P.R.S. Sivakumar
21st Sep 2003, 09:52 am
Hello everybody,
I am a SOHO Architect practising in a a small city in India. Apart from using AutoCad for design & drafting, every now and then I do modelling & photorealistic renderings within AutoCad itself. I have been in search of an answer for the last few years for the following question: When there is built-in photorealistic rendering capabilities within AutoCad itself, why are many of the visualisers resorting to Viz or Max for rendering? I do not need animation nor any fancy lighting effects. Many of my friends advised me to switch over to Viz or Max for rendering.So I attended a course (in an Autodesk authorised center)in Viz. Even after that I am still convinced that my AutoCad rendered images (which do contain lot of textures, background, landscape objects, people, etc. including reflections, shadows etc. at 3600 x 2700 resolutions) are as good as Viz rendered images. So why switch over to Viz? Are many of the users biased against AutoCad renderings just because they learnt renderings in Viz/Max right from the start without ever exploring the possibilities within AutoCad itself? Software is frightfully expensive to us Indians. As a legal user of AutoCad I would like to stick to this single package for rendering also. Am I wrong? Please guide me to take a decision. Hope I am not troubling with a very long question. Thanks in advance for everyone.
PRSS
I am a SOHO Architect practising in a a small city in India. Apart from using AutoCad for design & drafting, every now and then I do modelling & photorealistic renderings within AutoCad itself. I have been in search of an answer for the last few years for the following question: When there is built-in photorealistic rendering capabilities within AutoCad itself, why are many of the visualisers resorting to Viz or Max for rendering? I do not need animation nor any fancy lighting effects. Many of my friends advised me to switch over to Viz or Max for rendering.So I attended a course (in an Autodesk authorised center)in Viz. Even after that I am still convinced that my AutoCad rendered images (which do contain lot of textures, background, landscape objects, people, etc. including reflections, shadows etc. at 3600 x 2700 resolutions) are as good as Viz rendered images. So why switch over to Viz? Are many of the users biased against AutoCad renderings just because they learnt renderings in Viz/Max right from the start without ever exploring the possibilities within AutoCad itself? Software is frightfully expensive to us Indians. As a legal user of AutoCad I would like to stick to this single package for rendering also. Am I wrong? Please guide me to take a decision. Hope I am not troubling with a very long question. Thanks in advance for everyone.
PRSS