Quick Question about water

[Anonymous]

If you rendering swimming pool water in Revit 2017 (not on the cloud) does it look like the first picture or the second?

[barthbradley]

it'll depend on the Asset being used by the material. I don't understand your question. The waters in your two jpegs look like they are using different Assets. 

[Anonymous]

Yes, I think they might be using two different assest.  the muddy water one titled 217 is using swimming pool assets. 

I'm trying to duplicate the 2016 clear water jpg, perhaps its not using any assest and just lightly colored?   I'll try that

[Anonymous]

Bart, Unfortunately, I have to apply a "type" to the water and none of them give me the results close to the 2016 pic.

Any idea as to how to duplicate the liquid in 2016 pic? 
I've been trying to figure this out for weeks.....

[barthbradley]

Two methods: 1) Save the materials to your Favorites Folder to be able access it quickly in other sessions, or 2) Transfer materials between projects using Transfer Project Standards. Have you tried these methods? 

[Anonymous]

yes, I've tried those methods. 

something happened when I upgraded from 2016 to 2017.  how does your r2017 render swimming pool water?

also, I tried to make a new material via "custom" but when I select "scene" "pool of liquid" my thumbnail goes blank.

Perhaps i'm missing a library? see attached

[barthbradley]

The "scene" has nothing to do with your issue. Your issue is that no asset is assigned to the material. Assign one. Understand? 

...here, this may help your understanding:

https://knowledge.autodesk.com/support/revit-products/learn-explore/caas/CloudHelp/cloudhelp/2015/EN...

[Anonymous]

ah yes, that info will come in handy for when I really need to make a new material but I already have lots of material with assigned assets including swimming pool water and such but I don't think it's displaying properly anymore.  

I think a good way to begin trouble shooting this is to see how somebody else renders swimming pool water in r2017 

does it render similar to pic 1 or 2?

I think a good way to t

[barthbradley]

I completely understand your frustration and sarcasm, Robert – but, again: the issue you are having is directly attributed to YOUR material’s render appearance ASSET – not MY material’s render appearance ASSET…or anybody else’s for that matter.  Sorry.

[Anonymous]

okay, well then, I must be doing something wrong.  Perhaps If you could be so kind as to follow along with my procedure and see where things went wrong. 

I select my water material

then select appearance tab

then select liquid swimming pool asset

 

then replace asset with swimming pool asset reduce wave height and render to the below

it used to look like the below in 2016, now that I've upgraded its different and I don't know why?

any clues as to what happened or what i'm doing wrong?

[barthbradley]

"Water Bubbles" is the Asset's name...not "Swimming Pool", which is what I see assigned. 

[Anonymous]

I thought you'd catch that, actually i did select swimming pool but accidentally highlighted bubbles when I made the jpg but just to be sure I did it again and made sure swimming pool was selected and did it again before making the final rendering so swimming pool asset was definitely selected as I've been doing this many times for weeks ugh

I wonder if this has to do with vray because that's what I used to use to render and now it's gone in 2017

but if you're saying yours comes out fine than I don't know what else to do as I've already reinstalled the entire suite

thanks for hanging in there with me 🙂

[barthbradley]

I don’t know what you mean, but what I am referring to is the material that is named “water new swimming pool”. Clearly, that material has an asset called “Swimming Pool” assigned to it. Based on the middle screenshot, the “Swimming Pool” asset is the one that is assigned to that material name (“water new swimming pool”) and the hand icon (shown at the upper left corner) shows that this asset is assigned , only, to this one material and no others. verstehen?

[Anonymous]

Yes, so your saying i set up the material correctly and it should be good
as is?

[barthbradley]

@Anonymous, something else occurred to me that might explain the radical differences you’re experiencing in rendering output between the two versions. Is the material applied in the exact same way in both projects? Is it perhaps applied as a material to solid forms of different types and thicknesses, or perhaps as a painted surface in one and not the other? All these can affect the rendered appearance.  If I had to guess, I say that the water material shown in the 2016 jpg image is applied as a painted surface, and the one in the 2017 jpg image is applied as the core material of a solid.  Just a thought. 

...of course, I'm assuming your rendering settings are identical in both. 

[dgorsman]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

I wonder if this has to do with vray because that's what I used to use to render and now it's gone in 2017

---

Just to confirm - you are using a different renderer now?  Different renderers handle materials differently, even if you use exactly the same materials settings.  Tweaking settings in the new version may be necessary but may not solve the problem entirely, if at all (water is one of the more difficult things to render).

[Anonymous]

thanks for thinging of other possibilities.

Pic 1 was rendered using 2016, looks good to me

now after upgrading to 2017 that same model, same water, same computer, same monitors now renders as pic 2

I think this is a rendering issue.  perhaps I should post in the rendering forum as sallydong suggest

[ToanDN]

I think it has something to do with Autodesk changing the rendering engine from Metal Ray in 2016 to Raytracing in 2017.

[Anonymous]

 yes, I used to use the rendering tool built into revit 2016, I believe it was called vray or mental ray but that is no longer an option in r2017 rendering dialogue box.  oh boy this is going to be a problem.    

I'll try bringing it into 3dsmax again and see if that helps. 

any ideas as to how I can fix this?

gosh, why would autodesk mess with something that was working just fine

[Anonymous]

yes, I am starting to think that is the problem.  ugh why would they switch to something that's "clearly" not as good!