mr for max

[Atyss]

3ds max 6 is not shipping, right?

I would before jumping to conclusions. Maybe the price of 3ds max 6 will increase...

The thing is that when you buy XSI, you not only pay for the renderer, you also pay for its integration in the software. In the case of XSI, you have access to pretty much everything of mental ray (except for a couple of features), and the integration is quite tight.

I'd like to see if 3ds max will offer the same level of implementation. Although not impossible, I doubt it will be as integrated as in XSI. I say that because Maya is at its second release with mental ray, and still its integration is not as great as in XSI (although some mr features are exposed in it while they are not in XSI).


Just my 2 cents
Bernard

[ggg]

Originally posted by jamination
i have heard that max6's with mr is netrenderable to the amount of licensed copies of max you own.
how is it implemented, is it something like setting up rayhosts?

[jamination]

the word i heard is netrendering with mr uses backburner (max's netrendering system), which is very easy to use.

phil harbath

[EdHarriss]

I think that the fact that Max will have mental ray will be a good thing. The more people that use mr the better off we all will be.

[zen]

I dont call that intergrated, i call it "linked" with a GUI. Much like MR for Soft|3D.
The thing with maya and probably max6 is that the scene must be loaded to memory, converted to mi format and then rendered. So when rendering the scene in basically loaded twice into memory.
Xsi's advantage is that MR is completely native, and xsi can feed the render engine directly, and not through a link. So there is only one copy of the scene in memory.

[Atyss]

I suspected that the max integration would not share the raylib, like Maya.


I read the detailed feature list of max 6, and it is said that max will offer command line rendering (I guess for mr) and distributed region rendering (like the XSI region, I supposed max will have ray3hosts file). I share Ed's feeling: competition will heat up, and that will benefit us, because on one hand XSI will have to improve to keep its customers and get new ones, and its price might also decrease for the same reasons.


Cheers
Bernard

[zen]

"[...] and distributed region rendering (like the XSI region [...]"

Sorry, but you read it wrong. There wont be any viewport render region in max6.
this is the feature:

"region net render
This allows portions of an image to be deployed across the free network rendering farm (up to 9,999 free render nodes per copy of max) - enabling you to tackle extremely large frames for print, faster. "

This simply means that multiple networked cpu's can work on a single image at once, by dividing it into smaller "regions"

[Saturn]

you have to purchase new cpu licenses to render with Mr by network like xsi.

it's good to have MR in different packages. Just need a standardized interface....

[ostov]

The rumors is saying that MR will be much better working with max then maya. One of the beta tester has said that.

[Saturn]

yes and no :)

[markdc]

Originally posted by zen
I dont call that intergrated, i call it "linked" with a GUI. Much like MR for Soft|3D.
The thing with maya and probably max6 is that the scene must be loaded to memory, converted to mi format and then rendered. So when rendering the scene in basically loaded twice into memory.
Xsi's advantage is that MR is completely native, and xsi can feed the render engine directly, and not through a link. So there is only one copy of the scene in memory.

They (Discreet) said at siggraph that it did not have to be converted (that's how the old connection worked). It looked to be completely integrated to me. We'll see soon.

[ggg]

Originally posted by brian_dlm
They (Discreet) said at siggraph that it did not have to be converted (that's how the old connection worked). It looked to be completely integrated to me. We'll see soon.

How would you ascertian that by looking at it? Not that its not true, but I can't find anything in Discreet literature to support this, perhaps this info is coming.

[tachy0n]

Originally posted by brian_dlm
They (Discreet) said at siggraph that it did not have to be converted (that's how the old connection worked). It looked to be completely integrated to me. We'll see soon.

Alias also keep touting the 'Totally Integrated' card.... Of course by this they mean that MR blends seamlessly with the Maya interface and uses the Maya shaders, scene description etc, without an 'explicit' scene conversion step. But the conversion is still being carried out (MR has it's own scene description language, which is nothing like MAX's or even Maya's) It's just not visible to the user. This is probably what discreet are also implying.

For that matter Maya's handling of shaders is a lot more compatible with MR, because it also uses shader trees, like the 'phenomenon' of MR. MAX on the other hand uses a very different kind of 'hard-coded' system so don't expect too much from the whole MR-MAX deal. Anyways we'll know more when it's released.

Of course XSI's integration of MR is in a class all it's own, and nothing (yet) comes close.

[markdc]

Originally posted by ggg
How would you ascertian that by looking at it? Not that its not true, but I can't find anything in Discreet literature to support this, perhaps this info is coming.

That's what the people demoing the software told us.

[CGTalk Moderation]

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.