Rendering engines

[charliep]

I have to say I am less than impressed with the rendering facility, MentalRay, in RAC 2009. I have already gone into detail why in other posts. I am loath to fork out another £2500 + to Autodesk for their 3DS. So my question is; are there other rendering programs that will work with RAC 2009 available ie. Maxwell, Accurender, etc? Also considering reverting back to RAC 2008 so would another rendering engine work with that?

[Scott Womack]

Accurender supposedly has a beta of a plug-in renderer for 2009 available. Personally, I say good ridence to Accurender.

[t1.shep]

Accurender supposedly has a beta of a plug-in renderer for 2009 available. Personally, I say good ridence to Accurender.
I'm with Scott on this one. I think that MentalRay is much better than accurender. Sure, it's not as customizable as the engine in Max, but there is still a fair amount that you can do inside of Revit.
However, if you really want to move backwards, these guys were developing a rendering plug-in for 2008, but it's not currently working with 2009. http://nxt.accurender.com/forums/143.aspx

[charliep]

Thanks for the tips, guys. I would be interested to know why you consider the MR in RAC 2009 to be better?

Can't do a ground plane, doing a large topo doesn't really work, thers no horizon just a gray band its width depending on the angle of the camera. Tried exporting the image out then back in over background images which seems the best option so far, but this requires 3 or 4 operations compared to 1 with RAC 2008. To me when you do more work to achieve the same results thats a backward step.

Anyway, don't want to get into any heated discussion, just want to know how to get the best renderings with the least work and not paying any more than I already have.

[PaperStreet SoapCO]

I would suggest exporting your rendering as a .TIFF file - the background image is then a transparency layer in photo editing software. You can then insert any image you want as a background. I use the GIMP 2.4 which is entirely free since its open source software and have been using this method to replace backgrounds. No more cost and you can use RA 2009.

[charliep]

Thanks Chad, this is pretty much what I am doing now. But I still can't understand why everyone seems to be going overboard for MR when we could achieve the same result with RAC 2008 Accurender without third party programs. My other complaint is the RPC content - or I should say lack of it. Just the same old tired figures and one solitary yellow VW Beetle. I hate VW Beetle's especially yellow ones.

[dpasa]

I have to say I am less than impressed with the rendering facility, MentalRay, in RAC 2009. I have already gone into detail why in other posts. I am loath to fork out another £2500 + to Autodesk for their 3DS. So my question is; are there other rendering programs that will work with RAC 2009 available ie. Maxwell, Accurender, etc? Also considering reverting back to RAC 2008 so would another rendering engine work with that?

If you can have a way to get RVT to obj or 3ds (obj is much better) then there is only one thing I can say..... KERKYTHEA !!!
Free, easy, great forums, great results, easy to learn, great tools like instances brush and a very nice material editor....(not like....)
Many render settings, you can have photon map, raytracing, path tracing, bidirectional path tracing and unbiased Metropolis Light Transport (almost like Maxwell).

Some ways are... Revit to DWG and then Sketchup or Rhino.... Or just get a 3d object converter but I think this is not a nice solution.... Both apps I mentioned are not expensive and will be very useful because they are nice modelers too... (especially Rhino).
If you only want something to use for rendering, DON'T BUY MAX! Too expensive... Unless you want to use other plugins too.... Most of the known companies that make 3d content, give away obj,3ds,3dm etc files so MAX is not your only choise...

[trombe]

Thanks Chad, this is pretty much what I am doing now. But I still can't understand why everyone seems to be going overboard for MR when we could achieve the same result with RAC 2008 Accurender without third party programs. My other complaint is the RPC content - or I should say lack of it. Just the same old tired figures and one solitary yellow VW Beetle. I hate VW Beetle's especially yellow ones.

Well there are more and more things that become apparent on use thereof. I have to agree with some of Skisouths and J McGrews comments that you need to use it for a while to see how it can work for you.
I am not a rendering expert - quite the reverse actually just beginning because I only did a few decent renders with Accurender..my machine was too slow then !! and man, even though right now it is a fair workstation, its still to slow for MR by a long long way..a total PIA for time.

That said, I am still very thankful we got MR in Revit and I would not want to go back no matter what Accurender does.
I made the vases in about 5 min each, but the 2 tapered ones are the same family of course..I am seduced by the glass of Pro Materials, and although I spent a fair bit of time modelling this NZ local manufacturer ss sink insert ( Mercer Industries, Line, MLS985, 1.5 bowl and drainer), it renders up great...unlike the US medical mixer I got off Revitcity.

I was going to post this in rendering but CharlieP, I thought you might want to see this mate.
I would like to know or get some pointers from you rendering dudes / dudesses, on what to do about the (?) artefacts / spotty effects on the polished chrome finish of the mixer ( please).
Now I appreciate how hard MR / any renderer would have to work to bounce and calculate light off such a slim object so I am not totally ignorant of such problems, but would appreciate some idea about how to avoid this / correct the problem.

I rendered with custom setting after doing a few on medium or low to get the Exposure setting about right, then took a punt. Any comments welcome.

best
trombe

[charliep]

Thanks for the pointers guys. Trombe, your images are great. Just to clarify, my complaint about MR is its shotcomings with external renders. I have mentioned this on this thread and in the Rendering forum, namely, lack of ground plane and horizon. I think if Autodesk can remedy this soon I could become a convert. Either that or bundle me into room 101.

[charliep]

Took your advice trombe, skisouth and others, and spent some time concentrating on getting to know RAC 2009 and esp MR a little better. Setting up custom materials is a bit more involved but using some features from paintshop pro I think I'm getting there.

Still not happy with the lack of ground plane and horizon problem but with a little practice can set up a scene in just a few minutes.

I have attached the result and welcome your comments.

[trombe]

Took your advice trombe, skisouth and others, and spent some time concentrating on getting to know RAC 2009 and esp MR a little better. Setting up custom materials is a bit more involved but using some features from paintshop pro I think I'm getting there.

Still not happy with the lack of ground plane and horizon problem but with a little practice can set up a scene in just a few minutes.

I have attached the result and welcome your comments.



Hi CharlieP,

my 10c...composition....I think the sky is over scaled - it is closer in focal length / distance to the apparent sky, than the scene should have.
The sky in this shot should be much further away.
(but I think you have chosen a great sky - most of the ones we see all around the world are on a sunny day to make us all feel like buying the product as we are sooo happy !!!, whereas you have selected a mood, an ambience that to me suggests a foreboding, a storm to come perhaps or maybe the promise of a top day tomorrow (red sky at night and all that).

I have had precisely the same issue with the sky in MR.
I am finding that I need to go out over the next weeks and months and shoot a truck load of sky shots to get all the colours and cloud patterns, at varying times of the day and weather and at varying distances from the subject, then review the content and archive the ones with promise.

I think this is just silly to have to do this to get a decent home turf image. Its all well to say go online and grab some off the web, but I should not have to. I am really hopeful that this is one of the burning issues to be fixed next time.

With regard to the above sky thingy, here is a late dusk time render from 2005 from Revit, with one single operation in Corel Paint Shop Pro which altered the clouds to have a slight emboss, but other than that it was Accurender, 300 dpi approx ( because my old machine would hang above that !!). I think you can see that the sky is more appropriate (scale / distance) for the scale of the building relative to the proximity of the camera.

The problem with your background is only that it seems so close and in your face, that its realness, has overtaken the image and now makes it look unreal, otherwise I think it is a great start to what is clearly a genuine problem in this regard.

The 1st image, is an iteration of the one posted a couple of days ago, which was inspired by an image AutoDesk put out for MR in Revit of an interior and it had some natty little pots which made me want to try to capture daily life in a building (also currently a live project) that has not a lot to do with showing form or architecture overall.
In Accurender, I could never be bothered with such a thing for obvious reasons, but MR is proving itself vastly better other than the things I moaned about before and the time it takes to render in Revit...but this image took 11 minutes so for a low res shot it isn't too bad compared with Accurender.
best
trombe

[charliep]

Hi Trombe,

Thanks for your comments, just the kind of thing I'm needing. From your images you show you have a talent and an eye for balance and detail. I've never considered myself as artistic, more practical, nuts & bolts type. I chose this sky because I was so fed up with the nice blue sky with fluffy white clouds. I used the Google image search. If you are doing this, download the freebie Piclens, it makes image searching real cool. Anyway, I prefer to think of it as the beginning of a new day. The dark clouds of doubt and uncertainty passing by and a bright new future just ahead. Sounds good.

I take your point about the background seeming too close. Not sure how to alter that. Never been one to mess about with the finer points, just wanted to do the drawings in workmanlike manner then move on. I am in the process of going through tutorials with Paintshop Pro X2 and of course RAC 2009 with MR. Trouble is I'm starting to enjoy it. Might not need to go to room 101 after all.

Incidentally, got invited to join the Accurender nXt testing and downloaded it. I'll let you know how it turns out.

[trombe]

Hi Trombe,

Thanks for your comments, just the kind of thing I'm needing.

I take your point about the background seeming too close. Not sure how to alter that.
Never been one to mess about with the finer points, just wanted to do the drawings in workmanlike manner then move on. I am in the process of going through tutorials with Paintshop Pro X2 and of course RAC 2009 with MR. Trouble is I'm starting to enjoy it. Might not need to go to room 101 after all.

Incidentally, got invited to join the Accurender nXt testing and downloaded it. I'll let you know how it turns out.



Hey CharlieP,

Sounds a bit funny but some movies of all genres, are a good analogy for this stuff...(if you can't be bothered reading a year 1 architecture text - Architecture-Form, Space and Order, by Francis Ching), the sky has a greater presence relative to the subject, when the subject is further away from the viewpoint, and as the subject becomes closer the sky becomes less in focus - cowboy cattle driving shots, travel show zoom ins and so on. So its really just a proportional relationship between the foreground and background and not a lot more to it.

You could also experiment with your camera focal length for this very same effect - some shots where you think the building is 20 m away, some for 50m, some for 75-100 m etc., can get some rough gauge for this just using some landmark or object as a reference point then blast away..anyway, it has worked for me.
(BTW, most of us need to get the CDs done and out the door as it is basically, mostly what we have to do !!, this stuff is fun (for me) and you can get some extra learning from it (like the white glaze inside the cup but chocolate glaze outside.....and I modeled that La Pavoni espresso machine after measuring it in my kitchen !! and modeled the ss sink insert and vases - all good fun !)

cheers
trombe

[PaperStreet SoapCO]

Incidentally, got invited to join the Accurender nXt testing and downloaded it. I'll let you know how it turns out.


I've been working with the nXt plug-in as well. Right now it doesn't read materials in RA 2009 so not much you can really do but check out the shadow quality and speed. That may have changed though since the last time I looked at it...

If you look on their forums I have 3 of the same image up for comparison between MR, nXt and Revit shaded view. Right now the nXt plugin looks like a glorified shaded view. Hopefully we'll see some work on the plug-in in the near future...