Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

level of detailing of model is required how??

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    level of detailing of model is required how??

    Hi as i am trying to render for first time on revit , i want to know how to make the render showing more clearly every element , if you can compare between my render in artlantis and revit, you will discover that i can not present good reliable bird eyeview through revit.
    1- i have problem with tiles floor division showing it.
    2- showing ionic cloumn clearly in revit in render.

    but render throught human eye view it is ok in revit

    first and second image is in revit
    third image and fourth is in artlantis (modeled from a lot of time in archicad).

    i need advices for render exterior in revit , do you use some boxes in revit outside to make there is like context ?

    i am afraid that render setting is high but still not good in the second image
    Attached Files

    #2
    The answer is:

    Materials and Lighting/exposure. ( As is true in all rendering software . )

    You must master these in Revit--and then you can get as good or better results than Artlantis. Revit uses Mental Ray, which is a top-quality rendering engine.
    It just takes experimenting, research and practice.
    Cliff B. Collins
    Registered Architect
    The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Architects, St. Louis, MO
    Autodesk Expert Elite

    Comment


      #3
      Its all about your materials and lighting settings. Try early morning with lights on. Work on your materials, read about material creation from rendering experts. Here is an example of a similiar project to yours all revit. Note that I never finished working with these. But you can see that with a little work they'd be good. The last two show you the revit model rendering, then some photoshop post processing(only image posted with photoshoping). Birds eyes can be tough because you need surroundings, so I like to get images from bing maps or google earth and use them as materials on my toposurface. Note that he mountain in the image is a material for my toposurface. Note that you don't have to find your exact site, but it helps alot. Make the material and scale it to the real world size. In this case it was something like 30,000ft x 30,000ft. of seamed together images from google.
      Attached Files
      Scott D. Brown, AIA | Senior Project Manager | Beck Group

      Comment


        #4
        Would it be rude to comment on the actual "architecture" in some of these images? :hide:

        Comment


          #5
          Wow i like this images so much , but Scott Dou you mean by lighting setting that i may can include sun and artificial lighting to get better results in exterior or only in exterior i need sun light but with material setting prepared ?
          i am really looking now for some help from google about materials in revit.

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
            Would it be rude to comment on the actual "architecture" in some of these images? :hide:
            Not if you are familiar with the traditions, culture and architecture on those locations...
            Klaus Munkholm
            "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

            Comment


              #7
              Originally posted by Munkholm View Post
              Not if you are familiar with...
              Clearly you & I represent the two sides of a coin; as I believe it's best to be objective - and not allow myself, or my opinions, be coloured by subjectivty.

              Still, I shall refrain.

              Comment


                #8
                How about keeping the thread on subject:
                How to do great renderings in Revit that can match or beat Artlantis, whatever the "architectural style" ???
                Cliff B. Collins
                Registered Architect
                The Lamar Johnson Collaborative Architects, St. Louis, MO
                Autodesk Expert Elite

                Comment


                  #9
                  Originally posted by snowyweston View Post
                  Would it be rude to comment on the actual "architecture" in some of these images? :hide:
                  LOL, ill tell you something: ive done just about every genre of Architecture out there, in my short career already. Schools, Homes, small commercial, large commercial, Hospitality, and retail. I got told (by an HR woman a few years back) that Retail was "the most offensive type of architecture there is, with its fake decor, lack of style,..." and she kept running her mouth.

                  But ill tell you, I got the bulk of my architectural education (about coordination, documenation, client interaction, budgets, contracts, systems, CA, CD, DD, SD, design, and so on) while doing retail work. Anyone that really thinks architecture is ONLY about *style and looks* must not work through the entire process. Extremely complex Hospitality and Entertainment facilities, like the ones Scott works on, generally have a mish-mash of styles, are pretty elaborate, and have a ridiculous amount of complexity, regardless of if anyone thinks it "looks good" or not. Its top notch work, and you can cut your stones in architecture having to put those projects together and keep them coordinated, regardless of what platform you use.

                  To get back to the original topic:

                  (I sound like a broken record)- Youll get better at Revit Rendering when you focus on it, and not on comparing it to the tools you used to use. But for starters:

                  1. Never use the high setting. It burns too much energy on things that are a waste, and not enough resources on things that matter. Read. A lot. Learn what every setting does. When you know what they do, the renderings will get better.

                  2. Learn about the resolution AND the Image size, in Revit. They are different. If you dont know why they are different, the images will look like crap. 300 DPI doesnt mean squat if the image is the default 6 inches wide. If the image is 40 inches wide, 72 DPI will be gorgeous. Again- the ornate detailing on any Classical Order will not show up right if the image crop is only 6 inches wide. Period.

                  3. Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting Lighting .
                  Last edited by Twiceroadsfool; November 3, 2011, 09:06 PM. Reason: changed for the folks who have time to critique everyones math skills...
                  Aaron "selfish AND petulant" Maller |P A R A L L A X T E A M | Practice Technology Implementation
                  @Web | @Twitter | @LinkedIn | @Email

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Twiceroadsfool View Post
                    ...1200 DPI doesnt mean squat if the image is the default 6 inches wide. If the image is 40 inches wide, 72 DPI will be gorgeous...
                    Not to be a nitpicker, but that's not a great example of what you are trying to communicate

                    1200 DPI @ 6" = 7200 pixels wide
                    72 DPI @ 40" = 2880 pixels wide

                    I know what you mean though, just wanted to make sure that others would also understand... What Aaron is saying, is: Neither DPI or Physical size tells you anything about the end result (pixels) on their own. So know your needs, and do the math: DPI * Size (in inches) = Pixels - And Pixels is what really matters.

                    It's so basic, and still, a lot of people just don't get it. I'm even getting requests from Marketing Bureaus, asking "Can you please send that image in 600 DPI?" - To what I´ll have no choice but to reply with "Sure! But what size are you going to print it at??????"
                    Klaus Munkholm
                    "Do. Or do not. There is no try."

                    Comment

                    Related Topics

                    Collapse

                    Working...
                    X