Author Topic: Cryengine ArchViz comparation  (Read 7060 times)

Nico RVArq.com

    Reputation: 58
Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« on: January 10, 2012, 11:50:36 am »
January 10, 2012, 11:50:36 am
I must say, a few months ago I am fascinated with CryEngine for creating virtual landscapes, but not convincing for architectural finishes for the difficulties of importing correctly and allocation models materials and textures.
Ultimately, they have posted on the site the works of Martin Hedin, applying the tools it has CryENGINE 3 for architectural representation, I must say that everything seen, these jobs should be the best thing to have.
Finally I say that for architecture, without the slightest doubt, I prefer LUMION. ;)

http://www.crydev.net/newspage.php?news=81875
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 06:09:56 am by nicolasweh »

Michael

    Reputation: 10
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #1 on: January 10, 2012, 09:51:15 pm »
January 10, 2012, 09:51:15 pm
Thanks for that. Always nice seeing realtime 3D advancing in our field of work. If one knows how and has a good amout of time to spare, game engines can be used quite well for archviz and add elements of interactivity as well. There are some good examples for Unity and Unreal as well. The drawback, I think, compared to Lumion is you normally need a lot more time for a job, and in case of using an engine like Cry you might break their EULA in commercial use. But, I love those realtime reflections  :-9 I really do.

darbo

    Reputation: 10
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #2 on: January 10, 2012, 10:59:47 pm »
January 10, 2012, 10:59:47 pm
A great feel-good post! It took me a better part of a year mulling over the purchase of a Lumion before I finalized my decision to go for it a  few weeks ago. Did I make the right buying decision? I definitely think so, but I really appreciate posts like this that serve to confirm my long-deliberated decision.

Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #3 on: January 11, 2012, 09:56:23 am »
January 11, 2012, 09:56:23 am
I must say, a few months ago I am fascinated with CryEngine for creating virtual landscapes, but not convincing for architectural finishes for the difficulties of importing correctly and allocation models materials and textures.
Ultimately, they have posted on the site the works of Martin Hedin, applying the tools it has CryENGINE 3 for architectural representation, I must say that everything seen, these jobs should be the best thing to have.
Finally I say that for architecture, without the slightest doubt, I prefer LUMION. ;)

http://www.crydev.net/newspage.php?news=81875


Here is even better example of cryengine:
T.l.i.t.d. WIP update #5 now in !!CRYENGINE 3!!



Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #4 on: January 11, 2012, 03:05:55 pm »
January 11, 2012, 03:05:55 pm
Here is even better example of cryengine:
T.l.i.t.d. WIP update #5 now in !!CRYENGINE 3!!


It looks amazing! I wonder though how much work it would cost. We really try to focus on getting fast results directly from a CAD package. I like the results though. Great reflections.

Aliki_N

    Reputation: 26
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #5 on: January 11, 2012, 06:37:23 pm »
January 11, 2012, 06:37:23 pm
Thanks Nicolasweh, for sharing on Cryengine 3. I did a couple of tests last year on the usability of C3 in architectural visualizations. It was a great pain to try and import anything into C3, let alone, assign materials. The animation aspect is game like, rough. Granted, the landscape is beautiful and easier to work on, with a lot of options including automatic road creator, river creator -but when it comes to architectural objects importation, C3 is a total flop.

Lumion is by far much easier to use and importation of custom objects a great pleasure to execute. No rocket science is required.

If Lumion team can listen to its customers regarding abilities to paint custom textures on ground mesh including ability to paint actual grass, trees, stones, then a wider spectrum of users will be attracted to the app & UDK or C3 will not come anywhere close.

C3 & UDK, are labour intensive applicatios, therefore not suitable for architectural presentations as you cant meet the steep deadlines.

Regards,

Alickn
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 09:49:39 pm by alickn »

Architectural Innovation

    Reputation: 13
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #6 on: January 11, 2012, 08:06:06 pm »
January 11, 2012, 08:06:06 pm
We tried using C3 but decided to wait for a better version that may be improved for our type of work. We then found Lumion and, so far, no looking back, but as you guys said, i REALLY wish we could get some of the landscape, road, etc capabilities in Lumion. Things would really start to gel.


Ming Architect

    Reputation: 3
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #7 on: January 11, 2012, 09:12:51 pm »
January 11, 2012, 09:12:51 pm
I've tested with CryEngine a bit, but it is more like a one direction workflow which make it so painful in real production, while us always continue to design the building and updated extensively. Not talking about their current EULA.

Lumion and SketchUp connection look like a dream come true. The update feature is why we may move to Lumion, and use V-Ray less this year.

I wish this kind of connection also work with Revit too, because lately we are into Revit more and more too. We wish we can finally switch to all Rhino/Grasshopper/Revit and also 'Lumion' as they're getting so close to do anything we want quickly!

Thanks,
Ming

RAD

    Reputation: 32
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #8 on: January 11, 2012, 11:27:24 pm »
January 11, 2012, 11:27:24 pm
GrassHopper+Rhino3D (sprinkle some s ketchup in there) + Lumion + Tebow =  WIN!
« Last Edit: January 11, 2012, 11:29:34 pm by CRhoades »

Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #9 on: January 12, 2012, 03:52:07 am »
January 12, 2012, 03:52:07 am
I wish this kind of connection also work with Revit too, because lately we are into Revit more and more too.

Note that in Lumion V2 there is a new Revit plug-in that exports to Collada.  It is sweet and seems to do a good job and was recently speeded up so its now quick to export.  Seems to be the way to go.

Michael Betke

    Reputation: 35
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #10 on: January 12, 2012, 08:39:03 am »
January 12, 2012, 08:39:03 am
Indeed Cry3 offers the best graphics features up to date but its not possible to get your hands on a license as a common company. We tried several times via different ways and only beeing told "soon" or no answer.

They licensed a VIZ license to a large chineese company  which does the olympic games 3D before.

At the moment I'm not unhappy about this licensing policy because I don't have the pressure to be measured on Cry3 graphics. If the majority of people would use such advanced tech I maybe need to pay a lot of royalties too for this engine leaving me with less money as if very few have access to it and not setting the bar to the max.

For workflow: Yes it takes longer to set up the models like in lumion but you save a lot of time on the other hand while painting vegetation, moving, roating models and it will look better afterwards. Depends what you do. large scale=Cry wins, smaller scenes= Lumion is faster.

RT-Visualization

    Reputation: 4
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #11 on: January 12, 2012, 09:07:18 am »
January 12, 2012, 09:07:18 am
Do not forget that game engines like Cryengine or UDK requires mesh optimization too, that is a very time consuming activity....it is literally impossible to run a 18-20 milion polys scene inside a game engine, and if you are able to do that it will run at 1-2 fps...
And yes, in both Cryengine and UDK to import meshes is a real pain...and, if I'm not wrong, you have the 65k polys limit for each mesh, so forget to import ( for example ) an entire interior scene inside the game engine in a single file ( like I usually do in Lumion ).

It takes time and require extra-work with game engine, but because they're game engine, while Lumion is "only" visualization related...they're different beasts, but with both of them the results are quite amazing...

Strongest point of game engines is the customization, means that you can add whatever you want by programming, so you're free to do basically everything...
You could use tasselation, huge amount of normal maps, post process filters, interactivity ( very important for visualization project ), possibility to create a standalone, and so on...
With Lumion you're "only" able to create movies, that's it, but you have all the necessary tools to do it and its way faster to setup the scene and create the movie itself.

I don't want Lumion to become a game engine software, but it could borrow some of the features from a game engine that could make life easier for everyone :)

Michael Betke

    Reputation: 35
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #12 on: January 12, 2012, 09:14:58 am »
January 12, 2012, 09:14:58 am
Not neccesary 1-2 fps. Todays GPU can work with a lot of polygones and all the shaders make it slow.
But in general you are right of course. The 65k limit is per mesh not per scene making it easier.

We almost finished the first milestone of our own real-time solution for in-house production use based on game-engine tech and indeed the process of bringing down a 2 million tris loft scene I got as a showcase for it to a resonable polycount and some baking for 2D geometry takes time. Lumion is pretty robust with this tasks. 
On the other hand archviz realtime still can have lots of more geometry like a "game" because mostly not several millions of computer configs need to be taken into consideration.

RT-Visualization

    Reputation: 4
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #13 on: January 13, 2012, 09:02:47 am »
January 13, 2012, 09:02:47 am
Not neccesary 1-2 fps. Todays GPU can work with a lot of polygones and all the shaders make it slow.
But in general you are right of course. The 65k limit is per mesh not per scene making it easier.

We almost finished the first milestone of our own real-time solution for in-house production use based on game-engine tech and indeed the process of bringing down a 2 million tris loft scene I got as a showcase for it to a resonable polycount and some baking for 2D geometry takes time. Lumion is pretty robust with this tasks. 
On the other hand archviz realtime still can have lots of more geometry like a "game" because mostly not several millions of computer configs need to be taken into consideration.

You're working with Leadwerks, it that right?
Main problem ( for me and basically for every designer ) is related to the lack of scripting required to use a game engine properly, hence the setup of the scene and its tricks ( occlusion culling, proper shaders, proper post effects ) is not 100% as could be with the help of someone who knows programming...question is different if you're in a team and someone is in charge for that role, but for and indie or for just a 3D designer, is not that simple...

I remember asking for some specific scripts and shaders in Unity3D forum about Architectural Visualization...800$ for everything...is not that much since the main point was to use them as a standard for all the future projects, but damn, if something doesn't work I have no idea how to solve the problem or where the problem is...lame...

That is why I prefer game engines like UDK or Cryengine, because you can use visual scripting and see what you're doing, and thank god there are some tutorials about that and proper documentation.

However the process is always the same...do low poly version of the mesh, UV, get normal map from high poly mesh, export...more or less for every mesh, that's why is time consuming and thats why for small scenes use a game engine is not worthed...

Lately things are changing however, game engines looks fabulous and you have the possibility to experiment with them, and with the announce of the new Microsoft and Sony consoles I think that we'll see new and more powerfull game engines...we'll see ;)

tug

    Reputation: 28
Re: Cryengine ArchViz comparation
« Reply #14 on: January 13, 2012, 11:25:06 am »
January 13, 2012, 11:25:06 am
Hi Nico. You know my oppinions about Cry.

It's amazing but I think it is not stil acurate for architectural works, even more Then didn't develope a standalone part from Cry to visualizations