Which one would be the best for architecture? I'm about to graduate and need to buy a 3D program, but I don't want to cash outon Architectural desktop or 3DStudioViz. I'm considering Autocad LE for drafting and basic region-based geometry, and one of the programs mentioned above for completing the models and rendering. Buiying a commercial program like Rhino at student price before I graduate might be one option, but it all boils down to if the program is suited to architecture.
So far, in addition to LE, I've been using 3DStudioViz and the fullversion of Autocad for rendering. For modelling I've mostly been using solids in the fullversion.
I'm curious why you "need" to buy a 3d program at this stage in your career.
iiuc, Rhino is not targetted at solving your problem.
I know max only has 1 year student license. If viz is similar that wouldn't be your option. If viz has a permanent license on student pricing that might work for you (don't forget to not do pro work with it).
I'm not really familiar with Blender, but it might be a good option. Certainly the price is right ;-). I believe some people are making nice output with it.
There's somebody here who is a HUGE fan of free/open software. You'll probably get a list from him that you can use for research.
Hi Markus, Blender is libre and open source, and by using it, there're be many benefits you may be unaware. If you already haven't, I strongly encourage you to read up on open source and/or libre software, (ie. some of the good folx here on alt.architecture are using Mozilla's Firefox) which isn't to be confused with lock-inware, guiltware, abandonware or gougeware, such that proprietary software can often be:
formatting link
Also, I just read about an upcoming Blender conference in Italy about Blender and Architecture. Big:
formatting link
formatting link
Regarding open source/libre 2D drafting, there is also Q-CAD, whose files you may be able to import into Art of Illusion (another 3D program I've been using that is growing in leaps and bounds) for, for example, 3D extrusions and export out to SVG for, say, presentations and added accoutrements, like Flash-style 3D-ish animations.
Markus Jakas wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@paju.oulu.fi:
I've been told that Rhino is pretty much a NURBS modeler - meaning, geared towards making rounded/organic objects, such as criters. I've also heard that Blender is run via Python scripts.
Thre are a lot of 3D programs out there. If you're going to get one as an adjunct to your CAD program, you need to look at: (1) whether the prog, will import your CAD objects (2) the quality of the render engine (no use to get a 3D modeler if the renders are still going to look primitive) (3) the program interface. Differnt people liek different interfaces. Personally, I find the LightWave interface unuseable; but other people like it. i do like the icon-driven interface of the program I use, but other people don't like it. It's very personal.
Most programs offer Demo versions. If you have time, look into the above parameters, look at which programs are strong in the areas you need/want, and then DL and try the Demos. Even doing really basic operations, like taking a cube, altering it, booleaning it, and so on, and then rendering the results, will elt you knwo at least whetehr you like teh interface, teh ease of use, and the quality of the renders.
... (4) How much it's going to cost you in terms of time and money. Upgrades? (5) Whether you can "legally" copy it, share it, distribute it, and run it on multiple systems, such as when/if your business warrants it. (6) Can you "get under the hood" and/or how much can you augment/extend it yourself, or if you have to wait for/on a company's whims... will it still be around in 5 years? (7) Formats/Reverse-compatibilities? Standards (public versus proprietary)? (8) What kind of support there is: I.e. Can you speak with the coders and/or programmers? (9) If you lose your registration number, can you still access your program without any rigamarole or fear of losing your license/right to use? (10) Spy-code? How-to-tell policies? Antitrust? (11) Trends. Where does software want to go today?
snipped-for-privacy@ncf.ca (Richard MacIntyre) wrote in news:d7nrk4$dlu$ snipped-for-privacy@theodyn.ncf.ca:
Plug-ins, more likely. THo' is *is* a good idea to check when updates come out. Decent companies will offer free "service packs" that address small issues, and offer purchasable updates less frequently. Updates aren't always needed by an individual at a given time - a decent company will allow you to skip an update but still get a good deal on the first and second updates after ththe one that is skipped - decent companies value repeat customers. Also, tho', there is no 3D modeler/renderer *that I know* of that works optimally without plug-ins - those add-ons are what give a program most of its most impressive "F/X Zing" capabilities. Plug- ins cary in price from one prog. to another, with the higher-priced programs also usually having higher-priced plug-ins.
You can always find things that cost a small fortune; the trick is finding something that's both within your budget (both prog. and plug-ins), and still does what you need it to do.
So a careful assessemnt of present needs and projected future needs is important so that you don't under-equp yourself *or* pay alot to over-equp yourself.
Sharing and distribution issues are different from multiple-install issues. or even network issues. I don't personally know of any 3D modeler that allows you to distribute copies of it! OTOH I've not personally heard of one that does not permit some sort of network/site license.
Extensions in 3D modeling programs are most usually handled via plug-ins. THe only ones I know of that require input/programming are POVRay and perhaps Blender (from what I've heard - I DLed Blender but haven't had any time to play with it). Some other 3D modelers allow you to use Pythin script to create both custom models or stock shapes, and custom surface treatments (textures, including transparancies, bumps, and variable reflectance), but such scripts are not required for the program to function. Re: company longevity, programs of good quality tend to stick around. LW, 3DSM, tS, Rhino, C4D, and several others, including I *think* Vue d'Esprit, have all been around for about a decade give or take, and remain popular; there are numerous plug-ins available for each, and sometimes one plug-in comes in different versions so that it can be used from withing various programs. Bryce also remains popular for doing landscapes and waterscapes.
All 3D modelers (and, for that matter, 2D graphics) programs I know of have a native format that works most efficiently with the program's code, plus several import and export options. Again as far as I know, any decent program will allow the use of various 2D images for textures, transparencies, and bumps (JPG, TGA, BMP, GIF, etc.), and also will import/export common 3D formats such as DXF, OBJ, AI, ASC (ASCII), X (DirectX), IGS, and a couple others, and also offer add-ons that will allow the export of several other specialized formats, such as STL, which I
*beleive* (but check me) is the format used by "3D printers" as they're called. A decent prog. will, of course, also support earlier versions of the various formats (since formats do occasionally change).
With DXF, be sure to check whether it imports 3D DXF or only 2D DXF. I'd gotten one of those "homemmodeler" programs; it said it imports DXF, but turns out it's merely 2D DXF, which is useless to me. My 3D modeler of course imports both forms of DXF.
There are usually technical support people, but I'm not aware that one can typically speak with the coders/programmers...
Most 3D prog.s also have some sort of user group - mailing list, forum, and/or newsgroup. AMny of the people who've been participating in the lists for a long time have a broad base of knowledge and might be able to help with coding questions, although coders and 3D Modelers usually have different areas of interest and expertise - IOW, a modeler is unlikely to need or want to deal with code, and visa versa. So I don't think that the issue is talking to the programmers, but rather, whether technical support is available.
I don't know about other companies, but I'm pretty sure that, as a customer of Caligari's since 1991, they would help me out in such an instance.
Best thing IMO? Write any needed numbers right onto the original with a permanent marker, or at least copy all this info and keep it with your original discs in a safe-deposit box. Second best, invest in a top-notch fire/heat-resistant personal safe.
If you lose all your info due to carelessness, it's really not the company's responsibility! Some will try to hlep you out; others will say, Too bad, sorry.
Do you mean, do 3D modeling programs install spy-ware on your computer? No reputable one will do that. Some will ask you whether you want to do on- line registration, and have an update notifier, but no reputable 3D company I know of would install *spyware*! The risk of losing customers is far too high! And that means, huge losses - a good 3D program is typically a huge investment, and it's unlikely that the co. would risk using spyware - 3D people wouldn't put up with that, and word in the 3D world can travel
*very* fast.
Only an idiot would put spyware into a 3D modeler. So that means, someone who hasn't invested much of anything. And a modeler at that level probably wouldn't be worth installing.
That is a very complex question. From what I've heard: very generally, the trend will be towards using dual-core/multicell (I forget what the exact term is) processors, rather than ever-larger monolithing CPUs. The idea of a "neural net" so to speak. Multicell CPUs are more efficent, function faster, and don't run as hot as monolithic cores.
If you're referring to some trend in the area of ploygon modeling versus nurbs modeling, it depends upont he application. Nurbs is geared towards modling extremely smooth organic-type objects; OTOH, there are some things one can do with polygons that cannot, from what I've been told, be done with nurbs, the tradeoff being that polygon models can be somewhat less smooth. The difference in smoothness, however, is probably most relevant to film/"big screen" applications, a' la' George Lukas and Stephen Spielberg. Otherwise, using nurbs versus polygon modeling is a matter of (1) personal preference and (2) which is used in a given shop - the thing being that, when one changes jobs, that next shop might be using the otehr method- and entirely different programs.
I'm unclear as to what other "trends" you might be asking about...the msot general trend is always towards greater capability, but few companies continue to support less-expensive "intro" versions (usually the older versions) of their programs. A good company IMO also offers these older-now-"entry level" versions.
The point being that not everyone *needs* what's in a $30K 3D app, or even a $5K app. But as always, try the demos of anything under consideration.
Yes, there is a lot to consider. Even if the investment could be small in terms of money, I'd hate to spend a lot of time with a program only to finally discover that it simply is not going to perform as I want it to.
But I guess I'll be looking into Blender. I wrote a reseller of Rhino, too. It will be interesting to see what he has to say about the licences.
Just a P.S. Skethup also looks intriguing. The FAQ was not loading from the site... Is Sketchup a one-trick pony or does it output 2D line drawings as well as 3D sketches? What aobout file import?
Some people are very paranoid about "spyware" to the point of silliness in what they'll deem spyware. Remember "Microsoft is downloading all of your private documents for thier own use"?
For XP users of such as max means just about zip on the software side. max has been "thread per scanline" for ages now and that is all that is required to take advantage of anything on the multi/hyper side of life.
Not even "so to speak." Just plain no.
Unless you're talking "trend" in terms of "I read in Popular Mechanics that in twenty years..."
Except you'll notice that the organic type objects such as demon spawn from HELLLLLLL are poly models due to the sweet poly tools they have these days. I suspect you'll see NURBS tools falling more towards their historic core of industrial design.
Enh... Mostly it just sounds like your info is a few generations old.
Sure, yeah, technically a NURBS model can be completely smooth due to the non-discrete nature of the functions involved. But that's really only "technically".
Nope.
It's easy. Whatever was in the SIGGRAPH procedings five years earlier will show up in everything. Except it'll show up in max one or two years after it shows up in eveything else and people will rant on about how kinetix/discreet/autodesk has abandoned development and they've wasted their thousands of dollars and...
Its almost a one trick pony but not quite. It does 3D modeling really well, but it does not render well. BUT, and this is a big but, it outputs to a multitude of formats, including dxf, for 2D. It has a great feature where you can do section cuts of your model and export those cuts as 2D dxf drawings. It does nice shadows, and textures, but like I said, no photo-realistic rendering. I tend to like the way it renders only to make things seem real, yet not so unchangeable that the client thinks it is set in stone. You can see its rendering on most of the pages at Sketchup.com, along with tons of user made stuff on their forums.
The Sketchup people are also really big on plug-ins, which they provide for all the major software out there including auto-cad and 3DS Max, among others. If I were a professional 3D artist I would definitely make it part of my toolbox, and use it as was intended, a 3D sketch program, and take it further in other programs.
If I was a professional renderer, I would use Sketchup and Piranesi exclusively and nothing else. There is also a free rendering program out there called POV-Ray or something. Some Sketchup user made a plug-in to use it with Sketchup called SK2POV or something. That POV program is a bear though.
In my experience, that seems to depend on what we're talking about. There are different kinds and levels of developer and support. Maybe dialogue, exchange or feedback rather than just support...
What I'm also suggesting is, if there is even a slightly better-from-the-norm amount of direct support from developers, even if small, this may suggest some things about the nature or quality of the project. Nevertheless, support can also work both ways. For example, if I, as a user, make a feature request or file a bug report, it may be important for the developer(s) to ask for elaboration. Rigourous bug reporting potentially helps make a program more stable and useable, and feature requests from the users themselves also potentially help make a program more useable and advanced. Ditto with a developer being able to see the discourse between other users about the software, which can lead to insight.
One possible difference between closed and open source is that a user could more easily become a developer for the same project. But then, in a sense, when you are a user, and are helping other users, filing bug reports and feature requests, you are also a kind of developer.
The closed source model of development seems less condusive to this kind ad hoc flow.
Well I have limited experience, which is with a smaller project, and perhaps with an exceptional group. If so, I imagine there are other exceptional and accessible groups and projects around-- ones that may feel less like a nameless faceless entity and more like the spirit of open source. Then again, maybe my experience is usual.
You don't have to be a mechanical engineer to suggest to one that you want a bike to "do or have that". The useful discussion where the dev and user come in might be where a user might have an idea for a program that the developer hadn't considered, or a user notices some kind of oversight on the developer(s)' part.
I've thus far never heard of one necessary for an open source app and hope I never do.
Art of Illusion, for example, is indeed a small shop, and that's in large part why I chose it. It was a good choice at first to get my feet wet again after some time out of the 3D/CAD loop, and may yet prove to continue to be. But it's getting bigger. It should be interesting to see how it scales, and how everyone, including myself, responds to that.
snipped-for-privacy@ncf.ca (Richard MacIntyre) wrote in news:d82ntm$l3r$ snipped-for-privacy@theodyn.ncf.ca:
I'm not saying that it never happens, it's just that, in general, coders make their living coding, and if programmers are taking time aways from programming so as to field support-related questions, they aren't getting their primary work done. That's all. My expereince with 3D and people involved in 3D is simply that it's not realistic to expect programmers to field support questions - unless they're decided to specifically work in the support department. Also, there is no commercial outfit that is going to allow its coders/programmers to discuss confidential matters with customers.
All I'm saying is that, practically, in terms of finding a 3D modeler/renderer that will fit one's needs, about the least important thing would be expecting to talk with the programmers.
As I already said, in so many words, which is why I also mentioned that any decent company provides support. Again, I was focusing my replies to the person who is looking to start doing 3D and is looking for a good modeler/renderer. I'm not talkking about people who've been doing 3D for years and want to start getting involved in development.
As I mentioned, there are ways that this gets done. Most typically, speaking directly with coders is not one of those ways. And a person looking to get started in 3D doesn't necessarily need to place "talking to coders" at the top of the list when looking for a decent modeler.
As I'd mentioned, there are various types on online discussion groups, for example, and some companies do have feedback capabilities in the program. It depends upon the company.
All I'm saying is that someone like the original poster, who is looking for some good 3D software, shouldn't demand an ability to speak one-on-one with programmers. Although it might ideally seem like a good idea, the reality is that there are other feedback mechanisms, plus, it takes a heck of a lot of expereince with 3D and with a program, and programming knowledge as well, to get to the point where the coders might want to speak directly with one.
I've been involved in 3D for 14 years now, and I wouldn't presume to try and tell a programmer their job. If I have a suggestion for a feature I'd like to see in the program(s) I use, I make it through the feedback or support channels. I have had programmers answer me through those channels, but more typically, a beta tester or a support person can handle matters better because they can "translate".
All I'm saying is that, for a person new to 3D modelers, who is looking for a program, needs to consider other factors long before s/he considers whether s/he will be able to double as a developer.
THat's a separate matter.
Well, since a dongle is obviously intended to defeat (or at least postpone) software piracy, of course an open source prog. of any sort, by definition, woulod not use a dongle.
3DSM used to require one. I can't rememebr whether LW did. Not all commercial 3D prog.s use one. It's just something to check.
Re: open source prog.s, they're all fine and good but they're not the absolute right answer for everybody every time. I tried POVRay, for example, and it wasn't what I wanted and didn't do what I needed. I'm not such an idiot that i begrudge others the use of it - I only am saying that each person has to assess their current needs and, wherever possible, future needs/wants, and try the demos, and come to a decision based upon a variety of factors.
General rule of thumb programming is that it takes two hours after an interruption to get back into the swing of things properly.
Better : to get to the point where the luser might be useful.
Technically that is true.
And it doesn't matter. Is statistically insignifigant. Encourages users to think of themselves as developers. Might be useful if your product is a tool for programmers. Implies that the screening process for open source developers is scary.
"a kind of"
The truth of the matter is tha programming is hard and not everybody can do it.
Which flow, I guess, some people find to be a good thing. Somehow.
The only beneift I can see so far is that it makes people feel good about their egalitarian values or something.
Of course, the basic argument being made here is that "open is good because it isn't closed. closed is bad because it isn't open." They are two different models of software development and all I've seen to support the "open is good" argument is "open contains the features of open and closed doesn't."
And that last isn't even true. Both systems can point to - software delivered. And that's what software development does: develops software. Some approaches to that are designed to give people (who can't get real jobs in software) the warm fuzzies ("and if you send in a bug report, you're a kind of developer too") and other approaches are designed to get software developed ("No, you can't keep Ken from being productive today to yammer about you just discovered bug #3412-A which in house alpha found six months ago and has been corrected for our point five release next month.").
Thanks
Be
To
God.
See, "spirit".
Do you want an intimate relationship with your chicken plucker? You ARE a nameless faceless entity. The only way around this is to buy in to software used by five people or find the most broken down reseller you can. "Hey, they look like they're about to go out of business next year. I'll bet they give me great support in the meantime."
Far too many of them think they need to. You'll find far fewer programmers and programmer managers who feel the reciprocal need.
You don't have to be a mechanical engineer to write that down and aggregate a wish list for the next time the product designers (note I didn't say "engineers") give a hoot what the customer thinks it wants.
Emphasis on "might."
You've heard.
I've used. My use disagrees with your hears.
definition,
Which simple fact is giving me troubling insight into ">>".
The root of my problem is that "it's good because it's open" seems to be the major selling point for most of the customers.
Thanks for the info! I think the rendering style that SketchUp uses might actually be more readable than photorealism. Also, achiveing photorealism takes time, no matter what app is used. With a rougher style, having every detal displayed realisticly is no longer necessary. That would be liberating!
Piranesi looks good and also removes that unecessary realism, but right now its a luxury I cant afford. The pictures made by POV-Ray look nice, but I'm under the impression that it is difficult to learn and renders rather slowly. Still, its free, so I might give it a try.
As a graphic designer, I take time away from my work to chat with you. I also find the time to volunteer, cook, eat, rollerblade, mountain bike, socialize, and use, test, report on and discuss open source software.
That's rarely all. :)
Thankfully, there are open alternatives.
I like to look at some phenomenon as potentially suggesting other.
I have yet to have a "tete-a-tete" with a company support person (never mind a coder) on company time, but I suppose it's possible.
Here, I think open source software (OSS) is a better option.
Got money for ACAD? One big advantage to open source is that, one could, for the price of a few seats of AutoCAD, hire (outsource ;) a coder to add a custom feature or two. Then, they'd really get to talk to their coder. They'd also be potentially advancing the program for every user. Money better spent.
I would modify your statement to read: '...would appreciate a greater relative possibility to speak one-to-one with programmers on occasion'. And what's nice about some OSS projects is that you actually can-- and more often, and meaningfully, than I would have previously thought.
You could help a programmer with their job where required and appropriate. Just because a programmer does their job properly doesn't mean that what they make is going to work properly. A programmer who's wet behind the ears might benefit from your 14 years of
3D insight.
Fair enough... and certainly it helps to make as informed a decision as possible... With closed source code, you will likely never be entirely informed.
I tend to agree with you on the rendering aspect. The time it takes to render In sketchup with a decent system is almost nill. It looks a lot more stylized rather than looking realistic, and that's how I like it.
Sketchup is about $500 dollars, which is a steal for what it does. But now that it was mentioned in this thread I am going to check out Blender. As for POV-Ray, like I said its a bear if used on its own, but supposedly it is very versatile. How well does Blender do in rendering?
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.