Which 3D rendering engine/CAD combination

Hi Jerry

I've been out of the office for a while, and it took me a while to get back with comments.

I have looked at the various packages you mentioned, and I was thinking 3DsMax could be the one - until I found it does not support the OS X platform ... which I use exlusively. Realizing only now that I forgot to mention this point in the past (blush again) ... and thinking that the entire pro creative world is working on Macs, but that may not be the case I guess.

Maya - it seems to be marketed more towards moving pictures, animation and broadcasts. Not sure if it fits the bill for this purpose. But again - I don't know for sure. Expensive as well. My budget is definitely not unlimited, but finding the right quality package combined with a user-friendly experience, I will try for the better of the bunch.

Rhino is also not OS X compatible - yet. They say an OS X version is in the pipeline in a year or so. They state Rhino can be run on an Intel Mac with Bootcamp or Parallels, but there is no way in hell I am going to install any Microsoft OS on my Mac (viruses be gone).

Alibre - all Windows based, so that is a no go for me. Looking at their gallery pages, it has a similar feel to Rhino, but perhaps a bit less advanced(?).

Sooo ... I am thinking Maxon's Cinema4D, which is built for both OS X and Windows. It seems the application is similar to 3DsMax. I could be wrong. Cinema4D designs looks pretty good as well. Do you have any experience with Cinema4D, or maybe heard from someone who does?

Thanx again for your input, and I do appreciate all your guidance.

Bjorn

CODOG

Thanx for your participation as well.

Unigraphics - or now NX(6?) by Siemens? I was not familiar with that software. Siemens - is it expensive?

What you mention about that software is interesting that the file size stays relatively small as details are added compared to perhaps others like Rhino. My work would be more toward the conceptual, but partly towards the technical as well ... for real world solutions so as not to blindly go overboard with the conceptual only.

Mental Ray, V-Ray, Maxwell ... I see that various people have different opinions on various renderers. I wonder if this is do to with designers expectations, personal experiences, needs, or user friendliness when having opinions on the various renderers? Can you elaborate a little why you feel the Maxwell is better than the other two? Also - which renderer provide more realistic textures, lighting environments, contrasts (real world / photographic)? I understand it has a lot to do with the artist using the software, but it probably also have something to do with the technical workings of the software itself.

Looking at the official web galleries of each one of the above renderers, most seem to have the qualities I am looking for. Chaosgroup's VRay (galleries) is most amazing and impressive. The Maxwell galleries are great too. The two seem to have a slight difference in look - VRay seem to have a more "dreamy" quality to it. Maybe it is just me. Of the three, I am the least impressed with the Mental Ray galleries, but that may just have to do with the fact that those images may be the only ones that company have managed to get hold of to showcase on their site. Who knows.

Another website showcases the Cinema4D and V-ray combo - the interior house designs are most realistic and excellent in execution. Probably also great for (super)yacht interiors, but I wonder if that would be true for yacht exterior surfaces, water and environments as well? I could end up using a combination of real world photography and 3D, but preferably it should be all done in the 3D environment.

I would have added links to all these application pages above to show what I am referring too, but I don't dare too.

These are questions I just openly ask myself and others like yourself.

Any input is appreciated.

Bjorn

Lars

I think you have stated in other posts that you use Freehand or Illustrator for your personal designs. Do you ever work with Photoshop as well?

I think 'organic' renderings - anything from a quick sketch to a final rendering (by hand) on paper or a hard surface - has no competition from 3D rendered images. This whether they be 2D or 3D. Hand drawn renderings have a much more personal touch than any computer rendering.

Computer aided "hand" drawings can not compete with the graphite or pen on paper either. Most stuff done on a computer - well - end up having that digital or computer feel. No personal wimsy involved. They are just so different. One may be considered fine art on one end, while the other - probably - always will remain a commercial looking digital product.

One day - probably - our hands and minds will be integrated into the 3D design and art realm by thought!

You say you tried Rhino on the Mac. Windows installed w Bootcamp or Parallels?

Bjorn

Paolo

I enjoyed your input very much. And I learned more from it.

Your professional experiences and you sharing info here is much appreciated. I understand about confidential issues working with various studios, yards and offices, but whatever you can share down the road is obviously most appreciated.

You have recommended another renderer, which I personally had not heard of before. The 'RandomControl's fryrender' seems excellent. Great galleries. Really good realism. I like the ligthing effects - especially the way it simulates daylight and light direction (global and directional). And it's not over the top priced either. But - again [%*#@ª|∞‡] - it is Windows platform based only. Oh well, one day - maybe - they will see the light, and come waltzing over to the Mac OS X platform! Others have already done so, and hopefully they will too. Soon. **** it. Soon. The fryrender - is it hardware based? They mentioned something to that fact on their website, but I am not sure if I understand it right.

Anyhow, there seem to be something missing from most - if not all - renderers. Namely the ability to simulate perfect glass. The surface of glass and reflections of glass, that is. Rendered glass I have seen so far have some type of texture or 'noise' added to the glass surfaces. Sometimes maybe because this 'noise' has been added to the overall image, but other times because it has been added to the glass itself. This may be done to add some type of surface to the glass? This "noise" sort of mimics one of the filters in Adobe Photoshop that is called "Noise" (Filter > Noise > Add Noise). Even in the most advanced and realistic 3D imagery, glass seems to be a very hard thing to create or render. Porcelain, high gloss paint, stainless, etc seems to have no problems. Maybe when it comes down to the combination of translucency and high gloss surfaces that glass can be a problem? Again, I may be wrong, but it seems prevalent throughout that glass is a challenge to most. Is this a basic limitation with most renderers maybe?

Looking forward to your future posts as well.

Bjorn

Lars

My experience with Photoshop is going on 17-18 years. It is my default application. I guess we all have our darling applications we fall back on when we need to get things done our way. And it's a pain to learn new software all the time.

Your future software decisions may be forced since Adobe no longer develops Freehand, and the last version does not support Macs with Intel processors.

Bjørn

Paolo

Ah, yes. Calculations of light and reflections on surfaces. That is important. Being a pro photographer as well, light (and therefore shadow) is at the forefront of everything I see and do. This is why I am so intent to find and work with a 3D package that creates full blown realism. I will look into both of those renderers

Since a lot of people are talking about the up and coming Rhino for Mac (some time this year?), I will have to find a way to try it somehow somewhere. Do you have any experience with Cinema4D?

Agreed. The creative or artistic side is of course the most important to any great result. The rest is just ... technical.

Bjorn

Back-ups, back-ups, back-ups ... Funny with the back-up G4. Whatever works, I say.

I am envious about the 30 inch Lars. That is my next one to get as well, unless they come out with a larger one (which would be even better - for me - but not the environment).

Talking about Trabants and AMGs ... you know - I once (many years ago) saw a couple in a French registered 2CV try to drive up a steep mountain side - on Tronfjell in Norway. They could not do it driving forward. Why? Because the car had no direct fuel injection system. The fuel did not reach the engine because of the angle of the hill. They had to roll back down to a more flat surface, turn the vehicle around, and drive back up the steep hill in reverse so that the fuel would flow by gravity into the engine. Regardless, it was a treat to observe those two trying their best to traverse the very rugged an dangerous mountain path (gravel and rock only) with their shaky little vehicle.

Bjørn