Looking for a photorealistic 3D house planner program

I probably understand something different as a photographer under photorealistic applications than you do. The OP complained about Arcon last week. Well, I know it, and if the OP portrays it as essentially "old-fashioned," I am aware of what he does not want.

Yes, that may well be the case, the term photorealism is not clear-cut. As someone who has worked for 7 years in research on physically accurate real-time ray tracers, I may indeed have a different perspective on photorealism than you. Application area: medical technology.

But that's not the point. The original poster should look at the mentioned solutions and decide for themselves whether it is photorealistic enough for them. Why dismiss suggestions and claim there is nothing else/better or only available for five-figure sums? What if a few textures, light sources, imported furniture, materials, bump maps are enough for them to render a "photorealistic view" for themselves?

Yes, that may well be, the term photorealism is not clear-cut. As someone who worked for 7 years in research on physically correct real-time ray tracers, I may indeed have a different perspective on photorealism than you do. Application area: medical technology.

But that's not the point. The original poster should look at the mentioned solutions and decide for themselves whether it is photorealistic enough for them. Why dismiss suggestions and claim that there is nothing else/better or only available for five-figure sums? What if a few textures, light sources, imported furniture, materials, bump maps are enough for them to render a "photorealistic view" for themselves?

I am not dismissing anything. I want to set that straight.

The original poster has downgraded Arcon, and Arcon was back then the architect program alongside CAD that allowed user-friendly 2D to 3D switches. Today it still offers (for me the best 3D animations, even if the objects are not up to date) the best possibilities for house designs, even if only in the amateur sector because unfortunately it was not further developed. I know it because I have had it since the 1990s. The original poster also knows it.

You are already accusing me again here just because I summarize from the first lines and the deleted post of the original poster their wishes and recognize that they will not be happy with the common offers, or more precisely, that they will not get what is on their wish list, because everything affordable for an amateur is worse than Arcon.

You also don’t always have to question every post and every user just because you yourself believe that it cannot be that someone knows something in certain matters.

Off Topic:
From New Year on, I will count down these unbelieving posts from 10, and then I’m out of here – it simply is no longer any fun!
This competition of I-know-better and where-do-you-get-that-knowledge-from stories is the death of every respectful forum.

Maybe you should read your post (#8) again and compare it with the ones before. Ideally, something will stand out to you. I find your sensitivity irritating. You brought the job into the argument; if someone else then happens to know the topic more deeply due to their profession and evaluates some things differently, are you out? So much for respectful interaction...

By the way, I am not accusing you of anything, but rather perceiving what you write and interpreting what I read there. And if absolute statements are written there, I perceive them as such and react accordingly. If your demand is that everything you write should only receive approval and a hint at a simply false statement is not permitted, I can personally live well with your downvoting. For me, respectful interaction also means giving other opinions space and not acting as if you have the only correct viewpoint with statements like "That’s how it is!", "which provides the best options for house designs", "that is basically the best for amateurs", "rendering trees is impossible on a normal user PC." And to put it bluntly: this know-it-all attitude and the often associated claim of absoluteness annoy me immensely. And often your posts on some topics unfortunately come across exactly like that to me, very clearly, especially when it comes to floor plans or similar. Just see it as free feedback and do with it what you want...

In the future, I will simply try to avoid threads in which you write something, somehow our form of communication doesn’t seem to fit... so long and thanks for all the fish. The end.

Hey you two experts (quite serious here ):

Before continuing to argue about the best render engine, ray tracing or not, one should point out the learning curve again!

Professional software can be purchased, for huge sums or sometimes also for free (Blender).
However, it is definitely aimed at professionals with corresponding extensive experience and (formal) education.

It is a misconception that you only need this professional software and that it will then guide you through the respective menus to produce ‘professional’ results.
That’s exactly what all these ‘hobby tools’ are for. You have to make compromises in the quality of the results but with just a few hours - thanks to the focus on amateurs - you can achieve quite decent results.

I admit that I’m somewhat overstepping when I write that it is practically impossible for the user PC that....
I don’t know the OP’s PC. And I’m not 100% familiar with such PC applications either (except the common ones).
I have only derived the theoretical time expenditure. Ashes on my head.

I am only referring to the quality of Arcon, which the OP explicitly mentioned and used for comparison and as a benchmark. And if I put 5-6 user-friendly programs next to Arcon, this program by far performs best.

You can certainly convert a worked out perspective into a photorealistic image, but unfortunately you can’t walk around photorealistically.
Arcon has all the options for creating a floor plan. And that quickly and easily.
It has furniture, it has materials, you can create gardens and plots, and there is a “sun position function.”
It differs from everything in that it was developed back then for architects and not for amateurs.

That you interpret a lot has not gone unnoticed by me. But shouldn’t these interpretations from you rather be questioned with the writer, instead of you assuming your interpretation is what was written?
Sharp word twists are usually of little use to the OP.

Otherwise: just compare ## 7 and 8.
If I had already seen your post earlier, I would have simply agreed.