[pschuyler]

Revit, Revit, Revit, Revit....Revit, Revit.

(no I am not a frog)

Paul S.

[JTB]

I think I've wrote this 100 times.... It is not up to NL to write a plugin.... Revit has not such powerful API for this... It is just some commands for object handling....
But even if you had a simple Revit to MXS conversion, you would have to use Studio for everything because Revit lacks features like import of 3ds and obj or similar formats... What will you use for trees, RPCs or just planes that you won't even be able to make them look at the camera? What about furniture... Revit has the ugliest 3d library I've seen... No evermotion or even free models from the internet for Revit users...
No motion blur, no sub-object handling, no mesh subdivision, no smoothing, no animation... and many others... Actually now that I think of it, it would be better to use Maxwell with ACAD!!!

[tmu]

JTB, for people and trees one can use photoshop
i used to do it w acad/acurender.

[muttlieb]

I think I've wrote this 100 times.... It is not up to NL to write a plugin.... Revit has not such powerful API for this... It is just some commands for object handling....

I believe it should be possible. A Revit plugin is available for the nXt (AccuRender) rendering engine. No, it does not have the advanced capabilities you mentioned, but it is useful for basic visualizations.

[pschuyler]

I can't really say if the Revit API has been enhanced enough or not at this point, V2010 does have a number of API enhancements, supposedly. I know its true Autodesk goes out of their way to restrict their programs to be compatible only with their own products (%$!). Unfortunately those arguments don't help the bulk of us architects who use Revit (and Revit is only gaining in popularity, taking over the industry en masse).

What I can definitely say is that if there is no plugin for Revit with V2, I won't be upgrading Maxwell, so matter what features it has. The workflow issues from Revit>Max>Maxwell are just too much for any practicing architect to bother with if their income is not generated from the final imagery.

Paul S.
Anyone know if Maxwell licenses are transferable?

[Bubbaloo]

The kind of precision modeling that Maxwell works well with is not currently possible in Revit. It's a great construction document program (I use it), but it's rendered result is lacking without embellishment from a real 3d modeling software. When I first started using Maxwell, I tried to utilize our Architectural Desktop models for renderings, but soon found out that it's often easier to use the CAD model as a template and create everything in Max. The cad programs bring in so much extra unnecessary geometry, that your scene can get high poly quick. Now I've been using Max long enough that I'm faster modeling there than CAD.

My advice... use Revit for making documents and get proficient with Max -> Maxwell for renderings. Revit's rendering capabilities are pure marketing from Adesk.

[pschuyler]

Well, my workflow revolves around Revit almost completely both for CD's as well as for design. Revit could definitely use some enhanced modeling tools, though...I've been begging for that for years. Its a pretty clunky modeler.

Having worked a lot with the Revit>Max workflow in the past I've come to realize (for my needs anyway) that the full process to get to Maxwell does not really pay off for me. An image from MR in Revit which is 75% as good as a Maxwell image but much easier to produce...that's well worth it for my needs. I'd love to utilize Maxwell but its not worth the 3dsMAX subscription, the constant learning updates, and the workflow through 3 programs. There is a certain level of image quality which is nice to present, but the key question is how long does that take to produce those images? MR in Revit (2009+) works fine for some pretty decent imagery, plus it is reasonably accurate with the proper lighting families embedded. So much so that I cancelled my 3dstudio Max subscription update.

I've been working with 3dstudio Max since its debut with R1.0, so I'm pretty proficient with it in all respects. Its really just a question of where you want to spend your time. Do you want to spend time as an architect designing and researching products, construction methods, project management, sustainable building, etc.? I don't want to spend a lot of time playing with polygons anymore, I suppose that's what I'm saying. There are other Revit plugins which blend into the interface and manage to reduce the BIM model overload of data (such as IES Virtual Environment) in similar ways, I just don't see why Maxwell can't do the same.

Assuming of course they (Next Limit) are interested in seeing it take off among architects. There's the Archicad-Maxwell plugin, and Archicad is no better at refining 3d geometry than Revit is.

Paul S.

[Bubbaloo]

I don't want to spend a lot of time playing with polygons anymore, I suppose that's what I'm saying.

That's the opposite of me, if I could do that full time, it would be great! I'm mostly doing ACA construction docs, with a sprinkle of 3d visualization. But then again, I'm not an architect. They cook up the wacky ideas, I just translate them into client pleasing visuals and then eventually into a step by step instruction manual on how to put the pieces together so it doesn't fall over. Wait, what is it that you architects do again?

[pschuyler]

That's the opposite of me, if I could do that full time, it would be great!

hahaha That's a good answer and I totally understand.

I've seen friends over the years switch into visual effects and they are generally pretty happy with the decision. I too love working with the technology and have been straddling the fence (between architecture and 3d tech) for years. The problem is that if you stay pretty good at both you become excellent at neither.

Wait, what is it that you architects do again?

We spend all of our time studying to collect acronyms so that we can mature and eventually spend our time worrying about lawsuits.

Paul S.