AJLynn Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 What they actually say is that the SUN-GLASS problem can not AND WILL NOT be solve with RS1. Only RS2 can render it, and they dont say it will be avaliable in V1!!!!! They say eventually. You know what does that mean. Just think what "soon" means... Do you have a link to one of their people saying that? I remember things like that being said but I can't find the reference. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 from todays announcement The result is the engine Rs1+, which is what you'll be getting with RC 5. Like its predecessor, Rs+1 has some limitations which Rs2 does not, though thanks to the new materials, outperforms Beta in some crucial areas. Certain situations, like the now infamous "sun+glass" scenario will work under specific circumstances, and not in others. Only Rs2 can handle every such situation without compromise, though a solution for Rs1+ is being researched as we speak. As a user, your choice to continue using your Beta engine, or RC 5 will depend heavily on your specific need. RC vs. 1.0 It's important to remember that RC 5 is just a milestone on the journey to 1.0. A great many features and improvements will be implemented before its release, such that it is anticipated to outperform Beta in every way. RC 5 has not been optimized heavily for speed or noise reduction, but because of its new material set, may in fact render your scene more accurately, more cleanly, and faster than Beta. the last one says v1 will just have more features!! Its obvious Rs2... ill not be in v1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I guess the question is how long are we going to have to wait for Rs2, and will it be a free upgrade until all the features promised are implemented. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Sorry, but not beeing able to see behind the glass, makes Maxwell a piece of crap for me. When they say , eventually we will have Rs2, i can calculate (when soon is a month) that it is about 10-20 years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiskey Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 no SSS ...so no -> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Wow, that's nice. Is that a M~R beta render? (But, that thing about Victor and the duck... not so much.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I guess it's pretty obvious now that the big hang-up is the glass/sun issue. It's surprising that the A-team's most vocal (and I mean that in a good sense) participant had no idea about this... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted January 13, 2006 Author Share Posted January 13, 2006 Its obvious Rs2... ill not be in v1 You may will be right, but I don't see anything in the announcement that supports that conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 You may will be right, but I don't see anything in the announcement that supports that conclusion. I think the fact that they're putting this much work into RS1+ and trying to find workarounds for it for various problems (like the caustics issues) supports that. Also, I've definitely seen people in the know say this (though I can't remember the exact references). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I guess it's pretty obvious now that the big hang-up is the glass/sun issue. It's surprising that the A-team's most vocal (and I mean that in a good sense) participant had no idea about this... Who are the arch-vis people on the A-Team? Or are those of us in one of their biggest markets only B-list? Mike said it straight out--his work does not usually require sun+glass and so he wasn't testing that. It makes sense. So who's area of expertise is that on the A-Team? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I have to believe despite what Mike says that sunlight+glass is top priority on their list of things to do. They marketed Maxwell to the Arch Viz community for a reason and I just can't believe they would leave out one of the absolutely most important basic features of any rendering engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Who are the arch-vis people on the A-Team? Or are those of us in one of their biggest markets only B-list? Zuliban is on the A-Team, and I'm pretty sure that Andronikos is as well. Shame we don't hear more from them. Mike said it straight out--his work does not usually require sun+glass and so he wasn't testing that. It makes sense. I hate to bust the guy's hump any more than I already have, but I have a very hard time believing that he didn't know about this issue- it's so crystal clear that it's been the single biggest thorn in the side of NL. Oh well... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I think the fact that they're putting this much work into RS1+ and trying to find workarounds for it for various problems (like the caustics issues) supports that. Also, I've definitely seen people in the know say this (though I can't remember the exact references). They wouldn't even be working on RS1+ if they were sure that RS2 works at all. RS1+ is just a way of buying some time and not risking going under. I think to assume that RS2 is a certain thing would be a huge mistake, so I wouldn't take alot of NL's words on this at face value. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mverta Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 They wouldn't even be working on RS1+ if they were sure that RS2 works at all. This is utterly and completely false. Rs2 works, and early on renders of it chewing through a host of "impossible" scenarios were posted. I don't know if they're still around or not. Rs1+ was devised because the total time for development of Rs2 for release would've been too great. Users need something to work with sooner than that. And because so much of the development time has gone into Studio and the materials (which are really Rs2's materials), then at least 2/3rds of the development time - if not more - is progressive. Rs2 works, and needs more time. _Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 ...I think to assume that RS2 is a certain thing would be a huge mistake, so I wouldn't take alot of NL's words on this at face value. Quoted because I think it's worth emphasizing... I don't see why there's any reason to feel confident that RS2 has any future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mverta Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 I hate to bust the guy's hump any more than I already have, but I have a very hard time believing that he didn't know about this issue- it's so crystal clear that it's been the single biggest thorn in the side of NL. Oh well... Honest, brother, I wasn't following this thing. Especially after doing some intial tests looked successful.. and ARE, provided you don't put in a huge ground plane or look from outside the window, etc. This just doesn't matter to me. Plus, I've seen Rs2, so the whole thing kinda falls into that "non-issue" category, though I know for some of you, it's an immediate problem, with no immediate solution. But we've gotten along for some time without it, so we need to get along for a bit more. _Mike Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Sorry but we have not gotten with it for a long time. We were waiting for a fix all that time. Let me ask you a simple question. Would you accept a maxwell version that would have no EMMITERS? I could. I would mostly need maxwell for sunlight scenes. If you accept such a crippled maxwell version, i can live with that problem. Just think of any decent arhivis scene. And you need me to accept that i would have to wait 2-3 years, and pay again, for something that ought to be there in the first place.? Noway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 Tuesday will come if God is willing. RC5 will come if NL is willing. It will be the 1 year anniversary of my first Maxwell purchase. Right now I'm either too tired or too stupid to see all the things people are reading into the announcements. I guess another possibility is that I'm stunningly disinterested. Is "stunningly" even a word? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted January 13, 2006 Share Posted January 13, 2006 yes, i confirm that 'stunningly' is a word Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackb602 Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 works, and early on renders of it chewing through a host of "impossible" scenarios were posted. I don't know if they're still around or not. I for one would be very interested to see any Rs2 images that are available. Would it be possible to post these in the User Gallery over at the MW forum? The first I heard of Rs2 was in your announcement today (maybe I missed something earlier) so I haven't knowingly seen any examples of what it can do in its current state. Thanks, Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 I guess another possibility is that I'm stunningly disinterested. Me, too. I'm finding the debate much more interesting than the thing being debated. And, according to my bank, I'm at about my one year mark, as well. I've been a beta tester for most versions of Datacad since 1987. I'm one of, if not the only, 3D artist on the beta squad. While some other people do 3D, I'm the only renderer. The president of the company has called me on the phone many times to talk about features in the works. Renderers are not his primary market, but he knows enough to at least have ONE on his beta team. In recent years the 3D part of datacad has been fairly static, and most developement has been the 2D stuff, so i haven't been able to offer very much. And so it is with Mike. I can easily see how an artist could be immersed in a 'studio' setup and not need to touch the sun+glass stuff. So it is unfair to hold him in suspicion for not addressing the issue. It's our issue, other disciplines have their own, which we are ignoring. OK, but all this typing gets me back to this rs1 vs. rs2 engine debate. Think about what Chris Nichols said--any physically accurate, unbiased render engine will produce the same result. That's the point! It's the 'right' solution, not just any solution. How the hell can Maxwell have two different engines that produce different results and claim even two grains of 'physically accurate, unbiased'? How does that work? It just admits that its not true. Now let's move on to get a working product that looks really good. It's interesting that all the 'fake' engines can pass sunlight through glass and see it from the other side, which is a real observable phenomenon, but 'perfect' Maxwell cannot manage it yet. The software will never be as fun as the interaction I'm enjoying here with so many intelligent and talented people. I may have already gotten my money's worth just with the forums. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricklyne Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 I'm sorry, but for someone to post that, Sunlight passing through glass ( or rather not passing through) is a non-issue in a render engine;- one that 'we can get along without'; in an arch-viz forum no less, either displays a perplexing lack of appreciation for the gravitas of your interlocuters' most vital issues, or is just crass attempt at flippantly insulting their collective intelligence. There is a very good reason why it's probably the single most vocally and consistently decried shortcoming of essentially all of the Maxwell releases to date. ( which methinks might have something to do with the fact that glass in modern architectural design is essentially a given, if not, a must). I even bet you that a good number of users scrolled right through the announcements at the NL forum today just looking to see if this was going to be fixed in either RC5 or even version 1.0 for that matter. Well we now know there's no hope of that happeneing for RC5, and sadly Victor left us no more clearer, with regards to its resolution in time for version 1.0. In fact I'm still not even any clearer on whether it has been proven to be working in the oh-so-mighty RS2 engine. Of course there are ways to get around this problem. In fact people use some of these methods to speed up their rendertimes in other engines where glass' reflections and refractions eat up processor power like it's going out of style. Ways which we have no doubt been advised to use with MAxwell to 'tide us over' until the issue is fixed. Well let's examine a few of these ways: 1. You can model you building without glass and that way fake the fact that there are no problems with sunlight/dielectrics. Unfortunately this method ignores the fact that certain modelling applications ( particularly BIM modellers such as Archicad, Microstation, Vecotrworks etc.) don't necesarily allow you to use the window ( or door) objects without the glass. Quite simply because in real life Windows are probably manufactured WITH glass. And besides, modelling a glass-less window frame in such a situation would then essentially negate the value of using the BIM application in the first place, especially when you consider the fact that you are sacrificing Parametric/smart solids which reduce repetitve tasks, in desings that perpetually change as the project moves along. Architects tend to be a rather finicky lot when it comes to seeing the glass that they so ingeniously integrated into their designs, appearing in the render image. 2. You can render your image in passes ( i.e first render the image without the glass; - which essentially requires that you have to be able to do solution #1 in the first place -, to get daylight and sunlight into the room as is the whole point of having windows and openings in a space in the first place, and then render another pass with glass to get the reflections and refractions as you might need them, and combine the passes in Photoshop or some other layer-capable DTP program. I would hope that I wouldn't have to point out the glaring shortcoming of this work-around, but what the hey.... Maxwell does not render in passes, at least AFAIK, like Vray or other renderers, at this point in time anyway. It may have been a proposed feature for version 1.0, but given the rate at which those are disappearing, I wouldn't hold my breathe. And given Maxwell's speed, performing multiple renders of the same scene using the same set-up sans the glass in some set-ups just to fake a solution to the problem, quite simply isn'tpractical, particuiarly when 50-60hr rendertimes for certain scenes come into play. 3. Design your buildings without glass or glass windows. He he he. I think I'll just leave that one alone. I can understand a production-design renderer not seeing the vital need for, nor requiring functioning Sunlight/dielectric interaction, in his(or her) pipeline of work but like Buffos astutely noted, emittors can be similarly ( though not completely) optional for Arch-viz visualizers. So how would you really like it if someone's advice to not having a non-buggy emittor material in Maxwell, was that you should fake this 'non-issue', for the time being, and enjoy the revolutionary new material system instead? I await Tuesday with (near) bated breathe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 I'm sorry, but for someone to post that, Sunlight passing through glass ( or rather not passing through) is a non-issue in a render engine;- ... in an arch-viz forum no less... Clarence--my goodness, you type more than even I do. I hope that most of my 3000 posts were short, otherwise it'ld be a life wasted typing forum posts. I think my reduction of the issue holds its own in just a few keystrokes: sun+glass=arch-vis. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Clarence, I'm pretty sure Mike meant that the sun/glass/caustics thing is a non-issue as far as he's concerned because it is working in rc2. I'm not happy that we won't see RC2 before v1.5 or 2.0. I don't like the idea that some features could be getting back-burnered (and bugs remain unresolved) to a point where they won't be available without a paid upgrade. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricklyne Posted January 14, 2006 Share Posted January 14, 2006 Clarence, I'm pretty sure Mike meant that the sun/glass/caustics thing is a non-issue as far as he's concerned because it is working in rc2. I'm not happy that we won't see RC2 before v1.5 or 2.0. I don't like the idea that some features could be getting back-burnered (and bugs remain unresolved) to a point where they won't be available without a paid upgrade. Fran, Victor said, (as a follow-up to Mike's announcement post at theNL forum): "....The physical sky and sun light works in RC5. Sunlight caustics through glasses works when caustics are directly seen. The problem is: It's not possible to see sun caustics behind a glass at this moment." ..........translation; the problem is not fixed. Don't forget that even with the Beta, if you left a render to run long enough, ( long enough here being n hours where n is anywhere between 50 hours to infinity depending on your processor speed), the Sun would eventually show through dielectrics from Inside the room; but with the penalty of a ton of noise. However, even left to run forver, the Sun was never going to show as illuminating the inside of a room when viewed from the exterior of the room or building. And that's the gist of the what's Victor's last line above means, and also why they've consistently been unable to provide a render viewed from the outside showing sunlight in a room through a glazed surface. They haven't fixed the problem yet. And it's not even like I'm complaining about it; I'm merely making an observation from the way he framed that post-script; that's all. I've always been of the opinion that, the day they produce images conclusively showing this problemto be resolved, to everyone's satisfaction, is probably the day you'll see Maxwell's render speed having more than doubled. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now