz, but the final product when rendered arn't comparable, i'm sure that everyone will be cursing a blue streak learning to use it but when you get a rendering done you will be elated.

[hand471037]

Accurender isn't easy either, esp. in regards to the plant editor or trying to make complex multi-layered materials look good. It's accurender's intergration within Revit that makes it easy to use IMHO. As long as VizRender is properly intergrated into Revit, I don't think it will be any harder to use; materials will be able to be much more complex (which is good) and lighting will be better (more lights than 'point or daylight'). As long as it's very simple to apply materials (like it is now) and to add lighting (like it is now) and to define what's a daylight source (like it is now) then I think that Revit switching to Vizrender won't be that big of a hiccup.

[brantf]

i don't think that switching to viz render will be a big issue, the only problem everyone will encounter is learning to use the features of viz as the user interface is entirely different from all other autodesk programs, but as with every new program there is always a learning curve so i expect that it won't take long after the new release to see some amazing renderings.

[dennis.mcneal]

Scott,

The main difference between VizRender and Viz is VizRender doesn't have modeling capabilities. Also, ADT materials come directly into VR. Add lights, a little background, maybe an RPC and your ready to render.

[Scott Hopkins]

So Dennis,

What is the final word? Will we see Viz Render in Revit 6? If so, will it be as tightly integrated with Revit as Accurender is?

[dennis.mcneal]

Scott,

I honestly don't know if Viz will go into Revit. Keep your fingers crossed! :)

[anond]

I have been told that this is becuse Revit uses al "Light" AccuRender.

[davidwlight]

I spoke to one of the Revit development team recently & they plan to integrate viz render, but not at present. The view is that accurender does a great job for out of the box rendering & that you can use dwg linking for high end rendering using viz 2005 or max 6. I think it will be a major re-write of code to get the same seamless link we would require so that viz functioned liked accurender. Viz render is a separate app to adt & the two talk to one another via dwg linking. However, you can actually add materails to adt objects which come across into viz render. I've actually run viz render on it own & linked exported dwg's from Revit, but found it a little limiting compared with linking into max or viz. If you are looking for top quality go down the Max or Viz route; however if the developement team use the linking in viz render, expect this quality of render as the render engine in max, viz & viz render are the same. This model was exported from revit & rendered in max.

[Wes Macaulay]

Yeah -- that's what we've been told, too... Revit has so many hooks to Accurender that modifying this for Viz Render would be no small effort. Accurender's results are not as good as Viz, but people up til now who have created renderings in Accurender are probably unprepared for how much different and more complex Vix Render is.

[TeamRPM]

All I can say about it is that I use all of the products mentioned. When I want something quick and easy, I use Revit with Accurender. But when I want something to look profesional I use Autodesk Viz with a link from ADT. As for the Autodesk viz render, I hate this one the most it is in my opinion a very and I mean very stripped down version ov Viz. If Revit would convert to Viz or even Viz able to import in a Revit model the same way it does with ADT we would have a perfect program. Like I said before it is great to do everything in one progeam when It comes to speed and quickness revit with Accurender does the trick. A dream would be Revit with Viz built in

[davidwlight]

Teamrpm,

I totally agree with you. If you've used viz or max using viz render is like having your right hand cut off. Its got many tools missing that I use for just compiling rendered images, let along modelling tools, but I suppose that Adsk only saw it as a basic rendering tool. People that have never been exposed to rendering tools love it, but again as you suggest accurender within Revit is easier & quicker to use, but I think the render quality is still not as good as viz,max,viz render, but that's only my opinion. Another point, when you said that you used ADT, are you modelling within ADT?

[hand471037]

I wouldn't care if Accurender was even removed from Revit if we were given a 'by material' #DS or DWG export ability. I like accurender, and it's great for quick small stuff, but for anything 'good' I too use other packages, and Revit's 'by Object' DWG exporting, while great for consulants, ads a few extra steps for me to get to the 3D package.

[Andre Baros]

I like the having and using a seperate and powerful renderer like Max or Viz for really high end renderings... but I only use that four or five time a year. The rest of the time I've switched to Sketchup, which isn't really rendering, it's just a really good hidden line view. The problem with partially implemented solutions like Viz render or Accurender in Revit is that they're stuck inbetween. They're not as good as their full blown cousins, but they're also not as convenient as a hidden line rendering.

For quick studies, I don't want to have to assign lights or think about materials, ergo sketchup... and for a real rendering, I want complete control of creating every custom material, ergo Max.

Revit doesn't need Viz inside, it needs to have Sketchup inside and the ability to export directly to .max files (with our without materials, you always need to change them anyway).

My 2 cents.

[adegnan]

I wouldn't care if Accurender was even removed from Revit if we were given a 'by material' #DS or DWG export ability. I like accurender, and it's great for quick small stuff, but for anything 'good' I too use other packages, and Revit's 'by Object' DWG exporting, while great for consulants, ads a few extra steps for me to get to the 3D package.
I'm very pleased that Revit has Accurender built-in/packaged/whatever. I am not experienced in any of the other rendering facilities so I cannot speak to the pros/cons of them however it is important to me to have the rendering functionality within Revit.

I'd be upset if it was removed and not replaced by something else. And I'd be frustrated if it was removed and I had a significant learning curve for the new product.

[Roger Evans]

Agree with it all Abe & especially the last bit

[Chad Smith]

...or even Viz able to import in a Revit model the same way it does with ADT we would have a perfect program.
Totally agree. The way that ADT files link directly into VIZ is sensational.
I don't care if Accurender stays or is replaced with VIZRender, as long as I get a Revit Linking feature into VIZ. VIZRender doesn't have enough of the tools that I use in VIZ so a Revit link is what I need.
I'm still forced to re-model a project in ADT just to get a good render out these days. :banghead:

[Yman]

I agree with Abe. I don't want to learn another rendering program. It takes time to learn just one and another switch would be time consuming.

Y

[TeamRPM]

Hey Dave Thanks for the back up. As for your question on weather I model in ADT? I do just about everything, you can think of. I model in Revit, ADT, and Viz. It just depends on the situation. Is there something in general you want to know, or have a question on?

As for everyones opinion on learning a new rendering program, just remember the more you know and learn the more marketable you are to your company and other companies. These are words to live by haha:grin: Technology changes everyday, if you dont stop and look around at other methods (other companies or people are) you will soon make yourself a dinosour. And you will be put in that bad area of being called old school.

[andremiko]

How about revamping accurender to bring it up to the level of VIZ. I prefer the layer based materials of accurender to the color based materials in VIZ. Having the rendering package built into the modeling program is a definite advantage.

[mmulvey]

I tried many renderers in the past - liked AccuRender 2 a lot - was the only one that gave acceptable results right out the box and is still the only one that I have found gives accurate representation of 2x4 fluorescent light fixtures with parabolic diffusers.

However I have been VERY disappointed with AR 3 in Revit - some renderings take forever (on a 3.2 Ghz P4 with 2Gb RAM, 128 Mb AGP2 video etc - so resources shouldn't be the issue) - then we got some strange shadow "artifacts" - Adesk support pretty much said they could do nothing about those - and other issues - nearly cost me a client.

Maybe the hardware is not there yet but I see a real need for a brand-new rendering engine that understands practical, real-world lighting and is easier to use.

[hand471037]

Accurender within Revit is quite literally a sepirate program within Revit, one that hasn't been touched more or less since Revit 3.0, and one that the Revit developers don't have the code for. So extending it isn't really possible, as far as I understand it. It's a nice, easy to use, and certainly conveinent thing to have. But it is sepirate from Revit, and until we see Viz render (or it's equvelent) added to Revit, we won't see much, if any, improvement in Revit's rendering ability.

However, if we were given a 3DS export, or the ability to export DWG organized by Material rather than the current by Object, those of us who use other 3D packages would be able to easly use our Revit models, unlike the current re-working that has to occur to remap the materials onto things post-Revit.

The new VIZ Render is pretty cool, however I still would want to use something else. If a 3DS export was added, then we could all use other things in the mean time while we wait for Revit's render ability to catch up.

[Scott Hopkins]

I am curious about the nature of the licensing agreement between Accurender (Robert McNeel & Assoc.) and Revit. Did Revit pay a one time fee to license Accurender 3.0 into Revit? Or is there an annual fixed fee or perhaps a fee based on the number of Revit copies sold? Will Autodesk have to renegotiate the licensing costs with Accurender at some time in the near future? The nature of the licensing agreement may have a big impact on Autodesk’s motivation to switch out Accurender for Viz Render. With Accurender 4.0 being released in the near future, it will be interesting to see if any 4.0 items make it into Revit 7.0. My prediction is no. I am guessing that Revit originally locked in such a rock-bottom price on the Accurender 3.0 licensing that it simply does not make financial sense to make any changes at this time.

The quality of Viz rendering is definitely superior to Accurender. It seems that even with the upcoming improvements in 4.0, Accurender still has a lot of catching up to do with Viz. That said, if Viz could be integrated into Revit as well as Accurender currently is then it gets my vote. If not I am all for updating Revit with Accurender 4.0.

[hand471037]

The quality of Viz rendering is definitely superior to Accurender. It seems that even with the upcoming improvements in 4.0, Accurender still has a lot of catching up to do with Viz. That said, if Viz could be integrated into Revit as well as Accurender currently is then it gets my vote. If not I am all for updating Revit with Accurender 4.0.

While it's true that Viz is superior in final image quality to Accurender, there are several features within Accurender than make it much easier to use, and make it faster to use, therefore allowing for more 'tweaking' time devoted to the renders. Accurender assumes we're rendering a Building, more or less, so it can do things like daylighting automatically, and always has a sun & sky, ready to go. Viz requires much more manual set-up to get to the same point. So while, in the end, someone who knows what they are doing will get much better results out of Viz than they could with Accurender, for most Accurender could actually be the better option (if it's materials were a little better and if it's Radiosity & rendering made more efficent).

But all of this is moot, for I too doubt that we will see Accurender 4.0 in Revit. Just saying that just because the common idea is that Viz is 'superior' to Accurender doesn't mean it's the better solution for many. By that logic, Radiance or Mental Ray, which wall all over Viz & Accurender in terms of ability and quality, should be included into Revit instead. However both of those tools are *very* complex, and really are only useful to people willing to tke the (long) amount of time it takes to master them.

Viz Render, while nice, isn't nearly as intergrated into ADT as you might think if you haven't worked with it. So again, I think the best option is to either add 3DS export to Revit or RVT import to Viz/Max, rather than clamor over getting Viz render into Revit.

Keep Revit simple, but give a easier road to those of us who want to use a different rendering solution. That's what I personally think would be the 'best' thing to happen, and whole hold the most value to the most users.

[Scott Hopkins]

Jeffery,

Some good points. I have never used Viz, so I was unaware of the complexity factor. I just like the pretty pictures Viz makes. I am all for keeping things quick and simple. There is nothing worse than tweaking and re-tweaking settings all day long to get what you want. If Viz really is as fussy and complex as you say it is, then I think I prefer Accurender as well. Maybe if we all scream loud enough we can get Accurender 4.0 in to Revit 7.0 or 8.0.

Nonetheless, it is easy to become enamored with those beautiful Viz images...

[hand471037]

It's not that it's fussy, it's that with those better images come more complexity in the rendering software. Accurender in Revit I think does a great job of making Rendering accessible to general users, and I think that if a few things were addressed (efficency and quality of Radiosity & Materials) Accurender would be able to produce, for most, much better images than they might be able to get out of Viz if the same amount of time was spent learning how to use it.

There's this great chart that outlines all of this. But it's old, and only talks about Design Workshop's products. So, on the X-axis we've got the amount of learning and effort that goes into getting what you want out of the tool, and on the Y-Axis, you've got the resultant Rendering quality.

At the top right, the ones that are the hardest to learn but give the best results, would be things like Mental Ray, Radiance, or Renderman.

At the bottom left, the ones that are easiest to use but give the lowest quality result, you'd have Sketchup (not knocking it at all, love the 'look' it gives, but it's not really what you'd call a rendering- it's a shaded sketch).

Everything else falls somewhere in the middle, with Viz being just a little bit to the right, and a little bit up, from Accurender. :-)

So it' really about what meets your needs. Sketchup makes great little shaded views, with materials and such, and is bone simple to use, while Radiance or Mental Ray is for top-notch work, and is a whole world onto itself that some people make a career out of understanding.

So I'm not saying that Viz is a bad way to go, it's just that visual quality and complexity can go hand in hand. Most people I see using Revit just want to make decent renderings easily & quickly, or they would use a 'pro' level tool (or hand it off to someone else). So assuming that Viz Render would be a good replacement for Accurender is only true if it's as easy to produce renderings with as Accurender within Revit is today.

[sjsl]

In my office there are bascially two guys who do all of the 3d work including renderings. Me and the Viz guy. I have watched w/much dismay at how long it takes him to create a rendering just from the modeling standpoint and he gets nothing from it when done as I do w/Revit.

He was hired just to do 3d digital images w/Viz. Whe he renders his images (after years of experience) they are not that much better than Revit/Accu images. And his foilage is not as real as Accu's. And then to make it a better rendering he has to bring it in to PS.

I have always shyed away from CAD complexity especially Acad products. Accu is simple and the renderings we get are really pretty darn good considering how little time I spend creating them compared the Viz guy. Even our partners look at what I do compared to the Viz and say you did that in Revit? One Program?

I have created a half dozen or so rendered animations and even though VG says he can do it in Viz I have yet to see this happen in my life time.

Keep it simple and powerful. Using Viz is alot like choosing between the early pc's or a mac. One will get you up and running w/good results the other will take years of hard work but in the end will get better results. At what cost?

[hand471037]

Keep it simple and powerful. Using Viz is alot like choosing between the early pc's or a mac. One will get you up and running w/good results the other will take years of hard work but in the end will get better results. At what cost?

my point exactly. Assuming that one system is better because certain people can get fantastic results out of it is like thinking you should drive a NASCAR to work. ;-)

it's taken me a year to get to the point with Radiance that I can get a desired image out of it. A YEAR. And those images are only, now, a little better than what you can do with Accurender. In the end, like another 6 months, I'll be able to do way better, but still. You have to be pragmatic, and really think about bang-for-the-buck. If Radiance was added to Revit, I would be estatic, but no one else would be able to do anything with it at all. So, with the whole VIZ Render issue, I still think that the Revit team should give us 3DS export, and leave Accurender alone until they can replace it with something that's just as easy to use.

[tatlin]

Ok, to start this response off - This is a great thread (but you realize revit 6.0 is already released, right? :confused: and that the thread should be called 7.0? ok, just checking)

Please note that we in the 'factory' do listen to what you are saying. One of the major takeaways from this and other threads is that rendering quality and performance could be improved in Revit.

I see this breaking out into three main areas :


Accurender in Revit = 'Accurender Lite' : There are tools in AR3 and AR4 that are not currently available in Revit. Which ones are most important to people? Specific requests and some idea of priority are more useful to us than generalities and will help organize the wishlist.
Other rendering engines besides AR : It would help to know which rendering applications you use now and what you do with them. VizRender, Viz, Max, Brazil, Vray, Final Render, Flamingo, Radance, etc. Do you use them with Revit currently? What do you like about them?
If your preferred renderer is a seperate application (like Autodesk Viz or 3ds Max) what is your data-transfer process currently? What level of data interoperability with Revit would you like to see?
(moderators, possibly these could be new thread or polls?)

So again, we are listening, but it would help if we had more specific data.


Accurender within Revit is quite literally a sepirate program within Revit, one that hasn't been touched more or less since Revit 3.0, and one that the Revit developers don't have the code for. So extending it isn't really possible, as far as I understand it. It's a nice, easy to use, and certainly conveinent thing to have. But it is sepirate from Revit, and until we see Viz render (or it's equvelent) added to Revit, we won't see much, if any, improvement in Revit's rendering ability.

Actually Jeffrey, what you mentioned above is not really the case. Perhaps I can clarify:


Seperate Program: Revit licenses something called the Accurender Toolkit from Robert McNeel & Associates. By itself, this toolkit is not a 'seperate progam' like similar renderers (AR3 for autocad, VizRender for ADT, etc). It is more like an API around the 'core' features of AccuRender's raytracing and radiosity rendering engines. In fact, the same toolkit is used to make the McNeel's Flamingo product (a great rendering plugin for Rhino). Subtle difference, right? So, strictly speaking, AR in Revit is not a seperate program like the other products mentioned above (though it does launch a seperate process). AR in Revit is a toolkit we have integrated. This integration has allowed for tight communication with the Revit application, an integrated user-experience and a common 'look and feel' throughout.
Not updated since Revit 3.0: As Revit has developed, we have exposed more and more of the toolkit. This has happened in every release of Revit (for example, trees in 2.0, radiosity in 3.0, rpc in 4.0, walkthoughs in 5.0, panoramas in 6.0, etc). In order to expose functionality that is in the toolkit we usually need to create object models, data structures and user interface on the Revit side that make sense. This just takes some time and effort - we try to add as much as we can each release but obviously we have to prioritize with improvements in other areas as well.
Possiblity of extension/improvement. As noted above, there are tools in AR3 and AR4 that are not currently available in Revit. Which ones are most important to people? Specific requests and some idea of priority will help organize the wishlist and get improvements implemented. We also still work pretty closely with the Accurender developers - they're great guys.
So, ancient history and friday-night diatribe aside (man it's late on the east coast), it really comes down to what users would like to see out of rendering in Revit. What is the role of rendering in a BIM authoring environment?

Specific rendering technology aside as well, should rendering in Revit stay relatively simple and easy to use or should it become much more powerful and possibly more complicated? Does this really mean a binary choice between different 'built-in' renderers? Would better data-transfer with other apps be a better alternatve?

As mentioned elsewhere in this thread, one of the things that has changed in the past few years is that rendering has become more accessible to the 'normal' users. In Revit and ADT for example, it's very easy to model a building and then hit the 'Render' button. This is hugely different from the more common practice of handing off 2d drawings to a rendering guru who does all the modeling and rendering. Having been on both sides of this equation myself, I like this aspect of the 'democatization' that comes from BIM.

Of course, there is no magic 'Make awesome rendering' button in any app. Rendering is a process - it still takes time and effort to create awesome renderings. It's an iterative process of 'render, critique, tweak , repeat' (hmm,... like lather, rinse, repeat?:idea: ). I think we are already seeing an evolution of skills as people get more experienced in rendering. Communities like AUGI are great places to learn and exchange and will only help continue this trend. I'm glad that the tools we have today give us so many new possiblilities.

thanks,

[Steve_Stafford]

...6.0 is already released, right? :confused: and that the thread should be called 7.0? Okay...but you do realize that this thread started on 9/2/2003??

Nice post Matt thanks for taking the time to address this issue. I leave the constructive criticism to the folks using the other tools that they so admire to better define their needs. But for me, I think it will be a brilliant move to make the Revit model more extensible to the very capable stable mates, Max/Viz. Much as ADT is becoming more connected. Doing so will extend the BIM concept without the typical diverging agendas of "farming" out to the guru's who build a completely separate model.

One parting thought, as much as I enjoy a great computer rendering...I really hope that the computer doesn't distance us from the flowing pen. Working for WATG has really brought home to me that there really is a place and time in our profession and process for hand wrought artistic design expression. I hope that products like Piranesi will continue to help us soften the computer generated ideas before they need to be "hardlined"

nuffoutamee

[hand471037]

For the record, when I was saying that Accurender is 'sepirate' what I ment is that the code didn't come from the Revit team, and that, in my limited (and wrong understanding) therefore it wasn't able to really be changed. Thanks for setting me straight. Do you actually have the code for the 'toolkit', or is it more of a black box with a well documented API you can use to hook into it? ;-)

And as for rendering in Revit, I still say: Keep something simple in Revit, but give us the ability to export to other engines.

Accurender is a nice rendering engine, however it really needs to be more efficent (it's slow) and the Radoisity could be better (so we could use it in an exterior Rendering, have control over what's consitered part of the solution, and have better control over the solution meshing to deal with artifacts). IMHO.

The reason I use Radiance is because I don't have to fake anything, so it just has to be defined once and can be used over and over. No Radoisity, no 'fill lights', no materials that look good at a certain distance but look bad at other distances, no thousand confusing sliders to set. Also it's quality can be stunning, it runs on anything, I can use SSH to submit and run jobs on a home render server remotely, and it's free. :D However it's very hard to learn, and slow as Rendering engines go, for it requires a lot of calculations.

I'm also learning Mental Ray because Radiance isn't very useful for complex Animations.

Currently, to export Revit to Radiance or Max (for Mental Ray) I have to first export to DWG, Open it in AutoCAD, then begin a rather laborous task of exploding/redefining blocks and changing layers to match materials so that when I bring the model into Radiance/Max, I can globally redefine the materials quickly. The reason this is laborous is that Revit always exports by what catagory the object is in, not what the material is.

So, for example, a chair will all be on one layer, forcing me to either spend time setting up a bunch of sub-catagories within Revit to map to an export filter scheme, or time spent in the DWG model swapping the meshes into different layers, like '3D-FURN-CHROME' and '3D-FURN-LEATHER'. It's either that or hunt down those objects and surfaces within Max and remap the materials to them, a task that is quite litterally impossible in Radiance.

The frustraiting part is that the chair already 'knows' what it's materials are, for I built them into the famly as Material Type Parameters. But that info is lost on export. While I know that it's not feasable for an Accurender material to automatically become a Radiance or Mental Ray material, if at least if there was an option for the color or layer to be based off the material's name, so that objects in Revit that have a Revit Material (not Accurender) called 'chome' wind up a certain layer color, layer name, or something, in the export then I could leave out the longest, most redundant step in my rendering process, and simply tell Radiance that 'everything this color/layer/whatever is Chrome'. This is why I keep saying 3DS could be a good vehicle for this, because it does contain such info, IIRC.

The thing I love about BIM is that there are no 'dead ends' and no redundant redefining of information. However, in this instance, I have to define my materials twice; once in Revit, and then again within my rendering software, even tho the info was already defined once in Revit. Seems like such a huge, stupid waste of time. So I'm faced with either producing Renderings with Accurender that will look ok, but will take long and have quality issues with Radoisity (or simply not work with Radoisity because I can't exclude things from the solution, and the scene's too complex due to something like furniture), or going through a painful export and reworking process to use something that will be faster, and won't have the same quality limitiations.

whew. Sorry for the long post. ;-)

[GuyR]

The reason I use Radiance is because I don't have to fake anything, so it just has to be defined once and can be used over and over. -- snip --
I'm also learning Mental Ray because Radiance isn't very useful for complex Animations.

Radiance was primarily designed for lighting analysis. In almost all validation reports I've read it is the package that comes the closest to simulating real conditions. The spin off is very life like images. It wasn't really designed to be a rendering engine, hence the complexity and analysis tools.

Lighting analysis is another requirement that ties in with energy analysis and rendering, so a radiance frontend would be useful for those interested.

Keep it simple but also make it easy to take to the next level. As you said Matt rendering is an iterative process so going from revit->renderer->revit needs to be seamless and quick.

Given the large range of high quality rendering engines (brazil , lightwave, Universe, MAX/VIZ, Cinema etc) available I'll put my longterm vote in for an API so these companies can develop plugins (frontends) that allow us to model in Revit, set materials and animation paths in revit and finally render to which ever engine we choose from within revit or externally.

Shorterm,

1.. .3DS
2.. batch rendering with accurender would be great so we can run our PC's overnight on multiple jobs (saves getting up at 2am).
3.. Easier animation path definition would be good (try setting up a path through 2 floors-difficult)
4..Procedural shaders with linking to family parameters would be cool if accurender does procedural shaders.

These GPU rendering systems like Nvidia's with procedural shaders seem to capable of almost realtime rendering? How does that fit into the picture?

Guy

[tatlin]

Thanks Steve, Jeffrey and GuyR for the quick and insightful replies.

Without commenting on futures, I can safely say we are thinking about all these issues.

I'd like to ask questions on a couple other points you've raised:

- At what points in the design process do you create renderings? Schematic/Conceptual Design? Design Development? CDs?
- How often are they quick studies that will only be used in-house vs some level of 'final' presentation for a client?
- Does the information you are trying to convey change as you go from 'conceptual' renderings to 'final' renderings?
- How often do you perform renderings just to get a 'quick feel' for a designs form or materialilty?

There are some interesting things happening in the industry these days (NPR and OpenGL/DirectX-based approaches) that are not strictly related to the 'hard' renderings we're talking about here. Some of these approaches seem much more useful for architectural presentations, especially in the early stages of projects. There are still many occasions where it makes sense to use the renderers we're talking about here, but perhaps they are overkill sometimes? What do you think?

Again, thanks for the replies and let's continue the dialog.

[GuyR]

At what points in the design process do you create renderings? Schematic/Conceptual Design? Design Development? CDs?

From the beginning , clients presented with flyby's at each milestone.


- How often are they quick studies that will only be used in-house vs some level of 'final' presentation for a client?

Both really, in-house tends to be more shading analysis at different times of the day/year.


- Does the information you are trying to convey change as you go from 'conceptual' renderings to 'final' renderings?

Yes, schematic stage and early DD walls are translucent with no material, other elements (roof,floor etc)materials kept simple to improve render time. final renderings are with 'correct' materials.


- How often do you perform renderings just to get a 'quick feel' for a designs form or materialilty?

regularly during schematic,DD phase


There are still many occasions where it makes sense to use the renderers we're talking about here, but perhaps they are overkill sometimes?

Sketchup like shadows /shadow control is fantastic for quickly evaluating shading and visually looks good on screen and paper. Need both really :-)

HTH,

Guy

[Scott D Davis]

Quick shadow studies would rock! The ability to quickly add shadows to views without having to render would score big points for me, and it sounds like GuyR thinks the same. Shadows in hidden line, as well as shaded views, and not limited to just elevations.

[beegee]

Accurender in Revit = 'Accurender Lite' : There are tools in AR3 and AR4 that are not currently available in Revit. Which ones are most important to people? Specific requests and some idea of priority are more useful to us than generalities and will help organize the wishlist.Ok Matt, seeing as you asked, and keeping this specific to AR4 for now,:-

Globally reflected environment

Specify an environment that only reflects in objects, but is separate from the visible background. Use a separate environment to make metals and glass look better without having to change the background you see. Reflected environment settings are available through the Environment Manager.

Create materials directly from bitmaps

In Windows Explorer, right-click bitmaps and choose Create AccuRender Material.
Drag bitmaps over the AccuRender libraries to create materials.
Use multiple bitmaps for batch conversion
Global illumination light dome with HDRI support

The light dome object creates a complete environment of lights to implement a new global illumination scheme. HDRI images can be used as light sources.

Support for Piranesi EPix

Save images in the EPIX format for the Piranesi paint program.

Photometric and non-photometric raytracer

AccuRender 4 lets you specify either photometric or non-photometric rendering method.

Photometric

Since it captures subtle differences in light and can render realistic scenes over a broad range of lighting conditions, photometric render mode works well for interior and exterior architectural scenes. Lights are calculated using real-world units such as watts, and exposure adjustment of the image is possible

Non-photometric

For studio light scenes like product shots, automobiles, or booth structures with a smaller range of lighting or unrealistic effects, non-photometric raytracing mode tends to work well.

Sun and parallel light soft shadows

Both the sun and parallel lights sources can cast soft shadows. Set the amount of shadow through the properties of each light.

Softness controls the angle of the shadows, Jitter controls the amount of noise to blur out the shadows, and Samples controls how many rays are cast to sample the shadow.

Improved soft shadows, blurry transparency, and blurry reflection

Increased samples and jitter give better control and quality.

Foliage density per plant

Specify foliage density by plant to increase rendering efficiency. Reduce the foliage on plants that are in the distance or are grouped with others.

That would be very nice for starters. :grin:

[Archimac]

My real life example:

I have only been using revit for a few weeks. I tested the export of a dwg from Revit to Sketchup.
The model came in to Sketchup all one color as no materials were exported with the dwg. In Sketchup use can just use a material paint bucket and dump materials in 3d on the model. Shadows can be turned on based on geography and are shown live as one rotates the 3d scene!

Notice the extended lines option which I turned on to give a more sketchy appearance.

If you demo Sketchup notice the interactive Orbit Tool kind of like Autocad and Viz. This is a must for Revit!

So, for my immediate purposes I am more interesting in improved shading, material appearance, sketchy lines and shadows like Sketchup. In fact, I would not care if Accurender was eliminated completely and these more artistic features were included in Revit.

Then provide all the material/layer exports to Viz, Lightwave, and Artlantis for further development.

If a rendering package were included with Revit it should be more on the lines of Artlantis. I challege all of you to demo it. It is very simple and intuitive!

You might say I should use Sketchup but the reason I want these features in Revit is because it would help having a better quality shaded view with materials and shadows for interactive design purposes. I don't won't to export to Sketchup besides the added cost. In fact Sketchup can't produce realistic images. It seems like shadows, orbit, extended lines etc would be easy to add to revit. Then if I want realistic images take them to another package.

Wishes:
Revit 7 will include the orbit tool, shadows and artistic line effects of Sketchup.

Revit 8 will drop Accurender in favor of export options to other packages. The image quality and artistic effects will be enhanced for Shaded and Hidden Line views. The option for gradiant and image backgrounds show live in 3d rotate (like sketchup)!

If a rendering module is included make it Artlantis!

Shaded Image from Revit below:

http://forums.augi.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2541&stc=1

Shaded image from Sketchup after painting on a rew textures and exploding the windows so I could paint glass texture on just the glass (below):

http://forums.augi.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2542&stc=1

Quick Photoshop added below:

http://forums.augi.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=2543&stc=1

For at least the next year I will be focused on using/learning Revit for design and construciton documents. I also want to develop a workflow for impressionistic and abstract images out of Revit. Then I will turn my attention to life like images. Maybe by then Revit will have a better solution ;)

[Steve_Stafford]

If you demo Sketchup notice the interactive Orbit Tool kind of like Autocad and Viz. This is a must for Revit!I can only assume you haven't discovered this tool button (Dynamic View command)?? Additionally the primary three commands Scroll (pan), Spin (orbit) and Zoom are readily available via the middle button on your mouse by pressing SHIFT first which is SPIN, letting off SHIFT starts SCROLL and pressing CTRL is ZOOM....pressing SHIFT again resumes SPIN. All this can be done as you go...very fluid.

[beegee]

If a rendering package were included with Revit it should be more on the lines of Artlantis. I challege all of you to demo it. It is very simple and intuitive!

With Accurender (revit ), AR4, Viz, Viz-Revit and Max all receiving levels of interest/support for upgrades or exports/ etc within or from Revit, I think you would be brave to bet that Artlantis would get a look-in.

[Kirky]

There seems to me there is an over emphasis in my opinion about rendering and graphics. Architecture is about getting things built and then taking pictures of them. Unfortunately the seductiveness of producing glossy images can be addictive and counter productive to the real task at hand and at very time consuming. If you need to over sell simple buildings with high end presentation then there is something wrong? Hands up, yes I am a rendering addict my name is ……………Wouldn’t that time be better spent playing with your kids or something? If you have a larger project and your client really need high end presentation, this will done better by a rendering specialist (in most cases). Stick to you core business and hopefully what you are best at (needs defining with own mission statement of goals and objectives). Concepts however should cut like a knife and be able to be explained in thirty seconds with a thick pen and on the back drink coaster, no further selling required. Having said all that, rendering preferably needs to take place within Revit in real time with the ability to run externally on other common rendering platforms such as an Xbox or Playstation. Making the rendering higher end and less responsive would be a mistake at the cost of real time analytical tools or tools which help with the science of the building and aid to the design process. This would be more Revit like. Why aspire to old technology and thinking of existing rendering methods?

[muttlieb]

The Dynamic View command in Revit is not nearly as fluid as the SketchUp orbit tool. Dynamic View requires activating a toolbar icon and then depressing a modifier key. The SketchUp orbit tool is simply activated by a click and hold of the middle mouse button. That might not sound like much of a difference, but to me it is. The SU method is much more fluid, especially when evaluating a 3d massing model in the early design phases. I'd love to see this in Revit.

Personally, I don't need a high end photorealistic renderer within Revit. I tend to agree with Kirky's thoughts on this. Give me the 'sketchy' look and real-time sun shadows that SU has, and I'm happy.

[Scott D Davis]

Guess what? No toolbar clicking is needed in Revit either! You do not need the Dynamic View tool bar to use the 3D viewing functions. In any 3D view, click and hold the middle mouse or scroll wheel. Then use combinations of shift, ctrl and mouse wheel scroll to zoom, pan, orbit. The Dynamic view dialog can be used as simply a reference, because it tells you what combinations do what. Once you get used to the motions, the dynamic view tool bar is not needed at all.

Now, here's the part that puts Revit's 'dynamic view' over the top. Open a perspective view, and try the scroll wheel click with shift or ctrl. That's right, real time perspective movement! Move the camera point up, down, side to side, in and out , and turn in real time as you watch the view change. You can litlerally do a live walkthorugh in shaded or hidden line mode. It wont record like 'rendering a walkthrough' but you can move through a space in perspective using the dynamic view functions.

[muttlieb]

Guess what? No toolbar clicking is needed in Revit either! You do not need the Dynamic View tool bar to use the 3D viewing functions. In any 3D view, click and hold the middle mouse or scroll wheel. Then use combinations of shift, ctrl and mouse wheel scroll to zoom, pan, orbit. The Dynamic view dialog can be used as simply a reference, because it tells you what combinations do what. Once you get used to the motions, the dynamic view tool bar is not needed at all.

Thanks Scott, I forgot about that. I've only just started using Revit in the last few days so I'm still learning the ropes. But I still think the SU orbit tool beats Revit. I know I'm getting nitpicky here but I just don't like the extra keyboard stroke to enable orbit in Revit.



Now, here's the part that puts Revit's 'dynamic view' over the top. Open a perspective view, and try the scroll wheel click with shift or ctrl. That's right, real time perspective movement! Move the camera point up, down, side to side, in and out , and turn in real time as you watch the view change. You can litlerally do a live walkthorugh in shaded or hidden line mode. It wont record like 'rendering a walkthrough' but you can move through a space in perspective using the dynamic view functions.

Actually, SU has Revit beat here as well. In SU, you are always in perspective view (unless you choose to turn it off). So when using the SU orbit, you are already in perspective view. Plus, you can turn on the 'sketchy' line extensions and real-time sun shadows at the same time. That is what I really love about SU, plus the ability to create very quick 3d massing studies.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not trying to turn this into a SU vs. Revit debate. I love both programs.

[Joef]

Since this isn't a topic that is helped by lurking I thought I would add my opinion to the mix.
I produce residential construction drawings for a local designer who until I started working for him, was using pencil and paper. I occasionally will drop a perspective view onto our cover sheet, and that produces the appropriate oohs and aahs. (Of course this only works if I haven't faked a lot of detail with linework on the elevation views). :-) But that is the extent of my "rendering" so far.
I like the fact that I can produce renderings from within Revit and have started to experiment with it. The designer I am working with hasn't seen half of what Revit can do but he is already intersted in learning Revit so he can escape some of the pencil drudgery. I think he will enjoy being able to pitch his design to the client with some nice renderings.
That said, I probably agree with Kirky that if I had to choose, I would take architectural improvements over rendering. Anything that helps me produce a set of plans faster and better will put money in my pocket, and get me out of the office sooner.
I think that Revit is a great program and that its future lies in getting the large architectural firms to start seeing its potential and using it. If that means rendering improvements, so be it. So far Revit has accomplished the very difficult task of producing a program that can accomodate very large projects while keeping the complexity level low enough for the residential user to feel comfortable.
Regarding my wish list in the rendering area, I thnk shadows in hidden line view would be fantastic, and a Piranesi plug-in would be nice too.

Joe

[hand471037]

Seem to me that there are three main reasons to make a 'rendering':

1. For Design Study. Here it's all about creating an image with the minimal amount of work to communicate the overall design. Sun/shade angles, ala Sketchup; simple Revit shaded w/edges views, or simple Accurender renderings are usually enough to produce the desired 'napkin sketch' to show the boss/client/building department. To obtain better ability in this area, it would be great for Revit to have a similar sun/shadow display when in a simple non-rendered view, ala Sketchup. Additionally, I get people all the time asking how they could make their Revit views look 'sketchy', so some ability to 'napkin sketch' a view would be cool too. It's the 'sketch' level of rendering.

2. For Presentation. Here it's all about creating an 'sexy' or 'slick' image/animation as a marketing tool, whether that be for a client, a corporate group, a zoning board, or a neuborhood committee. It doesn't matter how 'right' the image is, it matters that it looks really good. And here's where Accurender could do better, or where the Revit model could be exported out to something like Max. Since this ream is also about producing a slick image in the least amount of time, it would be great if Accurender was faster, could be automated somehow, and allowed for better control over the radosity and more complex materials to obtain a better visual quality. It's the 'Markers and Watercolors' level of Rendering.

3. For actual Design Analysis. Here's the realm of Radiance, or Lightscape, in that the rendering is actually a design tool that tells you what the real-world look of the space will be, down to the lumens on a surface. Nothing is 'faked' for the sake of a slick and fast image, and the point is to see what it's really going to be when built. The by product of this is that the images can look better than anything else, but working in this way can be the most time consuming, and also requires a deeper understanding of lighting design and such than item #2 above, where everything is faked. Accurender (the 'full' version) has some of this ability as well, like being able to do color-ranges based upon the glare levels within a space, and it would be great to see more of this ability within Revit too. It's the 'Oil painting' level of Rendering.

So, I think that Revit should be good enough, fast, and easy for all three, but that if you need to do more, you can easily export out your model to another tool (or farm it out to someone who's a specialist in that area). Most people only need #1, but think they need #2, and most people don't even really know about #3. ;-) So if Revit was great and #1, and good enough at #2 & #3 I think it would meet most people's needs quite well.

Additionally, I would love to see Revit move more towards #3 than #2, simply because as a designer, getting feedback about what the space is really going to look like when built will solve problems before they happen, ala BIM. Also because, now, I feel that unless you're doing movies or games #2 can really be a waste of time, because everything is faked, you have no real idea of how it's *really* going to look. Add to that the fact that when you fake everything you have to redo everything on a case by case basis, so it's hard to reuse things without having to 'tweak' them more. With Radiance, I never have to re-do anything, and can 'trust' the system to work right without having to know a bunch of special-case fakes and tweaks to get what I want...

[sjsl]

- At what points in the design process do you create renderings? Schematic/Conceptual Design? Design Development? CDs?

All of them. At every step of the way. It really opens a dialogue between the Partners (cad iliterate) and the designers.

- How often are they quick studies that will only be used in-house vs some level of 'final' presentation for a client?

All the time.

- Does the information you are trying to convey change as you go from 'conceptual' renderings to 'final' renderings?

Yes. Very much so. We use it to check our reality.

- How often do you perform renderings just to get a 'quick feel' for a designs form or materialilty?

All the time. Keep this simple. I love the fact that we can get a quick look at anytime.

There are some interesting things happening in the industry these days (NPR and OpenGL/DirectX-based approaches) that are not strictly related to the 'hard' renderings we're talking about here. Some of these approaches seem much more useful for architectural presentations, especially in the early stages of projects. There are still many occasions where it makes sense to use the renderers we're talking about here, but perhaps they are overkill sometimes? What do you think?

We have lost a couple of interviews and have been instructed to soften our presentations. But in the end it was always the guys who had the slick presentations in our line of work that beat us. We still try to adhere to more of an artistic craft than cad drawings whenever possible.

[Archimac]

Trust me! You will just have to run the Sketchup Demo to see how much more fluid the orbit tool is. It's like comparing an automatic to a stick shift.

The perspectives and shadows are always on as you rotate the model. There is no button to push for render. It is WYSIWYG all the time but mostly sketchy. If you want level 2 rederenings you must export to another software.

Revit could easily add these features which would greatly inform the design process. People who need more reallism should just buy Viz. IMHO.
Revit should provide a dynamically updated dwg or 3ds file linked between Revit and Viz (or whatever).

It is a waste of the Revit Team's time to make accurender better when we need all of the Architectural tools extended. I would rather get elevations veiw which would automatically vary the line weights instead of only use cut and projection. We have to labourously use the linework tool for elevations as they can't be used as is.

So, my wish for 7 is more powerful architectural tools, better shaded views with shadows, sketchy lines option and 3d export options.

[anders.hedman]

Since “everybody else” seem to publish their wishes about rendering under this thread I also will, instead of doing it under the Rendering- or Wishlist - headlines

The main goal is of course to be able to create goodlooking alternative views fast at any time during the designprocess. Below some suggestions for time-saving improvement while rendering:

- straighter access to material-editing ( could be simply by choosing a surface in the rendered picture)

- materials and other surfaces (also imported .bmp or .jpg) could be more widely and easily editable by texture, color etc. (Images can of couse be exported to Photoshop for final adjustments also in this respect, better of course if not necessary) Thumbnail-sheets in the material library would also make browsing faster.

- the rendered image could somehow react instantly on changes, possibly in a thumbnail preview, it would be great to be able to create (and also to save for later use) a few such paralell thumbnails (something like in the material library) before choosing the rightest one instead of rendering the main view once (and once...and once…) again.

Arhicad-users I know are very fond of Artlantis Rendering program, they say it makes it easy to produce goodlooking renderings fast without very long-term experience. Even if only half of it would be true it would be interesting to know if any Revit- or Accurender-user has any experience of that program.

[Roger Evans]

I would like a little more user control on imported images as well.

I'm not talking full blown image paint program control (yet) but I would like the ability to quickly tweak any imported image

eg greyscale option / reverse colour option (negative option) / lighten + darken options / rotate any angle.

[beegee]

I would strongly suggest that everyone who has posted wishes in this thread, summarize them and post in the wishlist forum.

That way they can be added to the wishlist database, rather than expecting the wishlist manager to trawl other forums for wishes.

[Roger Evans]

Yup will do

[Kirky]

Is there any reason why we can not assign building properties to the rendering material i.e. when we change a render material it updates the construction type and properties automatically. This is a question as I don't like wishing for anything:-)

[beegee]

Is there any reason why we can not assign building properties to the rendering material i.e. when we change a render material it updates the construction type and properties automatically. This is a question as I don't like wishing for anything:-)
If I understand your question , you're saying that a wall, for instance, could be a 250 brick veneer type with a red brick render material assigned to the brick and a cream plasterboard render material assigned to the internal finish. ( Type 250 RC lets say )
Now you change the render material for the external material to a cream brick - and Revit produces a new wall type now assigned as say 250 CC.
You then decide to change the render material for one of the internal rooms to a grey colour, so Revit then changes that wall type to say 250 CG.
Problem is, that was a continuous wall and it now needs to be split to accommodate the different wall types. Does Revit split it ? Or warn you - like with an unfinished stair ?

Regardless, you will end up with LOTs of different wall, floor roof and ceiling types to manage.

I can see lots of difficulties, but maybe I'm misunderstanding the question.

Anyway - it can't be done at present so it needs to go into the wishlist if you want it.

[GuyR]

Regardless, you will end up with LOTs of different wall, floor roof and ceiling types to manage.

What I think you might be wanting is subclassing of walls.eg:

TWall1
---------- -> 90mm stud

TWall2
------------->TWall1 -> interior wall 10mm gib
------------------------ ---> exterior wall 12mm plywood

TWall3
------------->TWall2 -> interior->wall finish-> paint-wattyl white

Change a property of TWall1 and the same property in TWall2 and TWall3 updates as well.

Guy

[Andre Baros]

Answering the earlier questions on what, where, when, why, etc.

I tend to see two types of renderings, the sketchy side of the street, and the the high end side of the street. The stuff in the middle usually looks like roadkill.

We produce tons of early sketches, usually by hand, to convey the early design to the client, to eachother, and to everyone else involved. Marketing always happens at the early stage of a project so it only gets sketches... or photos of similar finished work. Revit (sometimes with sketchup) helps this process a ton because it makes it so easy to generate a model, design options, etc.

High end renderings tend to only come up at the later stages of a design with clients who are spending on a lot of money and want a preview of the real thing or for material and lighting studies. These are photoreal renderings done with Max.

The current issue is that it would be really nice to be able to link to Max so that you can keep working in Revit and simultaneously study materials in Max... Revit's material control doesn't come close to Max.

My withlist items:
Sketchup visuals in Revit... 90% of my renderings never need to get past the point of nice black and white hidden line views and it would be nice to have vector shadows, x-ray transparency, heavy profile lines, and extended "sketch" lines in Revit. Every material needs to have a color option so that you can simply add tone without rendering but also without loosing material information.

Linework tool and notes in 3d-views. If we could simply use the Linework tool to clean up 3d views I don't think I would need anything else for most of my stuff. If I could also add notes to 3d views, I could eliminate a lot of interior elevations (which I'm already doing to a limited degree). There is huge potential for using 3d information to inform the construction process above and beyond the presentation process which is hardly being addressed.

3d plans. We often use 3d "dollhouse" floor plans to show clients projects and it would be nice to be able to simply create a "3d plan" of a level and go from there... or even better to be able to use sections and levels as clipping planes in 3d views.

For the 10% of renderings which need to get real I support the export materials to color model so that when I import the model into max I have two levels of control: Layer and color. I can then assign my multi-sub material to the object by layer and still differentiate components by having a different material id for each color. Even so, materials and adv. lighting will always require a lot of tweeking and adjusting of UVW maps, scale, tiling, blending, exposure control etc. and the most important thing is that the linked model be a bullet-proof-artifact-free model. Right now as long as you create a clean model in Revit you get a pretty clean model in Max but even more control over the geometry export would be the most important priority.

Thanks!

[hand471037]

Linework tool and notes in 3d-views. If we could simply use the Linework tool to clean up 3d views I don't think I would need anything else for most of my stuff. If I could also add notes to 3d views, I could eliminate a lot of interior elevations (which I'm already doing to a limited degree). There is huge potential for using 3d information to inform the construction process above and beyond the presentation process which is hardly being addressed.

There isn't a linework control, but I put notes over the top of a 3D view all the time, simply by placing the view on a sheet first, and then making the notes on the sheet, rather than in the view itself.

I even export cutaway 3D views to DWG, and then import them back into Revit, to 'flatten' them to generate nice details. This works great for roofing conditions and parapets. :)

I totally agree with your points, just wanted to give you a tip, for I love doing notes over a 3D view, and it does help sell the project.

[ita]

Kirky, well said !

Renderings can be advantageous to help with understanding and selling/presenting an idea to a client but I have difficulty in understanding the need to produce top end renderings all through the project. Impressive renderings are not needed to sell good planning and great architecture. The need to produce these documents is (I believe) an ongoing "belief quirk" in our profession. Our primary objective is a building, not graphic representation.

The need to "sell" the product starts in schools of design and architecture and is promotedin the main by inexperienced design lecturers. This continues into professional life with the selling continuing long after the product has been "bought" by the client.

Over the years as an external design tutor at a local school of architecture, I observed that the poorer designers were generally the ones with the "snappiest" presentation techniques – the submissions with all the gloss and the oomph!!! The best designers had the best hand drawing and sketch drawing techniques – they could/would also used their pen skill in front of a client to "sell" the concept. I still find the "hand drawn felt pen explanation" in front of the client the best "selling technique" – but it is usually used to sell the salient features of the design – not the design which "sells" itself.

Professionally I have observed that "top end" presentations are more for the architects' satisfaction, rather than the increasing the client's understanding. The use of a Revit model in front of a client has far greater impact than the glossy rendering or even the fly throughs.

My personal experience is that clients find photo real representation intimidating. I have had to develop techniques using a variety of media and mediums to soften the edges of a computer generated product for presentation, so that the clients doesn't feel that their input is superfluous – that all the decisions have been made and the presentation is a fait accompli.

My observation with the younger members of the profession is that they are more concerned about the "quality of presentation graphics" or the development of techniques used to present a particular effect. There is nothing wrong with this but again my observation is that the planning tends to range generally from mediocre to banal; that presentation is about the big impact of some design feature that adds little to the quality of the space being created or to a design – and that the use of computer generated graphics is the real impression that is being sold.

The good/great younger designers are still as good as ever, but they also tend to use the software applications to solve the design issues more efficiently and succinctly. They use the enhancement within applications to provide fascinating and intriguing solutions to every day problems that used to take years of empirical experience before the skill became intuitive. They use the apps as tools to solve the problems.

IMHO to use renderings as a solution to shadowing and solar design is an inefficient way to solve a technical problem. the are far better apps for this excercise.

Good/great design skills matched with Revit and applications such as Ecotech and Sketchup produce great and alternative solutions for clients. Sure, let us have easier access to apps like Viz and Radiance when there is the need to produce top end graphics, but the tools the Revit now provides enables good design to shine like rarely before.

Revit is a great tool to use in producing exciting architecture. IMHO the factory would serve us well by enhancing and refining the tools we have, making aspects of Revit more intuitive, and maintaining easy direct access to the simplified renderer – whether that is Accurender or Viz or whatever. Equally, give those who need/want easier and more direct access to the major rendering apps easier access.

But let us not change the structure of Revit whose primary function is a building information modeller. That is, the data contained in the model is expressed or represented graphically.

[Chad Smith]

Our primary objective is a building, not graphic representation.
As the designer in the office, my job is to represent a graphic representation, not detail, to help sell a building concept. So the need for better presentation tools within Revit is very important, whether that be a Sketchup type tool or better linking into VIZ or even shadows on elevations.
Yes, there is probably better software for concepts and presentation purposes, but it is very inefficient and costly to have to re-draw the project again in Revit after finishing the concept in that 'other' software. Revit should follow a projects life-cycle from concept through to completion of the project.

Over the years as an external design tutor at a local school of architecture, I observed that the poorer designers were generally the ones with the "snappiest" presentation techniques – the submissions with all the gloss and the oomph!!!
I have found over the past years, the 'snappier' the presentation the more impressed the clients are. I very rarely talk to clients (that's for the sales manager is this company), but when they do visit my desk and see samples of my work I have around me, their first question is "can you do one of those for our building?"
I'm continually amazed at how much quicker a building contract is signed after a great graphical presentation has been done. Most clients don't know building construction, so you have to explain this in the only way they can understand, graphically. Also, a better presentation, will show off the companies technical skills (not building), which will put their minds at ease knowing that the company has great resources and know how to use them.
And finally, if a client wants more construction and documentation details, we always have previous projects to show off.

While the BIM side of Revit continues to evolve, the presentation side still needs to be developed because that's where it all starts.

[hand471037]

The best designers had the best hand drawing and sketch drawing techniques – they could/would also used their pen skill in front of a client to "sell" the concept. I still find the "hand drawn felt pen explanation" in front of the client the best "selling technique" – but it is usually used to sell the salient features of the design – not the design which "sells" itself.

Professionally I have observed that "top end" presentations are more for the architects' satisfaction, rather than the increasing the client's understanding. The use of a Revit model in front of a client has far greater impact than the glossy rendering or even the fly throughs.

You know, I had a boss once, a real Architect in the classic sense, and a great designer. He could draw, in felt tip, upsidedown, live in front of the client 3D perspective sketches of what the design was. That always scared the poop out of me, and was a skill I really wish I had.

But then I got heavy into Revit, and now can pretty much, at a dead run, model anything quickly enough to do it live in front of the client. I guess it's my 'felt tip' in that regard. And while the renderings get the clients interested, and can be great for communciating space and light, it's the fluidity of modeling live that really sells them.

[ita]

Hi Chad, Jeffery, and thanks forthe comments.

I would like you to know that I am not against snappy presentation. If that is the impression I gave then I apologise – however after rereading my comments I do not get that impression. I am however against snappy graphics covering for good design – and we only have to wander the streets of most parts of the world (and particularly Australia) to see what is tossed up as design. So if your clients can see that they are getting a great product in all other respects, that is great.

And also without question . . . I would have Revit with a simple easy path to Viz or Radiance or whatever other app is appropriate (or easy access to them all) - there is no argument on that score.

However I do question the desire for wanting Revit to be a top end rendering package - if that is at the expense of simplicity and access to a package that does more for the process of design and good architecture than most apps that I have come across. I feel that is not what it is all about.

Personally (here is the googley) . . . I would also like to see a Revit model capable of being exported straight into Eotech as a "cardboard" style 3D object so I can run sunlight, shading and energy calcs on the design model very early in the process. Revit cannot do that appropriately (at present!!) and so I remodel in Ecotech to gather the information that it provides. But that limitation I live with, when compared with the path travelled over the years selling projects and concepts.

Design wise, I do not like the conventional middle of the road architecture – images from another time and place etc – so I use apps that allow me to represent the complexity of spaces and material/textural interfaces - to give my clients have a clear understanding of the product we are producing for them. For me, Revit does that exceptionally well and all the improvement from here adds to the satisfaction.

From my experience, most clients lack spatial education and/or awareness or do not "see" space. If they could read drawings and interpret them as 3D spaces, (complete with finishes and texture) apps like Revit would not have been developed.

So, I would rather have Revit and Accurender as it is now, (but with the added capability for clean fast access to a dedicated graphics package) than loose out on modelling enhancements that enable the app to improve. The loss of simple rendering capabilities would detract from the multitude of users who want to use some rendering capability but do not need or desire a dedicated rendering app.

Personally, I do not find renderings a strong selling point - for either commercial or residential work.

Chad, from what you say, renderings sell your product - great. No issue. Personally, I find it an old technology. For me space is dynamic, it involves time and process. For me a rendering is flat and frozen. I will use a series of small motif renderings on a presentation sheet to give the feel of the spaces for the client to take away. Any more than that overpowers the design and presentation. But I accept that is me!

And Jeffery, if you can draw in Revit, you can sketch with a felt tip. The trick is the more lines (and the thicker) the more confused/fascinated the client becomes. A bit like CAD really – just a lot of vectors that mean something to somebody. I agree, today real architects use Revit (and some of them can still use a felt tip pen). :wink:

For me the felt pen provides movement and spontaneity (at a client meeting) when discussing a project and it creates a sense of immediate involvement in the project and the possibility of change for the client (I suppose really, it is also a showman device . .. hmmmm!!!!). However, for me, Revit models provide the movement, and space and a "truth" about the project that (for me) static renderings do not. The felt tip provides immediacy when there is a question or a lack of understanding - that cannot be explained quickly with the manipulation or display of the model.

Finally, I would rather give my clients a model of their project, which they can manipulate and "immerse" themselves in. FME when the client is "immersed" in the possibilities of their project, they are already sold. My clients download Revit as a viewer and they get the model to play with. That way they get under the skin of the project and start being intelligent, questioning clients who have a focus and a personal outcome. that takes away the unexpected from the process.

This is what I love about Revit for my clients – and it makes it fun for me!!

Preference position: Revit + Accurender and/or Viz render or whatever (but easy) + easy uncomplicated access to other render packages. . . . . .. plus access to Ecotech!!! Ho humm :mrgreen:

Sorry about the length - fascinating topic . .. need to get some work done, where is that Revit!!

[mmulvey]

Two things that have frustrated me about the past built-in ACAD renderers:

1. Goofy default materials - we NEED real-world textures, grass, concrete, stainless steel/aluminum, chrome, different wood species - what do we get - a picture of someone's pet ape, 3D logos or the surface of Jupiter??

2. Real world light values - I know this is improving but I need to know what happens when I insert an 18 watt T8 fluorescent tube or a 100 watt incandescent - most renderers have light adjustment values that mean nothing to the average user.

For the latter, I would suggest some investment be made getting the major lighting manufacturers to model their products in Revit with all the photometric data so they can be imported as fully-functional.

Then stuff like ambient levels, shadow softness and ray-tracing need to be made more usable to us mere mortals.

I'm sure there are a lot more I could think of but my brain ain't quite with me today.

One thing I do think AR has over every other renderer I've seen is realistic planting - we just need to expand the selection - whatever is brought in to replace AR - PLEASE don't loose the fractal plants!

What I do know is that most clients - even "professional clients" who look at plans all the time, cannot visualise in 3D and putting a photo-real rendering in front of them can often shortcut countless hours of trying to explain what they're about to pay for. We've even had contractors ask for copies of our renderings to help show what the final project should look like.

[tstephens]

I have talked to some of the Revit developers recently -- they had mentioned that Viz Render will not be added to Revit any time soon. It would be a pretty massive code overhaul to make the two compatible.

Tod Stephens
Avatech Solutions

[Scott D Davis]

I think it may be better to leave Accurender in Revit, then give us a 3DS out. Or write a plug-in for Viz that will allow Viz to bring in a Revit RVT or exported DWG, and will translate the xData into Viz so all the materials are mapped over.

Revit will then have the capabilty to do some quicker 'study' renderings (or even more advanced renderings if you have the time to really tweak materials!) and if you need a more refined rendering, then you go to Viz.....in fact, Autodesk will prefer this scheme....we'll have to buy Viz!

[Chad Smith]

Or write a plug-in for Viz that will allow Viz to bring in a Revit RVT
Absolutely, for those who have used ADT + VIZ will know the power in being able to link to a DWG file from VIZ. Being able to do the same for a RVT file would be great, and as you mentioned, have VIZ be able to interpret the Revit materials.

I think we need to put some pressure on the VIZ developers to incorporate this. I know I already have when VIZ 2005 came out, explaining to them that there is no need for me to upgrade our version until Revit linking becomes a possibility, and until they do, they will be missing out on VIZ upgrade sales.

Also, we need to be letting the Revit developers know that their product will be limited to those who want to use it for presentation purposes, especially if their wanting ADT users to switch.
I know I still use ADT for doing renderings with VIZ, because it wins hands down. 8-)

The Revit developers need to be putting pressure on the VIZ developers. I swear the divisions within Autodesk don't talk to each other.

[eddy.lermytte]

After reading this thread from A to Z I have understood that Revit do not have a decent way out to other appls like Viz.
What a loss of use full, stored data !
This is a major minus on my pro/con Revit list.

I cannot add to the wish list (demo user)
but I am for sure not looking for an appl. type "do or can do it all". (Should be nice though)

What I expect from Revit concerning this thread:
- delegating tasks to other applications like Excel, Access, Viz, Artlantis, etc.. for more specific editing.
- easy import of edited data from other applications.

eddy

[juggergnat]

Well if that's true its really disappointing to hear that Viz render may not be a part of Revit for a while. If I were one of the many architects out there at this very moment seriously considering a switch from an older drafting system to Revit, that would be the coup de gras. Sorry Revit, next year. The program is too expensive for many firms to make that kind of switch across multiple seats unless there are multiple justifications. Hi quality, multi-seat renderings with no additional learning curve...that's a major consideration. The Viz render option is very important for presenting Revit as an all-in-one solution. Archicad 9 has just been released and it includes the Lightworks full rendering solution.

It is downright depressing to use Revit, and be forced to "render elsewhere." Fact is, that for many serious design-oriented firms, the Accurender option is so inferior that it is basically completely ignored as nonexistent. We don't use Accurender at all within Revit because all that time spent invested in materials...the hassle, is wasted on a second rate rendering. Better to use that effort on the myriad of other options out there. We use Lightwave which is a cost-effective, but labor intensive alternative to Viz. We would love nothing more than to abandon all that and use Revit as the total solution for everything, just to simplify our process.

I fear that this is a decision on the part of the Autodesk machine, and not one that is in genuine favor of the users of the product. The original Revit team was different then this, but Autodesk has a hard-earned reputation of being profit-oriented rather than product, or profession-oriented. Maybe at some point reason will win out, who knows?

JG

[juggergnat]

Also, on a related note to Ian's point.... I DO favor in general having rendering options that foster creativity. Tools for photo-realism are not necessarily the only thing that is important. Look at a program like Sketchup. I would prefer Sketchup as a rendering option 10 to 1 over Revit and all of its tools any day. Those cool, interactive sketchy views with shadows are quite flexible, and they could be used to great effect without this giant overhead of rendering technology embedded in the program. If you add Piranesi or various compositing techniques...those simple sketchy views can be quite powerful presentation tools. If Revit at least implemented something like a face-the-camera-tool for cut outs, or good shadows for basic shaded views...or maybe a layered PSD exporter...something cool like that...then designers could use improvisational techniques to generate excellent presentation images. I find those are often the best images anyway.

I second the notion of a *.3ds exporter. Give us options!

As far as the high-end rendering solution is concerned, the real lure to other programs is (for us), to use the high-quality radiosity solutions that are available. Accurender's radiosity doesn't even shake a stick in the direction of Mental Ray, VRay, Brazil, or Lightwave. Viz plenty of options, and would have been a welcome addition.

JG

[hand471037]

Mental Ray doesn't use Radiosity. I don't think Brazil does either.

If you mean that Accurender doesn't shake a stick at the global illumination of Mental Ray, then you're dead-on. Mental Ray is fantastic. But it uses something totally different than Radiosity. Just FYI. Radiosity, IMHO, is vastly over-rated, and the other approaches of Photon Bouncing, Particle Rendering, and (my favorite) Reverse Monte-Carlo Raytracing are much better at doing global illumination...

[Alex Page]

Two Problems where I am.
1. We do tons of commercial interior fitouts...accurender is nearly hopeless at rendering these since creating directional downlighting is an absolute nightmare, and lighting is an important feature of our design
2. Sure...export to 3d vis, great idea......but since Ive spent my money on Revit, has anyone got a free copy? (Autodesk detectives - this is called sarcasm)

[Alex Page]

Please note that we in the 'factory' do listen to what you are saying. One of the major takeaways from this and other threads is that rendering quality and performance could be improved in Revit.

I see this breaking out into three main areas :

[list=1]
Accurender in Revit = 'Accurender Lite' : There are tools in AR3 and AR4 that are not currently available in Revit. Which ones are most important to people? Specific requests and some idea of priority are more useful to us than generalities and will help organize the wishlist.

thanks,

In response:
1. I Absolutle love Accurender for "very good" quality renderings...stick with it (except -refer note 3.)
2. Allow .3ds export for those people who need top quality renderings
3. Allow more light types - Directional is a must, and is Accurenders biggest shortfall (we do alot of commerical interior fitouts)

[christopher.zoog51272]

As far as the high-end rendering solution is concerned, the real lure to other programs is (for us), to use the high-quality radiosity solutions that are available. Accurender's radiosity doesn't even shake a stick in the direction of Mental Ray, VRay, Brazil, or Lightwave. Viz plenty of options, and would have been a welcome addition.

JG
EXACTLY, but lets call it GI (global illumination), radiosity is not used by most high end rendering engines, or at least it's not called radiosity.

Remember, Viz Render is a really striped down version of viz, you only option for GI is viz radiosity, you can not plug-in mental ray, vray, Brazil, in fact you really can't "plug in" much. Anyone who had tried viz radiosity, will tell you it is an absolute bear to learn. I think this is the first thing people will complain about if and when viz render is added to Revit.

For us, we would really like to see the viz team get on the ball and implement an xdata plug-in, as I've said before, the Revit development team has done all they can right now, it up to discreet to get the ball moving.

We are moving away from acr3 so we can pursue high end visualization for some jobs, including animation with GI. That is why picked up viz and went with vray as rendering engine, it is one of the fastest GI renderers out there.

[christopher.zoog51272]

Radiosity, IMHO, is vastly over-rated, and the other approaches of Photon Bouncing, Particle Rendering, and (my favorite) Reverse Monte-Carlo Raytracing are much better at doing global illumination...
don't forget irradience maps, light maps, qausi monte carlo and photon maps;)

[Chad Smith]

...get on the ball and implement an xdata plug-in
No no no. That's only implementing an extra, and unnecessary step. A plug-in to link straight to the RVT file is what we need. Pull the data straight from the source.

I see this xdata business as a scrappy thrown together work-around which will be palmed off as a solution.
Yes, this may be good for using with other applications but when it comes to VIZ / MAX, Autodesk needs to get on top of the problem and produce an RVT file linking plug-in.

For those that are following this thread and are ex-ADT users that also used VIZ, what are your opinions on the file linking method?

[anond]

It is a bit unfair to compare the AccuRender i Revit with Viz Render since its only a light version. The full one produces much better results!

Ånond

[christopher.zoog51272]

No no no. That's only implementing an extra, and unnecessary step. A plug-in to link straight to the RVT file is what we need. Pull the data straight from the source.

I see this xdata business as a scrappy thrown together work-around which will be palmed off as a solution.
Yes, this may be good for using with other applications but when it comes to VIZ / MAX, Autodesk needs to get on top of the problem and produce an RVT file linking plug-in.

For those that are following this thread and are ex-ADT users that also used VIZ, what are your opinions on the file linking method?
true, it may be an extra step, but at least it's a step, right now we got nothing, so to speak.

Of course a linked rvt file in viz would be awesome, no doubt, but that has to be years away, I need something now!

[Danny Polkinhorn]

For those that are following this thread and are ex-ADT users that also used VIZ, what are your opinions on the file linking method?
My biggest complaint: When they changed the file format for ADT with 2004, they broke the Viz link. It took them more than a year to "fix" it. The issue I see with direct file linking is the frequency of updates to Revit. The Viz team won't be able to keep up, and any discrepancy between release dates of Revit and Viz will cause major headaches to those that rely on the link. Linking is theoretically the best way to do this, but in reality it's not. Seeing how Revit and Viz are both part of Autodesk, MAX or 3DS output from Revit shouldn't be too difficult to coordinate. But, that's just my opinion.

[juggergnat]

I use the term radiosity because as far as I know it is not tied to any specific light calculation technique. But GI would serve just as well as a general description of what we are trying to achieve...high quality diffuse illumination among st building surfaces. This is absolutely necessary to avoid "plastic" images...a problem which has plagued computer graphics from the beginning. Anyway, there are a vast number of potential solutions out there, all of them capable of so much more than Revit's Accurender. Let's count them:

1.Original subdivision radiosity method which is found in Lightscape (of course, owned by Autodesk). This is a very capable method, but is a lot to manage on big files.
2¨."Stochastic radiosity" method which is found in Viz. Not really that workable, as was mentioned.
3.Photon mapping and its myriad programs that use it (Mental Ray, Vray, Brazil, Final Render, Turtle, & I'm sure many others). The favorite for hollywood.
4.Radiosity via a Monte Carlo ray tracing derivative (i.e. Lightwave and others)
5.?The Light Tracer method in Max and Viz. I don't know if this is based on any of the above techniques or not.
6.The proprietary method used by Radiance.
(& I'm sure there are others)

The full version of Viz allows a person the option of using at least 3 different techniques for global illumination without buying any plugins. That's flexibility. The photon mapping is probably best for real expert applications (internal scenes), but the Light Tracer works great for simple exterior model shots, and its fast. Also, lets not forget the value of complementary technologies...like High Dynamic Range Image lighting.

As for myself, I could care less if Accurender is in Revit or if its something else...I just want to access some of the above technologies within Revit to improve the quality and speed with which we can produce cool images.

JG

[juggergnat]

One more note...Revit needs a good rendering option to solidify its place as THE full featured Architect's solution. I wish Autodesk would take this really seriously, it would be so much easier for them to popularize Revit that way, to dominate the industry. Its so much more convincing of a purchase to get Revit and have your production needs handled in one swoop. And its so much more satisfying if you have 10 employees...to know that each one of them can crank out cool renderings without having to go to the"VIZ machine", or to delegate the work to an expert.

For years we architects have bought this line that VIZ is for architects. That's bogus PR, at best. Viz is 3dsMAX ---hacked, and all we have to do is glance at the modifier-based, brilliantly designed animation interface to confirm that. Lets get real! Take a step back one day and look at your computer screen...Viz is about as complicated as a 747 dashboard. Really now, did we need all of that? There are 1000 switches in there that we never should have bothered to learn. Architects don't need 95% of what is in Viz to produce cool renderings. And we certainly don't need the time and effort to import things into VIZ...except for the special case scenarios that are probably better outsourced anyway.

Very few of us produce animations, and when we do, they are simple animations that could be easily handled by "Revit with a solid rendering engine." Image quality though is a different matter. Non photorealism is important. Basic fast GI is important. Accurate GI for lighting analysis is important. And even a few plants and people are important. I say toss Accurender and replace it with stripped down Brazil or Vray. Then we will all be happy.

JG

[hand471037]

Sorry jug, but your terminlogy is off. Radiosity is an actual type of rendering engine, it's a very specific way (out of many) that a computer can try to fake light bouncing around within a space. I'm only saying this because I agree with what you've said, but you sound a little off because of the terms you're using, which is going to limit the power of your argument. ;-)

Also, Radiance doesn't use a propiatary rendering engine. Radiance is open source. It uses Reverse-monte-carlo Raytracing and a few other things. Radiance is more-or-less the life's work of a PHD computer scientist guy named Greg Ward. There are *reams* of papers he's written on rendering, GI, and computer visualization, and he's done a ton of work for SGI in the past. So the technology within Radiance was widely published for years before the source code was made open. It is about as far from propiatary as one can get these days. It's not popular because it's all Unix, and it's not your best choice for animation work- which is why IMHO Maya & Max come with Mental Ray. So when you rattle off things like that, it just makes you look a little bad...

[juggergnat]

Sorry I stand corrected. Radiance is no longer proprietary since they finally made it open source within the last few years. Anyway is there a point to all that? Frankly I could care less about those details, I would just like a nice renderer. That was the purpose to the thread...there are many different options out there, Revit isn't using them.

I do not claim to be a representative of the computer graphics industry nor an expert on the intricacies of its licensing rights. (thank god)

JG

[juggergnat]

Also, while we are being so accurate, there are programs which run Radiance on windows in a more user-friendly fashion. Take for example this 3dsMAX plugin renderer:

http://www.lichtplaner.com/default_e.asp

JG

[hand471037]

Actually, if you want to be 'acurate', then look at the big ol' thread all about Radiance I've had going for over a year. ;-)

dude calm down. I didn't mean to offend. I was just making the point that the more specific and accurate we can be in our requests, the more likely they will be included by the developers. I wasn't nit-picking. Saying that you want better GI rendering ability in Revit and saying you want better Radoisity within Revit are two totally different things. The Revit team that reads this site probably doesn't have the time to shift through much, so the clearer it is, the better chance it has of communicating back to them...

[Steve_Stafford]

Also, while we are being so accurate,
...dude calm down. I didn't mean to offend...Now...boyz...let's keep this "civilike"...don't make me send BeeGee to "speak" with you...:shock: