@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

Computer Specs? VR version? SU version? How many/what kind of lights? You should be able to render a 60MB file.

@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.

A higher end computer will of course render faster. Could be the type of RAM and the speed of processor. You are comparing apples to oranges really.

I'm not the best representative of the entire company, I really only get to see a small window of what's going on. I get to see a list of bugs from customers, and a list of requirements from those above me. I just program and try to keep as best of a pulse on what's going on as I can. ASGvis, when it existed, was able to resell it's own product, which allowed us to play around with numbers some, but the underlying pricing scheme was always based upon the way Chaos Group did things. When 2.0 came out and RT came out, they charged for an upgrade. Now we are at the point where RT is working in our plugin core (with VfR at least). It's all still in the air though. I haven't heard any talk of definite pricing, licensing, etc. We are still at the point where we are trying to figure out what we need to tackle, when, how, and how long it will take. I wasn't told the final price of the VfR upgrade until the day of release, so I'm really not the best person to talk to about that kind of stuff. Tom - I understand the frustration, we will do our best to make our next release worthwhile, regardless of the pricing or feature set. We have made tons of fixes and optimizations already, it should be exciting to see what else we can improve. If it were up to me, I'm not sure if I'd opt to spend the time ripping features out of the current implementation of our product so that we could put out a bugfix patch, or if I'd spend that time to get the current features in VfS. Both options would probably take a similar amount of time, and each have their pros and cons, so it's a tough call.

Thanks, I'll check into it.

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

@tig said: If you have some Scenes when you want 'solid' people/cars and others where you want 'wireframe' use Layers and Scene-tabs. Make two Layers named SOLID and WIREF. Your people/cars should be components. Put them all on the SOLID layer. Now make a copy of all of them and put those on the WIREF layer. Switch the SOLID layer off... Select all of the people/cars [on WIREF] and use make unique on these - this way you keep a 'solid' set unchanged. Edit each person/car component in turn. Select all faces [use one of the selection-tools available] and delete them [a quick way is to use Wireframe view mode, select all edges by fence, Edit>Cut so the faces auto-delete and them immediately Edit>PasteInPlace so only the edges are left - go out of Wireframe mode to check they've gone!]. Use 'Entity Info' on these selected edges to stop them casting shadows etc and then you have what you need. By toggling the two layers ON/OFF you can have solid/wireframe people/cars in different Scene-tabs... If you move one need to remember to move the other - easy done if both layers are temporarily on while you edit... The awesome trick worked thanks indeed !

@unknownuser said: I am using Twilight to render these images. When I set "two point perspective" I can't get the image into the view. In other words it is not rendering the scene showing on the screen. Offsetting the SU image does not seem to work. @unknownuser said: Rendering 2 pt perspectives in Twilight only work if you do not adjust the scene (panning/zooming) after clicking the 2 pt perspective button. Marcus is right and, as far as I know, this is an issue for many renderers integrated in SU. You can try this little trick I found however: -Switch to "2 point perspective"; -Move nothing; -Switch back to "perspective". Now you can pan &zoom and Twilight will render it correctly. Not really the same of 2 point perspective as you will see, but at least the verticals will stay straight.

Me too. http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=322&t=44117

Use this material on front and back faces. Thin Glass.vismat

Great thanks man , I was kinda lost with that material. Thanks again.

Yeah, there's been a fix with the gamma level, so renders with the current version will be brighter. You can adjust with the inverse using 0.4545

In all recent versions of SUp the 'Entity Info' dialog should report a selected Arc's 'true length' and NOT the total of its segments. To test this change the Arc's segment count in 'Entity Info' and you'll see irrespective of if it's 3 or 999 the reported 'length' remains the same - whereas exploding into lines copies of that same arc with differing segment-counts will report their cumulative lengths as differing...

i assume you render with VRay - since Reflection channel didn't help, you could try Raw Reflection. but maybe an easier way would be to remove the color from the sea and leave it white - that way the bumps would stay but you would have no problems with selection.

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

no, none that I can tell.