PDA

View Full Version : Maxwell Render 2.0


Pages : 1 [2]

mister3d
05-16-2009, 08:21 PM
You are not worthy of a reply, but you will recieve one anyways..

You are still blaming us for derailing this thread, when YOU and some other guys are the one's to blame.

Why the images show different results have also been explained in this thread, if you actually got off your high horse and read our posts instead of ignoring them then you would have known that by now. I guess you will dismiss the explanation and make one up yourself that fits your thoughts instead of the fact from the source.
/ Magnus
I partially agree on this, but still, as long as those are from different versions, it leaves a bit of untrust to this. Let's hope they will make another, more logical comparisons.


We have no been insulted or taken comments personally, the only main problem has been this continued witchhunt to pinpoint that Maxwell sucks and that you don't need it and that you can do everything with Vray or mental ray. It seems that no one cares except you yourself.

No one said it sucks, Chritter simply made statements that maxwell has no special benefit along other renderers and all it has is unbiased approach, which is a maketing move. I still doubt it, but nobody yet made any comparisons we could see, though i created a scene for it.
Clearly, if you have maxwell, we could test very simple scenes without photo refernces, withbasic lights and shadersand perhaps GI. This would show whether spectlar renderings give a benefit or not.


This thread should have been closed when it hit page two, but the moderators are too slow to react or they simply do not care when the discussion is about how bad Maxwell is.

/ Magnus
Where, where did you see something said maxwell sucks or bad? You really overreacting on this. Moveover i think it clearly has some benefits, just someone must prove this.

Magnus3D
05-16-2009, 08:34 PM
If the moderators and admins are laughing at this, i have lost my trust in them. :(

The word "sucks" was not used as far as i can remember, but the whole direction of the discussions here have been to prove that no human has a need for Maxwell and whatever technology it's built upon is worthless. Now what i'm wondering is why there are so many so called unbiased renderengines being developed now and that they're growing very popular amongst users, if there would be no benefit at all then there woudl be no market for the free unbiased engines to go commercial as several of them have recently.

I do have Maxwell, but i have no time for comparisons of this kind as it will turn the thread once again into X vs Y thread which is not supposed to be welcome on CGTalk.

No i am not overreacting.

/ Magnus

mister3d
05-16-2009, 08:56 PM
If the moderators and admins are laughing at this, i have lost my trust in them. :(

The word "sucks" was not used as far as i can remember, but the whole direction of the discussions here have been to prove that no human has a need for Maxwell and whatever technology it's built upon is worthless.
/ Magnus
Sorry, but you are a bit paranoid. :wip: The only one who expressed some doubts is Chritter, not that anyone else did. Yet you are accusing moderators.



Now what i'm wondering is why there are so many so called unbiased renderengines being developed now and that they're growing very popular amongst users, if there would be no benefit at all then there woudl be no market for the free unbiased engines to go commercial as several of them have recently.

I do have Maxwell, but i have no time for comparisons of this kind as it will turn the thread once again into X vs Y thread which is not supposed to be welcome on CGTalk.

No i am not overreacting.

/ Magnus
Right, that's the right question and I asked Chritter the same one. As far as I can understand, his opinion on this matter is that people like the idea of "unbiased" renderer, that makes them feel like they are true photographers (sorry Chritter if I got you wrong).
But as long as maxwell does calculations in spectral lrange, there must be some kind or benefit from it. I can clearly see it in some renderings done in maxwell, but Chritter keeps saying those differences are not important.
If you would make some tests, it won't be one aaplication against other. The point of forbidding such talks here is that people are rarely have any proofs to their believes, but as long you can support your point with some tests, it really doesn't hurt anyone.

JorgeIvanovich
05-16-2009, 09:57 PM
Maxwell itīs a very good engine.

And i think nobody called it trash,just not production friendly not even stills.

Maybe in next years things change and Maxwell can become a better option and all the time invested in R&D can pay with results on screen.

vlad
05-16-2009, 11:10 PM
You are not worthy of a reply, but you will recieve one anyways..

You are still blaming us for derailing this thread, when YOU and some other guys are the one's to blame.

Why the images show different results have also been explained in this thread, if you actually got off your high horse and read our posts instead of ignoring them then you would have known that by now. I guess you will dismiss the explanation and make one up yourself that fits your thoughts instead of the fact from the source.

We have no been insulted or taken comments personally, the only main problem has been this continued witchhunt to pinpoint that Maxwell sucks and that you don't need it and that you can do everything with Vray or mental ray. It seems that no one cares except you yourself.

This thread should have been closed when it hit page two, but the moderators are too slow to react or they simply do not care when the discussion is about how bad Maxwell is.

/ Magnus

Dude, you're taking this way too personally.
Just take a deep breath and repeat to yourself what Tyler Durden would say :
You are not your job.
You are not how much money you have in the bank.
You are not the car you drive
You are not your render engine
:thumbsup:

DanielWray
05-16-2009, 11:20 PM
This thread has totally de-ralied, like the Zbrush and mudbox annoucements.

Opinion's and/ or facts and discussion are good, but please, back on topic, or atleast just wait until we see more from the creators of maxwell.

Thanks.

EDIT: I am not a mod, but if you have any issues with this thread please send me a PM and i will personaly, come track you down, and tell you why you are wrong. Good day.

CHRiTTeR
05-16-2009, 11:27 PM
No, it's not just slower, but you can't make many things in it, and glossy reflections\refractions is just one of them.
Underestimating tools often happens here, what may confuse many people, especially those who just start in the cg world.
So when I head "it's not about tools, it's about artists" I immediately think about the artist who uses a modern advanced renderer saying so.
Maxwell certainly has something which neither mental nor vray have.

You can do blurry reflections (glossy reflections are actually sharp reflections, many use that term wrong, like me) with scanline, but its kind of well hidden away and pretty unknown to most. And its verry verry slow, so slooooowww.

The reason i use a more modern tool is because it offers me better speed, control and features.
Scanline hasnt been updated for quite some time now.

Why the images show different results have also been explained in this thread, if you actually got off your high horse and read our posts instead of ignoring them then you would have known that by now. I guess you will dismiss the explanation and make one up yourself that fits your thoughts instead of the fact from the source.

I take you are talking about the fact there was some 'error' in the shading of previous versions which resulted in wrong/other results?

So i guess all those renders and tests done before to prove how good and realistic it is were done with 'wrong' shaders and thus the results werent actually right? While results back then clearly showed it gave correct results.
So now they are saying that was all incorrect?
Clearly theres something not right here?

As far as I can understand, his opinion on this matter is that people like the idea of "unbiased" renderer, that makes them feel like they are true photographers (sorry Chritter if I got you wrong).
But as long as maxwell does calculations in spectral lrange, there must be some kind or benefit from it. I can clearly see it in some renderings done in maxwell, but Chritter keeps saying those differences are not important.

You are kind of right yes.
Ppl are all hyped up by the the cool sounding 'unbiased rendering', but its nothing new, special or rare really. So they like the 'idea' that they have some form of secret weapon, but in fact its not that special.

The benefit is indeed more accuracy, like that quote you've posted a couple of posts back, but that accuracy kind of is useless as i explained in a following reply or 2.
Also I'm no programmer, but how i understand it it is easier for the dev's to implement things like diffraction and such. That doesnt mean its impossible in other renderers, its just a bit harder to implement. So that nothing the user should worry about to much.

Hi think they are laughing like hell.

I have no doubt they are. :D
But i dont care, im having fun! :p

mister3d
05-16-2009, 11:48 PM
You can do blurry reflections (glossy reflections are actually sharp reflections, many use that term wrong, like me) with scanline, but its kind of well hidden away and pretty unknown to most. And its verry verry slow, so slooooowww.


No, "glossy" means blurred. Mirror-like are specular reflections (not to mix-up with a term "specular" in cg, which means "specular fake highlight"). So you have specular, semi-glossy, glossy and diffuse reflections, though diffuse reflection may be both of absorption and reflection types. Absorbed diffuse reflection is a diffuse value, like color of paint. The rest is between diffuse and specular reflection (light that hits the surface but doesn't get absorbed and bounces off, whereas diffuse reflection first absorbed, travels there and goes out, or "lost", turning into heat)
RIght, it offers you also features. That's the point of maxwell: it offers people features they don't have in another renderers. They wouldn't do it otherwise, don't you think?
Could you elaborate how to get blurry reflections in scanline please?

CHRiTTeR
05-16-2009, 11:58 PM
blurry reflection = more matte reflection

sharp reflection = more glossy reflection

Perfect crisp/sharp reflections dont excist in the 'real world'.

For real. Just check how they discribe relfection properties on paper, ink, paint or lipstick for example and compare how the reflections appear.

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 12:07 AM
RIght, it offers you also features. That's the point of maxwell: it offers people features they don't have in another renderers. They wouldn't do it otherwise, don't you think?

That is exactly what i think, yes. But the problem is most users are unaware that those features are also available in 'normal renderers' and think its impossible to have them, like the diffraction example.
So, in my eyes, theres no real reason why they are forced to use such long rendertimes.

Even then i dont hate the technology its using (i'm keeping an eye on fryrender), maybe some day it'll show its true advantage.
I already told what i dont like about it.

And I understand that longer rendertimes give you the idea or impression there 'must' be something that is really really special going on.
Well, technicly its indeed verry special and impressive how maxwell calculates thing in the spectral world, but thats more of a 'geeky' thing (because the 'idea' is cool if u understand it) than a production advantage. It doesnt influence results that much to sacrifice so much speed.
Only maybe for scientific use, yes.

Could you elaborate how to get blurry reflections in scanline please?

Its been a long time since i used this, so i cant tell you the steps 123 out of my head, but I'll have a quick look and see if i can find it.

mister3d
05-17-2009, 12:24 AM
blurry reflection = matte reflection

sharp reflection = glossy reflection

For real. Just check how they discribe relfection properties on parer or lipstick for example and compare how the reflections appear.

Well, there's a lot of confusion with these terms in both photography and cg. Logically yes, matte reflections and glossy ones would be the best terms.
Specular reflection is not a specular highlight (a bright reflected lightsource), those are different terms. Basically it is described as specular, glossy and diffuse light reflection and transmission, and a term "mirror-like" is more of an amateur way of describing it. The same with shadow and specular "edge transfer": most people will describe it as a transition, gradient, etc. So it's a vague terminology.


And I understand that longer rendertimes give you the idea or impression there 'must' be something that is really really special going on.
Well, technicly its indeed verry special and impressive how maxwell calculates thing in the spectral world, but thats more of a 'geeky' thing (because the 'idea' is cool if u understand it) than a production advantage. It doesnt influence results that much to sacrifice so much speed.
Only maybe for scientific reasons, yes.
.

it's not rendertimes which gives me this impression, but the images I saw made in maxwell. When it first appeared, and they started to show off, they were really breathtaking, because mobod could produce something in cg before.
Once again, until some maxwell users will agree to make some comparisons, it's all guesses, and not facts. The same way I can claim it has some benefits which are worth to wait. Dead end.

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 12:31 AM
Dont know about the guy and never heared of his standard :( sorry

I could be wrong, but have you also noticed that if you set the glossy value to 1 that its perfectly sharp and if you set it to 0 you got full blurry reflections.
So in that regard more glossy also means more sharp.

I have quite some experience in the graphics and pre press world and everytime the term 'glossy' is mentioned, let it be for inkt or paper or for something else, it means 'less blurry/sharp' reflections.

Faked specular higlights as you describe them dont excist in real life and arent physical correct.
Highlights are nothing more then a reflection of a lightsource or something verry intense/bright.

In the early day 'specular highlights' were used because it was to cpu intensive to do it the correct way and use raytraced reflections.

leopadua
05-17-2009, 12:39 AM
If one the author don't mind, I'm putting a link to his tutorial regarding reflections and that should put an end on this glossy reflections theme of you 2.
"+A Polished Reflection is a undisturbed reflection, like a perfectly mirrored surface. "
"+A Glossy Reflection means that tiny random bumps on the surface of the material cause the reflection to be blurry. Also known as a Blurred Reflection."
Both sentences by Neil Blevins at his website - link below.
http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_education/chrome/chrome.htm

Enjoy the reading.

As for the maxwell discussion, Ive been reading it, but as most of you will/should concur, the only thing that matters, in the end of the day, is a tool that allows us to output more, struggle less, and have our customers happy.

If the new maxwell is going to be faster, and output better images. Great. If you dont like Maxwell, at least get a small smile on your face, because its improvement will most likely force the competition to improve as well, and us, the artists behind the scree will benefit from that, one way or another. Just like its happening to Zbrush/Mudbox and alikes.

All the best,

mister3d
05-17-2009, 12:39 AM
Dont know about the guy and never heared of his standard :( sorry

He is a quite well-known photographer, google him out. He has a lot of videos about lighting.


I could be wrong, but have you also noticed that if you set the glossy value to 1 that its perfectly sharp and if you set it to 0 you got full blurry reflections.
So in that regard more glossy also means more sharp.

Yes, that's wrong. Nobody creating the renderers cared so much about this, so of course they could create such names when you approach a certain threshold of blurring, but who really cares. All you do is just set it as you like, but calling such reflections "glossy" because the slider is called "glossiness" um, ... not right.


Faked specular higlights as you describe them dont excist in real life and arent physical correct.
Highlights are nothing more then a reflection of a lightsource or something verry intense/bright.

In the early day 'specular highlights' were used because it was to cpu intensive to do it the correct way and use raytraced reflections.
Well, yeah, but those are called"specular highlights", not just highlights. This tyrany of terms is really confusing and not so important, untill all people are used to correct terms, like in a big production environment I guess.
"Speculat highlights" is a term from photography, so it relates perfectly to "specular highlights" in cg. It's just there's a distinction between fake and real ones (like from an area light).
Yeah, back then nobody even could presume that lightsources will have a "mass".



"+A Polished Reflection is a undisturbed reflection, like a perfectly mirrored surface. "
"+A Glossy Reflection means that tiny random bumps on the surface of the material cause the reflection to be blurry. Also known as a Blurred Reflection."


Here's one more example how confusing this may be. Really, any surface, let's take metal as an example, will reflect depending on its microstructure. So if all tiny "surfaces" are oriented in the same direction ,then it will reflect in a mirror-like manner. But if they are disturbed (with polishing), they become more glossy ones. Using term "polished" is ok, but it doesn't have to do anything with a reflection quality, it has more to do with a surface type.

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 12:47 AM
I know what they are called, but Im just saying specular highlights, in real life, are nothing more then bright reflections.

He is a quite well-known photographer, google him out. He has a lot of videos about lighting.

I googled him and I have to say, its hard for me to believe that a guy who did photography in the 80's created the standard of what glossy is. And there has never been confusion to what it means, only in the CG world i notice this.
Glossy reflections were refered to long before this guys even was born.

And again, perfect sharp reflections dont excist, so every reflection is automaticly a bit blurry. Even mirrors, chrome, water, ...

If one the author don't mind, I'm putting a link to his tutorial regarding reflections and that should put an end on this glossy reflections theme of you 2.
"+A Polished Reflection is a undisturbed reflection, like a perfectly mirrored surface. "
"+A Glossy Reflection means that tiny random bumps on the surface of the material cause the reflection to be blurry. Also known as a Blurred Reflection."
Both sentences by Neil Blevins at his website - link below.
http://www.neilblevins.com/cg_education/chrome/chrome.htm

Enjoy the reading.

I know neil blevins' site and its an awesome resource for beginners as for experienced users with some verry usefull information and I dont doubt and fully respect his knowledge and work, but im fairly sure hes not quite right there or at least explaining it a bit misguiding.
The blender site has more clear info about this:


Gloss

The shininess of the surface. A glossiness of 1.0 (default) is fully shiny (mirror-like for reflection, clear glass-like for refraction), and will not do multi-sampled raytracing. Lowering the slider will cause the sample cone to become wider and wider, giving a blurrier and blurrier result. Note that with less glossy surfaces, because the samples are spread wider, you'll need more samples to keep a smooth result.
http://www.blender.org/typo3temp/pics/64a89d93dc.jpg
http://www.blender.org/typo3temp/pics/220581d398.jpg



source:
http://www.blender.org/development/release-logs/blender-246/glossy-reflectionrefraction/



Damn we are reallllly getting off topic now.

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 01:47 AM
Could you elaborate how to get blurry reflections in scanline please?

Ok, so here it is...

- open the render dialog (f10)

- first make sure you have scanline set as your default renderer (or the next step wont be available to begin with)

- go to the 'Raytracer' tab and set the global raytracer antialiser 'on'

- Create a 'raytrace' material

- In the 'raytracer controls' input following settings:

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/4431/howtodoblurryreflection.png


Heres a quick example what it looks like using these settings:
http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/890/blurryraytracedreflecti.jpg

You can get more or less blurring/defocussing. Just experiment a little with the settings to see what they do.

mister3d
05-17-2009, 02:00 AM
Thank you! :thumbsup: I will try that,. I remember there was something like blurring reflections in the reflect\refract option, but it was very plain and noisy.

soulburn3d
05-17-2009, 02:58 AM
I know neil blevins' site and its an awesome resource for beginners as for experienced users with some verry usefull information and I dont doubt and fully respect his knowledge and work, but im fairly sure hes not quite right there or at least explaining it a bit misguiding.

Hey everyone. So what I said on my website is technically correct (or at least what I meant to say was technically correct <G>), but as you pointed out, very confusing. I will go and edit my site tomorrow to make it much clearer. In the meantime...

A Glossy reflections kind of means 2 things. There's what the actual word glossiness means. And then there's the CG term glossy reflection.

The word glossy means smooth and reflective. So a fully Glossy Reflection would be a perfect mirror.

However, in many renderers, a Glossy Reflection is something you have to turn on, and you only turn them on when you want to blur your reflections. So to have a fully glossy reflection, you turn your glossy controls off (and that's the part that makes it confusing). But then if you turn Glossy Reflections on, say the amount goes from 0 to 1, the closer you are to 1, ie, the more glossy, the more mirror like, and the closer to 0, ie, less glossiness, the more blurred your reflection is. So CHRiTTeR is correct.

So that's why I said Glossy reflections are blurry, what I actually should have said was more like "to get blurry reflections, you need to turn your glossiness controls on." Hope that makes more sense, and please if anyone else finds oddities on my site, feel free to let me know, so I can clarify them.

- Neil

mister3d
05-17-2009, 03:18 AM
Soulburn3d, usually people refer to blurry reflections as to glossy ones in cg, isn't it? Confused. At least you can find it in Jeemy Birn's book.

soulburn3d
05-17-2009, 05:45 AM
Soulburn3d, usually people refer to blurry reflections as to glossy ones in cg, isn't it? Confused. At least you can find it in Jeemy Birn's book.

Yes, that's the problem. The "Feature" of glossy reflections is what you turn on to blur your reflections. But once it's turned on, you set the glossiness to a low value to blur them. So Glossiness is actually the opposite of blurring, even though the feature of blurring reflections itself is called Glossy reflections.

- Neil

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 05:39 PM
Thanks Neil!

I recomend Neil's site to anyone reading this btw.

http://www.neilblevins.com
Even if you are an experienced user, its a great resource full of verry usefull tips and tricks and technicall know-how.

lwan
05-17-2009, 09:59 PM
That's really not true at all. Maxwell's shaders really aren't based on reality any more than mental ray's are. That's why the best renders you see coming out of Maxwell are the ones that use very simple materials - glass, metals etc with measured reflectance data. Making realistic-looking organic materials still takes artistic talent.

What's different is in the way Maxwell calculates light transport, i.e. calculating the way that light bounces around the scene. The 'unbiased' term refers to the fact that the algorithms will, given an infinite amount of time, converge to the 'correct' result, whereas algorithms like photon mapping or irradiance caching (final gathering) will never generate a mathematically correct result.

Of course, 'correct' assumes you have set up your shader parameters correctly, which as I've already mentioned is still prone to human error.

That's precisely the BRDF (or similar) that defines how light bounces around. And yes Unbiased renderers BRDF are a billion time more advanced than any other approximation renderer. It's not just about blurring reflection from 0 to 100, unbiased doesn't see cached light solution and have to cope with everything at the same time which make those shaders absolutely complex and prone to render shit with the tiniest mathematical error, something that will never happen in mental ray, vray and such. Not to start a bashing on those renderers, I think they all have their well defined market and use, but it's misleading information to speculate that unbiased renderers are as simple as bouncing light in spectral range on a more or less glossy shader. They're so much more than that..

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 10:10 PM
Vray and mental ray both can render unbiased just fine.
Its just they also offer the possibility to render biased.

This has been said like 5 times already.

mister3d
05-17-2009, 10:14 PM
Vray and mental ray both can render unbiased just fine.
Its just they also offer the possibility to render biased.

This has been said like 5 times already.

It's not about unbiased only, but also about rendering in a spectral range. Though mental ray "supports" it, it is very limited:

"Spectral rendering requires shaders specifically written for spectral rendering. It is not possible to mix shaders returning colors with shaders using spectra. Therefore, spectral rendering requires that all involved shaders understand spectra. Spectral rendering has the following restrictions:

scanline rendering and the rasterizer are not supported;
final gather mode is not supported;
unlike spectral caustic photons, spectral globillum photons are not stored with their full spectrum, but only with RGB tristimulus values. "

So you can' really compare even mental ray to maxwell.

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 10:30 PM
this is really crazy... lol

Do you guys even TRY to read what is typed a dozen times already?

He was talking about unbiased rendering, not spectral rendering!

mister3d
05-17-2009, 10:30 PM
this is really crazy... lol

Do you guys even TRY to read what is typed a dozen times already?

He was talking about unbiased rendering, not spectral rendering!

Yes, but they do it not the same manner, as you can guess.

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 10:51 PM
Yes, but they do it not the same manner, as you can guess.

It doesnt matter.

Unbiased means there are no 'random errors' in the calculation that results in an inaccurate solution.
Thats what unbiased means.

Thus no matter what technique u use. If both techniques are unbiased and you give them the same input, the result will always be the same!

And even if you use a biased technique and its done well, you wont notice the difference anyway.

If you want to get an unbiased rendering out of maxwell, you need to wait until all noise is completely gone and that takes a loooooong time, or it aint unbiased.
Noisy maxwell renders arent unbiased!

vlad
05-17-2009, 10:54 PM
Groundhog Day anyone?

mister3d
05-17-2009, 11:06 PM
Chritter, if you carefully read what Iwan said, you will see that maxwell of fryrender BRDF substantially differs from other's renderers like vray or mental ray. Don't you see it's kind of important?

CHRiTTeR
05-17-2009, 11:19 PM
Chritter, if you carefully read what Iwan said, you will see that maxwell of fryrender BRDF substantially differs from other's renderers like vray or mental ray. Don't you see it's kind of important?

Nope, both can give simular results, especially if you layer/blend them
And both are based on estimations ... This has also been discussed already.

And speaking of maxwell's 'great' BRDF, if it is that superior why is it that they say now that it wasnt good at all and gave bad/wrong results. Because that is what they give as reason to why the renders (1.7 vs 2.0) look so different, no?


;)

Magnus3D
05-17-2009, 11:47 PM
Because no matter how well you code something, it can always be improved upon. I'm pretty sure you will find similar problems in the past with both Vray and mental ray unless you as usual deny that it could even happen to those engines too...

The anomalies are often refeered to as 'bugs' if you are unfamiliar with them.

/ Magnus

CHRiTTeR
05-18-2009, 12:13 AM
Sure it can, but the big difference is they are honnest about it.

To me it seems more like an excuse, because if you look back at all the test images they did before to prove how supirior it was and all that, you'll notice nothing is wrong with the shading. No glitches or stuff like that.
If there really was an error, it would be more evident and someone would have noticed with all those tests. Some of those test where quite heavy.
If there was really an error in the BRDF that gave faulty results. someone would have noticed that.

Another thing that makes me think this is that the first maxwell gave the best, most realistic and accurate results of them all. And then it went downhill with almost every upgrade and speed increase. Every time resulting in a different image (not verry production friendly at all).
While they keep telling its because of 'better stuff' but clearly the eyes tell a different story.

That makes me believe they are sacrificing quality for speed.

If you look at those v1.7 vs v2.0 images again, you'll note that those are no subtle differences. The v2.0 images look less accurate and a lot more 'fake/CG'.

Now, we keep going in circles talking about spectral rendering, unbiased and physicall accurate and all that crap.

Just look at the comparisons, relax, zoom out and just think about it.
If you can tell me why, then pls do so, but dont start talking about 'physicall correct' and such because those are reasons why this should NOT be happening.

Magnus3D
05-18-2009, 12:25 AM
Since you try your best to explain away everything explained to you any explanations we can give you will never satisfy you and your constant need for attention. Sigh, this thread feels more like a daycarecenter as we have to "take care" of you here every day and night.

Btw, we are not going in circles. You are going in circles, we are just watching you circling around your own axis further and further away from the point of origin.

/ Magnus

CHRiTTeR
05-18-2009, 12:36 AM
Its funny hearing that from you because Im the only one who tried to go back on topic several times.


You just ignore it, havent said anything usefull yet and just keep on mumbling how I should just shut up or that the admins should close this thread because you dont like whats being said here.

Magnus3D
05-18-2009, 12:40 AM
As far as i know this thread is supposed to be about the upcoming Maxwell Render 2.0 release! you have been babbling on about anything else except that, about what YOU think is correct and not what you know is correct. Nobody cares if you think one thing or another is better than X or Y. Stay on topic or stay silent.

/ Magnus

mister3d
05-18-2009, 01:09 AM
CHRiTTeR, do you have some images from different releases of maxwell? I kinda feel the same that it has changed.

Bubbaloo
05-18-2009, 01:09 PM
Maxwell was perfect before, now with Version 2, it is perfecter.:eek:

CHRiTTeR
05-18-2009, 04:29 PM
CHRiTTeR, do you have some images from different releases of maxwell? I kinda feel the same that it has changed.

Nope, sorry. I did a quick search on the net and on their forum thought but have found nothing to compare... :(

Maybe its just an impression, although many ppl indeed seem to notice this.

Zupanc
05-23-2009, 07:33 AM
Maxwell for life! :D

http://www.shrani.si/f/9/EP/3TcVYSIa/d1.jpg
(http://%5Bimg%5Dhttp://www.shrani.si/f/3w/rZ/2VrpzaUu/mw.jpg%5B/img%5D)

contact7
05-26-2009, 09:55 AM
It's nice to compare the different renderers but please let's not turn this into a war (again).

I particularly enjoy reading other people's experiences with various renderers (pros and cons)

Personally I am Maxwell user, and quite happy with it. I bought it after i saw the "Kitchen Scene" (maxwellians should remember this). I honestly thought it was a photograph, so I knew I had to buy it. For sure it is the best render I've ever seen, and I'm not sure if it will ever get any better, even with Maxwell (if they have to sacrifice the quality for speed).

Take care everybody,

Mark

Bubbaloo
05-26-2009, 08:11 PM
Maxwell for life!

Sure it's Maxwell?;)

Zupanc
05-27-2009, 06:47 AM
Bubbaloo,

It's Maxwell :)

http://www.shrani.si/f/15/8H/vfnV5OX/1-copy.jpg

contact7,

the first comment was a joke ;)... ...otherwise I' m also working with vray for interior renders.


Take care,

Zupanc

Bubbaloo
06-03-2009, 09:35 PM
I stand corrected!:)

Bubbaloo
06-03-2009, 09:37 PM
BTW, second announcement:
http://www.maxwellrender.com/version2/workflow.html

CHRiTTeR
08-24-2009, 12:12 AM
Hey, it seems they've updated the old images and the results are much more comparable now.

I must say it looks much better now :)

mister3d
08-24-2009, 12:25 AM
Hey, it seems they've updated the old images and the results are much more comparable now.

I must say it looks much better now :)

It looks much better in terms of noise and speed comparison, but the first image with noise still looks more realistic to me. The second render of the car looks awful... I remember the first render of the car was much more realistic. But it may be just my imagination?
Still I have a feeling they optimised the angine, making it faster, and less realisic.
It would take approximately half an hour to render the first image on a regular intel quad-core, which isn't bad, at all.

Bubbaloo
08-24-2009, 12:33 PM
Still I have a feeling they optimised the angine, making it faster, and less realisic.

This is not true at all. Quite the opposite. The roughness model is much improved, meaning more realistic, while the engine is faster. Hard to believe, but true.

mister3d
08-26-2009, 09:27 AM
This is not true at all. Quite the opposite. The roughness model is much improved, meaning more realistic, while the engine is faster. Hard to believe, but true.

That's interesting... how they managed to cut rendertimes 4 times without any sacrifices.

CGTalk Moderation
08-26-2009, 09:27 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.