@ecuadorian said: But Chris, if the model is already done in Revit, what would be the purpose of exporting it to SketchUp? Just to add entourage and render? If you want movies, there's a direct path from Revit to Lumion. If you want stills, you can export to AutoCAD and... well, wait until they release the Thea plugin for AutoCAD. It is for rendering still images (Indigo, Vray ..). Getting a revit file into Sketchup is just a pain. The exported DWG files are so heavy and no materials make it hard. I do use Al Hart's 'Convert Layer Names to Materials' but the whole procedure of it all is tedious and the SU file I end up with is nearly unusable.

@unknownuser said: How can I make a Windows app look like a nice Mac app?" you should be thinking "How can I make a Windows app look nice, like a Mac app?" so true

Hi everyone, Just to let you know that a new more stable version of REALIS3D is available at http://www.realis3d.com Look forward to hearing your feedback... RV Team

Hello Jason! Thank you very much for the detailed information I'll try to follow the guidelines and try out your RAL version - looks very promising!

Very promising. It was long ago that last tried it, but since they now have a SketchUp plugin, I think I'll install it again! Apart from our good commercial renderers (Thea, Vue, etc.), it is an inestimable value to see another renderer accompanying Yafaray and PovRay that is Open Source.

What render settings are you using?

you're right, it's not going to be easy...in Kerky I'd say the translucent component corresponds to the transmitted with zero shininess, it's a sort of fake SSS since the final aspect is not related to the thickness. Nevertheless the correct parameters for SSS (the panel "fog") are a bit difficult to be managed, and very time consuming

I have the same problem. I've checked there are no hidden objects. I've also exploded all the components so there are no component origins in random places to confuse things. I've also purged all unused geometry, components and layers. Still no joy. Any ideas?

Looks like some sort of bug. Managed to recreate it too. If you load a bitmap as a spherical sky, everything is correct. [image: dpJ8_AlmostBlack.png]

Might be worthwhile to look through Brodie's posts. I seem to recall he was explaining some of his workflow for the maxwell competition a little while back.

That is certainly grasshopper plugin for Rhino. You should save the file as native.3dm first and than export it as.obj.

That dialog has really changed the way I work. My favorite is that you can edit the segments of an arc or circle after its created.

Hi Brodie, tx the winner is http://www.architectenweb.nl/aweb/redactie/photo.asp?iNID=28741&PhotoID=229015 I think they won because of their strong conceptual sketches. We focussed a lot on the building itself. A mistake we often make. Its often better to set a design into its environment with a visionary conceptual idea. No need to render or get a lot of CAD involved. Our design has a lot of thought going into details, materials and techniques. Too much maybe. But we the jury told us they had a hard time choosing between us and the one who has won. The building itself is just a pumphouse and a hotwater barrel of about 16m. height and 22m diameter. Francois

@andybot said: That's actually part of my point - with the render engines, all that film/sensor size, lens length, aperture nonsense is all fungible. That's why adhering strictly to a 35mm equivalence seems kind of limited to me. The reason I mention conversions to different sensor formats is that if you are, say, trying to match a photo, it will very much depend on that particular camera setup, like for example the shallow dof of your mamiya. It won't work to just use the default 35mm dof equivalence. I think you hit the mark here... and part of the main reason for me bringing this topic up. Forget about us archviz artist using Maxwell Render and try to force it into real camera envelope of operation... we rarely do so, and try to "fake" it into our needs. Think of a real photographer getting into CGI in order to expand his offering and do more advanced things in his photography work. He will need a tool that talks the talk he is used too and that is all about real camera settings... sensor size, lenses, ISO, shutter speeds, aperture, shifts and more. Not referring strictly to the SketchUP plugin here... but in general. All the render engines since Maxwell Render was first introduced added some physical based / real camera workflow to their features - so there is something to it, a demand by us - the users. I actually use VRay most of the time... but with it's VRayPhysicalCamera and environmental HDRI's. I've also been testing Indigo, Thea and more for there "Camera Like" feature set and I really wanted to know what artists on this forum think about this. I'm an archviz artist first, not a photographer, but I do tend to go with physically based workflow, trying to work as a photographer does. This usually gets you the most photo-real results. I don't think it is a rule you should blindly follow, but people have been accustomed to judge designs by looking at photos! the real human eye view is, oddly, not the view we judge things according to. This is why we call it photo-real

Good.

That is correct. I hear a lot of folks use it for interiors, if they have the time to let it cook. It does produce some nice grainy results. Perfect for what I am looking to do.

Thanks, I'll check into it.

@pieterv said: In the first render the two sides of the road were two components that I flipped along an axis (mirrored) Thats what I meant. After mirroring explode the component or the group and group it again. The texture on the flipped side can have some artefacts. So the workaround you mentioned is right, although you can try this out just with the flipped component.

Adam, if i try to download 2.5a Fullversion) i´ll become only the downloadlink for 2.4d tnx Dean

[]