Grumpka

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

7 Neutral

About Grumpka

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    New Jersey
  • Interests
    Synthesizers, music, dog fostering and rescue, love animals, wildlife rescue, airplanes, computers, and too many other interests to fit in a day....

Recent Profile Visitors

499 profile views
  1. Grumpka

    Non-rectalinear Cabinet Backs

    Cad lines for the 2D. The 3d, if it is the back, doesn't matter. (just reduce the depth of the box before whatever obstruction, chase, or whatever reason you have for the special back shape. I haven't stepped into 'advance' cabinet symbol creation, but if I had to guess, there's a way to make the box in cad, and save it as a cabinet symbol. I can't think of an example where I'd have to show a 3d of the back of the cabinet. Can always make a shop drawings in cad tools if that was really needed...
  2. If you use something like Twinmotion, the process for BIM is nearly effortless. This keeps labor costs down and added value to the client up. Twinmotion is free up until November. The other nice thing, you can export to a stand-alone executable BIM walkthru. As to charging, I was always taught not to leave money on the table, lol. However, look at what you are up against in this current market. Rendering skills don't hold the value they once did. There are so many online companies across the ocean and even in the states that charge next to nothing for these services. I'm personally working towards the traditional business model. Buy the best equipment that gives you the best results with the highest return. Well, free equipment is nice (twinmotion), and the results are pretty impressive. If you are trying to do all this in CA, I'd guess it will take more time, lower quality results, and the inability to charge appropriately for such.
  3. Not me... oh wait, I didn't update Hopefully, something Chief is aware of. If not, best to report it I'd think.
  4. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    Actually, that looks pretty damn nice! I'd be pleased with that level of quality. The new interface in Inspire looks great! I wonder what the cost of the package would be? I'd be interested in the studio and the render for sure. Signing up for the beta! Thanks for sharing!
  5. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    Looks like Lumion runs as stand-alone as well. That program is a 2-3k investment though. Thea use to be a stand-alone called Thea Studio. For a while, I believe it was setup so if you purchased Thea studio, you would pick a plug-in to Sketch up or such, but you still had the stand-alone studio. That doesn't seem to be the case now. Maybe, Rene knows as he is a Thea user.
  6. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    Nice! Thanks for the video. Thea has a lot of great tools. I love the f-stop being in there. I don't see Thea studio being offered anymore??? From what the website states, there is no standalone. It only runs as a plug in to sketchup, cinema 4D or Rhino? That's a bummer if that is the case. $450.00 is a great price, but I don't want to have to deal with sketchup. It's just another step I don't need. PS: Horrible quote you picked from my post, LOL. I need to grammar and spell check my posts. 'I don't think they spending much' *they're Blush blush.
  7. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    Well put. CA's render engine just are what they are. I respect those who put the effort into getting the most they can out of it. (that's certainly on my radar too) BUT, and a big BUT, if I can go 3rd party )the topic of this thread by the way), and get better and quicker results, I'm going that route unapologetic about it. Rene, great point about the f-stop. I was researching that along with the sRBG topic. CA's camera is a fraction of what something like Blender Cycle can pull off with some minor tweaks. Not comparing one to the other, as Blender is labor-intensive, learning curve and such. CA should be giving best results out of the box, with the best quality models and textures. Or, at least that would be my hope.... In the meanwhile, thank god for the community! Learning more and more every day.
  8. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    Some of the latest PBR render engines are getting pretty close to RT images. I went into the purchase of CA with the belief that Ray Trace would render images similar to the fine examples I just posted. So far, I've been unable to balance my lights correctly to get a good CA RT image. They're either way too dark, or way too light. Plus, even with a somewhat modern processor, the investment of time needed is a luxury I don't typically have. If I had a better grasp as to 'what could be done' with CA, perhaps, the time is worth it. Haven't seen a CA ray trace even close the quality of Lumion PBR. Time vs. result, CA PBR is just fine for what it does. Maybe, I missed it, but show me an impressive CA RayTrace that is all that much nicer than the majority of PBRs CA produces. I think if render engines start to utilize RTX, such as Octa Render now does, ray tracing may be viable for me. Right now, not going to wait 10 minutes-10 hours during the steep learning curve.
  9. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    Very true Graham. On all points. What would help is to see what CA considers TOP SHELF, highest possible quality renders by whomever they consider a master of the software. To date, all I see are results that are subject to opinion as to the quality level. They are all acceptable and 'professional', but honestly, I'm not seeing them being worlds ahead of what I accomplished in the first couple of months with the software. I don't have a fat head, and I'm not saying my renderings are great. However, compared to a lot of what I see, I think I was doing a pretty damn good job overall. (again, subject to opinion, see my signature quote, LOL). The more I read up on PBR theory and usage, the more I see that PBR is only in its infancy in CA. Looking at the third party titles, the PBR material interface is more advanced, the sun controls seem superior, and controls of ambient occlusion, Global illumination, PBR material tweaking, all seem ahead of CA's current state. I'm now learning about sRGB and some of the inherent shortcomings of many render packages. There's so much to learn about baking materials. I'm wondering if one takes time to make complete texture data, utilizing all PBR mapping options, will the results really be better in CA, or are we chasing our tails? Final comment on this post, look at this image; There are companies doing beautiful renderings day in and day out. I don't think they're spending much, if any time tweaking a 1000 attributes on each render. I believe that once you have your material library and lighting collection, sun parameters, it all becomes quick and easy. Perhaps, this will be true of CA PBR, but as it stands, until I see images like this from CA, I'll continue on my search. I want to point out, notice how the finish seems REAL. It's shiny, but only in a real world sense. It's clear it isn't a high paint, but it also has depth and clarity. It's believable and at a glance, might be confused for a real life picture.
  10. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    That's one shiny kitchen finish. Nice CA render though. I can agree up to a point about CA's PBR, but honestly, the vast, and I mean, VAST, majority of what I've seen from CA has never come close to what 3rd party render software can do with little effort. That makes the case for the investment of an independent render engine. I find way too much of my time being wasted forcing the 'manual' camera of CA to get mediocre results. I think it is time for CA to ditch the Ray trace feature and replace it with perhaps a more capable PBR engine. Even if we could make the case for CA's Ray Trace engine offering better quality renders, why would one want to wait 30 minutes to 30 hours for the result when you can invest in a 3rd party engine that can do it in almost zero minutes? Time is money. Can't say it enough. Beautiful results, consistent results, in the least amount of time. Right now, I'm starting to see the light (pun intended) in 3rd party render engines. Bang out the design in Chief with the ability to design in a real time PBR environment. Export to 3rd party, replace some materials, adjust here and there, move sun around, minutes later you have a very beautiful, inviting scene. Did I mention 'FUN'. CA's PBR or RT just isn't fun when it comes to messing around. It can be too frustrating vs the end result.
  11. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    I will definitely look into it! I am far more demanding on myself than my clients ever could be! I don't think they care about artistic rendering vs photo real. It's all cool to them, and they are getting renders leaps and bounds ahead of what the majority of the designers offer. I'd love to get to the next level stuff. Lumion is $3200!!! It's truly amazing, but not sure I want to make the leap just yet. (trial version will be tested soon)> Thea I have heard of. Never looked into it! Guess I'll be doing research tonight thanks.
  12. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    Thanks Graham. I will continue to take advice for the foreseeable future. So, please, always speak up. I'm open-minded, a little stubborn at times, but I always come around. You are dead on, the pinnacle is photo realistic. I must admit, that was something I thought I'd be after, but quickly realizing the tools and the skill set to do such is still out of my reach. Cheif is a good step in the right direction. No matter what, Chief is an amazing CAD program which builds the 3d model foundation. The render tools are an asset for sure, but it seems external PBR's will be a quicker route to get the render styles I'm seeking for now.
  13. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    Beauty is in the eye of the beholder! BTW, that wasn't the latest image. Perhaps, if we want to be picky, 'realism' isn't the best word. Artistic Rendering is better, as that is what all this is. I like the WARMTH and feel of what I was able to get in Twinmotion. Your Cheif PBR is nice and sharp and you have some skills I need to work towards for sure. However, when I think of what I feel good presenting a customer, I think the twinmotion presentation gives me a bit more of the feel I was after. Doesn't mean I won't strive to keep at it with CA. In fact, been spending the day reading the forum, the manual, and playing around. I've had nothing but positive feedback on my work. so that is what counts. I found this: online from a company called https://archicgi.com/. This is what I would consider realism, and not something CA can achieve via it's current PBR. I think there may be something like Lumion or such that can get the realism thing going. I was just impressed by the results of Twinmotion vs. CA when it came to the flavor of the image. The more I work on CA PBR, the more frustration I feel. No worries. It's not a contest (well, it wasn't for me, I'm just enjoying the ride and trying to learn, not to say one thing is better than another per-say)
  14. Stumbled on this video. You might hate making the videos, but they are immensely helpful! You are a master and I am just a humble student. You effortlessly grasp your 3d space and adjust bounding boxes/stretch planes like they are 2nd nature! I am still struggling with your finished interior magic cube using it as a teaching tool to understand the 'side inset' option and how it relates to the symbol's x,y,z stretch planes, insertion point, etc. Nice video. Thank you for doing it!
  15. Grumpka

    Cheif compatible 3D software

    This thread! I'm so happy I found it! Twinmotion is such fun and my renders are 85% closer to where I want them! Highly recommend Twinmotion! It's going to take time to learn how to tweak it and such, but I'm feeling like I'm getting the warmth CA PBR is missing!