imashination
06-12-2006, 10:52 AM
A mini tutorial on how to render a cube would be nice. Anyone? The manual is a joke, and everything else useful seems to be locked away on a members-only forum.
View Full Version : Maxwell
|
|
LemonNado
06-12-2006, 11:11 AM
Please.... not another Maxwell thread in the C4D forum... There is a great forum here:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/
They have tons of info and also people who actually help. Some user also took ownership of the bug tracking of the C4D plugin. So problems with it can be submitted right there. Nobody can deny that Maxwell is inching it's way forward. So for people with the right expectations it certainly is a cool product.
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/
They have tons of info and also people who actually help. Some user also took ownership of the bug tracking of the C4D plugin. So problems with it can be submitted right there. Nobody can deny that Maxwell is inching it's way forward. So for people with the right expectations it certainly is a cool product.
imashination
06-12-2006, 11:40 AM
All Im asking for is a "put this tag on here" response.
www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip
Whats missing from here? I have geometry, lights, camera, camera tags, diffuse tags, emitter tags, plastic tags.....
www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip
Whats missing from here? I have geometry, lights, camera, camera tags, diffuse tags, emitter tags, plastic tags.....
LemonNado
06-12-2006, 12:42 PM
Sorry, but I deleted it already. It simply does not run right and I don't have time for experimental software. You should post your scene at their site.
Rainer
Rainer
dan22
06-12-2006, 12:47 PM
Hey, Mash...trailing your coat a bit here, methinks ;)
Besides, everyone knows that rendering a cube is something that can only be done by the most expert 3D practitioners, and is never, ever to be attempted in any 3D software without extensive one-to-one training, consulting video tutorials, and thorough studying of manuals first.
Hoping to engage in something as complex as cube-rendering in a new piece of software by simply relying on your intuition, is simply doomed to failure, and could even result in irreparable damage to your computer. Honestly, you wouldn't attempt it in any other package, surely?
Cheers,
D.
Besides, everyone knows that rendering a cube is something that can only be done by the most expert 3D practitioners, and is never, ever to be attempted in any 3D software without extensive one-to-one training, consulting video tutorials, and thorough studying of manuals first.
Hoping to engage in something as complex as cube-rendering in a new piece of software by simply relying on your intuition, is simply doomed to failure, and could even result in irreparable damage to your computer. Honestly, you wouldn't attempt it in any other package, surely?
Cheers,
D.
seco7
06-12-2006, 01:20 PM
All Im asking for is a "put this tag on here" response.
www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip)
Whats missing from here? I have geometry, lights, camera, camera tags, diffuse tags, emitter tags, plastic tags.....
Hello Mash,
I'm not sure what is happening for you, the plug does not save settings so I cannot see how you set the render itself, but your first problem is double tags. Your emitters should only have emitter tags, not the diffuse.
A couple of pointers ... in general, Maxwell is suppose to use "real world" settings and a photo camera methodology. The light emiters, scale, and camera settings should all be based on similar real world situations.
In the plug, the tags do not proprogate down in to groups. You have to put the tag on each item. There are also several severe bugs in the plug (say that 10 times fast ... bugs in the plugs :) ) that can cause problems, particularly scale/rotation and missing or moved geometry. If you run in to these let me know and I'll try and help.
Steve
www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip)
Whats missing from here? I have geometry, lights, camera, camera tags, diffuse tags, emitter tags, plastic tags.....
Hello Mash,
I'm not sure what is happening for you, the plug does not save settings so I cannot see how you set the render itself, but your first problem is double tags. Your emitters should only have emitter tags, not the diffuse.
A couple of pointers ... in general, Maxwell is suppose to use "real world" settings and a photo camera methodology. The light emiters, scale, and camera settings should all be based on similar real world situations.
In the plug, the tags do not proprogate down in to groups. You have to put the tag on each item. There are also several severe bugs in the plug (say that 10 times fast ... bugs in the plugs :) ) that can cause problems, particularly scale/rotation and missing or moved geometry. If you run in to these let me know and I'll try and help.
Steve
LemonNado
06-12-2006, 01:26 PM
Besides, everyone knows that rendering a cube is something that can only be done by the most expert 3D practitioners....
Yup, try a sphere first. That does not have those nasty hard edges.
Rainer 8-)
Yup, try a sphere first. That does not have those nasty hard edges.
Rainer 8-)
Katachi
06-12-2006, 01:28 PM
I summarize: Maxwell sucks in terms of usability. :D
Hello Mash,
I'm not sure what is happening for you, the plug does not save settings so I cannot see how you set the render itself, but your first problem is double tags. Your emitters should only have emitter tags, not the diffuse.
A couple of pointers ... in general, Maxwell is suppose to use "real world" settings and a photo camera methodology. The light emiters, scale, and camera settings should all be based on similar real world situations.
In the plug, the tags do not proprogate down in to groups. You have to put the tag on each item. There are also several severe bugs in the plug (say that 10 times fast ... bugs in the plugs :) ) that can cause problems, particularly scale/rotation and missing or moved geometry. If you run in to these let me know and I'll try and help.
Steve
Hello Mash,
I'm not sure what is happening for you, the plug does not save settings so I cannot see how you set the render itself, but your first problem is double tags. Your emitters should only have emitter tags, not the diffuse.
A couple of pointers ... in general, Maxwell is suppose to use "real world" settings and a photo camera methodology. The light emiters, scale, and camera settings should all be based on similar real world situations.
In the plug, the tags do not proprogate down in to groups. You have to put the tag on each item. There are also several severe bugs in the plug (say that 10 times fast ... bugs in the plugs :) ) that can cause problems, particularly scale/rotation and missing or moved geometry. If you run in to these let me know and I'll try and help.
Steve
AdamT
06-12-2006, 01:31 PM
Hi Mash,
I agree about the manual, and the readme file that comes with the Cinema plug is totally inadequate. So, to answer your question:
The minimum you need to render in Maxwell is a camera object with a Maxwell camera tag. Then start the M~R plugin and designate the camera object. You'll also want to enable either a sky dome or physical sky in the Environment tab (Maxwell doesn't use Cinema's lights).
I agree about the manual, and the readme file that comes with the Cinema plug is totally inadequate. So, to answer your question:
The minimum you need to render in Maxwell is a camera object with a Maxwell camera tag. Then start the M~R plugin and designate the camera object. You'll also want to enable either a sky dome or physical sky in the Environment tab (Maxwell doesn't use Cinema's lights).
Kutkin
06-12-2006, 01:35 PM
All Im asking for is a "put this tag on here" response.
www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip)
Whats missing from here? I have geometry, lights, camera, camera tags, diffuse tags, emitter tags, plastic tags.....
I am not a Maxwell expert... but this works....
maxwell.c4d (http://sweb.cz/Animos_PC/maxwell.c4d)
www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip)
Whats missing from here? I have geometry, lights, camera, camera tags, diffuse tags, emitter tags, plastic tags.....
I am not a Maxwell expert... but this works....
maxwell.c4d (http://sweb.cz/Animos_PC/maxwell.c4d)
AdamT
06-12-2006, 01:43 PM
All Im asking for is a "put this tag on here" response.
www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip)
Whats missing from here? I have geometry, lights, camera, camera tags, diffuse tags, emitter tags, plastic tags.....
Actually your scene works for me with M~R v1. What happens when you click the render button in the M~R plugin? You are using the plugin aren't you? :)
Anyway, the Cinema light is superfluous in that scene--not recognized by Maxwell. Also, you don't want to put material tags *and* emitter tags on the same object. You can apply material properties to lights, but you have to do it either in Studio or in the standalone material editor.
www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip (http://www.3dfluff.com/files/maxwell.zip)
Whats missing from here? I have geometry, lights, camera, camera tags, diffuse tags, emitter tags, plastic tags.....
Actually your scene works for me with M~R v1. What happens when you click the render button in the M~R plugin? You are using the plugin aren't you? :)
Anyway, the Cinema light is superfluous in that scene--not recognized by Maxwell. Also, you don't want to put material tags *and* emitter tags on the same object. You can apply material properties to lights, but you have to do it either in Studio or in the standalone material editor.
seco7
06-12-2006, 02:15 PM
[QUOTE=AdamT]Actually your scene works for me with M~R v1. What happens when you click the render button in the M~R plugin? You are using the plugin aren't you? :)QUOTE]
It worked as is? When I hit the render button nothing happened, then I deleted the difuse material and it worked. Funny.
It worked as is? When I hit the render button nothing happened, then I deleted the difuse material and it worked. Funny.
Continuumx
06-13-2006, 04:51 AM
Please.... not another Maxwell thread in the C4D forum... There is a great forum here:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/
They have tons of info and also people who actually help. Some user also took ownership of the bug tracking of the C4D plugin. So problems with it can be submitted right there. Nobody can deny that Maxwell is inching it's way forward. So for people with the right expectations it certainly is a cool product.
That would be me! Thanks for the mention!
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/
They have tons of info and also people who actually help. Some user also took ownership of the bug tracking of the C4D plugin. So problems with it can be submitted right there. Nobody can deny that Maxwell is inching it's way forward. So for people with the right expectations it certainly is a cool product.
That would be me! Thanks for the mention!
noseman
06-13-2006, 08:06 AM
The manual is a joke, and everything else useful seems to be locked away on a members-only forum
The whole maxwellrender thing has turned into an expensive joke.
Especially the C4D plugin. The official answer of Nextlimit when you tell them that the plugin is not fully functional is: "use Maxwell Studio".
Just have in mind that this plugin has been developed for OVER 1 year and still is the same crap it was last year.
Anyway, imashination, I think that if you log in the forum as a guest you get to read, but not post... I think.
@ LemonNado
So for people with the right expectations it certainly is a cool product
It is definately NOT a cool product. It used to be a cool idea of a product. It was a cool beta. BUT it is NOT a cool product. It is not even a finished product.
The technology's potential is there, I can agree with that, but company policy makes it all useless.
The two great features of MR, light quality and ease of use, have been sacrificed. This "new" maxwellrender is NOT what I paid for.
P.S.
Tyrone has been the single most helpfull person in the MR-C4D community, and I thank him for it.
Thanks Tyrone!
The whole maxwellrender thing has turned into an expensive joke.
Especially the C4D plugin. The official answer of Nextlimit when you tell them that the plugin is not fully functional is: "use Maxwell Studio".
Just have in mind that this plugin has been developed for OVER 1 year and still is the same crap it was last year.
Anyway, imashination, I think that if you log in the forum as a guest you get to read, but not post... I think.
@ LemonNado
So for people with the right expectations it certainly is a cool product
It is definately NOT a cool product. It used to be a cool idea of a product. It was a cool beta. BUT it is NOT a cool product. It is not even a finished product.
The technology's potential is there, I can agree with that, but company policy makes it all useless.
The two great features of MR, light quality and ease of use, have been sacrificed. This "new" maxwellrender is NOT what I paid for.
P.S.
Tyrone has been the single most helpfull person in the MR-C4D community, and I thank him for it.
Thanks Tyrone!
AdamT
06-13-2006, 01:48 PM
I'd have to agree with Noseman, and the truly worrisome thing--more even than the obvious workflow problems--is that the render quality appears to have degraded substantially from the beta to v.1. I hope they can get their act over there.
At the very least I would expect major plugin improvements for the next update. Frankly I don't understand why they haven't released an updated plugin already; I exchanged e-mails with the programmer working on the C4D plugin and he claimed to have fixed several major problems exactly one month ago today. :/
At the very least I would expect major plugin improvements for the next update. Frankly I don't understand why they haven't released an updated plugin already; I exchanged e-mails with the programmer working on the C4D plugin and he claimed to have fixed several major problems exactly one month ago today. :/
LemonNado
06-13-2006, 02:04 PM
noseman, AdamT... I am only trying to be polite and neutral. I have my strong oppinions regarding NL and that resulted in ZERO sales for them. To say it neutral.
Besides that, Cebas and FR are marching the same route. I just made the terrible decision to try FR2 out and end up exactly at the same spot where all the NL users are. Just to point out that NL is not the only one...
Rainer
Besides that, Cebas and FR are marching the same route. I just made the terrible decision to try FR2 out and end up exactly at the same spot where all the NL users are. Just to point out that NL is not the only one...
Rainer
seco7
06-13-2006, 02:06 PM
I've been thinking the exact same thing about the render quality Adam. I recently re-rendered a very simple beta scene using simple reproduceable materials and compared the two, but the 1.0 just doesn't have the same depth, color, lighting as the beta. I was going to post something over at the Maxwell forum, but I didn't want the reprecussions.
When you mention major problems being fixed in the plugin, does this include missing features or just bugs fixes?
Steve
When you mention major problems being fixed in the plugin, does this include missing features or just bugs fixes?
Steve
ooo
06-13-2006, 02:29 PM
noseman, AdamT... I am only trying to be polite and neutral. I have my strong oppinions regarding NL and that resulted in ZERO sales for them. To say it neutral.
Besides that, Cebas and FR are marching the same route. I just made the terrible decision to try FR2 out and end up exactly at the same spot where all the NL users are. Just to point out that NL is not the only one...
Rainer
Apart from the fact that Maxwell licences cannot be sold or transfered to anybody. So once bought, there is no turning back :\
Still don't get it how that is possible for a company in 2006!
odo
Besides that, Cebas and FR are marching the same route. I just made the terrible decision to try FR2 out and end up exactly at the same spot where all the NL users are. Just to point out that NL is not the only one...
Rainer
Apart from the fact that Maxwell licences cannot be sold or transfered to anybody. So once bought, there is no turning back :\
Still don't get it how that is possible for a company in 2006!
odo
AdamT
06-13-2006, 02:35 PM
Hi Steve,
The issues I was thinking of are bugs. The most important and seriously limiting one is the mistranslation of Cinema materials to Maxwell materials, which requires you to use mxm materials for everything except for emitters and very basic metals and dielectrics. The other is the failure to propogate a parent object's material to its children.
I've discovered another that I really need to report to NL: when you enable all channels in the plugin and then import the mxs into Studio, you can see that "indirect refraction" wasn't actually enabled. Thus, any time want to render refraction you have to go through Studio rather than rendering straight out of Cinema.
The issues I was thinking of are bugs. The most important and seriously limiting one is the mistranslation of Cinema materials to Maxwell materials, which requires you to use mxm materials for everything except for emitters and very basic metals and dielectrics. The other is the failure to propogate a parent object's material to its children.
I've discovered another that I really need to report to NL: when you enable all channels in the plugin and then import the mxs into Studio, you can see that "indirect refraction" wasn't actually enabled. Thus, any time want to render refraction you have to go through Studio rather than rendering straight out of Cinema.
Katachi
06-13-2006, 02:42 PM
Hi Steve,
The issues I was thinking of are bugs. The most important and seriously limiting one is the mistranslation of Cinema materials to Maxwell materials, which requires you to use mxm materials for everything except for emitters and very basic metals and dielectrics. The other is the failure to propogate a parent object's material to its children.
I've discovered another that I really need to report to NL: when you enable all channels in the plugin and then import the mxs into Studio, you can see that "indirect refraction" wasn't actually enabled. Thus, any time want to render refraction you have to go through Studio rather than rendering straight out of Cinema.
I still remember when they have sent out an email to their customers that they were seeking for plugin programmers for the c4d bridge. When I emailed them, they didnīt even answer. And adding support for hierarchy treatment of tags...comīon, thatīs a matter of minutes to implement (c4d makes it very easy already). Only shows how much they are concerned to get that bridge working. Not at all imo. :/
The issues I was thinking of are bugs. The most important and seriously limiting one is the mistranslation of Cinema materials to Maxwell materials, which requires you to use mxm materials for everything except for emitters and very basic metals and dielectrics. The other is the failure to propogate a parent object's material to its children.
I've discovered another that I really need to report to NL: when you enable all channels in the plugin and then import the mxs into Studio, you can see that "indirect refraction" wasn't actually enabled. Thus, any time want to render refraction you have to go through Studio rather than rendering straight out of Cinema.
I still remember when they have sent out an email to their customers that they were seeking for plugin programmers for the c4d bridge. When I emailed them, they didnīt even answer. And adding support for hierarchy treatment of tags...comīon, thatīs a matter of minutes to implement (c4d makes it very easy already). Only shows how much they are concerned to get that bridge working. Not at all imo. :/
Katachi
06-13-2006, 02:45 PM
Apart from the fact that Maxwell licences cannot be sold or transfered to anybody. So once bought, there is no turning back :\
Still don't get it how that is possible for a company in 2006!
odo
One of the reasons, I kind of donīt understand how all you guys could buy this piece of s....oftware (no rant). Itīs such a stupid license issue...argh! Did you know about this at all in the first place?
Still don't get it how that is possible for a company in 2006!
odo
One of the reasons, I kind of donīt understand how all you guys could buy this piece of s....oftware (no rant). Itīs such a stupid license issue...argh! Did you know about this at all in the first place?
seco7
06-13-2006, 02:49 PM
Thanks Adam, just checking. I'm jealous of the other plugins and all the functionality they have. :)
I didn't realize the refraction bug, but there are a lot of material translation bugs ... most of the HDRI material channels don't pass correctly if memory serves.
I didn't realize the refraction bug, but there are a lot of material translation bugs ... most of the HDRI material channels don't pass correctly if memory serves.
AdamT
06-13-2006, 02:49 PM
Personally I wasn't aware of the transfer issue when I bought M~R. Anyway, at the time I purchased, well over a year ago, it was looking quite promising.
NL had the opportunity to hire any of several talented Cinema developers in addition to yourself, Samir, but nothing ever came of it. As a result you have someone writing the plugin who has (AFAIK) no prior experience with Cinema's SDK.
NL had the opportunity to hire any of several talented Cinema developers in addition to yourself, Samir, but nothing ever came of it. As a result you have someone writing the plugin who has (AFAIK) no prior experience with Cinema's SDK.
seco7
06-13-2006, 03:11 PM
One of the reasons, I kind of donīt understand how all you guys could buy this piece of s....oftware (no rant). Itīs such a stupid license issue...argh! Did you know about this at all in the first place?
Yeah, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea I've ever had and I would have bailed long ago if I could have. :) But, in my own defense I fell for the nice work being produced at the time plus the "buy now, v1.0 will be out very soon" to take advantage of the price reduction.
Yeah, in retrospect it wasn't the best idea I've ever had and I would have bailed long ago if I could have. :) But, in my own defense I fell for the nice work being produced at the time plus the "buy now, v1.0 will be out very soon" to take advantage of the price reduction.
flingster
06-13-2006, 03:47 PM
giggles in corner...with all the disappointment surrounding external renderers makes you wonder why we are waiting for an aggressive update policy on AR..side issue i guess..but with all this want seems maxon should add work towards native solutions since AR is afterall "their baby".:shrug:
noseman
06-13-2006, 03:58 PM
One of the reasons, I kind of donīt understand how all you guys could buy this piece of s....oftware (no rant). Itīs such a stupid license issue...argh! Did you know about this at all in the first place?
Your phrase Samir, covers the whole story of us MR "ranters".
There was no license agreement that stated or implied that the license was non transferable (at least that's what I know). Nextlimit "added" it later. It is a legal case from here on, but, like me, nobody wants to get in a legal battle with them.
Anyway.
Just to point out that NL is not the only one
Yeah! I know.
After all this 3rd party renderer hype, I think I'll just put more effort in learning AR!
:)
Your phrase Samir, covers the whole story of us MR "ranters".
There was no license agreement that stated or implied that the license was non transferable (at least that's what I know). Nextlimit "added" it later. It is a legal case from here on, but, like me, nobody wants to get in a legal battle with them.
Anyway.
Just to point out that NL is not the only one
Yeah! I know.
After all this 3rd party renderer hype, I think I'll just put more effort in learning AR!
:)
flingster
06-13-2006, 04:05 PM
Personally I wasn't aware of the transfer issue when I bought M~R. Anyway, at the time I purchased, well over a year ago, it was looking quite promising.
NL had the opportunity to hire any of several talented Cinema developers in addition to yourself, Samir, but nothing ever came of it. As a result you have someone writing the plugin who has (AFAIK) no prior experience with Cinema's SDK.
any chance you can pursuade them to visit cgtalk in a thread where we can bash out all the issues with the c4d plugin in a constructive manner?
NL had the opportunity to hire any of several talented Cinema developers in addition to yourself, Samir, but nothing ever came of it. As a result you have someone writing the plugin who has (AFAIK) no prior experience with Cinema's SDK.
any chance you can pursuade them to visit cgtalk in a thread where we can bash out all the issues with the c4d plugin in a constructive manner?
AdamT
06-13-2006, 04:14 PM
any chance you can pursuade them to visit cgtalk in a thread where we can bash out all the issues with the c4d plugin in a constructive manner?
I'd say that's exceeeeeedingly unlikely, considering that they only participate in their *own* forums once in a blue moon. They have a separate C4D forum, but I'll bet it's been at least six months since anyone from NL posted in there.
I'd say that's exceeeeeedingly unlikely, considering that they only participate in their *own* forums once in a blue moon. They have a separate C4D forum, but I'll bet it's been at least six months since anyone from NL posted in there.
ooo
06-13-2006, 04:15 PM
I put all my faith in VRAY4C4D now! With the right people behind this project, it will be terrific I'm sure :thumbsup:
odo
odo
seco7
06-13-2006, 04:26 PM
giggles in corner...with all the disappointment surrounding external renderers makes you wonder why we are waiting for an aggressive update policy on AR..side issue i guess..but with all this want seems maxon should add work towards native solutions since AR is afterall "their baby".:shrug:
I have thought about that many times myself over the last year. Mostly because after I spend some time away from AR, in this case with Maxwell, coming back to it is often like a breath of fresh air. I'm sure it is because I have a high comfort level with it, but still, over time it just keeps impressing me as a down and dirty workhorse. It might not be the flashiest, but I do appreciate it when my back is against the wall on a deadline.
I have thought about that many times myself over the last year. Mostly because after I spend some time away from AR, in this case with Maxwell, coming back to it is often like a breath of fresh air. I'm sure it is because I have a high comfort level with it, but still, over time it just keeps impressing me as a down and dirty workhorse. It might not be the flashiest, but I do appreciate it when my back is against the wall on a deadline.
LemonNado
06-13-2006, 04:35 PM
The Maxon dude's should walk over to the Mental Images guy's with a few six packs and have a nice afternoon while discussing how Mental Ray could be integrated. That would yield a killer package.
Rainer
Rainer
helluvapixel
06-13-2006, 04:43 PM
I have to agree that NL really botched things up. What they ended up trying to peddle was Maxwell Studio and the plugin connection really ended up being a workflow piece of disappointment.
finalRender is a lot more usable and frankly is what I use for my GI and ambient occlusion rendering. AR2.5 is far too slow to be usable. So instead, I render with fR and develop my masks and channels with C4D and composite the final renderings.
So far, finalRender is not as disappointing as it has been for others. But, to be honest I think the root cause is that people haven't read the fR manual properly.
finalRender is a lot more usable and frankly is what I use for my GI and ambient occlusion rendering. AR2.5 is far too slow to be usable. So instead, I render with fR and develop my masks and channels with C4D and composite the final renderings.
So far, finalRender is not as disappointing as it has been for others. But, to be honest I think the root cause is that people haven't read the fR manual properly.
helluvapixel
06-13-2006, 04:45 PM
The Maxon dude's should walk over to the Mental Images guy's with a few six packs and have a nice afternoon while discussing how Mental Ray could be integrated. That would yield a killer package.
Rainer
You don't think you'd see the same integration horrors?? I mean Maya and Max didn't even do it justice as well as XSI did and both Max and Maya have quite extensible open SDK's if I recall.
Honestly, MR is a powerhouse but it doesn't yield results that much faster than the competition. It really depends what you need.
Rainer
You don't think you'd see the same integration horrors?? I mean Maya and Max didn't even do it justice as well as XSI did and both Max and Maya have quite extensible open SDK's if I recall.
Honestly, MR is a powerhouse but it doesn't yield results that much faster than the competition. It really depends what you need.
LemonNado
06-13-2006, 08:54 PM
MR is very well integrated in XSI. As far as I 'heard' it's the best implementation of them all.
Of course the implementation would be work. But you know, Germans are stubborn 8-).
GI renders faster in MR than in AR. However, AR has more lights then MR in XSI. I read that MR has all the lightness you need but not all are implemented in XSI's version. I saw some shaders provided by others but I failed to use them right away due to my denseness regarding intricate render secrets. I'm a slider jockey and happy with it. Not a shader wizz kid. But with MR on board Maxon could allocate resources to an even better phys/particle/whatever system.... Just a thought. I fear one thing would happen.... C4D would become more expensive.... So it's maybe not such a good idea 8-).
Rainer
Of course the implementation would be work. But you know, Germans are stubborn 8-).
GI renders faster in MR than in AR. However, AR has more lights then MR in XSI. I read that MR has all the lightness you need but not all are implemented in XSI's version. I saw some shaders provided by others but I failed to use them right away due to my denseness regarding intricate render secrets. I'm a slider jockey and happy with it. Not a shader wizz kid. But with MR on board Maxon could allocate resources to an even better phys/particle/whatever system.... Just a thought. I fear one thing would happen.... C4D would become more expensive.... So it's maybe not such a good idea 8-).
Rainer
helluvapixel
06-13-2006, 09:12 PM
I fear one thing would happen.... C4D would become more expensive.... So it's maybe not such a good idea 8-).
Rainer
Well, maybe if Maxon did a subscription thing... look at Autodesk Max.. you get unlimited MR?? How'd they pull that off?
Rainer
Well, maybe if Maxon did a subscription thing... look at Autodesk Max.. you get unlimited MR?? How'd they pull that off?
maikukai
06-13-2006, 09:35 PM
Well, maybe if Maxon did a subscription thing... look at Autodesk Max.. you get unlimited MR?? How'd they pull that off?
They are the devil, that's how. The devil does all sorts of things that might SEEM good at first glance. But one day, when all your scenes depend on 3DSMAX and MR, suddenly they'll tell you your MR license isn't good any more unless you pay thousands of dollars, your first born child, and of course... you soul.
They are the devil, that's how. The devil does all sorts of things that might SEEM good at first glance. But one day, when all your scenes depend on 3DSMAX and MR, suddenly they'll tell you your MR license isn't good any more unless you pay thousands of dollars, your first born child, and of course... you soul.
Glyptic
06-13-2006, 10:28 PM
I got Maxwell about 3 weeks ago. Hoping to do one thing. Jewelry renders.
Once I realized the C4D plug in did exactly one thing.......create an mxs file to be opened and used in Maxwell Studio, I started making progress. If you expect the C4D plug in to do anything else, you will be disappointed.
You get no materials (the current selection in the plug is useless) , no lights (just objects which you can tag as emitters) and a camera (again you must assign a camera tag). All tags must be Maxwell tags, not C4D tags.
To get a floor you must make a plane, not a Floor. To get a light, you make an object, tag it as an emitter. C4D lights don't make it thru to the mxs file.
So yeah, the current C4D plug in hardly qualifies as a *plug in*. Its a file translator. C4D>Mxs.
The navigation (rotate, zoom, scale), bugginess (ant farm level), lack of functionality and lack of material choice is a real p-sser.
However, I got better diamond renders (with much more control of a variety of appearances) in 2 days than I got in 10 months of head banging with AR 2.5. Gold and silver look as good or better than AR for my work. Tweek time was cut from 3-5 evenings (2-5 hours per evening) to an hour or so per render, max. Render time soared to 6-10 hours to get SL 17+, instead of 20-120 minutes with AR. Although I have something I can send a customer in an hour or so.
So I render while I sleep. I can set up 2-4 renders per evening, instead of 1-2 per week. I can tweek lights during or after the render as lighting is cached.
Bottom line is I have better renders, less tweek time and more time to model. So my productivity is up and my customers love the renders.
I agree with every bit of negative opinions NL has created for itself.
My needs are very focused (limited actually) and Maxwell has been a good addition to my tool box. But I would still love to switch back to AR 3.0 as I enjoy working with AR 2.5 so much. But in the end, its more about productivity than just fun. And Maxwell has surprised me in that regard.
Based on the opinions of a number of my CAD jewelry buddies scattered about the Planet, Maxwell is really redefined how jewelry renders are made.
Just 2 two cents.
cheers,
glyptic
Once I realized the C4D plug in did exactly one thing.......create an mxs file to be opened and used in Maxwell Studio, I started making progress. If you expect the C4D plug in to do anything else, you will be disappointed.
You get no materials (the current selection in the plug is useless) , no lights (just objects which you can tag as emitters) and a camera (again you must assign a camera tag). All tags must be Maxwell tags, not C4D tags.
To get a floor you must make a plane, not a Floor. To get a light, you make an object, tag it as an emitter. C4D lights don't make it thru to the mxs file.
So yeah, the current C4D plug in hardly qualifies as a *plug in*. Its a file translator. C4D>Mxs.
The navigation (rotate, zoom, scale), bugginess (ant farm level), lack of functionality and lack of material choice is a real p-sser.
However, I got better diamond renders (with much more control of a variety of appearances) in 2 days than I got in 10 months of head banging with AR 2.5. Gold and silver look as good or better than AR for my work. Tweek time was cut from 3-5 evenings (2-5 hours per evening) to an hour or so per render, max. Render time soared to 6-10 hours to get SL 17+, instead of 20-120 minutes with AR. Although I have something I can send a customer in an hour or so.
So I render while I sleep. I can set up 2-4 renders per evening, instead of 1-2 per week. I can tweek lights during or after the render as lighting is cached.
Bottom line is I have better renders, less tweek time and more time to model. So my productivity is up and my customers love the renders.
I agree with every bit of negative opinions NL has created for itself.
My needs are very focused (limited actually) and Maxwell has been a good addition to my tool box. But I would still love to switch back to AR 3.0 as I enjoy working with AR 2.5 so much. But in the end, its more about productivity than just fun. And Maxwell has surprised me in that regard.
Based on the opinions of a number of my CAD jewelry buddies scattered about the Planet, Maxwell is really redefined how jewelry renders are made.
Just 2 two cents.
cheers,
glyptic
LemonNado
06-13-2006, 10:40 PM
Glyptic, that's what I meant regarding the expectations. If you do not expect Maxwell to be the perfect match to AR then you are not dissappointed. And that goes along with the other features. There MUST be a way to operate MAxwell to a degree which is far from suicidal as there are quite a few renders on their site which surprise me every time I see them. I guess you have to stick to MAxwell and maybe prepare geometry in a host app like C4D...
How is the stability once you render? Does it finish to your liking every time or does it fall over a lot at night?
Rainer
How is the stability once you render? Does it finish to your liking every time or does it fall over a lot at night?
Rainer
Glyptic
06-13-2006, 11:02 PM
Hi LemonNado,
The only problem I had with crashes/lockups was early on when I tried to bring in a 5.5 million poly baked texture. I haven't tried that lately, although when I posted the problem, other guys were rendering scenes with that number of polys with no problem. I could easily figure out a work around, but just haven't had time. That model was a personal piece, not a customer piece.
Other than that, I always wake up to a pleasant surprise.
I have run into problems rendering gems *in the setting*, so I just render them with the setting hidden and put the two together in PhotoShop. That takes a few minutes.
A major bug is that Multi-light can't be used with HDR. Thats intolerable. More for the arch viz guys than me, and there are enough of them that I think its getting some attention.
My workflow is Rhino>C4D>Maxwell.
I didn't really want to use Maxwell. But when I saw the gem/jewelry renders and knew there was no way I could match them with AR 2.5, I had to try it. I'm can't suggest any one else try it, unless they *really* think about it. Get guest status on the forum and read the tips and nonsense.
The other thing is that it is definately *a horse of a different color*. And it will take some getting used to for anybody used to the way AR or any of the other better engines out there operate.
I was getting rather addicted to the tweek/render cycle. What fun in C4D/AR! But I wasn't designing anything while that fun was going on.
I look forward to the day when they call the exterminator in and get rid of some of the bugs. And develop a wider variety of materials. That effort has picked up steam in the last few days.
cheers,
glyptic
The only problem I had with crashes/lockups was early on when I tried to bring in a 5.5 million poly baked texture. I haven't tried that lately, although when I posted the problem, other guys were rendering scenes with that number of polys with no problem. I could easily figure out a work around, but just haven't had time. That model was a personal piece, not a customer piece.
Other than that, I always wake up to a pleasant surprise.
I have run into problems rendering gems *in the setting*, so I just render them with the setting hidden and put the two together in PhotoShop. That takes a few minutes.
A major bug is that Multi-light can't be used with HDR. Thats intolerable. More for the arch viz guys than me, and there are enough of them that I think its getting some attention.
My workflow is Rhino>C4D>Maxwell.
I didn't really want to use Maxwell. But when I saw the gem/jewelry renders and knew there was no way I could match them with AR 2.5, I had to try it. I'm can't suggest any one else try it, unless they *really* think about it. Get guest status on the forum and read the tips and nonsense.
The other thing is that it is definately *a horse of a different color*. And it will take some getting used to for anybody used to the way AR or any of the other better engines out there operate.
I was getting rather addicted to the tweek/render cycle. What fun in C4D/AR! But I wasn't designing anything while that fun was going on.
I look forward to the day when they call the exterminator in and get rid of some of the bugs. And develop a wider variety of materials. That effort has picked up steam in the last few days.
cheers,
glyptic
LemonNado
06-14-2006, 12:12 AM
Thanks for your honest comments!
Rainer
Rainer
Glyptic
06-14-2006, 01:33 AM
My pleasure.
There is a newly released Demo version. Which has functionalities my V.1 does not have.
And limitations I do not have to deal with. I have not downloaded it, nor has anyone I know.
But frankly, without helpful docs and tutes I wonder if it will engender more sales or more frustration from those not willing to butt heads with it.
Maxwell is basically easy to use. And can get rather complex if you let it. Particularly if you are not good at sussing out what tiny unknown icons do. Which I am not. So I often ask what seem like silly, stupid questions on the forum.
And since everybody is in the same boat, noobs are not singled out for ridicule.
For product viz, I think it offers potential. Maybe in time it will offer the same advantages to the arch viz guys. I have not clue about other flavors of users.
My opinion is it has a place, like it or not.
I just wish AR or VRay offered *unbiased* switches for those of us that can allow a render to run for quite some hours. I was really looking forward to the C4D>VRay connection. And may still investigate it when it comes out.
There is a newly released Demo version. Which has functionalities my V.1 does not have.
And limitations I do not have to deal with. I have not downloaded it, nor has anyone I know.
But frankly, without helpful docs and tutes I wonder if it will engender more sales or more frustration from those not willing to butt heads with it.
Maxwell is basically easy to use. And can get rather complex if you let it. Particularly if you are not good at sussing out what tiny unknown icons do. Which I am not. So I often ask what seem like silly, stupid questions on the forum.
And since everybody is in the same boat, noobs are not singled out for ridicule.
For product viz, I think it offers potential. Maybe in time it will offer the same advantages to the arch viz guys. I have not clue about other flavors of users.
My opinion is it has a place, like it or not.
I just wish AR or VRay offered *unbiased* switches for those of us that can allow a render to run for quite some hours. I was really looking forward to the C4D>VRay connection. And may still investigate it when it comes out.
mmhnemo
06-14-2006, 07:00 AM
There once was a time when i happily let my computer render a scene for 20 hours, let's call it the beta time.
I let it render for so long because the results i got were astonishing to say the least... I got some of the nicest and most realistic renders that i've ever seen produced and i was very happy and excited and the future looked bright.
Today it's V1 time, and all that is left is the 20 hours rendering - and tell me: Why should i let a simple scene render for 20+ hours if the result i get from it looks even more CGish than my work from 10 years ago?
Quality lost, Case lost... maybe around this time next year we might get surprised by NL.
I let it render for so long because the results i got were astonishing to say the least... I got some of the nicest and most realistic renders that i've ever seen produced and i was very happy and excited and the future looked bright.
Today it's V1 time, and all that is left is the 20 hours rendering - and tell me: Why should i let a simple scene render for 20+ hours if the result i get from it looks even more CGish than my work from 10 years ago?
Quality lost, Case lost... maybe around this time next year we might get surprised by NL.
tonare
06-14-2006, 09:53 AM
Case lost... maybe around this time next year we might get surprised by NL.
I dont own maxwell, but from what i've read around here from the start, they've burned there bridges. I mean, for the most, this has to be the last forum on earth to have so many threads about problems with anything c4d related. Alot of proffesional c4d users here, and personally I made my mind up about 300 "maxwell=argh" threads ago, about buying this app. It looks amazing from the renders I've seen, I'm especially liking the greeble renders, but man....these days that kind of money is hard to let go of.
I dont own maxwell, but from what i've read around here from the start, they've burned there bridges. I mean, for the most, this has to be the last forum on earth to have so many threads about problems with anything c4d related. Alot of proffesional c4d users here, and personally I made my mind up about 300 "maxwell=argh" threads ago, about buying this app. It looks amazing from the renders I've seen, I'm especially liking the greeble renders, but man....these days that kind of money is hard to let go of.
Duffdaddy
06-14-2006, 10:12 AM
They are the devil, that's how. The devil does all sorts of things that might SEEM good at first glance. But one day, when all your scenes depend on 3DSMAX and MR, suddenly they'll tell you your MR license isn't good any more unless you pay thousands of dollars, your first born child, and of course... you soul.
LOL, Man, you must be Motionbuilder Standard user - never a truer word spoken Maikukai. Word.
LOL, Man, you must be Motionbuilder Standard user - never a truer word spoken Maikukai. Word.
ThirdEye
06-14-2006, 10:26 AM
The Maxon dude's should walk over to the Mental Images guy's with a few six packs and have a nice afternoon while discussing how Mental Ray could be integrated. That would yield a killer package.
Rainer
it depends. Replacing our renderer? No thanks. Adding Mental Ray like they did with prman in the production bundle, i'm all for it
Rainer
it depends. Replacing our renderer? No thanks. Adding Mental Ray like they did with prman in the production bundle, i'm all for it
Glyptic
06-14-2006, 10:32 AM
Hi mmhnemo,
I never worked with the Beta. Lack of faith in NL and interest on my part. But those that have worked with it, and now the V1 often mention there are significant differences in the way each renders the same scene.
Did you make the change suggested in the "Read this or Die" post on the Maxwell Forum?
Did you post your scene to ask for assistance?
There are some pretty whacky work arounds the boffins can suggest to help out. Tyrone, mverta and Mihai are very helpful and surprisingly prompt in responding to a post.
If you've done that, and still you are not satisfied, then I do hope future versions fulfill your needs.
Good luck.
glyptic
I never worked with the Beta. Lack of faith in NL and interest on my part. But those that have worked with it, and now the V1 often mention there are significant differences in the way each renders the same scene.
Did you make the change suggested in the "Read this or Die" post on the Maxwell Forum?
Did you post your scene to ask for assistance?
There are some pretty whacky work arounds the boffins can suggest to help out. Tyrone, mverta and Mihai are very helpful and surprisingly prompt in responding to a post.
If you've done that, and still you are not satisfied, then I do hope future versions fulfill your needs.
Good luck.
glyptic
tonare
06-14-2006, 10:49 AM
it depends. Replacing our renderer? No thanks. Adding Mental Ray like they did with prman in the production bundle, i'm all for it
The c4d production has prman?
The c4d production has prman?
Srek
06-14-2006, 10:58 AM
The c4d production has prman?
No, it has a connection to PRman (Cineman). PRman itself is not included and need to be purchased seperately.
Cheers
Björn
No, it has a connection to PRman (Cineman). PRman itself is not included and need to be purchased seperately.
Cheers
Björn
seco7
06-14-2006, 01:23 PM
Hi mmhnemo,
Did you make the change suggested in the "Read this or Die" post on the Maxwell Forum?
Did you post your scene to ask for assistance?
There are some pretty whacky work arounds the boffins can suggest to help out.glyptic
Personally, I haven't posted the scenes at the Maxwell forum. It can be a scary place.:) Seriously, there have been plenty of scenes like mine posted ... simple Maxwell sky, white background, shiny sphere. Back in beta I replaced the shiney sphere with a simple red difuse material as a test. I still had the jpg and c4d file around, so I replaced the beta materials with v1 materials and re-rendered. Sure, there are probably workarounds, but my test was to what extent the core changed and in my view (which doesn't mean a thing) it has. Even more importantly was the original draw of Maxwell for me was the simplicity. Early arguements of long render times was that the setup was SO easy, instead of spending time testing and re-testing, you just hit render. And to a large extent, beta was that for me, but v1.0 is not. For others it is (see Glyptic's messages above). Basically, I'm still in waiting and hoping mode.
Did you make the change suggested in the "Read this or Die" post on the Maxwell Forum?
Did you post your scene to ask for assistance?
There are some pretty whacky work arounds the boffins can suggest to help out.glyptic
Personally, I haven't posted the scenes at the Maxwell forum. It can be a scary place.:) Seriously, there have been plenty of scenes like mine posted ... simple Maxwell sky, white background, shiny sphere. Back in beta I replaced the shiney sphere with a simple red difuse material as a test. I still had the jpg and c4d file around, so I replaced the beta materials with v1 materials and re-rendered. Sure, there are probably workarounds, but my test was to what extent the core changed and in my view (which doesn't mean a thing) it has. Even more importantly was the original draw of Maxwell for me was the simplicity. Early arguements of long render times was that the setup was SO easy, instead of spending time testing and re-testing, you just hit render. And to a large extent, beta was that for me, but v1.0 is not. For others it is (see Glyptic's messages above). Basically, I'm still in waiting and hoping mode.
AdamT
06-14-2006, 01:50 PM
Agree again. The bottom line is that with beta I *could* set up a scene fairly easily and get a fantastic (albeit very slow) result at the end of the day. With v1 I find setup times prohibitively long, rendering speed no better, and the result at the end of the day is not as good.
flingster
06-14-2006, 03:14 PM
can anyone tell me please whats new in this demo version..1.1...whats new in it..can't find any info on it...difference between 1 and 1.1?
anyone know.
(btw...just to add to someones comment somewhere...tyrone is doing a great job helping users off his own back and give him all the help you can if possible...he deserves all the credit he gets to be honest.)
anyone know.
(btw...just to add to someones comment somewhere...tyrone is doing a great job helping users off his own back and give him all the help you can if possible...he deserves all the credit he gets to be honest.)
Glyptic
06-14-2006, 08:27 PM
Hi Flingster,
There have been a number of improvements (reasonable expectations actually) posted on the Maxwell Forum. The only one I remember is that multi-light and HDR/MXI can be used at the same time. I didn't pay much attention as I'm not going to load the demo.
I also got confused when reading some of the posts about moving the license into the correct file, or not moving it, or what happens if you *do* move it. Or something like that.
I'm waiting for the improvements to migrate to V1 as an upgrade.
If you're not following the Maxwell Forum, you should sign up as a guest. You'll be able to read it and laugh or read it and weap as I do. I also read it and get very useful tips, which is great as the manual that runs about 80 pages should be about ten times that length. As V1 has only been out since late April, everybody is a noob. Its not uncommon as we have seen posted here for those with more experience with the RC's and Beta to be as frustrated/infuriated/confused as those of us that never looked at Maxwell until V1 came out.
Been to any cocktail parties in southern Germany lately? That last one was quite fun. :)
cheers,
glyptic
There have been a number of improvements (reasonable expectations actually) posted on the Maxwell Forum. The only one I remember is that multi-light and HDR/MXI can be used at the same time. I didn't pay much attention as I'm not going to load the demo.
I also got confused when reading some of the posts about moving the license into the correct file, or not moving it, or what happens if you *do* move it. Or something like that.
I'm waiting for the improvements to migrate to V1 as an upgrade.
If you're not following the Maxwell Forum, you should sign up as a guest. You'll be able to read it and laugh or read it and weap as I do. I also read it and get very useful tips, which is great as the manual that runs about 80 pages should be about ten times that length. As V1 has only been out since late April, everybody is a noob. Its not uncommon as we have seen posted here for those with more experience with the RC's and Beta to be as frustrated/infuriated/confused as those of us that never looked at Maxwell until V1 came out.
Been to any cocktail parties in southern Germany lately? That last one was quite fun. :)
cheers,
glyptic
flingster
06-15-2006, 02:00 PM
hey bud..viva la cocktail party..
i've been on maxwell forum..the c4d bit makes depressing reading whether because c4d users expectations are high or NL are not interested its not a place you want to hang out in to get a positive vibe thats for sure...i just hope those NL boys and gurlz have their heads down in code right now thats all. was curious what was new but doesn't sound like much really.
i've been on maxwell forum..the c4d bit makes depressing reading whether because c4d users expectations are high or NL are not interested its not a place you want to hang out in to get a positive vibe thats for sure...i just hope those NL boys and gurlz have their heads down in code right now thats all. was curious what was new but doesn't sound like much really.
helluvapixel
06-15-2006, 02:12 PM
I have little respect for NL these days. Not only did they bungle up the Maxwell deal but I sent them a professional sales request regarding x-flow so I can see if I can integrate it with some CFD stuff we do at work and I got nothing. That was over a week ago.
Pathetic.. and I have to say Cebas is exihibiting similar communication practices.
Out of all this, Maxon is awesome. I'll send bugs in or feature issues and get a response in a day. Sweet.
Pathetic.. and I have to say Cebas is exihibiting similar communication practices.
Out of all this, Maxon is awesome. I'll send bugs in or feature issues and get a response in a day. Sweet.
LemonNado
06-15-2006, 03:08 PM
Softimage, Maxon, Pixologic are my all time favorites regarding cutomer service.
Rainer
Rainer
helluvapixel
06-15-2006, 03:19 PM
Softimage, Maxon, Pixologic are my all time favorites regarding cutomer service.
Rainer
cool, cuz i ordered XSI Essentials. :D and I have c4d and ZB.
Rainer
cool, cuz i ordered XSI Essentials. :D and I have c4d and ZB.
LemonNado
06-15-2006, 03:56 PM
Just a 'warning' when you ordered Fnd to prevent slight frustration till you get into the groove....
1. Use Internet Explorer to request keys! All other browers do NOT work.
2. Forget the Softimage onsite forum. Nobody is there really....
3. xsi-base.com and cgtalk xsi forum ROCK.
4. Look for the mailing list on the Softimage website and subscribe. A Pro forum. Be careful posting there as people try to keep it professional...
3+4 will yield all the supprt you ever need.
3dquakers.com and 3dtutorial.com have mega cool xsi tutorials. I can vouch for every of them. There is also another company which makes tutorials but the narrator squeals like my wife so I do not like them. But that's my personal problem...
Good luck with XSI. It's amazing. Specially the renderer... However, no easy button there.
Rainer
1. Use Internet Explorer to request keys! All other browers do NOT work.
2. Forget the Softimage onsite forum. Nobody is there really....
3. xsi-base.com and cgtalk xsi forum ROCK.
4. Look for the mailing list on the Softimage website and subscribe. A Pro forum. Be careful posting there as people try to keep it professional...
3+4 will yield all the supprt you ever need.
3dquakers.com and 3dtutorial.com have mega cool xsi tutorials. I can vouch for every of them. There is also another company which makes tutorials but the narrator squeals like my wife so I do not like them. But that's my personal problem...
Good luck with XSI. It's amazing. Specially the renderer... However, no easy button there.
Rainer
helluvapixel
06-15-2006, 04:16 PM
I have foundation, so I wanted to get upscaled a bit to have 64bit and also rigid bodies. And I like the modeling abilities.
Thx Ranier, see you on the XSI forums ;)
Thx Ranier, see you on the XSI forums ;)
LemonNado
06-15-2006, 05:44 PM
I have bought Essentials a while ago and did not regret it. I do not think I'll utilize Adv as I have the Hairy C4D 8-). But Ess is really nice as you have more access to scripted operators and things along that line. ANd yes, modeling is real nice. But I don't want to miss all the cool C4D plugins for crazy Geometry. So both have their place.
Rainer
Rainer
Glyptic
06-20-2006, 01:57 AM
Well here goes nothing.......
Here is a sterling silver cuff link render I did yesterday. The design is based on an ancient Egyptial engraved stone. Modeled in Rhino 3.
I've been messing with Maxwell Studio on and off for about 3 weeks. Sometimes I want to flush it down the toilet.
No experience at all with the RC's, Alphas or Betas. And the current manual is nearly useless. Head banging and reading the NL forum is where I found out about how to do stuff.
After 10 months using and loving AR 2 and AR 2.5, I would have to say I get satisfactory jewelry renders in a fraction of the time with Maxwell.
I've tried using AR for a long time to get the gradients you see here. I know you render boffins could probably do it in seconds. But not me.
Using an HDRI studio light box dome, it came up very quickly in Maxwell. No specular, no AO, no AA, no Fresnel, etc, etc. Just floor, cuff links, lighting dome, drag/drop sterling silver (yep 92.5% AU and 7.5% CU) and hit Render.
Go to bed and wake up with this. No PhotoShop. SL19. About 7-8 hours render time.
I teach kindergarten. If I can do it, anybody can do it.
cheers,
larry
Here is a sterling silver cuff link render I did yesterday. The design is based on an ancient Egyptial engraved stone. Modeled in Rhino 3.
I've been messing with Maxwell Studio on and off for about 3 weeks. Sometimes I want to flush it down the toilet.
No experience at all with the RC's, Alphas or Betas. And the current manual is nearly useless. Head banging and reading the NL forum is where I found out about how to do stuff.
After 10 months using and loving AR 2 and AR 2.5, I would have to say I get satisfactory jewelry renders in a fraction of the time with Maxwell.
I've tried using AR for a long time to get the gradients you see here. I know you render boffins could probably do it in seconds. But not me.
Using an HDRI studio light box dome, it came up very quickly in Maxwell. No specular, no AO, no AA, no Fresnel, etc, etc. Just floor, cuff links, lighting dome, drag/drop sterling silver (yep 92.5% AU and 7.5% CU) and hit Render.
Go to bed and wake up with this. No PhotoShop. SL19. About 7-8 hours render time.
I teach kindergarten. If I can do it, anybody can do it.
cheers,
larry
helluvapixel
06-20-2006, 05:58 AM
That's the whole point of MW, set up materials, camera and light and render. However the fact it takes 12hours a render is insane if you want to meet production deadlines. I have no idea how much extra cpu's do to the render time as I only have 1 license at the moment (NL owes me another one but they haven't delivered yet).
Glyptic
06-20-2006, 09:47 AM
I forgot to mention that I used Cinema to create the scene and arrangement, then created the needed mxs mesh using the Cinema Maxwell "plug-in". I use quotes because it would more aptly be called the Cinema/Maxwell Meshing Tool. Or File Translator or some such name.
I've read of considerable speed ups using multi-core machines and rendering tricks. Such as make two renders and combine them, as the sampling is random, thus the noise can be reduced by this technique. I've also read of questionable results doing this. Dividing the job across multiple machines is also being done. Again with some success and some snafus.
I'm not doing any of that stuff. One AMD 3800+ and 2 gigs of RAM is all I have.
Its obvious the arch viz guys are fairly upset by the current output of V1. Product guys and jewelers in particular seem to gripe far less. So at this point, Maxwell's usefullness seems to depend a great deal on the task at hand.
As for render time, I realized early on that set up+render/tweek cycle+render time was far greater with AR for me than the same cycle with Maxwell, even though the render time component with Maxwell was 600-800% longer. And thats after 10 months working with AR and 3 weeks working with Maxwell.
Fortunately, I get to sleep each day, so I just line up my renders for that time.
I am no apologist or fan boy of NL. I think their feet should rightly be held in the fire for countless mis-steps (thats about as kind a characterization as I can think of). And I come very late to this on going soap opera.
And I look forward to having them reduce the population of the ant farm that resides in their software.
But when I can wake up to a useful render, all I can think is *Yippee!!".
I've read of considerable speed ups using multi-core machines and rendering tricks. Such as make two renders and combine them, as the sampling is random, thus the noise can be reduced by this technique. I've also read of questionable results doing this. Dividing the job across multiple machines is also being done. Again with some success and some snafus.
I'm not doing any of that stuff. One AMD 3800+ and 2 gigs of RAM is all I have.
Its obvious the arch viz guys are fairly upset by the current output of V1. Product guys and jewelers in particular seem to gripe far less. So at this point, Maxwell's usefullness seems to depend a great deal on the task at hand.
As for render time, I realized early on that set up+render/tweek cycle+render time was far greater with AR for me than the same cycle with Maxwell, even though the render time component with Maxwell was 600-800% longer. And thats after 10 months working with AR and 3 weeks working with Maxwell.
Fortunately, I get to sleep each day, so I just line up my renders for that time.
I am no apologist or fan boy of NL. I think their feet should rightly be held in the fire for countless mis-steps (thats about as kind a characterization as I can think of). And I come very late to this on going soap opera.
And I look forward to having them reduce the population of the ant farm that resides in their software.
But when I can wake up to a useful render, all I can think is *Yippee!!".
helluvapixel
06-20-2006, 02:57 PM
For Maxwell to be useful means to own a separate computer. Sounds to be the pipeline would be C4D->Maxwell->dedicated render station->Maxwell standalone.
This way your production computer is not held up and you can be preparing for the next render.
This way your production computer is not held up and you can be preparing for the next render.
Glyptic
06-20-2006, 07:59 PM
In many cases you are probably right. I know several people that are buying up cheap PIII's just for that purpose.
However, Maxwell has two interesting features.
When you work in Studio, and hit Render, you launch the render engine MXCL. You do not render within Studio. You can then go back to Studio, open a new scene, get it all set, hit Render again, and you launch another instance of MXCL. I often have 2-4 instances of MXCL running while I sleep.
It also has a way of setting the priority of the render engine relative to other software you are running. Most people keep it on Low Priority, so they can work in something like Rhino or Cinema, Max or whatever while a render is going on. Obviously you're using CPU and RAM while doing this and slowing the render. I often have 1-2 instances of MXCL running while I work on a model in Rhino. I've noticed no slow down in my Rhino work. I can then bring that new model into Cinema, set up my scene, create the mxs file through the Cinema "plug in", open it in Studio and launch another render. And go back and model some more.
I find it a very good workflow. Lights are cached so you can change those settings during and after the render. That is a very cool feature for a lighting ding bat like myself.
Because Maxwell works with *real materials* called IOR files and not shaders, materials work in a very predictable way within the "photo studios" you can construct. I use a flat plane and HDRI domes. This minimizes tweeking for me. I particulary like setting up my camera in Cinema so I don't have to mess with the Maxwell default camera which has no relationship to my scene. That alone saves me time and frustration.
I'm not trying to sell anybody on Maxwell. I have no idea if the shoe will fit. Buyer beware. But I feel lucky to have made the progress I have made with it.
However, Maxwell has two interesting features.
When you work in Studio, and hit Render, you launch the render engine MXCL. You do not render within Studio. You can then go back to Studio, open a new scene, get it all set, hit Render again, and you launch another instance of MXCL. I often have 2-4 instances of MXCL running while I sleep.
It also has a way of setting the priority of the render engine relative to other software you are running. Most people keep it on Low Priority, so they can work in something like Rhino or Cinema, Max or whatever while a render is going on. Obviously you're using CPU and RAM while doing this and slowing the render. I often have 1-2 instances of MXCL running while I work on a model in Rhino. I've noticed no slow down in my Rhino work. I can then bring that new model into Cinema, set up my scene, create the mxs file through the Cinema "plug in", open it in Studio and launch another render. And go back and model some more.
I find it a very good workflow. Lights are cached so you can change those settings during and after the render. That is a very cool feature for a lighting ding bat like myself.
Because Maxwell works with *real materials* called IOR files and not shaders, materials work in a very predictable way within the "photo studios" you can construct. I use a flat plane and HDRI domes. This minimizes tweeking for me. I particulary like setting up my camera in Cinema so I don't have to mess with the Maxwell default camera which has no relationship to my scene. That alone saves me time and frustration.
I'm not trying to sell anybody on Maxwell. I have no idea if the shoe will fit. Buyer beware. But I feel lucky to have made the progress I have made with it.
flingster
06-20-2006, 11:05 PM
like the result though larry.
Glyptic
06-20-2006, 11:23 PM
Hey Flingster,
So far I'm pleased with the results. And if you think my noob renders are OK, thats nice to hear. Encouraging even.
And I must say, I am a very reluctant Maxwell user. The soap opera scared me off investing in it. But my jewelry friends convinced me to try it. They were showing me things I couldn't match. I'm too competitive to sit still based on that.
So it might be a one trick pony for all I know. But as long as its one trick is jewelry renders, I can live with that. My other jewelry tools are a collection of one trick ponies. So this might be another one.
As a friend on Moscow says, "If we live, we will know".
I look forward to seeing you at Tom's next party.
cheers,
larry
So far I'm pleased with the results. And if you think my noob renders are OK, thats nice to hear. Encouraging even.
And I must say, I am a very reluctant Maxwell user. The soap opera scared me off investing in it. But my jewelry friends convinced me to try it. They were showing me things I couldn't match. I'm too competitive to sit still based on that.
So it might be a one trick pony for all I know. But as long as its one trick is jewelry renders, I can live with that. My other jewelry tools are a collection of one trick ponies. So this might be another one.
As a friend on Moscow says, "If we live, we will know".
I look forward to seeing you at Tom's next party.
cheers,
larry
oskiki
06-25-2006, 02:01 AM
Hi Folks!!
Take a look..
http://www.maxwellrender.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=40
It seemed like a good idea at the time..
cheers,
Oskiki
Take a look..
http://www.maxwellrender.it/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=30&Itemid=40
It seemed like a good idea at the time..
cheers,
Oskiki
Ernest Burden
06-25-2006, 03:16 PM
Hi Folks!!
Take a look..
I would prefer it if we didn't drive any more traffic to NL's site than necessary. Can't we post images locally or summarize the important points of a thread being refered to? I'm interested in whether or not Maxwell ever 'makes it', having invested my money in it, but I'm not interested in reading NL's forum--not that I'm welcome there anyway.
Take a look..
I would prefer it if we didn't drive any more traffic to NL's site than necessary. Can't we post images locally or summarize the important points of a thread being refered to? I'm interested in whether or not Maxwell ever 'makes it', having invested my money in it, but I'm not interested in reading NL's forum--not that I'm welcome there anyway.
helluvapixel
06-25-2006, 05:14 PM
I would prefer it if we didn't drive any more traffic to NL's site than necessary. Can't we post images locally or summarize the important points of a thread being refered to? I'm interested in whether or not Maxwell ever 'makes it', having invested my money in it, but I'm not interested in reading NL's forum--not that I'm welcome there anyway.
LOL.. does that go for cebas' forum too?? heheh.... j/k
LOL.. does that go for cebas' forum too?? heheh.... j/k
Martin Kay
06-30-2006, 11:15 AM
I summarize: Maxwell sucks in terms of usability. :D
Ah, then the current write up in 3D World mag is totally misleading then?
Martin K
Ah, then the current write up in 3D World mag is totally misleading then?
Martin K
Katachi
06-30-2006, 11:30 AM
Ah, then the current write up in 3D World mag is totally misleading then?
Martin K
What do they say? :) And what makes you think it is NOT misleading when you read the comments of all users writing here? or in the german forum, ask anybody about their experience with Maxwell. I bet 100$ you will get negative feedback from 80% (if not more!)
about the Maxwell policy, customer service, forum support, plugin bridge support and that they released it ~1 year later (beside the fact that you cannot resell it, which wasnīt stated when the prerelease started to sell). So, what does a review in a magazine change about these facts? Can you elaborate?
Martin K
What do they say? :) And what makes you think it is NOT misleading when you read the comments of all users writing here? or in the german forum, ask anybody about their experience with Maxwell. I bet 100$ you will get negative feedback from 80% (if not more!)
about the Maxwell policy, customer service, forum support, plugin bridge support and that they released it ~1 year later (beside the fact that you cannot resell it, which wasnīt stated when the prerelease started to sell). So, what does a review in a magazine change about these facts? Can you elaborate?
Martin Kay
06-30-2006, 11:46 AM
What do they say? :) And what makes you think it is NOT misleading when you read the comments of all users writing here? or in the german forum, ask anybody about their experience with Maxwell. I bet 100$ you will get negative feedback from 80% (if not more!)
about the Maxwell policy, customer service, forum support, plugin bridge support and that they released it ~1 year later (beside the fact that you cannot resell it, which wasnīt stated when the prerelease started to sell). So, what does a review in a magazine change about these facts? Can you elaborate?
From what I've read here, now and previously, I wouldn't buy Maxwell. It's just interesting to see what gets written in magazines. It had a good review. '...its taken the architectural community by storm...' Scored 9/10 '...has aquired a large. loyal user base already...'
Phrases here like, 'experimental software' and 'long render times' put me right off. Lol!
Martin K
about the Maxwell policy, customer service, forum support, plugin bridge support and that they released it ~1 year later (beside the fact that you cannot resell it, which wasnīt stated when the prerelease started to sell). So, what does a review in a magazine change about these facts? Can you elaborate?
From what I've read here, now and previously, I wouldn't buy Maxwell. It's just interesting to see what gets written in magazines. It had a good review. '...its taken the architectural community by storm...' Scored 9/10 '...has aquired a large. loyal user base already...'
Phrases here like, 'experimental software' and 'long render times' put me right off. Lol!
Martin K
LemonNado
06-30-2006, 11:56 AM
I was about to subscribe to this magazine. Pffffffffffff.
Nearly made a fault there.
Rainer
Nearly made a fault there.
Rainer
nycL45
06-30-2006, 11:57 AM
There is some celebrating going on over at the forum over the mag story, http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=16817&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0,(except for one comment).
In that thread, it is noted a more detailed review will be in the August 2006 issue
In that thread, it is noted a more detailed review will be in the August 2006 issue
Katachi
06-30-2006, 12:01 PM
From what I've read here, now and previously, I wouldn't buy Maxwell. It's just interesting to see what gets written in magazines. It had a good review. '...its taken the architectural community by storm...' Scored 9/10 '...has aquired a large. loyal user base already...'
Phrases here like, 'experimental software' and 'long render times' put me right off. Lol!
Martin K
ah ok. I think it is misleading the way they stated it. Maxwell, the renderer itself, is probably even a good renderer (see the results) BUT it still sucks due to the mentioned points. A software can bring great results, but if the developing company doesnīt care about its customers, you will soon find VERY frustrated users, and we can see those since half a year, in all countries, all complaining about the same things, not loyal at all. (and the userbase is always a symbol for the software)
And all this makes me say: it sucks! Because it all belongs together imo.
MAXON is the best example on how to do it (and I am sure MAXONs policy is a big reason why C4D became so huge and popular over the last years), however, Maxwell shows the exact opposite. :)
I am a bit disappointed of 3D World, they are usually very professional about their reviews, but this time they simply forgot to show the people what this software is all about, how it evolved, the whole truth. Of course, there are marketing reasons to keep this out of the review but that doesnīt change the fact, that new users have no clue what happened beforehand and they may be disappointed when they find out and say "hey, if Iīd knew this before, I probably would have waited until they fixed these issues". Thatīs definetly not possible with this review.
Phrases here like, 'experimental software' and 'long render times' put me right off. Lol!
Martin K
ah ok. I think it is misleading the way they stated it. Maxwell, the renderer itself, is probably even a good renderer (see the results) BUT it still sucks due to the mentioned points. A software can bring great results, but if the developing company doesnīt care about its customers, you will soon find VERY frustrated users, and we can see those since half a year, in all countries, all complaining about the same things, not loyal at all. (and the userbase is always a symbol for the software)
And all this makes me say: it sucks! Because it all belongs together imo.
MAXON is the best example on how to do it (and I am sure MAXONs policy is a big reason why C4D became so huge and popular over the last years), however, Maxwell shows the exact opposite. :)
I am a bit disappointed of 3D World, they are usually very professional about their reviews, but this time they simply forgot to show the people what this software is all about, how it evolved, the whole truth. Of course, there are marketing reasons to keep this out of the review but that doesnīt change the fact, that new users have no clue what happened beforehand and they may be disappointed when they find out and say "hey, if Iīd knew this before, I probably would have waited until they fixed these issues". Thatīs definetly not possible with this review.
nycL45
06-30-2006, 12:24 PM
...new users have no clue what happened beforehand and they may be disappointed when they find out and say "hey, if Iīd knew this before, I probably would have waited until they fixed these issues". Thatīs definetly not possible with this review.
About the "new users":
1/ After they have given over the $1,000US.
2/ The forum will be no help researching past comments; the forum moderators deleted threads and posts that complained about the software and company.
3/ The forum banned those that complained or whatever too much.
4/ Certain individuals in the forum still intimidate those that make negative comments.
Everything about and surrounding this software and company seems artificial. The software seems to have the potential to be great but, not at this time. I have tried using it time and again and it is not intuitive and the manual is not much or helpful. The renderings produced with the latest version, V1, do not rise to the quality of the Beta v. and the forum mods have yet to create and publish a single "hero" rendering with it. For archviz, it is far from ready yet, whereas with a project containing a minimal number of materials and limited complexity, the renders can be very nice.
It did not have to be this way.
About the "new users":
1/ After they have given over the $1,000US.
2/ The forum will be no help researching past comments; the forum moderators deleted threads and posts that complained about the software and company.
3/ The forum banned those that complained or whatever too much.
4/ Certain individuals in the forum still intimidate those that make negative comments.
Everything about and surrounding this software and company seems artificial. The software seems to have the potential to be great but, not at this time. I have tried using it time and again and it is not intuitive and the manual is not much or helpful. The renderings produced with the latest version, V1, do not rise to the quality of the Beta v. and the forum mods have yet to create and publish a single "hero" rendering with it. For archviz, it is far from ready yet, whereas with a project containing a minimal number of materials and limited complexity, the renders can be very nice.
It did not have to be this way.
oskiki
06-30-2006, 01:08 PM
Hi Leonard,
Sorry but I think you are mistaken.
We bought Maxwell Render two months ago and we are receiving in our company very interesting and good results, much better than before. We can tell that they are changing and improving their software, but MaxwellRender works.
Cheers,:shrug:
.
Sorry but I think you are mistaken.
We bought Maxwell Render two months ago and we are receiving in our company very interesting and good results, much better than before. We can tell that they are changing and improving their software, but MaxwellRender works.
Cheers,:shrug:
.
ooo
06-30-2006, 01:32 PM
Whatever there has been written in this thread, one thing hasn't been clarified yet: did Mash (the threadstarter) managed to render his cube already? And if yes, please post the result :)
odo
odo
nycL45
06-30-2006, 03:44 PM
Hi Leonard,
Sorry but I think you are mistaken.
We bought Maxwell Render two months ago and we are receiving in our company very interesting and good results, much better than before. We can tell that they are changing and improving their software, but MaxwellRender works.
Cheers,:shrug:
There is nothing to be sorry about. Hey, it is good to hear you are getting good results. I did not mean to imply results were not possible, just that many users have tried and have not gotten the results that were promised by NL in their marketing campaign.
Since January 2005, I have been following MWR closely and bought the software (meaning NL took & spent my money) in March 2005. Along the way, I have tried the different versions and after spending inordinate amount of time, I would go back to my obligations and wait for the next version with hopes it would start to live up to the promises of being a production software. It is not and many, many have experienced similar attempts and results and have expressed so. If you want to know more, you will have to do the research there are huge amounts out there. It is an extrodinary saga without an end in sight.
BTW, I still follow MWR daily learning and taking notes with the hopes, like many others, that it will begin to be a tool for incredible renderings like those that were posted at NL's marketing gallery last year.
Sorry but I think you are mistaken.
We bought Maxwell Render two months ago and we are receiving in our company very interesting and good results, much better than before. We can tell that they are changing and improving their software, but MaxwellRender works.
Cheers,:shrug:
There is nothing to be sorry about. Hey, it is good to hear you are getting good results. I did not mean to imply results were not possible, just that many users have tried and have not gotten the results that were promised by NL in their marketing campaign.
Since January 2005, I have been following MWR closely and bought the software (meaning NL took & spent my money) in March 2005. Along the way, I have tried the different versions and after spending inordinate amount of time, I would go back to my obligations and wait for the next version with hopes it would start to live up to the promises of being a production software. It is not and many, many have experienced similar attempts and results and have expressed so. If you want to know more, you will have to do the research there are huge amounts out there. It is an extrodinary saga without an end in sight.
BTW, I still follow MWR daily learning and taking notes with the hopes, like many others, that it will begin to be a tool for incredible renderings like those that were posted at NL's marketing gallery last year.
seco7
06-30-2006, 04:17 PM
Well put nyc, I'm using the exact same wait and hope strategy. I'm glad to hear that someone is using it in production, but for us it is still several steps away (hopefully).
I was suprised to read 3d Worlds article and that they would rate Maxwell a 9/10 without explicitly noting that it is still incomplete and a work-in-progress. It really struck me as irresponsible reporting. Maybe the future evaluation will go into more detail.
One of my biggest fears with MWR is that the saga STILL continues. I've been following the threads about light dispersion, falloff, etc changes in v1.0. This is very concerning to me, the assumption that it is just a matter of tuning the engine is just that, an assumption.
I was suprised to read 3d Worlds article and that they would rate Maxwell a 9/10 without explicitly noting that it is still incomplete and a work-in-progress. It really struck me as irresponsible reporting. Maybe the future evaluation will go into more detail.
One of my biggest fears with MWR is that the saga STILL continues. I've been following the threads about light dispersion, falloff, etc changes in v1.0. This is very concerning to me, the assumption that it is just a matter of tuning the engine is just that, an assumption.
Ernest Burden
06-30-2006, 04:34 PM
Well put nyc, I'm using the exact same wait and hope strategy. I'm glad to hear that someone is using it in production, but for us it is still several steps away (hopefully).
Same here.
The product may one day be to a stage that I will want to use it, but for now I wasted nearly $1000 but not much time. I don't want to waste time since I have paying work to do in the present.
I have serious doubts that NL will ever release another version of Maxwell beyond a service pack, but I've been wrong before and maybe they will surprise me and maybe then I can put my investment to work.
In the meantime, I'm off to try vRay.
Same here.
The product may one day be to a stage that I will want to use it, but for now I wasted nearly $1000 but not much time. I don't want to waste time since I have paying work to do in the present.
I have serious doubts that NL will ever release another version of Maxwell beyond a service pack, but I've been wrong before and maybe they will surprise me and maybe then I can put my investment to work.
In the meantime, I'm off to try vRay.
AdamT
06-30-2006, 04:57 PM
Basically I'm in the same boat as the rest of you (not using M~R for production work), but sort of in the opposite end as Ernest, e.g., I've wasted not much money ($400) but way too much time.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that NL will eventually improve image quality to c. beta standards, but they won't have much luck bringing down render times. Whether they can simplify material handling to beta standards is very much an open question. And ... this being NL, we probably won't see any *substantive* improvements for a year or more.
If I had to hazard a guess, I'd say that NL will eventually improve image quality to c. beta standards, but they won't have much luck bringing down render times. Whether they can simplify material handling to beta standards is very much an open question. And ... this being NL, we probably won't see any *substantive* improvements for a year or more.
flingster
06-30-2006, 09:53 PM
they should have checked out user comments on the c4d forum then because the nl guys get a blasting in every post nearly..its virtually impossible to post anything with a topic to it without it getting hijacked by a troll or nl sux comment...i hardly used it before but i'm beginning to think its no longer usable at all...unfortunately its the only way we have of getting even snippets of info out of nl direct from the horses mouth. this product is just sitting on my hard drive atm...i'm hoping improvements will be made in the next 12-18months until that time it can stay their really...i'm getting to the point depite the look i'd like to have in some images the effort and problems i know i'm going to face just turn me off using it at all which really is a shame...since some good things come out of it...i've barely the will to listen to comment on it anymore...i see dd is getting some good stuff out though...so perseverance seems to be paying for him.
LemonNado
06-30-2006, 11:09 PM
It really is a tragedy. The best render idea and the best fluid dynamics app controlled by a bunch of lunatics.... Forget the long render times. I'd happily accept that when the 'rest' would not be so damn painful.
Rainer
Rainer
ernia
07-01-2006, 01:46 AM
LOL!
Ha. The sad thing is that apparently these people have the brains to bring this thing to fruition. WTF happened. Same thing with FR2. WTF happened?!
It's after cocktails here. Sorry if terse.
ernia
Ha. The sad thing is that apparently these people have the brains to bring this thing to fruition. WTF happened. Same thing with FR2. WTF happened?!
It's after cocktails here. Sorry if terse.
ernia
Continuumx
07-01-2006, 03:59 AM
Hi Leonard,
Sorry but I think you are mistaken.
We bought Maxwell Render two months ago and we are receiving in our company very interesting and good results, much better than before. We can tell that they are changing and improving their software, but MaxwellRender works.
Cheers,:shrug:
.
I agree with you Oskiki!
Sorry but I think you are mistaken.
We bought Maxwell Render two months ago and we are receiving in our company very interesting and good results, much better than before. We can tell that they are changing and improving their software, but MaxwellRender works.
Cheers,:shrug:
.
I agree with you Oskiki!
AdamT
07-01-2006, 06:07 AM
Unfortunately there's often a disconnect between the ability to program great tools and the insight to know what tools to program.
lllab
07-01-2006, 11:16 AM
tyron,
any news about the update?
is it soon-days, soon-weeks, soon-hours?
maya promised it is solid & good, hope you also have a good eye on the cinema plugin.
cheers
stefan
any news about the update?
is it soon-days, soon-weeks, soon-hours?
maya promised it is solid & good, hope you also have a good eye on the cinema plugin.
cheers
stefan
Continuumx
07-01-2006, 02:02 PM
tyron,
any news about the update?
is it soon-days, soon-weeks, soon-hours?
maya promised it is solid & good, hope you also have a good eye on the cinema plugin.
cheers
stefan
Hello Stefan,
I cannot say anything about the plugin at the moment. Just keep your spirits high, get a good grasp of the material system for now would be the only advice I can offer at the moment. There are quite a number of tutorials available on the forum that can go a ways to getting the materials under your belt. In my opinion the arrangement is the most realistic available. There is no business with channels and channels that strip down the material into long catogories, rather now the concepts work most like what happens in natural materials.
Not to mention there is some new IOR available that will give us now a good variety of jewels such as emerald, ruby, and sapphire, hopefully more to come! I am sure Glyptic will love this for the jewelry renders.
any news about the update?
is it soon-days, soon-weeks, soon-hours?
maya promised it is solid & good, hope you also have a good eye on the cinema plugin.
cheers
stefan
Hello Stefan,
I cannot say anything about the plugin at the moment. Just keep your spirits high, get a good grasp of the material system for now would be the only advice I can offer at the moment. There are quite a number of tutorials available on the forum that can go a ways to getting the materials under your belt. In my opinion the arrangement is the most realistic available. There is no business with channels and channels that strip down the material into long catogories, rather now the concepts work most like what happens in natural materials.
Not to mention there is some new IOR available that will give us now a good variety of jewels such as emerald, ruby, and sapphire, hopefully more to come! I am sure Glyptic will love this for the jewelry renders.
Ernest Burden
07-01-2006, 04:40 PM
I cannot say anything about the plugin at the moment.
Of course not!
I direct no anger or frustration at you, Tyrone, you are giving 200%. But in the process you get left to be NL's ambassador here--not an easy job.
..its virtually impossible to post anything with a topic to it without it getting hijacked by a troll or nl sux comment...i've barely the will to listen to comment on it anymore.
The truth hurts sometimes.
The ball is in NextLimit's court.
Of course not!
I direct no anger or frustration at you, Tyrone, you are giving 200%. But in the process you get left to be NL's ambassador here--not an easy job.
..its virtually impossible to post anything with a topic to it without it getting hijacked by a troll or nl sux comment...i've barely the will to listen to comment on it anymore.
The truth hurts sometimes.
The ball is in NextLimit's court.
lllab
07-01-2006, 05:06 PM
tyron thanks for answer,
i have no problem with the material system, i find it very very attracting, its cool, and i have no problems creating good stuff.
i am concerned at workflow, some missing features and small bugs that are still disturbing a bit.
specially the c4d plugin needs to get like the 3d max or maya version ( or better;-)
if this will be it would be a pleasure to work with MW.
i like MW a lot and believe can have a great future.
p.s. but i really think NL has to change licencing system, they have to count sockets not cores.
cheers
stefan
i have no problem with the material system, i find it very very attracting, its cool, and i have no problems creating good stuff.
i am concerned at workflow, some missing features and small bugs that are still disturbing a bit.
specially the c4d plugin needs to get like the 3d max or maya version ( or better;-)
if this will be it would be a pleasure to work with MW.
i like MW a lot and believe can have a great future.
p.s. but i really think NL has to change licencing system, they have to count sockets not cores.
cheers
stefan
Continuumx
07-04-2006, 11:35 PM
Hello Illab,
A new version of the plugin is now available, a C4D user manual, and a new version of Maxwell Render as well!
Let me know your thoughts on the workflow. I am having a good workflow mixing C4D and Maxwell Studio together more than ever now.
A new version of the plugin is now available, a C4D user manual, and a new version of Maxwell Render as well!
Let me know your thoughts on the workflow. I am having a good workflow mixing C4D and Maxwell Studio together more than ever now.
lllab
07-07-2006, 09:59 AM
Hi tyron,
thanks for all your work for MW.
you can read my posts in the cinema-MW forum. i was happier with 1.0.
cheers
stefan
thanks for all your work for MW.
you can read my posts in the cinema-MW forum. i was happier with 1.0.
cheers
stefan
CGTalk Moderation
07-07-2006, 09:59 AM
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.
vBulletin v3.0.5, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.