Some Council Houses!
-
A series of council houses I am working on. Not the best example of architecture but what can I say?! I'm not the designer, just the monkey. I could only spend a day on it so the finishing touches are a bit rushed. More images to come....
Exterior Preset
Physical Sky strength 0.9
Sun Strength 4.6
Shadow Bluriness 8Comments appreciated!!
Thanks to Solo and Earthmover for the plants!
-
Some bush on left side havent shadows...
-
lol good spot, i didn't even notice!
ive updated -
Hi Oli,
can I ask you what angle the FOV is at? Other than that it's all good
-
fov is 45. not keen on default FOV.
it was an attempt to fill the image better.
-
Really nice!
I can only see o bit of halo on the outlines of the 2d trees and persons. But perhaps I'm wrong...
-
yeah maybe to foreground stuff. I should invest in some proper cutouts!
cheers
-
i like your light configuration, (Y)
try out some Xfrog shrubs they are pretty cool! -
Nice Oli !! Pretty cool, long to get the render ?
-
For a one day job, you've done very well, and I'm sure the client is happy, which is most important...
@olishea said:
I should invest in some proper cutouts!
Have you tried using some of the 2.5D trees by Tomsdesk...??
@nektares said:
try out some Xfrog shrubs they are pretty cool!
Xfrog shrubs... In SU...??
Personally I prefer high-poly 3D trees from Xfrog and I'm fortunate to have a huge selection I can use together with KT, but I would never be able to use them directly in SU...
(looking so much forward to the Twilight Render proxy system...!) -
@unknownuser said:
looking so much forward to the Twilight Render proxy system...!)
Please elaborate. Doesn't Twilight already have a proxy system? as in render all hidden layers etc?
I will buy Tom's 2.5D trees this month, they are great and good value.
@unknownuser said:
long to get the render ?
about 3 hours to render, although it was pretty clear after 1.5 hours. original image is 2000px wide and I am rendering on windows via vmware fusion on a dual core imac. oh yeah that reminds me !!!!TWILIGHT FOR MAC!!!! HURRY HURRY HURRY!!!!:D
thanks for all the comments
-
@olishea said:
Please elaborate. Doesn't Twilight already have a proxy system? as in render all hidden layers etc?
Not exactly...
It's a well known fact that SU is very poor at handling high-poly components and I would never attempt to bring i.e. Xfrog trees into SU...
What I mean is a system, where you place a low poly component (i.e. 2D, 2.5D and even low poly 3D) in SU and these can then be "replaced" in Twilight by high-poly 3D components...
Today I use KT as a "studio render" together with TWR...
It's quite easy for me to place 2D components in SU, setting up materials, lights etc. using TWR and from TWR export to XLM...
I open the XML in KT, where I can replace all the 2D components with the high-poly Xfrog tree components I have (check out the Replace your instance with KT instance object (proxy,almost) thread) and render the scene...Although it's not the best example, this is how I made the Magazine inspiration...
-
Nice work as ussual oli
,Can I ask you a question? I've been using Kerky for a while now and love it's options. ( add a displacement option and we have a keeper
). I've tried this replacing instances thing, and it worked but the scale of the X-frog tree was to big. When replacing does the X-frog tree take the scale of the instance it is replacing ( or should it? ) because rescaling the trees can be a hard because of the file size.Greetz Twan
-
-
Dear Oliver,
A very nice presentation, but a pity about the architecture, and yes, I know it is not your design. Why do council houses almost always look like council houses. Is it a case that architects that can 'do', and those that cannot design council houses.
Kind regards,
Bob -
Hijack away!! no worries, i am also taking note of your comments.
-
Sorry for hijacking your thread, Oli...
Just wanted to answer the questions posted by Twan...@pugz1983 said:
When replacing does the X-frog tree take the scale of the instance it is replacing ( or should it? ) because rescaling the trees can be a hard because of the file size.
No... The Xfrog trees doesn't take the scale of the component it's replacing...
It's more to give the user an option to place a component in SU and replace it using an instanced object in KT, hence the title proxy, almost...
@pugz1983 said:
I've tried this replacing instances thing, and it worked but the scale of the X-frog tree was to big.
Not sure I understand what you mean...??
The Xfrog trees we've made available at the KT site, have the correct size/scale... -
@unknownuser said:
Why do council houses almost always look like council houses. Is it a case that architects that can 'do', and those that cannot design council houses.
I really don't think that's the case. Remember Bob, the design is almost always diluted by the client and planning officials. And I'm pretty sure most Architects don't discriminate about what type of job they take on especially during the current economic climate (hate that expression). There isn't much picking and choosing! it would be nice though. A council house can still be a beautiful and fulfilling challenge.
I can't see a client saying "oh he's a bad architect, he can design our council houses!" quite the contrary.
Unfortunately, this is the situation we face in England. A plague of neo vernacular pastiche architecture.....a country of tacky dolls houses. Maybe I could change that!!
-
Dear Oliver,
My comments were made slightly tongue in cheek, but only slightly. We have some really bad examples of council housing in Oxford, such as Blackbird Leys, and so I tend to rail against featureless shoe boxes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackbird_Leys).
Talk me through this would you Oliver. You start with the same land, the same bricks and mortar and the same (or similar) man-days of builders effort, so why do many (not all) council houses look so dreary and featureless. When inner city building land is so scarce and costly, why is the roof space totally ignored (mansard roof?). Is it all down to the number of units on a particular site, the cost per unit, and the property developer trying to maintain his profit margin high by going for the cheapest build possible.
One last, and quite controversial question. Do beautiful presentations and renders promote bad planning and architecture by creating an illusion of a model community and a village-like atmosphere? Discuss.
Kind regards,
Bob -
Render = OK
Design = ???Who was it that thought that making the gable-ends of some small articulated forms 'lopsided' made them look 'nice' ?
Forms should 'follow function'... and also basic 'structural rules'... and common-sense...
A gabled-roof is at its most functional if it's 'symmetrical'... UNLESS there is some underlying reason that it should not be so [we see none ]...
"Occam's Razor" = don't make something more complex than it needs to be...Render scores 7
Design scores 3
Advertisement