Posted by gary veasy on November 11, 1998 at 20:12:39:
In Reply to: Re: Christmas List--Lighting posted by Peter Bacot on November 11, 1998 at 17:36:54:
How's it going ? Supposed to be pretty foggy up there tonight....here too!
For Board readers as a whole and in response to Peter's post let me describe a hypothetical and perhaps idealistic scenario.
What if those of us that were intent on getting this incorporated into DW, got together by email . Preferably, our group would consist if people doing residential, commercial, and industrial work. I bet we could come up with a list of at least 50 different types of fixtures/lamps that we would be very satisfied if DW supported. Maybe even a lot more! They would consist of lamps of different wattages, of course, but would include strip flourescents, incandescent, metal halide. They would be interior, exterior, parking lot and perhaps even garden lighting. They would be recessed, exposed, diffused or not. Hanging, wallmounted....the list could be endless. But we COULD come up with a comprehensive list that perhaps got supported in small increments to a group of testers or "contributors" as we work with Kevin and his gang. (assuming Kevin would want to do this!)Ultimatley they would be available to all...
The lamps would generally marry up with with industry leaders and their fixtures (lamps). Thats is to say, GE and Sylvania both have a 2', 125 watt flourescent fixture with similar data and performance. Same with 400w metal halide parking lot lights. WHAT IF you could simply rely on a library fixtures that were acurate from a lighting standpoint? Perhaps done (drawn) by a 3rd party (Bytesize for instance?) but yes, Peter, already drawn. Nothing to do but paste them in and give them a z value!!!
Then when you rendered the model, preferably using Radiance Online, not only would you get accurate renderings but they would REALLY show the effect of a certain lightling scheme. No, they wouldn't have to be EXACT to the footcandle, but if they were generally pretty close (and i think they would be very close given the data out there on lighting!) you could test different lighting schemes and get an accurate rendering based on an intuitive or actual lighting plan.
I would really like to know if I am hitting on all cylinders here. It is just a concept, and of course subject to Kevin's willingness to support it. But if we sit back and dont say whether we thnk it is a great idea or it sucks, noone will be any better. Let's get a dialogue going here. What are your thoughts? If you would prefer, email me and I will respond.
If we are going to use the most intuitive program around to model with, with access to the most accurate rendering engine around (Radiance) why not also make it accurate form a lighting standpoint, even if it is just an intuitive placement of lights....
And btw Peter, I generally agree with your comment about landscaping but if we could get accurate looking plant materials and trees, although perhaps not the absolute correct species, it would make the renderings more (photo)realistic. For those of us desiring that kind of "product" I would vote for realistic "symbols" for ALL architectural, landscaping, lighting, and interior furnishing items....(to list just a few)
I anxiously await comments from all users / readers who care to contribute, which I hope are all...(including those just surfing in.....)