Vray For 3ds Max 2012 32 Bit Free Download
Leana Eckes
Imagine having a job where placing spotlights and other directional lights is something you do alot - and then imagine you are designing a tradeshow stand with a rig and 50 spotligts attached to that rig. The spotlights are imported as blocks - which is good - but now you have to manually insert 50 vray ies spotligts. This is time consuming and the solution seems so simple yet it is not possible.
Having lights as an ordinary object i Rhino to work in blocks has been requested since 2014 and I can see that there is no development on this. What is the forecast of this feature being implemented in R8?
Yes, the main problem is that Rhino does not allow lights in blocks as a whole. V-Ray lights are simply Rhino lights + some extra data. The reason for that is to be able to see them in the viewport. Certain lights have 100% match - Rectangular, Point, Directional and Spot lights are exactly the same, so we use them directly. This is important in order to be able to visually modify their properties in the viewport - like cone angle, penumbra, etc. That also includes the intensity, color, attenuation (coming soon)
As @tay.othman said - there are number of ways to overcome the issue with the automation. It basically means some sort of scripting - Python, Basic, C# or Grasshopper (which is just very inefficient C#). You just need to link up your BIM data (lights locations) with a couple of lines of python code.
V-Ray will also benefit from having lights in blocks. We have a very efficient light instancing in the renderer, so having 1 block with 100 lights instanced 100 times will render fast and efficient. However Rhino does not have that feature
@Jacob_Thuesen @Nikolay
How about exporting the tradeshow lighting fixtures geometry along with the associated lights as a .vrayscene and then embedding the ,vrayscene into a block. I have tested the .vrayscene ability to save lighting information and it should work.
Hi gang, I have downloaded a room from sketchup warehouse I am going to mess around with. I have attached an image of before I put into Vray and after its in vray. When not in Vray the glass is transparent and when I try to do a render the glass is not transparent?
What eric-s said works perfectly. Thanks a lot. And easier than using the section cut, double click the model, then you can reverse all the faces and re-apply the texture again. That way all faces will have the texture.
I am working on a project for a client at work and cannot provide sample renders for that reason but I am getting some weird colored pixels in my renders when using the VRay Frame Buffer. If I was to render without it there would be no such artefacts. What can possibly be causing that?
I am really sorry but like I said I cannot provide renders. The pixels would occur in different places and it's a whole pattern of them. They are mostly concentrated around edges (of windows, walls, etc) and have different colors -blue, red, yellow.
At the bottom of Common tab,in "Assign Renderer", change Vray to scanline then switch back to vray.Now, don't change any vray settings (leave the settings default) & just press render and tell me if vray is rendering fine.Incase vray renders the image very dark,then use IR and light cache at their default settings.
If this doesn't work then, can you upload a .max file(deleting everything except a window or a wall) ?? I think it would be possible for you to upload a .max file(one object) rather then sharing fully rendered image.
Hi, I have a scene of an interior with a vray light and a vray camera, I have these settings for the light in attachment, and these settings for camera : also in attachment. I'm also adding my scene.
This is one problem, the other one is I'm trying to render this scene with the ceiling being shown as well. This is a bonus if someone can help me with that. I could use double sided for the light but it creates a shadow along the edges and i wonder how to deal with that.
Actually, there's a light in your scene but your camera's exposure is so low that you can't see the effect of the light(s). Simply turn off Exposure from your camera or fine tune it with ISO / Shutter Speed / F-Number values. If you are not into photographic terms in real life, just use ISO for this. Higher iso values will make more light get into the camera sensor, lower values will do the vice versa.
I occasionally work in FormZ and I can't help but notice that its renderings using Vray are superior to what I can get in Vectorworks 2023 (usually using Renderworks Interior Style Final). This is especially true with imported OBJ realistic human figures. These are complex meshes with complex mappings. In Vectorworks they look OK, but there are missing triangles and the maps are hyper-glossy in places. In FormZ/Vray, they look great as do the shadows and shadings. Plus, there are more controls available, etc. In short, it is a much more robust system. Even the lighting is easier to manipulate. This isn't saying the VW renderings aren't good, they are. Since implementing the Cinema4D rendering engine the quality is 100x better, but I get the feeling we are getting a watered-down version of the lights, cameras, and rendering engine found in C4D. Is that so? If it is true, can we expect a more robust version in the future?
Anyway, right now having everything in one application trumps everything else. I love keeping everything in one app. After all, Vray can go bad and having to resort to a third party is a pain, especially one as small as Chaos. I am encouraged that VW has come so far in its rendering capabilities, but can we expect this improvement to continue within the base application (in my case, Architect). I hope so! What are your plans?
I abandoned VW's realistic rendering a long time ago for this very reason. I love that it can create OpenGL renders, hidden line renders, anything but realistic style. Once I started rendering in C4D, and then C4D with Redshift, I never looked back and neither did my clients. Even if I liked the quality I was getting out of VW's realistic style renders, I couldn't deal with the amount of time it takes to produce a render.
I am always excited each time VW adds new capabilities to the rendering engines, because like you, I prefer to keep my work in one program. But for now, I need to render in another program, whether it's C4D or Twinmotion.
Their modelling capabilities are excellent, but they bring sculpting, motion graphics, etc. to the table. Having said this, you can start many of the processes that C4D has in VW's. For example. You could develop a Terrain model in VW's, send to C4D and sculpt out complex creeks.
Wholeheartedly agree, but realistically do you think it's a high priority considering how much attention they would need to give it? The standard for renders these days is unreal/unity or the renderers of vray/octane/arnold/redshift. So how do they compete with that?
Yes, rendering has come far, but still needs some work. For example, Redshift is a total bust. Not only is the quality bad and full of bugs, but it also takes just as long as the Renderworks Interior Final which I assume is true raytracing. I had great hopes for Redshift dashed. Same for the Twinmotion plug in. It's great if you are doing full buildings, but for interiors or anything up close: ugg. It is awful. The rendering quality is fine for animations, but dead in the water for stills. Plus, I don't really feel like redoing all my texture maps. Some translate, but some don't. I just use the walkthrough built into VW since the Shaded render HAS gotten better.
Hi grant_pd, that is a very fair question. I suppose I see it as a lost opportunity to up the quality and control of lights and rendering to where CD4 is. The software is already in-house; it's not re-inventing the wheel. I can't even control the falloff distance of lights in Vectorworks, something I was doing with Strata3D two decades or more ago. Stuff like that.
I would like to see some constancy of nomenclature throughout the 3D world. XY and Z and inconsistent between VWX and Vision, let alone other programs. Yaw, pitch and roll are used in other apps but not really throughout VWX.
I think shaders should provide an accurate preview for Renderworks, RedShift and other render types. It is closed to Renderworks, now, but only ,IMHO, a preview. I should only have to prepare a file once for different rendering engines and similar results.
I wouldn't compare a modeler like Blender to a CAD app like Vectorworks. Blender, like 3D StudioMax, is made for video and animations. In short, the screen image is the final product. Both are not useful for architectural work like I do, thought that does not stop these apps from dominating the industry. In my business (museum design, trade show booths, and other specialty interiors), the final product is produced in a wood or metal shop, not on a screen. I can't stand the lack of precision in apps like Blender, StudioMax and even FormZ (bless its little lost heart.) I think Rhino has great tools, but not really useful for me--overkill, really--since my products are produced from sheet stock (plywood) or stick-built from lumber and metal. Vectorworks is really the perfect solution for what I do and is why I've always used it. I just wish I had more control over some of the rendering tools, but, with the addition of Pixar's modeling tools, there really isn't much I can't model anymore. It is more an issue of not needing to and, therefore, I have not learned all the new tools. Yet.
@MGuilfoile I had high hopes for redshift when VW integrated it. But for whatever reason it just doesn't as expected. I've been a redshift user in C4D for a few years now, I couldn't see ever going back to a cpu based renderer. I totally agree with you about twinmotion. So perfect for creating exteriors! Not perfect for controlled lighting situations like the television work that I do. So like you, I need to produce high quality renders (for the clients) and high quality drafting (for the shops). It is a crutch to go to C4D as you say. @Kevin Allen here would be my starting list to woo me back to renderworks:
7fc3f7cf58