Unreal or Unity? Rhino or Maya? Twinmotion or Lumion? Rift or

>>544371
depends on what you wanna do

>>544372
I personally wanna do Archviz

what about blender?

>>544378
Never came across it desu
Only ever hear about it here

What's so good about it?

>>544379
its nothing special it's a pretty easy to learn software. I've been using it for 3 days so far. It's 100% free and wow there's nothing you really can't do with it!

>>544381
I'll give it a try
Would be cool to have kind of a cookie cutter software

>>544371
Just got to be open to all. Focus on core skills and techniques as opposed to software. I'll make 3D a lot easier.

>>544382
glad to hear that. it's really a great program! get those hot keys down as soon as possible, it will take a load off your mind when your modeling.

>>544384
Good advise
I feel like simply knowing all the terms is half the battle.

>>544385
Well I'm used to modeling architecture in rhino. No Hadid stuff, but I get by. So not a total noob at 3D. I really like rhinos command bar to type in commands instead of memorising a bunch of shortcuts that will be different for every program. But I will try blender nonetheless, I'm very intrigued by it being free and open source.

I'm still in uni doing my masters, maybe I will start using a different 3d software for every new project I'm doing.

>>544377
Then I believe 3ds max + vray are industry standard.

>>544393
Vray seemed comparably slow desu
Max looked like any other software

I see no real reason to use vray when UE4 exists and is free

>>544449
Max and architecture go hand in hand. A lot of people in the industry still stick to a Max workflow.
Don't dismiss it on a pure glimpse on the UI.
UE4 is powerful, but it can't do everything. Its always good to know more than one render engine/ offline renderer. You can't do wrong by learning V-ray / Redshift / Octane / Arnold.

>>544371
Unity if you are a pleb
Rhino if you are retarded
Twinmotion if cant be bothered
Rift if you like to regret things

>>544371
I do archviz with rhino and vray. saved me a lot of time.

>>544378

I have a food processor, works for me desu.

File: 10152700455_fa775fd4c4_o.jpg (3MB, 2400x1600px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 2400x1600px

>>544449
>I see no real reason to use vray when UE4 exists and is free
Jesus christ I see this shit posted all the time but aside from that Paris apartment, nothing in UE4 has impressed me, and even then, that apartment has its flaws.
If you think you can deliver high end and photorealistic stills for a client with UE4, you're wrong.
Pic related - quality UE4 cannot compete with.
With that said, if you want realtime UE4 is great. But saying there's no reason to use Vray is just stupid.

File: filip-robbie-highresscreenshot000262.jpg (747KB, 1920x1154px) Image search: [Google]

747KB, 1920x1154px

>>546088
Here's a pretty good image from quick UE4 archviz google search. Do you see how bad the lighting is compared to the previous example? Of course a more skilled artist can give you a better result, but UE4 has its limitations. Just look at the shadow definition, the reflections etc. It looks like a game, which, depending on your client's need, can be fine, but it's not photo realistic.

>>546090
they both look terrible. Notice how neither has any living thing in them, its a dead giveaway that they're hiding something, ,same with all the bloom and CA

>>546092
I feel like the first render being better, both renders are fine. But they sorta depict the 'perfect home' where everything is in order and nothing is dirty. We don't find it familiar because none of us live in an environment like that.

>>546093
they're another in a long line of "throw every bad camera trick" in there to make it look "reel". Show me some living, moving humans and stop it already. Even the most expensive humans in the new star wars looks fake. Nobody is buying this archviz crapola

File: 3472349033_0516282c9e_o.jpg (579KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

579KB, 1200x800px

>>546092
Yeah just throwing in the bloom and CA argument really adds to a discussion about render engines, does it? Also, Vray can handle vegetation and plants in archviz well.

>>546094
>>546093
Clients buy this "archviz crapola". What you're talking about has nothing to do with the discussion.
You've never seen architectural photography, have you? Of course they're depicting "perfect homes", it's the entire point of archviz.

>>546095
looks like paper

>>546097
I'm sure a better artist (such as yourself perhaps?) could make the grass look more realistic. The point is that Vray is a better render engine than UE4 for high quality stills approaching photo realism in the archviz field. UE4 is certainly powerful and definitely has its uses too, though.

>>546100
it looks like fucking paper dude, i dont know why you're sugar coating it. Ive seen grass up close irl

>>546102
Yes, and as I said, a better artist could do better grass. Wether or not you think it looks like paper doesn't make Vray a worse render engine in this particular scenario than UE4. Especially since Vray has good SSS, the two sided material shader, good fur integration, can handle dense meshes and can handle instancing and scattering. But please show me how UE4 is better for high end still images. I'd be happy to switch to a faster engine.

>>545212
This

>>546096
If you guys want "lived in" go do fine art. You hippies. This guy is 100% right. When you do arch vis you want to sell a neutral perfect product. You wouldn't go to a supermarket and look for bruised fruit to buy, would you?

>>546120
theres a difference between asking for grass and recieving a picture of grass or a picture of astroturf

Unreal
Maya
?
Rift

Working with them all for significant periods of time in professional settings

>>544371
I'm liking unreal so far. I feel comfortable with the layout and blueprints>>546103

>>546088
OP here

What if I don't want stills? What if I want realtime presentations of my designs, animated sections or floor plans? What if I want my client to be able to actually experience the whole thing rather than a still?

We're building everything in 3D these days anyway. Might as well throw some environment and people in there and let the client walk around the project in VR, then render some short films and round it up with a bunch of Screenshots that will not compete with vray stills, but look good enough to the layman either way.


I will say that I think most people using UE4 for Archviz use it wrong tho. Imo it's not well suited to achieve photorealistic interior stills, which is what most people seem to be doing. It should be used to build the whole project, populate it and make it come to life and then throw the client in and let them experience what they're paying for.

>>546183
Also, imo >>546090
and >>546088
are NOT Archviz. The first one especially just looks like an add for a couch. It's called Archviz for a reason, yet almost everyone is just doing close ups of furniture in very generic looking rooms.

File: TribecaFinal2.jpg (314KB, 900x1200px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 900x1200px

>>546184
Can't speak of the second one as it's just some image from artstation, but the first one definitely is archviz. It's part of a set, and not all images are wide angle pictures of houses from a afar.
Here's the rest of the set:
http://bertrand-benoit.com/blog/no-so-secret-project/
Archviz is often utilized to give a feeling of living or walking around in the house, so closeups are of importance. Clients ask for them. What some guy on 4chan believes is archviz doesn't carry any weight to what the archviz field actually is like.

>>546183
Yeah but that's my entire point. I'm saying UE4 is not for stills and dismissing Vray is stupid. If you want realtime, go for UE4. That's it.

>>546183
Sorry for spamming inchorently but I just realized I didn't address this:
>then render some short films and round it up with a bunch of Screenshots that will not compete with vray stills, but look good enough to the layman either way.
What looks good enough to the layman doesn't matter. You need to make it look good enough for your clients and if they're good, they may not be satisfied with that.

>>546199
Clients often are layman tho.
But I guess it depends on the client.

A real estate company looking to sell apartments will want higher quality stills or sets that look very realistic, because they are looking to sell a finished product. An architecture firm or a client looking to build a mall will want realtime and to experience how the project will feel and function so they can make changes.


I do see a trend to make an awful lot of furniture close ups tho, and that is definitely not Archviz. That doesn't judge the quality of the rendering itself, but realestateviz would seem to be a more fitting name.

As someone who does archviz for a living, I've never had a client complain about "realism" once. They don't look at this stuff the same way we do and analyze every reflection, every shadow and so on. They give it a quick glance and if it doesn't look artificial but like a believable image it's usually fine. They will look at the actual CONTENT of the image.

The kind of stuff I usually get when they want to make changes is "make the floorboards dark oak and 30% larger like in this catalogue" or "we don't like the lamp on the left" or "can we put a pattern on the curtains" or some picky shit about door handles.

The actual content of the image is more important than technical details if you want to sell a product. That's what idiots on /3/ don't understand. No client gives a shit what software or renderer you use, how high your samples are or what GI mode you're using. They want an image that represents their product tailored toward their target audience. Understanding your client and their customers and actually having a good intuition for design is much more important than the tools.

Use whatever you're comfortable with and whatever gets you to your desired results the fastest. If it's fucking MSpaint then go use that, nobody gives a fuck. Unless you want to be employed at a company, then you gotta use whatever bullshit they've based their workflow on 15 years ago and be stuck with it forever. Thank god I'm freelance.

>>546223
>They give it a quick glance and if it doesn't look artificial but like a believable image it's usually fine. They will look at the actual CONTENT of the image.
stop shitposting and get a real respectible job pls

>>546225
It should be obvious that they'll notice if it looks like utter shit. I'm assuming a pretty high technical level as a baseline here.

>>546088
This is fine for example, from a technical standpoint. You might be asked to remove the CA if they notice.

>>546090
Even this you might get away with except for the shitty antialiasing. The interior design is a different story

>>546213
Well the furniture closeups are not for mall style stuff. I've had clients ask for closeups and such. It's not weird and it falls into the archviz category - even if it's not true enough to your standards. I agree the architecture might not be in focus, but in the industry it's all the same.

>>546227
>>546223
Well yeah, it all depends on the client. That's why I talked about nearing photo realism earlier. Some clients demand your images to look enough like photos to fool them, some don't. When they do, UE4 won't cut it. If you can get by with the quality UE4 gives you, go ahead and use it. Whatever makes the client happy in the shortest amount of time is the best way to go.