after watching these home shows where the guy comes in with his apple laptop and shows buyers what the remodel will look like in there new homes ,they have 3 to choose from
what softwhere does this guy use or is it a bunch of bull?
Discussion Forum
Discussion Forum
Up Next
Video Shorts
Featured Story
The FHB Podcast crew takes a closer look at an interesting roof.
Highlights
"I have learned so much thanks to the searchable articles on the FHB website. I can confidently say that I expect to be a life-long subscriber." - M.K.
Replies
I think you might want to be a little clearer on what your question is. It's rather cryptic at this point. Is it software you are interested in, or comments on some TV show?
The software runs on a Mac, and it might be high-end like:http://www.graphisoft.com/products/archicad/or a consumer package like:http://www.punchsoftware.com/products/mac.htmThere are many other software products in between that can create virtual walk-throughs. Those rendered scenes shown on HGTV probably require 20-40 hours of work per room.
hay thanks for the imput 40 hours per room?
some of these shows change up to twenty rooms per program! thats an insane amount of work..the programs shows paint colors furnature and trim packages and it looks totally realthnks againtj
i am no expert on the subject, but i have seen it in use. there is such a critter, it does exist.
there are several modeling programs in use, some will show quite impressive 3-D modeling.
when i was working at the Walt Disney concert hall in downtown LA with the structural ironworkers (Herrick) we had a team of austrailians to "administer" the 3-D blueprint because it was so complicated. apparantly the austrailians are way ahead of the americans when it comes to using sophisticated aircraft modeling/building software that has been adapted for construction purposes.
because i was interested in the subject, as a layout specialist on major projects i have my own ideas about software for layout, and because i worked with the aussie's they showed me what it can do and it literally jumps to life and moves around and it can show several different levels of finish, and it automatically changes corresponding elements to fit when you change any one piece. good stuff.
I am not sure of the exact software they use, but you can generate those types of images with Chief Architect and based on my limited knowledge you can do that with Softplan as well.
I always thought it looked like Sketchup. But, then again, I imagine many of the 3-D archi-apps end up rendering simliar looking results.
The AutoCad 2000 that I run will do any of that on a PC. Don't know if it works on Mac. The initial work for furniture and walls can be done, and changes in color can be placed in different "layers." So it's just a matter of opening the file, selecting a "layer" with a color scheme and furniture, and viewing it. Many, mny more options on newer AutoCad versions...
i work in Chief..
i haven't seen the HGTV in the discussion, but i can certainly do a 3 version 3d walkthru ..
the question becomes.. how much preparation before you're ready for a prime-time TV audience ?..
if the model is constructed correctly ( if ) then i could show up with my laptop and do exactly that.. most of the time, for me, it is not worthwhile getting the model that exact..
i'm more interested in the construction documents
there are power-users in Chief ( and softplan, and vectorworks, and Archicad, and AutoDesk, and i bet .. Sketchup ) who could do that 3-d, 3-version walkthru..
but it is not something built in the field on a half-hour visit...i don't know the minimum amount of time.. let's say 20 hours for the basic structure.. ( 40 hours for me )... and 5 hours for each iteration ( 10 hours for me ).. that's where all of the 3-d views are seamlessMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Mike -- I do a lot of design visualization work, and though I am not positive, those renderings look like Vray (by chaos group). Vray is a plug-in that handles the material and lighting and the modelling can be done in a variety of software packages (3ds Max being the most widely used). It is not a Mac program, but I wouldn't be surprised if they used the laptop for presenting the final product even though it was created on a PC. The work they show is very impressive and done by someone very skilled using these programs. It is very time intensive, not so much the modelling (once the furniture is created once it can be re-used in all the different scenes), and the structure usually is just extruded up from and Autocad floorplan -- but the lighting, materials and rendering time can be lengthy, you can almost think of it like a cartoon where an individual frame is created and then looped together with many others to get an animated scene. Each frame can take anywhere from 15 minutes to many hours depending on the complexity of the lighting -- and there can be hundreds of frames for some of those scenes. It is highly likely they use a rendering farm which is a whole bunch of computers that are hooked together to work on the scene -- what the program does is factor in how light bounces around the geometry of the scene taking into account the reflectivity of the various materials (glossy wood, chrome, etc....) -- those calculations are very computer processing intensive. I think they probably "bake" the textures which saves rendering time and of course, skilled users get great results with minimal rendering times also.The long and short -- if you are looking to produce comparable work and you have never used these programs, it will take you several years to learn and you will need some pretty serious computer hardware -- sorry there is no magic button. There are other programs available that are easier to learn but the results will look more computer-generated and less realistic. You can check out http://www.cgarchitect.com for more direction.
db.. i think we're in agreement..
what shows up on tv is the tip of the icebergMike Smith Rhode Island : Design / Build / Repair / Restore
Many, mny more options on newer AutoCad versions
And, less, too. Rather a big stink with 2007, the "native" Render engine actually has fewer options, all while not having SETUV any more. It looks like "they" (as in Autodesk) just sort of assume you'd pay more to get Arch DeskTop, which comes with Viz. Mind you, you can't just open your ACAD file in Viz & start rendering.Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)
wholy cow yea , boy that stuff looks nice...but i think you all are right( as always) thats why i come here...
those programs are why over my head..i guess i will just stick to the ol' ruler and pencil..thanks again for all your imput...or maybe i can pretend to sell my house and have berry and his team come over here and show me whats up..lolback to work
Stop with the AutoCad acronyms! ;-) I started on R-13, went to 14 two years later, then 2000. I don't have any of that fancy schmancy stuff (except fo render) on my version.
We'uns kinda ignernt out here in the sticks.....
Stop with the AutoCad acronyms! ;-) I started on R-13, went to 14 two years later, then 2000.
We'uns kinda ignernt out here in the sticks.....
But'cher kaint do no acad what wit not know'n all'n the acronyms . . . <g>
I started, in 1984, with Ver 1.83, which was an improvement on V1.8, in that it permitted diagonal lines in Z. I had about a year on AutoTrol CAD, and almost another with Integraph. Jump three years later and I was on Rel 2.54. I remember the three xeroxed pages about AutoLisp that came in the R-9 box; started writing my own subrs with R-10. I'm a bit saturated in this acad "stuff."
IMHO, program has peaked about 2000 or 2000i or so, subsequent releases have been "going the other way" with each new version. I suspect that this reflects how it's become a product sold by CIO to other CIO, and the flunky drafters (who are, of course, mere replaceable ciphers) just have to get with the program, the PHB having gifted them with all the miracles of technology.
But, I might be a tad bitter, too . . . Occupational hazard of my occupation not being around (sorry Bubba)