Maxwell Render Plugin for Revit

[Steve Jager]

Just recieved a note back from MR about a Revit Plugin. I guess our voting payed off:

Dear Mr. Jager,



The Autodesk Revit plugin is definitely in our plans but it will take some more time to be ready for release. I would love to be able to give you a specific date but I can only say that we hope that it will be within this year. However, if you use another 3D platform that we already support, you could get Maxwell now at a very low price and start using MX with that platform and then switch to Revit as soon as the plugin is released. I am at your entire disposal for any other query you may have. Thank you for your continued support.
Best regards,

Maya Velásquez Watanabe

Next Limit Technologies　
C/Angel Cavero, 2 bajo A
28043 Madrid, SPAIN
URL: www.nextlimit.com
MAIL: maya@nextlimit.com
TEL: (+34) 91 716 02 14
FAX: (+34) 91 721 94 64

[Andre Baros]

Yeah! WHoo Hoo! Hurray! Hip Hip Hurray! Yippeee!

[Scott Hopkins]

Just made my day! :smile:

[Les Therrien]

Answer me this!
Does a Revit Plug-in mean that I could go from Revit to MR without requiring Viz, or something else?

[BillyGrey]

Answer me this!
Does a Revit Plug-in mean that I could go from Revit to MR without requiring Viz, or something else?

Yuppers...

Great News BTW!!!

[p.vicini]

Is MR so better than Accurender? i'm not a very good rendering user

[iru69]

Yes... Maxwell is pretty cool.

http://www.maxwellrender.com/

I like the idea of getting in on the introductory price, but I'm not so keen on plunking down $400-$500 for a plug-in that I can't try out... any ideas how the plug-in will interface with Revit?

[Batman]

Thats fantastic, I presume the plug-in would either replace or option for AccuRender ? From previous reading I thought MR was a command line run app. Hopefully it would be a graphic user interface.

[GuyR]

Unless there are changes coming from Autodesk I don't think you'll see Maxwell as a replacement for accurender. The 'plugin' is a maxwell plugin. So either Maxwell are intending to parse the DWG for the accurender material info or they can get enough from the API. The API option certainly gets you closer to an integrated workflow but I'm not sure the current API offers enough detail for accurate material mapping.

The problem for maxwell is the material definition is unlike most renderers. Hence the lack of material preview in MAX.


but I'm not so keen on plunking down $400-$500 for a plug-in that I can't try out.

Today's your last day for getting Maxwell for $395. Then it's going to be $495. They've already said the next release is >4x faster. You're welcome to wait until the plugin is available by which time Maxwell will be $995 :-) I haven't regretted my choice ;-)

Guy

[Batman]

Today's your last day for getting Maxwell for $395. Then it's going to be $495. They've already said the next release is >4x faster. You're welcome to wait until the plugin is available by which time Maxwell will be $995 :-) I haven't regretted my choice ;-)
Guy,

How are you currently using MR, I presume you need a rendering app to use it; what are you using?

[GuyR]

How are you currently using MR

Yep, love it. I had VIZ demo for 30 days. I really don't like VIZ, mainly because:

1.. it's more than I need, I don't need a modeller when I've got Revit:-)
2.. it's not cheap given I'm just using the rendering side of the package.-And no Revit-VIZ deals in this neck of the woods.- I'm not even using MentalRay.
3.. I much prefer Cinema4D's workflow, particularly as on average I'd probably using VIZ for 30-60 minutes a day max. I don't want to become a VIZ expert.

But...... I'm probably going to buy VIZ:-(

Why? Well:
1.. RPC and other plugin options look to be a way off - so if you want to render trees you need to be able to render plugins.
2.. I'm curious as too what Maxwell will be able to import from Revit. It's not clear what the GUI will be able to do longterm.
3..The biggest advantage that VIZ offers over any alternative I've tried is the ability to import linked DWG's (from linked RVT's) smoothly and update the resulting VIZ file as the design progresses.

So I'm probably going to pay $4000NZ(2800US) for VIZ to act as a translator from Revit to Maxwell :-( I am going to wait until the beta release of MAxwell next week to see if other options become available but at this stage VIZ looks to be the best(expensive) option.

It's a catch-22 situation. When Revit's installed base gets big enough other rendering companies will become interested in Revit as a solution. There's no great pressure on Autodesk to provide modern open formats like FBX when they can just offer VIZ. So you're left with either a 3rd party conversion of DWG or DXF or a lot more work at your end.

HTH,

Guy

[cosmickingpin]

Wow glad I voted, but could this whole voting thing have just been a marketing ploy to put maxwell on the radar for all of us? Being an American I have grown very supect of any voting in recent years. I need more information about what this plugin will be like. What happened to a VIZ render interface for Revit? I get the feeling autodesk has adgendas they are not telling us about. Anybody have good solid info on maxwell?




Unless there are changes coming from Autodesk I don't think you'll see Maxwell as a replacement for accurender. The 'plugin' is a maxwell plugin. So either Maxwell are intending to parse the DWG for the accurender material info or they can get enough from the API. The API option certainly gets you closer to an integrated workflow but I'm not sure the current API offers enough detail for accurate material mapping.

The problem for maxwell is the material definition is unlike most renderers. Hence the lack of material preview in MAX.



Today's your last day for getting Maxwell for $395. Then it's going to be $495. They've already said the next release is >4x faster. You're welcome to wait until the plugin is available by which time Maxwell will be $995 :-) I haven't regretted my choice ;-)

Guy

[GuyR]

Wow glad I voted, but could this whole voting thing have just been a marketing ploy to put maxwell on the radar for all of us?

No, if anything the poll was a clear indication that alternative rendering solutions are high on many people's wishlist but I don't think you can read much more than that into the poll. Maxwell's prime advantage is the ease of scene setup and the quality of the result v's the effort. In other words perfect for those of us who don't want/need to become rendering experts but require professional results.

I think people are getting confused about this word 'plugin'.

There are 3 major issues with rendering a Revit model in another application. Geometry translation, material mapping and camera's info etc. AFAIK Revit's current API might at a stretch give you access to some material mapping information and geometry data. But not with linked Revit models.
As DWG is a closed format most 3rd party rendering solutions either import DXF or .3ds. Revit doesn't offer .3ds as an export option and neither is it a particualrly modern format. FBX seems to be flavour of the month with independant rendering solutions.

So unless you purchase some translator (and linked RVT's become an issue then) DWG and therefore VIZ to me is your best option.

DWG's from Revit do include accurender's material mapping info which VIZ can use to map VIZ materials. It will also update materials when you reimport modfied DWG's.

There are no options for importing accurender camera info etc into another application, you have to recreate these.

Maxwell's big problem is it's cameras, materials are unique and unlike any other rendering solution. My understanding is this is the priority for the Maxwell GUI.The definition and modification of cameras and materials. The Maxwell plugins are primarily geometry translators and material translators between Maxwell geometry and the 'CAD' application.
The MAX, Cinema4D etc are application plugins but again as MAxwell works unlike any other rendering solution these aren't ideal at the moment (no material preview etc)

Autodesk have indicated in the past that we won't see VIZ replace accurender for a longtime. They've said development priority is in other areas (MEP etc) and accurender is too 'embedded' in Revit's codebase. Having said this Revit's getting thrashed in the rendering department by ArchiCAD so things might change. But don't hold your breath....

So A Maxwell-Revit plugin could be one of 3 things. It might be a geometry/material importer for MAxwell's standalone GUI (how it handled linked models would be the kicker here).

Or it's some sort of Revit API plugin . And I'm not sure what the current API would give them. Perhaps geometry, perhaps some material info?

Or best of all, a dedicated Revit API for embedding of external rendering solutions in the Revit GUI. Lovely but highly unlikely IMO.

The bottom line is don't think of Maxwell as the total solution to your rendering problems. At least until the end of the year. If on the other hand you are prepared to put up with the limitations while learning a new way of rendering and enjoying unfreaking believable renderings then buy Maxwell now.;-)

HTH,

Guy

[SkiSouth]

Guy,

While this is GREAT news (having started the poll for Maxwell), I am still wondering how the mapping will happen. As you are aware (dealing with Viz) you MUST be able to control the UVW mapping down to a gnat's hair or the photorealism is blown. I don't see that happening in the free standing Maxwell - on first release, but I DO hope I am WRONG. It would help to know the goals of the free standing software (a feature list) but those guys must be really busy with all the formats they are writing for. Got to make my decision today for a second copy or not.

[GuyR]

I don't see that happening in the free standing Maxwell - on first release,

Perhaps once the beta is out they'll tell us more about what the standalone will/won't do. The question has certainly been asked already without much of a reply. Mapping is certainly an issue in VIZ, my gut feeling is that ultimately the best workflow will come from applying materials in MAxwell GUI. The big question is the timeline...


Got to make my decision today for a second copy or not.

4 CPU's will do me for now especially if it's 4x faster.

[SkiSouth]

My verdict for today, spend the money on more cpu power, and stay with one Maxwell until after the 1.0 release.

[rookwood]

It is obvious, to me, that in reading these postings you guys are somewhat expert with rendering software and have a far better understanding than most users such as me.

I switched from ADT to Revit solely for the 3d generating capabilities of the software, but have since found the rendering aspect to be secondary in importance in the overall scheme of things relative to CDs. Having said this, I still rely on the renderings and have found they are an indispensable sales tool.

Previous to Revit, my presentation experience has been limited to creating drawings in ADT, importing layers into Illustrator, importing those layers in Photoshop and then creating the final colored plans or elevations. No 3d whatsoever.

With the renderings created with Revit, I suppose my biggest disappointment is the lack of 'PUNCH" I get with the printed materials. So, I bring back Photoshop for enhancement. Not a perfect solution but better than the native Accurender product.

I would jump on the MR bandwagon right now, today, if I knew I wouldn't have to spend as much time learning how to render than I do in creating the entire project in Revit. I have read that MR has a very steep learning curve and I don't have the time for that. I said that 2 years ago when I switched to the Revit series, but only several months ago installed the software. That was a BIG mistake on my part that I now regret. However, I must not forget that my primary objective is to create CDs and as a huge side benefit, create decent renderings to help sale the project to clients, local Planning Commissions, etc.

Buy today?

[hand471037]

With the renderings created with Revit, I suppose my biggest disappointment is the lack of 'PUNCH" I get with the printed materials. So, I bring back Photoshop for enhancement. Not a perfect solution but better than the native Accurender product.

Just a quick aside, thought I'd check to see if you knew about these two things that will help you make your renderings 'punch' more...

First off, go into your Sun lighting settings, and set the sky to be 0.2 or so. The Default is for the Sun & Sky to both be 1.0, I've found setting the sky lower makes for more contrast and deeper shadows.

Second off, you know about the 'Adust Image' tool? Under the Image Size.. button? When your Rendering is complete, prior to Exporting the image, you can click this button and a little slider-bar window will pop up and let you adjust the levels and such of your rendered image. You can make it 'punch' a lot with this tool.

I *still* export the image to photoshop anyways and do more with it there, but just wanted to let you know about these two things. Hope it helps.

[rookwood]

Jeffrey,

I have not tried to adjust the Default Sun & Sky settings, so thanks for the tip. It seems that whenever I get off default settings, other than seasonal, strange colors and reflections begin to occur.

I am aware of the Adjust Image tool, but am curious why you would adjust contrast/balance in Revit then import into Photoshop for further enhancing. I would think Photoshop would be better at ALL image adjusting.

Unfortunately, with my Dell Inspiron 8500, it takes so long to render and when time is short, I don't have the time to experiment.

Thanks again for the help. I'm still debating MR today, or not.

[hand471037]

I am aware of the Adjust Image tool, but am curious why you would adjust contrast/balance in Revit then import into Photoshop for further enhancing. I would think Photoshop would be better at ALL image adjusting.

Because of the 'High Dynamic Range'. Accurender makes automatic adjustments to the exposure of the image. This information, however, is still there when you're in Accurender, and can be adjusted with the Adjust Image tool. Once you've exported to a jpeg, that exposure information is lost, and now you're only editing the levels of jpeg. So if you wanted deeper shadows, you're really just altering the color-balance and/or contrast of the image; not the actual exposure.

Think of it this way: it's easier to adjust the exposure by changing settings on the camera when taking a real photo; once you develop the film and/or download the images off the camera, you're only playing with the colors & contrast you captured in the first step- not what else might have been there in the first place.

That's why. ;)

[rookwood]

Really great explanation Jeffrey, and thanks again. Even within Photoshop, I just couldn't get the rich, deep colors and shadows.