PDA

View Full Version : Maxwell: bug in plastic material


AdamT
05-02-2006, 05:12 PM
Just discovered that the Cinema plugin has a *nasty* bug with Maxwell's plastic material. In Maxwell, plastic is created by way of two BSDF layers, with image maps (if any) applied to the bottom layer, which should be set to Lambertian. The top layer controls reflectivity and glossiness.

Unfortunately, the Cinema plugin places image maps on the *top* layer, which rules out the use of standard Cinema materials 99% of the time. Why? Because although it's called "Plastic", the material is used for virtually everything except for emitters, glass, and 100% diffuse materials.

I've got to believe that the beta team had little or no time to test plugins before release. Otherwise it's unimaginable that so many critical bugs could have gotten through.

Let's hope that NL addresses this soon--and I don't mean "soon" as the word is typically used by NL (which translates to "in a very long time or never").

Rochr
05-02-2006, 08:57 PM
Judging by how "well" 1.0 works and Next Limits infamous efficiency, m afraid that "soon" will probably end up as "never".

I bet most of the beta boys have forgotten about the plugin a long time ago, and are busy testing Studio only, an app not even NL knew existed when we bought that damn renderer.

I will actually be very very surprised, if we even get 1 upgrade for the plugin, before they decide to put the rest in 2.0 and ask us to pay more for features weve already payed for.

Ernest Burden
05-02-2006, 11:57 PM
Let's hope that NL addresses this soon

I'm hoping Tyrone will have something to add here, either about how to make things work as they are or what steps are under way to correct the problem(s).

Primitiv
05-03-2006, 12:10 AM
Adam, you are a nice guy and I don't doubt you are wanting to help, but all your posts on Maxwell are not making you look good. It feels more like a vendetta on Next Limit than real unbiased opinions.

We all know that Maxwell is not there. Hell, I would not shed $1000 for it. But your incessant posts are a bit disturbing man. Cool off will you :-)

AdamT
05-03-2006, 01:57 AM
Adam, you are a nice guy and I don't doubt you are wanting to help, but all your posts on Maxwell are not making you look good. It feels more like a vendetta on Next Limit than real unbiased opinions.

We all know that Maxwell is not there. Hell, I would not shed $1000 for it. But your incessant posts are a bit disturbing man. Cool off will you :-)
Sorry if it's disturbing you, but these are all legitimate and substantial issues with Maxwell as it relates to Cinema. This being the Cinema lighting and rendering forum, I think it's appropriate. Don't you think that someone considering using M~R with Cinema would want to know that there's no support for animation, motion blur, material selections, and in fact almost no support for Cinema materials at all?

Primitiv
05-03-2006, 02:42 AM
Yes, I think that you bring very valid and important points. I am just wondering about your motives. As important as information is, the source is just as important. And seeing your posts the last few days, I am concerned that you might lose some credibility in this affair and hurt yourself just as much as you bring Maxwell down.

Please, understand that I am not arguing on your finds or critiques of Next Limit or Maxwell, but I am trying to warn you of the opposite effect you might create by being too vindictive on a company that you feel as wronged you. Believe me, I have been there.

Maxwell seems to make some gorgeous renderings, but to me it is still an unfinished product not worth $1000 just to dabble with. I think they are trying to cash-in now in hope to round-up the development later. But at this point, it feels more like a curiosity than a professional-ready tool that one can use in everyday work.

Ernest Burden
05-03-2006, 03:46 AM
As important as information is, the source is just as important.

NextLimit is not a vaid source of information, so we must rely upon people like Tyrone Marshall who is an insider, and users like Adam who actually try stuff out. Both sources are valid and important. I am very glad these threads are here.

AdamT
05-03-2006, 03:59 AM
It's certainly no secret what I think of NL, but that's a separate issue; I'm just reporting my findings as I delve into v.1.0, which I just installed the other day. Does it affect my credibility? I don't know. I have almost 8,000 posts here, so I guess the people who frequent this place have a pretty good idea who I am and what I'm about.

Matariki
05-03-2006, 05:26 AM
Has anyone come up with a workaround yet? I guess you can load the materials into the material editor or studio to fix it but that is not really what I want to do. I had a look at the binary mxs file. It is quite simple to patch the file to render correctly but in a way that is the same as loading it into studio, nothing really gained. Judging by the nature of the problem it would be an very easy fix done in the plugin and a recompile but I guess we have to be patient.

AdamT
05-03-2006, 05:38 AM
I don't know of a workaround other than using the MM or Studio. I agree it should be a fairly simple job for the programmers. All of the info. is coming into the material--just in the wrong slots.

Carl007
05-03-2006, 06:51 AM
Well, I for one appreciate Adams posts about Maxwell among others...

Does anyone know who is coding the plugin for C4D?
Who is testing the plugin? Are there any?
I would gladly volunteer to help test the plugin...
And I am biased, who is not?

/Carl

lllab
05-03-2006, 08:10 AM
hmm, just a suggestion,

but maybe it would be good and more compact to just have one maxwell thread. there are quite some bugs for sure to be talked about, if we open one thread per bug the whole cinema lighting forum is messed up.

i think the information would be the same, maybe even better. at least i prefer going through one thread instead of 5+.

After more and more testing most things work i must say, but more or less as a workarounds. What makes me really a bit angry are the "v1" plugins. it was promised they will be "treatened" very well. i fear that the programmers have had very few time for them, at least for the cinema plugin.

another thing that i fear is a strange noise pattern they introduced which does look ugly at lower sampling levels. pictures that where noisy but usefull for conceptual images are not usable with this kind of visible pattern. the random noise was MUCH nicer.

cheers
Stefan

lllab
05-03-2006, 08:11 AM
by the way is the maxwell forum so slow for all of you or is it just me..?
stefan

lllab
05-03-2006, 02:25 PM
could someone do a tracert in dos shell to www.maxwellrender.com so that i can compare?
would be nice.

i have a timeout in it most of the time with this url, have to talk to my isp...

thanks cheers
stefan

Other3DMaster
05-03-2006, 02:42 PM
It's certainly no secret what I think of NL, but that's a separate issue; I'm just reporting my findings as I delve into v.1.0, which I just installed the other day. Does it affect my credibility? I don't know. I have almost 8,000 posts here, so I guess the people who frequent this place have a pretty good idea who I am and what I'm about.

Adam, your posts on Maxwell have been completely on point; and as the Maxwell forums, as well as NL staff/beta insiders, have been mostly devoid of any useful information, your posts have provided the only real source of information on the topic as it relates to C4D users. I have never felt that you were/are grinding an axe. So, I thank you for all your Maxwell posts.

Primitiv
05-03-2006, 03:48 PM
So Adam, I guess I have to apologize. It seems that my feeling is not shared by other members and that I am wrong in this matter.

AdamT
05-03-2006, 04:09 PM
So Adam, I guess I have to apologize. It seems that my feeling is not shared by other members and that I am wrong in this matter.
No problem, mon. I absolutely have an axe to grind with NL, but I feel I'm capable of separating my opinion regarding their business practices from my findings with respect to CineMaxwell. It does take a conscious effort. :)

Matariki
05-03-2006, 08:01 PM
could someone do a tracert in dos shell to www.maxwellrender.com so that i can compare?
would be nice.

i have a timeout in it most of the time with this url, have to talk to my isp...

thanks cheers
stefan
I have almost an instant reply with the main site and the forum, no timeout.

traceroute to svr1.maxwellrender.com (207.234.208.254), 64 hops max, 40 byte packets
1 my.router (192.168.1.1) 0.780 ms 0.366 ms 0.332 ms

lllab
05-03-2006, 08:08 PM
thanks Matariki,

it is something with my ISPs routeing.

anyway i helped myself with putty, tunneling the maxwell domain over another server i have access too, now it's fast as ever;-) / at least for a workaround.

i find it more and more often that in austria we have routing problems., very annoying...

thanks forhelp,
cheers
stefan

umblefugly
05-04-2006, 01:53 AM
Ping statistics for 207.234.208.254:
Packets: Sent = 4, Received = 4, Lost = 0 (0% l
Approximate round trip times in milli-seconds:
Minimum = 90ms, Maximum = 116ms, Average = 98ms

lllab
05-04-2006, 06:55 PM
uble fugly thansk for help, my isp changed something now it works again in normal mode:-)

cheers
stefan

CGTalk Moderation
05-04-2006, 06:55 PM
This thread has been automatically closed as it remained inactive for 12 months. If you wish to continue the discussion, please create a new thread in the appropriate forum.