TheKitchenAbode

This lack of GPU Raytracing on Macs has been known and discussed for at least 6 months. Also, as Macs use AMD GPU's the only AMD card designed to support Raytracing is their most current RX6000 series which was only introduced about 6 months ago.

Hi Julia, Welcome to our group. Always a pleasure to have other's with similar interest and concerns. Yes, the catalogs are certainly limited if you are looking for more modern contemporary designed models. CA has been making some improvements in their lighting catalogs but not much when it comes to furnishings. For free models you should look at 3D Warehouse. otherwise you may need to look at paid(tariff) sites if you need models of the highest quality. Another option is to modify existing models by deleting surfaces, adding components that you have created or taking components from other models and combining them to make a new model/symbol. Can be a bit fidgety but with a bit of practice it will become easier. For general questions you may wish to consider posting it separately in the forum, this will likely draw in more commentary from other forum members who are not within this user groups local. Cheers, Graham

My apologies but I'm having some difficulty in understanding what you are saying here. The two posted pics demonstrate that colours are depicted fairly accurately between the STD camera and the PBR camera. The caveat here is that lighting and material properties need to be properly set, which often involves more than just dropping in a few default lights. Personally, if your ultimate goal is to produce a decent PBR then all of your adjustments need to be done in the PBR camera view, once it looks the way you wish then it's most likely that if you change the camera type to STD view then things will look proper. STD view is too basic and making your changes in STD view will likely result in poor or unexpected PBR results.

Here is a STD view and PBR view on a project I ran the other day. As you can see the colours are fairly close between the two views. However you will see for example that the white on the ceiling and the white on the cabinetry is slightly different, this is as would be expected as when PBR'ing the light processing is more complex and things like colour casting will be taken into account. STD View PBR View

I've done a lot of PBR's and have not experienced the issue you describe. Without having your plan to see your settings it's difficult to determine what is going on. If you could post it I or someone else can check it out, I'm certain it can be resolved.

Getting colours and textures to match between two different rendering techniques will be a challenge, the standard view uses a simplified lighting technique compared to PBR. A materials colour is the result of the material colour property settings and the properties of the light striking it and reflecting back to the observer. I think it would be best to decide on one or the other rendering techniques and adjust the material colour properties and light settings to achieve the desired look.

The glowing lights when the sun is off is not because they are on, it's due to the light bulb material having an emissive setting which makes a material glow as if it is a light source. To get your lights to show properly when the sun is turned on will likely require you to increase the lights intensity, which will vary depending on how intense the sun is. Make sure that the lights are actually on in the camera view and then go into the light DBX and increase the lights intensity, if the sun intensity is very high then you may need to increase the light intensity quite a bit.

I also question the stated RayTrace performance gain. If I access the theoretical gains based on comparing the old CPU and the new one I would anticipate that a 54 minute Raytrace would now run in about 18 minutes, not the stated 2.46 minutes. Seems to me that there might have been some differences in the Raytrace settings. The new system is powerful and a solid upgrade but not sure it's that fast.

Just to help clarify this Raytracing concern. If you are going to upgrade to X13, Chief is adding an additional Raytracing feature called Real-time Raytracing. The original CPU based Raytracer will still be available and does not require any additional hardware. The new real-time Raytracer will however require a graphics card that supports this function, currently the Nvidia RTX 3000 series cards support this. If you don't mind waiting then you don't need to purchase one of these more expensive graphics cards. If you are purchasing a desktop then you can always upgrade the graphics card later on if you decide to use the real-time Raytracer

Are you certain that it's an error message? There is a message that can pop up when it takes longer than a certain period of time for CA to rebuild a model. This one is just for information purposes so you know why things might be taking longer than expected.

I think you are failing to see beyond the surface, it's a beginner overview so yes the structure is going to be simple. There's a reason programs like Revit are used to design the most complex projects constructed to date. Personally if I was just starting out and had a serious interest in architecture I would focus my time and effort on learning a truly professional level program. This is not to put Chief down but Chief is focused on and serves a very specific type of user, it's good but there are limits to what it is designed to do.

You may wish to watch this vid on Revit. Worth watching the whole vid, even this basic overview should give a good sense as to the power of this level of software, especially if you are interested in organic architecture. Revit Modern House - Autodesk Revit Architecture 2019 Demonstration - YouTube

It might be worthwhile touching base with @Renerabbitt. This is what he does and I'm certain he would be pleased to extend you some guidance on this.

To start with I would just like to first say that your design work is definitely deserving of improved presentation, those renderings are just not doing justice to your work. Like many CA users you are now faced with the predicament of deciding the best course of action. Do you spend more time and effort trying to improve your CA output or do you spend time and effort plus potentially additional cost to adopt a third party rendering engine and if so, which one do you choose. First you will need to establish the degree of realism required. This requires a bit of thought, it's important to identify what your business model/client base requires which is different than just a personal desire. For myself I personally would like to generate the most spectacular photo realistic renderings however, from a business/client perspective this is not a requirement as clients only need renderings as an aid to help them visualize their project, my fees are justified on designing a functional space that is visually pleasing and within their available budget. As time is money I need to ensure the balance between designing and rendering is correct. As you are likely aware, clients expect fast turnaround and become frustrated if it takes too long for change requests to be processed. On a typical kitchen design I will have 4-6 camera views, all which will need to be updated every time we make a change; even if the change only takes 1 minute to do in the plan all the camera views need to be updated. If to you the above makes sense then we can deduce that just looking at gallery samples of differing renderers does not really fully answer the question. Also, when viewing those sample renderings you need to keep in mind that they are most likely created by highly skilled professionals and therefore are not necessarily representative of what a novice could produce. They also rarely indicate the creation time or what other programs were involved in the workflow process. Their tutorial videos can be helpful, but again these are most often highly choregraphed so it always looks easy and quick. On the other hand you have Chiefs sample render gallery, but this is in my opinion misleading as they tend to be very conservative, CA can produce much better renders than they show so you are not really seeing the full potential like you do in other renderers. For myself I always go into their forums and check out what their users are posting, often they will mention the creation time and workflow and you will often gain some sense as to their level of professionalism. Another important consideration relates to workflow. As you are aware, with Chief there is no direct integrated way to link your model directly to another renderer. You must always export your model first and then import it into the other renderer. On the surface this seems like no big deal just export, import and render: however, it's most likely going to be far more complex as those renderers will not recognize the CA lighting and many of the imbedded CA materials/textures will likely need to be replaced. Keep this in mind especially if you intend to provide high end renderings at the beginning of your design process as this will likely need to be done each and every time a change to the base CA model is made. As a note to this, there are some renderers that will maintain a live link to the exported CA model file, this means that your model in the renderer will reflect your CA changes while maintaining your prior changes/alterations made in the renderer. It can be a somewhat daunting decision, especially when you start accessing all of the pro's and con's, and especially for an experienced Chief user where you can quickly put together complex designs but are now struggling to present it as best as possible. I can't close without including a bit of a plug for Chief. As mentioned earlier, Chief does not properly demonstrate the full potential of it's rendering capabilities. As an example I downloaded the Chic Cottage sample plan, opened their exterior camera and ran a Ray Trace, default Outdoor High Quality. Ray Trace after 5 minutes, 10 passes. Above scene. Just adjusted the Image Properties available in the Ray Trace Window, time 15 seconds. Above scene. Saved image, opened in a photo editor, adjusted saturation, shadows & highlights, 2 minutes. I realize this is not at the level of a dedicated renderer, but keep in mind this was completed within 7 minutes and no material or lighting alterations were made, everything just default. Only made a few simple image property adjustments. Hope this helps.

It's unclear as to what type of assembly (wall or ceiling) you are referring to and what if any fire resistance rating is required. In general, a UL listed assembly must be constructed according to the description outlined in the UL Handbook. If the gypsumboard was tapped when it was tested then you must tape it which will be described as such. For listed assemblies, such as those tested by UL, it is their description that must be followed and should always be referenced regardless of the manufacturers description. Obviously an occupancy certificate is much more involved and the requirements will likely vary according to your local. The other consideration is if there is a mortgage involved and if so what % value of the home is being mortgaged. Mortgage holders will have their own requirements as an incomplete home is of less value than a completed home.