@roger said: @Olishea, no I don't think the lens flare is impossible. You don't know what lights are behind the camera. Maybe I have an open bulb to create some fill light or perhaps I am catching a light off of one of the ceiling fixtures. While not precisely positioned, something similar is quite possible. In the old days(really old as in the age of the big bang), decrepit folks like myself would paint these into a render on chrome bumpers and gold teeth etc. We industrial designers called them farkles as in fake sparkles. They are designer bling. Mies Van der Rohe stated that "Less is more!", but sometimes more is more fun. And they do serve a function of underlining the chrominess of the chrome. In real life we rely so much on constantly changing views to tell us what some thing is. In a flat still image we need to manage every aspect of the image for the viewer to fully understand what is being presented. As Adam Savage says on the program Mythbusters, "I reject your reality and substitute my own." Good morning Roger, Well said ! Cheers. inasia

Some are visible the rest only half of it, maybe a provider problem who knows. But even this way these look brilliant.

@utiler said: Hi Brooke, A nice touch is to animate shadows as you move the camera; make the building seem a little more alive! Agreed. Thanks, Andrew. My concern with animating shadows here is adding time to the set up and rendering process. It would seem if the time setting remains static, SU needs to do a lot less computing when rendering. ??? I will likely add more of that, though, and for me, time will flow backward! This because the road in, the approach, is from the west, and the desired path is around the south side to the east and then to the back (north).

test embed - WIP - all my postings to this thread are of this same project Carkeek renovation interior - CURRENT - more or less [flash=1280,745:5o7ctb76]http://www.youtube.com/v/yX6vYGpw2kg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/yX6vYGpw2kg&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1?rel=0" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="1280" height="745"></embed></object>[/flash:5o7ctb76] Direct link for smaller (formerly larger) display of same video For those like me, learning this linkage stuff, the above EQUALS: Direct link for smaller display: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX6vYGpw2kg AND IS: 'left bracket' url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX6vYGpw2kg]Direct link for larger display[/url 'right bracket'

It's a nice render. But I don't think the tires should be so reflective. Hey on your GTR on the previous page, when you were all done, did you reverse faces? Just urios (TYPOS!!!! Meant to say curious XD) PS Why are you vomiting at your own renders? Hm...

nice image, I would like to see more.

its $22 but more than worth it. I would pay $100 for it to be honest. http://www.smustard.com/script/SubdivideAndSmooth

3rd render on the top. Ive been trying to work with stone walls but a little to tough to figure them out. Im using a blender material on a wall with uv's from SketchUp. There isnt much depth on the stone because its normal maps and not displacements. The 4th on the top is displaced a little.

[image: b8JK_Art_substrate.jpg] Using a mounting substrate that attaches to clips into the spaces between tiles allows more flexibility in the positioning of art elements that don't span the cracks between tiles. The right two art groups are contrasted with the remaining art not shown with a substrate. After studying the result I would probably use just one backing for each two art groups.

Pyroluna, do you mean the actual lens glass inside the lens? Anyways here's another update, front and top complete. Need to do the sides, back and bottom. [image: 4OK4_3.png] cheers, ultimatez

Hi, Robert - Yep ... looks better to me! Have a great weekend!

@horseman04 said: Nice Job. Out of curiosity what was it rendered with? @thorian_oscuro said: a small room one floor to see if they like ... made whit sketchup+vray 1.48.83

Updated. [flash=640,385:3ujq56ao]http://www.youtube.com/v/BkODJhFDxxk&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1 http://www.youtube.com/v/BkODJhFDxxk&amp;hl=en_US&amp;fs=1[/flash:3ujq56ao]

Rummaging around a hdd and found this... [image: ills_Render_This_Mad_Scientist.jpg] Rubbish entry, but an entry none the less

Well this was just on Prelim settings and a fairly small screen--but it cranked out about 75 images in about 10 minutes. Not bad. The VirtualDub freeware combined all of the images into the Video in about 30 seconds. It's not Spielberg, but considering where I was with SU Animation in Version 3, this is pretty cool. When I have more time I plan to up the ante a bit in resolution, presets and such and see how long it takes. One technical glitch: where did that Gnome come from?

It looks a bit flat but the form looks fine, you could add some detail. Maybe if you chose another point of view, more frontal it would look better. Anyway, I'd say that the head needs more work, and maybe the body should have some buttons and stuff. Are you using some refference? I'm not a guitar expert so I could't guess what model you are modeling

@costafinkel said: Thanx dude, it was pretty easy to learn. I will try to watch some youtube videos now. That's what I did. The others are right. It's easy to get started, but once you go through the tutorials, it's dangerously addictive. Here's one that helped me with work flow: http://www.martinrinehart.com/models/tutorial/tutorial_toc.html It's good, but there are one or two flaws later in the lesson in some of the Ruby code coordinates. Take your time and you'll see the mistakes. But overall, a great tutorial.

@slimdog said: I like them a lot. I think there is a considerable about of glass there. The last one freaks me out a bit. The columns and road markings look bent. Thank you for answering, speaking about the road marking, it is just the style I have changed, to make a '' sketch '' effect, Thanks again

@kxi system said: Do you always have to shoot me down Pbacot? KXI, I don't mean to do anything like that. Just offering ideas--without actually having to do the work! Maybe I'll take a stab at the entrance to show what I think. Though I have enough modeling projects I can do. I think you're doing great. I am not a Palladio expert, or any sort of expert. I have a "feeling" however, that the projection of the upper level above the entry balcony is not great, partly from the sketch and the amount of span the side columns you show would be carrying, both physically and visually. I see the pilasters at the corners of the entry portico working with the central columns, although I don't quite understand the pilasters coming forward out of line with the rest. Hard to say what the source sketch is for, since it doesn't seem comprehensive at all. I guess that it is an "outline" of desired drawings, for the draftsmen to follow, filling-in with their own knowledge, to be published in much more detail. Peter

Great project, seeing forward to see more