Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - Hadi

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6
Gallery / Re: Swiss Re CGI images
« on: 2019-05-09, 10:24:18 »
That's great architectural visualization, nice and clean.
How many of you worked on it and how long to complete the project?

Gallery / Re: DAY / NIGHT
« on: 2019-02-06, 09:14:57 »
Nice and clean work. Well executed!

Gallery / Re: Wuwart
« on: 2018-12-06, 19:37:45 »
Great work as usual guys!

Gallery / Re: BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-04, 10:56:49 »
Well done, but seems you need to scale up the building 1.2x.

Thanks. The measures came from the plans provided by the architect online.

Thanks. Maybe I'm wrong but look at the attach jpg. Have a nice day.

Hey synolog, no you're right.
I've explained extensively that the building should have been bigger, most likely according to what you have drawn, but this is what the section found online, scaled accordingly in Autocad, gave me back (check screenshot).
Those extra 30cm in height would have been much needed indeed.
I don't know if they changed it in the executive plans.

Gallery / Re: BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-04, 10:13:58 »
I removed the pictures from Hadi's post, but left the message itself - i don't find it to aggressive or inappropriate. Nevertheless, i'd suggest to calm down to both sides. Keep it civil.

Alright, let's move on.

Gallery / Re: BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-04, 10:00:39 »
Your portfolio is public and hosted online, as mentioned in your signature, so I don't know what copyright infringement you're talking about.

Gallery / Re: ValleyUp Residence
« on: 2018-12-04, 09:19:39 »
Nice mood in the first image, it's a lovely shot.

Gallery / Re: BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-04, 09:18:53 »
Alright, I'll try for the last time, then I'll give up.
We discussed extensively about the scale problem and as it has been explained to you several time, but you keep banging on it. Everything in the scene is based on real scale sizes, except for the building that has been modeled according to the architect plans found online. I can't do much about it and I've explained it extensively. The thing that is deceiving your eyes is probably the people on the balconies, that are not supposed to be there in the real project, standing on a raised level compared to the actual floor level. I've imagined a step inside the room that would have given you access to that, as it's not clear from the plans.
Your opinion is valuable but, as the word itself explains, it's your opinion, so I'm free to disagree with it.
I personally can't stand seeing any house in the forest or scandi apartment anymore, but if this is what people like to portrait and enjoy doing, why should I go and tell them focus on something else? Hence, if I like to focus on photorealism on my spare time, after working on commercial projects according to the clients taste during working hours, why should I be bothered?

Last thing, a personal advice but feel free to ignore it, as this is my opinion. Your attitude and your portfolio don't really help you to make your critics believable. You started from the scale of the building and you went on several grounds, contesting basically everything in the shots, which would have been alright if shared with a different attitude and a top notch portfolio, but I'm afraid you are quite far from that.
You mentioned the bricks, that to be honest is one of the thing that should have been executed better, but, forgive me if I'm too direct, I see things that have been executed quite bad in your recent projects (see the screenshots).
Without even mentioning the lighting, quite awkward if done by someone of your experience.

In any case, if you want to develop this conversation, we can do it in PM. I think people are quite bored to read us going on like that.

Changes made: removed pictures, by owner's request

Gallery / Re: BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-03, 20:03:07 »
Believe you are comparing them. I am using the original as a reference.
What point out is the strange scale issues related thing, which you seem to agree, whereas pointing out that it is either the 3d photoscanned texture or the camera lenses. Maybe you should focus first on this aspect of work. Overall  nice foggy ambience, which could be executed better.
Use what you currently have as a scene to progress quicker as an artist.

Sorry man, I'm struggling to understand your English sometimes, but I got the overall point.
As mentioned before, I had troubles in the beginning working around the plans I've found online, because some of the measurements were off, but I've decided to stick to them in order to replicate an ideal commercial environment in which, obviously, you don't have any room to change an architect design in a late stage. Consider also, as I know from my architect experience, what you usually find online are the final projects drafts, never the executive ones, so the actual built architecture is always different.
I decided in the end to thin a bit the pillars, in order to give a touch more breathing room to the windows, due to the building being too much heavy according to my taste, and change some finishings, to give a higher end look. Something that would have been impossible in real life.
The point of the artwork was to give a quite boring low-cost building a better look, in a more vibrant and tight urban context. It was less about the architecture, more about the atmosphere, obviously sticking to my way of working, which is maximum realism possible in a 90% 3d workflow.
With that been said, I work to improve myself everytime and there's along way to go, so constructive critics are welcome and I appreciate your feedback, but I'm free to disagree if I find them pointless.

Gallery / Re: BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-03, 17:26:37 »
No worries mate, I appreciate you're trying to give your feedback, you don't sound rude, but I disagree with you.

The originals does not have that scale feeling, mostly due to the shots taken from further distance and proper composition.

They are not comparable, because it's way farer than where I am with the camera, hence the camera distortions are nullified in the original one.
One of the main point of the shots was to adapt the building in a standard road size context, so the shots are taken from the other side of the sidewalk.
The pavement, once again, is based on real world sizes and obviously looks overstretched on the portions nearer the camera, due to a wide lens. That would have happened in reality with a photographer shooting in situ.

Gallery / Re: BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-03, 15:17:19 »
The project has  potential.

There is something wrong with scale of several elements though -  pavement texture, cars( or maybe it is the camera ) and probably people( especially those situated in the terraces) , hence building looks small.
It could be that the windows height give wrong impression - they look 2 m  .
Nevertheless such pavement  tiles/bricks usually do not exceed 20-24 cm( 8 - 12 inches). Probably they need  to be scaled down, approximately 10-20% - use the curb  for reference.

Interiors will benefit from better looking bricks - displacement, more complex shader with some reflections here and there.
Also floor looks bit plastic and pay attention to gaps - do not understand this trendy approach of exaggerated gaps - usually 1-3 mm work well, plus  chamfer of boards around a fraction of mm.

Thanks for your feedback.
As said before, unfortunately those are the measurements of the actual building. I spent a bit of time in the beginning making my head around them, because it does look quite small, but that was probably part of the architect intentions or due to limited funds for a social house project. You can see the original one here:

Pavements are from 3d scans with accurate measurements, which exclude them being too big. Same thing for the cars or the people, so it's actually the building giving you the wrong impression. The windows are about 2 m high, according to the project plans.

I'm not fully happy with the bricks a well, but they do have displacement coming from a 3d scan. I would have probably had to exaggerate the effect.
The floor is a real product and you can check the in situ looking here:

Both gaps and chamfer are accurate.

Gallery / Re: BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-03, 13:44:22 »
Well done, but seems you need to scale up the building 1.2x.

Thanks. The measures came from the plans provided by the architect online.

Gallery / BIGyard
« on: 2018-12-02, 16:58:28 »
Spare time personal project based on Zanderroth Architekten's project named BIGyard.
I've just imagined a different context and I had fun playing with 2 different moods and lighting setups. Most enjoyable part has been painting the road texture, blending several textures with custom brushes, in a single huge 60k texture with all the correspondent maps.
It's also the first project done with Corona 3.0 and I have to say the displacement has been improved quite a bit.
Full hi-res set of images on my Behance profile:

I need help / Re: Technical question - 3d scans by Poliigon
« on: 2018-11-30, 13:59:57 »
Definitely poor PBR implementation (or understanding) from their part. Their preview thus look good with highly decreased specularity, but it will only look good isolated and from certain angle, light direction.

I would do what Romullus suggested. When the original preview is authored in poor way, you can always get good result by tweaking the shader yourself, you just can't plug&play without effort.

BTW, one thing regarding gamma for glosiness/roughness maps. There isn't actually agreed way that these should be linear/1.0. Logically they should, and it's also how they are read by default in Unreal for exanoke, but this depends on how they were created/authored. So sometimes you need to try both gamma when loading the bitmap to see which one they actually authored it for. Or just use CC node.

That's the only one way at the moment unfortunately, I'm merging their objects in a studio set up and tweak maps and shaders until I get the proper look.
That's something I do with all the 3d assets from libraries anyway, it's unlikely you will get something perfectly working without touching anything.
I thought this wasn't the case with their models though, as they advertised it as a no-hassle one click merging for several render engines.

I need help / Re: Technical question - 3d scans by Poliigon
« on: 2018-11-30, 11:28:27 »
They don't have scanned models free sample, so i downloaded this texture, which is also scanned, so should be good indicator on their texture quality. To be honest, i found nothing wrong with those textures - once you plug them in material, it works as expected. No need to boost anything, well... maybe except glossiness. That map is good by itself, but it's for dry mud and in their preview, mud looks wet, so if you want to replicate that, you need to make that map lighter. CoronaColorCorrect node is perfect for that. One thing is worth to mention, they also provide reflection map, don't know what's its purpose - i didn't use it. Instead i plugged into reflection slot AO with boosted contrast - nice trick advocated by dubcat and Juraj Talcik.

I'm attaching test renders.
01 - maps are pluged without any modification (AO and reflection aren't used)
02 - glossiness map is plugged through CoronaColorCorrect and brightness with gamma are increased
03 - same as 02, but high contrast AO is plugged into reflection slot

I've been using their textures since a while now and never had trouble, that's not the subject of the topic.
What we are discussing here are the 3d models, that are basically a new feature they introduced.
The suggestion to decrease drastically the IOR to 1.1 and boost the normal to 2.0 came straight from their end, meaning the standard material setup is not behaving in a canonical way.

Id say its less a corona problem then and more a problem with their 'PBR' workflow. If they made their normals correctly it shouldnt need to be above 1 as was already mentioned. That data should be encoded into the map.

Yeah I agree with you, that was my point.
I think at the moment there's no other way than re-do Corona materials for all of them, until they will fix it.
I appreciate they are providing materials for the most important softwares and render engines, so it's quite of a big commitment.

Out of curiosity have you tried with any other engine?

With VRay. Same issues.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 6