# Gothic Library Revisited -Model/Render



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

A design-build project from circa 2002, that ultimately did not get build. Came really close but that tale pisses me off.

Originally modeled in AutoCad-ArchDesktop, solids and line/shop drawings complete. Exported out to 3DViz (watered down 3dmax) and roughly rendered. No fancy indirect lighting and such as the hardware-processing was just not there. Later did take it through the render process... 18 some odd hours of rendering to produce a 'decent' final image.

...and thanks to another thread, decided to revisit. 

Basic forms and lighting. Setting the lighting and refining render times early is very important in any advanced render engine. Such as V-ray and so on. efficient render times let me , anyway, make more adjustments and such to make a better render. 

Baby steps...


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

..and continuing on.

The original files where brought into AutoCad Architecture 2012. Hoping for improved export into 3dmax, not much has changed. No decent export out to the application of choice. AutoDesks FBX and Collada export are proprietary. So I wnet with OBJ. At least the exporter informed me me of 8 cases in which the objects where considered "Rats Nests" - well no  

Lots of issues that needed to be fixed/repaired with the basic walls. The rest will be remodeled/modeled again...it's pretty clear as these renders are the repaired-remolded walls and windows with the untouched exported model/objects.

Just having fun and want to share. This is agreat passion and quite enjoyable to do without clients and deadlines involved... might keep a few very happy with their existing apps and projects too.


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

Looks like crap when looking close... the mission is to make it betterer

This is typical, even with better export settings, all these black spots and holes exist. They are just smaller and harder to find. Also a clean model will render much faster than a sloppy one at this level of complexity. Tho I am very happy with the new system and evolution of computing hardware, worth every penny.


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

render times - basic images at 2800x2400 - 71 seconds
- Entire scene at 2800x2400 - 249-359 seconds


----------



## hdavis (Feb 14, 2012)

Thanks for posting this! I really like seeing what you, Kent, Scipio, etc are up to (or rather, can do).

My take is if you aren't doing this stuff all the time, shaking out the hardware and software isn't worth it at this point for me - hire it out to one of the gurus. 

The software and hardware (I peek at hardware from time to time) keeps getting better and better, so I'm in hopes it will make sense for me at some point.


----------



## Kent Whitten (Mar 24, 2006)

The first set of pictures....eh... 

The second set....wow! 

Honestly I didn't know there were others on here who had my interests in renderings. I assume you know of cgarchitect and the other sites. I posted awhile back with some graphics from the real pros....didn't get much of a response. 

I find that if you honestly can show stuff like this AND GET PAID for it, it easily sells the job. 

Just doing it for free doesn't cut it for me. There's hours and hours of work that goes into something like this. If there's not $500-$1000 to go with it, then the basic free Sketchup white is what they get.


----------



## Kent Whitten (Mar 24, 2006)

Kent Whitten said:


> The first set of pictures....eh...
> 
> The second set....wow!


Of course, now that I'm on my home computer, I see why the first pics are like that now. I couldn't see the full scope of what you were doing. Lighting is always the big thing....and it seems to be the most difficult. 

It looks awesome.


----------



## BoGoCo (Jun 10, 2012)

Awesome!!

I love seeing this type of work.

I agree with Kent, creating scenes like that would take me many,many hours and wouldn't look half as good.

And to actually make money doing it...................

Thanks for posting.


----------



## Rio (Oct 13, 2009)

Very impressive! just thinking on how I'd proceed with trying to model that gives me a headache but it's nice to know it can be done.


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

BoGoCo said:


> Awesome!!
> 
> I love seeing this type of work.
> 
> ...


This model/project was my first attempt at actually using a virtual/previz to sell the design and my services....on a large scale over ten years ago. I did some local renderings back in that era. Market was small and one company had 95% of the archviz type stuff locked in, still do. I actually consulted with a couple architects and their 'rendering' / render monkeys more than I did paying renderings. 

Most of the money making was done through animations and some mixed VFX Archviz type work. ROFTL contractors or venders or tradesman in the construction industry DO NOT believe this 'rendering' thing is a breeze. I worked harder, more hours under more stress doing the CG thing than I have ever worked as a contractor or tradesman. Both freelancing and employed in a studio. 

Here a whlie back we pulled a 14 hour install, with an afternoon off and next morning started a 20 hour install-interior fit up after a rush custom cabinetry fabrication of two weeks...That is as close as I've come in construction to how this rendering - getting paid feels to do. I'm a sick pup....I enjoyed that construction project and the CG work. It is frickin intense and there is no "Pretty" button in some expensive software package. It's not the software or hardware it's wetware (human beings) skill set that makes it happen. 

Personally I've come full circle again on this 'rendering' thing. I got into it when I purchased architectural desktop in '99. Got helleva a good deal on that and 3dviz and lightscape + training on two apps. Set out to use these tools to sell the design build remodeling business back then. It worked to a degree but it's costly and a juggling act on how far to go vs time and return on that time. Very restrictive to go whole hog as a sales tool or even a design aid. Trust me I've worked with some outstanding and gifted CG artists... it takes them time too and even at their elevated level many things are not realistic, time/cost wise, for the construction industry-services.

Wrapping it up don't quit the day job swing'n a hammer, grass is always greener
...you could be pounding a a key board with tendonitis at 3am in the morning on a friday night/ saturday morning every week along with 3 other guys just to get a project to the render farm. LOL just because the boss decided to shine around and add some chit at 3:30pm.

....Or freelance- the director/client won't accept the camera path 18 hours before the deadline aka air the commercial your animation is being used in.....and it takes 20 hrs to render the sequence of images


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

Kent Whitten said:


> Honestly I didn't know there were others on here who had my interests in renderings. I assume you know of cgarchitect and the other sites. I posted awhile back with some graphics from the real pros....didn't get much of a response.
> 
> I find that if you honestly can show stuff like this AND GET PAID for it, it easily sells the job.
> 
> Just doing it for free doesn't cut it for me. There's hours and hours of work that goes into something like this. If there's not $500-$1000 to go with it, then the basic free Sketchup white is what they get.


Cgarchitect - been a member since 2002 :thumbup: LOL took some pretty heavy duty licks early on. Did a few reviews... TurboCad and Modo for Jeff. It was a fun place, now it's not quite the same...turned into a place to get your **** sucked and told how great you are, if your good. Very little help for individuals trying to figure it out. But it was s new facet of the industry back when I joined. It all has matured and taken on more of an 'Architectural' like personality. Greater than tho... I remember when a lot of the experts over there now - SUCKED.

Yes images sell. The orginals where a step above sketchup quality today and they sold the job to the home owner - unfortunately the builder was involved, got his hands on the drawings... a months worth of work re-imbursed only by the experience-no leverage to even hold the drawings in exchange for design fees. The modeling rendering part was only a week. The shop drawings and bidding were three. Still was worth having done. The 3d Model was accurate enough to ensure a near perfect set of very detailed shop drawings and even at a CNC level accuracy.

Pretty pictures is a hard trade off in regards to time and money. This rendering stuff-She's an evil temptress she is LOL


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

Material development... Custom Oak stained wood material, (UV mapped).

Test 'outside' for specular, reflection and frensel effects.

Panel Band modeled and a close up.


----------



## J F (Dec 3, 2005)

Very cool stuff, Tex. :clap:


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

Been playing on and off this week.

Figured I'd set up a 'linear workflow' seeing as the materials are image-picture based. Typically most of I do is rapid turn around and just punt-eyeball the end results....and as usual, changing 'stuff' after the fact, borked the material output-Image texture. Modo, the application I'm using, moved and now has default gamma settings. I needed to get the lay of the land again.


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

Render times are up due to more geometry and the associated light/GI and reflection ray tracing. 2800x1920. 195-238 secs, 3-4 minutes.

Universal setting info:
8 samples per pixel
8x reflection depth
Indirect Bounces 4
Indirect range 10' 

The raw Oak texture is easier to see result of UV'ing / placement. Nothing/very little is going to be cubic or planar mapped. Using a fairly high resolution custom image map and varied UV mapping really minimizes "repeats" that are so common with most textures/materials

The 'stained' finish (material) as it stands now.


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

Linen Fold Door Panels complete


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

a bit more


----------



## Runnerguy (Dec 4, 2012)

Nice. Real nice!!

Doug


----------



## Runnerguy (Dec 4, 2012)

"Hours and hours" for $500-$1000??

Doug


----------



## Texas Wax (Jan 16, 2012)

Runnerguy said:


> "Hours and hours" for $500-$1000??
> 
> Doug


This one is for strictly for the joy of doing it. Doing what could not be done in the past due to, hardware, tech skills and of course cost vs return. 

This level of modeling and rendering wouldn't touch this as paying job for less than 5k. LOL Just not worth the grief of dealing with deadlines and the other stuff that would come with it. 

500-1000? Not that hungry for CG VFX type work these days.


----------

