KirillP

Wow, that worked, thanks a lot!

Hello, How do people design large multipurpose spaces? Maybe I'm just doing it wrong. I have kitchen, dining and living space as one U-shaped area and leg of the U is a "separate" room of type kitchen, because it has different ceiling height and generally it's useful to see the kitchen "separately" when working on the plan. As a consequence of this I can't create a unified floor pattern, see the screenshot. The highlighted area is where the kitchen/dining boundary is. The boundary is purely logical (on the floor, ceiling is different). Is it possible to join the floors without joining the rooms? Thanks for all the ideas

Okay, that now makes total sense. The only wish would be to document is somewhere, so that people don't even try. @GeneDavis @Renerabbitt I tried your advice to put the point lights into a shroud, but I believe my CA skills are not enough to make it right. The construction has started and I have more "physical" issues to take care of, so I decided to abort the efforts for now. But meanwhile I found a bug in the renderer, dev team reproduced it and it's a win :-)

This makes sense indeed, but kind of sad. I'd expect a focus on fidelity from the professional architectural software. My wife helps me with a great iPad app called Live Home 3D, she just plays around there and shows me the ideas, then places object roughly where she wants them and I calculate and place them on the correct spots/grids/etc in CA. There, 3D render should look decent no matter what you do, because almost 100% of users don't know what they are doing. In CA though, I'd expect the picture to be a black rectangle if I switch all the lights off and turn the ambient off too. I received a few first samples of LED strips that I'm going to use and duct taped a test environment in the rental I'm living in now. Same 450 lm/ft, almost the same height as it will be in the future house, Less ambient light (coming not from the LED strip) than in the render. The lighting on the wall looks like nothing on the render. (sorry for the mess). Total length of the strip is 16.4'

I kinda vaguely remember these details from my 3D years, but here I believe we have a much simpler task. Look at my original picture: why is so much difference between the red and green area? And even more between green and blue? They are lit directly, with the lights right above them (and from the sides too), there's no ambient occlusion happening whatsoever.

One of the off the shelf implementations, cheap and relatively low power, but shows the general idea of technical implementation: https://www.casalolalights.com/products/skyline-linear-led-lighting?_pos=1&_psq=skyline&_ss=e&_v=1.0 Designer, who I lifted the idea from: https://www.davidegroppi.com/es/productos/infinito-p262 (warning, it's a designer website. the number of javascript gimmicks is on par with his original ideas).

Now you see what bothers me - the light from the rope shines onto the tops of the doors and then falls off very quickly. It behaves like light underwater but without scattering. Lumens-shlumens, but the basic physics is wrong from my perspective, light in the air falls off much slower. Thanks for the SS tips, will try them ASAP, the dull looks of SS is very annoying.

Many factors which are not obvious to me. You got really stunning pictures out of my plan, they look awesome, but I'm not after awesomeness. I'm after visual fidelity. I'm trying to use CA as a light modelling tool, because I never worked with powerful LED light ropes and want to use them as one of primary light sources. You did an awesome job filling the house with ambient sunlight, but I'm intentionally render with all lights off, except the ones I'm interested in, and at total ambient darkness. How did you get the stainless steel so good? I use all materials stock from CA, except for the countertop and cabinetry, where I use hi res textures downloaded from the manufacturers websites. These look pretty decent to me (you made wood too shiny, in reality it's more matte like in my picture, but more color saturated like in yours).

36Mb https://www.icloud.com/iclouddrive/0d5EoHKsUNCFLkuvJ5pP_ahAg#plan

Well, they say "Physically Based", and I was doing raytracing back in the 90x and it was pretty good even back then. It just took weeks what now takes a minute on a 4090.... Promise you're not going to steal my genius design! Srsly, thanks for volunteering to look at this. Not sure if the camera position is saved in the plan, so I'm attaching the screenshot of how it's positioned, sunlight has to be off. I've added a second rope just to see if it makes any difference. I've stripped the zip from materials that not needed and removed other rooms, to squeeze into 14Mb limit. plan.zip

Oops, I meant "Spot" lights, not "Point". Point lights do not have cut off angle and no direction. OP fixed. I can't see the screenshot of your Light Data dialog, it's too compressed, but I believe you have lumens in the thousands too. My light has similar settings to your first picture. Does it look realistic to you? You have a few thousand lumens handing a few feet above the floor and you don't even see the effect on this floor. I figured that I misunderstood the "Drop off rate" setting, it's the diffusion on the light's aperture, how soft or sharp the edge of the spot looks like, so zero drop off should generate a visible cone on the wall parallel to the light direction and it's indeed visible on your first picture and on mine. But still it doesn't explain why no matter how bright the rope is, it doesn't contribute significantly to the brightness of the room. I became so obsessed with this problem that I've ordered some led strips and a power supply to run an experiment IRL. Thanks!

I don't want the picture to just look nice, I want it to look realistic. Cranking up exposure will just wash out the lit areas above. My problem in this picture is the light intensity which falls off too quickly to be realistic (unless we're shooting these pictures underwater).

Default is set to 5000, way above I have in the house total. This rendering was made with a custom light set though. I only have two more rope lights in the room next to this one, 30' total and they were manually turned off at the time of this rendering. When they are on I see it because they shine like nuclear blast through the right doorway (they are waaaay too bright, and need to be adjusted). But it's an interesting data point about the engine, thanks!

It's actually higher than the doorway, half way between the top of the doorway and the bottom of the window. This section of the house has a higher ceiling and the ropes are supposed to hang a bit above the ceiling height of the surrounding areas. That doorway is 8' high, like the rest of the "old house". This is a heavy remodel of a reinforced concrete house built in 1971 with 8' ceilings and this one section is 10' high. Suffice to say that Chief Architect is not making it (remodeling concrete houses) easy :-) "Tell me you developed the software in the USA, without telling me you developed it in the USA" © lol. It's a rope light, so the shadow to the right of the picture shouldn't be there. There's nothing in the way of the light ray between the rope light and the wall next to the electric panel. I'm fine with the ceiling being darker, in a way it's the effect I'm after. What I do not understand is the insufficient lighting on the work surface below them. The kitchen is supposed to be around 40 ft. cd. with another 40 ft. cd. for the work surfaces. 18 is definitely many-ish, but where's the effing light?!? With this amount of lighting I should be able to do neurosurgery on this work surface. Yessir. I can do that too, but I'm trying to simulate a realistic scenario with the lights I'll have. I can make it look good with absolutely unrealistic numbers, but then it's not a photorealistic rendering, right? The "realistic" piece is missing. Brightness and exposure don't really cut it because then the area around the rope light becomes completely washed out. It looks like that the light falloff is completely wrong, despite being turned off completely. It doesn't affect the rendering fidelity, just takes longer. I tried 300, I tried 1000, etc.

Hi, Happy New Year! New year, old problems. I'm trying to simulate a LED strip general lighting (not under cabinet, but more like Davide Groppi from Italy creates). The following rendering is made at 11pm, so no ambient light, all rooms are off except this one (kitchen), it's 266 sq. ft. and has 18 recessed lights of 600 lm each and a rope light. Rope light has 450lm per foot and 21 feet long, so about 9000 lm. Rope light is of point spot type (because strips emit in one direction) with a cut off angle of 170 deg and drop off rate of 0 (for simplicity). 1. Why the heck it's still so dark? 2. Why the heck there's a very visible shadow line on the wall to the right? I watched, I believe, all the videos and tried all combinations of parameters. I can only make it look worse from this point. The 266 sq ft room should look much brighter with 20k lumens in it, am I right? This is about 2x of normal kitchen lighting or 1x of kitchen workspace lighting. It should be flooded with light. (rendering made on a windows machine with RTX 4090 and 100 samples) Any ideas? Thanks, Kirill

Sorry for the necroposting, but this post is the top google result for "chief architect two users sharing the same plan", so I'll record my observation for others so they don't need to try. I have two Macs, one running HD Pro 24 and another CA X15. CA is told to save HD-compatible .plan files and does so. The plan is in the iCloud shared folder, "Use File Locking" is turned on on both machines. Use File Locking does not prevent users from opening the same plan file and modifying it concurrently. iCloud (Dropbox or any other cloud service) is not "sharing", but "syncing" and these services use their own API for communication between simultaneous readers and writers. CA apparently uses old plain vanilla file locking which is suitable for single computer sharing or sharing via network server on the LAN. "The last writer wins" and the previous writer loses everything they did. So if 2 users start with the same plan, one did something and saved and then second saved, whatever first one saved is lost. CA doesn't have the capability to sync changes, at least on iCloud Drive. The nice little software for the amateurs (it's getting better, but nowhere even close to HD, not mentioning CA) Live Home 3D can do it easily. My wife was designing on her iPad and I immediately see what she does on my Mac, without even touching anything, the file updates and views are autoupdating (which is sometimes even annoying). Unfortunately, we grew out of it with our project. P.S. I've seen in other threads that CA "should just add this" to their products. It's actually a very challenging sofware engineering task, and for the old codebase such is CA, which was not designed initially for this, it's a major overhaul. Most such apps implement the MVC (Model-View-Controller) pattern unidirectionally. You have a model of your document in the computer memory, you have the view (the code that shows the model on the screen this way or another) and you have controllers (menu actions, mouse actions, keyboard shortcuts, etc). Model is loaded, View is shown, Controller makes a change, this change is shown in the view and reflected into the model. Then model is exported (saved) into external representation on disk. For this sync scheme to work, through iCloud or otherwise, the model has to be changed directly by the controller and view should be able to receive updates from the model and redraw only what was changed, then the changes should be sent to other apps and their models and views updated accordingly. And that doesn't deal with conflicting changes for which the whole computer science field was invented: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operational_transformation and then (not sure about the timeline tho) as an alternative https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict-free_replicated_data_type It's a rabbit hole seven miles deep. Merry Christmas!