TheKitchenAbode

As others have commented, it's most likely a color cast issue where the sun picks up color from the backdrop or terrain. The degree of color cast is dependent upon the intensity of the sun. Changing the backdrop or terrain may help but this may just result in some other color being cast and these changes may not be the look you want. As the degree of color cast is dependent upon the sun intensity the best approach is to find the right intensity, keep in mind that the realized visual intensity of the sun depends upon the PBR setting for Camera Exposure and Brightness. The lower these are set the higher your sun intensity will need to be, the problem here is that the degree of color cast is solely dependent upon the suns intensity, camera exposure and brightness doesn't really effect this. My approach to this is to first set the camera exposure and brightness to their maximum and then reduce the sun until I get the desired visual scene brightness, in most cases the suns intensity may be as low as 5 Lux. If for some reason you wish to have some level of color cast then you will need to start increasing the suns intensity, at the same time you will need to reduce the camera exposure to keep the scene from being too bright. Might take several incremental adjustments before you find the right balance.

Here's another example. In this one I created a main vanity box with a blank front face so I could control the counter top, sink placement and taps. I then placed a 1/16" p-solid against the front and applied a pic of a real vanity as a texture to it. I adjusted the main vanity box material to match the front pic wood. If I spent a bit more time I could have photoshopped the knobs out of the original and then used knob symbols to create even more depth.

The technique of using an actual image is also used in some of the library models, check out the Miele manufacturer catalog. You will see that the front face details are actually a real pic, they did not model all of the little knobs, buttons or LED indicators.

As Mick states, a picture is not an actual 3D object however depending upon the situation it can be done. In the example below the clients wanted to use a specific Ikea closet organizer, no way was I going to spend the time to model it. I found a decent quality pic of the Ikea closet organizer, cropped it and then applied it as a texture to a plain poly solid box placed inside the closet. Given the quality of the added pic it looks 3D even though it's actually 2D.

You need to make certain that none of the beams penetrate beyond the interior drywall surface. It's a PBR problem if a material/object is both inside and outside, it will be lit according to the exterior light not the interior. A quick option is to turn off the sun.

Would be best if you could post the plan, then we could see if the issue is plan related and possibly identify the culprit. Lot's of things can cause plans to run slow, just one crazy symbol can bring bring a system to a crawl.

Just a note. I really don't work in this type of view but I believe these CAD views are detached (not linked back) so they are not dynamic. If you go back and make changes to your cabinets then you will need to do it all over again. Someone more familiar with this type a view might jump in and provide better guidance on this.

Once you have your elevation view open, select CAD, then Cad Detail from View. You will now be able to snap dimensions to every cad line in the view and dimension all face elements.

Hi Rickwoodie - Would it be possible for you to provide me with your e-mail address. I'm in need of some builder references for an upcoming project in St Albans, possibly some minor automation/security elements. My direct e-mail is thekitchenabode@live.ca Cheers

Just my opinion, but having used extensively CA's Raytracer and PBR I have to say from my personal experience that the PBR renderer is the better choice by far for the average user who wishes to render from within CA. Once given some time to get a handle on lighting and materials it is much easier to obtain consistent results. As it renders almost instantly, combined with the fact that you can work live within the rendering window, it is much easier from a learning perspective. Yes, it will be a bit frustrating to make the initial leap but given some time and effort you will most likely look back and wonder why you stayed with Raytrace for so long. Every once in a while just out of interest I will run a Raytrace, after wasting several hours kind of going nowhere I jump back into PBR and get the job done. If the results from PBR are not to your likening then it's time to take a serious look at a third party renderer.

Yes for sure, it's a bit premature to say the least. They are just starting to introduce 5G here but coverage is very limited and a lot of the other support hardware is not ready so upload and download speed is going to vary. Some are being a bit sneaky about it, they say it's 5G but it's actually a trimmed down version, I guess they need something to call 5G so they can sell 5G mobile phones. Even once they get their side of things sorted out there is still going to be the issue where signal strength is poor within a given structure. Look at the brighter side, you get to sell even more hardware.

Certainly my preferred position, but I understand the consumers attraction to wireless, order on Amazon, open package, stick the sensor(s) where ever you like and load up the app. No need to find an installer, no cost to retrofit wiring and no waiting to get up and running. I believe resistance is futile, especially as 5G becomes more established, you can see that this will bring a lot of new players into the market as traditional mobile providers will be able to expand into areas that only hardwire players were able to serve. If I look at my home as an example, the primary TV signal enters my home via a hardwire cable but from that point all the TV's receive the signal wirelessly, unthinkable 10 or 15 years ago. No need for landline telephones, mobile phones have replaced them, no hardwired computers, wireless key board, wireless mouse, wireless printer.

This comparison may be of interest. The first is the CA PBR posted above. The second is a similar CA PBR but the sun intensity was reduced and you can see the exterior view through the windows. I went with the first PBR as I found the view through the windows to be distracting and I did not want to spend time making it look good as the interior is the primary focus. The brightness was punched up to provide a heightened sense of the impact that all of the back and side glazing systems would have. It's also a good example of how drastically you can alter a PBR's appearance by making a few changes in the sun light and background.

Thanks puntloos. All of the light fixtures are used as is the sun. The yellow cast is the result of some color added to the sun and the interior lights, there is no paper like covering on the windows. All of the items are CA models including the chair, how they look is dependent upon how they are lit and how you adjust the material properties. The overall brightness of the scene is more of a personal choice, just wanted that look. A detailed comparison at this time would be a bit premature as the actual project is still a month or so away from completion. The site pic was just a quick shot by the client and there is no other contributing light other than that from the sun. Given this you can see that the actual camera likely reduced the exposure time to avoid blowing out the sun lit areas which in turn resulted in darker shaded regions. Though the real pic may be more technically accurate than my rendering, the real pic is lacking in emotion. It's important to keep in mind that essentially all of those great interior pics you see have in most cases been extensively post processed, they are not how the interior actually looks under normal lighting conditions when the shot was taken. When rendering, you through the choice of light, materials and composition decide/control what you wish the client to see and feel.

Here's an example. CA PBR done January 2020 Actual Site Progress Pic taken last week.

Thanks Rickwookie. Will touch base with you once we get settled in. Would be interested in discussing AV and Home Automation control systems in order to gain a better understanding of the available technologies in your market. My initial impression is that the UK market appears to be more receptive to this. In my current region the average home owner seems to be only interested in a Nest thermostat and a Ring door bell. Audio Video is challenging as most just go to a big box store and buy a packaged system with very little appreciation of the systems ability to accurately reproduce content. Cheers, Graham

Understand. Looking at your rendering I suspect that the intensity of your sun is way too high. In most cases excessive grain is due to too much light, either the sun or an internal light fixture/source. There is the potential for light bleed, usually identifiable by grainy highlights along ceiling wall intersects, window casings and floor wall intersects. This issue is solved by ensuring your structure has a roof and a foundation with a floor. Just a note concerning this, even with a roof if the sun intensity is really high light bleeding can still occur.

Not certain there is anything fundamentally wrong with your template as I was able to replicate the issue here using a new plan with just a simple room with a tray ceiling and a separate room for the fireplace.

My personal recommendation is to take a look at using CA's PBR(physically based renderer) versus Raytrace. Not that it doesn't have it's own issues but at least renderings are essentially instantaneous, 5 - 15 seconds, but it also allows you to make changes directly within the rendering window. Takes some time to adjust to but once done I don't think you will go back to Raytracing.

This upgrade will certainly provide you with many additional features and functions, I'm certain you will appreciate them. However, the primary single build premise/focus is no different. Not that one cannot coerce Chief into submission but I'm not certain this would be the best approach if a significant amount your work involves structures larger/taller than what Chief is programed to handle efficiently. For myself this limitation does not pose a problem as my focus is residential remodeling and within this it's more related to working with the home owner on the conceptual design elements, fittings, build feasibility and budgets, we then rely on and work with the Architect or Builder to develop the necessary detailed plans. For myself, most of the shortfalls of Chief are the lack of specific models to replicate existing features. For example, in the UK the use of brick work is far more extensive than here, especially when considering the detailing done around windows and entrances, very difficult to accurately replicate using CA's current material catalogs and automated functions. This requires significant manual manipulation and model/symbol customization and as a result it makes alterations as the design process progresses extremely frustrating and time consuming. Just one of many examples where CA's North American focus makes adoption in other countries challenging. Having been involved in serval UK builds I will definitely take a hard look at how things like this can be dealt with in a more efficient manner. Cheers, Graham

Hi George, would be highly interested in this as I am relocating from Canada to St Albans UK in about 4-5 months. Have currently completed two builds in St Albans and currently working on a third one. As you mention, there are differences in design practices including the planning process/requirements, building codes, build techniques and nomenclature. As a long term users of Chief Architect it became instantly evident that CA, due to it's North American focus, requires considerable modification to adapt it for use in the UK. Fortunately CA has the ability to be customized, just a bit of extra effort to set things up properly and some additional work to create custom symbols and CAD blocks. Would be my pleasure to take part in a UK/EU user group so we can share our experiences and techniques.

Just use the pic you have, click on the ceiling with the rainbow tool to open up the ceiling define material DBX, select texture, under bump map browse to your pic and apply, set bump to about .05. You may also need to change the scale, I set mine to 700 mm X 700 mm. Best if you make your ceiling material unique, otherwise any other item in your plan that uses the same material name will also show the texture.

Working fine here. Tried about 6 different materials.

Here is the solution, not sure why but the Tray Ceiling needs to be set to Recess into Ceiling, that solves the glowing wall opposing the fireplace. For the fireplace mantel change one of the walls being used for the fireplace to No Room Definition. After those two changes things seem to render as expected.

Agree, took a look and just changing things like the sun or lighting does not resolve the issue, just makes it less obvious depending upon those settings. The glowing interior wall opposing the fireplace with the two door openings is for some reason being lit wrong due to some improper connection at the top, if I pull it down so it does not touch the tray ceiling then it renders correctly. Not certain why the two windows on the fireplace wall and the mantel are rendering incorrectly, have had similar issues with windows when using those blinds, but in this case removing the blind did not resolve it. Also noticed the fact that in the 3D preview window some of the previews show the wall finish as black even though the material states the finish as say drywall, something amiss here. There are other things such as different room heights and interior wall types used as exterior walls, difficult to say what if any impact this may have but it makes it very time consuming to correct all of these during the elimination process. Will take another look at it today.