ar3 vs nxt

[chen ray]

hi guys have being using ar3 for almost 8 years now exploring nxt. but notice the interface differs quite abit from ar3. one such interface is the radiosity section in ar3. so for nxt we just have to click indirect lights for radiosity ?

[akinlolu olugboji]

For now work with the presets, for exterior use the default exterior lighting setting interior, use either daylight or artificial settings and so on, till you are familiar with the settings then you being to experiment till you find a comfortable base.

Try the online tutorials and the ones from accustudio.

[chen ray]

yo bro thank for the info

[Wayne Williamson]

NXT no longer seperates radiosity out as a seperate function. Having used Accurender2, 3 & 4 I believe that you will find NXT relitively easy to switch over to and a very big upgrade. I would suggest that you make sure your Autocad version, video card etc can handle it if you are using the same machine that you were doing AR3 on.

[Roy Hirshkowitz]

Indirect lighting replaces radiosity for calculating reflections between matte surfaces. Unlike radiosity, there is no lit mesh which can be displayed in OpenGL in real time. On the other hand, there are no modeling size limitations for this calculation as there were with radiosity. Artifacts such as light leaks and jagged shadows are also a thing of the past. There are also fewer switches to set (no "molding and trim" switch, for example.) The calculation is generally more accurate.

[akinlolu olugboji]

On the other hand, there are no modeling size limitations for this calculation as there were with radiosity. Artifacts such as light leaks and jagged shadows are also a thing of the past. There are also fewer switches to set (no "molding and trim" switch, for example.) The calculation is generally more accurate.Those where confusing days.

[Marc Chaumier]

Yes, but with radiosity, when the lighting of surfaces was done, you had just, for each point of view, to calculate specularies. Some renderer allowed you to travel in the model with a good lighting effect, in real time (except for specularies), with the mouse, like in a game...

[akinlolu olugboji]

A radiocity calculation done back then can be saved and reloaded again for continues rendering and if you have shut down the system you can even change materials almost like shaderlights

[Eric B]

Yes - we could use the radiosity solutions for quick light intensity maps. This was good for presentations to City Officials who needed to know if your project had "light leak" onto neighbors. The ability to have a tonal value in the model that would allow for shaded real-time walk through was fantastic and I even did that for a few clients. Most of the "artifacts" and such came from sloppy model building. Yes, AR3 had its quirks, just like other programs, but there are a few things I still miss. Also - it still feels like AR5 output is inconsistent - but that is subjective. (mostly because you have to stop on the same number of passes, with the same settings, same view, etc. to get the same output - but this repeatability is tricky to get)

Yes, I miss AR3 at times. Never liked AR4 and just missed AR2 but AR5 is getting there for me.

[Marc Chaumier]

but the quality of nXt renderer, is far more better. All my customers love it, and me to. The artefacts in AR4 was embarrassing, and AR3 too basic... I used "Lightscape 3.2", very good, but big gaps (bump textures), and not confortable. 3ds max, as we say in french a "gazworks". Definetly, nXt is a big progress... and in a constant improvement, and the tool of the nicer group of buddies all over the world... ;o)

[Kevin Lockwood]

nXt is by FAR easier to use then any previous version. For me, I load the model, drop in my textures and just use the exterior preset (95% of my work are exteriors). Click render and maybe adjust the tonal setting... maybe.

[akinlolu olugboji]

Missed AR3 too. In my option it is easier to use that than nxt. The artifacts I got around. Before then it was 3ds max 3.1. the landscape library of Ar3 stole my heart and its easy of use and predefined material library.

AR4 produced better and faster rendering than AR4 but the instability after Win Xp, brings to mind the days of AutoCad 2000. The AR3 interface of it makes better setting up of views. Added features of HDRi made the switch mandatory.

People see my works now and find it impossible to believe i still use accurender. So I tell them it is Nxt. Nxt, AR3/4 are far apart. With added features like Material editor, Image Editor, Plant Editor, and now Path Tracer and much more down the line.

[chen ray]

hi guys thank for all the reply. i must agree nxt render quailty is much better. tried one of the attached image but it appear grainy . any chance if we can make it more sharper?

understand that it need alot of passes to cook the renderings. if i compared rendering with ar3 and nxt , nxt provide much better renders but slower while ar3 not as good render but much faster...

always have difficulties doing animation with accurender. do nxt intergrated animation interface allow objects movement etc... or must use co-motion 2?