Drew this one up this morning. I'm pleased with the overall result. Internal renders were terrible though...with Advanced being jet black and Basic was washed out and far too bright...[sigh]...so much to learn. :'(
Comments, advice and suggestons always welcome.
Gaz
A night render, after making the roof shingles larger...the smaller ones repeated so often they looked like carpet!
Hi Garry,
Excellent work - looks really good!
Quote from: the cad man on July 08, 2012, 09:27:37 PM
Internal renders were terrible though...with Advanced being jet black and Basic was washed out and far too bright...[sigh]...so much to learn. :'(
Re internal Advanced render:
Presumably you inserted some lights but did you turn Daylight off? Basically lights go out if the sun is on, so if not a lot of light comes directly in though glass, the render may be black! :( The new version of Envisioneer, out shortly, has a new function for internal advanced rendering call Ambient Light. Hopefully TFP will inherit this in it's next version, as it has the potential to solve a lof of current rendering issues.
Quote from: the cad man on July 08, 2012, 11:03:41 PM
A night render, after making the roof shingles larger...the smaller ones repeated so often they looked like carpet!
I agree with you re the shingles! I did wonder about the stonework also - does it look a bit 'rough' if you know what I mean? Maybe changing the texture size will help. Did you try it with one of the 'Castle Stones'? They usually look great on that type of building.
By the way, how much 'cheating' did you do in TurboCAD? ;)
Allan
Good morning Allan,
Quote from: Allan Chesney on July 09, 2012, 03:46:29 AM
Presumably you inserted some lights but did you turn Daylight off? Basically lights go out if the sun is on, so if not a lot of light comes directly in though glass, the render may be black! :( The new version of Envisioneer, out shortly, has a new function for internal advanced rendering call Ambient Light. Hopefully TFP will inherit this in it's next version, as it has the potential to solve a lof of current rendering issues.
Okay, yes I left the sun on, and
no light came in through the windows because they aren't windows but shapes with stained glass textures dropped on them!
TurboCAD uses Ambient lighting, among many others, and it's a really useful light source. I look forward to those upgrades. TC also has the ability to change a light to any colour, and with any intensity which would be nice features to have in TFP.
Quote from: Allan Chesney on July 09, 2012, 03:46:29 AM
I agree with you re the shingles! I did wonder about the stonework also - does it look a bit 'rough' if you know what I mean? Maybe changing the texture size will help. Did you try it with one of the 'Castle Stones'? They usually look great on that type of building.
Actually, what I found is that the shingle pattern repeats to look like carpet only when I reduced the size of the picture to upload here, the original doesn't suffer from that annoying trait.
"changing the texture size"...okay that's my next lesson...is there a link to explain how to do that? All these things are simple once you know how...but finding the answer isn't so easy! When I typed "window sill" into the search engine to find your tutorial on making those all I found was my own questions on the forum! ::)
I didn't see the Castle stones, I'll try it out and see how it looks, thanks.
Quote from: Allan Chesney on July 09, 2012, 03:46:29 AM
By the way, how much 'cheating' did you do in TurboCAD? ;)
As mentioned above, the windows are solid objects made in TC as I still struggle with drawing objects in plan view that need to be vertical...how do I match the vertical window shape when drawing horizontally?
The belltower is entirely made in TC and the crosses on the top of the church roof.
One other question, (again if you have a link where you've already answered this would save you re-writing all this for slow old me!)...I can reduce the wall heights for the outhouse, which to my eye looks too tall, but the roof won't drop down or be moved down...and floats in the air... :-[
Sorry for the barrage of questions...
Gaz
Made some adjustments as suggested...increased the scale of the roof shingles, used one of the Castle stone images for the walls, also added a path to the outhouse and opened the door, added two more small Nana plants by the outhouse and changed the sun angle. I think the changes do improve the scene.
Gaz
Hi Garry,
Lots of questions as you said but most of the answers are simple - mostly just where to find things.
Quote from: the cad man on July 09, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
Okay, yes I left the sun on, and no light came in through the windows because they aren't windows but shapes with stained glass textures dropped on them!
See Windows / Custom for all different shapes. On Appearance tab select Glass. Click the 'glass' image and scroll down to Stained Glass and Double-click it. You would have to set it to partly Transparent (click Display at bottom of dialog) to get light through it but intenal lighting should illuminate them realistically anyway. Making it Emmissive would help too. See image.
Quote from: the cad man on July 09, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
TC also has the ability to change a light to any colour, and with any intensity which would be nice features to have in TFP.
So does TFP. Hundreds of bulb types to choose from, wattages and colours. That said I find it best to use one bulb in all fittings and adjust individual brightness (if necessary) by changing the 'colour' to different shades of grey or moving the light itself further away from the fitting (eg away from the wall for a wall fitting, or part way between the ceiling and floor for a ceiling fitting). Results are more consistent with the same bulb.
Quote from: the cad man on July 09, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
"changing the texture size"...okay that's my next lesson...is there a link to explain how to do that? All these things are simple once you know how...but finding the answer isn't so easy! When I typed "window sill" into the search engine to find your tutorial on making those all I found was my own questions on the forum! ::)
On the Appearance tab, when you select a surface you will see a Mapping button. There you can override the size of the texture (just in this model) and move it across the surface (eg to position stained glass in the centre of the arch) and also the angle of the texture.
Doubleclick the texture to change its shine, transparency etc but that is a Catalogue change and will affect the texture if used in future projects. This post has many of these things illustrated and many other things you may find useful: http://forums.turbofloorplan.com/index.php/topic,1227.0.html (http://forums.turbofloorplan.com/index.php/topic,1227.0.html).
The problem with the forum Search is to find the key words that people have used which vary from country to country and the TFP terms (eg Mapping to 'adjust' the texture).
Quote from: the cad man on July 09, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
As mentioned above, the windows are solid objects made in TC as I still struggle with drawing objects in plan view that need to be vertical...how do I match the vertical window shape when drawing horizontally?
Windows are very customisable in TFP (see Custom windows in the Catalogue) so it would be very rarely you would have to make one. The Gothic arch is the only one I have had to do. In that case it was just cut out of a rectangular piece of Floor and placed in a rectangular 'Opening" in the wall. See this post:http://forums.turbofloorplan.com/index.php/topic,763.msg5037.html#msg5037 (http://forums.turbofloorplan.com/index.php/topic,763.msg5037.html#msg5037)
Quote from: the cad man on July 09, 2012, 07:03:38 PM
...I can reduce the wall heights for the outhouse, which to my eye looks too tall, but the roof won't drop down or be moved down...and floats in the air... :-[
Generally other buildings in the same project should be on a different Building Location, where any different wall height would be set and hence where the roof would sit. The roof is placed at the Wall Heights setting in Building Locations, regardless of how high you make the wall under it. You could set up an Outhouse location and right click Duplicate to locations but you would have to insert the roof again for it to pick up the new settings. Simplest thing now may be to select the Outhouse roof and change the Support Height on the Support and Details tab.
Hope some of that helps.
Allan
Fabulous, thanks Allan, a wealth of information for me to digest! I only saw the two bulb options (100W and 75W), but knowing that I can change light colours and intensities multiplies how creative I can be...too cool!
I'll see if I can redo the outhouse with new wall sizes...that giant dunny has been bugging me!
It'll take me a while to try out all these "new" (for me) skills, thanks again for your patience.
Gaz
I was about to make a suggestion about the night scene; that the moon looked oval not round and the background image seemed to be broken or stretched or something with a line thru and texture changed.
Then I saw the last picture and maybe the two are related?
In last picture, everything is seemingly tipping over falling in to the scene; most likely caused by a wide angle of view setting for the camera close to the scene. If that was the intent to simulate a ultra-wide angle 35mm camera view then OK....but an architectural photographer usually tries to eliminate that effect (there are special lenses)....but in TFP if you use a narrower view and move the camera farther away from the scene, it will render without the stuff all falling over looking. Or you can use Photoshop to correct lens distortion or perspective distortions.
Hi Garry,
Obviously you posted at the same time as me:
Quote from: the cad man on July 09, 2012, 09:08:36 PM
Made some adjustments as suggested...increased the scale of the roof shingles, used one of the Castle stone images for the walls, also added a path to the outhouse and opened the door, added two more small Nana plants by the outhouse and changed the sun angle. I think the changes do improve the scene.
Yes I agree, the chages do improve it. Looks great!
I notice you have a double fence in the foreground - was that intentional?
I think, as Doug has also just suggested, that moving the camera further back, using a narrower View Angle and raising the camera to eye level would probably look better. I nearly always render with Camera Height and Target Height at eye level and the View Angle as 50-60 degrees which again is normal eyesight. With these settings things look more real. Not always achievable inside however, without removing walls or making them transparent to get the camera further back and then introducing all sorts of rendering issues, so wider angle is needed at times inside. Sometimes a good effect is achieved with odd angles outside too as in your image and it is quite typical to see photos of tall buildings such as this with a wide angle view so I assumed that was your intention.
Re the lighting: Be cautious using many different light bulbs. I have found that one can affect the other and you do not get what you expected. To get all lights to show you need Advanced render at Quality 5 or it does not complete the full process and some lights can get missed. Test with a small image (I usually use Current View Size and expand it on later renders) and use level 3 but do the finals at 5. It will be great when (if) we get Ambient Lighting in the next release. (Looks like a new Sky Dome may be coming too, so we should get reflections of the sky in water and windows - again if it flows on from Envisioneer)
Allan
Quote from: Doug.S on July 09, 2012, 09:43:35 PM
I was about to make a suggestion about the night scene; that the moon looked oval not round and the background image seemed to be broken or stretched or something with a line thru and texture changed.
Then I saw the last picture and maybe the two are related?
In last picture, everything is seemingly tipping over falling in to the scene; most likely caused by a wide angle of view setting for the camera close to the scene. If that was the intent to simulate a ultra-wide angle 35mm camera view then OK....but an architectural photographer usually tries to eliminate that effect (there are special lenses)....but in TFP if you use a narrower view and move the camera farther away from the scene, it will render without the stuff all falling over looking. Or you can use Photoshop to correct lens distortion or perspective distortions.
Hi Doug,
The distortion of the moon may be due to the fact that I use a VERY large wide-angled screen and the proportions distort the background image. As to the perspective, I have rendered the picture with a "normal" (20 degree) angle as well as the wide (60), and personally (personal taste) I preferred the distortion of the wide angle which over-emphasizes the height of the bell tower, so you were right when you suggested that I may have done it deliberately. I may post another 20 degree render a bit later after I finish playing with all these "new" settings. But thanks for your observations.
Gaz
Quote from: Allan Chesney on July 09, 2012, 10:06:44 PM
I notice you have a double fence in the foreground - was that intentional?
Not particularly, I just chose one that I thought would be appropriate for a little stone country church...I might try a different one.
Gaz
Got the outhouse to better proportions by following one of Allan's suggestions and duplicating it to the second floor, changing the wall height in the settings and elevating it down. I added a privacy wall at the front and moved the gravel path around it. Added a gutter to the church. Bit by bit it's improving...what next?...viewing angle and fence... whew!
Gaz
20 degree viewing angle...looks more like what the eye would see, but personally I think it's less interresting and from this angle I can't see the paths et cetera.
Changed the privacy fence to a single picket fence...I do like it better as I can see some detail through it. What do you guys think of the changes?
Gaz
Hi Garry,
It is a hard building to get it all into the picture. I think 20 Degrees is too narrow as it tends to make the part of the model further from the camera proportionately larger than the front and this is starting to happen a little - notice how the roof pitch is almost horizontal whereas it should slope down towards the rear moree as on your earlier view. However to get it all in at 50 degrees would be hard due to the height/width ratio (unless you do the whole street of course! ;) ). I must admit the previous angle gives it more character. Maybe somewhere between the two is the best, with the Target Height slightly raised to get the steeple in.
I would like to see a view in the grounds, for example, through the front gate looking towards the steeple (if it can be seen from there), or further around the corner, so the shapes and shadows of the buttresses and lower arches of the steeple can be appreciated. These would be eye level of course. Potentailly they could be very effective.
Allan
A view from the front gate at 45 degrees...
That looks good! Only problem now is that it looks as though there should be an arched doorway - what do you think? Then a view from inside the fence, so you see the door and base of the steeple.
Probably a background image too would improve it too, so that the sky does not go down right to the fence and a few headstones in the background!
Then you will need some bells chiming from the steeple!! ;D
Actually that can be done too - using the movie option. Be prepared for some long render times if you try that one though!!
Allan
Are there nice arched doorways in the catalogues?
..wait...MOVIE??? Were do I get started on that?
As for the backgrounds, I am unable to access the folder with the backgrounds in order to see the sizes and proportions that I'd need to match with my own photos, otherwise I'd be using much more appropriate background photos.
Too much Allan...slow down...I'm only one man! ;D
Gaz
I added my own (TC) doors...I think you're right Allan..the arched doorway looks a lot better, what do you think? Hey, that makes 100 posts...Full member!! ;D
Gaz
Yes - arched door is much better! :)
Re Arched Doorways: Any door can be easily arched. Select from the Shape dropdown on the Basic tab - much easier than making and importing and easy to have the door partly open for effect. You may want to source a nice shaped door image though as the arch just crops the image, or use wood panelling.
Movie: Turn on the Animation toolbar - it is probably off, or go to Tools / Animation.
Backgrounds: Size does not matter really, (except for load time) but square is best with the horizon slightly above centre. Anything below centre will be under the Terrain, so can be any colour but usually just the normal foreground of the photo. See http://forums.turbofloorplan.com/index.php/topic,2256.msg10171.html#msg10171 (http://forums.turbofloorplan.com/index.php/topic,2256.msg10171.html#msg10171).
Quote from: the cad man on July 10, 2012, 02:14:05 AM
Too much Allan...slow down...I'm only one man!
Why do you think I mentioned movies - that was to slow
YOU down. ;D ;)
Congratulation on the promotion!!!
Allan
Thanks Al,
I'm finding TFP to be very versatile, but learning how to create the different effects is a very steep learning curve. Being made by IMSI I expected it to be almost identical to the tools in TC which I'm comfortable using, but unfortunately it's quite different. Never mind, new day, new challenges...
Gaz
Okay Allan,
Here's my challenge for today...I've been experimenting with roofing, I'd like to draw the typical Aussie station house like the one below, but I'm struggling with combining a Dutch gable, a two step roof and a bullnose verandah into the one roof. Is it possible in TFP?
Gaz
Forgot to thank you Allan for the mini-tutorials, I've now got a pretty good grasp on reshaping doors within TFP so I don't have to make them externally...I love how we can open the doors to whatever angle we like...I assume we can do the same for windows. Cool!
Gaz
Hi Garry,
Quote from: the cad man on July 10, 2012, 07:25:25 PM
Is it possible in TFP?
Everything is possible in TFP!!! ;D (well almost!!) ;)
Have been very busy the last few days and it is nearly 2am so I will answer your roof questions tomorrow (ie later today!) maybe in the other post on the subject - looks like you are getting there anyway.
Windows are not openable like doors but if you really want one open, you can just resize a door and elevate it, adjust the frame size glass etc. as in the example below. You need to have the wall's door sill turned on though, to provide the bottom frame.
Allan
Quote from: Allan Chesney on July 11, 2012, 12:51:45 PM
Everything is possible in TFP!!! ;D (well almost!!) ;)
Windows are not openable like doors but if you really want one open, you can just resize a door and elevate it, adjust the frame size glass etc. as in the example below. You need to have the wall's door sill turned on though, to provide the bottom frame.
Of course! A neat cheat! I wouldn't have thought of that.
Gaz
Hi Garry,
I missed commenting on this one:
Quote from: the cad man on July 10, 2012, 06:22:56 PM
Being made by IMSI I expected it to be almost identical to the tools in TC which I'm comfortable using, but unfortunately it's quite different.
The original FloorPlan 3D (up to version 11) was made by IMSI and was usually bundled with TurboCAD. Sadly the technology on which it was based, reached a development plateau and adding additional functionality became too difficult. So ... from V12 on, it was replaced by TurboFloorPlan that is produced for IMSI by CadSoft, who produce Envisioneer. TFP is the 3D part of Envisioneer, but the latter has complex 2D plan drawing capabilities taken from the 3D model. This explains the differences between the two programs.
Bear in mind too that TFP is always automatically drawing in 3D, not converting 2D into 3D. For this reason alone it has to be different. You can actually draw your model directly from the 3D view but it is hard to get the sizes and positons etc correct. You can also open a second window and as you draw in 2D you can see it in 3D - this is ideal if you have dual monitors. For architectural drawing it is infinitely quicker than TurboCAD, which is why many do the model in TFP and do the construction plans from TurboCAD. Exports from TFP can be edited etc in TurboCAD - See Jacks training video's if you need to do that (http://3dhousedesigns.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32&Itemid=27
(http://3dhousedesigns.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=32&Itemid=27)).
However, as you said, the way of doing things in the two programs is certainly different. I can understand TFP as it is so simple (think objects, not lines) but with TurboCAD I have no idea where to start. ::)
Allan
Quote from: Allan Chesney on July 12, 2012, 03:24:23 AM
I can understand TFP as it is so simple (think objects, not lines) but with TurboCAD I have no idea where to start. ::)
Allan
Allan, here is my conceptual thinking about TCAD or similar:
- Think of constructing nearly everything unless you can find a pre-built model to insert or program has default starter objects/shapes
- CAD programs are basically lines in 3D space that can be extruded/pulled/dragged into the third dimension to generate surfaces...think of dragging a circle to make a cylinder or dragging a rectangle to make a box shape
- complex 3D curved surfaces possible
- Boolean tools available; usually work well but sometimes cause problems in models
- you "assemble" basic geometric shapes to make an object
- arrange objects in 3D space to create a large object (house) or a scene (a house with a fence, sidewalk, etc.)
- You can have and mix 2D and 3D in one or many views or to print
- CAD comes with easy to use dimensioning
- CAD usually has texturing and rendering and can make animations
- CAD has easy ability to radius or chamfer edges or corners or blend odd shapes together
If you have tried SketchUp it is similar; tho not really a typical CAD system; it is specialized for architecture and has a unique tool set.
With detail at the minuscule level you can do/create just about anything but it is less about drag'n'drop predefined complete objects; more of grow your own.
Others may agree/disagree or have different opinions and rightly so as it depends on the program and what you are trying to create; what the final end product and purpose. For example most CAD programs can output for manufacturing; nearly direct drive (or output a specific file type) to run machines to build/cut/bend/trim/etc. the 3D object from real materials.
So you start from what you want to create, draw lines, make shapes, assemble shapes, render views, make dimensioned drawings, output to printers/machines. It is more flexible and basic rather than prefab.
Want a door in CAD; draw all the pieces/assemble (group); put into scene (and save it for another future use)
If you think of CAD in same way you create objects in TFP by extruding floor shapes or assembling bits and pieces into a chandelier....you are on your way....only need to learn which CAD tools do what....or are similar to TFP tools. There are many more tool choices in CAD to provide a huge variety of capabilities to generate any shape you can imagine....so it may seem like a big task. But think of the first time you tried TFP; you start simple and learn new tools as you need them.
And there are usually some help files or tuts too.
It really becomes a question of need. If you want to do/design/create something and your current tool set is insufficient, then maybe you need/want to expand into CAD. Most 3D/2D programs now can exchange data/shapes/objects so they work together most of the time but there are proprietary file formats.
Hi Doug,
I understand the concepts of CAD and have had CAD programs since I first had a computer. My problem with typical, all encompassing CAD programs, is that my mind works in pictures - useless at maths, hate reading but can draw or paint anything I can visualise. Computer programming was part of my work, but I only really pursued that because I liked to make animated graphical interfaces.
I think this visual mind is why TFP was so easy for me. Icons were a picture of a wall, door, window etc, in Properties the object was visual and changed as dimensions changed, so my mind absorbed it instantly. No guessing at what booleens were, what extruding would do, it was a window or a door or whatever but totally customisable.
No question either about anything else I wanted to make that is not already there. Just think 'what does it look like'. Essentially it looks like 'a cylinder on top of a cube', so that is what I do, put a cylinder on top of a box and adjust the sizes a needed. Of course I could open TurboCAD, draw a square, extrude it, draw a circle and extrude that, arrange them and then export them and import into TFP, but I can't see any point when I can do it very visually in TFP.
Obviously it wont do everything, notably three way curves, although I have done that too using the Terrain.
So I see my visual mind is part of the problem I have with the usual CAD programs. They usually have rows of colourless icons and I have no time to learn what they all do. The latter is the biggest problem - time. TFP is so quick for the things I need to do, so I consequently have no interest in trying to learn some other way.
Maybe one day I will have the time and inclination! ::)
Allan
I deleted the TC windows and tried making some within TFP, so here are the latest updates of the little country church...I think the windows do look better. The moon in the night shot is a 3x3 metre Targa image dropped in as a billboard elevated 16 metres up in the sky from a photo I took of the moon a few nights ago.
Something interesting in comparing the day/night scene renders...
What I see in the night image is repeating patterns in the stone walls; but not in the daylight render. Wondering why? tho they are different views
And a curiosity...in daylight view, the tops of the short walls that help support the main walls, have roof shingles on their top surfaces? I would have thought they would be all stone surfaces.....but I am not an expert and could be very wrong? But they look odd to me.
And in the daylight scene I can see thru the tree, but at night it looks like it is all full leaves; not seeing black sky? Again a different view so I may be wrong?
Hi Doug,
In the night sceneI used a much broader angle of view, 20 degrees, so the pattern is much more noticable. The pattern reapeats the same in the day shot but because I used a 40 degree viewing angle I could be much closer to the scene and the pattern isn't so obvious.
Yes you are correct in that there are roof shingles on the angled faces of the buttresses, it keeps the rain from entering and damaging the stonework and is common on (usually larger) stone churches, and on the one I was using as inspiration for this drawing.
I think you're right about the tree...Im not happy with the night shot of this build and when I get a chance I'll make some changes to see if it'llcome out a bit better.
Thanks for your observations.
Gaz
Hi Garry and Doug,
The pattern repeat on the stone is the same - you can notice two ligher patches above the front entry doors and the same two light areas are visible on both views. The angle of the night view just shows a lot more of the texture so the pattern repeat is more obvious. As you said Garry, stone buttresses commonly have tiles, slate or whatever roof material on them. This feature is seen on nearly every church in England - especially the older ones.
Re the tree - is this a Targa image? I have noticed this effect with Targa images previously. The 'haze' around the leaves is visible in daylight too, if you get up real close (see image below). It obviously shows up much worse against a dark background - even the outline of the rectangle of the photoboard is visible, as it is on the moon. Was the moon Targa also? If it was, it would be interesting to see if you could see this rectangle if it was saved as a Magenta BMP photoboard. I have not noticed it before, with BMP images in night scenes.
Allan
Allan,
Now that you point it out I can see the square around the moon and rectangle around the tree, and yes they are both Targa images. I'm just rendering a closer night viewas I write to see how it looks and will post it shortly. Later in the day I might try them as BMPs and see how they look...there certainly is a dramatic difference in quality in your samples.
Gaz
Just completed the render. As you and Doug correctly noted Allan, the Gum tree is very fuzzy over dark backgrounds like the night sky but less so over the brighter roof tiles. The edges of the Targa images were quite noticable (not so noticable in this render). And I notice the DRAMATIC misalignment of the shadow to the tree from this angle...my brief love affair with Targa images may be coming to an abrupt end :'( Back to magenta BMPs. :(
Gaz
Hi Garry,
The tree and moon look much better. I assume you have redone the moon as the square is not detectable now.
I suspect these issues with Targa images is why they have never been promoted previously.
Re the shadow alignment. This is agrivated if the trunk is not in the centre of the image, which yours does not appear to be. I notice that it is also badly misaligned in the daylight image you posted earlier (TGA presumably). Sometimes the sun angle and switching the image from Billboard to Stationary (or the reverse) can help. So can putting a low shrub in front of the tree trunk!!! ;)
Allan
the cad man :
Nice church. Has that 'small town' feel to it. Which is a plus.
garystan