More rendering failure in ACA2016

[ntellery]

trying to render a project in 'the latest' ACA2016 but it still seems very fragile for an expensive program.

There seems to be a great chance of corruption of cameras between 2015 format and 16.  Currently I was just trying to render in 16 because of the advantages of the new rendering engine. (being able to cancel a render for one).

I've deleted a few camera's to recreate the view in 16 because the 15 camera renders black.

The attached image is from a new camera angle set up in 16.

When you use CameraAdjust command, it still alters the position of the camera with a jump such that you have to guess the position shown is about right and then 

Materials can get corrupted.

The camera command itself often doesn't seem to work. Opening the view menu and selecting "setcurrent" for a view might not work.  Using lisp to set current might not work and the only way to switch to the view is to select the camera which opens that preview (wait for it......).  Deselecting the "display this window when editing a camera" never seems to deselect it (oops that did just work in 16 - first time ever for me 🙂

Actually it's not working in 15 either.

Control over the sun seems to be random with settings dropping from the View.  After setting Sun & Sky Illum. you might find it has reset to none.   Doesn't matter because it can't find anything to render anyway.

Again, with 16 the whole rendering setback seems very faulty and fragile.  For an expensive tool it should be far more robust than it is.  

Even after the half baked work to bring a new engine and the work on on the pallete, the tools still seem to be scattered with not all the tools obvious and together and linked in the one place. 
Together with all the work involved in adjusting for constant change to the rendering engine (& aecMaterials) but never a robust rendering tool it's very frustrating and embarrassing that an expensive "Autodesk" tool could be this poor. Disappointing!

It doesn't matter which way I look at this model, it can't find anything to render!!

rant over!

[pendean]

TLDR, but the error message you posted a screenshot of seems to have a specific requirement that your file does not met. Failure to comply results in no rendering.

[leothebuilder]

Dean. I would think that Nathan has modelled this with ACA objects, walls, doors, windows etc. so it should render.

And I agree with Nathan, the rendering and materials are woeful in ACA.

Just when you get the hang of it, they bring out a new version and change the redering so you're back to square one.

I've tried many times and gave up because I just don't have the time (or patience) to persist.

Autodesk should ensure that ACA is at least capable of producing simple and easy renders and simple methods

of assigning materials.

Maybe include some templates for set up of lights and sun for architectural renders.

For the more advanced, let them export to 3d Max. or whatever render package they prefer.

The name of the software should be an indication of it's capabilities.

[pendean]

Not disagreeing, just pointing out that the tool invoked has very specific parameters that are not met as noted in the screenshot provided.

BTW: REVIT is the future sadly in our industry 😞

[dgorsman]

---

leothebuilder wrote:

Autodesk should ensure that ACA is at least capable of producing simple and easy renders and simple methods

of assigning materials.

---

No such thing as simple and easy rendering; any system that presents as such will be complained about as not producing high quality images, not enough control, etc..

---

leothebuilder wrote:

The name of the software should be an indication of it's capabilities.

---

Its not called "Architectural Visualization" or "Architectural Rendering" or even "Make pretty Architectural pictures".  Visualization is a corner of the architectural industry, so I think the program is already aptly named.  As you note, for anything approaching decent quality dedicated visualization software should be used.  It takes time to get it right but if the investment is required either way might as well work with the better tool for the job.

[leothebuilder]

---

@dgorsman wrote:

its not called "Architectural Visualization" or "Architectural Rendering" or even "Make pretty Architectural pictures".  Visualization is a corner of the architectural industry, so I think the program is already aptly named.  As you note, for anything approaching decent quality dedicated visualization software should be used.  It takes time to get it right but if the investment is required either way might as well work with the better tool for the job.

---

If ACA is not meant for rendering or visiualization, why include rendering, lighting etc. capabilities.

If I buy a car with a radio in it, I would like (and expect) the radio to work. 

[ntellery]

Exactly Leo, well said.  The picture clearly demonstrates that it satsifies the requirements, ie, has 3d componants, mostly aec.

I'm not after photo quality and am happy with just a decent render of which I have done many using ACA and don't want to go an extra step of using another program because I am not paid enough to justifiy it. 

Using ACA I can quickly put together a good model and decent render which puts me well ahead of my competitors. 

UNDERSTAND THIS AUTODESK  -  Most of my competitors use the extra step in the process and so will minimise renders or not at all but I can render anytime and everytime there is a change and have an update of the current changes because it's all within ACA. This keeps me again of the game and my clients are very pleased so it's great to be able to do this.    What sets me back is the tools often too often fail to do as advertised as is the case here.  I returned to 15 and rendered and the client was happy.  

There is nothing I am trying to do that isn't as advertised the package can do.

16 is a new rendering engine. It still needs some attention.  Perhaps it's in updating camera's and materials.

If the tool is robust,  it is a very powerful tool in the market.

http://grandesignwa.blogspot.com.au/

[pendean]

"rendering" is in AutoCAD.
ACA is built over AutoCAD.

Only the uninformed use AutoCAD for 'rendering': visualization is better done is software designed for the task. See Autodesk's plethora of visualization software offerings.

The OP was just ignoring the primary problem he encountered, let's not pretend it doesn't exist. Rendering requires 'faces' in AutoCAD/ACA.

[ntellery]

Sometimes     you    are    helpful    Dean.   Sometimes   you   are   just   a    blockhead     /   idiot.   

Autodesk    advertise   ACA   with   a   rendering   componant.   As   was    said   earlier,    if   they   advertise   a   car    with   a   radio,    you    expect   it   to   work.    Simple    effective   illustration    but   perhaps    that's    a    little   too    nuanced    for  you.

Per    the   packaging,   ACA   is  for  rendering.

I,    the   OP,    was   not   ignoring   anything   but   you   seemed   to   have   ignored my   link     showing  many    tens   of   hundreds    of    renderings   I   have    done   in   ACA.   I   could    suggest    that    I   am   more  informed    and    profficient   with    ACA    that    you    will   hope    to   be.

Please   refrain   from    answering   with   your    ignorance   in   the    future.

(excuse    the   space    bar    going   crazy)

 For   the   record,   here's    the   same   scene    rendered    in   ACA2015.   Wow    look     at    that   Dean.    It      found    some    faces    to    render.      (expert    elite!!)

[leothebuilder]

---

@dgorsman wrote:

Its not called "Architectural Visualization" or "Architectural Rendering" or even "Make pretty Architectural pictures".  

P.s. ACA does include a tool palette group named "Visualization" and the Content Browser includes a tool catalogue called "Visualization".

It could be safely assumed that Autodesk promotes these features by including them in ACA.

I have been using this software since 2001 (Architectural Desktop) and to me it appears that the rendering capabilities

seem to get worse with each new release.

I am not one for complaining in this forum, but this is one subject I feel passionate about. 

[Victoria.Studley]

Hi @ntellery,

I'm sorry to see this is happening, and would like to investigate it for you. Could you please log a support request via your Autodesk Account and attach a sample file where the issue is occurring? (Please also include any XREFs, custom materials, etc. that the file needs to complete a render.)

I'll be happy to take a look, test it, and report it to the development team if there's an issue with the software. Feel free to message me with the case number, and I'll be sure to take the case myself.

[pendean]

Again, one more time, the error message you got was very specific. The fact that it found "some faces to render" is wonderful for you but the reality is the rest of your model did not meet the command's parameters. Wrong tool for the wrong desire/outcome perhaps, or a glitch in the software.

So while you decide to elevate the post into a personal attack, I'll keep pointing out the program error you presented. Luckily a staff member seems to think they can help, take them up on the offer.

Good luck with that attitude 🙂

[ntellery]

You started the personal attacks Dean as you often do in defence of the software. 

"uninformed use Autocad for rendering"    

"OP ignored the problem"   

"pretend it doesn't exist"

"rendering requires faces"

Your language is clearly inflammatory which is your typical mode.  Perhaps I should give you a pass because English is not your native language.  Not being familiar with the software perhaps you shouldn't comment further.

It's clearly a glitch in the software but you are clearly not qualified to comment.  So please don't.

[pendean]

Unfortunately, you read way more into my reply that the intention. That's the problem with typed replies, your interpretations are not checked by any other clues written. Taken out of context in quotes expands on those thoughts. A way to help you in the future (difficult if you access these forums on a mobile device: look at the IN REPLY TO line for each response and consider it a good way to understand what is meant for you and what is not. I find it useful in better following a thread inside a topic post.

Honestly, a few of us hijacked your thread and were for the most part not talking about you or your actual error, just among ourselves. You were cut out completely.

If I wanted to personally attack or belittle you there would be no mistake about it: sadly, that was not the case here in any reply of mine directed at you.

Work on it if the original command error is an actual glitch, looks like a staffer offered to assist.