Lightwave the best for Architecture? [Archive]

adailide

04-04-2007, 08:56 AM

tektonik

04-04-2007, 09:35 AM

no it is not the best

but i use it in big projects with many inputs (acad, form-z, lightwave, lightscape) and it is very powerfull for big stuff

for ultra realistic focused projects and interiors it is waaaaayyyy behind on many aspects

zent29

04-04-2007, 09:47 AM

adailide
If your going to use lightwave for arch-vis, make sure you buy LW-Cad 2.1 and Fprime. If you can afford it you should also buy G2. I use lightwave for arch-vis with great success. LW-cad is lighting fast and can build floor plans in minutes. For photo realistic interiors you should try Kray.
:lwicon:
Chris

colkai

04-04-2007, 10:00 AM

I use it with LWCAD2.1, works fine for me and other I know who are happily making a living with it.

Captain Obvious

04-04-2007, 10:29 AM

"The best" does not exist. Different applications have different strengths and weaknesses, and even then it's mostly a matter of personal preference.

We mostly use Lightwave, and I feel we achieve rather good results with it.

ingo

04-04-2007, 10:37 AM

3DS Max the best for Architecture?
When I purchased my Max version 5, I thought it was the best for architecture.

I have used it for two years now, and its still very complicated to model a cube. I understand that every program takes ages to learn the ins and outs, but I find that all other programs can produce a little quicker and are more friendly to architectural modeling...... ;)

--------------------------

Aaaaah. another The-grass-is-always-greener-on-the-other-side-and-its-the-artist-not-the-tools-thread.

LightWave is as good or as bad as other programs. As you already noted it takes some time to get used to every software. And after several years you have workarounds for every bug (thats what Newtek is counting on) and you get faster and image quality gets better.

nthused

04-04-2007, 11:22 AM

I've been able to make a few good looking images with LW over the years and while doing so have made a little money.

Honestly I think the creation of good work is 80% artist and 20% software. There's incredible work from many 3d packages.

As others have said, it really comes down to how you work - and/or how much time you can invest learning new software to glean it's particular strengths. If this is your profession, invest the time, money, and energy to learn it's strengths and weaknesses. If you find that the software does not meet your needs or the needs of a project - then invest in new software and training that will satisfy those demands.

No software is perfect.

zardoz

04-04-2007, 11:25 AM

Just check the gallery by Otacon from this forum:
http://otacon.kvaalen.com/

Everything is Lightwave.
I guess this answers your question. ;)

Iain

04-04-2007, 11:35 AM

Max is generally regarded as the best choice for architecture (it's certainly the most popular choice anyway) but you'll find precious few Max users who rely on its native render engine(s).
The notable thing here is the availability of VRay for Max which is very hard to beat for speed, flexibility, features and quality.
LW can access some external engines now (e.g.Maxwell) and exclusively has the options of FPrime and Kray. Both are getting better all the time.

For modelling, personal preference has a large say in which is best application. All of them can do pretty much anything.

adailide

04-04-2007, 01:49 PM

Actually my main rendering program is over 12 years old, the company is obsolete, but I have mastered the program (Visual Reality).

I fully believe that the artist makes up a major portion of a rendered image. In architecture, knowing and understanding a perspective, vanishing point, and so on are invaluable resources.

Max is a trendy pick and I have never like it. I like programs that are built for Architects not engineers.

I love the great feedback to my question, please keep them coming.

adailide

04-04-2007, 01:53 PM

by the way "Iain", I love the Faith No More avatar you use.

Exception

04-07-2007, 06:29 PM

We have used LW for years for Arch viz.
With Kray for complex radiosity rendering, LW 9.2 for amazing effects, and Fprime for instant feedback it's a lovely system that is pleasant to use and efficient. It's also affordable, the community is fantastic, and the thousands of free plugins and scripts is not to be undervalued.
Now as to which is the best, I don't know as I havn't tried everything. As far as architecture goes, I like my pantone markers, butter board and exacto knife, my 2B pencils and my Lightwave.

axaboss

04-08-2007, 01:36 AM

In some cases, you can do a quick mock up (stand-in) in front of the client with LightWave and use it as a template to move forward in producing a detailed structure. I've done this several times and my clients are amazed. Most of my clients are architects and work they with AutoCAD and Studio Max, so you know I'm working for a tough crowd. LWCad and FPrime are a big help. They are quite happy with the end results.

gaushell

04-08-2007, 03:05 PM

When I purchased my Lightwave version 8, I thought it was the best for architecture.

I have used it and I find it is good, but very complicated to get the best image possible. I understand that every program takes time to learn the ins and outs, but I find there are a couple other programs that can produce a little quicker and are more friendly to architectural modeling.

So my question is for others who use it for architecture. Is Lightwave the best choice to use to produce photo realistic architectural images?

Like others said - no perfect package.

At paradigm productions, we've used it for 15 years. We have 10 full time Lightwave artists and 95% of our work is architectural. Nthused and Otacon both mentioned/or responded are part of our team.

Lightwave is a great package with a very easy to use modeler. One of the best modeling programs around for sure.

With lwcad and frpime (As mentioned above) it is fantastic. Version 9.2 has some awesome features.

Nicolas Jordan

04-08-2007, 04:04 PM

Like others said - no perfect package.

At paradigm productions, we've used it for 15 years. We have 10 full time Lightwave artists and 95% of our work is architectural. Nthused and Otacon both mentioned/or responded are part of our team.

Lightwave is a great package with a very easy to use modeler. One of the best modeling programs around for sure.

With lwcad and frpime (As mentioned above) it is fantastic. Version 9.2 has some awesome features.

I'm just curious, do you guys down there at Paradigm use Lightwave/LWCAD for all your modeling tasks?

gaushell

04-08-2007, 04:10 PM

We use lightwave for all of our modeling (with the exception of Vue for a recent forrest project). Don't always use lwcad as it isn't needed for every task - but very useful and improving with each revision.

nthused

04-09-2007, 06:41 AM

I'm just curious, doX you guys down there at Paradigm use Lightwave/LWCAD for all your modeling tasks?

I would say that in well over 90% of my models at Paradigm I've utilized LWCAD - it's just so darn addicting :)

VERY little of our modeling is done without LightWave - even in the recent project where we used Vue, the land was imported from LightWave. So saying "all" would not be completely accurate - but we're in the upper 99.9X% for using LWs modeler on our projects.

gaushell

04-09-2007, 07:34 AM

I rounded up from 99% to "all"......can you tell Allen has more of an engineering background and I have an architectural one?

theo

04-09-2007, 10:22 AM

My 2 cents: Lightwave, by itself, is a pain in the arse, totally, for strict archie work. It's too time-consuming and is not efficent for repetitive tasks, which tend to fill to the brim most of the archie work I have worked on over the years.

It excels at organics and just pure point A to B power but not at mundane repetitious work like wall/door/window trim, cornices, and the tons of other crap that goes on for miles in some of this architectural stuff.

With LWCad 2 Lightwave becomes an absolute joy to use for efficient and productive architectural work. LWCad 2 is not limited to the boring and mundane though because I use it hand in hand at designing interiors and exteriors and designing and reproducing non-existent archeology-based furniture, vessels and structures.

In other words, I perform actual architectural work itself utilizing LWCad within Lightwave.

LWCad is awesome. Lightwave is awesome. Lightwave WITH LWCad is doubly awesome and totally sweet to work with.

Nicolas Jordan

04-09-2007, 06:29 PM

Thanks for the replies. Thats pretty neat that you guys use Lightwave/LWCAD for your modeling. Does AutoCAD come into play at all in your work flow?

axaboss

04-09-2007, 06:40 PM

Thanks for the replies. Thats pretty neat that you guys use Lightwave/LWCAD for your modeling. Does AutoCAD come into play at all in your work flow?

In my case, sometimes. I would take an architect's AutoCAD file, turn it into a plot and export it as a DXF file. That process only takes place in AutoCAD. Then, I import (or just open) the DXF file in LightWave Modeler and use it as a template. The DXF file is composed of the side, top, back, and front views of the structure. It could be multiple DXF files or just one with all views. AutoCAD serves no purpose in the visualization arena. It does have a simple 3D renderer, but nothing to write home to mom.

theo

04-09-2007, 06:44 PM

Thanks for the replies. Thats pretty neat that you guys use Lightwave/LWCAD for your modeling. Does AutoCAD come into play at all in your work flow?

Not at all. Never used it. Have no need for it.

jameswillmott

04-09-2007, 06:58 PM

I use ArchiCAD for all my 'base' modeling work, and detail with Lightwave. ArchiCAD is a specialised architectural modeler ( among other things ) and I can whip out a detailed house model between it and Modeler in about an hour or two.

Where we're located, speed, not quality seems to be the order of the day. :(

Exception

04-09-2007, 10:57 PM

Archicad? oh god...

to each his own I guess :)

We use AutoCAD on a daily basis for all 2D cad work. Never for 3D.

Exporting plans to LW goes through printing to PDF, using illustrator and the live paint tool to 'color' in the walls and floors, and then import in LW, polygons already there and all. LWCAD takes it from there. Whee!

I prefer doing everything from scratch in modeler though. I use LWCAD sparsely.

robk

04-09-2007, 11:06 PM

I would really like to figure out your guys workflow. Every drawing we get from Architects are in Autocad. I have written custom AutoLisp routines over the years for 3D modelling in autocad (autocad straight out of the box without customization is almost usless). I would love to use another package instead of Autocad but have never found anything as fast.
In our workflow Autocad allows us to bring in elevations from the Architect, rotate them so the height of the elevations are in the "Y" direction "Z" in Autocad and use them for snapping heights without having to measure. When a wall height is 8'-1 37/64" I just change my 3d wall height just by picking a point on the supplied elevations. (very easy). Having the elevations turned up also lets us view the 3d model from the front, back etc and make sure it matches exactly with the supplied elevations. (that's with decent supplied drawings of course). All the snapping tools are also great. Every sample I seem to see from programs like LWcad seem to have a lot multiple repeating elements and although there is sometimes a lot of that in Architecture I rarely get jobs where I need 20 Roman arches in a row. Autocad sucks for any curving elements that slope and is only really good for linear elements.
The main reason I like autocad is like I said I can snap and draw from supplied elevations without hardly having to enter any numbers manually.
Since Nicolas Jordan (NJ3DESIGN) joined our firm a couple of months ago he has opened my eyes about what can be done in LW but I need proof models can be constructed ACCURATELY and FAST in a package other than ACAD.

- I have tried sketchup and it has possiblities.
- I never have tried Archicad
- Chief Architect seem to be only residential oriented.
- I guess I got LWCAD 1.2 when I upgraded to LW but have never installed it.
- Fiddeled with Modo and did a little scripting (recording keystrokes) and it also looks not bad.

I would like to Know others workflow so I can shed the autodesk yoke.

ingo

04-10-2007, 02:37 AM

.... Having the elevations turned up also lets us view the 3d model from the front, back etc and make sure it matches exactly with the supplied elevations. (that's with decent supplied drawings of course). ......

Because of that i use sections and elevations in a second file only in the backround to measure the heights, its rare that plans and sections fit completly.

So my workflow is a bit different, i use Vectorworks for opening and cleaning the plans (delete trees, cars, hatch, patterning...) and export as dxf file. Than open these files in FormZ for modelling. I only use LWs modeller for certain tasks that are easier in LW than in FormZ. For me FormZ is still the best mix between a CAD software and a 3D modeller.

jameswillmott

04-10-2007, 06:29 AM

I would like to Know others workflow so I can shed the autodesk yoke.

Here's mine.

I receive Autocad drawings from the architect. I import each plan into it's own workspace or storey in ArchiCAD, then import the elevations into ArchiCAD's elevation windows so I can confirm the model is coming together properly later.

Using the Slab tool I set the thickness and elevation of the ground floor main slab, and trace it out, (using autosnaps or autotrace) on the ground floor storey workspace. The slab tool creates a 3d model of the slab as I draw it on plan. Rinse and repeat for the other floors. Then I use the Wall tool, set the wall thickness and heights, and trace the walls on each storey. The wall tool, like the slab tool, creates a 3d model as I draw the 2d representation on plan. Use the Window tool to add 3d windows ( automatically cutting the holes in the walls as necesssary, and if I need to resize the window, the hole resizes too ), Door tool for doors, Roof tool etc.

Check the elevation windows and the 3d view to make sure the model elevations line up with the supplied drawings. ( Which they never do unless the designer used Revit and knows how to use it properly )

Export wireframes to the architects for clarification as we go along.

Once the base form is complete I export as a 3ds or obj file and add details with Modeler. Export to Layout, surface, light, render etc.

adailide

04-10-2007, 12:03 PM

Well, this forum has taken on a new life and I am very happy for that.
My initial question asked on 3d modeling/rendering programs.

My work is sequenced usually by modeling in a CAD program then exporting to a rendering program. Which seems to be what most people do.

It seems to be that the key to the situation is the settings used to produce the final image and not how you get to that point.

My question on top of that would then be, do you have a typical set-up you import the models into so that you are not repeating the same work every time you render a model? A default file of sorts.

by the way, great feedback, please keep the posts coming.

Captain Obvious

04-10-2007, 12:38 PM

My work is sequenced usually by modeling in a CAD program then exporting to a rendering program. Which seems to be what most people do.
Keep in mind that the amount of cleanup work required on CAD exports often makes it quicker to just model it from scratch in a 3D modeling app.

nthused

04-10-2007, 01:09 PM

Well, this forum has taken on a new life and I am very happy for that.
My initial question asked on 3d modeling/rendering programs.

My work is sequenced usually by modeling in a CAD program then exporting to a rendering program. Which seems to be what most people do.

That's not what we do. As the "Captain" said - the import into LW can be dicey, one - and two, LightWave with LWCAD is pretty darn accurate and fast.

It does depend on what program and sequence one is used to - but for me I'd rather have a good, reliable mesh that I know will render well, than to bring in a questionable one that must be edited a lot (usually).

Through the years I've tried it both ways and given the choice I'd build in LightWave with the DXF in the background as a template. Fast, clean, and easy to edit.

Haven1000

04-10-2007, 01:18 PM

Keep in mind that the amount of cleanup work required on CAD exports often makes it quicker to just model it from scratch in a 3D modeling app.

This is the main reason why I do most of my modeling in LW. Using the likes of Kray which prefers "tight" models, modeling in LW gives you a greater control of the quality of the geometry and reducing errors.

The only other app which I use with LW is Vectorworks, and that is to only convert/ import other file formats and to create template floor plans to be imported into Modeler.

adailide

04-10-2007, 10:25 PM

With 2d already done in CAD programs it is usually fast to just 3d the plan in CAD. I am speaking of architectural models here.

I guess what I need to do now, if I am to stick with LW, is to check out LWCAD and see what that is about.

Iain

04-11-2007, 02:38 AM

I often build my models in cad. Having the plans and elevations in one format where you can also 3d model directly makes it quite uncomplicated.
There's no harm in using more than one method. And for that reason, particularly for interiors, I use LW's modeller from scratch as it is much faster, easier and has more actual working '3d' functions (as you'd expect I suppose).

ghaledev

04-16-2007, 02:43 AM

I use Microstation XM for architectural modeling. It is a quick Parasolids kernel based true solid modeler. I render most jobs in Microstation's raytracer or particale tracer, but usually render animations in LightWave.

Microstation has a great Sketchup exporter (UV maps and all) and there is a new Sketchup to Lightwave exporter plugin available mentioned on these forums which works well.

theo

04-16-2007, 06:59 AM

alexos

04-16-2007, 09:45 AM

Archicad? oh god...

to each his own I guess :)
...
I prefer doing everything from scratch in modeler though. I use LWCAD sparsely.

Yup, receiving those horribly messy .3DS's from Archicad and having to spend utterly boring hours cleaning them up is painful. On the other hand, though, working in Modeler only it can be equally painful: in our typical design scenario, there'll always be someone who believes that the shape of those 40+ windows you've just finished stenciling and beveling in is SO wrong, and could you please redo them all just to see how they look?

With Archicad, it's a matter of seconds; with Modeler, you can but hope that you've got a proper incrementally saved version of your model somewhere...

ADP.

3dworks

04-16-2007, 10:10 AM

mostly modeling in formz here - with very good file exchange with LW. for complex tasks, i cannot imagine to work without it. i'm using LW's modeler for all the texturing and some details if organic shapes and especially SDS are involved.

markus

theo

04-16-2007, 10:22 AM

So is this an idictment?

I have no idea what this is.

He uses LW, period.

No, he uses Microstation. He use Lightwave for some animation, if you actually read his post. Which is supremely helpful information in a thread requesting feedback on utilizing LW for producing architectural-grade models and similar.

theo

04-16-2007, 11:16 AM

Your "Hmmm... you almost use Lightwave" sounded rather derrogatory.

We are in a web forum so I am at a loss as to how I was able to be heard.

I just sensed a PR response from the Microstation guy is all, just back off. If he did not intend it that way then no biggie.

People do seem to forget that these forums are intended, in part, to promote Lightwave.

ingo

04-16-2007, 02:15 PM

I have used Microstation in the past too, the parasolids kernel is excellent indeed. Sadly its not available anymore on the Mac.

Ups, wrong forum. This definitly depends to the Autodesk forum ;)

ingo

04-17-2007, 02:21 AM

"Parasolid: A true foundation for digital 3D representation

Parasolid is the world’s leading production-proven 3D geometric modeling component software, providing core functionality that enables users of Parasolid-based products to rapidly and robustly model the industry’s most complex products. Based on high precision boundary-representation technology, Parasolid supports solid modeling, generalized cellular modeling and freeform surface/sheet modeling within an integrated framework..."

http://www.ugs.com/products/open/parasolid/

Btw, PARAsolid for parametric solids.

Clive Edwards

04-17-2007, 05:54 AM

Having bought LW9 a few months ago I have to say I find it quite hard going. I think it would be helpful if there were some tutorials specifically aimed at the arch viz people apart from the LWCAD 2.1 which I see is very good, but doesn't go into great depth.
I would very much like to know how people did arch stuff without being able to draw a straight spline before LWCAD. Also the import of dxf files seems to be very hit and miss unless you use something like accutrans.

Iain

04-17-2007, 07:28 AM

To be honest, architectural modelling in LW isn't much different from other kinds of modelling. You just form the objects and spaces you need in the most efficient way.

General tutorials help a lot.

manholoz

04-18-2007, 07:50 AM

Exporting plans to LW goes through printing to PDF, using illustrator and the live paint tool to 'color' in the walls and floors, and then import in LW, polygons already there and all. LWCAD takes it from there. Whee!

I haven't used Illustrator in ages, but do you mean to say that filling boundaries in Illustrator and exporting that (as an .ai or .eps file?) into Lightwave, it gets imported as polygon meshes? 8~

Please, explain! :bowdown: I'll have more times to pamper my two kittens!

glebe digital

04-18-2007, 03:59 PM

Illustrator has good links to LW, I've personally used it a lot for text and logo work, but this Archviz approach looks just as timesaving. :)

Exception

04-18-2007, 10:23 PM

I haven't used Illustrator in ages, but do you mean to say that filling boundaries in Illustrator and exporting that (as an .ai or .eps file?) into Lightwave, it gets imported as polygon meshes? 8~

Please, explain! :bowdown: I'll have more times to pamper my two kittens!

Well...
You know how if you have a 2D autocad drawing when you import it into any 3D application you end up with just 2d lines... it would be so much easier if the walls and floors were polygons already, so you can just extrude them, and voila...
Well that you can, by going through illustrator.
The color shapes that live paint makes get imported as polygons into LW.
LWCAD makes it easier to do this in lw natively, but doing this is far faster and more pleasurable... you know, using that live paint thing and in one click having created your entire wall structure... whoopy!

I'll write a tutorial soon, i guess :)

manholoz

04-19-2007, 12:20 AM

My kittens will thank your kind soul for writing the tutorial. And so will I.

ingo

04-19-2007, 03:10 AM

Hmmm...i don't get it. Whats the advantage of having closed polygones for the walls. I know that it helps for the surrounding but for the building. What about the holes in the walls, the windows in the 2D plans ?

In FormZ i simply snap to the cornerpoints of the dxf plans with the "wall tool" and have the structure finished before you have exported your cleaned structure from Illustrator. As said before the Illustrator workaround is fine for landscape plans, especially since landscape architects have a hate relationship to closed polygons.

acocq

04-19-2007, 06:50 AM

Got to chime in here ...

LW in combination with LWCAD is a great setup. Although I've not had to do any arch-viz stuff yet (but maybe within the next couple of months :hey: ), my "playing around" with LWCad have been very, very rewarding (not financially, just educationally).

Not sure how it measures up to specialized arch-viz programs, but the combination can do quite a lot of things !

Cheers,
Andreas

colkai

04-19-2007, 08:29 AM

LWCAD rocks my world, it's snapping tools are part of my every day arsenal now and I can't imagine using LW without it.

nthused

04-19-2007, 10:19 PM

LWCAD's Engraver...oh yeah.

Mark The Great

04-20-2007, 10:39 AM

LWCAD's Engraver...oh yeah.

Don't forget the profiler... :D

Exception

04-20-2007, 08:20 PM

In FormZ i simply snap to the cornerpoints of the dxf plans with the "wall tool" and have the structure finished before you have exported your cleaned structure from Illustrator.

Hmm...
Open in illustrator, select all, click 10 or so times to fill all the walls, save, and open in modeler and then extrude... If that is slower than rebuilding the walls by hand it must be a very small house.
This technique gets more powerful the bigger the building is, especially with many corners and nooks and crannies. If you have an older building or a special piece of architecture with poche, it's just as fast.

But... to each his own, if you enjoy your technique, then it must suit your needs.

tektonik

04-20-2007, 09:27 PM

Hmm...
Open in illustrator, select all, click 10 or so times to fill all the walls, save, and open in modeler and then extrude...

in this scenario, must i assume that the walls in the source autoCAD drawing are closed polylines ?

Exception

04-20-2007, 10:27 PM

in this scenario, must i assume that the walls in the source autoCAD drawing are closed polylines ?

They don't have to be. Not all lines need to be perfectly touching eachother either, as illustrator has a bit of a tolerance for things like that. as long as it's a reasonably well made plan, just with straight lines, no fancyness, you're game. You need to make sure there's no fancy symbols hanging around on top of the walls of course, but that's usually just a matter of turning off the layers in cad before you print it to pdf.

ingo

04-21-2007, 04:20 AM

Hmm...
Open in illustrator, select all, click 10 or so times to fill all the walls, save, and open in modeler and then extrude... If that is slower than rebuilding the walls by hand it must be a very small house.
This technique gets more powerful the bigger the building is, especially with many corners and nooks and crannies. If you have an older building or a special piece of architecture with poche, it's just as fast.

But... to each his own, if you enjoy your technique, then it must suit your needs.

Okay, i tried it. But ten clicks later i still haven't done more than three walls, you have to make the plans pretty clean before you can do it, pattern and hatching is something Illustrator doesn't really like. And you model of course every mistake in the plans too.

But as a wise man once said ... if you enjoy your technique, then it must suit your needs.

tektonik

04-21-2007, 10:22 AM

Exception

04-21-2007, 10:38 AM

Okay, i tried it. But ten clicks later i still haven't done more than three walls, you have to make the plans pretty clean before you can do it, pattern and hatching is something Illustrator doesn't really like. And you model of course every mistake in the plans too.

Well of course it all depends on the quality of your drawings. Yes, you should turn all hatching layers off, so you just have lines, just like you would when importing it to lightwave.

If you had to click 10 times for 3 walls, there must be something wrong :)

Anyway, I just offered it as my workflow and a suggestion. You don't have to use it if you don't want to, you know :)

manholoz

04-21-2007, 11:13 AM

I agree it depends on the quality of the drawings. In my experience, most get drawn by mmm unexperienced or overworked people, where doors turn up in the window layers, random lines in different layers, and so on. After all, they just want it to look pretty when it gets printed, not make the life of an archviz guy any easier.

So I'ld say IF the drawings have been "housecleaned", the 10 clicks can be feasible. OK, modelling a city will require more clicks... I usually tidy up the drawing before I even attempt importing it elsewhere. Saves me lots of time in the long run.

3dworks

04-21-2007, 11:45 AM

cheers INGO

i am a 16 years veteran of form-z and i still use it for my modeling

it can manage massive amounts of geometry without any trouble...

i will switch to the 64 bit version of form-z this month since i am on lw-64, fprime 64 and all.... i am curious to see the ocllusion performance of form-z for quick hiddenline perspectives...

a+

hi tektonik,

nice to see another FZ-LW user! i'm using formz since it's version 1.05 ;)

until now i've not yet seen one modeler which combines the functionality, precision and versatility of formz... and it's still getting better year after year. sure the learning curve for beginners may be a bit steep at first, but once mastered, you won't need any other modeling tool, at least if speaking about modeling in the archiviz area.

apart the already mentioned excellent LW compatibility, i'd like to add that i'm not alone to say that the support at autodessys is superb!

markus

ingo

04-21-2007, 11:51 AM

Well of course it all depends on the quality of your drawings. Yes, you should turn all hatching layers off, so you just have lines, just like you would when importing it to lightwave....

Well thats the main problem, if you have layers. I often get plans that have lots of layers, but in the end nearly 90 % of the lines are on one layer. And of course with trees in front of the houses...

Exception

04-21-2007, 01:13 PM

Well thats the main problem, if you have layers. I often get plans that have lots of layers, but in the end nearly 90 % of the lines are on one layer. And of course with trees in front of the houses...

In that case this method is useless. I guess it depends on who your clients are. I never get that type of drawing. It's either a proper autocad or vectorworks file, with proper layers. Being an architect myself, I can't imagine drawings that sloppy. How on earth do you work with them?

I hear good things about Form-Z, but a few guys that are using it here are often complaining that their model got corrupted or in some kind of unuseable state, and they have to basically start over... does that sound familiar? I'd hate for something like that to happen...

tektonik

04-21-2007, 09:58 PM

I hear good things about Form-Z, but a few guys that are using it here are often complaining that their model got corrupted or in some kind of unuseable state, and they have to basically start over... does that sound familiar? I'd hate for something like that to happen...

in 16 years (since version beta 0.76) it never happened to me

but i am a paranoid that changes his file name 3 times a day "just in case" :thumbsup:

the problem in form-z and the joy of lightwave is the navigation in and around the model... LW is sooo fluid in that aspect but the modeling tools and layer management are heavy for architecture.

the precision thing also... in form-z i have the door knob and it's screws and the city skyline in the same model no problemo.

anyway not here to start a debate but just to say like markus that support for lightwave within form-z is perfect... and i like to think that we from montreal have a part to play in this since we had a get together party with chriss yessios founder of autodessys in montreal in 2000 or so and we were many to work with form-z and lightwave in arch-viz and we realllly pressured him to give us the LWO export format and they did it in a big way a perfect fit and we are still thankfull for that since in archviz usually you deal with the worst satan of all... AutoDESK with all it's proprietary and obscure formats with no real compatibility whatsoever...

Exception

04-21-2007, 10:58 PM

Yeah that sound really nice. Form-Z has always intruiged me. I love the freestyle way of modeling in LW, and my friends here that use form-z say the interface is awful, but still they seem to really be designing rather than thinking about how to model stuff, like in 3ds that was always my main problem... the workflow just sucks.

With SP_Move 3 and LWCAD Lw comes very close to an accurate modeler for architecture, but basic things like modeling in perspective is still hard, and hardly mentionable vector export cripple it.

Oh I just thought about this today, the illustrator trick is fantastic for site plans... you know, parking lots and such... no more drilling necessary. Just bevel up the sidewalks, assign surfaces, and you should be done. If it's flat otherwise.

nthused

04-23-2007, 08:39 PM

robk

04-23-2007, 09:13 PM

You guys talking about good source files...the CAD files I've been receiving lately must have been drawn by uneducated, unprofessional, and uncaring monkeys. Who trains these...people?!
Sorry for venting...I've spent the last 3 days working on a VERY big site plan where all of the Curb lines (back face and front were on one layer) Arghhhh!

RANT ON
You would be hard pressed to get any worse drawings than we receive. My old drafting teacher from back in 1970's would roll over in his grave if he saw some of the crap that goes on. I mean how can you line up 4 elevations of a building and have the roof height different in each one. Snaps and ortho seem to be a an unknown feature to most of these bright newcomers.
While working as a Structural technician I once sent back a drawing to the Architect and I had turned on 6 decimal place on for dimensioning and then I dimensioned some grid to grid and some grid to structure elements. All the dimensions came out to numbers like 10000.024567mm. I put in bold text on the returned drawing "ARE THESE THE DIMENSIONS YOU WANT ME TO USE".
I got a minor apology and they said they would get back to me.
The response I get most nowadays is "We were working from old drawings and the previous draftsperson must have screwed them up." SOOOOO lame, they can't even own up to there own mistakes.
I have some developers repeatedly to switch Architects and find an office that can actually produce a good set of drawings.

The part that really bugs me is that it slows down in our making of our 3D models since we are constantly having to double check everything and phone to find out which elevation is correct.
HMMM maybe if I start charging my clients extra because of junky drawings they may start to listen.

Rant OFF

jameswillmott

04-23-2007, 10:11 PM

We received a set of CAD drawings once that had been drawn at a scale of 1:103.333, and we wondered why one end of the building never lined up... blurg.

robk

04-23-2007, 10:40 PM

We received a set of CAD drawings once that had been drawn at a scale of 1:103.333, and we wondered why one end of the building never lined up... blurg.

OK you win

ingo

04-24-2007, 02:42 AM

.... All the dimensions came out to numbers like 10000.024567mm......

This must not be a problem at the architects office, this can also be a problem of importing the file into your program. Thats why use meter and only three decimals when i import files into Vectorworks.

The best way to get around these mistakes is imho to start drawing a grid raster, that way you can easily attach new plans and have a good test for fitting elevations in.

robk

04-24-2007, 09:59 AM

This must not be a problem at the architects office, this can also be a problem of importing the file into your program. Thats why use meter and only three decimals when i import files into Vectorworks.

The best way to get around these mistakes is imho to start drawing a grid raster, that way you can easily attach new plans and have a good test for fitting elevations in.

OH it was a problem in the Architects office all right. Their drawing was in Autocad and I loaded it in Autocad. Just plain old Cra**y drafting. Cuoldn't even balme it on Imperial to metric conversion since the project (a hospital) was new and metric from day one. After 31 years in the industry I can spot a junky drawing right away.

manholoz

04-24-2007, 10:53 AM

Horror stories sharing time!:devil:

I once got a drawing that had 6 (six) overlayed lines defining the walls and the windows, all of which did not line up. The floor revolved around a central space, but the floor's levels kept going down, all around that space, so there came a place when you went completely around, that had a 2.4m drop. Or walking the other way round, you got greeted by a 2.4m high step.

The foundation columns went right through the dormitory beds, all 12 floors. The dormitories had no installation ducts... Oh, and about half the drawings had nested blocks with entities on the unprintable layer (defpoints). The dimensions had been exploded and the text edited by hand, in a lame attempt to hide mistakes.

So anyway, with drawings this bad, I charge a cleanup fee. That's why I never give a quote without first seeing firsthand the cad drawings.

Exception

04-24-2007, 10:23 PM

Oh some bad stories there... that sucks.

I love the overkill command in cad but that only does so much... and takes hours...

Picajol

05-08-2007, 06:55 AM

Guys what do you think about the new radiosity engine in LW?
Do you still need Kray or Fprime?

Iain

05-08-2007, 06:58 AM

The new radiosity is outstanding.

Personally, I won't drop FPrime as my main renderer but F9 has a place in my toolkit again, particularly for animation.

Captain Obvious

05-08-2007, 07:04 AM

Do you still need Kray or Fprime?
Yes.

Haven1000

05-08-2007, 07:19 AM

Do you still need Kray or Fprime?

Yes.

:lol:

Captain Obvious

05-08-2007, 07:20 AM

Stupid edit limit...

Anyway, FPrime is still a LOT better at high-res rendering. Lightwave usually doesn't render 5k images for me, and is thusly kind of useless. FPrime renders all the way up to 6-7k without any real issues.

Picajol

05-10-2007, 02:07 AM

Guys, sorry to ask, I didnt use Lw in like 4 years...but anyway back then Fprime came out, wich I used for instant previewing, and also leting it sometimes to render the scene "fully".
Now I saw this Kray, that also claims that has GI up to 20 times faster then LW radiosity.
Can you tell me the difference between the two, Fprime and Kray?
Wich would be better to use and when?
I now that Kray doesnt have this "instant feedback" off the scene, also seems that Kray has hundreds off settings that have to be made before rendering.
Wich one would you choose for animating?...
Thank you very much people!

Iain

05-10-2007, 02:58 AM

I don't use it myself but Kray seems like far and away the best bet for animation.

Don't discount LightWave's native engine though. It's new caching is amazing for animations and you can get great quality very quickly with the new Final Gather radiosity option.
Using Kray and (albeit to a lesser extent with version 3.1) FPrime limits the information you can send to be rendered.

Picajol

05-10-2007, 09:14 AM

So your saying if I want to animate, the highest score would go to Kray> LW native radiosity engine> Fprime?
So Fprime for animations, maybe not, because it hasnt any caching, but on the other hand for single images maybe the best solution?
Did some maybe, made an simple agsample and renderd the scene in Kray, Fprime and Lw, and then compared results and rendering times?

Greyward

05-10-2007, 10:33 AM

Picajol: I don't know about animating; my last full scale animation was a while back. But the "instant feedback" as you put it in quotes leads me to believe you haven't experienced it. Frankly, I'm no longer sure how I lived without it. LW + Fprime is the most fun I've ever had making graphics on a computer.

I'm stuck with an older version of LW right now, but I'm really looking forward to upgrading to LW9.2 + fprime 3.1. Using nodes with fprime's previews, and having a fast enough radiosity renderer for my final leaves me salivating. Why? Neither fprime not kray can use plugins that create geometry at renderime, such as Sasquatch or HD Instance. Atm I've mostly stopped using stuff that isn't compatible with fprime, since I use a lot of GI and LW7.5 takes literally hours to render something I can do in minutes with fprime.

Am I right in thinking this is feasible now? Set up a scene with fprime, then set up sasquatch or HD Instance or one of those, then f9 it and not have to wait til the cows come home? Cause if so, the $600 or so for the upgrade are worth it for the workflow improvements alone.

For an animation workflow, on the other hand, I'd use fprime to see a preview lets say every 5 frames or so to check that there aren't any problems, then f9 it... again, does that sound feasible to you guys working with the up-to-date stuff?

As to what makes Kray different, I'll sum it up from my point of view:
Its a little more complicated than a normal render, and certainly more consideration has to be taken when setting up a scene than you would with F9 or fprime. BUT its blazing fast at GI, especially with multiple bounces (10, 20+). Also, 1.7 is reputed to be much more stable and complete that previous versions, and includes instancing (big selling point to me atm). I haven't tried 1.7 yet though.

Kray seems very interesting to me, but I couldn't live without fprime. I haven't experienced the new LW's radiosity engine though, which might make both a little less necessary.

Iain

05-10-2007, 10:40 AM

Frankly, I'm no longer sure how I lived without it. LW + Fprime is the most fun I've ever had making graphics on a computer.

This to me is FPrime's appeal. Work is fun using it. Fun, I say. Fun!
Words are odd when you repeat em.

Haven1000

05-10-2007, 10:50 AM

From my experiences:

Animation+GI+instances=Kray

When LW can use a form of instances (whether native or third party) with it's latest Radiosity renderer in 9.2 then it will become an option for geometry heavy GI animations.

At the moment for such animations I can't see past Kray.

Greyward

05-10-2007, 12:11 PM

Haven1000, does HDInstance not work well with 9.2's native renderer? I do hope they add instances to the native app soon.

Its little features like these that give those other programs a bit of an edge against Lightwave in archviz (not that I'd want to switch) :p Fortunately NT seems very committed to aggressively improving Lightwave, after becoming somewhat complacent for a while. I do love LW, and at its core it a solid and utterly usable 3D app. I'm rooting for NT to really bring it together.

Picajol

05-10-2007, 12:50 PM

For an animation workflow, on the other hand, I'd use fprime to see a preview lets say every 5 frames or so to check that there aren't any problems, then f9 it
This is what I had also in mind:thumbsup:
As for Kray, its like Vray, hundereds of settings before rendering.:thumbsdow
...but yes, it can achive outstanding results, but co can F9:lwicon:

Haven1000

05-10-2007, 02:18 PM

Haven1000, does HDInstance not work well with 9.2's native renderer?.

I believe that HDinstance is not fully working in 9.2. Hopefully native instancing will be addressed soon.

Matt

05-10-2007, 07:06 PM

Picajol

05-11-2007, 02:04 AM

The ONE thing LW does fall short on for interior rendering are it's lighting models, and lack of IES lights.

Yeah this is too bad:thumbsdow
One question on Lw lights. Does it support sunlight and skylight, or do you have to use spot, linear lights to lit your scenes?

Captain Obvious

05-11-2007, 03:19 AM

Does it support sunlight and skylight, or do you have to use spot, linear lights to lit your scenes?
Area light for sun, backdrop colour for skylight. Works fine. An area light in the window if you need more of a boost. Then another few booster lights wherever you want them, I guess.

Matt

05-11-2007, 03:56 AM

I use Denis' Skylight plugin for outdoor stuff, maybe along with an area for the sun.

Captain Obvious

05-11-2007, 05:53 AM

I use Denis' Skylight plugin for outdoor stuff, maybe along with an area for the sun.I use that one quite heavily as well. VERY useful, though I do prefer Maxwell's sky.

Greyward

05-11-2007, 09:02 AM

Aye, skylight + area is a very good, reliable outdoor setup.

But yes, Captain is right, Maxwell has a better sky... in fact, its in general very hard to beat for full-out realism. Actually, the new version of Maxwell (1.5) supposedly has a completely re-written LW Plugin. I'll definitely be checking out the trial version. But first I need to upgrade to LW 9 :p

Matt

05-11-2007, 10:01 AM

Me too Greyward! If the speed is usuable that is!

Captain Obvious

05-11-2007, 10:28 AM

I once left something rendering in Maxwell for two or three days on four eight-core Xeons, and there was still noise in it.

dpont

05-11-2007, 11:24 AM

But yes, Captain is right, Maxwell has a better sky...

I'm curious, because I'don't have Maxwell, I have just seen
in its panel, that it has an Ozone and an 0cean parameter,
but do you speak of aspect of the sky or its influence for
radiosity?

This Model of daylight is always the same, the difference
could come frome the exposure, but this can be increased
with the value of hsv, the conversion standard
used for color is also the same as many other applications
(rec 709 RGB with D65 white point).

Denis.

Greyward

05-11-2007, 04:38 PM

Yea, I figure that if I use Maxwell it'd be for the Big Clients Who Pay a Lot. Like a premium thing, to leave rendering over the weekend and such. I'd still use LW for must grunt work.

The sky is fantastic in a number of ways; its generally usable as is and looks good without compositing (tho skylight sometimes is too). But yes, its GI is fantastic from what I've tried, though I haven't messed around with it as much as I'd want. Its very good at recreating a variety of atmospheric conditions, though mostly i just push and pull the dials to see what happens ;) I need more time with Maxwell (and a less frustrating LW plugin) before I can really evaluate it.

Captain Obvious

05-11-2007, 06:05 PM

This Model of daylight is always the same
Well, the implementations are sure as hell different, because they produce COMPLETELY different results. Even with the same exposures, they look completely different.

And yeah, the Lightwave plugin really sucks.

Iain

05-12-2007, 06:36 AM

I left an interior rendering in Maxwell over the christmas break on two dual 3.2machines and it still had noise. Almost ten days for a sub 3000 pixel render!
Exteriors aren't such a problem though.

Captain Obvious

05-12-2007, 09:48 AM

ingo

05-12-2007, 11:17 AM

Maxwell should be doing the same too, if not faster. It seems that you have problems with your textures. They need a bit more attention in Maxwell than most people realize. And Fprime can have a lot of noise too especially in the shadows, and not to forget that Maxwells antialiasing is better than Fprimes. But the big advantage of both is that you can stop them whenever you want, and continue them later.

Picajol

05-12-2007, 12:00 PM

What abouth Kray?
There havent been any update for a long time now...and having just one man behind the scene of Krays engine, seems a little sceptical to me.

Captain Obvious

05-12-2007, 02:29 PM

Maxwell should be doing the same too, if not faster.
Noise free at 5k in one hour? No, Maxwell would not be doing that.

ingo

05-13-2007, 03:30 AM

Well you talked about 8 hours on an 8core machine, should be possible for Maxwell.

Limbus

05-14-2007, 02:21 PM

And yeah, the Lightwave plugin really sucks.

Do you mean the sky procedural from Denis or Skytracer? What is it that you don´t like?

Florian

Limbus

05-14-2007, 02:22 PM

A while ago, I rendered a pretty much noise-free interior in FPrime in about one hour, at 5k. Sure, it rendered on eight eight-core machines, but still! I don't think Maxwell could have done the same.

How did you get Fprime to render one Frame on multiple machines? Is that possible with the new network rendering?

Florian

Captain Obvious

05-14-2007, 02:36 PM

Well you talked about 8 hours on an 8core machine, should be possible for Maxwell.
Nope, no way.

How did you get Fprime to render one Frame on multiple machines? Is that possible with the new network rendering?
Limited regions, baby!

Do you mean the sky procedural from Denis or Skytracer? What is it that you don´t like?
I mean that the Maxwell plugin for Lightwave really sucks. It's crap. Supposedly, there's a new one coming with 1.5 though.

Iain

05-14-2007, 03:48 PM

I mean that the Maxwell plugin for Lightwave really sucks. It's crap. Supposedly, there's a new one coming with 1.5 though.

The LW plug in for Fry looks very interesting. No tripling polygons or farting around twice with textures.
......................or so they say.

Captain Obvious

05-14-2007, 04:12 PM

The Maxwell plugin tripples all polygons for you, so you really don't need to worry too much about that. But in order to use Maxwell with Lightwave, you basically have to export to Maxwell Studio and use that instead. Maxwell Studio is somewhat slow and unstable, so it's significantly less than ideal. In Maya, you can just do a Maxwell render right then and there and it works great.

archijam

05-18-2007, 06:23 AM

For active modelling, I could never return to MAX. :thumbsdow

I have met MAX users that have forgotten the meaning of polygon normals, since they have had the 'render doublesided polygons' in render options permanently applied...

Visualisation is one thing (not allowing for bad drawings ..), but if you are working inside a design office, and therefore the design is changing as you model, max is a nightmare.

Despite its general acceptance in the architectural industry, I still enjoy challenging a user to adjust the heights of all windows on a floor, while maintaning the scale of the sills .. come back in an hour.

I still miss a few 'simple' FormZ functions (available since 1.0) in LW:

Generate height contours from layer.
Generate spaced sections.
Re-generate terrain from contours (aside: that's a solid terrain, with accurate volume info...)

Not bad.

Time to import the results back to LW ...

j.

Greyward

05-21-2007, 11:42 AM

Limbus, I believe Captain was referring to Maxwell's Lightwave plugin; the plugin you use to get LW stuff into Maxwell. Its just not very dependable and not as full featured as the maxwell plugins for other aps. The good news is that its being completely re-written.

Limbus

05-21-2007, 11:44 AM

Limbus, I believe Captain was referring to Maxwell's Lightwave plugin; the plugin you use to get LW stuff into Maxwell.

I know that he meant the Maxwell Plugin because he says so three posts above :D :D :D

Florian

Picajol

06-02-2007, 03:32 AM

Question:
When you talk abouth Fprime and Lw Radiosity, basicly they would give the same result/quality, except, Fprime would give it a lot faser.
But what is this FinalGathering option?
Is this the same as Lw radiosity? Same quality/speed...?
I dont get this very well.
Can someone explain it please:-(
Thanx!

Andyjaggy

06-04-2007, 08:05 PM