TheKitchenAbode

Not certain that is working according to the original plan. That roof should be lower, around 115". Move it down and the gaps show up.

I've not done a real night scene for some time. From what I can recall, when you have the sun toggled on and the sun has a level of intensity the sun will affect the background and the model. If you then just toggle the sun off the background is still effected but the sun will not light the model. If you then turn the sun intensity to zero the background will go completely dark. There is no way using the sun to just light the model without lighting the background at the same time, and there is no way to adjust how the light is split between the background and the model. For you situation I would suggest the following Toggle the sun off and adjust it's intensity to get the background looking the way you desire, I think that's essentially what you had in your first pic. To light the model place a 3D light off in the distance and up in the air, say 100 ft., use a spot and angle it say 20 degrees, set the spread to say 180. For it's intensity you will need to do this by trial and error, as a guide 100 lumens is about the equivalent to 1 Lux. This spot is now act as the sun that will light your model. Play with the shadows on and the drop rate to fine tune. As this is a sunset scene you might wish to add a color to the spot, a yellow/orange tone might work well.

The vertical thickness(edge) of the ceiling drywall is still showing, certainly less than the original posting but nevertheless it is not correct. It's just not in this particular situation where it happens, also occurs in stairwell openings. It's extremely frustrating to have to go around and cover these up with thin Polyline Solids, wall material regions do not work, things get more frustrating if later on the opening size changes as Polyline Solids are independent of the wall so now you have to go and adjust each and everyone of them. It's stuff like this that really frustrates me about Chief, a real time waster for something that seems so basic.

The only thing with this is that the problem has now moved to the ceiling, the wall finish extends into the ceiling the thickness of the wall, the ceiling texture should extend right out to the vertical edge. Still need some kind of workaround.

Not certain there is any proper solution for this situation other than using a thin Polyline Solid or possibly a wall material region to cover it up. This seems to also happen when ceilings are normal height, the 1/2" edge of the ceiling drywall always shows. Has been doing this for as long as I can remember, unfortunate that something so oblivious has never been fixed.

There is no message when it is done nor does the program have any way to determine this. You decide when enough is enough, each pass refines the scene, at first this refinement will be fairly dramatic but as more passes are completed the refinement will be more subtle. At the bottom of the screen there is an indicator that tells you the number of completed passes and the total time.

That's a real unknown as it dep[ends on many things such as lighting, number of reflective materials, number of transparent materials (especially when they are on top of each other). Also the size of your pic, with Raytrace if you double the size of your pic it will take 4 times longer per pass. Some traces could take hours/100's of passes. My personal tolerance is about 30 passes which might take 10 or 30 minutes on my system.

Sorry, my mistake. Best to discuss this with someone familiar with this type of construction in California.

As a general rule you would only need footings for interior walls that are loadbearing. Just curious as to why you would be building, I assume a house, in Canada on a grade level slab, most Canadian homes are built with full height basements.

You just need to keep in mind that it only "Paints" the existing material to look like another material, it does not replace the material. For example, if your exterior finish is 4" thick brick the painter allows you to make this look like siding but it is still 4" brick, just with a siding look texture. If you actually want real siding then you need to open up the wall definition and change the brick to siding.

In your price range it is unlikely that you will find that type of laptop with a dedicated graphics card. I have an HP Spectra 360, it only has an integrated HD620 graphics chip, works fine for most camera view types but definitely struggles using the PBR camera. The unknown is that CA has made some significant changes in the upcoming X13 in respect to graphics and they have not mentioned anything about whether integrated graphics chips will support this. They certainly will not support the new real time raytrace feature as this requires a fairly powerful Nvidia RTX card. Also, Intel has recently released a new series of integrated graphics chips that perform much better than the old HD series, but again CA has not indicated anything concerning these. Might be best to contact CA to see what they have to say, would be very disappointing to purchase a new laptop and find then find out that CA does not support this type of graphics.

Just keep in mind that once you bring an old plan forward and save it in X12 it can no longer be opened in an older version. If you think you might have a need to go back then remember to make a copy of your old plan first.

It's a polyline solid, under Build Primitive.

Here's another example just using a google street view rendered in CA. The google street view was first loaded into Photoshop and everything other than the structures were erased. In CA I used a standard sunset library backdrop to provide the sky effect. In the plan I placed a large psolid placed behind the model and used the cropped google street view as a texture. The psolid allowed me to manipulate the google street view to match the camera angle and I could use the texture offset controls to shift it and scale it. The psolid could also be moved forward or backwards to help obtain a sense of depth.

Nicely done Glenn. Though a backdrop is a pic there's a big difference when the model is incorporated into the pic versus just being in front of the pic. To obtain the former you will need to utilize other software to accomplish this. My example below was done using Photoshop, the CA render was cropped to isolate the structure and added as a layer over a real pic of the site. The model layer was then manipulated in an attempt to match the angles and perspective of the site pic, not perfect but much better than anything that I could have done is just using CA. What's also interesting is that this CA render on it's own looked much less real than after placing it into a real pic. It does beg one to seriously consider whether CA's difficulty in producing convincing renders is related to lighting or just the fact that the symbols we have are just too basic and no matter how well you try to light them they will never look real.

Though I agree with your commentary and recommendations it seems that you may have missed the point I was attempting to make, which was that CA even with their existing program could produce better renderings than their demonstration depicts. My posted examples were not stated to be equivalent to what can be achieved in other 3rd party renderers, they are to be viewed within the context of CA only. Personally I have never expected CA to rival dedicated 3rd party renderers, I just wish they would spend some time fixing what they have so it is easier for users to generate a decent rendering without so much fussing around.

There's no doubt that you will do no harm by upgrading. My advice according to current political correctness is to be "Cautiously Optimistic". For myself I will hold off until I get a chance to evaluate X13, fortunately my GTX 1060 can Raytrace and though it will be slow I will still be able to see if the effect is worthy of an upgrade. If not I will just continue with regular PBR'ing or look further into a 3rd party renderer. I guess for myself I feel less of an urgency as I'm already able to obtain reflections in my PBR's that are in my opinion essentially as good as the ones shown in the demo. X12 PBR with Reflections

I couldn't agree more. I'm fully aware from a sales/marketing perspective the competitive pressure and desire to introduce New and Exciting Features to gain attention and drive future sales. That's just marketing 101. What's really important when doing this is to ensure that these New and Exciting Features ultimately perform to users anticipated expectations. I will use real time raytracing as an example, within the industry this has been a highly talked about breakthrough technology, many users have seen those slick gaming demonstration videos and the spectacular reflections being attained. Though no fault of the average viewer, it's easy to conclude that the key to a truly realistic render is solely reliant on the ability to perform real time raytracing. What is lost in this is the fact that Real Time Raytracing is just raytracing, which has been around for decades, just done faster. As such, if in the past you could not create an acceptable raytrace you will still have the same problem, you will only see your unacceptable result faster, "Real Time" does not mean "Better Quality". The quality of a raytrace is determined by the interfacing GUI that provides the user with the tools needed to define/adjust lighting and materials and the skill of the user in making these adjustments. In CA's video they have demonstrated the Faster aspect, however I did not see anything that indicated an improvement in the Quality related GUI. I believe CA in their rush to have this New Feature is running a high risk of user disappointment, especially if a user rushes out and drops $1,000 on a high end video card under the belief that they can just rerun an old unacceptable raytrace and now see a spectacular photo realistic rendering. What makes the risk even greater is that by imparting this feature CA has somewhat disenfranchised Apple(Mtac) users as only Windows users can potentially use this feature. Keep in mind that the real time raytracing feature has nothing to do with the need for CA to address the move away from Open GL Obviously only time will tell if the risk was worth it.

As my primary focus is also kitchens I can understand this. Each time CA comes up for renewal I struggle as to whether or not it's worth it. Yes they do add new features but in the context of kitchen design they are rarely significant. Having used CA since X1 I have to admit that I'm having difficulty to identify improvements that have had any significant impact on my ability to design a kitchen. Please do not send me a list of all the new features since X1, I'm fully aware of them. It's not that they are not appreciated but what I find is when they add a feature they rarely refine it to be a "Wow". Yes it works but there's always some undesired limitation. Let's use a custom backsplash as an example, sounds great but you can't wrap it around inside or outside corners, if I have a counter that needs both back and side splashes I need to generate 3 separate elevations and draw it 3 times. Yes it automatically conforms to wall openings such as windows and doors, but not to wall or base cabinets so I have to do this primarily by eye to wrap around these items. It buries electrical items so I have to open them up and assign an offset. Great concept but with many limitations. Before this I could do the same thing with a polyline solid, it wont automatically respect door and window openings but with just a few breaks this can be accommodated and unlike the custom countertop, polyline solids respect snapping and if drawn in plan view it can be wrapped around inside and outside corners. So what really is this Custom Counter top feature, just a polyline solid minus some of the polylines function with the added ability to respect door and window openings. We now have two individual tools with limited functionality, it's like taking a cake, cutting it in half and now claiming you have two cakes. When I was in marketing we had a phrase for this type of approach, "Smoke & Mirrors".

If these issues still exist as it appears they do then they should fix them, adding raytraced reflections to a compromised scene only results in a poor scene with reflections.

Just to emphasize my point, here is a screen capture of the bathroom in the video. - light bleed where the tub meets the floor. - light bleed in the bottom left corner in the room with the sliding door. - look at the chrome components in the shower where they are seen through the glass, they are just black. Is this the behavior we are to expect?

I think I'm one of those "some users". Yes I'm being critical because I know the renderer can do better than what they produced in their video. Given that this is a promotional video why would you not make it as good as it can be? The purpose of rendering is to generate beautiful scenes, the purpose of adding real time raytracing is to make those scenes even better. All of the generated scenes in the video had numerous deficiencies that in my opinion did not need to be there if a bit more attention to detail had been taken.

No one here is a bonehead. None of us have any control over CA's methodology when designing and programing their renderer, and more importantly the ability to intuitively control lighting and material properties in order to achieve optimum results. I will just use the sun as one example, when they introduced PBR several years ago they imparted the ability of the sun to provide both direct and indirect light into the interior which also included the feature of picking up exterior colours and casting them into the interior. Though being a major step forward they failed to provide any means of controlling the degree to which this happens, everything is just fixed to the suns intensity. It only took users a very short while to encounter major problems with this as they would get horrible exaggerated colour casting in their interior scenes when increasing the suns intensity to obtain their desired direct and indirect lighting levels. The only remedy is to either reduce the suns intensity or change/eliminate the backdrop, so now to overcome one problem you must compromise somewhere else. Added to this is the fact that there is also a relationship to the perceived intensity of interior lights in respect to the suns intensity, so if you choose to address the colour cast issue by reducing the sun's intensity then all of your interior lights will increase in their perceived intensity. If you lower the suns intensity too much your interior lights will be way to bright which will cause other problems plus you will undermine the suns direct and indirect interior light contribution. It's like a cat chasing a mouse around a room with no corners. All of this colour cast craziness' could have been easily resolved by one simple slider that allows us to adjust the colour cast contribution or if this was too difficult then a single on/off toggle so we could turn it off. Personally expecting users to figure out creative ways to overcome these fundamental flaws is unacceptable, especially when they are so obvious.