What SketchUp could/should have been like...
-
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 we’re 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 doesn’t 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 didn’t dare to came talk again on this topic after the last (failed) attempt, but it’s seems that it raised some interest, so, let’s try again...
I could talk about the software in question, as I’m testing it since some days, but I think it’s maybe more interesting, at least at first, to make a point on the general subject behind this discussion... It’s a personal opinion, but I hope interesting to share...
It’s all about a technological issue :
-
On one side they’re 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, they’re 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 they’re 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, we’ve 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 you’re hardware configuration, still...), improving greatly the sensation of interaction between the user and it’s 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 they’re not... As a matter of fact, even if GPU solutions are really efficient, they’re 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, they’re still not able to get close to simulation of physical phenomenon, and still need some "tailoring" to work smoothly.
So, it’s 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 “rendering killer” 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 “gaming engine” allow a completely new experience of a built environment. The fact that you’re 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 (“What SketchUp could/should have been like...”) is, to me, interesting, because it rises more a question like “how can conception and representation of architecture be seen with a new angle ?” than “ Is this tool able to deliver exactly the same thing than the one we’ve already got ? ”, and it lead to better opportunities to discuss further the subject...
-
-
wow.. this thing looks really nice... hope its affordable!!!
a lil OT...
@ earthmover/ Adam,
from what i have seen in the demo/ intro videos Iray for Max is more like an unbiased Mental ray. Is there an interactive response like in thea or Octane in this yet? if not.. do u know if they will introduce it in 3dsMax2012 or something?
thanks!
JJ -
Sketchup was created to look like a vector illustration (eg Adobe Illustrator)-- this is not even remotely near "Realism"... any realistic effects you can achieve in Sketchup are diversions. It is designed to be graphic in its visual effect on purpose.
To say this is what Sketchup should have been is to ignore the very specific intentions of the creators. Sketchup will never be this and if this is what you want then you are able to use this product to get it.
For my industry there is a great deal of value in the graphic vector style of Sketchup and it would not be nearly as useful to us if it were "realistic".
Best,
Jason. -
tx Pixero,
I am sure all 3D modeling applications will work like this sooner or later. SU probably later or maybe too late. I just had a discussion on the Vectorworks board were I wondered if it was possible to model in a semi rendered mode or/and perspective view. It turned out it was not possible to do that really well.
Many there answered that orthogonal modeling in wireframe was the ultimate way to work. That also seemes to be the programmers idea of Vectorworks. To me it just shows how old generations of software somtimes fade away rather quick.Francois
-
New movie.
The WHOLE video rendered in 12 minutes 27 seconds!
[flash=640,390:2vur6s6y]http://www.youtube.com/v/HoYervlEdsM?fs=1&&hl=en_US[/flash:2vur6s6y]
-
Twinmotion 2 is now live.
I've played a little with the demo and am a bit disappointed.
Rather slow performance. I have a Nvidia 9800GT so that might be in the lower range for the application.
Very cool to build something and see it lightened realtime.
Quality so, so...
No control over camera/player speed and smoothness.
My main issue is the prize v.s. the quality/performance.
€ 1920 = $ 2662 is to high in my opinion. -
You have to explode everything in SU before exporting, then triangulate every face... yikes!!!
That's gonna be some very heavy models.
-
@solo said:
You have to explode everything in SU before exporting, then triangulate every face... yikes!!
That is not a very nice workflow. Exploding a large model kills SU.
Advertisement