Lights, camera, render

[mikekmx]

Hi all

 

i'm pro-level 2D but pretty new-ish to 3D but that's not really a prob as i can get by with what i need to accomplish......i draw duct runs 1) for my own benefit so i can order correct quantities for the installers and i'm not caught out with obstructions/changes of level etc and 2) to give the installers some basic 3D views for clarity, as well as some flatshots for the various 2D views, annotated with the important details.

 

i draw in modelspace, then on paperspace layouts i create viewports, set them up how i want in various views. 99% have the views as 'realistic' and plot.

 

comes out fine in most cases but i know i missing out on lights, cameras and rendering. i add materials to solids and if i render they come out but there's often too much shadow and the resolution is rubbish (set on 'presentation' render quality).......the plotted paperspace layouts although much more basic (graphics-wise) usually look best.

 

tried messing with lights but they're a nightmare and make it worse

 

tried setting up a camera but that ain't easy.....and what do i do next?!

 

is it as complicated as it seems?

 

am i never gonna see the 'materials' without rendering?

 

how do i get more materials? i want steel, blockwork etc but there doesn't seem to be much in the tool palette.

 

err.....also, the rendered output. why would i want a .png or .jpg? i'm not designing a magazine, i want the output on a proper sheet with titleblock and other stuff! seems very strange.

[ReMark]

What does rendering add to the overall process of running ducts? Just curious.

 

Did you load all the materials that came with 2008 or just the sample materials?

 

You can create your materials if you can't find what you want.

 

No, you won't see any of your materials if you don't create a render. Not right.

 

You will see your materials if you use a Realistic visual style.

Edited February 3, 2013 by ReMark

[mikekmx]

What does rendering add to the overall process of running ducts? Just curious.

 

Nothing much atm. sometimes though when i do it the colours are too intense and it actually makes the drawing harder to 'read' and i think maybe things would look better rendered. eg the drawing i am on atm i have a 1/2 wall with cladding sheets above. there's a fan and some duct in front but it's not very clear. i will fling it up in a min.

i'm an industrial electrician really but got a peach new job as project engineer for a company. if the duct is stainless, there's a 3 week lead time on delivery. cables are easy, but duct you have to have enough bends etc. my worst nightmare is a job grinding to a stop for lack of a bend or 2. 3D is deffo the way to go.

 

Did you load all the materials that came with 2008 or just the sample materials?

no *red face smilie*. i'm on it

 

You can create your materials if you can't find what you want.

i will check the library. thanks

 

No, you won't see any of your materials if you don't create a render.

thanks

 

i'll be right back

Edited February 4, 2013 by mikekmx

[ReMark]

I work in a chemical plant. Just finished piping up a 7,000 gallon blending and storage tank. Did everything in 3D then extracted the 2D pipe runs for fabrication. I provide the weld shop and pipe fitters with 3D isometric views too but I don't bother to add materials or render them. Why? They don't care about pretty pictures or materials; they just want to see where the pipes are going. Why would I spend all that time adding materials then rendering it? In my business it would not serve any useful purpose.

[mikekmx]

not the best example, but you can see it's not brilliant. the fan and duct seems to get lost against the big blocks of colour that are the 1/2wall and cladding above.

 

looks like the 3D stuff was done in Word :lol: ....but there is no end to the install work. i have to site visit, design, risk assessment/method statement, order materials, everything, bang it out and move on to the next one. AutoCAD has to be a tool to error-proof and also save time communicating. no time for the niceties unless they help to do that. clearer 3D views would help communicating what is required i think.

 

i had to send some drawings off last week for an enclosure to be made up and the comment from the place doing the fabrication was 'not the best of drawings but i think i can figure out what you want' !

2D PLAN & ELEVATION (1)_1.pdf

[ReMark]

Looks like you used a "Conceptual" visual style. Is that right?

 

Well I don't mean to rain on your parade but what would a rendered version of either of those two views tell the fab shop or an installer what he didn't already know?

[mikekmx]

Looks like you used a "Conceptual" visual style. Is that right?

 

 

 

 

bingo!

 

appears materials don't show in models space, and not in paper as 'conceptual' visual style, but i clicked 'realistic' and wala!

 

Well I don't mean to rain on your parade but what would a rendered version of either of those two views tell the fab shop or an installer what he didn't already know?

 

np i think it's just that they looked a bit basic and i knew they could look better. wondered how much time it would take to do that i suppose. and the correct technique of course.

 

happy days

 

(just tried to load a pic to show you, but i can't get it under 0.5MB)

 

the wall looks great tho with brickwork

[tzframpton]

Do you use AutoCAD MEP or just plain AutoCAD? I can't tell with the PDF example you provide. Nonetheless, good work!

 

I've made some pretty decent renders using AutoCAD for my company at times and they can be very compelling. Here's a link of a job not too long ago I was showing off:

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?65321-Pump-room-with-chilled-water-piping&p=446054&highlight=pump+room#post446054

 

AutoCAD is plenty powerful to provide realistic images, although it is very limited for extremely detailed things. This is because the rendering engine in AutoCAD, which is called mental ray is a very stripped down version. So all the main components to rendering are there, and I've been satisfied with the results, but you will find limits eventually. Also in my signature below, I used AutoCAD to render my guitar. It's unfinished but does show more of what AutoCAD can be capable of.

 

Anyways, what exactly are you having troubles with? I've created a few tutorials through the years which I can link you to for assistance. If you're interested I can round the posts up and link them here.

 

Hope this helps.

[mikekmx]

Do you use AutoCAD MEP or just plain AutoCAD? I can't tell with the PDF example you provide. Nonetheless, good work!

 

I've made some pretty decent renders using AutoCAD for my company at times and they can be very compelling. Here's a link of a job not too long ago I was showing off:

http://www.cadtutor.net/forum/showthread.php?65321-Pump-room-with-chilled-water-piping&p=446054&highlight=pump+room#post446054

 

AutoCAD is plenty powerful to provide realistic images, although it is very limited for extremely detailed things. This is because the rendering engine in AutoCAD, which is called mental ray is a very stripped down version. So all the main components to rendering are there, and I've been satisfied with the results, but you will find limits eventually. Also in my signature below, I used AutoCAD to render my guitar. It's unfinished but does show more of what AutoCAD can be capable of.

 

Anyways, what exactly are you having troubles with? I've created a few tutorials through the years which I can link you to for assistance. If you're interested I can round the posts up and link them here.

 

Hope this helps.

 

Hi StykFacE,

thanks for the reply. I'm using 2008 (full) Electrical in vanilla form.

 

a few posts up is an attachment 'before'

 

'after' is below.

 

a massive step forwards imo :-)

 

would be very interested in any tutorials

 

(i am not colour blind btw, i was just playing with colours for clarity :-) ) and the pic is low res to enable posting here