Rendering / Modeling in Revit

[.chad]

I have a general question about rendering / modeling in Revit. I see a number of threads asking what the best way to model details (for instance this post (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=46171) and this post (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=46047)) and i am at a loss on why things cant be done using mapping instead of modeling.

i have only the most basic knowledge of how revit and accurender work, but have a good amount of experience using 3ds max up through version 7, and the solution there most frequently was to use bump / opacity mapping to get details like brick coining and facade details as mentioned in the first link above.

perplexed,
chad

[ron.sanpedro]

I have a general question about rendering / modeling in Revit. I see a number of threads asking what the best way to model details (for instance this post (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=46171) and this post (http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=46047)) and i am at a loss on why things cant be done using mapping instead of modeling.

i have only the most basic knowledge of how revit and accurender work, but have a good amount of experience using 3ds max up through version 7, and the solution there most frequently was to use bump / opacity mapping to get details like brick coining and facade details as mentioned in the first link above.

perplexed,
chad

I think the main issue is you need to see those details in construction documents, but you don't want rendered images for CD elevations. Thus, do I model it, or just detail it using model lines. If all you are building is a presentation model then mapping materials and textures makes a lot of sense, but getting line drawings out of your model changes things. My thought at least.

Best,
Gordon

[robert.manna]

Chad,

The thing to keep in mind with Revit is that even though we perform operations on the "model" via 3D and 2D views, in reality it is a database with the very specific intent of allowing architects to document and essentially "simulate" their building in order to provide output which will allow someone to actually build the building. To that end as Gordon alluded to the question is how do we convey these details in such a way that someone can build. From there the question becomes, how much do I model, versus how much do I represent with 2D objects of one type or another. Whereas in the wonderful world of 3D Max or other similar programs the goal is generally extremely low poly/object count with the highest amount of detail in order to create an image of varying quality (sketchy to realistic). Thus the use of bump maps and object maps becomes useful because these are simple methods of achieving reasonable rendering results without actually creating 3D geometry, or even a 2D representation. The AccuRender engine in Revit (in my experience) while allowing bump maps, and positioning of textures, is not nearly as flexible in achieving similar results from a program like 3DS where you can easily modify the coordinate map of any object in order to precisely place a texture map to gain the exact rendering results you desire.

Does this make sense? I can go on, :).

-R

[SkiSouth]

The biggest reason on not using mapping is there is no UVW control activated in Revit Accurender like your are use to in Max and bump mapping does not have the same effects on the rendered image. And if you overlap two opacity maps on separate surfaces you get a solid black surface where the maps overlay.

[robert.manna]

The biggest reason on not using mapping is there is no UVW control activated in Revit Accurender like your are use to in Max and bump mapping does not have the same effects on the rendered image. And if you overlap two opacity maps on separate surfaces you get a solid black surface where the maps overlay.
UVW! That was the term I couldn't remember, I wanted to say UCS, but I knew that was a CAD things and not Max. :)

-R

[.chad]

Excellent!! Thanks a bunch :mrgreen:

[chris.hitchcock.nz]

And lastly there's no substitute for actually modelling something, if your end goal is taking it into 3ds Max, a built object will always look far better than a bump/(or even better a displacement) mapped one.