Maxwell

[Jershaun]

RenderWorks uses an extremely old rendering engine thus features are limited, quality is low and speeds are slow. My wish is that RenderWorks abandons the old lightworks engine and incorporates the new Maxwell technology. (www.maxwellrender.com)

Please! Please! Please!

Shaun

[propstuff]

Shaun,

I'm one of those who would pay for a better quality rendering solution in RW. It seems that both C4D and RW use versions of the Lightworks engine, yet C4D has better results (and faster by all accounts); but at a cost!

To confuse things, if you look at www.cheetah3d.com ;here is a renderer which does HDRI, Radiosity, Global illumination etc as well as Polygon modeling for.............. $70US!!!

Using Photosphere (free) I've made some HDRI images and tried them out in Cheetah3D. Pretty #%&*@ good for $70!

So, getting back on track; There are already free open source "physicaly accurate" renderers out there. see Toxic, and in particular; Radiance.

Radiance does VERY NICE physicaly accurate renders, but if you look through the site there is a section on times.....

The examples are assuming a SPARC or Silicon Graphics workstations and the times are usually measured in multiple hours, or for complex scenes multiple DAYS of rendering times.

Personally, I have no "need" for physicaly accurate renders, I would settle for the conventional "faking it" HDRI, Global illumination, Radiosity etc solutions (for 1/4 of the rendering time) which can clearly be implemented "easily" ....easy for me to say ;-)

cheers,

N.

[Jershaun]

Thanks for the info propstuff. I will check out your links later-no time now.

It was just a suggestion to use Maxwell. My point is that Nemetschek don't have to use that particular one but a better rendering engine has to be used. One has to keep up with technology or get beaten. I can see other programs (and technology) leaving VW behind and I don't want to be forced to change to something else. What else do I have to do to make renderworks use a better rendering engine-BEG!

BTW propstuff, C4D uses its own rendering engine.

Shaun

[mike m oz]

Time tends to catch up with most capabilities and to a certain extent this appears to be the case with LightWorks.

There are better options out there but at what cost? Not everyone wants or needs the high end rendering capability. Others may have needs like 'real time' shadow casting as in SketchUP, hand render styles as in Piranesi etc.

Perhaps NNA would be better off having a modular approach where there are a range of rendering options and capabilities available as plug ins: Then people could make their own choices as to what capabilities they want and pay for them accordingly.

[Jershaun]

Hi Mike M Oz

Nemetschek ALREADY has a modular system (VectorWorks, Architect, Mechanical, Spotlight, Landmard, renderworks). What you're suggesting is a modular system within a modular system. I don't agree.

I can do all I want to with v10 as far as draughting and designing goes so there is no reason to upgrade in future for any so called "draughting improvements".

IMHO I think renderworks is the one module that has been neglected. It has been basically the same from v9 thru v11 with a couple of tweaks.

Anyway that's my 2 cents.

Shaun

[mike m oz]

Shaun - yes VW is modular in terms of industry focus.

But at the moment RenderWorks is the only add on rendering option for VW - though you can export to standalone programs like Artlantis and Cinema 4D as well. (For me I prefer the rendering to be done within the program - it is quicker and easier.)

NNA could probably get more functionality from LightWorks or another rendering engine but it would almost certainly be at a greater cost which they would have to pass on.

That said not all people want the high end rendering capability. Satisfying the needs of all could be achieved by offering a range of rendering options. Then someone who only needs to be able to produce solar animations would not have to pay for rendering capability that they may never use.

For example I would be more interested in a Piranesi like hand rendered look rather than photo-realistic rendering, because I believe it is more appealing to the clients.

Why not have a situation which allows for fitness for purpose (and budget) rather than having a rendering engine which is trying to be all things to all people.

[ 02-03-2005, 04:04 AM: Message edited by: mike m oz ]

[propstuff]

Well I think you're both right :-)

I'd guess that most RW users would like to get better (and faster) renders without having to export. and I'd guess that most of us would be willing to pay for the privilage.

C4D, for example, offers several modules for it's renderer, as apart from it's modeler. I think that's a sensible approach and would suit most users.

The Lightworks engine is clearly capable of "better" results than are implemented in RW, but whether the render times that are achieved by competitors are possible with it?.....who knows? Perhaps a different engine is needed to achieve significant improvements?

Either way; >bangs hand on table< WE WANT MORE! ;-)

This is a hoary old chestnut that has been dragged about for a long time. Given NNA's general responsiveness to customers, let's hope they've got something on the way.

N.

[ 02-03-2005, 06:11 AM: Message edited by: propstuff ]

[Kurt Magness]

Lightworks has all the goodies (HDRI,radiosity, etc,) in their higher end rendering package. I guess NNA figures that not that many people want it enough to justify the cost / programming time to implement it (I beg to differ). last time we went through this string with NNA they said there was some licensing issues with the Lightworks LWA textures too. Seems to me it would be relatively easy to implement since both lightworks & NNA have the "modular" software already in place and a working relationship with each other. And the superrealist users could just purchase the "advanced render package" if they wanted that capablitity. render times are significant no matter what with HDRI,radiosity, etc. But nothing compared to the time spent exporting to cinema 4d and fixing all the export weirdness and or going back to VWKS because you forgot something, let alone the time to re texture your model if you did it in renderworks or "faking HDRI" to get the look you want. I applaud NNA for implementing Sketch and artistic rendering technology, and the export to Piranesi. Now please give us the advanced Lightworks, Maxwell or cheetah module please. I for one would be first in line. And NNA if you need a beta tester count me in.

[Kurt Magness]

oh and by the way I do not think that the renderworks engine is necessarly "old". NNA has made significant revisions to renderworks in 11 beyond a couple of tweaks. Also NNA says 11.5 renderworks is multithreaded now so it should be faster on dual processor machines. I personally can't tell the differnce on my dual g4 on a quick test. But any body attempting to do this type or work should be on a fast dual G5 anyway. It seems like there is only a core group of 5 or so people that jump in on these renderworks features strings. Maybe if we can increase the interest NNa will do something. Bitching about this doesn't seem to impress NNA to do anything about it. I suppose we can try praise. Thanks for all the great features NNA ! Or maybe if we all create alias users and bombard the tech board with good things to say about renderworks ( along with a request for the goodies) NNA might give us what we lust for.

[alanmac]

Just as a comment to this discussion it seems strange that NNA does not work more with Maxon on using Cinema or licensing something from it as they are both part of the Nemetschek group, along with Allplan.

Kurt - have you used Cinema 4D and its export plug in etc. much?

You would never apply textures or lighting to your Vectorworks file before exporting to Cinema, the same goes for Artlantis.

Being able to update your file I would have thought a great concept. You don't lose all the textures and lighting settings etc you created in Cinema. Also you can add to "scene" in Cinema with things maybe to difficult to create in Vectorworks such as plants etc. as its an excellent modeller as well. It also has a plug in for RPC content, along with other plug in additions such as Xfrog for plants. a wealth of shaders and other texture related stuff.

Whilst I've not looked into Sketch and realise this will be more work and not something you can switch on and off like Sketch, Sketch and Toon module I bet will beat it hands down in image render types and finishes.

It's how far you want or need to go to achieve results, get clients and maintain your business. They (clients) always want it for free anyway !!

I suppose as far as Vectorworks NNA are concerned how far its worth going from their point of view to be of value to their users over cost to the company.

At least the options exist to go beyound what is on offer but can understand the logic and desire of some to work solely within the one program.

Cheetah does look very interesting, especially the price!! and it will get many thinking why others charge so much more.

Just as there are different levels and type of client I guess we'll need different solutions. No one size fits all program.

All the best

Alan

[ 03-03-2005, 03:03 PM: Message edited by: alanmac ]

[Kurt Magness]

alan:

don't have 4d, do have artlantis. yeah if your going to 4d or artl you would never texture in renwks but, i always get antsy to see how it looks so i can't help myself and start throwing on textures. but it would be so easy ( for the user) to do all this in vwks instead of getting another program and spending the time to get proficent in it. I tried the 4d demo, looked way to complicated for my needs. I already know renwks, it's pretty easy for the average joe. lighting, texturing etc. prettty straight forward. can't justify the learning curve & $ for 4d. already went down that road with artl and strata3d in the old minicad days. clients won't pay for it. it sure would be easy to add that radiosity button to the vwks rendering menu. And hdri is supposed to be easyier too. one dome, one "light" versus spending alot of time with many multiple lightsources and image props to fake the reflections. i use vwks every day. i use artl maybe a couple of times a year. 4d seems redundent to get just for the rendering and $1,500 +/- for a couple of times a year? or how about a VWKS plug for cheetah? they say they welcome new scrypts. any codewarriors out there willing to write a vwks plug ? But why all the workarounds? Why are we suggesting to spend money on other software in a NNA techboard? Please, please NNA is it that hard ? I would rather give NNA $100, $200, or $300 for the advanced rwks module than $1,500 to maxon. seems to make sence to me but am I crazy or just lazy?

[alanmac]

Kurt

Take your point and understand what you are saying, especially the client part.

Could I just say that Cinema is not the price you are quoting unless you are talking the XL or Studio versions. They introduced a module system some time ago.

The "standard " module is not much more than Artlantis was. I say was because I've seen Artlantis greatly reduced on offer these last few days!

You won't get true hdri without the advanced render module I'll admit but there are ways I understand around that.It adds other things like network rendering etc. as well.

One of the things that's making me change is the poor implementation of lighting in Artlantis, limited classes and occassional crashing. I struggle with lighting in most projects and end up settling for post work in Photoshop to tidy things up rather than struggle for ages with Artlantis. Get there in the end !!

Good luck, hope you get what you want one day.

all the best

Alan

[Christiaan]

For those interested in a plugin for Maxwell, I suggest you go and make yourself known on Maxwell's forum too.

A guy in my office building has just purchased Maxwell and I'm really impressed with the simplicity of use and quality of output. We would switch to it in a heart beat if a VW plugin were available.

[ 05-12-2005, 01:14 PM: Message edited by: Christiaan ]

[Christiaan]

Better yet, make sure you vote in this poll:

www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1741

[alanmac]

Hi Christiaan

I don't think you'll have to wait long judging by the fact they already have plugins for Autodesk, Archicad, Rhino etc I'm sure VW will take their interest soon.

I've taken an interest in this renderer from the CD4 forum at CGTalk and it seems that because it works differently to other render programs, i.e. its based on true physical calculation of light, as opposed to most other programs, the trade off for these great renders is very long render times.

I think its a case of fitness for purpose and budget. I'd love to render to this level and as an owner of Cinema 4D am very tempted but I don't think I have the time available within any jobs to use it.

I can't wait hours for a render regardless of quality. I'm sure they'll work on it and it will get faster over time and I'm not knocking the product it's just the issue of time within a job must be considered.

The link you gave in your last post does not seem to connect but I registered and found the

voting page. Only 4% on Vectorworks at the moment. Microstations voting is much higher, Sketch Up has the connection already it appears !!

Alan

[Delmer]

I had held off for a couple versions and only purchased RenderWorks in V11 thinking it would take them that time to get it running at a competitive level. I used to go through the pain of taking models to Alias Sketch, 3D Studio or Lightscape/Viz but the time factor made it almost a hobby, I certainly couldn't justify the expenditure. Then, thinking RenderWorks might be of age, I spend the dollars and find that most of it is accessed off a pallet submenu and the quality is something like you would see on a Ronald McDonald Play n' Learn CD, not something I would ever show a client. Art*lantis is easy and has limited use but still . . . I haven't tried CD4, it sounds like it may be the most plausible option.

If RW ever becomes a valid presentation option I would actually like to be able to enter a RW mode, something like setting up a RW workspace, where tools were accessible and it had its own shortcuts etc.

[ 05-12-2005, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: Delmer ]

[Christiaan]

One thing we'd be especially interested in using Maxwell for is planning elevations, which we often create with a model. The more realistic these drawings are the better. Anything else we could use the quicker Renderworks or Art Lantis.

What's interesting for us at this point in time is that 1) Maxwell renders the whole image progressively, meaning you can stop it at any time and the longer you leave it the better it gets, and 2) the possibility of using Xgrid or Maxwell's built-in distributed computing architecture to leverage all the dual G5s in our office.

[grant_PD]

I wonder if it is the case that there aren't enough renderworks users out there to warrant attention by NNA. I know that for me, the integration of drafting and modelling and rendering into one package has allowed for a great improvement in the design process. I too have been looking at other rendering programs to see if there isn't a better option than RW, but am hesitant about learning yet another program, yet another set of export issues (isn't converting to dwg and back enough of a pain?). So I continue to stick with RW.

But really, even minor improvements would be great:

Setting a true camera lensing instead of wide-normal-narrow perspective. An improved animation interface instead of the mystical timeline option.

Better, more user friendly shaders for the textures.

Better manipulation of the textures on the surfaces themselves.

How about letting surfaces eminate light. Don't we live in the age of flourescent tubes and LED's?

I guess this all adds up over time, but I think we all know that if the client doesn't bite, there's no payout. Renderings are one of the most powerfuls tools designers have, NNA would be wise to recognize the need for powerful, easy to use rendering interfaces.