[Jakob Ryngen]

Hello,
I have been using Lightwave 3D with Maxwell as modeler but am thinking of starting to use another. I want a modeler that works with other 2D/3D CAD-applications and I am currently considering 3DS Max, Rhino, C4D or perhaps Modo. Any ideas? What is a good modeler that works well with Maxwell and has good file support.
Thanks!

[Maximus3D]

I would personally use either Modo and/or Cinema4D, those two applications are great. Modo is the king of modeling and UVmapping and Cinema4D rules in just about everything else. You should ofcourse take the time to test them all and actually feel which application is the best for you to work with, not all of them may be great and what me or anyone says is only based upon personal experiences.

/ Max

[Josephus Holt]

I think that depends on what you want to model. I'm doing architectural models and started with Cinema4D but probably partly because of my strong (Auto)cad background I really struggled with c4d, although I hear it's much easier to learn than 3DSMax. Mainly because of Cinema4D's lack of 2D hidden line geometry export (to Autocad), I started in Rhino a little over a year ago and it has really grown on me. Since Rhino had its birth inside Autocad, if you know Acad then the learning curve for Rhino is probably the least of all the 3D modeling programs. I love the Rhino/Maxwell combo. However, there are what I consider some weaknesses in Rhino that Cinema4D addresses much better. As you may know, Rhino is a NURBS modeler and Cinema4D a polygon modeler. With Rhino, every NURBS object at export via the excellent plugin has to be translated to a polygon mesh for Maxwell to render. With C4D you're working directly with the polygon objects so the export via the also excellent Maxwell plugin (same person wrote both) is a little simpler, there is not a separate render mesh created for each object like there is for every NURBS object in Rhino. The other factor which comes into play with very large models/scenes is that C4D handles the same geometry with smaller file sizes. I've been working on a large model in Rhino and am starting to run into my 12gb RAM limit, so will likely have to export the architectural model to Cinema4D and add my landscaping there. Also, Cinema4D can be used either as a 32 or 64 bit app, but Rhino v4 is only 32 bit, however, Rhino v5 is both 32 and 64 bit but it's still a WIP, hence sometimes things are "broken" (FYI: I use the Rhino v5 wip on a daily basis). My suggestion is to try to narrow your choices down to 2 and download the demos and see if either seems to appeal to you more. I might add too that you should take a good look at Modo. They have a working demo you can play with. Frankly if I was looking for a polygon modeler now I would likely choose Modo over C4D...just seems like the modeling tools appeal to me a bit more than c4d modeling tools. By the way, one of the main reasons I ended up with Rhino is that I can take a Rhino model and export pretty clean editable 2D hidden line elevation, section, and roof geometry (dwg format) right into Autocad....this is "alternative" BIM . After doing some research, that was the main reason I chose Rhino. You can not do this with a polygon modeler like Cinema4D. The only other 3D app that I'm aware of that can do that is FormZ. I do not know if Modo can export clean 2d hidden line geometry for use in 2d cad apps...I would check that out first....and if someone says it can, be sure to try it out for yourself.

[kami]

I can totally agree with Josephus. I also started with C4d, looked into 3DSMax (found it way too complicated) and stayed with rhino in the end.
For me, the main difference and advantage is that rhino is a CAD program!
one tip though: the viewport really gets very slow with huge scenes, but if you convert complex objects to meshes (hide the original data) and maybe even join them, rhino gets much, much faster!

[Jakob Ryngen]

Thanks for the replies! Whatever I choose you say that I should quit Lightwave... I am an architect and use AutoCAD so Rhino might be an option. You can export an extruded line from AutoCAD to Lightwave but really just to have as a reference. I really liked Rhino but I hear that if you want to do 3d realistic visualizations you might run into problems using nurbs irregular objects such as cushions etc. I hear that C4D goes well with ArchiCAD (another program I currently consider) but otherwise I should check out Modo? How about the architect applications for Modo and C4D? Has anyone tried them out?

[Josephus Holt]

Thanks for the replies! Whatever I choose you say that I should quit Lightwave... I am an architect and use AutoCAD so Rhino might be an option. You can export an extruded line from AutoCAD to Lightwave but really just to have as a reference. I really liked Rhino but I hear that if you want to do 3d realistic visualizations you might run into problems using nurbs irregular objects such as cushions etc. I hear that C4D goes well with ArchiCAD (another program I currently consider) but otherwise I should check out Modo? How about the architect applications for Modo and C4D? Has anyone tried them out?

Jakob, one of the main reasons that Cinema4D appealed to me is that Graphisoft (Archicad) purchased Maxon not long ago....thought that what Archicad lacked (which IMO is a lot!) that C4d could fill in. The huge problem that I ran into is that although you could use C4D's polygon meshes fine inside Archicad for rendering, it was totally useless for bringing into 2D cad drawings as you see every edge of every polygon. It's one of many reasons I quit Archicad and put together my own BIM application with Rhino and Autocad (Acad for 2D only). We had the C4D's Architectural Edition in our (architectural) office but really only offered a bridge between the two....which again IMO was a useless feature since I could not use the C4D geometry coming across the bridge to Archicad to be used in the 2D drawings. So we ended up having to model a lot of objects in both Archicad and C4D AND redraw many of those again in 2D in Archicad....hate to do double work RE: soft items like furnishings/cushions, you can go a long way in Rhino but that is indeed where I use Cinema4D to finish them up so they don't look so perfect. By the way, below is a project I'm working on, about 95% done in Rhino with a little help for the cushions in C4D and some artistic details in ZBrush.
@Kami: thx for that reminder to mesh complex objects....might REALLY help out w/a present situation. Joe

[numerobis]

... ArchiCAD (another program I currently consider) ...

i've been an acad user for over 13 years and now i'm damned to use archicad in the office i work for... i tell you DON'T DO IT!!! don't drop acad for archicad! but you will see this by yourself when you check the demo version... if you haven't already done so.

If you're using acad i think acad architecture or revit would be the better way if you need BIM - even vectorworks is much better for drawing plans... archicad is lacking so many fundamental cad functions and is sooo slooow compared to acad it's incredible...

[brodie_geers]

Of the ones you mentioned and what you're looking for, I'd suggest Rhino. I personally use sketchup and 3ds max but a friend of mine uses Rhino. The plugin with Rhino is the best I've seen and it has lots of export/import options. He does a lot of importing AutoCad elevations and working from those so I guess it's good on that front too.

3ds max is pretty convoluted and the plugin is tightly integrated into a convoluted program. I only use it because of it's flexability. If I need something that handles more polygons that SU or does better UV mapping, I'll just over to 3ds Max for that, but that's about it.

-Brodie

[Bubbaloo]

I do everything in 3DS Max. It's expensive, but is full featured. And it is great on your resume!

[big K]

Graphisoft (Archicad) purchased Maxon not long ago

just for the records. Nemetschek (Allplan) bought Maxon in 2000, and it was also Nemetschek that bought Graphisoft end of 2006. Nemetschek also bought Diehl graphsoft (who develope vector works) in 2000.
so yes, you are right that now Maxon and graphisoft are somehow linked together in the Nemetschek Group
http://www.nemetschek.com/en/home/the_c ... folio.html

[Josephus Holt]

Graphisoft (Archicad) purchased Maxon not long ago

just for the records. Nemetschek (Allplan) bought Maxon in 2000, and it was also Nemetschek that bought Graphisoft end of 2006. Nemetschek also bought Diehl graphsoft (who develope vector works) in 2000.
so yes, you are right that now Maxon and graphisoft are somehow linked together in the Nemetschek Group
http://www.nemetschek.com/en/home/the_c ... folio.html

That is indeed correct, my memory failed me in the details, and I do appreciate you setting the record straight. It was this linking of the two brands (Maxon/Cinema4D) and Graphisoft (Archicad) that appealed to me. Unfortunately I did not have the depth of knowledge to look for the workflow links that I would need in order for these two apps to cover as much ground as possible. I since completely abandoned Archicad and hope I never HAVE to use it again but I still use C4D some as it does some things with polys and meshes and file sizes more efficiently than Rhino (However, as I mentioned earlier, if I had not already owned a c4d license and wanted a poly modeler, I would more likely purchase Modo). Joe

[wagurto]

As an architect you should be concerned about the integrety of the design process. Espending 80 or 100 hours preparing a 3d building model, applying materials, texturing mapping coordiantes, creating entourage, lighting etc, etc, etc. just to get a pretty picture was not worth for me. Also, none of my clients were willing to pay those hours. That's why BIM make sense to me. I can develop my 3d building model, use it for visualization, sell the idea and continue developing the model into CDs, collaborated with my consultants and get take off estimates etc, etc, etc.
I use Revit architecture, and render with maxwell.

[Josephus Holt]

As an architect you should be concerned about the integrety of the design process. Espending 80 or 100 hours preparing a 3d building model, applying materials, texturing mapping coordiantes, creating entourage, lighting etc, etc, etc. just to get a pretty picture was not worth for me. Also, none of my clients were willing to pay those hours. That's why BIM make sense to me. I can develop my 3d building model, use it for visualization, sell the idea and continue developing the model into CDs, collaborated with my consultants and get take off estimates etc, etc, etc.
I use Revit architecture, and render with maxwell.

It all depends on the kind of architecture that is done as to whether the BIM apps like Archichad/Revit make sense time-wise. For probably most architectural design that is done they work very well, however as soon as you try to do anything that can not be done parametrically within the BIM app becomes a super Achilles heel. I've spent HOURS in Archicad trying to accomplish what I consider a very simple window assembly which was beyond the parametric settings of the program. It may be that Revit (which I hope to try out soon) is a little more flexible though from what I've heard is that anything parametric is always limited by the application programmer and hence frustrating to the architect/designer who wants to go beyond those limitations. When our office used Archicad we actually found ourselves not doing some things that we normally would/could do in 2D cad just because it was too much brain damage to try to do it in 3D in Archicad. With Rhino>Autocad2D I'm using a BIM workflow for the most part, extracting 2D geometry for the elevations, sections, roof plan, details. After having used Archicad for about 2 years on a daily basis I've come to the conclusion that trying to obtain a good detailed model and yet retain professional quality 2d cad drawings by incorporating 3d and 2d in the same BIM package has made that more difficult and complicated than the architectural design process itself....to me that means that the BIM app has failed to accomplish the concept. Until we come to the day that construction documents will in fact be a 3d model and data only (no more 2d cd's) read on a portable reading device on the construction site and where ever needed, it works best to get the best, most versatile 3d modeler, which I've found to be Rhino and couple that with the industry standard Acad for 2d documentation. My 6 cents

[mgroeteke]

hi jakob,

i already posted to your other thread somewhere, but i don't know if you got my reply...

i'm using formz for many years and can very recommend it. i've also experience in LW modeler, c4d and modo, but for complex architectural projects it's my favourite. the strengths are: precise solid geometry, excellent tesselation and output to many 3d formats, CAD-features like layers, symbols (even nested), handling of huge geometries, powerful scripting, and last but not least an excellent maxwell support . downsides: a little bit steep learning curve (at least, other users say that) and a GUI which probably is not totally 'up to date' (but version 7 is on the way, which will get all the realtime feedback goodness of bonzai, the smaller 'sister' app). an often underestimated important factor - the support - from autodessys is probably the best i know of any software around.

as i posted in the other thread, if you like to stay with LW modeler, absolutely try LWCAD, i know some professionals doing archviz with this combo with very nice results.

cheers

markus

[fv]

I am an architect, using Maxwell regularly. I am on OSX and it is a bit limiting really in terms of CAD. But I have been using Mac's for 20 years now and rather keep doing so.

As some already suggested in architecture you often cannot spend the hours to justify just a pretty picture without any kind of engineering purpose. But as I found, all efforts to combine CAD-design and CAD-engineering at the same time are very complex. In most cases even counterproductive. Its often better to have a good image to show what you are after and do the engineering later on based on that image. And as you have already modelled the image much of that modelling can and will be used against you... I have a video of Gehry folding cardboard and 3D scanning those actual models. The scanned data is then send to the contractor who "bim's" it to the rest of the workforce. So there should be nothing wrong modeling in Modo and later on send that data to engeneers for construction. I think its safe to say that nobody cares what designers use to design, even a pencil would do. Even in times of BIM.

To get back to the question of the best 3D modeler. I would say Sketchup for Archviz and Modo in case your design has organic shapes. If you get used to Studio you can build big models made in parts in SU and Modo. You just import the parts and assemble the complete picture in Studio. As far as BIM is concerned.... most now can read SU files and work with your models. I sometimes color my SU models blue and import dxf files from engineers in red to check for inconsistencies in 3D. If you need to further engineer your work I would suggest Vectorworks. Its about 3000 euros cheaper than Revit and more refined for engineering. Vectorworks is also working on its 3D qualities. Vectorworks acquired Parasolid 3D modeling kernel since its version 2009. Regretfully they are indeed rather stuck to C4D and so we might never see a Maxwell plugin for Vectorworks. Otherwise Vectorworks might be the best modeler for "maxwell" architects who are into BIM, engineering and design.
Francois.