Jason's BATs & Tutorials

[jacqulina 162]

excellent work

[spa 968]

I like the new building. Always nice to have some more small commercial buildings.

[mntoes 270]

Amazing detail. You are right to be pleased with it if it were my building I would be well chuffed.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

This screenshot shows what I mean.  It's a pre-release screenshot, and before the release, that effect got toned down a lot, but it makes it obvious what I'm talking about.  My windows aren't transparent, so I can't use the method you described.  I'd also like to do the same thing for all of my other windows, as well as the 211 West Fort's sign.

lol, the walls are limestone, and the green roof thing is copper.

Thanks, I did a preview in perspective view, and it looks really good there too, I'll post one sometime later.

Thanks everyone, time to get working again!

[SimFox 801]

This is a little gem!

Very Very good!

As for the glow... well that could have been post in Photoshop ...or not.. in MAX you can do similar thing and it called ... hold your breath - GLOW! (act all surprised now!)

you can find it in Rendering menu > Effects > Environment and Effects dialog > Effects panel > Add > Add Effect dialog > Lens Effects > Glow

I myself never used it but i think it requires LIGHT to work. Anyway default night windows will not work for you, so you may as well use lights. ot night light library with self-illuminated materials.

there are few limitations. First as I' mentioned already it applies to lights..not sure if it will work with self-illuminated materials... It might if you have some GI on.

Second it wouldn't work it Mental Ray. only with scanline.

You can get additional info and sep by step instructions in MAX HELP.

Wish you luck !

[bixel 1,223]

Holy SMOKES!!! Better than Maxis Material!

[marc 13]

Like SimFox said, this is a delightful small building, and full of crisp detail. This inconspicuous but realistic building should fit in perfectly on any Chicago or NY-style street corner.

In the 1800s, architects put pride into even the most mediocre and simple of buildings. Today they view small projects with indifference and look towards skyscrapers or Gehry-like piles of goo for fame and profit. Where is the human scale in today's architecture?

[nofunk 1,933]

SimFox took the words right out of my... fingers. (I am typing, remember?) This building is a true gem. It looks good enough to release now, and yet you continue to plug away at it. You inspire me, Jason!

EDIT:

Where is the human scale in today's architecture?quote>

What a great question, marcszar.

[ACEfanatic 7]

Originally posted by: marcszar Where is the human scale in today's architecture?quote>

Sacrificed to the dollar scale.  Which is evidentally about 2-3 times bigger than it needs or should be.

Awesome texturing, Jason.  Damn, I'm inspired to do a little building like this now...  only I know I still wouldn't finish it.

-ACE

[SimFox 801]

Marcszar: I'm could be wrong (that is if building had undergone some remodeling - particularly it's windows) but I believe that this building isn't from 1800s I think it has been designed and built already in XX century from small picture I can not make out all the details to determine was it in 1910s or 20-30s.

Purely architecturally modern pieces often, but of course not always are more interesting then many classical building which are same simple boxes so many despise just richly decorated. those decorations as such aren't architecture - they could be sculpture, paintings etc, but not architecture. Only very few buildings were really architecturally expressive - normally royal or some such residences and major cult structures.and even those with some styles were completely buried under tons of often tacky and over the top decorations. Architecture actually broke loose from decorative "oppression" right about turn of XX century At its roots are Pyramids and Obelisks of ancient Egypt which were first and pure architecture pure shape with decorative elements either totally absent or very subservient to the shape.

As for human scale... well it is all VERY relative - people from tundra find forest scary and totally out of proportions with their perception of human scale.

Also you have to remember that you judge the architecture , or lets just call it buildings of the past by few surviving examples which are normally those day's "skyscrapers or Gehry-like piles of goo". There are some who would goo all soft in the knees simply for the reason that something is just few hundreds years old no matter how mediocre it actually is - the fact that it is rare and old is enough for many. I say it all not to cast any negative light on old stuff generally and piece recreated by Jason, but to defend Gehry's piles of goo...

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Thanks everyone, I appreciate the support and the conversation.  It makes BATing a lot funner.

I've searched google for this building, and a surprising amount of results comes up (a lot of law and finance type stuff), but I haven't found any information on the building itself.

But yeah, I doubt it was built in the 1800's.  If I had to guess, I'd say 1908.  But inbetween 1900 and 1920.

I'd have to genearly agree.  But while it's true that a lot of older buildings are boxes, they usually have more depth (they're not just flat walls of glass), and the details make the buildings more interesting.  And of course, the ornamentaion itself is beautiful, and the fact that it fits in with the building as a whole makes it justifiable (in my opinion anyway).

These buildings aren't rare in the US though.  Even though they've been getting bulldozed for the last 50 years, there are still tons of them.  There's a building that looks a lot like the one I'm doing right now in every city in the US.

I still don't like Gehry's piles of goo though

[Spike345 20]

It is interesting how many of these AMAZING buildings are abandoned though...there are two BEAUTIFUL buildings in my city in the heart of downtown, and they are just left there rotting..and it pains me, I always dream of buying them and referbishing them, but I can't aha I don't like new modern stuff, some is ok, but the old classical styles strike me as gorgous.

(I hope these pictures work, they are amazing buildings)

[ACEfanatic 7]

Originally posted by: SimFox

Also you have to remember that you judge the architecture , or lets just call it buildings of the past by few surviving examples which are normally those day's "skyscrapers or Gehry-like piles of goo". There are some who would goo all soft in the knees simply for the reason that something is just few hundreds years old no matter how mediocre it actually is - the fact that it is rare and old is enough for many. I say it all not to cast any negative light on old stuff generally and piece recreated by Jason, but to defend Gehry's piles of goo...quote>

Mediocre execution of a solid idea is superior to brilliant execution of a bad idea.

Like it or not, Gehry is living proof of the saying:  "When you run out of good ideas, only bad ones are left behind."  Such is the problem of being original.

But this really is not an architecture debating forum.

@Spike345 - Beautiful.  I wanna BAT 'em... sooooo bad...

...but I need sleep.

-ACE

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Spike, is that from Toronto?  I went to Toronto last summer and I think I remember seeing something like that.

[SimFox 801]

Jason:

No one needs to like anything - it is very personal matter. I think civilized way is to show people what you like and be tolerant when others like something else. Some people may like both and more (like me personally)…

 

ACEfanatic:

You definitely have right for you opinions and tastes, but you should remember that GOOD and BAD are no more then a judgment. Why do you think you have a right to issue this verdict? Can you go into any details other then good or bad - those are clear and self explanatory only for you and those like minded, but if you want to bridge the gap you should be able to put some solid meaning into them. Otherwise just say I like (in stead of good) and I don't like ( instead of bad), but that would make your entire argument look much more shaky wouldn't it? So you choose to employ fundamental, biblical concept. Problem is I don't think you can. Or, for the matter of fact, any ONE can, without being able to go into details and explain himself.

Just as you say about Gehry, I can turn it inside out and say that it is a brilliant idea! And add "like it or not"! It is sort of fanny how all your proofs are even more dubious then your statements you used then to support. And it is peculiar how you first make claims about architectural quality of one building or another and then go and try to shut those who disagrees with you up by saying "this really is not an architecture debating forum", if so why do you speak of it here? OR should your statement be last and ultimate truth!? If nothing else it is unfair...

BTW have you actually seen any?? I mean in real life? Which one? And why exactly you didn’t like it?

 

Spike:

These are sweet little pieces! Well, little by today standards and even then with a stretch.. When compared to the modern 3-4 storey stuff these would look rather large and imposing. And that is what they were built for. Now tastes have changed and many would shy away from that sort of public statements. But of course it isn’t fault of the buildings themselves, or people who had created them in the first place. Pity that today so many of them prove to be uneconomical - too little rentable space vrs loooots of decorations demanding regular and ever more costly upkeep. You may hate it but money matters. It would be nice if someone or some foundation, or organization would take them under the wing and give them new lease of life. In Europe it would be almost impossible to take down anything more then 100 years old and in many places even buildings of some 60 years old enjoy universal protection that must be overruled on case by case basic and not other way around. Sometimes old should give a way to new. But hopefully this would be done sensibly. Also it depends on the mindset of society. How much it want to protect diversity or how rigidly it set on either conservative – nothing new next to me or opposite let’s tear down old world and build brand new one!

[Jasoncw 11,840]

In the US, everyone wants to keep these old buildings, except for when they're a total wreck (the point at which someone thinks the cost is worth the rennovation is different for each person), but no one has the money to do much about it.  The people who are rich sometimes do rennovations, but they didn't become rich by taking the expensive route.

There are historic designations in the US.  There's some kind of process that needs to be gone through in order to demolish a building if it is historic.  Sometimes buildings are just plain illegally torn down, like the case of this one building in Detroit.  I don't know what the process actually is though.

But when something becomes historical, there are a bunch of tax breaks and stuff that go along with it (as long as the building is being rennovated to be as historically accurate as possible, considering money).

I think once the US becomes older, it will start adopting more historical preservation ideas from Europe.  Right now, the country is so new, that in most of the places the oldest buildings are only from the 1850's.  In some cities, there isn't much older than 50 years.  Some cities have buildings remaining from the 1700's.  The indians didn't make very many buildings, and the ones they did make have decomposed.

In the end though, the buildings that were designed well will survive.  If it's in a good location, if the floorplans can have a variety of uses, if the building can easily be brought up to code, and have new services put into them, if the building was made with good materials and made sturdy (to make maintence less expensive, and so that it doesn't fall apart if it becomes abandoned), if it's under good management, and if it's particularly beautiful, it will survive.

I won't be able to work on stuff today.  I have classes almost all day, and after classes I'm going home for thanksgiving break.  I hope to get a lot done over break.

[Simfan34 11]

"Sometimes buildings are just plain illegally torn down, like the case of this one building in Detroit." If you don't want this to continue, stop eating little Caesar's Pizza. Poor Madison-Lenox. What scares me is that I know so much and I live nowhere near Detroit, much less ever been to the Midwest... Nice work on the Bank, though.

[Spike345 20]

Jason: Yes they are from Toronto, pretty sweet buildings, one of my favourites.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Where are you from Simfan?  I thought you were from Michigan or Ontario, or somewhere around here.

That's cool I remembered those buildings.  I really liked Toronto when I visited, it was really nice.

[6459978. 106]

Those buildings Spike345 posted always baffle me. They're right in the middle of the heart of downtown Toronto and yet they're completely unique; there's nothing else remotely in that style around. Did there used to be more of these architectural gems?

[Spike345 20]

I have no Idea, there are some older buildings like that around, but like I think most of them were torn down....pains me.

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Ok, here's some progress.

I did the back walls, and textured the roof junk.  Even though the side looks really bare, it's important to remember how small this is in the game.  Even the shortest of Maxis buildings will cover half of the wall, and most things will cover the entire wall, or the en

I still need to do other texturing tweaks, but is there anything in particular that I should change?

[spa 968]

It looks great and is ready for release in my opinion. The water stain next to the holes on the sides is a nice touch. I only have one tiny little suggestion. The texture on the stone around the door (not the columns that piece that encloses the entrance) should be changed to a less shiney one.

[jacqulina 162]

wow that looks great very nice detail

[nofunk 1,933]

Jason, this looks just magnificent!

[Jasoncw 11,840]

Thanks everyone.  Spa, I'm glad that you noticed the stains.

Here's that perspective shot I was talking about before.

I haven't had the chance to really work on anything at all this week.  I'll try to get a lot done on the weekend.

Something important though, is that I successfuly rendered something from 3ds max.  It was just a box, but I got it all to work.

I think I know how to do nitelites now, but I don't think I'll be able to get that glow that I was talking about.  But at least the nitelites will be antialiased, so they should still look nice.

[ardecila 124]

Wow, that is beautiful. Is it rendered with the rig I sent you, or the default rig?

[octaves 4]

Yeah, I remember that building in the picture Spike345 posted from Toronto too.  Yonge street if I remember correctly...

As always, your BATs are amazing and detailed, Jason! :-)

[SimFox 801]

No, that's not a default rig... that one uses shadow maps and as such all the shadows would be very badly defined. here we see just opposite

Beautiful, BEAUTIFUL little number!! "water damage" is soooo nice!

Jason, when you say night lights do you mean lights lights or nitewindows type of thing, (Night Libraries??)

[mntoes 270]

Wow simply fantastic! Lost for words........