Render expectations

I know this may end up being one of those un-answerable type questions, but would like to throw it out there. I currently use Autodesk Arch. 2010 and am working on using the Anipath command to get some "fly around" renderings. If you look at the attached picture, there is obviously a lot of detail to still be added, but what I am running into and my questions is, how much should I expect to get out of using this program alone and no add on programs? I am not complaining about my machine, I believe this picture took about 4-5 mins to make (which from reading other posts, doesnt seem too bad), but once I start playing around with adding a sky (still need to learn better ways to do it) and try a presentation rendering animation, I am looking at 33 hours. I am starting to think I am asking too much of the program.

I guess I should throw a few more details out there. I am pretty much self taught in this, had a few basic classes and help from others along the way. I see some of the nice renderings that have been done and maybe I am just shooting too high for this program when I want to take those and make animations out of them. Starting to think I need to start more basic and get my skill down before I try to animate something such as the attached in a presentation format. Any input from others?

Test.pdf

Starting to think I need to start more basic and get my skill down before I try to animate something such as the attached in a presentation format.

I would definitely agree with that statement. You have to learn how to walk before you can run. :wink:

Work on perfecting your still shots. The key to creating great looking renders quickly is knowing where you can cheat. Where can you get away with using image planes instead of actual 3D trees and shrubs. Where can you get away with using bump maps or opacity maps instead of actually creating geometry. The more places you can cheat and get away with it, the faster you will be able to render. When I started out, I thought you had to model everything. I thought everything had to be highly detailed, high poly models. But I learned pretty quickly that it's just not practical. Especially in a production environment. You have to be able to produce good looking images quickly because time = money.

But having said all that, you need to realize that animations take time to render out, regardless of how much you cheat. And depending on the quaility and duration it could take anywhere from several hours to several days, or longer, to render out.

great advice Cad64.Only shows that i have to learn much more. Thanks!:wink:

I agree with CAD64

Rendering is also as much artistic as technical. You'll get a feel for things the more that you do it. Lighting, shadows, materials, composition etc

Doing lower quality test run animation help with the efficiency. You can catch bad movements, collisions, bad modelings, poor path views etc. without having to spend an inordinate amount of time.

I'm doing an animation now that has 1,514 frames. For final quality renders, each frame takes 1 min 40 sec per frame @ 1024 x 758 to render. That's still a day and half every time I run it.

Another secret is finding the right video compiler to put it all together. I'm not having much luck with large format, high quality stuff. 640 x 400 and smaller you can find a good many the work well.

Good Luck -David

The cheat here is that plain ceiling tiles are transparent and the white you see is the white background. Rendering ceilings from below with lights pointing down doesn't work very well. The light lenses have a glow applied, The grid, sprinkler heads etc are modeled and not very bright.

What's the file size of this rendering David?

The cheat here is that plain ceiling tiles are transparent and the white you see is the white background.

That's a neat trick David.

What's the file size of this rendering David?

About 310 KB if I use a 1% jpg compression. If I used 5%, the file is 190KB. I had to reduce it to 800 x 600 @ 248KB for Cadtutor posting.

Patrick,

Thanks. It took me a long time and many ugly renderings to come up with something that simple. Go figure. -David

Sorry for the delay in getting back on here. I want to thank everyone for the input. I know I need to step back and start a little more basic and develop the "art" instead of just generating a set of plans as I am used to.

In this specific instance I am going to have to learn how to fake it and get through it as my boss has already "ran with the ball" as soon as she found out I was starting to try renderings. Before our office contracted out the fly arounds and now apparently I can do them.

Anyway, I will keep searching the forums and asking questions as I get more into this. One thing if anyone can input on:

My office primarily does custom residential homes and we use Architectural 2010. Would there be any benefit to going to Revit? I have heard its better in the rendering department, but I have no experience with it and how it would serve our other funtions.

thanks again