Worth upgrading to NXT from AR4?

[Paul Jackson]

Have used AR3 and AR4 since they were both introduced. Does anyone have any side by side comparison images they can show the difference between AR4 and NXT? Also, assume you can take your AR4 material libraries over to NXT? Thanks in advance.

[Alejandro Testa]

Just try the demo version, then you can see by yourself, Nxt demo has some limitations in size and resolution. And you can translate your ar4 material library to NXt. I never use ar4 so I pass fron ar3 to Nxt.

Regards,

Alejandro

[J. Brown]

Just learning nXt. I haven't been able to bring in large complex files that work great in AR4 with the demo. What are the limits to file size or image size you mention.

[Roy Hirshkowitz]

Resolution is limited to 200,000 pixels total. There are no limits to model size. Are you working in 32 bits? If so, nXt can have a higher memory load and you may be at the upper end of what's possible.

[J. Brown]

Yes, 32 bit. Should I be using my 64 bit to have better results?

[Roy Hirshkowitz]

A 64 bit system will allow you to work with much larger models.

[Scott Davidson]

It is true that there are situations that nXt will use more memory. As Roy points out the ultimate solution to this is a 64-bit system.

I also find instancing in NXT to be helpful. If you have a set of objects that are repeated over and over, you can block them. If nXt see that the block is repeated, it will instance those objects and they will not count against memory. It is a great way to do spaces that have many repeating chairs or desks.

Also, the render farm technology allows nXt to render on machines that do not have ACAD running in the same memory space. This can also allow larger models for final renderings then previous versions.

Of course these are all games to get around the 2 GB per process memory limit in 32-bit operating systems.

[Roy Hirshkowitz]

I wouldn't necessarily think of this as an upgrade. nXt has been completely rewritten from the ground up. It's going to feel more like a new product which can read much of your old data. There are many new features-- but a few ar3/4 features have been dropped. You'll need to decide for yourself whether it's worth it. I should caution you that no new versions or service releases are anticipated for the ar3/4 product.

[Peter Milner]

Here are a couple of images for comparison.
I've been using AR since version 2 and this is definitely the best yet.

Peter

[Chas / Aug Posekany]

This is a comparison I did with an early build of Nxt quite some time ago.

[PAOLO CESARINI]

HELLO, I can not upload the plants good old "AccuRender 3" in the laptop where I have Autocad 2009 64 bits.Why? It seems that does not respect the scale, or even that did not recognize.

[Roy Hirshkowitz]

I'm not sure what you mean by "cannot upload".  

Just guessing here, but since this is a 64 bit machine you will need to manually add the search paths to the ar3 plant bitmaps in order for them to render correctly.  More info is available here.  See the Additional Notes on Legacy Plants section.

Otherwise, you'll need to describe the problem in more detail.

[PAOLO CESARINI]

I have not yet found a solution for the plants ... I'm still 'working on a large file and not being able to save as jpg, I read on the forums that large files must be saved in the format "nxtImage". I can not attach the image file that I can not read because it is about 56 Mb! If you give me an email I will send them. Just yesterday I purchased a license to "AccuRender nxt" and already almost repented. Thank you. AccuRender 3 was better, at least until now ...