Jump to content

Kevin K

Member
  • Posts

    880
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Kevin K

  1. Paul

    Yes, for the most part that is what was being bantered around here ...the difference / pros / cons  between using an image prop for a plant (a photo of the plant attached to a flat plane) versus using an actual 3d plant...which is what I used in those images I posted.  I didn't use an image prop.Image props usually have less data involved, which an keep the overall file size less which is why a lot of people prefer that approach.

    • Like 1
  2. Dave D....happy to provide you with the file...but I am curious why you would want it ?  🙂

     

    FYI, it is basically the file @JonKoch had sent me and I added some data, lighting, etc so there are a few additional design layers and viewports.. Again, this all started and was directed to obtaining some thoughts on how better to set up an after dark rendering pertaining to plants.  

     

    I zipped the file to keep the file size somewhat smaller.

    Have at it! 🙂

     

     

    Full Glow No Crossed Planes-KEV.vwx.zip

  3. Oh, also, here is the same image I posted earlier, but with a bit more ambient lighting. Again, the reason I like real 3d plants is the lighting and shadowing is much richer that what an image prop can show. Leaves and branches, etc are darker where the light isn't hitting them because there is more fullness to the plant.

    For whatever reason, if you want the file, let me know. I took a basic VW 3d path light and tweaked it a bit using a spot light inside the fixture to get that lighting look on the plants and the ground surface.

    -Kev

     

    RenderTest3.thumb.JPG.d8952713c2d56092d5999069792f2ea3.JPG

     

    ...and here is a screenshot without any lighting in daylight...

    BasicView.thumb.png.1b58c04af55dd1527e0c0a622c126514.png

     

    • Like 3
  4. Jon

    Just curious, on any given day, how many plant species do you actually use?

    Also, if the VW plant libraries for image props does NOT have a specific plant you need, do you just create your own from some online image of that particular plant?

    I had to resort to doing that on several occasions in the past. It was kind of a pain having to clean up an image, add an alpha channel, etc, etc.to get the image prop to look acceptable. 😞

     

    In my case, I am sort of a purist in my renderings and don't often use image props.  I am sort of "the real deal' guy 🙂

    That said, image props certainly do have their place.

     

    Currently I am not using the Design Suite of 2024, only Architect, so I don't have access to the Plant tool, which is specific to the Landmark package, so I have to do things a bit more 'old school' which is not a huge issue for me.

  5. Jon

    One more supportive thought,  then I will shut up, pertaining to using real 3d plants, etc.as opposed to having to go through all that mess you and Tom W were discussing about grouping / not grouping and not having the IP scale properly,  glowing properly, etc, etc

    If you are doing photorealistic renderings the lighting and shadows on the plants / trees, etc will look much better than if you use flat image props in most instances.

     

    The image below, which is  more of a night rendering look,  is just rendered with Shaded rendering, not even using the higher quality rendering options, and it still looks pretty dang good, and rendered in seconds. Of course you could tweak the ambient lighting if desired.  I turned it all off.

    I just took the basic info and objects in the file you sent me, but fluffed it up a bit with some path lighting and a real 3d plant symbol.

     

    Again, do as you wish, these are only my thoughts 🙂

     

    RenderTest2.thumb.JPG.4ec01b03d1658cc398d80b00d09c94ab.JPG

    • Like 1
  6. Jon, the main reason I suggested real 3d items is that any shadows will look much better than the ones cast from and image prop.  I am sure you would agree 🙂

    Depending on your computer system, because any 3d plants, etc can become symbols,  it may not slow things down too much.

    Just for grins, if you are up for it, perhaps post the file, or a link to it, and I can have a look. If you are NOT in the mood...no worries 🙂

  7. In addition....if you didn't really want to commit to an actual lighting fixtures, lighting, or up lighting your plants and trees for an evening rendered view, you can take advantage of that pesky 'glow' reflectivity option and apply it to a symbol object, like I had done in the rendering below, that utilizes a ton of small round light bulb shapes.

    Doing so will actually act as a light object, and light your scene without the huge overhead of having many many actual light objects in the file.

     

    Admittedly It is sort of a cheating workaround, but it has its place 🙂

    Those oak trees on the right of the image are actual 3d trees, not image props, btw.

     

    FLATLIGHTS.thumb.jpg.3376e38e4b7ef43abe8f9278c6cdadf4.jpg

    • Like 2
  8. @JonKoch, I was just curious from the standpoint of reality, what kind of up lights did you have in mind to utilize for a nighttime setting? For example, the frequency of where they would be placed, and the actual physical light fixture, etc. Also…..which you probably won’t like, is that For my rendering preferences, I would just use actual 3d plants, etc and not image props.  I believe it would mitigate all the issues you are experiencing using image props being correctly lit for a more or less after dark rendering.

    Just a thought 🙂

  9. @line-weightI know this is beating the dead horse....so I apologize.

    Bet you are sorry you asked 🙂

    But....to get into the weeds for you a bit, here is a simple c4d Redshift rendering of an area of 50 ft x 50 ft, with 10,000 clumps of wild grass, 400 generic wildflowers and a few shrubs....Basic low resolution for this example, but you get the gist.

    File size : 5 megs

    Redshift Render: 5 minutes

     

    c4dRedshiftExample.thumb.jpg.9c8bc5f6c34070a0b07b13183a385ede.jpg

     

    .......and here is an example of the node based shader system for Redshift, for one of the materials:

     

    Screenshot2023-11-27at7_44_25AM.thumb.png.d19344c456f3d6f588aa3355243792b8.png

    • Like 1
  10. @frv, @line-weight

    frv, thanks for the links and comments.

     

    line-weight, hahahaha...yeah...best not to speak about it!  🙂 No, the VW version of Redshift isn't apples for apples compared to the full version of Redshift in C4d. I am sure there are a myriad or reasons why that is. You can do some online research regarding Redshift (which is produced by Maxon, btw), but basically it is a REALLY fast rendering engine and uses a node based system for creating really high end materials / textures. So, that is one area, I believe, that the VW  version of Redshift can't reproduce...at this time, anyway and for whatever reason, as @frv noted, it is a bit of a mystery why the VW version doesn't more of less match the rendering speed of the C4d version. It remains a mystery 🙂

  11. @frv Just a quick inquiry. Are you by chance using an app called GrassKit within C4d to create some of your grass, flowers, etc?

    I use C4d with Redshift, and that add-on app called GrassKit is pretty cool.  It very quickly adds items like 3d grass, wildflowers, rocks, etc in HUGE quantities in seconds, without adding much to a file size.

    Another app I use is called 'SurfaceSpread. Sort of does the same thing but with trees, plants, bushes, etc, etc of your choice, and scatters them to your liking. Works a bit like C4d Mograph Cloner, but with many more adjustable features.

    Both these apps work within c4d.

    Perhaps check it out...unless you have other apps that can procure the same sort of results...which I glean that you may 🙂

    Here is an exterior rendering using both of those apps I mentioned. Not to take anything at all away from VW Rendering, but as you mentioned, VW would be hard-pressed to render something like this in under 15 minutes.

    Just sayin...

    -Kev

     

    KlickGHView2.thumb.jpg.aa666e93ac79673c540a1d5f82a839e4.jpg

     

    • Like 1
  12. @doug shaffer perhaps in the meantime until your issue is resolved...you could create a Windoor window and see if you get better results? I have no idea if you have installed Windoor ?? It is installed through the 'Help' Menu item "install partner products" There is a bit of a learning curve on using Windoor, but it shouldn't kill ya.

    Here are a couple screenshots. Let me know if you want the actual 2024 file.

     

    I kinda had to guess on the overall window size 🙂

     

    Isoview.png.89a5581ea0a97f68be0ef87e1eb9e519.png

     

    Planview.png.76f1dd39ebc7fd328314d1623165c5d6.png

    • Like 2
  13. Pat

    I am probably missing your overall intent from what you described...seems to me you could make a texture, that would work, but since you wish to see thru the 1" holes, I believe you would need to have some solid geometry. so the transparent areas for the texture would be problematic??  Again, I could be off base with totally understanding your intent, etc.

    But...have you considered doing a surface array?? It is very simple and fast.  You just need to be cognizant of the overall math for the grate size(s)

    Check it out... You can double click on the item to see how was constructed, and be mindful if tweaking is needed in the OIP.

     

    Screenshot2023-10-26at6_20_11AM.thumb.png.dd6c6dd1520ccc52f5ee6e123f087edd.png

    Pat Grate v2024.vwx

×
×
  • Create New...