RENDERING...Q&A and GALLERY

[skwasim_smile]

hiii


skint you have selection of games there especially call of duty 3 i have have yet have a hand on tht game,sorry guys if iam taking this topic to some different direction.


Cp how can we get the white backround during rendering i saw lot of softwares capable of doing so i have tried it out in pro-e but it was in vain can u help me in this.

 

[CPiotrowski]

The Charger was my idea so finding the blueprint is something we are having a big problem with. There doesnt seem to be a large blueprint of all four views.


Skwasim, show me a picture of what you want and I will tell you how to achieve it.

 

[skwasim_smile]

hiii CP


I have some pics with whit background can we achieve this kind of rendering using pro-e can u please let me the light position and the materials i should use for room


View attachment 3133


View attachment 3134


View attachment 3135

 

[Miko]

Hi all...You all did great job ! ... I really didnt have much time to play with details but hereit is...the gearbox what I did asbachelor project.... Hope you like it..


View attachment 3136


View attachment 3137


View attachment 3138


You can download High resolution images right here>2007-02-11_053510_Gearbox-ARX.zip

 

[Jacoolo]

bump mapping, normal mapping or hightmaps, Miko?

 

[CPiotrowski]

Renders look pretty nice Miko. Did you use Depth of field? I think that will help in the realism of the render. The chrome looks nice on top.

Hey Skwasim, when I get a chance I will throw together one of those renders.
Edited by: CPiotrowski

 

[[-Skint-]]

Excellent work Miko

Hope you get your honours with Distinction

 

[Miko]

Hi all and thanks for your opinions.
muadib3d: it is bump mapping
CP:Yes chrome is pretty good ... and hmm no I didnt use depth of field and I agree ..it would be better to realism
Skint:actually I have the honorous from dean of faculty

Edited by: Miko

 

[skwasim_smile]

Hiii,


Great work miko

and u deserved the honours and CP can u tell me what is depth of field this is the first time i came across this word and where it is used i know i have asked a really dumb question but iam kind of curious to know abt this.

 

[SW]

When rendering models I've been struggling trying to save the view orientation with the perspective setting. I'm sure I'm missing something obvious but would appreciate any pointers.

Thanks,

Sam

 

[CPiotrowski]

If you have the ARX extension there is an option for depth of field. It allows you to either use automatic focus or focus thru planes. Basically it makes everything within two planes in focus and everything outside of them blurred. If you have ARX and your in your rendering setup, its in the same place as blackground, hidden light lens flare, and visible light lens flare.


To answer the question about the perspective. Put your model to a planar view...front, right, top...etc. Hit the perspective icon, this will zoom your model out typically giving you the option to adjust the eye distance. Adjust the eye distance so your part fills the screen or until you get the desired view you are looking for to render. Remember to make as many fine tune adjustments with the slide bars for rotation and things, it will help with the realism of the perspective. Once you have your model in the perspective position you are looking for, take note of the number in the eye distance box that you were modifying initially. Without moving or rotating your model, hit the perspective icon again, re-insert the eye distance number into the eye distance box in perspective...you will notice your model goes right back to your desired render orientation. Once you do this click on the new view icon and save that particular view something like RENDER001. Your model will automatically go back to that view and perspective just as if you are hitting FRONT or TOP. Do this step before setting depth of field or your focus point will be way off.
Edited by: CPiotrowski

 

[SW]

Thanks, as I expected, it was nothing complicated.

Cheers,

Sam

 

[skwasim_smile]

hii





i tried out rendering in W.F.3.0 and this is wat i came out with i know i have to work out a lot for this but for start i think i have done good


View attachment 3159

 

[CPiotrowski]

Wheel looks good Skwasime, you're missing a groove for the tire to sit against tho. Render looks good, wheel may be a little too shiny unless you were going for chrome and in that case you may want to try a darker color for your chrome. Are you using depth of field? Good work tho, I like the design.


If ADMIN are reading this...please increase the size of the file upload to a maximum of 300kb

 

[design-engine]

you can just use photobucket.com We have our own servers but photobucket is what most myspace users utilize.

 

[joe_vj]

Hi all,<br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;"><br style="font-family: Verdana,Arial,Helvetica,sans-serif;">Thanks for all those especially CPiotrowski for such a live thread... U are an inspration!

In fact I too have tried to make someting.. Any suggesions are appriciated greatly..

I am trying a Porshe Boxer. I have some experience in surfacing but havnt made anything of this sort.. This is an uncharted territory for me But I am giving my best...


I am trying make some skeletons and use those as guiding for further creation of curves and surfaces.. I extracted what I call the primary curves.. was not easy but satisfying, until u find the mistakes that I made.. here are few snaps..

View attachment 3163

View attachment 3164

View attachment 3165

thanks for any and every comments ...



Edited by: joe_vj

 

[CPiotrowski]

Thanks Joe, welcome to the forum...


Are you doing this from a blueprint? I'm not against using skeletons but it will make the modeling harder because you will constantly want to refer back to the skeleton for general modifications and unfortunetly you will get unexplained failures. It looks like you have a good start. just remember to surface each panel as if you assembling the car for real.


GOOD START and GOOD LUCK!

 

[pjw]

Has anyone found WF3 to be inferior to WF2 with regards to rendering? I have found that the ARX library shows completley different results depending on whether the material was used in WF2 or WF3. In WF3 for example the ARX burnished aluminium was very realistic. But now, in WF3, the same model, with the same room setup and lights with some of the materials are way off. I know what some of you might say: 'edit the material', but why should you need to edit something which there was nothing wrong with in the first place?


Has anyone else come across anything like this?


Phil

 

[skwasim_smile]

hiii,


Thanks CP it was a great compliment from a guy like u i will see to make some changes wat u have suggested, I have not useddepth of field optionmay inmy next rendering.


Welcome to the forum JOE_VJ nice design cant wait to see the complete design

 

[joe_vj]

Thanksguys.. esp CP..


I didnt had any blueprint as such.. What I did was I got three orthogonal Pictures which i kept on three Datum Planes.. then I traced using that.. that how I got the skeleton.. But if one do not use the skeleton, how do u make sure that the individual components fit properly in the assy.. Or is it that u make the complete surface of the car at once and then take the portion necessary and build on it?? thanks for any tip..


As I said, I havent used much of styling feature.. I am starting to learn that.. I guess the Restyling is as usful as the Styling.. The problem I faced here was to get it snaped permanently to points or curves.. it snap gets removed if I drag it.. might have to work it out now..


I had started to make blogof the status..


http://carbuilding.blogspot.com/


I had removed it from Public as I had stopped working on the task... I have to make it public now.. Might be ready in a day.. keep watching that as well..


thansk again..