What SketchUp could/should have been like...
-
Hi Jan,
my experience is It's always the same in all these promotional videos. The first impression is that everything is very simple. When you enter deeper into the program then you realize it is not all that simple. Most of them have a long learning curve. It may be easier to people who have had experiences with other 3D programs.
This is not a negative. I've often downloaded trial versions of various 3D programs and tried. I usually gave up again in exasperation.
Charly
-
the conception video in one word: AMAZING
-
@charly2008 said:
Hi Jan,
my experience is It's always the same in all these promotional videos. The first impression is that everything is very simple. When you enter deeper into the program then you realize it is not all that simple. Most of them have a long learning curve. It may be easier to people who have had experiences with other 3D programs.
This is not a negative. I've often downloaded trial versions of various 3D programs and tried. I usually gave up again in exasperation.
Charly
What I meant is that SketchUp COULD have been this good if they had wanted to implement realtime lighting and shaders.
Imagine how cool that would be to model (in SketchUp) while everything is shaded and lighted.
Meaning, advanced looks doesnt necessarily mean that workflow must be difficult. -
that is all true. And learning curves take even longer with me. . .that being said. . I am definitely staying tuned in to this one.. .
-
@gaieus said:
And their website:
http://www.therenderingkiller.com/
"Opening October" - that's just two days!
Actually I didn't dare to include the link after the previous thread debacle.
http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=15&t=30907Since the last teaser is set for october 5:th the site will probably not be up until sometime after that.
-
I wonder how easy/difficult it is to create or customize your own assets...?
-
@thomthom said:
I wonder how easy/difficult it is to create or customize your own assets...?
or draw while using actual measurements
the toolset is looking very weak as far as architectural modeling goes...
[or maybe it's just me.. i've tried so many different apps that have similar looking tools and i couldn't get into them at all]
-
Read an interesting take on another site:
"You have to be aware that any engine based on rasterization, that is glorified game engines, will be full of hacks for implementing almost all visual effects. Contrary to physically-based engine in whom visual effects are the direct consequence of a physical simulation.
What it means is that those engines will always be tailored to specific cases, and when you push them you will get a lot of artifacts. It works great for a game because the devteam is in close contact with the design team, so both can adapt to make the result an almost flawless experience." -
Here is a quote from the site:
@unknownuser said:
Of course weâre aware that many different approaches to workflow exist in architectural design, and even more in 3D design. Indeed, every agency can develop their own unique way of working.
However, Twinmotion is a very accessible application that doesnât attempt to compete with most modeling tools; although it does, quite naturally, import all that you might use elsewhere, and it possesses its own intuitive modeling tools which are remarkably receptive.
-
@solo said:
What it means is that those engines will always be tailored to specific cases, and when you push them you will get a lot of artifacts
true. you can already see the shadow errors on the right wall (from 0min 33sec)
but lets wait and play with it first
-
**@unknownuser said:
What SketchUp could/should have been like...**
well for those of us in Boulder last month will tell you. . .this will all be part of SU 9
-
I don't see it as a "rendering killer". There will still be a need for photo realistic stills, but for real time interactive visualisation and as a tool for animation it looks very promising.
Having spent more than 4 weeks (24h/7days a week) rendering an animation with Vray, and still having render artifacts, this could be a life saver. -
I see this as a great way to get SU models into game engines, great exterior visuals as well as interior both still and animation. Depending on the price that is.
-
The scenes are usually heavy optimised in such case ...something like Crytek ...but when you try it yourself nothing really is good like in those promos. I would like to believe different but I am a bit sceptic.
-
@unknownuser said:
Twinmotion is a Windows only software. We have tested and optimised however Twinmotion on dual boot MacOS. It works just great. Yes we did think of all you Mac users!
You gotta give it to Google, at least they support both the major platforms (Linux would be nice too, but two is a great start.
)As for Twinmotion "thinking of us Mac users"..
...hmm I'll keep my expletives to myself for now 
-
Apparently there is no GI and no raytracing but all rasterized rendering. I'd put it a few steps above iClone, but not much.
I'm more excited about the release of iray today!!!
-
Adam is Iray going to be integrated with max like Mental Ray?
Ah..of course Iray has been part of Mental Ray since v3.8....
-
I too could/should have been good looking, and rich.
-
@sepo said:
Adam is Iray going to be integrated with max like Mental Ray?
Ah..of course Iray has been part of Mental Ray since v3.8....The new Max update has Iray bundled into max and is now an option under "choose renderer". Fully integrated, one click, GPU based, unbiased rendering, standard inside of Max. Check here - http://area.autodesk.com/blogs/ken/3ds_max_2011_subscription_advantage_pack_revealed_iray_physx_substances
-
... I didnât dare to came talk again on this topic after the last (failed) attempt, but itâs seems that it raised some interest, so, letâs try again...
I could talk about the software in question, as Iâm testing it since some days, but I think itâs maybe more interesting, at least at first, to make a point on the general subject behind this discussion... Itâs a personal opinion, but I hope interesting to share...
Itâs all about a technological issue :
-
On one side theyâre is a need for representation and simulation, and it leads to modelling software linked to rendering engines. The goal is to create efficient images (most of the time as realistic as possible), by simulating accurately a lot of physical phenomenon.
-
On the other side, theyâre is a need for immersion, interaction, and it gave birth to games engines. The goal is to create convincing environment, by accumulating a lot of different parameters (visual effects, sounds, animations..).
Both sides have been greatly limited during most of theyâre existence by the calculating power of computers, and it leads to two different way of handling situations :
-
rendering engine users accepted the fact that they will have to wait to get an usable result (minutes, hours...) because accurate result is the goal.
-
gaming engine users accepted the fact that things will have to be a lot biased visually (baked texture to simulate light, low poly elements,etc...) because an average amount of frame par second is the goal.
Things could have stay that way for a long time if technology was not evolving as fast as it does, and , again, weâve got :
-
On one side, recent evolution in GPU and CPU have gave birth to a generation of rendering engines able to deliver images not in minutes or hours, but in just a few seconds (regarding to youâre hardware configuration, still...), improving greatly the sensation of interaction between the user and itâs creation.
-
On the other side, pushed by the same technical evolution, an new kind of rendering engine have emerged, able to deliver in real time what their predecessor have to precalculate ( direct lighting, ambient occlusion, complex shaders...), getting closer to an illusion of simulation.
... Those parallel evolutions leads to a rather confusing situation where two really different things seems to be really similar, where theyâre not... As a matter of fact, even if GPU solutions are really efficient, theyâre far from being really interactive ( lets say, at the best, something like 1 picture in 5 seconds, where you need something like, at least, 15 to 20 in 1 second to get a decent result in real-time), and even if Gaming engine visual results are now really convincing, theyâre still not able to get close to simulation of physical phenomenon, and still need some "tailoring" to work smoothly.
So, itâs really important to take a step back and realised that this two ways of doing things have both something to bring to creation, and should not be opposed like they tend to be this days, because it hide the real interest of them both... ( To be really honest, I think that the name ârendering killerâ is not, on that matter, a good choice, because it tend to promote this opposition, where the interest of such a software reside elsewhere...).
What should be seen is the fact that a âgaming engineâ allow a completely new experience of a built environment. The fact that youâre able to move around freely, add sounds, interactive animations, or dynamic reaction of the place (day / night cycle, lamps, moving people, etc...), is really not the same thing than just capturing a picture...
Those interactions capabilities opens a wide new range of possibility and reflection potential when it come to architectural conception, without removing the need for true simulation at some point.
... To end this long post, I just want to add that the way Pixero named its topic (âWhat SketchUp could/should have been like...â) is, to me, interesting, because it rises more a question like âhow can conception and representation of architecture be seen with a new angle ?â than â Is this tool able to deliver exactly the same thing than the one weâve already got ? â, and it lead to better opportunities to discuss further the subject...
-
Advertisement