Are there any US architecture rendering companies using UE4?

[RI3DVIZ]

Nice! The glass still looks bad in the second scene but that's not their fault.

[heartlessphil]

Yes, and it's the subject of their upcoming video-course. They are waiting for 4.11 to be officially released to publish the course.

[RI3DVIZ]

Beautiful! Now it's looking really good. Is that with 4.11?

[heartlessphil]

The lighting is verrrry good on latest ue4arch scene :

[RI3DVIZ]

Cool, looking forward to that!

[heartlessphil]

There are beta testers for the product but it's not ready for the public yet. They're not bound to any engine I think, they're just super high res maps that you can use with the renderer of your choice. Obviously they'll probably look even better in vray but they still look amazing in UE4!

[RI3DVIZ]

Yeah I use Arroway textures too. The detail is nice on those but it still looks like a game.

Are those Megascans available for other engines already?

[heartlessphil]

Imo UE4 materials are very nice. It's going to be even better when we get access to photoscanned stuff like http://www.quixel.se/dev/megascans

I think the bad materials you see are because people use bad textures to start with! Personally, I only use Arroway textures nowadays. They are awesome

Have you ever seen the map outpost-23 from the new unreal tournament? It's looking dangerously real. Apply the same quality and level of details for archviz and it's awesome.

[RI3DVIZ]

Cool! I have yet to see a great exterior in UE4 except perhaps Koola's Barcelona Pavilion and even those have some things I don't like.

Can you explain to me why textures look so bad in general, they all look low rez to me. I haven't seen one good concrete texture from a straight on view, when at a glancing angle they look okay but straight on they just look terrible to me.

[heartlessphil]

I'm working freaking hard to overcome some UE4 limitations. I've even built the engine source code to change the max resolution of the rendertargetcube to 8k. Now I know why Epic is locking it at 2k hehe!

But yea, right now for me it's easier to have the engine do the post-work (adding fog, DoF, color balance, volumetric effects, LUTs, etc.) than doing it myself in Photoshop in post-prod. It's a limitation for me unfortunately.

I think for pure interior design, ue4 artists have proven that it's possible to make very nice stuff. For environment work too. Now I want to see bigger scale exterior renderings made with Unreal. For pure exterior shots, I'm sure you can use 100% dynamic lighting and avoid lightmaps completely.

I've made a test with a huge sketchup model of about 4600 objects. I managed to bake it. It's ''possible'' but it's messy and the building time can skyrocket to a point it's not viable imo. The very same model used with 100% dynamic lighting works very well. And with some trickery I think can look very good. I'll try to post pictures soon. To compensate for the very accurate G.I you would get with vray tho, you have to make sure you have outstanding materials and flawless composition. I want to make something similar to UE4arch church scene. The main reason I built a custom ue4 engine with 8k rendertargetcube is to use it to fake reflections in my glass metarial. If I can have faked but high res reflections, it's gonna look good I think. I also started to use decals massively instead of having complex materials, with layers or vertex painting. Decals are so flexible! I'm making rust/leaks/creases with decals all over my scene!

I really hope we see more exterior arch-viz soon... Stay tuned!

[RI3DVIZ]

Personally, I think the way UE4 textures look, reflections, glass, chrome, blurry reflections, shadows are not up to speed with other programs and to me that makes the whole thing look less than what I would want. To each is own!

Koola and others have done great things with the software but I still see these things.

Heartlessphil. I think what you see is the clarity of the image in UE4, it comes out very crisp like high rez video, where in other render engines you have to address that in post. I think that is what drew me to learn UE4 to begin with then the limitations became apparent.

[heartlessphil]

I admit that there's something with ue4 lighting that I don't really feel in traditional architecture movies... The lighting feels more ''volumetric'' if I could say but that's probably due to the post-processing in real time vs the post-work you usually have to do in post (photoshop/after effects). In unreal you get that instantly!!! A render straight outta vray/corona usually look very flat and it takes life after the post prod. In unreal it feels alive right off the bat! Also, alot of post effects on tradionnal renderings are faked while in ue4 they feel more physically correct. But that's maybe just me being very bad at post-production hehe!

[PhillyArchitect]

All render engines have a look to them, unbiased render engines like Maxwell, Corona, Cycles etc. are the most photoreal the trade off is render time is extreme. Vray in the right hands can be fantastic. In my opinion UE4 is not up to the standards of unbiased or even Vray - expect to pay a high price though for AAA work. The thing about UE4 is it's ability to render an entire scene cost effectively, you can take as many still images as you want for example.

With all do respect Phillyarchitect I'm not sure you see the quality differences like us that work with these softwares daily. That's fine and not really the point, if you like the "look" of UE4 renderings then by all means use it!

You cannot do this in UE4 because of the reflection issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWKNAU7jN8

Maxwell render: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnQAiSGFEk

Realize that render engines like Vray and UE4 leave a lot of room for artist manipulation where render engines like Maxwell do not. This is why you see so many different styles in Vray/UE4 vs. Maxwell et al.

You may very well be right. I first heard about UE4 at Archdaily.com where Koola's work was presented and perhaps that could be part of my bias. I've seen a lot of computer renderings in my day but when I saw UE4, something seemed to be different.

[PhillyArchitect]

I would like to get your opinion as an architect on photorealistic 360 pano/vr.
Like this one made by a master, with vray

http://wip.sbrusse.com/BB_CubeMap/

Do you think it's enough for a VR experience? Be at a fixed position vs and Unreal VR where you can move, tilt your head, etc.
If you had choice, static photoreal vr or dynamic but ''less than photoreal'' vr with a better sense of presence...what looks more promising to you?

It really depends on the client and how much they want to explore the space. Many clients don't need such an intense vr experience imo. The smooth pans and movements through space of a defined path animation impart more emotion and excitement than a simulated "walk around." Both animation types have their uses, however.

[RI3DVIZ]

All render engines have a look to them, unbiased render engines like Maxwell, Corona, Cycles etc. are the most photoreal the trade off is render time is extreme. Vray in the right hands can be fantastic. In my opinion UE4 is not up to the standards of unbiased or even Vray - expect to pay a high price though for AAA work. The thing about UE4 is it's ability to render an entire scene cost effectively, you can take as many still images as you want for example.

With all do respect Phillyarchitect I'm not sure you see the quality differences like us that work with these softwares daily. That's fine and not really the point, if you like the "look" of UE4 renderings then by all means use it!

You cannot do this in UE4 because of the reflection issues: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=etWKNAU7jN8

Maxwell render: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WHnQAiSGFEk

Realize that render engines like Vray and UE4 leave a lot of room for artist manipulation where render engines like Maxwell do not. This is why you see so many different styles in Vray/UE4 vs. Maxwell et al.