PW 2 any better?

[Torge]

I can’t get a straight answer from my VAR about PW2. We all know PW1 sucked. Is version 2 much better? I’m about to spend a couple grand to update this seat of SWX (currently 03 still, haven’t upgraded due to economic trends)

I’ve been using SWX since conception (’94..WoW!), and have no issues with the current modeler per say…. My main goal here is to get better renderings from PW2. Either that or pressure another rendering title that wont take a full year to be productive.

 

[Theophilus]

Yes, definitely. However, I've found some things I thought were bugs in applying materials/decals to faces that were not convenient (some of these issues are bugs--some are just different).

The new rendering engine that allows indirect lighting will allow photorealism if you want to take the time to set up the scene for that. I have a couple of basic renderings I can send you if you get my email address from the site in my sig (contact page).

Also, check out Brian Hill's work:

http://www.bxhdesigns.com/

Jeff Mowry
Industrial Designhaus, LLC

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

 

[rockguy]

Torge,
Couple different answers to your question.

As far as the quality of the rendering and image output YES PW2 is much better than PW1. You will achieve better rendering with it.

PW2 is however more buggy than PW1. The interface for both is basically the same. All the old stuff is there and there are some new things added. The material, scene and decal editors all function the same as PW1.

Rumor is PW 2005 will have even more features and be more stable. That would ship with SW 2005 sometime this summer or fall. I personally would say it's worth the upgrade, especially if the next upgrade does what is rumored.

 

[Theophilus]

'Tis buggy, as is. But you gotta love the new engine.

Besides, after you get the hang of the new way of doing things, you can generally work around the bugs--it's just a bigger pain. Your renderings will be killer if you want them to be.




Jeff Mowry
Industrial Designhaus, LLC

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

 

[SBaugh]

To see some renderings done in PW2, you should look at Brian Hill's site.

http://www.bxhdesigns.com/

Regards,

Scott Baugh, CSWP

http://www.3dvisiontech.com

http://www.scottjbaugh.com

faq731-376

 

[Torge]

My two biggest gripes are the decal editor, and the material selections. The lighting sucks too..but hey :0)

We design and Mfg pro-audio devices that mount in a rack.
On the back of the slightly 'textured' sheet metal enclosure is a silkscreen that needs to be accurately placed.

To his day, I’ve never been able to bring in a 'decal' that works, (I create all the art in Illustrator) so I’ve always done the rendering in PW1 and brought the image into Photoshop and 'applied' the dummy images (screen) there.

Marketing of course wants basically a photograph of the finished product for print and web before the design is completed…. and of course they wanted them yesterday.

Do any of you have some decent materials that you could share? I’m looking for metallic silver paint, a slightly textured painted surface, and a real- looking grained aluminum.

All of my renderings in a perspective - iso view look pretty good! But the front view is always washed out, no matter what I do to the light. Details like some of the cap-head-hex drive bolts that hold the aluminum front panel to the chassis look like carriage bolts..no detail.

I wish I could upload some examples…..

 

[rockguy]

If you could send me the models and decals I would love to give rendering this a shot

 

[Theophilus]

PW2 has some metallic paint and a much bigger selection of materials. Tweaking the properties of the materials is a little more tricky, but that's mostly because there are more adjustments available in PW2.

Check out Brian Hill's site and see for yourself (mentioned twice alread above).

Make sure your gamma adjustment is set to 1.0 or else you'll have differences in saved rendered image versus what you see in test shots on your screen. (I have no idea why this feature is useful set to anything but 1.0.)

Also, decals are much more versatile in PW2. I normally set a background color to the color of my model for logos, etc. and then key out that color when applying the decal. This means you won't need to have a klugy rectangle/square around your logos or decals anymore because the background can be keyed out, allowing your surface behind--textured or whatever--to show through. No reason this can't be photorealistic anymore. They shinies all love this stuff because of the realistic detail. Show them Brian Hill's site and perhaps they'll get in gear and pay for the update themselves.




Jeff Mowry
Industrial Designhaus, LLC

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com

 

[Stoker]

In PWX2 I regularly bring in artwork created in Illustrator for decals. Decal placement is easy. The only problem is that the program often "forgets" where the decal files are located, forcing the user to manually browse to locate them. This same problem occurs with custom lights, scenes and materials.

There are many web sites which offer free textures. The materials you are looking for are all available for free online in tileable textures.

To make your front views more realistic, add a slight amount of perspective to the view so that the user can see the depth of the model. Using indirect illumination can help to create realistic shadows so that you do not have to use multiple light sources to properly illuminate the model.

 

[Torge]

I still have problems with 'user defined' materials. The scale seems way off, and once I make adjustments, the realism just isn’t there. Do any of you have a direct source for materials, or some 'trickery' that I’m not aware of to make the brushed aluminum very realistic?

What are the steps you take to create material for rendering? We have actual components with the right 'look' to them sitting on my desk. I can take photos... but the tiling is a trick all in it self.

The 'Shineys' are not happy with the 'realism' of my renderings. They say "The grain on the panel is not fine enough"(I personally think they look pretty good, all things considered)

I appreciate all of your expertise and patience! The documentation is not exactly the greatest.

Thanks again in advance!

 

[Theophilus]

For realism, I suggest adding a base on which to cast shadows and using the new indirect lighting feature to get the correct feel of realism. Apart from these items, you won't get what makes the Shinies smile. Decals are a huge dash of realism--use them whenever possible--with the other colors cleared out.

Regarding the materials, I have so far not created my own. Working with the existing materials can be a tad limited, but you can tweak them to add realism. One primary thing to do is to get the sheen of whatever you're working on correct. This is a matter of dialing in all the possible properties. So brushed aluminum needs to have a certain level of sheen (gloss, smooth, and reflection settings) to appear real. Get these set.

You'll also need the right scale. This can be tough. If you don't render at a very high resolution, you won't see differences in the mapping scale anyway--at least not with fine materials such as brushed aluminum. Do some smaller test renderings in your view port. Brian Hill advised me to do a few things to decrease the degree of madness that often occurs in this process.

1. Reduce your viewport to only about 1/4 of your screen to speed things up.

2. Use reduced shadow quality until you're ready for a good render.

3. Don't go crazy with the lights--two or three will usually be plenty. I often kill all except the indirect glow and a directional light unless I have dark spots in a scene. This adds great depth.

4. Start with the lowest setting of indirect lighting and work your way up after you get your other settings dialed in.

After things look good in the limited small view, then crank up your settings and render to file at something greater than 2,000 pixels. You should have the quality of JPEG turned up high and anti-aliasing up high if you want a good brushed aluminum finish to come through. Soften the shadows and use transparent shadows if your materials call for it. Turn up reflection and refraction numbers if needed.

I have a rendering that took 30 minutes to crunch, but it looks great. Translucent materials and shadows with decals and all the works. It looks great and I hope to get my butt in gear and get it posted on my site soon (half-done now, but not yet posted in HTML formats).

Obviously, you'll want a hot processor. RAM is good (but not that necessary), but you really won't need a high-priced graphics card for this part since you're rendering to file anyway. The processor is the bottle-neck. (I recommend AMD 64-bit, but I'm now quite biased.)

Your scene is very important. Make your background white. Use a spherical environment. Select a gray (about 70%-80% dark) and "constant" for your material settings for your two hemispheres in your scene. The constant material setting will make no good difference except with indirect lighting--which you will use anyway.

Use your own base--not a stock base--or the floor will end up at arbitrary heights in your scene (bug). Get the reflectance turned up and the color set to white. This will create shadows and an otherwise white surrounding area.

Enough rambling. Hope this helps.




Jeff Mowry
Industrial Designhaus, LLC

http://www.industrialdesignhaus.com