geometry Copy/paste to Studio
Posted: Thu Jun 29, 2006 7:29 pm
This should at first be an anwer to Eric Lagmans recent posting in this forum section, wishing for a more powerful clone tool. As it got longer and turned out to be something, I wanted to wish for long already, I decided to make it an own thread.
Instead of even the most basic modelling operations inside Maxwell Studio, I personally would Much prefer copy and paste support for geometry.
It should work with all file formats supported via plugin. Then you wouldn't need to save out every tiny change in geometry, every little light you create.
Just draw your pattern inside Solidworks (or whatever package) and copy to the windows-clipboard. When pasting to Studio (Ctrl+V), Maxwell should recognize the clipbord-content and write a .tmp. mxs somewhere. When ready, M~S should ask, whether the object should be placed to the location, where it was originally modelled (recognizing the object ID) or (if altered) to the location, where you put it, when you built your scene inside Studio. New objects would be placed without further requests.
I know, this is asking much, but this way both files stay identical - or at least in close relation to each other. This way it is also the more reliable one , if you want to merge results of renderings done in M~S and others done inside of your modelling application - As there is no way to export the geometry back from Studio to your modelling app.
Why, the hell would one like to do so?
It may be an unpopular point of view among users of this software, but I definedly do see a strong need to combine Maxwells ultrarealism and its beautiful light with nonphotorealistic content. Ultrarealism and nothing but ultrarealism is what you need, when it's up to: film/commericals, scientific visualisation I would also go for it for objects which can be shown in a clean Studio-context.
In interior/architecture/industrial design however - when presenting stuff, which does not yet exist, one should have the freedom to focus interest with stronger means, than camera angle and Dof alone allow. It should be a valid means to concentrate on Maxwells unique lightning tools to create an interesting mood. A too great photorealism in the pre-built state could even proof as a drawback: Customers could nail you down to match "exactly" that look. This is by the way not just my stupid private opinion but what is traditionally taught (at least of central european art schools) for design-visualization:
Concentrate on the object, you want to show, decrease detail or even grey out areas, which belong to the already exist or which are less important.
These can also serve as spaces for text. I think, that although the rendering means have dramatically changed, there's still something which holds true in this approach. Something; I try to keep in mind in my modest work.
The web is full with renderings with bought cars and complete forests in the foreground which draw far more attraction than the actual building, the artist was asked to show. Quite a few people obviously have another idea, what they consider a good way of presentation.
Not only that I beg to differ here - mixing Maxwell and other output could also tremendously help saving time. Everybody here knows, how teribly much work it is, to make a complex architectural scene loking "absolutely" photorealistic.
A rendering which doesn't look as it had the goal to look perfectly photorealistic ( maybe only has perfect glass and reflections) in an otherwisely sketchy setting can be created much faster. For as long as Maxwell neither has even the most basic means to output in a sketchy style (propably forever) Studio-users should get the maximum support to keep input and output file identical in terms of geometry and cameras.
Holger
Instead of even the most basic modelling operations inside Maxwell Studio, I personally would Much prefer copy and paste support for geometry.
It should work with all file formats supported via plugin. Then you wouldn't need to save out every tiny change in geometry, every little light you create.
Just draw your pattern inside Solidworks (or whatever package) and copy to the windows-clipboard. When pasting to Studio (Ctrl+V), Maxwell should recognize the clipbord-content and write a .tmp. mxs somewhere. When ready, M~S should ask, whether the object should be placed to the location, where it was originally modelled (recognizing the object ID) or (if altered) to the location, where you put it, when you built your scene inside Studio. New objects would be placed without further requests.
I know, this is asking much, but this way both files stay identical - or at least in close relation to each other. This way it is also the more reliable one , if you want to merge results of renderings done in M~S and others done inside of your modelling application - As there is no way to export the geometry back from Studio to your modelling app.
Why, the hell would one like to do so?
It may be an unpopular point of view among users of this software, but I definedly do see a strong need to combine Maxwells ultrarealism and its beautiful light with nonphotorealistic content. Ultrarealism and nothing but ultrarealism is what you need, when it's up to: film/commericals, scientific visualisation I would also go for it for objects which can be shown in a clean Studio-context.
In interior/architecture/industrial design however - when presenting stuff, which does not yet exist, one should have the freedom to focus interest with stronger means, than camera angle and Dof alone allow. It should be a valid means to concentrate on Maxwells unique lightning tools to create an interesting mood. A too great photorealism in the pre-built state could even proof as a drawback: Customers could nail you down to match "exactly" that look. This is by the way not just my stupid private opinion but what is traditionally taught (at least of central european art schools) for design-visualization:
Concentrate on the object, you want to show, decrease detail or even grey out areas, which belong to the already exist or which are less important.
These can also serve as spaces for text. I think, that although the rendering means have dramatically changed, there's still something which holds true in this approach. Something; I try to keep in mind in my modest work.
The web is full with renderings with bought cars and complete forests in the foreground which draw far more attraction than the actual building, the artist was asked to show. Quite a few people obviously have another idea, what they consider a good way of presentation.
Not only that I beg to differ here - mixing Maxwell and other output could also tremendously help saving time. Everybody here knows, how teribly much work it is, to make a complex architectural scene loking "absolutely" photorealistic.
A rendering which doesn't look as it had the goal to look perfectly photorealistic ( maybe only has perfect glass and reflections) in an otherwisely sketchy setting can be created much faster. For as long as Maxwell neither has even the most basic means to output in a sketchy style (propably forever) Studio-users should get the maximum support to keep input and output file identical in terms of geometry and cameras.
Holger
