Barton_Brown

Glenn, thank you.

Jintu, thank you for the suggestions/tips.

Attached is ray trace where the only change from the previous was the change from 'environment light' of white to 'environment light' of 'sky'. It definitely removed the slight 'yellow' tinge in the whole image of the previous ray trace. The 'sky' is especially noticeable on the side pillars of the hearse which changed from 'slight yellow' to 'slight blue'. This change did make the image colors more realistic in my view. Regarding saturation, the colors look good on my monitor - any more saturated would appear to be too much IMHO - maybe it is just my monitors...

What does High Resolution Doppler Imaging (HRDI) have to do with this? Just kidding , pretty sure you meant HDRI (High Dynamic Range Imaging). Not a topic I'm very familiar with - yet another topic to explore!

Regarding night lighting: while I agree that everyone in the world seems to like the softwhite/yellowish light, both my wife and I are apparently at the age where we find it hard to see in the yellow light and much prefer the bluish/daylight lighting. If I was doing this commercially, I'd probably adjust to 'the norm' and yellow out the night lighting...

Thanks again.

OK...well I'm glad I asked.   I doubt I would have done it that way.  Thanks!

I'm glad you asked the question - something I too have wondered - what is the consensus of 'best practice' performed by others on this topic? I have violated this 'best practice' a couple of times and regretted it later.

Congratulations to Scott, and thank you for the pre-meeting critique and suggestions this morning.

For completeness, here is what I learned:

1) the obvious: it is all about composition. Reduce the amount of driveway in the foreground, add some 'tree shadows' to soften the look.

2) night views: stop using 'photons', this is where the bleed comes from. It makes the lighting a little harsher, but removes the annoying bleed artifacts. See the attachment below.

3) For day views: I can live with the bleed, especially on outdoor shots, because using photons makes the scenes more 'realistic', for me, from a lighting perspective. Shadows are not as harsh and more ambient light gets included. Attached below are two daytime views, one without photons, one with photons. The chrome on the vehicles is much more realistic using photons. And yes, photons increases the time of a ray trace - good excuse to purchase a more powerful PC.

For those that are curious, the light settings are encoded in the file name (hover the cursor over a thumbnail to see file name): after the date comes

1) ambient occlusion

2) sun intensity

3) environment light

4) either 'no photons' or blank, which means photons on (my default)

Barton,

 

The night shot is way cool!

Unlike Scott, I will not attempt to sway the judge's decision   (and thanks!).

Just to be 'in the running' with Jintu means a lot to me. For years I have admired the work he has posted on Chief Talk.

Barton,

 

I generally find that the "Light Bleed" is due to fixtures where the Light Source isn't positioned quite right within the Fixture - or it's the wrong type of Light Source.  Getting the position, direction and type of light correct takes some experience - and usually a bit of trial and error - but it seems to always fix the problem.

Joe, thanks for the tip/suggestion. The light sources are CA. I tried turning off the recessed spots in the vaulted area and initially thought this would be a good way to track down the offending lights because the gable and roof bleeds were gone. BUT, as the number of passes increased, these bleeds crept back in to the point of there being no real difference between images. This is like trying to solve a complicated puzzle - eventually I run out of enthusiasm and interest...

Michael, Lumion looks like a great tool, too bad it is so expensive.

Thanks Doug!

Greg: thanks!

Sherry and Michael: regarding the vehicle size - I didn't realize that they were too big on the first set of ray traces that I did, although something didn't seem correct, just kind of an odd feeling. It wasn't until I moved one of them to put it in a parking space that I realized the problem (it was way too big to fit). Anyway, I did a little research on the dimension specs for a 'hearse' and scaled down the vehicles. Changing the size is easy. Open the 'object' dbx, not the symbol dbx, click the 'retain aspect ratio' and make the necessary changes. I also changed the material properties of the vehicles, changing white to 'chrome' and making the body panels reflective to represent a nicely waxed hearse... The people are 3D people from the SketchUp 3D warehouse, the small plants are 3D plants from the CA library.

I'm disappointed at the amount of 'light bleed' that occurred in the night scene - it went 20 passes (about 2 hours).

Done for now. 

OK Doug, stop teasing, what are the two source control systems?!

Barton, you are setting the bar pretty high, nice job.

Thanks Scott. Glad you initiated this challenge - it is fun trying out different approaches.

OK, here are my three amateur attempts...

I'm partial to the second one - head-on with the Caddy.

Uhm, one problem, if we are going to use Michael's textures, there are a bunch missing from the plan file.

Michael C - If you want a realistic rendering that 'pops', I think you will need to go to ray tracing. For me, there is a huge difference with ray tracing always looking better than a render. Fortunately, ray traces in CA are now pretty quick for decent image quality, especially with external images. 

I also agree that the shadows need to be darker (more contrast). Part of my issue with your rendering is that while the house has shadows, none of the landscaping does, which makes the image 'flat'. This of course, is corrected with ray traces. Of course, for the most 'pop' and realism, the plants need to be 3D.

One final observation: it appears all the vehicles are floating a couple of inches off the driveway - small items like this can have a big impact on image realism. 

Also, I agree with Gene, sometimes clients focus too much on the details of a 'photo realistic' image. Fortunately, once you understand the client, CA provides tools to provide images that work for you and them.

Thanks Perry and Joe. Makes perfect sense now that it is explained. THANK YOU!

Barton, text macro's are so easy to do, you just type it in and save it. Then you never have to save it again.

Here is an example just copy it to your plan and open ruby and look at it.

This is the easiest macros you can make.

Thanks Perry!  

One question: I understand the use of macros that evaluate or display information pulled from an object. In your example, why would one prefer this type of macro over just a CAD block with the same, non-changing information. I'm still learning so the answer may be obvious, please excuse my ignorance if it is. Thanks.

Wow! Thanks Joe, Perry and Gerry - a mini-course in macros! I watched some of the CA vids on macros last night so the samples and explanations (thanks Joe) are a great follow-up.

Jon, thanks for the suggestion/pointer. Will do!

Thanks Gerry, your response clears up my confusion on why, even though I looked, I could only find macros associated with text and labels... I figured I was just not looking in the correct references.

That said, Perry, you indicate that even in their crippled form that macros and Ruby have helped make you more efficient, so I'll keep plugging away to understand the features that do exist.

Thanks.

I'd love to see how macros are being used 'out in the wild'. 

Any chance the macros could be pruned down so they show 'functionality' without revealing 'content'?

Has anyone done videos featuring 'macros'? I know CA has some videos dating back to X2 and X3 versions.

I made a template from this plan. Opening an old plan keeps all the old layer sets and doesn't open into the new template plan with all its Elevation and Cross cameras, It essentially just opens and x5 plan in x6 as is. I can import my layer sets, but not the camera views with preset data.

Barry

When Chief Architect opens a new, blank plan or layout file, the new file is actually a copy of a template using either metric or Imperial units of measurement and predefined default settings, layer settings, wall definitions, and page setup information.

In other words, the template files only apply to NEW, BLANK plans. Existing plans will retain their present settings no matter what template file you have selected in 'preferences'.

I guess I'm missing something - why not do what Perry suggested and just make a copy of your X5 plan (for safety) and then open it in X6, let X6 migrate the plan and make the minor adjustments, if any, that occur? I have a plan started in V9.5 that I have migrated through each version of CA up to X6. Yes, there were some minor corrections/tweaks required along the way but it was much easier than what it appears you are attempting to do.

Bill, opened your plan on my Lenovo Yoga 2 Pro (see my signature) - did not see any of the slowness that you described. Doug Park provided the best advice, IMHO.

Memory usage went from 2.5 GB RAM (CA not running) to 2.8 GB RAM (CA running with your plan open) so your plan itself does not put a big load on system memory.

Sorry I can't be more help.

Could you just save the old plan with all the Defaults you want as a template ?    open the template, Delete everything, and resave as a blank template plan with all the correct/wanted Defaults ?  and then use it as the Default Plan for New Plans?

 

M.

Yes, should work since this is pretty much how CA describes, on page 81 of the X6 reference manual, how to create new template plan files. Once you have the new template file, copying/pasting an old file into a new file using the old file as a template should retain everything... Or as Perry suggested, just open a copy of the X5 file in X6 and let it upgrade.

The dashed lines in plan view are there because you represented the door as a 'garage' door. CA assumes you want to know what the clearance area is for a lift door when viewing the plan so they add the dashed lines. If you are using a different type of door, like a rollup door, change the 'door' to a 'doorway' (the dashed lines will go away in plan view) and then insert your rollup door symbols into the doorway for correct 3D views.