Revit's "Different" Renderings

[Nic M.]

I want to know what you people really think about the renderings Revit (accurender) produces.
95% of the renderings I have seen are ,in my opinion, ugly. They would impress me in the '90. But anno 2004 I think they are not suitable for proffesional use.
I know its a skill to produce nice renderings and there are people that succeed in it. To me it's to much time spent on settings, tweekings, materials and still get a so so image
I would like an updated rendering engine that produces a "nice" presentable image without the need to be a Viz expert.
I don't render that often, but everytime I do I'm dissapointed. So maybe it's just me and should I spend more time on learning the in's and outs of accurender. Then again I see so little realy good examples.

[aaronrumple]

Agreed - I avoid accurender altogether....

[gregcashen]

I want to know what you people really think about the renderings Revit (accurender) produces.
95% of the renderings I have seen are ,in my opinion, ugly. They would impress me in the '90. But anno 2004 I think they are not suitable for proffesional use.
I know its a skill to produce nice renderings and there are people that succeed in it. To me it's to much time spent on settings, tweekings, materials and still get a so so image
I would like an updated rendering engine that produces a "nice" presentable image without the need to be a Viz expert.
I don't render that often, but everytime I do I'm dissapointed. So maybe it's just me and should I spend more time on learning the in's and outs of accurender. Then again I see so little realy good examples.

It's been said before and I'll say it again...the Revit accurender philosophy as I understand it is not to prepare the best renderings for presentation use but to act as a design aid. It is just another tool at our disposal. If you want to do top notch renderings, you could do like every other designer would have to do and export it to another program. I don't think it is the factory's intention to ever have all of the best of breed tools integrated into one package.

[dpasa]

I don't think that rendering (accurender) can be mistaken as a tool to preview the building. Shaded views are OK for this. Actually they are much-much better than the ones from AutoCAD. Accurender is ment for presentations. Every tool is ment for a specific job. That means if you just want to show the house to the client, Accurender is great. It is fast and easy. If you want to make an astonishing presentation for a 20 storey building for a big company, you use something else.
I have seen VIZ and mental ray renderings. They look perfect, but they need more time, and with things like rpc content and walkabouts, why learn animation if you don't really need it?
Before I read your posts, I was ready to post a wish for Accurender 4 in Revit 6.x or 7.
I think that it is nice to have a renderer without "link file", "export" and other commands like this. To be honest, I work with Accurender for some time as an add-on to AutoCAD and I was very happy to see it as a part of Revit.

I repeat, it is not the best tool, but it is very good for small to medium projects, and very fast and easy.

[Nic M.]

Just as I post my rant, skisouth posts his beauty...


It's been said before and I'll say it again...the Revit accurender philosophy as I understand it is not to prepare the best renderings for presentation use but to act as a design aid. It is just another tool at our disposal. If you want to do top notch renderings, you could do like every other designer would have to do and export it to another program. I don't think it is the factory's intention to ever have all of the best of breed tools integrated into one package.

Greg,
It's not my intention to make top notch visuals in Revit with the push of a button. What I'm trying to say is that the accurender as it exists today in Revit is in my opinion not good enough, not even as a design tool.
I think that the basic rendering capabillity's of other programs are better and this shows in presented pictures

[gregcashen]

Just as I post my rant, skisouth posts his beauty...



Greg,
It's not my intention to make top notch visuals in Revit with the push of a button. What I'm trying to say is that the accurender as it exists today in Revit is in my opinion not good enough, not even as a design tool.
I think that the basic rendering capabillity's of other programs are better and this shows in presented pictures

I have never used another rendering tool. That said, for the amount of time it takes me to pop out a quick rendering in accurender, i am completely satisfied with the results i get. On the other hand, IF Revit incorporated a better rendering engine that was as easy or easier to use, didn't increase the cost and didn't prolong the time between releases of new version, i would agree with you....replace Accurender.

[Scott D Davis]

Revit/Accurender doesn't make ugly renderings, people make ugly renderings. Ok, I say that tongue in cheek, because I really wouldn't call someone's work 'ugly'...maybe 'different', but not ugly.

In my opinion, Accurender is a good rendering engine. Chris Zoog has produced some very nice renderings and has posted them here. Others have created some really nice stuff in Accurender. It's true that Accurender in Revit isn't full-featured, but it is still very simple to use from within Revit. It produces renderings out-of-the-box with very little effort. Are these the bset renderings it can do? By all means, NO! If you want really high quality renderings from any program, you are going to have to do some work, create materials, make some backgrounds, twaek some lighting, play with the settings over and over again...on and on....until you get it right.

Accurender will not look good if you use the stock materials, stock lighting settings, stock sky and clouds, and then pop in the red RPC Porche along with the same RPC people. Take some time and go through materials, create some new ones, tweak the exisitng ones. Experiment!

This is not just about how much better VIZ may be than Accurender...i just dont think this is the case. I think VIZ may have some nicer materials out of the box, but ultimately Accurender is much easier to use with Revit. Once you get the settigns the way you like them, your renderings will fly with Accurender. In comparison, its alot like creating your Revit families.....it takes some time up front to create tyhe content, but once you have everything you need, you are off to the races!

[Nic M.]

Scott,
I know you can produce nice renderings in accurender and indeed Mr. Zoog's work are good examples. But...
If the main use of the rendering engine in Revit is a design tool / basic rendering tool I feel it comes short.
What I expect of a basic rendering tool is to put some basic materials on the model, turn on the light, fiddle a bit with the settings and have an exceptable image.
I indeed would like the materials out-of-the-box to be usefull.
I dont want to experiment and play with the settings over and over again. If I had time to do that I would buy a high end rendering package (ala Viz)and get it right from the first time.

Weekend started 3h ago here so i'm off.

[dpasa]

I agree that Accurender in Revit is not the best possible. I believe that it has to be FULL.
Check Accurender 4 beta and see what I mean. (www.accurender.com)

[Andre Baros]

Rendering is an Art not a button. If Revit could make an artist out of everyone it would be doing a lot more than just managing information. I think that Viz, Max, Radiance, etc. produce more art because they are tools for artists and artists produce art. Revit is a pencil not a paintbrush.

That said, for Revit to be useful as a design tool for buildings, renderings non-withstanding, it needs to be able to present the data present in the model in a legible fashion. If the internal rendering capabilities are meant to just be design tools, than (sorry to say this again) look at Sketchup.

The flip side of the coin is that Revit is just rendering what it is given to render and we've all had to work on projects that will never look good no matter how well they're rendered.

Revit is an AutoCAD killer, Max has nothing to worry about.

[MartyC]

I'll step outside the square here and make some bold comments:

1. there is no other rendering package that is easier to use with Revit
2. Accurender is an excellent rendering package for Revit, only restricted by the users ability
3. All other rendering packages are a PITA to use due to their complexity over Accurender and Revit
4. I have seen a lot (and I mean a lot) of **** renderings done in all other rendering packages
5. Accurenders is just a tool, learn it, use it properly and it is a very, very good tool
6. As a design, visualisation and presentation tool Accurender is spectacular when interfaced with Revit as it is.
7. There is no other architectural design package as fully featured and as effictive as Revit and Accurender.
8. Accurender takes time to learn properly, just like any software package (surprise!!)
9. There are no 'automatic renderers' on the market as yet, that intuitively know what you want to produce and are specifically thinking. Neural interfaces do not exist in rendering packages yet!

There have been renderings shown on this forum and previously at Zoog that show the makings of excellent work. I for one accept that I am learning constantly, and all true professionals accept that they never know-it-all.

When one purchases Revit, they are generally buying a cutting edge architectural design/documentation package with the ability to utilise fetures for all facets of conducting architectural design/documentation work.

If one is a rendering professional/specialist, providing architectural rendering services to Architects, one would buy something else, wouldn't one?? The Design/documentation facility would be superfluous.

Lets face it, we have all seen people do horrendous work with Microsoft Word. Word in the wrong and inexperienced hands can be a disaster. I see people using Excel to to write lists cos the 'boxes and borders' are already there. Accurender in the wrong hands is just the same.

Accurender in Revit does not appear to be 'lite' version to me, it just appears to interface differently. The examples over two years of browsing the Accurender NG show no different capability than can be acheived in Revit.

Learn the tool, and when you have explored the outer limits and still need more, go to someone like these guys: www.idrawfast.com

So waddya say, huh?

CheersM

[Steve_Stafford]

...I'll step outside the square here and make some bold comments...Indeed...bold you are and I agree, it's a solid feature and integrated nicely. Been a lot of beating on it lately...


Rendering is an Art not a button. If Revit could make an artist out of everyone it would be doing a lot more than just managing information. Well put too...

[Richard McCarthy]

I would have to agree with others that Accurender isn't as good as it should have been. The quality of rendering is sub-par at the best... I have tried many hours with it and I just felt frustrated for rendering out some wash out looking rendering.

I would recommended everyone to use Lightscape but sadly autodesk had discontinued this line of product. I have most success with it and it produced top notch rendering with almost zero tempering with it. (except maybe if you could live with some shadow leaks due to Revit's own geometry meshing technique) Just specify the sun, use render wizard and click 3 "ok" and you are ready to render.

So for now, I guess there isn't a really one button solution, I am looking forward to VRay standalone but again, VRay isn't a push button solution, there are a lot of intricate things to learn to use VRay properly to get it render...

[PeterJ]

This is an interesting one. For me Revit does what it needs to in terms of rendering, but that is becasue I want something that if I choose to run a rendering will get me close enough to a real image without too much fooling about.

I don't make my money doing renderings but if I did I am sure I would want a better rendering tool, but it would probably be a stand alone package that could read froma variety of sources. I think improved interaction with other renderers is probably a more attractive option for most people than coding time taken up with a bespoke renderer or the integration of another rendering package - no doubt with license costs which would hit my back pocket.

[SkiSouth]

This is an interesting one. For me Revit does what it needs to in terms of rendering, but that is becasue I want something that if I choose to run a rendering will get me close enough to a real image without too much fooling about.

I don't make my money doing renderings but if I did I am sure I would want a better rendering tool, but it would probably be a stand alone package that could read froma variety of sources. .

Peter, I'm with you on this one. I've been down a LOT of rendering roads. I have 3dsmax (since 2.5), was a lightscape dealer at one time, Maya, Lightworks, etc. There is no doubt, that if you are going down an entertainment route, you need 3ds or probably Maya. If you want to go down the road to the BANK though, you need to stay with Revit and Accurender. There are confining limits to the Accurender engine - mainly how it maps surfaces, and the lack of control with the maps (bump texturing etc). Also, lack of support of RPC 3.0 is a draw back. Also, most all my presentations are one shot stills. The AVI support is good enough for me also, as I usually only offer a hidden line walkaround. That being said, I use the BUILT-IN renderer to sell every project. Obviously, I have a different attitude towards rendering as evidenced by my posting in this forum.

I do not feel that this renderer is more difficult to use than any other. Quite frankly it is MUCH easier to use than ANYTHING I have found out there. (is that normal on the correct side, and do you have a UVW map on this face, is it mapped, box, spherical. etc - you get the idea....) Anyway, today my 3dsmax subscription must be renewed (it expires tomorrow) Quite frankly, I'm still in debate on whether it's worth keeping the subscription for a software that is now used once a month..

It takes me about 17 hours to setup a good 70,000 sqft retail store front (roof, frontwall and one side) with parking lot, cars, lights, sky etc in 3dsmax. In 22 hours, I can have the same retail store with a FLAT site, documented through schematics with a couple of "good " renders in Revit. (This is not magic architecture - just simple retail boxes).It is fun to see a "real" render - trying to fool the human eye. It takes SO much detail to pull it off (God made a wonderful instrument in our abilities to see and take in details) that it just kills my office time. (For a hobby - I'd probably go with 3ds or Maya - not office work though).

I jumped hard on the renderer cause I needed a solution for BOTH production AND Presentation. I'm convinced Revit is the place to be, especially now with 7.0 coming out...

My 2 cents.

[sbrown]

This is a rendering I did in release 4.5. 100% revit / accurender I was pleased with the results.

[SkiSouth]

Very nice Scott.

[beegee]

This is a rendering I did in release 4.5. 100% revit / accurender I was pleased with the results.
... And who wouldn't be.

[Dimitri Harvalias]

Nice stuff Scott.

I would still use Revit if it didn't have any rendering capabilities. I purchased it primarily as a great CAD package that gave me a coordinated set of contract docs. It was also something I could use as a design/visualization tool.
The fact that Revit is a CAD package that happens to do great renderings as a by-product seems to be lost on some. The fact that it comes like that out of the box is purely a bonus to me.
I have never bothered with renderings until I got Revit. (most modeling too for that matter) Too time consuming and not enough clients willing to buck up for it. Even by hitting the defaults in Accurender I can give the client something that they can understand and relate to better than pure plan and elevation drawings.
If in Revit 7.0 we get the ability to export directly to VIZ and maintain materials might give those in need of more control something to sink their teeth into. In the meantime, I guess we'll just have to be satisfied with the caliber of images we've seen posted around here. Works for me!

[SkiSouth]

Scott,
What I expect of a basic rendering tool is to put some basic materials on the model, turn on the light, fiddle a bit with the settings and have an exceptable image.



And that program would be?????? - I think I'd like to look at that one too... :smile: Hope I've changed your mind just a little Nic, cause basically, that's what I do in Revit.

(although the exceptional image part is definitely open for debate..)

[Nic M.]

Thanks all for sharing your opinions on this mather.

"Ugly" is the word I would change in this thread. I looked it up this time (handy thing a
dictionary) and it does not apply to my intention. Like Scott said "different" is a better
choice. My apologies if I offended anyone.
I'm aware that rendering/presenting a "good" image is no one click process. The operator has the key in this process not the software.
A good image as I understand it is an image that complies to it's intentions. Be it a
photo realistic rendering or a scribble on a beer vilt, if it communicates the id the goal
has been made.
We are a 2 pers. firm, mainly in the small residential sector (small budget, personal
involvement of the owner,...) most of the time this is fun to do because of the challenge to
find solutions on all these small/big problems in a very tight restricted frame (hate it
when a client says:"I don't know,.. just draw something")
When we do a rendering it is most of the time on our own initiative to convince a client on
a specific material choice or combination. Its always out of our own pocket.
So one of the things a rendering package could help me with:
Fast material display in a specific situation.
I'm convinced that the current Revit possibility's can get me a long way on this but it needs a lot of time and learning and tweaking and testing .... and that is something that, in our situation, equals with economic suicide. It's a to big investment and the current results I had on the few occasions we played with the soft were not satisfactory to push it. I know I ain't gonna find it in Anny other package, and the solution Revit presents is a very good one but for now we convice the client with different tactics.
In our "reasons to buy/use Revit" list the rendering possibility was not a key feature not
even a necessity. So for us this is not a disappointment not at all and the new capability's in R 7.0 look very promising.

EDIT Adjusted the tread title for you Nic.

[sbrown]

Once you get a background sky image you like, sun settings(change the intensity to .5) Sky colors(for reflections) and accurender clouds set to reflect sim to your background image. Then all you have is your material selections. These are where I spend the most time, is creating good looking materials. Basically you can throw away the stock materials and start from scratch and you will have great looking renderings. One trick if you don't need color is to use a series of grey colors to represent material. This can create a great look( I saw it done by students using revit on some school projects way back maybe someone has a link, they were great renderings and since they didn't worry about materials they had a very modern feel)

Anyway, in any rendering package you have to select the materials, the view, and the lighting and these are the keys to success.

[hand471037]

Speaking of Accurender, they just released Accurender 4. Any chance we'll see that in Revit soon? My guess is no, but I'd love to be suprised. ;)

[ita]

Perhaps what we are discussing here is what I refer to as finesse. When I look at a rendered drawing or a plot I look for things that most other people do not look for. This is part of my education and training.

A visually "uneducated" client may think that any line on sheet of paper looks fantastic - while another client (say with project experience) immediately sees the difference between a "dump" plot (for info purposes only ) and final plots meant for reading and interpreting.

Equally with industry professionals. A document that I would consider at the top end of my finesse range of say 100, may be 80/100 and to someone else and 120/100 to another. So in this instance what is OK to Scott may not be OK for Aaron.

There is nothing wrong with any of the positions, it is just that the level of finesse required in the drawings differ between people - depending on (for example) personal standards of presentation, office standards of presentation, type of client, type and nature of projects and project types etc etc

I have seen the work of fellow (professional) colleagues that I could not present to a client under any circumstances (to me the finesse was so poor) but they are delighted with the work they are presenting, while on the other hand I have colleagues whom (to me) are "over the top" in the standards that they set for presentation documents or con doc plots etc and I wonder why they go to such extremes.

So it seems that what comes off Revit with Accurender may well be OK to some and not of a high enough quality or standard to another. For example, I know that my reaction to some renderings that have been posted on this site have differed markedly from the reactions and responses of others, but none of those reactions or responses are invalid. It simply represents differing values.

So some of us are happy with Accurender and others cannot rest until they have produced a presentation document from VIZ or Photoshop or whatever - that blows their client over in the aisles. That is just how it is!!

[Persistance]

I tend to disagree with the idea that Accurender can't do nice renderings. Having taught people Revit and Max I would have to say that if people used 3DSMAX as badly as they use the Accurender engine in Revit you would end up with shocking results as compared to average results. Most people push the button and expect photo realism, where as in reality to get photo realistic images can take days of work in Max with tweaking lighting, textures, backgrounds, content, post photoshop work. So you have to put the time in to set up all of your standards and then be prepared to spend some time if you want incredible results, because it can do it, it just takes time. For example no one can ever be bothered speding the time to set up Radiosity but if you do you can do some amazing internal renders that would compare to most other packages.

I have managed to get some really good results out of the Accurender engine and far faster than using Max. So I concede that if you have the time and machine power you will get better results with Metal Ray, Final Render or Render Man but for 1/10th of the effort Accurender can produce some really nice results BUT YOU DO HAVE TO SPEND THE TIME TO SET UP THE LIGHTING, MATERIALS, RPC'S or else you can expect to get anything but average results.

People who haven't had to try to write scripts for procedural materials in Maya or Mental Ray would not appreciate how awesome the ease of producing procedural materials in Accurender is.

But with all of that said REVIT DESPERATELY NEEDS AND UPGRADE IN THE RENDER ENGINE DEPARTMENT. Basically put the Viz 2005 engine or the Accurender 4 full engine in as it is getting annoying not being able to use any of the new RPC content nor have any control over UVW mapping, AND NO NETWORK RENDERING????, NO ANIMATION CONTROL???

[Scott D Davis]

A visually "uneducated" client may think that any line on sheet of paper looks fantastic -
Just last week, I ran into this....had a presentation at a local church for a small remodel and addition we are doing. I decided to give them the full Revit treatment, by taking the computer and projecting the Revit model to their committee.

As I disconnected my computer at the office, I paid no attention to the fact that the video was plugged into a special adapter, as the video card in my machine does not have the 'standard' plug.

So I get to the meeting, go to plug the projector in.....uh......it doesn't fit. Well, the HP box that I have, has an on-board video with the correct plug. After opening the case, removing the NVidia card, and then plugging my projector into the on-board video, the only driver it would load was standard VGA!

So for my 'big' presentation, the committee got to see Revit in action.....at 640x480, and 16 colors! In my opinion, it was horrible! The colors looked 'plaid', and the lines were horribly aliased.

But, they LOVED it! I apologized for the quality, but they said, if I hadn't told them, they would never had known! I can't wait to go back (with the right cables) and show them again! they are gonna be blown away!

[Steve_Stafford]

But, they LOVED it! I apologized for the quality, but they said, if I hadn't told them, they would never had known!...drop a drum stick? Keep on playing... Now they wouldn't have been too impressed if you said you HAD to run back to the office! Nice story Scott!

[hand471037]

My *only* real issue with Accurender in Revit is it's poor rendering efficeny. I can get decent quality views out, and do it in less time than it would take me if I exported to another package. I can even live with the limited shaders and lights, no problem, and do good work anyways (or at least that's the feedback I get). Most of the time it's the skill and artist, I mean Hugh Ferris used nothing more than pencils and I'll never come close to matching his excellent work... so to get fixated on what a few talented people can do with some other rendering tool, like Viz/Max, and think that you can do as nice of work 'if only you had Viz' is kinda missing the point I feel.

The real problem with Accurender in Revit, for me, is scene complexity. We do city-block-sized apartment buildings with lots of detail & landscaping. I commonly bottom out my system's memory when rendering. I run memory clean-up tools, otherwise I crash more. I have to unload every workset other than the ones visabile to even have it work sometimes. And several larger projects I find that I have to exit Revit and reopen the project for every view I want to Render, because otherwise I'll get the dreaded 'Out of Memory' error because Revit doesn't 'clean up' the old rendering completely from the computer's memory. This is my only real major issue with Accurender: is that it's slower than other more modern engines, and that it falls on it's face too soon (IMHO) when given lots and lots of detail/model. If it was more robust, then I can only see myself turning to other solutions when going for a desired effect, complex animation, or design anyalisis where things *have* to be right... But as it stands now, I kinda dread using Accurender in Revit, because while it's fast it sometimes simply becomes too much of a struggle to get the image out...

[Haden]

This is a rendering I did in release 4.5. 100% revit / accurender I was pleased with the results.
Nice job! Despite the broad generalization overtones to this thread, I have a specific detail question for you, Scott.

Can you share what texture map / pattern file you used for your roof, which appears to be red clay tile? We downloaded a pattern file from Revitcity which did not scale properly, and have found no ready-made texture maps in the out-of-the-box Revit/Accurender folders. Thanks in advance for your help (and anyone else out there who has done enough rendering to have good suggestions) on some specific pattern & texture files to download for clay tile, and also for wavy wood siding.

[sbrown]

Here is an mlib file and jpg with my oldworld tile roof. You will have to place the mlib file in the same directory as the accurender mlib file. Then you will have to edit the oldworld tile material(within revit) and repath the map to the location you put the .jpg.

[BillyGrey]

Thanks Scott,

Thats a sweet looking mat.

[Haden]

Thanks Scott,

Thats a sweet looking mat.
Same here. Thanks again, Scott.

[Damo]

Here is an mlib file and jpg with my oldworld tile roof. You will have to place the mlib file in the same directory as the accurender mlib file. Then you will have to edit the oldworld tile material(within revit) and repath the map to the location you put the .jpg.Scott, I was looking for a pattern file similar to your 'oldworld tile' and beegee kindly pointed me here.

1. You wouldn't happen to have such a pattern? I'd be most grateful if you have.
2. I couldn't follow your instructions above regarding editing the accurender oldworld tile material. I've been going to Settings -> Materials and getting stuck from that point. (Using Revit 8)

[narlee]

If you value your time, use another renderer.

[beegee]

One of the biggest advantages of Revit Accurender is that it takes a lot less time to get a reasonable result from than other renderers.




If you value your time, use another renderer.

[SkiSouth]

Scott, I was looking for a pattern file similar to your 'oldworld tile' and beegee kindly pointed me here.
.
2. I couldn't follow your instructions above regarding editing the accurender oldworld tile material. I've been going to Settings -> Materials and getting stuck from that point. (Using Revit 8)

Damo,

The libraries of materials are where Accurender goes to "lookup" what material will be used as you have determined with your material selection. What Scott has provided is his material library (most generously) and the bit maps associated with the old world tile pattern. The reason he provided the library is that is where Accurender gets any scale and tiling information to control the jpeg used to generate the look of the material.

What you need to do is this. Download Scott's library file and the old world tile jpeg and unzip it. Place the resulting file (Scott.mlib) in the subdirectory of Revit which should be drive:\wherever revit is\Rendering\AccuRenderRedist\Support. Put the jpeg wherever you know you can find it with your other jpeg material files. Now, open Revit , go to Settings ->materials create a new material and select edit under Accurender. Now under the left hand column of libraries you should see a listing of "scott". Select Scott, then under its materials, select Oldworld tile. Under its category of Maps, you'll see a default path name, select that parh name and correct it to where you place the old world tile jpeg posted with the mlib file.

Hope this helps.

[Damo]

Place the resulting file (Scott.mlib) in the subdirectory of Revit which should be drive:wherever revit isRenderingAccuRenderRedistSupport.Thanks Skisouth for your reply, there was a slight difference in Scott's post that meant I placed the file in the wrong location.

I had the file placed in ....RenderingAccuRenderRedistSupportInternal as this is where "accurender.mlib" (note no underscore) was located, as Scotts post.

The rendering looks great, and I'm really pleased with the result and I learned another little bit about Revit.

However, if I could change the tile pattern it would make my weekend. Something like the Prestwick or Hascombe would be ideal, or the type A or B as attached. (if not a little too detailed for my needs)

[Haden]

wavy wood siding.Postscript:
I did get myself a copy of Hatchkit v2.4, and created a pattern for wavy wood siding that works great for black & white elevations, but have not found a good texture map for rendering purposes.

[mmodernc]

Sending a BIM model out to get rendered is about as counterproductive as sending it out to be documented.
BIM is total or it is not B.I.M.

[sbrown]

I was at AU and have been trying to learn VIZ and I've got to say that while I think in about 2 weeks I could get a handle on VIZ I would only equal my ability in Accurender. Really all you need to know in Accurender is how to make a jpg a material, set your background image, get some good grass and you'll have very acceptable renderings. Just the beginner VIZ class made me think someone was crazy at autodesk. Talk about a poor GUI. Revit/accurender is light years above VIZ in useability. If you are willing to read two pages of help files you will be well on your way to 2 hour rendering setups vs. days with VIZ. Yes you can get better end products out of VIZ but it will take a serious amount of learning.

[kpaxton]

... get some good grass and you'll have ...Careful now!!! (I just LOVE taking things out of context... ;) ) ROFL - just kidding Scott! I can't believe this thread got ressurrected! OMG! I do understand your pain Scott, regarding the user interface, etc. I'm going to try out the Max method and see if there aren't ways to...streamline the pipeline. We'll have to compare notes.

You know me...I'm a big fan of Accurender/Revit out of the box - and as Scott Davis said earlier... it's all about the User input! no matter what the program!!! I would only hope that they [Factory] would impliment AR 4.0 OR develop a plug-in system or both.

Kyle

[snurresprett9]

Accurender in Revit is useless IMHO. It doesnt produce good renderings and its slow. I think we should not hope for a high-end rendering system in Revit, but instead have something that is very easy too use, like SU Podium for SketchUp. It has 2(!) settings, and the images is far better than what Accurender can produce.

http://www.suplugins.com/index.php

[mmodernc]

That is OK for standalone renderings but most of my stuff requires puttng rendered model in a photomontage for exisitng streetscape/ landscape simulation for councils, clients, resident action groups, the local consulting conservation architect etc.
Any good tutorials around - this stuff also needs a lot of fiddling with image programmes like photostudio or photoshop etc.but as they say junk in junk out e.g. no amount of image processing will completely fix a crook digital photo
Will give some of the better materials a go.
Any good tutorials on Lights in Revit-they must be getting good because they have to do photometrics for that other Revit.
Accurender 4 plugin would be nice. But Viz Render aka ATD would be a reasonable alternative....maybe. But we really need something inside Revit to use the view setups and the materials whch double up for documentation. I tried using three shades of the same materials to get some definition in a badly lit perspective/street photo combination and ended up getting a lot of question marks on my material tags on my elevations and sections
Cheers
http://www.en.na.mcneel.com/news/0106.htm

[snurresprett9]

No! It would be much better if Revit had a really simple and extremely easy to use internal render solution (like SketchUp's and the real time render in Autocad 2007), but was able to export geometry, cameras, materials and textures (and the scaling of the textures!) too the most popular render formats. They could ditch Accurender, and by that they could drop the price of the software(as they probably pay too use AR inside Revit). It makes much more sense if every Revit user can choose the renderer he's most comfortable with and not being stuck with the ooooooold AR3.

BTW: Accurender 4 inside Autocad isn't especially easy too use compared too other render software.

[snurresprett9]

It's been said before and I'll say it again...the Revit accurender philosophy as I understand it is not to prepare the best renderings for presentation use but to act as a design aid. It is just another tool at our disposal. If you want to do top notch renderings, you could do like every other designer would have to do and export it to another program. I don't think it is the factory's intention to ever have all of the best of breed tools integrated into one package.

It is too slow and too complicated to be seen as a design aid. In for example Autocad 2007 you can apply textures on the fly and have them visible in real time. You can spin the model around and the textures are still there. Accurender has all the disadvantages of a high.end rendering system (slow, complicated, fiddly) but almost none of the benefits.

[mmodernc]

I still cant figure out why no textured shaded view-either in Revit or DWF viewer

[dellis]

I don't think its a bad idea for people to want more out of their rendering engine. Its better to have the capabilities and not need them, then to need them and not have them. The expectations of clients has consistently been rising over the years and i can see a time in the future when photo realism is a requirement, not an after thought. I think they should at least put mental ray in revit...especially since they made some real progress on its ease of use in MAX. And its quality has been established for years. If i had my way though i would say VRay would be the best option for speed and quality.......

[truevis]

Accurender in Revit is useless IMHO. It doesnt produce good renderings and its slow....Pencil/Pen is useless. I just get bad results -- don't know why. There some guy named da Vinci who somehow got some interesting renderings using that tool, though.

[kpaxton]

I don't think its a bad idea for people to want more out of their rendering engine. ......Absolutely! Great Point! This is how new features get added, existing ones improve, etc.

I'm really trying hard to hold my tongue on some of the other comments, which I feel come from frustration more than anything else. Anyone who thinks- in today's day and age- that ONE package is going to have it 'all' and do what they need to do seamlessly and without effort- doesn't understand Marketing 101. Are things going to move in that general direction? Yes, I think so, but slowly.

But I also realize that I didn't buy Revit to be my Rendering Platform. I bought it to help me convey my designs to my clients, to assist in producing an accurate and well coordinated set and in the end, get my project built. Currently, I can provide this (and MORE) to my clients - and knock their socks off. Are they becoming more savvy and more technologically aware? Sure - this is expected. However, they sure as heck aren't going to get these services for free just because we can do them.

I know that IF I want something photo-real.. out it goes - either to another software package I own or out the door to another shop. "It is too slow and too complicated to be seen as a design aid." Having the ability to see my materials on the fly while I'm working on the model would be nice in Revit... it's not however, a necessity. Nor does it help me be a better designer - that's an internal quality one learns over time.

"Accurender in Revit is useless IMHO. It doesn't produce good renderings and its slow."
...and Maxwell produces great renderings and is the slowest render platform out there! What is the point? I say again ... garbage in/garbage out. Yes, there are A LOT of really, really bad Revit renders out there... I've seen them, I've commented on them. However, I've seen some really nice ones - mine included. I say this with a caveat, however, that it's not my intention nor desire to be photoreal. Apples to Oranges as the saying goes.

Davinci... yeah, I've heard of that guy! ;)

'Nuff Said,
Kyle

[snurresprett9]

Pencil/Pen is useless. I just get bad results -- don't know why. There some guy named da Vinci who somehow got some interesting renderings using that tool, though.

Your point is what? It is possible too make great renders with pen and pencil, Accurender can not. Even the ones who have mastered the software too it's fullest can only make "so so" renders. IMO Revit doesn't need a render engine IF the factory can just make the possibility to export the model to more formats (it cant even export to obj. and 3ds?!). Loose Accurender!

[snurresprett9]

"Accurender in Revit is useless IMHO. It doesn't produce good renderings and its slow."
...and Maxwell produces great renderings and is the slowest render platform out there! What is the point? I say again ... garbage in/garbage out. Yes, there are A LOT of really, really bad Revit renders out there... I've seen them, I've commented on them. However, I've seen some really nice ones - mine included. I say this with a caveat, however, that it's not my intention nor desire to be photoreal. Apples to Oranges as the saying goes.

Davinci... yeah, I've heard of that guy! ;)

'Nuff Said,
Kyle

Accurender= Gold in/garbage out

Although it's not your intention to be photo real, Accurender still tries to be photo real... doesn't it? IMO it's neither this nor that. It's far from photo realistic and it's not artistic. What is it? It's not lightning fast, it's not very easy too use (in comparison) and it doesn't produce a very good result. Again, what is it?

[narlee]

Talk about a poor GUI. Revit/accurender is light years above VIZ in useability. If you are willing to read two pages of help files you will be well on your way to 2 hour rendering setups vs. days with VIZ. Yes you can get better end products out of VIZ but it will take a serious amount of learning.

Totally agree on your VIZ sentiments, tho I agree w/other's comments about Accurender being slow and useless (plus, I had to give up on it years ago as they never seemed to fix the crash problem & who can afford that?).

It's amazing, but 3DS/Viz has supposedly won awards for its GUI. I find it daunting and know of no one (tho I don't know many users) who considers it an "efficient" visualization tool. IMHO, it's a giant PIA that requires a PhD in rendering to use efficiently. But, I can see how larger shops could work it into their budget, or outsource for it.

I say, why do we need hundreds of settings to do a daylight shot of a house or office building? It seems ridiculous. I think it's a shame it's so inaccessible, use-wise. But, I guess that's the state of the art. Or, maybe Autodesk's acquisition of Alias (maker of Maya) will help address that (tho Maya doesn't seem building design oriented, maybe Autodesk can get creative here)?

Also, I fiddled around a bit one day, in AutoCAD with VIZ Render and it seemed like it perhaps was better than Accurender but not daunting like VIZ. Anyone know more about this?

[truevis]

Your point is what? It is possible too make great renders with pen and pencil, Accurender can not. Even the ones who have mastered the software too it's fullest can only make "so so" renders. IMO Revit doesn't need a render engine IF the factory can just make the possibility to export the model to more formats (it cant even export to obj. and 3ds?!). Loose Accurender!
My point is to look at one's self and one's skills and how to make them better before saying that something is useless.

We'd all like Revit's renderer to be better or have more features (http://www.accurender.com/specs.htm)or be bug-free. However, most of the bad renders produced have the user to blame, not the software.

Tight AccuRender!

[snurresprett9]

My point is to look at one's self and one's skills and how to make them better before saying that something is useless.

We'd all like Revit's renderer to be better or have more features (http://www.accurender.com/specs.htm)or be bug-free. However, most of the bad renders produced have the user to blame, not the software.

Tight AccuRender!

I have used Revit with Accurender since version 4 and I have seen what other people can do with it. Skill is not the problem here!

So since you claim that bad renders only can be blamed on the user, you could probably show some images produced in AR that matches let's say Maxwell quality?!

[luigi]

Viz is not complicated for the simple things....it's complicated for the complicated things....assigning materials, creating cameras, making animations, importing objects, is easy....extremely easy...even assigning uvw mapping is quite simple...people just need an instructor to teach those essentials, and let other viz capabilities be for the advanced users...

Accurender isn't that bad, but it isn't good either....I can get ok renders, when I spend proper time in it,but prefer the qualities of other renderers....

[truevis]

I have used Revit with Accurender since version 4 and I have seen what other people can do with it. Skill is not the problem here!

So since you claim that bad renders only can be blamed on the user, you could probably show some images produced in AR that matches let's say Maxwell quality?!Here is a simulation of Maxwell I rendered a couple of years ago. Revit + PS's Diffuse Glow.

PS: I have also seen many ugly buildings in real life. Skill problem, there?

[luigi]

If you get the best accurender and the worst Maxwell, there is a possibility for the accurender rendering to be better....but it is a possibility, not reassurance....Maxwell is just too superior of a rendering engine, the light quality is almost unsurpassing....


But a good accurender rendering may be good enough for certain purposes... My honest opinion...

[truevis]

If you get the best accurender and the worst Maxwell, there is a possibility for the accurender rendering to be better....but it is a possibility, not reassurance....Maxwell is just too superior of a rendering engine, the light quality is almost unsurpassing....
Sure, would be great to be able to directly use Maxwell from Revit. But as it is today, we'd have to export to other expensive software, redo materials, lighting, planting, etc. and work on it dead. Is that a reasonable compromise?

[luigi]

Sure, would be great to be able to directly use Maxwell from Revit. But as it is today, we'd have to export to other expensive software, redo materials, lighting, planting, etc. and work on it dead. Is that a reasonable compromise?
The only part of the equation you proposed is the "expensive software" because anything else is not a big deal....

We shouldn't get difensive...I never said that accurender is worthless....I just am fully aware that a maxwell render is mile high to one from accurender....I still don't knock accurender down....99.9% of my renderings since Revit 4.5 are using accurender

My office has access to 3dStudio Viz, and I have exported Revit directly into 3dStudio Viz, applied uvw mapping, materials, no real lights...and I get wonderful renderings, then I make changes to the Revit model, I re export and I don't have to do anything other than open the revit file from 3d Studio and re-render....it's all linked together.

Also, you could go directly from Revit to Maxwell(through dxf), but it isn't a good option because there are no groups of materials (or faces of the same material) and if you make a change in Revit you would have to do all the work from scratch....but there is a direct export....

On another note, if the Revit user base was larger, and if they showed interest, the Maxwell people would have spent time creating a plugin for Revit. It isn't really an Autodesk's responsibility, but responsibility of the Maxwell people. They are the programmers that create the plugins for other software, not the other way around.

Again, if anybody has seen my renderings, any of them I posted at Augi, there are many of them....only a select few are using a different software than the Accurender found in Revit....

Ciao!

[snurresprett9]

Here is a simulation of Maxwell I rendered a couple of years ago. Revit + PS's Diffuse Glow.

PS: I have also seen many ugly buildings in real life. Skill problem, there?

Well, you have done a good job with masking Accurender's flaws with your massive use of diffuse glow.

Real world buildings has nothing to do with this discussion, this is about renderings. You can ofcourse never make a badly designed building look good no matter what software you use. The end result will be the same no matter what, but thats not the discussion here... see? This is about presentation and nothing else.

[scatter529359]

the accurender engine has its uses. i can make exterior scenes look fairly photo-realistic if i spend the time to set it up right. interior scenes can also be done, but if there's any real complexity in the render, then forget it. has to be exported - and that's a major PITA.

the reason for this is down to accurenders major limitations: texture mapping and bump mapping. the bump mapping is far too simplistic to be of any real use in anything other than distanced shots. get up close and personal, and it looks rubbish. the texture mapping is also more than a bad joke. i had a render recently where there was a poster behind a glass casement. created the poster jpg, mapped it to my object in AR, rendered, it was too big. resized the texture in AR, re-rendered, AND IT MOVED! you can't resize a non-repeating texture without repositioning it too. aaaaarrrrghhh. that's just insane. the list of problems with the texture mapping are endless...

[truevis]

...i had a render recently where there was a poster behind a glass casement. created the poster jpg, mapped it to my object in AR, rendered, it was too big. resized the texture in AR, re-rendered, AND IT MOVED! you can't resize a non-repeating texture without repositioning it too. aaaaarrrrghhh. that's just insane....Methinks you would have been better off using a Decal in that case.

[brian104662]

I have only been around Revit since 8.1 but I have always questioned Autodesk's use of Accurender. Before we switched to Revit I had to test out Archicad too. I believe that they used Lightworks which seemed to have a lot more features than Accurender. We chose Revit because we felt that it's in line to be industry standard coming from Autodesk (at least the US industry).

What I have a question about is why would Autodesk use Accurender seeing as how they own Viz and 3DStudio? Of course it comes down to $$ because if they included a Viz or Max renderer then why would you ever need to buy another pricey product? At least that's my theory, it may be completely off base as I am not up to speed on how different divisions work under the same company.

I for one am not extremely happy with Revit's version of Accurender. I have tweaked materials I have acquired new RPC objects etc... but in the end you can tell it's a Revit rendering, and maybe it's a nice one, but the tweak time vs reward is lopsided. My hope is that they begin to integrate one of their own engines soon, it's handy to be able to show a client a "quick" nice rendering without them getting hung up on colors/textures etc because you didn't have the time to tweak it.

[hand471037]

I have only been around Revit since 8.1 but I have always questioned Autodesk's use of Accurender. Before we switched to Revit I had to test out Archicad too. I believe that they used Lightworks which seemed to have a lot more features than Accurender. We chose Revit because we felt that it's in line to be industry standard coming from Autodesk (at least the US industry).

It's something that's simply left over from 'old Revit', pre-buyout. It wasn't Autodesks call to put it in there in the first place.


What I have a question about is why would Autodesk use Accurender seeing as how they own Viz and 3DStudio? Of course it comes down to $$ because if they included a Viz or Max renderer then why would you ever need to buy another pricey product? At least that's my theory, it may be completely off base as I am not up to speed on how different divisions work under the same company.

You're not off base. At some point I'd be willing to bet that Accurender will be replaced in Revit with something better and Autodesk owned. However, this isn't a trivial amount of work at all. So far Revit development has been focused on other things that are more important and on creating versions for Structural and MEP's.


I for one am not extremely happy with Revit's version of Accurender. I have tweaked materials I have acquired new RPC objects etc... but in the end you can tell it's a Revit rendering, and maybe it's a nice one, but the tweak time vs reward is lopsided. My hope is that they begin to integrate one of their own engines soon, it's handy to be able to show a client a "quick" nice rendering without them getting hung up on colors/textures etc because you didn't have the time to tweak it.

Again, don't know when it's gonna happen. I too hope that it's soon.