Are these rendering issues obvious?

[architect4stars]

Hello.. I just rendered a view of this house... Had some problems with lighting on the tree before the background. I am wondering if these issues are glaring, or can they pass?

[mcqueenhomes]

Probably passable... that rendering keeps your attention on the house where it should be.

But I have to wonder... finally decide to "save electricty"?

[ronto]

Hi Larez

Quite the model !

For me, I'd 'prefer' to see more separation between the roofline and the background ... maybe a hint of 'back-lighting' or hi-lighting like we'd do in TV or photography.


... just my 1/2 cent

ronto

[dwmosman]

Looking as a layperson "untroubled" by any serious graphics arts training, I like it.

Personally can't see any issues with the trees, at least at this resolution.

The roof does tend to disappear into the shadow of the trees, making the house appear to nestle in the grove. If its the affect you were trying for, then its nicely done, highlighting the architectural elements of the house.

Trying for a hypercritical eye, the only thing is the shadow from the main entrance on the left side (which is probably technically correct) has a bit of an optical illusion of coming forward which conflicts with the direction of the shadows from the posts in front.

[WendyWelton]

Larez,

I would never look at this and see a "mistake". I agree that the roofline is a little indistinct against the trees - but then, sometimes that looks more realistic. Most people don't walk around critically eyeballing the roofline of a house.

I need to do some roof trim like that! I better get my tutorials out. If there aren't any good tutorials for this... David J - add that to your list! I'll buy.

Also - I notice that your white trim looks nice and white. I've finally discovered that using White, Shiny gets a lot closer than the dingy grey Chief passes off as "brite white". But, I think your's still looks more convincingly white than mine. What do you use?

Wendy

[architect4stars]

Hey Guys:

I really do appreciate your comments. Thank you. I have been spending a lot of time learning to get exactly what I want out of the ray traces. Wendy, I have spent quite some time making adjustments to my materials by editing the rendering and ray DBXs. That is where the answer is. Chief allows for 3 selections, unless you click on the advanced selection tab. Then you can edit the materials to give you the look you want.

You may want to play with the "emmisive, spherical, and diffusion adjustments in particular. As you can see in this attached new rendering, I actually got my lace window blinds to show as desired. My only issue is: I wish I could export these material settings into my previous drawings.

The fastest way to edit these settings is in the render view. This way, you can edit the exact material of concern. ***Also, here is a tip on lighting. For these 2 renderings in particular, I lit up the scene with 3 parallel light sources, with only the sunlight source casting shadows.

I welcome more constructive criticism. Thanks Guys.

[architect4stars]

By the way JASON!!! I have to thank you specially because your comment has influenced my camera angles. I used to focus on trying to show too much. But your previous comment about "real" eye views made me start thinking about realistic views by an actual spectator standing in front of the house. Now, when I have to, I tilt the house backwards to simulate lifting the head up to see it at eye-view.

[mcqueenhomes]

Thank you. Likewise I consider turning a light or two on (not the whole house, though) even for an exterior render. Anyway, the new cam angles look good. If there's too much grass for you on the bottom just crop it out (that's what I do unless I'm trying to get several renders the same size).

By the way, I have exported and imported Material Definitions (in the File/Import/Export menu) into previous and new plans. This gives me access to materials I may have created in other plans.

[architect4stars]

Thanks once again Jason. And yes, I always import and export materials. But I don't think the render settings export with them. I think they go back to their defaults.

[Bduerr]

Holy buckets I am freaking IMPRESSED! These renderings I see are amazing. I am from the old school where an architect would be lucky to crank out 2 or so elevations of a house. When I saw those renderings I could hear the birds chirping and I started to swat mosquitos (I love in Minnesota and they are the state bird).

Nice job! It does beg the question do all clients request and pay for such detailed work?

[mcqueenhomes]

That's a good question for ART.

However, here's what's in a material definition that I do know:

Framing Fir Stud 24" OC ;(name)
1
-32736
0
7
168,139,100 ;(RGB color value)
0,0,0
0
384
288
24 ;(spacing OC, maybe something else for other material types)
0
1
0
FS ;(DXF code)
C:\Program Files\ART Inc\Chief Architect 95 Full Version\Textures\Paneling\Plywood\Plywood(48).JPG ;(texture path)
48.000000 ;(next two are texture ratio)
48.000000

As you can see there are still quite a few numbers I have no idea what they are.

[mcqueenhomes]

I just found out more (that's supposed to be appended to the material entry above). Some correspond to the rendering settings:

...


1.000000
80 ;(ambient)
50 ;(diffuse)
0 ;(specular
80 ;(shine)
0 ;(emiss)
0 ;(transp)

1.000000


0
0
0
0
0

Note this is from a copy of a material definition I exported.

[mcqueenhomes]

Nice job! It does beg the question do all clients request and pay for such detailed work?

Some clients do, but not all. I have done several $50/house renderings for a modular home company that have nowhere near that level of detail. They are rendered from a model shell based on a floorplan sketch placed on a mostly flat lot with no interior and doors and windows on only one side, and minimal landscaping with plain front walk & driveway.

[architect4stars]

Thanks for the compliment Bduerr. In my experience many builders probably won't pay for that level of detail in renderings. My motivation right now is to bring alive some designs in my Portfolio, for future marketing. I have decided to stick to the higher standards and just include what I can in my packages. I won't do a custom design for less than $2.00/sqft, but my client will always be satisfied with the product. I am very detail oriented and sometimes have to struggle with myself on where to stop.

Hey Jason!!! if that stuff is in the material list that you exported then it means the rendering settings are included. Thanks a lot for checking.

Cheers.

[Bduerr]

I am a homeowner that grew up in the construction trade but now have "real" job. So from the construciton point of view I know enough to be dangerous. I bought CA so I could remove some of the design costs and allow more time for me to think things through. I worked with an Archie that charged $5K and he apparently used CA based on the drafts he came up with. However, he wanted about $1K per draft after tht point and he was ignoring suff like the elevation changes between the garage and the house. His comment was "we will change the plans to deal with that later." Duh, elevations are critical bud! I bought CA at the recommendation of a CAd user friend and have been duly impressed. I really needed the ability to show what the additon will look like in 3D so that SWMBO will understand what it will look like. I do not want to get the rafters in place and hear her say "that is not what I expected." Thinking in 3D is natural for me byt SWMBO needs to see a photo to understand what it will look like. CA excels in this area. It just made me wonder how many people are willing or able to pay to have a design person crank through a rendered photo complete with trees and critters.