A comprehensive built-in photorealistic rendering solution required for Vectorworks

[EAlexander]

23 hours ago, JMR said:

On 2/23/2025 at 12:32 PM, EAlexander said:

Expecting a CAD tool to perform at the level of a dedicated renderer like Chaos Corona is simply not feasible.

I respectfully disagree. Blender can do it...also some other packages do a lot better job with stock renderers.

Maybe we have a different idea of what a CAD tool is?  Blender is very capable and Cycles is an excellent render engine, but Blender is a mesh based poly modeler at it's core. When I refer to CAD software, I'm assuming that I can use it to generate plates i.e. ground plans, elevations, sections, etc. from a 3d model.

 

22 hours ago, rDesign said:

On the Vw Public Roadmap, Redshift RT (real-time) inside Vw is already listed as an ‘Enhancement’ under the ‘Research’ tab. Which means that Vw is already aware of the need for this functionality.

This is encouraging, but I fear that what will be missing here are the key ingredients to making photorealism more tangible - nodal based PBR materials with options for controlling UVs, Multiple light objects (Area, Spotlight, Mesh, Dome) and more sophisticated Camera objects.  But any improvements on what can be outputted directly from VW is greatly welcome.

 

It really comes down to the fact that everyone has a different need and different approach to the work and how they engage with the software.  I hope everyone finds what they are looking for.

 

-evan

[zoomer]

1 hour ago, EAlexander said:

Maybe we have a different idea of what a CAD tool is?  Blender is very capable and Cycles is an excellent render engine, but Blender is a mesh based poly modeler at it's core. When I refer to CAD software, I'm assuming that I can use it to generate plates i.e. ground plans, elevations, sections, etc. from a 3d model.

 

I agree on a CAD's limitations on Render features.
It should not be for quality and speed though.

 

At the beginning of this millennium, when I had 3DSMax/Viz with simple Scanline Rendering, my Microstation CAD had already Raytracing and basically PBR Materials and Lights. It had even GI by Radiosity (mid 90ies) and later their own Particle Tracing. Around 2006 (?) Microstation licensed and integrated the whole Modo Renderer, Material, Light and Camera system. I think that was all you could wish for rendering in a CAD.

 

AFAIR Nemetschek Allplan implemented an own RT Path Tracer many years ago, Archicad implemented the complete C4D feature set when offering C4D Render Engine for free (hence we got RW Renderer included in VW too)

 

I am still not totally fixed on photorealism, in a CAD or anywhere.
I just propagate everything PBR because it makes rendering so much more predictable and easier to use for any kind users.

 

Edited February 25 by zoomer

[Claes Lundstrom]

15 hours ago, EAlexander said:

Maybe we have a different idea of what a CAD tool is?  Blender is very capable and Cycles is an excellent render engine, but Blender is a mesh based poly modeler at it's core. When I refer to CAD software, I'm assuming that I can use it to generate plates i.e. ground plans, elevations, sections, etc. from a 3d model.

 

 

I really don't understand why there has to be one app that does everything. In my world, I estimate it to be somewhere between 10 and 15 apps in my core sphere of tools. That doesn't mean having expert knowledge in all of them, or use all of them daily. It's perfectly ok to have  "need to know" skills to get things done. When evaluating a given app, I typically evaluate how well it interacts with other tools in my sphere of tools, how reliable the interaction is, the quality of what it does, and how quickly it gets from A to B.

 

As an example, I almost never use VW for NURBS or mesh modeling, but almost always when I need solid modeling. I prefer VW for 2D drafting and documentation, where I export material for after processing from my main modeling app. I use VW for architectural modeling. I typically use a third party rendering app (not Blender or C4D) as it delivers good quality renderings quickly and also delivers augmented reality models well. I use the Affinity line when I need data focusing on the printing industry. I would not use Affinity Designer for CAD style 2D drafting, as it's inferior to VW in this respect.  I also Photoshop as it does AI better than Affinity. And so on....

 

My point is, why does it have to be ONE app only ?

[zoomer]

4 hours ago, Claes Lundstrom said:

My point is, why does it have to be ONE app only ?

 

The only but ultimate reason for me is just loss in collaboration/exchange/export.

 

I could live with VW to C4D pretty much lossless and reliable exchange in the past quite well. But I currently see no similar VW exchange quality to other, more modern or future proof Apps.

 

If exchange is needed a single time, that's mostly ok. But if you deal with constant design changes and development or versions and exchange is needed every few days, work will get very inefficient, error prone and annoying.

If exchange would not be a problem - of course I would prefer to do each part of work in its most suited or optimized App.

 

 

Edited February 26 by zoomer

[Jeff Prince]

I just want Vectorworks to do deliver on the promise of being a comprehensive landscape BIM package.  That means highly functional irrigation tools need to be completed and the lighting tools need to be upgraded to account for circuiting and demand.  It also means many of the broken AEC tools need to be fixed and Revit exchange needs to be seamless.  If I was running the company, I would require that Vectorworks did its primary jobs better than anything else on the market before gimmicks like AI rendering, photorealistic rendering, image editing, interface redesigns, start pages, etc saw the light of day.

Today, I can not do 100% of Landscape or Architectural BIM based documentation in this package and that is its primary job!

I have to do irrigation design in an outside program or just draft them as dumb lines and symbols without the benefits of running calcs.  I can’t do load calcs on a lighting design or any kind of BIM wiring between the lights and the transformers.  I can’t make a plant book of cut sheets from within the package automatically to include in a project manual.  I can’t generate specifications based on the content of the design.  Those are key and critical workflows landscape architects have to execute for the majority of our work.

 

If they can’t do their primary job beyond reproach, why does anyone want them to dabble in visualization or other frivolous pursuits?   Vectorworks needs to finish its chores before it goes out and plays IMHo.

[VIRTUALENVIRONS]

This thread certainly does migrate.  There is a reason for the "Send to C4D" command.  The original intent of this has never been fully realized.  The combination of VW and C4D for all intents and purposes is one application that can essentially "do it all". 

 

Over the years Maxon transferred technology to VW's that somewhat mitigated the need for C4D.  I think Nemetschek made a mistake in doing this as it muddied the waters as to why someone should buy C4D.  When the transfer occurred ten years ago it was great, but now in some cases is a limitation.  Keeping in mind that at this point in the thread we have determined that only a very small number of users need more than Renderworks.

 

Aside from just visuals almost all the problems I see posted would not exist if C4D was part of the process.

[E|FA]

5 hours ago, Jeff Prince said:

If I was running the company, I would require that Vectorworks did its primary jobs better than anything else on the market before gimmicks like AI rendering, photorealistic rendering, image editing, interface redesigns, start pages, etc saw the light of day.

+1 with a similar list of items for architectural workflows.

[JMR]

21 hours ago, Claes Lundstrom said:

 

I really don't understand why there has to be one app that does everything. In my world, I estimate it to be somewhere between 10 and 15 apps in my core sphere of tools. That doesn't mean having expert knowledge in all of them, or use all of them daily. It's perfectly ok to have  "need to know" skills to get things done. When evaluating a given app, I typically evaluate how well it interacts with other tools in my sphere of tools, how reliable the interaction is, the quality of what it does, and how quickly it gets from A to B.

 

As an example, I almost never use VW for NURBS or mesh modeling, but almost always when I need solid modeling. I prefer VW for 2D drafting and documentation, where I export material for after processing from my main modeling app. I use VW for architectural modeling. I typically use a third party rendering app (not Blender or C4D) as it delivers good quality renderings quickly and also delivers augmented reality models well. I use the Affinity line when I need data focusing on the printing industry. I would not use Affinity Designer for CAD style 2D drafting, as it's inferior to VW in this respect.  I also Photoshop as it does AI better than Affinity. And so on....

 

My point is, why does it have to be ONE app only ?

It doesn't, it's just that I've had so many issues with exporting and syncing to different rendering programs, over the years...if I was to find a rock-solid solution via another application, that would be great.

 

Speaking of which, has someone found a particular external renderer that works great with VW? I've used mostly Twinmotion with VW but find the export somewhat buggy, also the user interface is very peculiar IMHO.

 

 

[Claes Lundstrom]

1 hour ago, JMR said:

It doesn't, it's just that I've had so many issues with exporting and syncing to different rendering programs, over the years...if I was to find a rock-solid solution via another application, that would be great.

 

Speaking of which, has someone found a particular external renderer that works great with VW? I've used mostly Twinmotion with VW but find the export somewhat buggy, also the user interface is very peculiar IMHO.

 

 

 

Unreliable communication between apps is for sure a problem. One reason is the wealth of file formats available, which means that developers need to spread out resources to support as many of them as possible, instead of having one format (or at least as few as possible) that works well. My approach, as a small developer of a 3D app, has been to focus on one format, and trying to keep it as simple as possible, while being well structured and organized. The result has been something that just works with most receiving apps I have tried it with, causing a minimum of work in the receiving app. It has given me the freedom to choose the rendering app that works best for my particular needs. That's how it should work, at least in the best of worlds......

[setdesigner]

D5 render is the one I find the easiest, most reliable and easy to install.

[zoomer]

^ Unfortunately Windows only .....