Klog, a great thanks for sharing this amazing model... it really deserved to go in the "most impressive sketchup model" topic !

Facing such an interesting space I couldn't resist doing a test render :

It was done in Thea, with a really short setting time (only adjustment for the stained glass windows and the metal fence), render (3000 pix high) for about 20hours (I actually forgot to stop it during the night, so it should have been good enough after a few hours only...). Really small post pro in PS (mainly some color corrections). Reduce for posting.

Some details out of the big image :

... I'll try to find time to make more images, this model is really inspiring..

By the way, some remarks: the covering of the pillars looks a big large to me, and not so realistic in term of proportions, and their texture is lacking of precision... but this are small problems regarding to the amount of work you put in this cathedral !

Keep up the good work !

Just found this :

RENDERLights 1.9 - Virtual Reality for Professional Projection Solutions

RENDERLights 1.9 - Virtual Reality for Professional Projection Solutions

(www.renderlights.com)

They've got some video too:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TBe6Y0pxFZM&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7z18I3qMpu4
(sorry, I've lost the way to embed the video on the forum...)

It's seems to be a new real time engine for sketchup, and looks quite powerful (radiosity, emissive materials...) but the demo is really expensive, and I haven't give it a try...

Has anyone heard of it or tested it ?

Hello... I thought that this thread was dead and gone, but happilly it's not !

@earthmover said:

Mr. WIP, what is your rig? ...and what kind of difference in render times did you experience with the two programs?

Well, earth mover, I'm not really sure to get what you mean by "my rig" (the french translation is not crystal clear...)?

About the rendering time, it's hard to tell, and not speaking about the global look of the render (which is a whole subject by itself) :

• Lumion is fast and stable (more than the first versions of twinmotion), and the import system via DAE is a wise choice, well supported by sketchup, so it speeds up the dialog between the two application. On an other and, Lumion is, to me, really lacking advanced control (more advanced than the one you get by activating the advanced mode), and it's impossible (for the time being) to scale something or move a part of an object, and you have to go back in sketchup for every small modification...The same goes for all the rendering settings, that you have to tweak everytime again to get what you want (an option to save presets will really be necessary).
• Twinmotion is slower to import, because it uses fbx data which are far more heavy than the DAE, and is not as stable as Lumion, but it offers a much wider range of possibilities ( real gizmo, more lighting possibilities, and such..), which allows you to update more precisely your model all along the design process.

So, actually, Lumion is able to display really quickly a sketchup model in a nice outdoor landscape, but it's a bit too "closed" to make a professional really happy (I don't meant it's not good enough to be used by professional, just that in this state, it's often frustrating), and Twinmotion is a bit slower to get an immediate result, but offers more development possibilities.

Finally, both programs just suffers from their early age : lumion is lacking many features (and they will surely appear soon in the next releases) and Twinmotion is still not fully ironed out (and It will sure get better as the time past)....

@remko said:

Is there any chance you can provide me with the model you used for TM? I'd like to do some comparisons between Lumion and TM2.

I will try to find the model I've used, and as soon as it's done, I send it to you...

... Maybe an intelligent comparative review, a bit similar than the good one done by solo on lumion, will be interesting...

@notareal said:

It would be interesting to see the same scene used with both engines with similar entourage (Those are from libraries included with engines?).

You're right... actually the TwinMotion scene was done before the Lumion's one, and then I found more interesting to made the latest test with a different kind of model... but I'm working on a new sample scene to test them both in good conditions.

And yes, the trees, grass and some texture in the TwinMotion test are from the program libraries.

Hi everybody,

...Real time engines dedicated to architectures are popping out this days at the same rate than Christmas gifts wishlist...it's impressive how fast things goes sometime...

Here are the first results I've achieved with the two main competitors currently available in that field. It's not a comparison or an opposition, just some random tests, to see what can possibly get with this kind of software.

First, let's begin with the latest one : Lumion.
The model used came from the warehouse (http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=a7c36c45c6f91cb5cb5f4b6be26c5f2a&prevstart=0)
I've clean up some minor things, but it was already really usable (no backfaces problems, or such), then, import it into lumion, and play about half an hour, adjusting the terrain, water, sky, and taking pictures where it seems to be interesting...
The materials of the model have not been modified in Lumion (everything is raw from import).

Original size 1920pix, reduce for posting

Then, continue with the first to have been there : TwinMotion

The model is also from the warehouse ( http://sketchup.google.com/3dwarehouse/details?mid=ab2c0b7f1074b24b209596fcfea698be&prevstart=0).
I've spend more time on this one in sketchup, because it was not as clean as the other one, so I had to flip some backfaces, adjust some material, add a landscape...
Then I import it in TwinMotion, and took maybe an hour to plant trees, grass, lamps and adjust materials (bumps, reflections...), before making the shots.

Original size 2000pix, reduce for posting

... Now the only issue with theses tools is to refrain making too much pictures...

ok, it's clearer now, thanks for the explanation Adam.

Adam, I've been in touch with the developers during the building of the software, and ask them the same question than yours, because usually, deferred rendering engine ( cryengine and such) never include planar lights, and are always limited to point elements. But actually, in twinmotion, they've fine a way to do so. I don't know how technically, or what trick they're using, but in the end, you're able to get a planar ceiling lamp for exemple (that you can't achieve with an omni or a spot).Isn't that what your looking for ?

@adamb said:

My big problem with this kind of approach is that it cannot support anything but trivial light sources. ie Point Lights (omni) and Direction (sun) lights. eg You cannot support Area lights with this tech.

Adam, sorry but your assertion is false, there's area lights in TM2, and it works well (you also have spots and omni). The difference with, for example, light up, which bakes the lighting, is the fact that you cannot set a random surface of your model as an emitter (by applying it to a material)...it reduce a bit the range of possibilities, but still, it's quite efficient.

@solo said:

You have to explode everything in SU before exporting, then triangulate every face... yikes!!!

The importer works by splitting the object by material (just like Su2Thea actually), so you don't have to do anything by hand (exploding everything, and so on). I've beta tested the early versions, and it was rather slow with a full sketchup hierarchy loaded in real time. But, by using this method (which is automatic with the import preset "sketchup"), it's much more efficient.

... 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...

I've checked on Renderin forum, and the faceted problem is a bug that they're fixing now, but there still some unresolved mapping problems, and that's maybe many of you don't get a visible bump.

It's possible to get a good result in a short amount of time, even with a huge model (light changes are really really quick), but the lighting solution is missing adjustment option (sun color, etc...).

... If they add what Artlntis process (section tool, DOF, material library, etc), it could be a real good renderer.

@unknownuser said:

[edit].. mrwip, you're misquoting me up there ^^^ (as in, i didn't say any of that) but i'll chalk it up as a typo

Whoops, sorry, I've messed up with the quoting tool on the last post....

tfdesign, I'm glad to see that my point of view is a bit more clear after that...

... Actually, I find that it's really hard to explain things about the way you're using a program and the way you want it to evolve on such a forum. Everyone has his own point of view, shaped by his own experience, no-one really know why someone is writing something, and it all get quite confusing...I mean, we're always reading things as we want to see them, and really often missing the point of the one who's trying to explain something. Adding to that the fact that many of us are not English native speakers, and the discussion easily turn into great mess... Still, it's really good to be able to express ideas around here !

Jeff, I really appreciate your try to define what makes sense (and essence...) in sketchup... it's quite effective, and shows why it works, by bringing together many concept not well used before in "old" 3D apps (snapping, navigation,...).

@unknownuser said:

the sub-core of sketchup struggles when dealing with too many polygons but the real core is a bit beyond that.. whatever those original @last guys were thinking, well, they pretty much nailed it whatever it is..

... You're touching there what I was struggling to express...There is "something" in the way sketchup was though at first, that still lie in it (that's why we keep using it with pleasure), but that "thing" have not been push or bring in action in the way the software is made, since some years.

... TO end up with the push pull thing, of course it was a schematic example, I'm conscious that extruding a line is not the same action as pushing a face...but still, I'm sure there's something to make there (and on many other subjects too).

@tfdesign said:

What a load of arrogant nonsense! It is precisely SketchUp's innovative interface that makes SU so easy to use

Well, well, well...that was quite a violent assertion... Actually I think you really don't get what I was trying to explain, but maybe it wasn't clear enough, and that's why you saw arrogance where there was only a testimony of facts...

So : SketchUp interface was really innovative when it was created, and still is by many ways, but it hasn't really evolve the way it can.

Let's keep the example of the push pull, and, if you don't mind, your 6-year old daughter.
I think, and that's the marvel of sketchup, that's it's really easy for her to build something convincing in a few minutes. But, and that's where I made my point, it should be then quite tricky for you to explain to her why it's not possible to push-pull the curved wall in the backyard, and why she couldn't extrude a simple line to make a fence next to the entrance.

@unknownuser said:

Drown SU in multifaceted buttons and devices, and the interface bombs.

I never asked for that...but rather the opposite... Actually, if the native tool were a bit more clever, and able to do such things, it will only make things more easy and interesting, without adding loads of button and toolbars (as it is today if you're using plugins). SketchUp will still be SketchUp, and even maybe a bit more...

Again, making it more capable does not mean making it weaker, more complex, or fashion for only a small time. The efficiency of a tool is the result of a long engineering, of all of its parts, and looking at SketchUp, I have the feeling that some of them have not been push to their best, that's all.
The idea is not to ask "more tools, more tools", but to say "what could we bring to this particular tool to make it better, while keeping it as easy to use as before ".

@unknownuser said:

How many other titles out there can claim this? Blender? 3DS Max? Cinema 4D? Heck!

And don't get me wrong, I'm using sketchup since several years, been trying most of the other apps, and still coming back to sketchup, because in many fields it's still by far the best tool. If it was not, why posting anything around here...

... If you still think it's a bunch of nonsense, then I'm sorry...

If google is listening, then let’s talk to google !

I think that everyone (mostly) around here, will be agree to say that what makes the attractive force of SketchUp was Innovation, and that concept left the program sometimes ago, sadly.

What I mean is that there are many way to make things in the same time more rich, while keeping them simple.
Actually, when someone says on the forum “we should add this function”, I'm really sad to see that there is always someone to respond “no, no, keep sketchup simple”... that classical answer clearly shows that there’s no innovative research in term of interface going on.

For example, let’s continue to talk about the “push pull” tool, the emblematic one.
At first, it was only made to extrude simple faces, and that was a genius approach. But as usage evolves, people are facing new situations, and have, in that case, to push pull far more than just a face : a complex surface, a series of non attached faces, a line, and so on. So, Ruby developers have create tools, separately, that respond efficiently to each problematic.

To me, Ruby tools like that should only be necessary as a kind of transition element, before an upgrade that resolve the problem they were pointing (and I say that with great great respect to all the Ruby developers... their work would be more interesting if they didn’t have to fight everytime with originally unsolved problems).

So, in the case of the “push pull”, in 2010 it should be a kind of multipurpose and intelligent tool, that is able to extrude about everything, regarding to the context. It will greatly help new user, by assisting their hand efficiently, and it will boost the productivity of pro user by reducing the amount of operation necessary to make one simple action.

It's really strange to see that no one is ever mentioning the fact that the base of SketchUp could evolve...SketchUp way of handling situation is not some kind of sacred text. The original set of tool was good when it was released, many years ago, but it have to evolve. Creating new function does not mean adding modified old tools to the program, but rethinking the way the original funtion was working....and that should be the job of the developers (no offense...).
I don't like to talk about others software, but programs like Inventor Fusion or spaceclaim, try to find new approach, by making the program more clever, in order to make things more simple, while still really powerful.

I’m aware that research and development are an expensive process, that’s why I agree on a previous post, that call for a bigger gap between pro and free version (sorry...).

So, thank you Google for you’re attention ( it sounds so cool to say that...), and please, give to sketchup the means to be the application it could (and should) be !

Great subject xrok1, you're really asking good questions, and I see that SU user have struggle on the same point while beginning with B3D.

It's good to see that I'm not the only one to envounter many crashes, even with an updated version of B3D and graphic drivers... I really hope this will evolve, because you have to trust the program you're using everyday...not knowing when it will shut down is a real pain...

Since B3D people are around here responding to questions, there is something they may explain... Actually, it's just a small parameter, but it stops me going further in B3D workflow : when you're making an extrusion, or something like that, you first pick the object, then begin the movement, clearly visually presented by a nice arrow, then you enter the dimension you want (actually it's sound like sketchup...) BUT (and that's where its really annoying...) there is a "minus" to enter if you want to go in one way... actually, giving the direction + a dimension should be enough, but here, you have to take care of the direction (quite arbitrary... maybe normal related...), and enter for example "50" or "-50 " regarding to the direction.
I didn't find a way to disable that (maybe it's an hidden option, and my post make no sense...) and it really reduce my interest in the subject... I
t may sound like a rather small problem, but it's killing the workflow when you're constantly pushpulling things around in a model... so I hope it's just an option , somewhere...

... A calm room, a bit dusty, only enlighten by the colorless light of a full moon...

Hello everybody,

Friends of mine are developing a new visualisation program, that will come along well with many modeling applications (including sketchup, of course), mainly for architectural projects.

They're now almost to the point where they want to begin talking about it over the web, gathering ideas, reactions and feedback, but they are struggling to find the good place to do so. There's for sure many site / forums speaking about more or less the same subject (3D visualisation for architects / artists ) over the web, in many different languages, but they're hard to reach through a simple google search...

So it will be really great to let me know if you have any interesting address, in the US / Italy/ Germany / Russia / China / New Zealand / Antarctica or anywhere else (the widest range of location, the best !... the list is not at all a limit...).

I can not give much detail about this project so far, but it will be about a powerful real-time rendering engine, designed from scratch to be used for architectural visualisation, so, full of potential for many of us...

Thanks in advance for your help !

Fletch, when I first read the feature list of twilight, I've been really happy, because it was including my request. The fact that the renderer itself take care of the operation make it even more efficient than a plug-in (which is always a bit struggling with group / object materials...).

But after trying, I've realize that your clever clay was acting strangly :

1- The bumps maps are kept in the final result, and in fact added to the new 'clay' material.. and it seems that there is no way to get rid of that function (in order to get a really clean and simple clay version )

2- The rendering engine used for the clay mode is surprisingly slower than the classic one. For example, in here, the same simple scene took 48s to render in 'High +' mode, and 5 minutes in 'clay high'... the result is just the same, and the timing does not take in consideration the processing time, which is obviously longer for a clay rendering.
I've try other scene, and the result is just the same... it's really strange, a clay render should be a really quick one...or at least not longer...

Actually, it's also missing a real clay, simple (not clever),quicker to process.

In fact, to me, clay render should not be a kind of rendering method, but rather an option available for all the rendering engines (sometimes you want to create a really clean path tracing clay model...).

It could be link to the sketchup 'face style', just has it was done in Su2Pov, or Su2Indigo, or in the Su2kerkythea plugin.
Being in monochrome automatically enable the clay mode in the renderer, and being in Hidden line (which take into account translucency) enable a clever clay... then it's up to the user to choose the rendering method.

Hope it will help that really interesting program evolve in a good way...!

I'm sorry Adam, but that does not really respond to my questions.

So:
1_ Why does the AO parameters disappear from the menu when we're in 'direct sources' mode? Is it necessary to make first an occlusion pass, then a sun light calculation ?
2_ Again, is there any way to adjust the shadow darkness (I didn't get so dark result with the previous version of lightUp)? ... Even with a white sky and ground, the interior in that model is almost black. I've try on other example, and sometimes I'm facing the same problem, sometime not, It's a bit random...

kwistenbiebel, your video looks really good (even if a bit of scene organization can improve the rendering ).

To be honest, I've also give it a try in lightup, but was not happy with the first result.... can you post your settings ?

A good challenge, and a really nice model!

...When you say no fantasy... does that include:

• Giant three headed dragoons ?

• T-Rex-and-other-random-monsters-lonesome-hunters ?

... I guess it does... So sad...I'll have to find something else...!