EAlexander

I just took this on last week, but in Cinema 4D with Corona renderer, not Vectorworks. Make sure you are working with real world scale. Make sure your glass envelope has the correct thickness. So much of this is in the lighting - it's all about the lighting! There are what looks like three soft boxes lighting your example - warm light from the left and right and a cool top light. You can see it in the reflections. Probably need to get the glow on the filament working well in post via aftereffects or photoshop. I used a luminous texture in Corona with Bloom and Glare effects turned on in the camera. Attaching my attempt. Good luck - it would be a tricky thing to get right in renderworks. Edison Bulb model by Fabiovalle3D via Turbosquid.

I stand corrected

I'm pretty sure anything going into unity needs UVs for texture mapping, which is a no go with VW. There are many articles and videos out there for moving from most 3d DCC apps to unity (Cinema, Maya, 3dmax, blender, etc). But I would be surprised if a direct workflow from VW was possible without a lot of work arounds or round tripping it through other software.

I always this in post in Photoshop or Aftereffects. Any scattering medium solutions I've found in Cinema 4D aren't worth the render times.

3d with a 2d overlay. I rarely use auto hybrids. I should note though that I don't do architecture, I do concert stages, television events, and arena tours, so not a lot of doors and windows :). I agree with Kevin, each industry has different needs.

I direct model everything, except truss. I use a lot of symbols, and everything is a hybrid symbol.

I have no doubt that these guys know what they are doing. Soilidworks didn't become industry standard by chance. My main interest is that Nemetschek stay focused on making the current product work first and foremost. If you take the reactor online, I'd love to check it and and be part of that process. Always curious to try new things. e.

Well not to add to your frustration Scott, but the work flow you describe is what I do daily. I model in VW, move to Cinema and use Octane to render. Here's the rub - volumetric lights don't work in Octane. In fact, Octane doesn't even ship with a spotlight - there is a 3rd Party add on (see Brograph.com), but it's not ideal. You can create an overall fog, but it is very hard to control and very hard to get looking correct. And - it takes ages to get noise free renders - like stupid long (and I have a very powerful machine). So I'd look at this workflow more carefully, I gave up on it for light beams. You might consider Cinema 4D with the STAGE plug in and forgo Octane for this. To be clear - native Cinema has lighting volumetrics, though very basic, but Octane is a different animal. I end up doing my volumetrics mostly in Photoshop or After effects using the Optical Flares plug in from Video Copilot, but I do stills, not animation, previz or preprograming. Examples on my website. Happy to talk about this more offline - I have spent a fair amount of time studying rendering of light beams for concerts. e.

I don't know dude - I'm not buying it. Seems like a lot of marketing speak. The idea of multiple users working on the same file at the same time seems like a nightmare to me: what happens when you start working on part A which is connected to part B...after 4 hours of modeling, you realize that someone else has changed part B and your work is now outdated and useless. Yes, I realize that can happen with the current spread out system as well. You are asking about multiplayer video games. Keep in mind, those games are multi gig downloaded applications that are running locally and performance is based on system hardware specs. Yes, users are connected via the web, but the game is not running off the cloud, it's running local. In the current industries (Arch, Entertainment, Landscape, Mechanical, etc.) we can't get anyone to agree to one software, so I don't see this getting any better anytime soon. Some firms have invested hundreds of thousands of dollars in multiple seats of their software of choice (and the hardware to run it). Small one man shops have invested in their seat(s) as well. How many other people on your Nuclear reactor project were using VW? In this system, where are the calculations being done? If I try to fillet a 6000 sided cog wheel - where is the heavy lifting happening? I commonly receive multiple Revit files that sit around 100MB per file on one project. How can this system deal with that. Its common for one of my VW files to weigh in around 200-300MB - how can and online system deal with that. Designing a part is different then an arena. I see a lot of people on user forums complaining that : the webstore won't load in Safari or line wrapping isn't working in IE, etc. Won't this put their fate in the hands of Microsoft, Google, Apple and others? Remember Flash vs. HTML5? Ever have your router take a dump before a meeting? Ever find that your machine "Has a self assigned IP and can't connect to the Internet"? I understand what you are saying and are desiring. Yes, I'm taking the piss a bit here, but seeing the current state of Web sharing in VW and the general state of 2017, I want Nemetschek to put their focus and engineering time into making the current overall product work as advertised. I appreciate what Onshape is doing, but I don't know that this is the path that VW should take. Call me a luddite - I'm okay with that. (By the way - have you ever looked at Fusion 360? from Autodesk?)

I use this: https://www.poliigon.com/ But with Cinema 4D, not VW. Also - not Free

This looks like you should be solid subtracting spheres from one large sphere, no?

I use the Vectorworks>Cinema4D pipeline as well. Once in C4D, I render using Octane or Corona, depending on the job. I also do all my lighting, texture and camera work in Cinema as I find it much easier to do all these things there. I appreciate the improvements to Renderworks and Open GL has redefined how I model in VW, but I still find the material system, the lights and the cameras incredibly clunky compared to Cinema.

Never used it, but I have seen this: https://tangably.com/ e.

Which is evil and deletes the whole purpose of organizing your VW before export to Cinema... But you and I have covered this before

To workaround this fast in C4D: Choose your nurb surface and then go to AXIS>Center Axis to Object. Then add a new area light and make it a child of the nurb surface. Now hit Shift+C to bring up the command line search and type in PSR reset and double click on that from the list. This will center your area light exactly where your nurb surface is. Scale to size with the yellow dots on the area light. Unchild this and then delete the nurb surface. Dial in the area light properties to taste. I know this doesn't fix your issue, but will help you speed up getting the area lights where you need them. e.

My guess is multi-view viewports.....but I have no insider info, just speculating. e.

Hi, I name all my objects and groups in the Name field in the Data tab. This helps me stay organized in Cinema 4D upon export. Once you have entered your name into the entry field, hitting either Return or Enter on the numpad will highlight what you just typed instead of dropping focus from that field. You have to click into your viewport somewhere manually to drop focus. I can't tell you how many objects come into Cinema named "x" as I hit the shortcut for the Selection Tool after naming something. Please - let both Return and Enter apply the name and drop focus from that field. Please. Thank you. e.

How about holding B key to go into x ray mode....? This will let you select through, though three objects can be tricky sometimes....

+1 - upvoted. Totally agree. The two modes are all that is needed. 3D and Symbol definition can go too

Andrew - I think you'll have a very hard go of it to actually wrap and fold a virtual muslin or vinyl wrap like you would in real life i.e. bending an oversized plain. I would approach this by modeling all that corner detail into it - I'm not at a machine with VW on it right now, so just riffing off the top of my head. Make your 4x8 frame with corner blocks and toggles, etc. and make that a symbol. Duplicate that to hit your target length on the wall. For the skinning, maybe do this in a few steps and then combine. In plan view, I would draw an open polyline that follows the front face of the framework - doing the whole wrap shape (in plan) and not worrying about the top and bottom wrap for now. Once you have the polyline, extrude it up 8'. Now change to a side view and draw an open polyline following the front face of the framework that encompasses the top and bottom wrap - being sure the front face is in exactly the same xyz space as the front face of the first polyline. Make sure the wrapped parts overlap the previous polyline (so the material shows as overlapping). Extrude this poly line the length of your wall. From here you have to model out the details for the corners, so if you want to do a "mitered tuck" look, you'll have to solid subtract some wedges from the corners of the second extrude. Once the two pieces are where you like it - solid addition them together. You could also look at shelling each piece outward a nominal thickness before merging them together. Up to you. This is probably not a perfect way, but how I would start to approach it. I know you want an automated way to do this - I think you can set one up and before you add solid the final shapes together, copy and paste them for the next wall - modifying the polyline length/extrude length for each wall - make sense? I will try to put together an example once I am back in my office, but that won't be until tomorrow (USA east coast time). e.

Hi, Maybe this can help: http://www.coroflot.com Check out the Jobs board there. Might get you closer. e.

Tom - From TROUBLESHOOTING section: https://forum.vectorworks.net/index.php?/topic/45909-2017-crashes-laggy-screen-refresh/

Thank you Juan!

...sadly, I had to miss this the last minute. Will a recording be posted online anywhere? Adapting New Technologies to Your Production Design Workflow e.

Nick - compare 2016 to 2017 start times on both systems and see what happens. I find 2017 takes almost twice as long to start up, so it might not all be hardware related for you.