Forums
|
Forums >> Community >> The Studio >> Rendering in Revit
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, Jan 17, 2006
4 Posts
No Rating |
My firm is new to revit and I am in the core group that is testing it. We were previously using "Piranesi" to finish up renderings from form z. I've been trying to do this from revit and it is pretty cumbersome with all the exporting to cad then vedute. I was wondering what other people's experiences were with rendering in Revit if there was a consensus that one can or cannot render adequately using only Revit. Anyone? especially I'd be interested to hear someone's opinion as regards Revit and Piranesi. Thanks.
|
This user is offline |
|
 | |
|
|
active
Joined: Wed, Feb 8, 2006
1 Posts
No Rating |
i am having the same problems. I am doing a big job and inserting rpc's kills my pc. I have had to finish the job in photoshop. I used to use archicad and we used to transfere dwg's into artlantis. It was a great program for rendering but from what i can understand it is not compatible with revit. I know Viz is used with revit but have not had a chance to look at this package... I am currently looking at buying a rendering (more money) package but dont know what is best for Revit...
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
site moderator|||
Joined: Mon, Mar 14, 2005
777 Posts
 |
your best bet will be to go with Viz. the reason we don't have a proper rendering engine is because Autodesk would love to sell you another program for alot of money 
so we are stuck until we get the Viz engine...
with Viz you can link your Revit model and it will go across with all the materials.
if you need to use lot's of RPC and you find your pc is having a hard time, try Archvision RPC composer:
http://www.archvision.com/composer/
HTH
-----------------------------------
Integrator Architectural Engineering Construction KarelCAD |
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Thu, Jan 5, 2006
18 Posts
No Rating |
Ill probably be the only one to defend accurender, lol.
Let me preface this by saying that im NOT saying it can EQUAL Viz or Max. But, there is a HUUUGE difference, in what is produced with accurender the first time you try it, with their procedural materials and default environment settings, and the result you get after laying out some decent bitmapped materials.
The ONLY reason im considering moving back to VIZ for rendering, is rendering TIME. After a few days setting up some decent materials in Revit, im to the point where Revit isnt my weakest link anymore, its the plotter, lol. Sure, there arent opacity maps, gradient maps, reflectivity maps, yadda yadda.... But, for time in vs output out, ive gotten some decent renderings out of Revit.
The one thing bothering me is the inconsistancy of the radiosity. If i save a solution, and try to load it, revit either crashes, or wont render translucent materials properly. But that said, im very happy with accurender.
If i remember, ill grab some images tomorrow that ive been playing with. BTW, im not trying to compete with 80 hour renderings, so ill say that up front. Ive seen the Viz and max renderings that can pass for real life, and ive also seem the man hour reports on them, lol. The renderings im doing are one man deals, and Revit sure is fast at compiling them.
That said, im avoiding RPC's like the plague. The render like curse if theres intense lighting/shadows over them (because theyre 2d), and they bloe up the file size...
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, May 4, 2004
20 Posts
No Rating |
ADMRL, You won't be the only one Defending Accurender !!
I will also reiterate that you CANNOT compare Accurender with Viz/Max, nor should you. Nor should you compare these with Piranisi or Artlantis. They do different jobs for different reasons and have a different effects in the end. And this is where this topic really matters - what do YOU want in the end??? I know people that are just floored by the Accurender images that I am able to produce. Are they photorealistic and make people faint? - No, not by a long shot. But we all KNOW that and our expectations are not dashed.
I too will be looking shortly at moving SOME of my work to Viz... also because of the render times and such. The key that I'm understanding from listening to people talk about this is to determine a proper methodology that works for you. A process that works. This may take some trial and error, but if you're prepared for that, then it won't appear to be that bad.
Clicker - You ask "if there was a consensus that one can or cannot render adequately using only Revit." I would have to ask you, in regards to what I said above - Would the output that you can get from Accurender and that you've seen, work for you? Personally, I say yes, but I'm going to be biased because I worked hard to make these renders look good - and now I have a system down.
In regards to the RPC issues - I've tried to make it a habit to keep the rendering aspect separate from the model that is going to be a CD set. What I mean by this is that you are fully capable of linking in this file to a separate file that contains entourage, trees, rpcs, etc. Will it take time when you 'populate' your file? Sure, but be prepared for this and you won't be so shocked.
Remember, Revit is not made from the get-go to be a render engine. It's a documentation tool to make our lives easier as we're creating our designs and making them come to life. The rendering aspect is a by-product and in my opionion, a good one. It's a tool. What are you going to do with it?
Take a look at some of my renderings over at AUGI.
This style may not be for everyone, but they work for us and I think shows what COULD be done with Accurender in Revit..... Out of the Box!
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=26337
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=26341
http://forums.augi.com/showthread.php?t=26076
K-Pax
(Kyle)
Senior Designer
The Evans Group, Inc.
Orlando, FL
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Thu, Jan 5, 2006
18 Posts
No Rating |
I as well, keep a separate *site* file for rendering, with the Building model referenced in. Not only for size reasons, but also for scheduling. I use *floors* and such when certain rendering images need to be created, and its easier to do that on a file thats not going to be scheduled, lol.
Even so, i dont like the way the RPC's render. I use the people ones, becuase i havnt found any good 3d modeled people. But i wont sue them for cars anymore.
BTW, wether the results are adequate is one thing... But im not entirely convinced that Accurender cannot produce fairly photorealistic images. Ive come fairly close already, in the short time ive worked with it. Materials Materials Materials, lol. Im having a harder time matching specific colors that clients are after (company standards), than i am making something convincing...
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, Jan 17, 2006
4 Posts
No Rating |
Wow, Thanks for the lengthy response. That all helps. In response to you k-pax, we are a pretty small firm (9 people) so we don't really have the man power to concentrate on rendering as a primary task- So like Revit, rendering is a bit of a by-product of our work. Yeah, since working with it I've been able to up the results from what the default is but a lot of it does seem like an issue of getting good (and new) bitmaps.
I tried to view those images kpax but was denied as Im not a member.
Im going to stick it out with accurender for now, as it does seem pretty good- for my skill level at least.
I'll try having a dedicated file for rendering.
One issue that you mentioned admrl is giving me trouble: Matching rendered colors with what the accurender dialoge tells me the color will look like- Everything is always way brighter than it seems, even with sun intensity turned down. Any suggestions?
Thanks again for help.
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Thu, Jan 5, 2006
18 Posts
No Rating |
Yeah, that happens to me too. Realize im far from the best at this, but heres my take on it thus far: Ive noticed "cloud cover" only affects the shadow intensity, and Sun Intensity affets the brightness, so i start with cloud cover at about .4, and the sun at .7 or .6... In real life, shadows arent so dark that i cant see whats under them.
Then, i just play with the angle to get the effect im after. BTW, for nice bitmaps, check out accustudio.com, they have tons, all downloadable. They have one really nice asphalt bitmap, complete with slight oil stains. The key (in my opinion) is to find BIG maps. If the pattern repeats too close to one another, youll spot it. The asphalt one i like is huge.
As for color matching, realize what you see on your screen is worthless. Printers have different kinds of color management (go to the advanced settings for your print setup...) as well as each printer printing differently.
I wont even taste print on a different printer than the final product will come out of, because its VASTLY different between our two printers.
Also, i take everything in to PS at the end, and typically desaturate the entire image to a -19, then desaturate the sky another -30. (I use a clouds bitmap from somewhere.)
Those are just the numbers i personally am at right now... We dont see color as vividly as Revit likes to paint, so even with bitmaps i find things are too radioactive.
Again, this is just my take, there are FAR better people to get advice from, lol... Go sign up at augi, and check the gallery there :::jawdrop:::
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, May 4, 2004
20 Posts
No Rating |
Just to follow up -
The AUGI site is Free and is a good compliment to the one here. PLUS you can usually see some of the Factory Guys (Autodesk/Revit) floating around here and there.
Keep up the good work and keep at it. It doesn't matter what size firm you're at, it depends on what kind of effort you're going to put into it. FYI - I was putting out (what I consider) decent renders within a couple of days. Bitmaps are a part of it, the settings are the other.
I do have some Tutorials over there, so check it out.
Kyle
|
This user is offline |
View Website
|
|
|
active
Joined: Thu, Jan 5, 2006
18 Posts
No Rating |
I definetely agree with K-pax. The Augi forums are a wealth of information, not to mention tips, discussion, and the galleries. Ive take so much out of those forums, in terms of rendering, that its crazy.
|
This user is offline |
|
| |
|
|
active
Joined: Tue, Jan 17, 2006
4 Posts
No Rating |
I've become a AUGI member so I'll start lurking around over there too.
Im feeling pretty good about accurender. Thanks agina for all the tips
|
This user is offline |
|
|
|
active
Joined: Fri, Apr 17, 2009
7 Posts
 |
Since this year Revit 2009 can export to Artlantis 2 in atl file format. The export can be downloaded at: www.artlantis.com As well as Artlantis Studio 2.1 Demo version, the demo version last for 30 days but I can provide you a 60 days serial number. revit2009toatl2@abvent.fr
-----------------------------------
Alain Picard Artlantis Product Manager |
This user is offline |
|
|
|
Similar Threads |
|
revit rendering |
Revit Structure >> Technical Support
|
Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 8:33:24 AM
|
1
|
|
Revit MEP 2009 Rendering |
Revit Systems >> Technical Support
|
Thu, Mar 5, 2009 at 8:35:55 PM
|
1
|
|
What is the best revit/rendering engine combo? [ 1 2 3 ] |
Community >> The Studio
|
Tue, Feb 3, 2015 at 9:40:52 AM
|
31
|
|
Revit 2009 Rendering Problem(Black screen) [ 1 2 ] |
Revit Building >> Technical Support
|
Mon, Apr 1, 2013 at 2:45:28 PM
|
27
|
|
Realistic Rendering [ 1 2 ] |
Revit Building >> Technical Support
|
Thu, Aug 4, 2011 at 2:30:37 PM
|
25
|
|
|
Site Stats
Members: | 2071236 | Objects: | 23098 | Forum Posts: | 152260 | Job Listings: | 3 |
|
Search