Park City

[glorybound]

I am not sure I like the design, but hey, I am just here to illustrate it.

[glorybound]

This is a tough one. I am working it hard, but it has a ways to go.

[glorybound]

I got rid of those trees, which were not working for me.

[glorybound]

Here are some other views. These are low resolution proofs. The render times were only 17 minutes per view, which is outstanding!

[glorybound]

Some progress...

[glorybound]

So, they decided to give me an updated site plan!

[glorybound]

These should be the finals. I had problems with them sending me information way late and changing things on the fly, like deck railings. I rolled with the punches and I think that I am done.

[glorybound]

Finals!

I have to tell you, it was a challenge. Usually, I have time to play with lighting and angle, but they kept changing things, so I was just happy to get it done. The first one, I forgot to move my sun from behind the camera, but it looks pretty good, so I left it.

[3DMK]

I think you need to increase/add some reflections to the scene as it's looking very flat.
The roof looks like a slate material which has quite a strong Fresnel reflection. Exterior house paint is also very reflective as it's usually glossy and not a matte finish. Put reflections everywhere
Hope this helps

Jamie

[glorybound]

I had a hard time with reflections. Actually I had reflections on the siding, but got frustrated and totally removed it. In one view the siding looked good, but in the next it was too much. I agree with the roof. I use a script for the roof, which is sweet, but the texture needs some help. I tried V-Ray's Roughness, but it wasn't what I thought. How's everyone else doing roofs?

I think you need to increase/add some reflections to the scene as it's looking very flat.
The roof looks like a slate material which has quite a strong Fresnel reflection. Exterior house paint is also very reflective as it's usually glossy and not a matte finish. Put reflections everywhere
Hope this helps

Jamie

[Pixelcon]

If I were you I would create your materials in a control scene. At least you know the material is somewhat 'correct' and will react accordingly to your lighting setup. If it looks like shit when you put it in your scene, you might need either a better lighting setup or adjust the material to suit. Personally I think creating materials in your render scene from scratch is a bad idea as you don't really have a base point or reference to go off.

Check out this link for some reading: http://bertrand-benoit.com/blog/2012...materialism-1/
and this link for the free shader-ball scene: http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPrevie....cfm/ID/672841
(this scene is a bit older so there may be some compatibility issues, but I would recommend setting the white-balance to neutral and turning off Depth of field [if I remember correctly it is turned on in this scene])

My second suggestion is to do a bit more collecting of reference images for each material if you're not doing it already, and not necessarily manufacturer's images. Try and find multiple angles of a material (if you can't get a physical sample, that is) and try to find images with a similar lighting scheme to what you're going for.

I think you're going to have difficulties making your materials pop with such a soft lighting scheme anyway... Low contrast lighting will result in low contrast everything (to a certain extent).

[glorybound]

Thanks for the links and advice. I agree, I have to work on my materials.

If I were you I would create your materials in a control scene. At least you know the material is somewhat 'correct' and will react accordingly to your lighting setup. If it looks like shit when you put it in your scene, you might need either a better lighting setup or adjust the material to suit. Personally I think creating materials in your render scene from scratch is a bad idea as you don't really have a base point or reference to go off.

Check out this link for some reading: http://bertrand-benoit.com/blog/2012...materialism-1/
and this link for the free shader-ball scene: http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPrevie....cfm/ID/672841
(this scene is a bit older so there may be some compatibility issues, but I would recommend setting the white-balance to neutral and turning off Depth of field [if I remember correctly it is turned on in this scene])

My second suggestion is to do a bit more collecting of reference images for each material if you're not doing it already, and not necessarily manufacturer's images. Try and find multiple angles of a material (if you can't get a physical sample, that is) and try to find images with a similar lighting scheme to what you're going for.

I think you're going to have difficulties making your materials pop with such a soft lighting scheme anyway... Low contrast lighting will result in low contrast everything (to a certain extent).

[Pixelcon]

Thanks for the links and advice. I agree, I have to work on my materials.

As do I, myself. Never forget though, photoshop can do a lot of things very quickly and a lot more convincingly than 3D can

[glorybound]

There should be a way to do more than can be done. A cross between PS and Piranesi.

.

As do I, myself. Never forget though, photoshop can do a lot of things very quickly and a lot more convincingly than 3D can

[pixelplume]

nice work!