All posts related to V2
hatts wrote:joaomourao, trying to stay compliant with BIM working standards, while using Maxwell for visualization, is causing 100% of your struggles.

Just make two files; one with the part numbers, drawings, building materials, etc.; and a 2nd file just used for rendering. Why cause yourself all this pain just so you can build and render from the same file?
Very, very bad idea. I don't know which software you use but when your main job is architecture design and you use such advanced software as ArchiCAD there is no need for making two files.
One file means every change made in your model is updated in all drawings, quantities, 3d model (rendering too) etc. etc.
Next Limit understand this workflow very well designing ArchiCAD plugin.
Almost everything now could be made inside one file, in my last projects I only add some additional layers for emitters and objects which are visible in renderings only (people trees etc).
I understand Joaomourao wish, If it would be technically possible, AGS mixed with Emitter parameters save my time which I spend for adding additional planes in windows.
tom wrote:Sorry why don't you simply use 2 planes next to each other? Making an emitter invisible is not hard at all. Just check Hidden from camera option for the emitter geometry. Then you could place an AGS plane in front of this without problems. Makes sense?
Well Tom, that is what I and other BIM users are doing... But that is not something we are fond of doing. Using Revit or ArchiCAD (BIM tools) with Maxwell is great because we can remain architects all the way and like Rafal wrote, Next Limit is thinking on that. Rendering is for us a small fraction of the work we do with software and we work on a continuous building lifecyle, meaning that after getting the renderings done we continue to work on those files. With BIM everything is centralized and normally we just have one file with loads of information and from there we get every document and drawing. We avoid dead ends if you know what I mean... :)
Tom, we could do that if we were just rendering and then that file would be archived. If where you live (apartment or house) would have been done the BIM way, there would be a file for it, and if you wanted to remodel, demolish, or any other bulding lifecyle task it would be very simple. In that file you have all the hidden stuff from buildings, like mechanical/electrical/plumbing (MEP) and so many other things... Sorry hatts, working sideways into a dead end is not an option, at least for me and I must say that working with Maxwell for visualization is totally hassle-free, we just need a fews improvements here and there :)
Did you know that we can use the settings (from Maxwell via plugin) we have edited in materials and lighning to get some reliable info for contruction? So when I am tweaking with lights and materials I am working towards so many other things other then rendering! This is truly the power of BIM + Maxwell!

So... is it possible to have an emitter feature that could hide it inside the material? Well it seems simple (having light and not seeing it) and would be great to have it :)
Just a video about BIM for those interested... :)

I like to say one more thing — Maxwell Render is so far best integrated solution for rendering in ArchiCAD.
Rather then duplicating files I would rather choose an option to export to Maxwell Studio and add some stuff there.
I understand the desire for integration, but in a world where hard drive space is practically limitless, I don't see the virtue in trying to keep everything so delicately enclosed in a single file.

When you've got a building how you want it, just save a second copy and work in that file for rendering. If you decide on further changes, go back to the first copy and then save out a second copy again.
Rafal SLEK wrote: Rather then duplicating files I would rather choose an option to export to Maxwell Studio and add some stuff there.
What is the difference in having a second ArchiCAD file vs. having an exported MXS? Both methods simply use the concept of a redundant file. A purpose-built duplicate copy.

Anyway everyone's got their preferred workflow I suppose.
seghier wrote:glass in archicad have thikness .if the developpers of archicad add option to explode glass or create new with two planes with different materials
can you create your own window with modified glass ?
Yes, you are right — glass in AC standard window library has thickness. That’s why my emitter planes in windows has no thickness, I create them with ArchiCAD Morph tool
(simple face only).
Creating own window is my idea for next projects, I'll prepare then glass element with AGS and simple plane for emitter.
hatts wrote: Anyway everyone's got their preferred workflow I suppose.
I guess that is important for everyone, and BIM users will want the most integrated workflow as possible! Wouldn't you?
What if you had to model your scene in one software, texture it in a different one and light it up in another one? Maybe for you, hatts, this is the way to go, but as for me I can do all this in one file with one software ;)
I will not change this optimized workflow because of an issue within material settings...
Rafal, you do it (single plane with morph) just like me but I do not think it is doable to have your own windows/doors! Cannot imagine to do it to all the structurally different windows/doors out there.
Well, this has to be something impossible, this emitter with visibility feature, because everyone is going for an alternative in order to do it :(
...or it seems there are few people doing interior scenes with skylight...
Hatts believe me - it is not "desire" or "trying" to keep everything in one place, it is very common workflow :-) Never think about BIM model as disc space saver...
One file = everything is under control. Two or more files = problems. Coordination problems... And many more problems...
But this discussion is off-topic. I could live without AGS+Emitter material but if it would be possible in some cases it will be nice to use it.
Example (over 300 emitter planes in window):

Rafal SLEK wrote:.
One file = everything is under control. Two or more files = problems. Coordination problems... And many more problems...
While I'm not in your industry I also tend to work with just one Master file.
However - I need a lot of imported content which can't be efficiently done inside Nurbs applications. Whenever I need more control
about texture distribution than standard projectors can deliver (= often) I unwrap in external apps and re-import or I bring stuff in
which was created from scratch in Subdivision Surfaces. How do you BIM guys deal with such issues?
Are imported and therefore non-parametric objects considered bad per se? Would you always avoid them, even at the expense that
one simply can't properly or at all use certain advanced rendering methods on your native geometry? Just out of curiosity...
Polyxo, I try to avoid models that are not parametric, but sometimes when I have to render a particular scene I import some 3ds files with textures already applied wich makes it really easy. Stuff live evermotion's archmodels etc, are effortless to use and normally they go to a layer that is always hidden except for rendering :)
BIM tools like ArchiCAD and Revit are growing in terms of modeling and texturing options. Though they are less powerfull than the ones in 3ds Max with unwrapping modifier etc, they can do most of the jobs...
But I must say that when working in furniture design I use 3ds Max or similar. Architecture/contruction jobs always with a BIM tool! ;)
there exist solution for ags emitter material
for example we apply this material to single object . the material have option : hidden emitter
when we render maxwell automaticly duplicate the object and apply hidden emitter to the clone object
i think maxwell team can do that
joaomourao wrote: But I must say that when working in furniture design I use 3ds Max or similar. Architecture/contruction jobs always with a BIM tool! ;)
Some would arque that it was completely crazy to approach modelling a piece of furniture without a parametric model as well ;-)

I find: for work on consumer goods the poor texture support in all Nurbs apps I have ever seen completely defeats the usefulness
of all inbuilt intelligence, if parametric or not - at least for users who render. As soon as there's the need to export a mesh from
the actual work model in order to achieve a certain texture distribution the link to the actual work-model is broken. As soon as the
work model evolves further one had to repeat the texturing limbo. Seems not so much to be an issue for what you do - stuff is farther
away generally your meshes are purchased content of third-rate importance. Thanks!
Actually I started this post because of interior renderings and the uneasy way to get a room lighted. When designing furniture I must say it is so much easier and it is all on our creativity and materials...
But with buildings we have so much to manage :(
Let's not confuse two completely different jobs... interior design and product design :)
Seghier, when working with buildings I don't use 3ds Max, only my authoring tool, ArchiCAD and sometimes Revit because of client needs the rvt file (Revit has a direct link with 3ds Max)

Hi! I have looked for the answer to this but so fa[…]

Settings do not stick

Quick update - if you save the viewport again (in […]

I don't understand why it is so difficult to have[…]

Backplate rendering - reflections

Ok, thanks, so Arnold can do https://answers.arnol[…]