X5 3D View Issues

[keithhe]

I decided today to try the X5 Beta as I've been using X4 for about a year now.
Fisrt issue I see is that the 3D views (not traces) are really poor quality. Materials are all as if the outter layers are too thin. Not quite sure how to explain, but for example siding shows plywwod layer showing through in areas and entire 3D view is much darker than X4.

I recognize this is a Beta, but am I missing something here?

I have a separate GPU and like X4, have that default for X5, so as near as I can tell, I'm not doing anything any diffferent between versions.

Any ideas?

Thanks,

[kiwideziner]

What Scott was trying to say is post at least a picture, or even better the plan. We cant see your screen so can only guess.

[lbuttery]

Keith:

besides getting close to the origin

which I wish Chief would auto-magically do for the first wall placed

there is the front-clipping plane setting that can help

see this thread:

http://www.chieftalk.com/showthread....light=FIGHTING

Lew

[keithhe]

Lew,

Great link to other post and a few experiments has this already working better. Material thickness also has an impact and has me checking those as well. Working better, and not nearly the distraction it was causing.

Thank you, great advice.

[keithhe]

Way too many people to thank on this thread, to be sure, but let me start with thanking Scott, first. We exchanged emails and I'm appreciative of his efforts in the two videos he posted perviously in thread. Those not only answered questions, they generated many more as it concerns materials, reflectivity, best settings for Ray Trace and many more.

Those are all valuable things for all to know, as the Ray Trace images for many on here, I assume, are an important part of their use of the program, for clients, etc... That may be worth a new thread on the topic, as I for one had paid little attention to this. The "crappy plan" I submitted, was driving me so crazy, I deleted it and started over. The interesting part is that none of earlier issues were encountered. No idea why??

The materials I select, are right out of the core catelog, typically, and I have never "bothered" to even look at their settings (Matte versus General for example). That is something I will start to look at. As for the settings Scott was changing, I also had never bothered to change those as I really had no idea what to change to, thus assumed they must be fine "out of the box". Evidently that is not the case.

Scott, one thing you changed between Video 1 and 2 where earlier very dark Traces were out concerned the Intensity Min and Max. In the first video, you consitently changed Min to 0.1 and Max to 1.0 but in video 2 you consistently (at least early on) changed Max to 10.0. That might have been the difference? Not sure.

The other thing that I have read, or seen in videos is the "quality" of the materials / textures, and as one who just takes what is in the core or bonus, have never had, nor tried, the better ones. Scott, you mentioned the grass was lousy. I agree, but no idea what better sources there might be for the better weed, so to speak. Perhaps in California the market is better given proximity to the border.

So where are these available? Anyone?

This thread has made me aware of many things, first and foremost is to post a picture or plan file as people do not read minds well. Check.

The other is the importance of these settings. There is much information out there about how to build about anything in CA, but not as much on the less talked about settings that abound in this program, and what, exactly, they all do, or impacts they have. Why a 35 rather than a 45? Why is 6 better than 10? Why camera view settings is a radio box, and what it's there for?

Once again, thanks to all on this thread for your contribution, and I for one have learned a great deal from all the suggestions, and pointers.

[HumbleChief]

Why is 6 better than 10? .

Gotta run but wanted to suggest that 6 is not better than 10 in that AO box.

10 is a higher maximum value and will be brighter than 6 and that may work OK. If not lower it to 9,8,7,6,5... until it looks good to you.

[dshall]

..................In the first video, you consitently changed Min to 0.1 and Max to 1.0 but in video 2 you consistently (at least early on) changed Max to 10.0. That might have been the difference? Not sure.

............................

Dog gone it, sorry about that, attached is a jpeg of my RT setting's, I am not sure if these are perfect, but they are what I use. I have also attached a plan of what I like to use for my grass, and I believe this material came from one of Val's plan's, it is a very nice alternative to the CA default grass material.

Nuts, I could not attached a plan of the GOOD GRASS TEXTURE.............. I don't know why it is but I stripped everything out of it and I could not get it below the 2MEG max. Maybe I can figure it out later or maybe Val can post it, I am almost sure it is is Val's grass texture and it is really nice, thanks Val.

[dshall]

Hey Keith, try the attached file for grass, I think I got it down to the right size now. It is a nice grass texture.

[keithhe]

Thanks Graeme

Jpg attached. Again, this is same computer, monitor and best I can tell all settings are the same, but never had this issue with X4.

Just seems that all the "textures" like siding, roof shingles are nearly transparent at most any angle. Did a quick ray trace and those render fine, but it's very distracting to see this washed out image when looking at 3D details.

[keithhe]

Graeme,

Attached is the plan, in progress

[kiwideziner]

You have what is called Z fighting.
check 1. that the model is not a long way form the origin 0,0
2. that you have appropriate material thicknesses

[keithhe]

Graeme,

Not at all sure how to check the x,y axis position of the drawing, as I was under impression CA auto places this when you start a new drawing. Unlike ACAD where you can change this pretty easily.

I did manually change the generic library material to a much thicker layer and that does seem to fix the problem. Curious, is this something new to X5 as this is not a texture I made? It's just something close from the CA library. Good answer, and still has me wondering why this is the case, but does make it work.

[VHampton]

Materials are all as if the outter layers are too thin. Not quite sure how to explain, but for example siding shows plywwod layer showing through in areas and entire 3D view is much darker than X4.

When materials are bleeding through, this is definitely z fighting at work.
The entire plan needs to be moved with a shift select while using the edit tool. You can move everything to the zero origin if that makes any sense.

Regarding shadows and the ambient lighting being off, everyone's graphic card is different and therefore each machine is going to render a view a bit differently. I had to adjust the preferences as I did when first setting up X4. The 3D setting for ambient lighting also need a tweak. And lastly, the sun shadows options were adjusted.

Attached is how it seems to work best for me anyway...

[keithhe]

Val,

I have not tried this yet. Would be great if CA had a grid to see plan in 3D space and it's relation to x,y origin. I'll try some moves and see what happens. Thanks for the screen shots of your settings and checking against mine. The thing I was confused by was a simple change from X4 to X5 and duplicating my settings that worked previously no longer worked. All advice given has helped and I no longer take for granted that things remain the same, as evidently, they do not.

Thanks again Graeme, Lew and Val !!

[VHampton]

You're very welcome Keith.

When I first opened a plan in X5 it was sort of disconcerting to see that the graphics weren't exactly the same as X4. Then I remembered that I had to initially make some adjustments (when I first set up X4) because my machine doesn't have the magic Nvidia card.

Val,

The thing I was confused by was a simple change from X4 to X5 and duplicating my settings that worked previously no longer worked.