OK everyone it's come down to the wire, I have to select a rendering program for the firm I work at. Here's what we're looking for, I'm going to use SU to mock up stuff quickly and then bring that into whichever program I decide on. This is what the boss wants. Something that looks good, pretty easy to use, fairly quick, as photorealstic as you can get while still being fairly quick. ex. I think he wants to be able to come in and say hey I need a shot of this view tommorow (or even in a few hours) for a meeting and I'll have to come up with something fairly believable. So the nice thing is the company is paying for it. I know I know I've kinda described a dream program that probably isn't out there yet but so far I'm leaning towards Artlantis can anyone give any remarks to help any thoughts are much appreciated. THANKS!!! oh and btw I'll be purchasing this by the end of the week so plase respond asap! Thanks again all!

For quick and decent work go for artlantis R.
Don't expect full photorealism .
The photoreal software (vray/maxwell)will probably kill your workflow.

After years of attempting to answer this question, it seems that SU may be the answer with some convincing to your office and clients.

I'm just wondering what kind of output you are generating with SU? And could you do anything to make it more "presentable", there are a few threads around here somewhere showcasing some very believable imagery.

I just think it's great to have software that works while you work without having to press a button and leave your workstation for 10 hours and then return to deterime if the computer has accuratey depicted your design intent.

just my 2 cents.

Artlantis. :cheers:
or get a Mac and Cheetah3D (still quite cheep). :wondering

Did you read about Kerkythea ?

I'm just wondering what kind of output you are generating with SU? And could you do anything to make it more "presentable", there are a few treads around here somewhere showcasing some very believable imagery.

This is one of those threads you are referring too InArch, I think... Click Here (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1261)

the work-flow with Photoshop and sketchup has been very successful at my firm... we are still in the early stages of figuring out some work-flow issues but overall clients have been much more responsive to the SU to Photoshop stuff than they have the photo-realistic stuff...

Cinema 4D would be an option worth looking at if you want photo realism.

As kwistenbiebel points out though getting real photo realism is not quick. If you read the rendering forums here this will become apparent.

There are other more artistic options out there that you should consider as well:
- Piranesi http://www.informatix.co.uk/piranesi/gallery.shtml
- Photoshop 'Dennis Technique' http://www.sketchup.com/forum/read.php?f=3&i=25762&t=24207#reply_25762

The image below is from the SketchUp forum thread on the 'Dennis Technique'.

TDT is a very good a fast way to produce quite professional and 'artsy' images. It takes me only about 5 mins to do after only my first time and i knew nothing about photoshop when i started using it. :)

My advice would be to get viz2006 as it has all the feature of max a arch vis person needs without the hefty price tag. Take the money you save from not buying max and buy vray and the 2 gnomon vray dvd's. If you still have some dosh left over go get maxwell as it's still at a discount price ( I think )

All the other suggestions here are very valid but should you decide to move on to another company chances are pretty good they'll be using max/viz

Martin just released version 3 of Cheetah3D today. Now with an EPIX export option so you can work the image in Piranesi. Ninety US dollars.

Animation tools and support for HDRI in three formats; probe, panorama, and cross. If you have a mac and don't have this on your computer then you must be a very silly person :D

Martin just released version 3 of Cheetah3D today. Now with an EPIX export option so you can work the image in Piranesi. Ninety US dollars.

Animation tools and support for HDRI in three formats; probe, panorama, and cross. If you have a mac and don't have this on your computer then you must be a very silly person :D

not to hijack, but that epix export should be an excellent tool for piranesi users (or piranesi wannabes, like myself)...only wish I had a mac...so, I include myself in the not-so-silly-but-still-not-smart category :D.

Thanks for all the responses looks like I'm gonna have to stay in and check into some ot the comments. I've attempted something similar to the "Dennis Technique" everyone liked it, thanks Dennis. However this is a quick cap of what we're looking for presentation wise...
initial client meeting hand drawn sketches with photoshop to show initial ideas of a project-next meeting a SU model to show more definite forms and massing-finally rendered perspectives with context.
So that's the plan does this change anyone's comments or add anything new to the table? Thanks again to everyone who's helping! :not worth

One other thing I forgot, I know with Artlantis you can assign faces/textures in SU and it will bring them into Artlantis. Is this recommended? Or should you just mass a model up and assign all the layers in a rendering program, if so does this take a lot longer? Does Cinema 4D work directly with sketchup like artlantis does? I mess with povray 2 and with SU plugins but it seemed complicated with all the text. I didn't really understand it, again I'm really new to all this as you can tell. It's just come down to the wire and my boss is like so what's the next step what do I need to buy so that should explain the rush thanks again!!!

The more materializing you do can do in SketchUp, the better. It's just faster that way. Then you can add the bumps and other material tweeks in Artlantis.

Thanks Jake I was hoping that was the case!

on a side note looks like Sara from Nashville is gonna win haha what do you think.

hi! after a long time of searching and reading many post i decided to use cinema 4d, i'm only having it for a few weeks but it gived me good results, there's no sketchup pluggin for cinema 4d like artlantis pluggin but you can export your model in 3ds and it works fine.

this picture compilates a few renderings of the tutorials can you find in the web, i made those a few days after i installed cinema 4d in my pc with no previous knowleged of this program, i am new in renderings program too, cinema 4d is not a rendering program per se..it's better because you have the opportunity to make more than a simple view; a video, a quick time panorama, animated everything you need, good poser import, you can export you render in separate photoshop layers so you can turn off a light or paint everything you want in the differents layers of the rendering, etc

this picture is part of the tutorial, is a scene modeled and textured in sketchup,.. after that i exported the model in 3ds format (some parts of the bridge was made in corel v.12 and then exported to sketchup for convert the vectorial lines in to planes)

this picture is the 3ds import opened in cinema, as you can see it recognize the page, the materials and the model

this is the final model in cinema 4d with lights,.. adding the lights took me an afternoon and the rendering two minutes...dont' forget it was a web tutorial!!!

Thanks Cesar! Once question you said to export the SU model as a 3DS does this keep the surfaces (i.e. if you assigned a brick face in SU will the brick show up in cinema 4D?) and then as Jake said add bumps and material tweaks in the program. Thanks for sharing the images nice work!

hi men! as far i can see in cinema (don't forget i'm new in this too) it recognizes all the materials you put in sketchup, i don't know nothing about bump materials yet, the nex month i will buy the; "total training for cinema 4d tutorials dvd" and i hope to answer all questions you have, after i see the tutorial ofcurse...ha! when you search about cinema 4d don't forget see "bodypainter 3d" ;)

pd: a good complement for photoshop is the corel painter IX, i can't proove this program yet but it looks fine

this looks tasty but i've been burnt with maxwell so i'll wait till it is sorted before i go near it skp-artlantis and pshop will do for now


http://www.luxology.com/

congellous modo seems to be a modeling program and soon they'll integrate rendering to the application. Is this right. Thanks for the heads up, from my understanding is that's it's pretty much like SU right.
hey cesar where do you get the tutorial dvd's I'm assuming on their site but I just haven't checked let me know.
After a bit of reading I'm kinda straying from artlantis to cinema 4D any comments from you experts? Thanks again!

Thanks Jake I was hoping that was the case!

on a side note looks like Sara from Nashville is gonna win haha what do you think.


I work with a good friend of Sara's. I think that Dr. Stork (Dr. Dork) is a booby prize if anything. Poor Sara. I tried to get her friend to setup a date for you, but she wouldn't bite. Looks like Dr. Dork is going to get her anyway.

haha yeah oh well it's crazy how many women are "falling" for that particular booby prize haha. They're like celebrities around here, gimme a break.

haha yeah oh well it's crazy how many women are "falling" for that particular booby prize haha. They're like celebrities around here, gimme a break.


'Crazy' would be the key word. 'My eggs are rotting!'

tjpineda

I downloaded the demo of C4D and without watching or reading anything got something out in a few days with little exact control on it really at all.

I however with out anything got full control of artlantis in just days and cranked out some really nice renders.

Check the artlantis forum here.

Thanks for all the responses looks like I'm gonna have to stay in and check into some ot the comments. I've attempted something similar to the "Dennis Technique" everyone liked it, thanks Dennis. However this is a quick cap of what we're looking for presentation wise...
initial client meeting hand drawn sketches with photoshop to show initial ideas of a project-next meeting a SU model to show more definite forms and massing-finally rendered perspectives with context.
So that's the plan does this change anyone's comments or add anything new to the table? Thanks again to everyone who's helping! :not worth

sounds like you are using this all for schematic design? Why or how would you begin to make something look "real" when so much is going to change... pricing of the project is a ways off... Engineers haven't been brought on-board yet... There are so many decisions yet to be made...

I know this discussion has been done on PPB elsewhere but I think you are putting yourself in possibly shakey situations for the future that could come back and bite you in the arse if you go with the "photo-realistic" approach early on in the project (schematic design)... but of course alot of this comes down to how your work is presented to the client and there is an understanding that technology helps in creating such "realistic" look images but that much of the design could change down the road... communication of what they are seeing and at what stage of design they are seeing it in is very important... the last thing you want to do is mis-lead a client...

but regardless of this the sketchy, Dennis Technique, seems much more receptive from clients than does the photorealistic stuff... from my experience anyhow :) but it could just come down to the client and what they want in particular...

as a side note... Richard posted some great examples of Artlantis renders with very little of a learning curve if my memory serves me correct...

In regards to the dennis technique, I suggest it better for each to develop their own style toward rendering or at least a style suited to the project. I've seen of late a considerable number of design presentations ruined by the use of this style of rendering towards projects where the style of the form requires a more edgy or sharp representation.

Honestly (and this absolutely with no disrespect to dennis or other contributors to that thread) I'm really over seeing this what is now so common presentation style.

In my experience: SkechUp for modelling, adding models from Form Fonts, and than render in arlantis R. Rapid results, quick response to the clients. this example was rendered in 1:27 minutes...

In regards to the dennis technique, I suggest it better for each to develop their own style toward rendering or at least a style suited to the project. I've seen of late a considerable number of design presentations ruined by the use of this style of rendering towards projects where the style of the form requires a more edgy or sharp representation.

Honestly (and this absolutely with no disrespect to dennis or other contributors to that thread) I'm really over seeing this what is now so common presentation style.

I'm am not trying to pick an arguement on this Richard but I find your remarks a bit naive... I do agree we all have to find a style we like and that is effective but just because the DM has caught on with all the kids doesn't dis-qualify it as an effective presentation style... There is a "time and place" for a particular style, I just don't agree that early on in design giving a refined "real" look is the best way to communicate design intent with a client... this isn't some ego thing but several years of experience and hearing reaction to both styles from clients... but maybe we need to hire the likes of your talents to get the renders working better... maybe its not the "real" that is not working but the lack of proper renders from the likes of Artlantis and other packages :)

now back to the thread...

In my experience: SkechUp for modelling, adding models from Form Fonts, and than render in arlantis R. Rapid results, quick response to the clients. this example was rendered in 1:27 minutes...

nice job on the render sandropc... but who shines that floor :)

Wiz

Mate you cant get an argument from me on this one I think you're right and admit my response should have pointed as you suggest that it does have a place, I have actually used the same principles for this pastel rendering which I did about two years ago and posted to PPB1 early and got shot for using this technique! I didn't agree then and certainly would still suggest the same now (for someone else).

I agree also that PR stuff should be left for later, sketch type output at early design stages is a must, however I can see the use for a monotone rendered model with say only the glass treated at some early stage to better demonstrate design intent.

I recently put a sketchup render to a client considering a site purchase for a large furniture showroom. The brief was only to consider the floor space achievable under the planning controls, I chose to present perspectives of the proposal rather than just plans. The client criticised me for spending too much effort at this stage suggesting most would provide him just some lines on a plan and that would have been suffice, I however in usual way (one has to think on your feet) turned it around with the truth - "Mate with the applications we have now this IS a few lines on the plan, if you aren't getting this straight up from the other firms you deal with they're living in the dark ages. And the beauty of this is that this enables me to better demonstrate options that may be considered to gain additional space v's exposure". - you are now the golden child!!!!!!

Sandro

Mate in most of your renders I'm finding you are just off the next step of realism, I think your radiosity settings may be a little high as you are getting a major artifact in your junction of walls and ceiling in this image (back of the room, corner top centre), excessive spec values to those surfaces could also be to blame. Most of your surfaces need to be a little less reflective and I think in this scene the shadow bias from the overhead lights needs to be increased and sharper. The spec values and reflection on the floor is definitely too high as no shadow is staying on the floor just reflections, you can see this mostly under the centre left chair where it seemingly floats due to a lack of shadow demonstrating it sits on the floor.

I hope you don't mind I make these suggestions!

By the way have you downloaded the latest update, I think you might find an improvement with that if you haven't.

Richard

tjpineda
If you want something photorealistic start thinking vray, mental ray, renderman, maxwel...because artlantis is the fastest in time rendering but you'll basically waste the same time setting up your scene in artlantis as you would in any other render software (and i dont really think artlantis can compete in photorealism with the others...but as i said it wins in time rendering).And Sketchup its still more than enough for non realistic renders (even realist in some cases like woods if u have a good texture).
And if you think that renders like the ones shown by sandropc ou cesar are enough than you should consider kerkythea render.It can do things like that (and better),its simple and easy, it works great with sketchup, and its free.try it for yourself. Just do everything in sketchup including texturing,export as 3ds or obj (3ds saves the pages as cameras and obj can keep the smooth),set up your scene (render quality,lights,or what materials are light emitters,reflecions...),and then render.hope it helps

hugzzz

I'd like to disagree with Artlantis R not being photorealistic. If you spend the correct amount of time and effort setting up the scene correctly, it will pay off. Vray has the same issue.... if you spend little time setting up the scene, it will render the same standard as Artlantis R. Notice I said Artlantis R and not Artlantis.
Artlantis R is even quicker than Vray!... I don't need it to be too photorealistic... just enough to convince me of the locations in shadows to show the detail without it looking so stiff, that's what radiosity does. Vray... hmm...

spadestick
i didnt said artlantis wasnt a photorealistic render. i said it couldnt compete in this field with others more advanced.
I never saw a artlantis render that i could said that it fooled me (not even the ones in ther own gallerie...but that can be more than enough for somes jobs, and artlantis can do that simple and fast if that all that you need), but if you talk maxwell, or mental ray or brazil or something like that i would be lying if i said it never fooled me.
It all depends in how much realistic you need an image (i suposed you dont need nothing extremly realistic because that type of image needs some time to be prepared and done too).

I'm leaning towards Artlantis can anyone give any remarks to help any thoughts are much appreciated. THANKS!!! oh and btw I'll be purchasing this by the end of the week so plase respond asap! Thanks again all!

I think you'll be very confortable fith Art.R and Sketchup Most of the other programs mentioned are kind of Sledgehammers for what you need bar maybe Cheetah 3D which does it for me

Herewith a model posted on this forum which took about 15mins to adjust and 30secs to render in Art.R

And people who say Art.r it's not that photographic are just probably not getting the best from the program.

damn..that is nice..i think the water really does it..

thanks for posting that rendering bocchinelli. I think that type of "realism" is plenty for the time and energy we plan on putting into this "step" of a project. There's a lot of good discussion and I really appreciate all of the comments especially those that have gone back and forth. I down loaded the demo of Art R yesterday and played with it for a sec and got nothing like what you've shown here bocchinelli. Me being completely foreign to the program to any rendering program for that matter would I have to mess around to get results like this? Are there any other tutorials beyond the one's on the Art R website, I did those and didn't really help that much. Also does anyone have any more input on Cinema 4D, it seems to be a pretty cool program considering it's animation feature (my firm won't be doing animations, but I figure if the software is there I'd learn and use it to my advantage right) Looking forward to hearing what ya'll think. THANKS AGAIN!!!

sorry bocchinelli I never said nice rendering the water really does do the trick for me anyway.

Hi! beside search the internet tutorials you can see a very good magazine call "3d attack" it's only about cinema 4d ...i will buy the "total training for cinema 4d dvd tutorials" in a shop here in peru so... i think it's no helpfull for you.

hope you find interesting the magazine, but a good start alwas will be the basic internet tutorials.

C4D (http://www.solutions-inc.co.uk/architecture/cinema4d.php) & architecture :rolleyes: (scroll the page)

I hope you don't mind I make these suggestions!
Richard

I thanks you Richard, in fact I have printed your obsevations for learn to get better,

Un cordial saludo

Sandro

sorry bocchinelli I never said nice rendering the water really does do the trick for me anyway.

Dear tjpineda

Thanks for the vote and I understand you are looking for the ultmate program that will ansewer all your questions.

At the moment, I dont think there is one...Maxwell Render is the most impresive I have seen to date for light quality, but switch a light on and the render times are horrific, 12 to 60 hours, no good for me when I have deadline to meet. Cinema 4D, 3D Max, Vray, etc are also very slow, so it just leaves Art.R, Cheetah and maybe Carrera for speed (there are others)

So, as I mentioned before, if your boss wants results quick and you don't need animations, then look no further then Art.R.

While were on the subject, would it be a good idea if the forum set up a benchmark test based on on sketchup image, time of day etc, and got people to submit their renders, machine specs, time for render and software.

It wouldn't be deciding argument, but it would at least give people a better idea of what can be achieved in a time constraint in a comercial world.

I suggest we take the image I got from this site and go for it.

A bit of fun for all....

While were on the subject, would it be a good idea if the forum set up a benchmark test based on sketchup image, time of day etc, and got people to submit their renders, machine specs, time for render and software.

It wouldn't be deciding argument, but it would at least give people a better idea of what can be achieved in a time constraint in a comercial world.

I suggest we take the image I got from this site and go for it.

A bit of fun for all....
Sounds interesting, bocchinelli. I remember there were similar talks before but we never got it implemented. I think it will give people a better, quicker overview about each renderers than just talking about them.
Since you resumed the topic and seem to be familiar with what you are talking about, why don't you set us up with some guidelines? :not worth

Dear takesh

OK I'll get something ogether today and try and post it as a new thread

Regards


Luke

I'm really starting to like Artlantis and it's cheap and dirty radiosity (that's why it doesn't look extremely real)... cheap and dirty radiosity (perhaps a quick kind of calculation based on averages) is wonderful. Full blown global illumination, monte carlo, and real light based settings really bog even the fastest computer down... as I've mentioned before, enough to see the details in the shadows... that's all I need. To make it so realistic that it basically fools the client may not be the best thing because

1) it simple takes too much time - do you know how much time and network (distributed) rendering it takes to setup and render those scenes in movies like LOTR / Aeon Flux? The setup alone requires a rig of experts and machines to custom script this, custom script that.... it's mind boggling.

2) you have other jobs to do, and this is normally the most time consuming task.

3) clients may think, "you didn't do this did you? you just scanned a magazine at high quality and blew it up big" - they may not appreciate that singular image as is with most of us, they want more... they want them moving with animations, they want this and that and everything including the kitchen sink.
4) so usually with clients, more is merrier and better, because that's how the world works... "let's see... anything else to show me?"

5) we architects in the educational field and intellectual field have to get it perfectly right... it's as if the client really did notice that that portion was lacking something, normally they don't... (unless he/she is extremely experienced in the construction field) most clients we meet want their numbers and figures to be crunched correctly working on insanely low budgets but expecting a Ferrari scheme, and the rest of the BS can come later.

6) Should always look at the jury (clients). If they are the archi sort, then you know what to do. Well, we meet all sorts of people in this world... I'm still pondering over the Spanish styled house one in another thread.

Basically, Artlantis does it for me, but do note that I wish it were more stable, stopped easily crashing and could handle complex files better.

bocchinelli thanks for starting that post I'm eager to see what people come up with I'll probably wait and see the outcome before I purchase.

Frenchy that's an amazing image great work! :not worth

cesar thanks for the heads up on the tutorials I'll check out the mag too I'll let you know what I think once I get my hands on one.

Thanks to everyone posting too all the input is much needed and I'm racking my brain trying to make a descision. Looking forward to seeing the outcome of bocchinellis post. Thanks again!!!! :D

Frenchy that's an amazing image great work!
...it's not my work it's the teasing of C4D :D

I'll agree with all that C4D, max, MR, Vray, cheeta and others will produce results superior to Artlantis, but the sheer speed that you can produce out put and also create mood for a scene in Artlantis from SU is what I find amazing.

I will also stick my neck out here and say I'm currently testing Artlantis studio which will do still and animation, it is faster, the preview more accurate (textures easier to tweak) and the setting of camera and scene animation simple and the rendering of the animation takes only as long as stills from the others. Studios most simple raytrace results is also lightning fast and seems faster than SU and this level of output will IMHO suffice for most offices animation quality requirements. There is also a lot being learnt about artlantis shaders which is truly the crux of artlantis performance and those doing the learning are mostly eager to share this knowledge.

tjpineda, mate if you search the threads around here on artlantis you will find a few tips to get started.

...SU / Artlantis (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2013&page=5&pp=10&highlight=artlantis) :cheers:

I see a heap of excuse these days for rendering out of Artlantis even the most simple of models.

This one an afternoons work on yet another massing, design and material test on a prospective site for a client.

2.5 hours design and modelling and to export. Set environment, add trees and cars then render with artlantis another twenty minutes total (only added reflection to the ground).

I think in comparison to SU output this gives a much more vivid image and a much more true display of the proposal even at this stage, with very little effort.

I think in comparison to SU output this gives a much more vivid image and a much more true display of the proposal even at this stage, with very little effort.


I agree Richard. Have you had a go at the animation functions? Can you talk about it at all? Top secret, double-naught 7 work I suppose.

Richard makes a very valid point.

There is no absolute answer on which renderer to use. It depends on what you want to achieve. Do you want it be absolutely 'real' or do you want to communicate intent to someone? You should choose based on what your needs are. Don't underestimate how long getting it lifelike will actually take.

For me Richard's renderings communicate intent very well.

He also demonstrates thar Artlantis in the hands of a capable person can produce very good results.

Jake

As you know mate I cant say much other than yes I have played with the animator and it is Very simple to use and renders video quickly at this quality.

Richard:

Have you permission to present some picks of the Artlantis Studio Interface ? and some of the results, that would be nice from you...

Sandro

Mate unfortunately we at this stage do not have permission to post images of the UI or the output, and really not comment at this stage.

What I will say is there is very little UI change over artlantis R.

Richard thanks for posting! The image you've provided was very helpful, that's pretty much the quality I'm looking for at these intial stages. I can't believe the time it took. That's definately the route I think I should take. Is it worth waiting for Artlantis studio, are you allowed to say approximate release date? I'm going to search for more artlantis turorials and see what I come up with. Thanks frenchy for posting that link!

Richard thanks for posting! The image you've provided was very helpful, that's pretty much the quality I'm looking for at these intial stages. I can't believe the time it took. That's definately the route I think I should take. Is it worth waiting for Artlantis studio, are you allowed to say approximate release date? I'm going to search for more artlantis turorials and see what I come up with. Thanks frenchy for posting that link!

At this stage mate we have no release date for Studio. I might suggest you email Advent and ask them if you purchase R now do you get a discount when studio is released (I think it will be a masked function and a user key required to access the additional functionality, IMO I think the release date will be soon.

Studio has the plus when tweaking shaders to be able to slide along the timeline of the animator to quickly test the shader. This has been the downfall to date of Artlantis. A shader that seems to perform well at one camera angle will fall apart at another, using the slider (moving the camera) quickly allows enough change of angle to see and ensure the shader is performing correctly. This new functionallity REALLY speeds up the process.

The thing to remember is take album shots for using the same shaders later (this is what makes it fast) and also use reference files to utilise previously set environments and entourage.

In the image above only the ground surface shader was adjusted and the light assumed from a previous file (reference) all colours were tweaked a bit, then export. Then in studio creating a camera / sun path only animation of the scene will add say 15 min (to tweak) then say a few hours to render a few hundred frames. As I stated earlier the raytrace only results are FAST to animate, full radiosity animation will take longer and may actually be lost in animation as the eye misses much of the detail watching video.

I must say IMHO the guys at advent have done yet again a great job of maintaining the ease of use flavour of Atlanits R with the development of studio.

One thing I would say is my single gripe with Artlanis is file management! Unlike SU where the textures are packaged in the SU file, Artlantis externally references these in scene and in objects which takes some really good file management, as if you move the files the link is broken and then all hell breaks loose.

If anyone has any suggestions to maintaining a better workflow for this I'd happily listen.

richard, that output you shown as an example is amazing! :not worth

This Japanese site has 9 galleries of rendering examples using various programs. There are some vaery nice examples.

A peruse might help you decide which renderering programs are worthy of more investigation.

http://www.renderers.net/web-ex2005/gallery/

Is it simple to set up in Artlantis? I've been thinking of getting it as maxwell render is really giving me the headaches. I understand Artlantis R is fast, but however the gallery on the site doesn't convince me. But Richard has been showing some nice works.

takes me about 15-20 mins setup usually (sometimes less)

Wow thats fast!I presume that is inclusive of materials, textures and lightings? Do you think you can share some shots in done in Artlantis?

I'm a recent Artlantis convert. I spent too much time banging my head with Maxwell. Artlantis is easy to use and I like that I can still give my renderings an NPR look. I've always been a big fan of direct SU output but, wanted something to break up the monotony a little. After spending a few hours learning how to use the software it's really easy to set up scenes and materials. This is my first Artlantis rendering.

Here's the same scene direct from SU for comparison. I'm just trying to make my images a little less SU like. Not really going for photorealism..

Wow thats fast!I presume that is inclusive of materials, textures and lightings? Do you think you can share some shots in done in Artlantis?
Don't you know we have a special forum for Artlantis R here (http://www.pushpullbar.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=17)
There are tons of works posted already including Swank_E's. :clap:

pardon me for not searching hard enough. ;)

This is my first Artlantis rendering.
Looks great Brian! I don't really buy into photorealism either, what you've displayed is exactly the sort of rendering that looks gives a good impression of the building and gets your ideas across eloquently without taking an age to do!

vray for SU really isn't too bad if you can stomach the initial learning curve. Once you get a handle on it the rendering times are rarely more than 2-3hrs for any scene. I don't really try to get completely photo-real with it....lately I've been in a sepia phase

Hello all i have tried a few renders but never seem to launch into the learning curve and often the working windows and buttons are enough to scare me off from the start. I've settled with artlantis r purely because of the simplicity and speed. I cannot compete yet with the likes of Mr Nicholas Riviera ?? but he gives me hope for improvement. Here is one of my more successful models for others to peruse.

Maxwell + Sketchup is the way to go!

Hello all i have tried a few renders but never seem to launch into the learning curve and often the working windows and buttons are enough to scare me off from the start. I've settled with artlantis r purely because of the simplicity and speed. I cannot compete yet with the likes of Mr Nicholas Riviera ?? but he gives me hope for improvement. Here is one of my more successful models for others to peruse.

judging from the shadow leaks i assume that's version 1 and not version 2?

judging from the shadow leaks i assume that's version 1 and not version 2?


Yes it's version 1 sometimes the results are a little unpredictable but i'd like to kid myself i am improving, i just recieved the missing manual which is proving usefull. I believe it can produce adequate renders and is from the sketchup ethos of programs. I'm preparing for version 2 at the moment from what i can see 2 has better renders i'm just concerned about time , have you used the animation function yet with any success ? As it is something i'd like to learn.

Maxwell + Sketchup is the way to go!

In some cases, yes. And if you're willing to pay and arm and a leg. And if you're prepared to wait really long for your render to finish. Don't take me for a Maxwell hater now ... I bought the app last friday. Multilight, eh? :rock on: (Oh yeah: thanks for the tuts. :not worth)

If you're not prepared to pay a lot of cash, but still want to go unbiased, Indigo's the right choice. Doesn't do Multilight, but the quality's superb and it's exporter for SU is really easy to use. I recommend this one.

As far as biased renderers go, I'd wait til Podium 2.0 is released. That one will rock.

You're right.
Indigo's image quality is really good, definitely when using the physical cam.
To be honest, I very often like it more than the commercial packages (output looks flat sometimes).
But indeed, it lacks the multilight thing.
On the other hand, it has the simplest and most effective instancing tool .
Also, it does animation, a thing that fryrender for instance canot do in a SU combo.

Unfortunately, for interiors, all that is unbiased doesn't perform when it comes to speed in my humble opinion

Even without ML it rocks, I feel. OnoSendai did a great job on that engine.

And SkIndigo's great. Whaat clearly has a very thorough understanding of what SU users want/need. Unlike some other plugin evelopers. :rolleyes:

The tuts he did are great too. They get you going in no time. The same doesn't hold true for, say, the Maxwell manual. :D

Side note: being a copywriter/editor I am truly stunned sometimes by what kind of 'manuals' render software developers release.

I think Indigo has great potential too! Though one downfall I do note other than the lack of ML is the time it takes to render initially to a point that you can have some assurance your tweaking is correct. Maxwell's engine seems to provide a fairly fast result initially and even the tiny preview window of the renderer gives you a fairly good prediction of the result.

There is certainly some true advantages to the plugin though. the ease of placing environment maps is a dream!

@Richard,

I think you are partially right.
When you are on a multicore system, Indigo refreshes the render screen very fast when hitting render.
Another thing: Indigo has 2 render buttons, a 'full export' and a 'quick render' button.
The 'quick render' doesn't update the geometry mesh so your render screen will pop up blazingly fast.

A good workflow would be to first do a 'full export' and after that just use the quick export in the stage you tweak the materials and light.
As long as you don't alter the geometry anymore this is the way to do test renders at a fast pace.