Lumion Support Center

Support for unlicensed users => Post here if you can't find your License Key => Topic started by: dgilberto on January 25, 2012, 07:50:02 pm

Title: Collision request
Post by: dgilberto on January 25, 2012, 07:50:02 pm
It will be absolutely necessary to include collisions in Lumion. I found that Lumion is extraordinary to make movies but it is very difficult to navigate as a man in a virtual world. For this feature I prefer any VRML. Unfortunately  It is not possible to obtain the same quality of the environment in VRML,  but we can walk !!!. Once Lumion will have collisions I think we’ll  forget about burning textures and navigate in VRML.
Some news about that????
Dgilberto
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Aliki_N on January 25, 2012, 08:34:48 pm
Collison detection is a must have feature, at least with any object that is assigned a landscape material. It is not a nice feeling to constantly find yourself under the artificial landscape material while navigating. I therefore totally agree with you.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Ming Architect on January 25, 2012, 09:08:36 pm
i think ...............Thats Impossible

(http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film2/dvdreviews27/a%20mission%20impossible%20season%201/title2%20mission%20impossible.jpg)

Oops ... are you sure?
Even SketchUp have it long time ago.
I think it should be in Lumion oneday, for those do real-time navigation in front of clients.
Not just those w/a/s/d style, but maybe with kinect:
Kinect Effect (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T_QLguHvACs#ws)
Oneday...

Thanks,
Ming
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Aliki_N on January 25, 2012, 10:22:35 pm
Ming, I love your line of thought. Impossible ........................................  I think not, too.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: RAD on January 25, 2012, 11:52:47 pm

5 additional layers is almost impossible for them to add.

Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Ming Architect on January 26, 2012, 07:51:39 am
I'm confusing now ??? ??? ???.

Dazomatic, please show me the light why that's impossible. What I am missing ?
CRhoades, I don't know about layers need to be add. Could I have more infos ?

Is it technically or commercially impossible ?
e.g. We can't have it because it hard to implement or that must be reserved for quest3d?

Thanks,
Ming
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: RAD on January 26, 2012, 07:56:53 am
Sorry Ming,  I don't have the link.

Stucci started the post where Morten discuss the improbability of just adding additional layers.
In that it is hard to implement.
Sounds like adding layers is hard to implement because they will need to rebuild Lumion from the ground up to implement such things. 

Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Morten on January 26, 2012, 12:51:36 pm
5 additional layers is almost impossible for them to add.

Sounds like adding layers is hard to implement because they will need to rebuild Lumion from the ground up to implement such things.

Just to avoid misunderstandings, here's what I replied when Stucki wanted someone to comment on his requests in the Wish List section:

"I don't have much authority on this matter. I'm basically making a guess based on my limited knowledge about the inner workings of Lumion, and it could well be that it's easier or harder than I think. Only Remko/Ferry/Arthur/Artur know how difficult and time-consuming it is to actually implement these features."

...

I'm not a developer but here's what I know:

Seemingly simple changes are rarely as simple as they might seem.


...

"Adding unlimited layers with naming capability would require that the Layer system would have to be completely overhauled and redesigned from the ground up. And that could take some time..."

"Even "just" adding say, 5 more layers would require user interface changes, changes to the Show/Hide Layer effects, changes to the Move selection to Layer command, changes to the Save scene function and the Scene file format, and lastly implementing backwards compatibility so that Lumion 1 projects with just 5 Layers would still load."

In this example, I'm basically just describing some of the pitfalls that would make a seemingly simple feature request trickier to implement than you might think at first glance.

Something similar could probably be said about implementing collisions.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: RAD on January 26, 2012, 02:20:32 pm
right right. 

Essential Layers might be....
Layer for lights
Layer for trees
Layer for imported trees
Layer for people
Layer for animals
Layer(s) for cars
Layer for boats
Layer for furniture
Layer for main model
Layer for Aerial
Layer for layout material
Layer for Special Effects
Layer for Animated objects
Layer for Non-Animated objects
Layer for Sky-dome
Layer for Alternate Terrain
Layer(s) for Alternate main model
Layer for Billboards
Layer for Place Holders
Layer for ........

Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Vas on January 26, 2012, 03:12:59 pm
Anyway... we definitly need more layers  :-D... I hope more layers will be added soon..
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Ming Architect on January 26, 2012, 06:20:47 pm
Thanks everyone,

I see now, it happened to all software that have long history. I guess the layers coding are quite low level which was set up very early of quest3d and at that moment it robust enough.

I'm not qualify to say this. IMO upgrade path need to be break in some version, not necessary every version, to keep Lumion robust, e.g. the model will be kept but textures, effects and some functions are lost when open in newer version. But instruction for remedy should be provided. It is about clear message to customers since Lumion is quite new and can set up some new tradition.

Too many criteria will eventually slow development down. Don't know if it could be change if Lumion become big and have resources for rewrite, but I hope so! I see no reason why  should something hold Lumion back for being the most robust in the field, it's about planning and decisions !

Regards,
Ming
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Aliki_N on January 27, 2012, 09:18:05 pm
Hi Morten,

Your response to these requests paints a very grey picture about lumion's ability to incorporate what appears to be standard and basic functions. It almost sounds like lumion started on a difficult to expand software platform. Layers, landscape modelling tools, collision detection at least with any object assigned to a landscape layer, sound, animation paths and speed control, seated animated people, business people, casual people, people from different races, different light objects with illumination properties, high quality material shaders, tendered lawns, ability to turn any surface into a paintable surface, high quality plants for close camera animation are some of the basic functions which lumion users have been asking for a long time. I feel we have been given lots of plants and less of animated people, less of high quality metal materials, less of landscape painting options. I don't mean to sound ungrateful - lumion has given us the rendering speed we want, and the team interacts on a daily basis with their users which we greatly appreciate, but we need an assurance that the requests that have constantly recurred are being addressed..We need a definitive list of items that are being addressed. If it means lumion developing high quality bundles of library objects for extra cost in order to support future development, let it be so.

Impossible?................................I still think not.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: dgilberto on January 30, 2012, 10:38:56 am
I think it is the most reasonable think I have read about that. Or they are waiting for more advanced release (this is a very common strategy in soft and hard), or as you said, they are reserved it for Quest3D. But Quest3D is very difficult for architects, they have enough looking for assignments, designing and supervision the buildings. At the end, although Q3D is thought and structured by parquets, it is kind of programming and need a lot of time to learn it.
Lumion is not like this, once solved the way to import textured pieces is very easy. So architects, could use it, but only for one goal: To make animations.
We have to forget about making presentations emulating real walking people. This is, for the moment, in my opinion, reserved for VRML burning textures to obtain some quality.     



I'm confusing now ??? ??? ???.

Dazomatic, please show me the light why that's impossible. What I am missing ?
CRhoades, I don't know about layers need to be add. Could I have more infos ?

Is it technically or commercially impossible ?
e.g. We can't have it because it hard to implement or that must be reserved for quest3d?

Thanks,
Ming
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Morten on January 30, 2012, 10:53:51 am
Your response to these requests paints a very grey picture about lumion's ability to incorporate what appears to be standard and basic functions.

As I already said, "only Remko/Ferry/Arthur/Artur know how difficult and time-consuming it is to actually implement these features... it could well be that it's easier or harder than I think".

We need an assurance that the requests that have constantly recurred are being addressed... We need a definitive list of items that are being addressed.

As I mentioned in several other threads, I doubt you will get a definitive list of *all* items that are being addressed. Until after the features have already been implemented, that is...

The developers can't promise that something will be implemented until they're certain that it can be done. Programming is a bit like running through an obstacle course in thick fog. The obstacles sometimes don't show up until you're pretty close to them, and you don't always know in advance if a given obstacle is a showstopper or not.

While I understand your request for a roadmap, the problem is that if a potential customer purchases Lumion on the basis of us promising that feature X will be developed in 2012, and this promise fails to materialise due to insurmountable technical problems, it could be interpreted as false marketing.

The last thing the developers want is for you to promise a future client that something will be possible - before it has been implemented.

Regarding your list of shortcomings, here's what I know at this moment in time:

People: More animated people (including seated people and different races) will be included in future updates.

Plants: High quality indoor plants for close-ups will be included in future updates.

Sound: They are actively looking at the possibility of adding 2D/3D sounds to Lumion, but bear in mind that this is no guarantee that it will materialise in a future update.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Aliki_N on January 30, 2012, 01:10:46 pm
Thanks Morten for your response. I really appreciate.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Remko on January 31, 2012, 02:02:14 pm
Concerning collision - for now we have no plans what so ever to include this simply because it does not fit the type of program really well. We want Lumion to be a program for movies and not for walk-troughs. Maybe in some future updates we can add extra camera types such as drive-trough, helicopter or walktrough but for now we have no plans for this. We have many exciting things on the list we want to complete first. Our primairy focus is fast and good looking architecture movies and there are many other areas that come first before we need a collision capable camera.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Nico RVArq.com on January 31, 2012, 06:05:16 pm
But Remko, seems to me that the collision strongly related to the ability to generate an EXE file, isn´t?  :-\ The executable thing, Can you say something about it? Is it in your plans?
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Nico RVArq.com on February 01, 2012, 02:41:04 pm
Also I want to know.
When will L2.1 be released ?
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Morten on February 01, 2012, 03:06:00 pm
I wish I could tell you that, but we keep finding new bugs that Ferry has to fix. Hence the delay.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Nico RVArq.com on February 02, 2012, 02:14:29 pm
Morten, don´t want to sound that I want to make you walk through the fire wondering about the executable thing. (and the planar reflexions, by the way).
But I have also sent an email to ACT3d with the first question and got no response.
I wonder if at least in the plans develop, or if it is something that is discarded for this 2012.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Morten on February 02, 2012, 02:19:20 pm
Morten, don´t want to sound that I want to make you walk through the fire wondering about the executable thing.

All I can say is to stay tuned for more information about this.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Remko on February 02, 2012, 05:52:41 pm
But Remko, seems to me that the collision strongly related to the ability to generate an EXE file, isn´t?  :-\ The executable thing, Can you say something about it? Is it in your plans?

We abandoned the whole idea of an executable. The reality is it is too cumbersome because people have to have the right hardware. The only thing I can see similar functionality is if Lumion gets an easy way to package scenes so you can send them to someone else. This way someone could just install the free version of lumion and use it as a viewer for your scene.

Maybe at some point we can extend the play mode so you can walk around or something like that.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Nico RVArq.com on February 02, 2012, 06:05:59 pm
Too much sincerity, I preferred the intrigue.
Little less than a disgrace.
I am sorry that things are so.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: BMcIsaac on February 02, 2012, 06:30:40 pm
There is a list of rendering apps being used in a survey at Sketchucation...I pointed it out earlier. There are a lot of very useless applications out there. Of the 23 there were only really 5 that where in use at all. The rest got basically no support from a forum that has thousands of viewers in the modeling and rendering business. Those that were on top are no charm either. Thea for example seems to be very popular. It is an amazing indoor rendering machine.  The quality is amazing...but...and a big but...try to build a forested terrain  from an Architects drawing....NOT POSSIBLE! unless you want to work and wait hours...and movies.. forget it you need a rendering farm to get off a 10 second cut.

So that shows that it is hard to compare apples and oranges I guess but the point is, we are just spoiled here. You need to adjust your quality expectation not to your taste but to your customers taste and at the moment my arch customers are switching to Lumion builders because Lumion builders get the job done way faster than anyone else. Please find me something that compares. The small sacrifices in real visual readiness are hardly noticeable.

The big firms in my town are not able to compete with me anymore because they want to charge the old "go slow" rates. I get calls from building owners with drawings in hand who have been quoted 2 to 3 thousand for a half dozen images. They are very good alright but too good!!! We are not trying to create images that get us hits on youtube we are trying to reduce our customer costs and get him a good quality package. That is what makes him happy.  Once they get you under their skin with this Lumion workflow, they will not let you go....believe me.

Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Aliki_N on February 04, 2012, 08:55:51 am
Concerning collision - for now we have no plans what so ever to include this simply because it does not fit the type of program really well. We want Lumion to be a program for movies and not for walk-troughs. Maybe in some future updates we can add extra camera types such as drive-trough, helicopter or walktrough but for now we have no plans for this. We have many exciting things on the list we want to complete first. Our primairy focus is fast and good looking architecture movies and there are many other areas that come first before we need a collision capable camera.

Dead end????
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Remko on February 06, 2012, 10:18:40 am
Dead end????

Not a certain dead end but I just want to make sure you know our position on this now. As we see it there are many more important areas we can improve upon before collision becomes important. Good examples are better reflections, sound, better lighting and things like that. We want Lumion to be a tool primairily for movies so we do not want to confuse things.

We have a lot of experience in the real-time area and we know that as soon as we start implementing real-time walk-trough functionality there's a whole list of extra features you cannot really do without. Think about doors opening, elevators, a top down map, interactive switching of materials and models and many other things. Another point is that the real-time performance of Lumion is not really that good compared to other engines optimized for real-time rendering. This is because we favor the final movie results and only aim to keep the real-time interaction good enough for setting up your scene and rendering a movie.

If we decide to do real-time walktroughs we would probably do it as a seperate product which combines smoothly with Lumion so the interface does not get cluttered and we can optimize for specific purposes.
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: dgilberto on February 07, 2012, 06:44:37 pm
Not a certain dead end but I just want to make sure you know our position on this now. As we see it there are many more important areas we can improve upon before collision becomes important. Good examples are better reflections, sound, better lighting and things like that. We want Lumion to be a tool primairily for movies so we do not want to confuse things.

We have a lot of experience in the real-time area and we know that as soon as we start implementing real-time walk-trough functionality there's a whole list of extra features you cannot really do without. Think about doors opening, elevators, a top down map, interactive switching of materials and models and many other things. Another point is that the real-time performance of Lumion is not really that good compared to other engines optimized for real-time rendering. This is because we favor the final movie results and only aim to keep the real-time interaction good enough for setting up your scene and rendering a movie.

If we decide to do real-time walktroughs we would probably do it as a seperate product which combines smoothly with Lumion so the interface does not get cluttered and we can optimize for specific purposes.


Ok, it is your opinion and the valid one because you belong to the staff and I respect deeply. But as user, I observe that the Real Time it is so close that it is not an extra more ordinary needed feature, it is a feature that would convert Lumion to use in both ways. Film and RT.
Dgilberto
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Aliki_N on February 08, 2012, 08:06:49 am
Hi Remko,

Much appreciated of the direction you want to take lumion to. However, you need to take cognisance  of the number of people that are requesting for this feature against say reflections, or improved lighting. Lumion's catch phrase has been "making architectural Visualisation much easier".
Much of architectural visualisation is done at a conceptual stage. One wants to interact with the client at a much earlier stage, walk the client through the project without having to final render 17 hours of high quality video. Changes and improvements are easier to implement in real time walk thrus. Lumion currently has collision detection with the built-in terrain. Why can't the same code be implemented on imported terrains? This way, one could import stair-case elements as objects, inject the collision detection code into them to be treated like terrains, Walk a character up the stair by collision detection or navigate up a stair via collision detection. I think given a chance to vote between this feature and lighting improvement, most users would vote collision detection. Lumion's artificial lighting is currently already within acceptable quality, in my opinion.
So please, put this feature as one of your priorities in this year's feature development. Remko, you are sometimes full of nice surprises, this might already have been included in Lumion 2.1 BUILD 1!!! he, he,he!

Regards,

Alickn
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: stucki on February 08, 2012, 10:11:45 am
i second that !
Title: Re: Collision request
Post by: Remko on February 08, 2012, 11:59:10 am
i second that !

There are a million different people and there are a million different wishes. We have some ideas lined up on how we can do things like collisions and walk-throughs but for now there's nothing more to do than waiting. Luckily we have 2.1 lined up to keep you busy :D We're now doing the final final tests and packaging the free version and hopefully you will be able to download it later today. The build looks good so far.