Christina_Girerd

I'm using 3/16" on a residential remodel project right now, but only for preliminary design.  Same reason to use it - for best fit on a page, also same reasons as above to avoid it if possible.  I always include a visual scale on the page as an extra help when I'm using it, in case someone scales it up or down and prints it out.

Thank you - got it working now!  The wall not touching was one of the issues and your comments for the sections worked too.

I'm trying to input an existing staircase for an odd historic home.  I want to get rid of the railing on the left side of the staircase for just the first two sections which I crossed out in the image, but leave the third/top section left railing.  I looked in the manual about trying to use the break tool and complete break tool, but when I tried it I kept getting odd mini-stairs etc.  I've never had to do this before and I'm really surprised there isn't a way to select one section of stair and adjust the railings per that segment, just by using the stair spec dbx.  I don't need this enough I will bother to post the plan, but mostly just curious if I missed some easy way to do this. 

3 hours ago, kylejmarsh said:

reduce the 'diffuse' on the material.

Yes, helpful detail to make sure the grass is "matte" and adjust diffuse.  I do this too, forgot to mention it. 

This image shows Chief's "Grass 7" which is one I often use with minor adjustments.  It is in the core catalogs/ materials/ landscaping/ grass.   I enlarged the grass area around the house to show an area more similar to the size you are working on, and then set the x/y scale in the Define Materials dbx under the Texture tab, at 200 each.  The rectangle of grass to the right is the same Grass 7 material, but at the library default of x/y scale at 56 and no blended color.  Depending on how zoomed in or out the view is, it can be helpful to adjust the x/y scale.  More zoomed out, the larger the scale. 

Then the second thing I change, which you can see in the second image, is to adjust the Material Color by blending in a slightly darker shade of green.  I find the darker green adds to the realism. This view does not have any bump maps.  Those can help too, but you might first try adjusting the scaling and material color. 

Nice!  It would definitely give the client a good feel for the space.

Rene - thanks for the suggestion of sketch-up to deal with the bushes.  You are right the issue isn't technically a "bug" - I just used the term since I think of making a "bug report." I would have probably listed it as a "usability" issue.  I think I suggested that the content team make a few generic bushes and trees of different shapes that would look good when the line overlay was applied as a possible fix. 

I like the line weight of the beta that Robert posted - much nicer! 

And FYI, I long ago put in bug reports about the bush/tree line mess.

I'd be interested in seeing a lighter line weight option, though I'm wondering if a lighter weight line would take away from the "casual feel" of the render.  I have never used line weight 2 or higher as I don't like the look.  Just for a visual aid to compare line weights, for those who don't use this feature very often, I did a quick view of a remodel I'm working on with line weights at 1, then 2 and 5.  So not quite sure how to answer your survey as weight 1 may be about right, but I wouldn't know if I'd like a lighter weight until I saw it.

I do use the line over feature (currently always set to 1 and black) and really like it, though I can't use it now as often as I'd like because the trees & bushes become ugly dark blobs, as you can see in this sample view.

I'm also interested in info on viewing models with Oculus Quest 2.  My son just got one, and we were trying to figure out a viewer app to use when it is not connected to the computer by cable.

There likely is enough work, but as has been said, you will likely have to find out the best way to get to those potential clients in your area (or remote) and help them realize they need your services.  I've found connections with builders very helpful too, with referrals going both ways to keep it good for both sides.  I've also done remote work, non-contract docs or 3D so I didn't need to deal with licensing issues.  I mostly do remodels as our local area is already very built up.

Don't know if you any similar opportunities like this in your area, but here's a not so common marketing tip that worked well for me.  When my kids were young and their schools would have silent auctions for some fundraiser, I would print up several nice flyers for a free two-hour consultation with an architect - "Thinking of remodeling?  Let's discuss making your dream a reality." - with nice 3D renderings on it.  I would get a job out of every "free" two hour consultation, every time.  (And I made sure to add a note on it "Please schedule before ---" some date within a month or so, as that also motivated them to get started.)  I normally do a free initial consult anyway, so I didn't lose out at all.  I got motivated people who had often "been thinking about it" but hadn't gotten around to starting the process, so this made it easy for them and once they started talking about their project and I'd give some feedback, they'd get excited and want to keep going.  Other charitable groups often do similar types of fund-raisers.  Works for raffles too.  And those jobs always led to other referrals. 

As others mentioned, relationships & connections are key.  Organizations I was connected with such as schools, church, clubs, professional societies, all led to jobs.  When I started out, I joined some groups specifically to build those connections. 

I also remember getting some helpful advice on pricing my services when I first started out.  I was told to set my hourly fee high enough so that I looked competent compared to other professionals, but to feel free to not charge for everything I did, so the client always felt they were getting a good deal.  I.e. it's better to charge $100/hour and bill 10 hours of work, than to charge $20/hour and bill 50 hours of work.  Exaggerated example, but I found it to be good advice.  Also helpful for when you are getting into a new area of work, such as virtual reality modeling, when you are a little slower as you learn.

Ah - got it - thanks!  I would have never guessed to use "follow stairs" for the ramp.

Thanks for checking it out.  I'll put in a bug report. 

When you say "draw your own" - I tried drawing drawing a straight railing or a deck railing, and neither would follow the slope of the ramp.  Do you mean manually drawing each pole and railing, or what am I missing since it looks like yours follows the slope.

Also I noticed that the landing still has a straight line showing even when you curve the landing edge.  Looks fine in 3D, just not right in plan.  I assume that's a bug so I'll put a report in, unless someone knows a reason for it.

I'm adding a wheelchair ramp off a deck in two pieces with a landing in the middle.  I couldn't use the automatic settings because the top ramp was always about 2 inches below the deck top, so I adjusted heights manually.  The two sections are not at 90 degrees, which seems to create two partial newel posts.  (Tried it with 90 degree angle, and no issues)  I tried an auto-landing with straight edges first, and that had the same issue as when I slightly rounded the edges of the landing, so the landing shape didn't seem to be the problem, just the odd angle of the connecting ramps.  I tried to find a dbx setting to eliminate the newels for the landing, or for the top or bottom of the ramps, but didn't seem to have that option available.  As you can see from the image, the doubled posts look pretty bad.

Any suggestions?  Thanks.  

2021 10 04 SchC3 for railing.plan

Just saw my name mentioned... I haven't checked Chieftalk for a little while as I have had a hopefully temporary vision issue with one eye, so I'm not committing to any new work at this time.  In any case, I only do preliminary design and 3D visualizations, not contract documents.  Hope you are able to find someone. 

Chief answered the report and said they have reproduced the issue and logged it.

I just tried it and can confirm there is a difference in behavior between x12 and x13 in how a sink placed into a single countertop impacts the "stretch to fit" counter material.  (BTW, I tried global mapping and it didn't make any difference.)  I used the "Garden of Irises" painting as it showed very clearly how the texture in x13 is being stretched oddly at each corner of the sink.   I put this on a single cabinet that I enlarged to show the issue.  I will submit a bug report.

1 hour ago, kwhitt said:

Hi Christina - thanks for running the test on the RTX3090.  The second image looks to me like it is the standard render (not PBR) or did I misunderstand something?  Kevin

Oops - you're right.  Got distracted.  Here is a similar view (didn't save the other one) in a PBR export, again no materials or lighting changed.  This took a little longer, maybe over one minute, but I had video playing in another window which might have impacted it. 

FYI, the cam4 view thru the glass shower door shot doesn't have reflections with a 3090 card either.  This was a PBR exported image, screen size.  Took less than a minute.  Someone made a comment about the mirror material being odd from a top view, but the second image is a floor overview shot, PBR exported basically instantaneous, and all looks good to me.  I did not change any materials or settings.

One thing they are apparently still working on is the PBR tree shadows.  I just took this quick view in the new X13 in PBR to check one of the issues that is a big problem for my work, and while the inside detail is great, the outside still looks quite sad.  On the good side, it was basically instantaneous to get that great looking metal faucet and very realistic shadowing on the kitchen counter, etc. 

A quick way to do this is to make a stream in plan, which as you point out is a constant width, then draw an adjacent slab or polyline solid and use the "Union" tool to combine them so that you will get a merged object that still has the "hole" in the terrain effect of the stream, but you will then get all the adjustable handles so you can adjust the shape as you need.  You can make a really small slab next to it and adjust it away later, but that will get it to show all the adjustments while still retaining the stream terrain features.

I duplicated the material, adjusted the angle and put a thin layer on top of the large block to get it to look right. 

I just tried turning the supposedly correct looking polyline solid 45 degrees, and now that is messed up in the same way.  So it seems the problem occurs when I turn the slab OR the polyline solid any non- right angle.

Why does a slab material have the top face 45 degrees off from the sides?  I was applying a running bond block material and was surprised that it looks incorrect.  Then I noticed that when I opened the Define Material dbx, the preview showed correctly.  I then tried applying it to a polyline solid and it showed correctly.  Is there any reason the slab should show the material differently or is this a bug?  The last image shows the slab on the left and the polyline solid on the right.