MR forum, can it get any worse.

[Adehus]

The reason that few if any are walking away is because of two things, the monetary investment made and more importantly the investment in time. People have become emotionally invested in this stupid thing and that's more valuable and addictive than money.

 

I don't think it's realistic to expect anyone to walk away from Maxwell- we've already paid for it, we hope to get something out of it. I'm no exception.

 

The proper goal... the reason to 'take a stand'... is to force NL to become good corporate citizens in the CG world... or else. It's in everyone's best interest to recall that we've made our purchases based upon an incredibly long list of false promises. Of all people, Maxer, you know this. That has to stop.

 

I think it's worth bearing in mind that this situation has implications that extend well beyond Next Limit. Preorder agreements are a legitimate means of raising funds *if* conducted in an honest manner. However, if companies abuse this, it affects all CG companies who wish to use this method of fund raising. I can't count the number of people on NL's forum and elsewhere who have said they won't ever participate in a preorder program ever again. Someone with a legitimate contribution to make to CG is going to suffer because of NL's fraudulence. Maybe they already have.

 

My professional background is in retail store design. Justice comes swiftly to retailers who don't play by the rules. Heck, just try selling an iPod that scratches too easily- you won't get away with it! This is indicative of the maturity of retailing as a business... it essentially polices itself. Problems arise, and problems are rectified- simple as that. Obviously, CG is not a mature industry yet, but isn't it our obligation to evolve it? I don't think Jeff Mottle or others intend to do any harm by supporting NL as he does, but make no mistake- it does do the industry harm. To my way of thinking, it's a shame that personalities that we think of as being leaders in the industry are so willing to turn a blind eye to business conduct that is harmful to their chosen profession.

 

Maxer, I sympathize with your situation- you don't want to do anything to jepordize your considerable investment. Makes sense, and it's a legitimate point of view. On the other hand, though, you can bet that if NL doesn't see the errors of their ways, they'll do to someone else what they've done to you.

 

Perhaps even through a reseller.

 

EDIT: I'm aware that some of the things I'm bringing up have the potential to be controversial, and I apologize if I offend anyone. However, I've been thinking about these things for some time, and strongly feel that they are more than valid and certainly worthy of discussion. In other words, if you disagree... let me have it!

[_PopArt]

I dont think that Jeff supports Next Limit - he is just giving us objective data he has collected, and he even gives us this space here where we can speak freely;)

 

Trying to make NL become good corporate citizens seems a bit lofty ideal - in business it is almost always the most unethical people that win out at the price of ethical people, this is axiomatic.

 

If you want to stand up to it, the only thing to do is legal action or as you said before, spread the word as much as possible. For legal action, there are 8 days left until the 1.0 release, at which point a legal case will be more difficult

[Jeff Mottle]

I don't think Jeff Mottle or others intend to do any harm by supporting NL as he does, but make no mistake- it does do the industry harm. To my way of thinking, it's a shame that personalities that we think of as being leaders in the industry are so willing to turn a blind eye to business conduct that is harmful to their chosen profession.

 

I'm not sure I agree that I am turning a blind eye to what NL has done, but what would you propose I do? Use CGA as a springboard to nail them to the cross? That is a sure fire way to drive this community right into the ground through a civil lawsuit. As I've mentioned on several occasions I don't think they have neccesarily behaved as they should, but I also can't act as judge/jury and executioner for them either. CGA is not here to judge them or any other company. I simply disseminate informaiton. If I were qualified and had the time to do a review you can bet your life it would be truthful, as any reviews or articles I write, but I don't see anything good coming from doing that, so I let the users do the talking for the industry. I simply provide the means for companies to get their product name out there and a means for the public to express themselves more or less freely.

 

At the end of the day we are after all talking about software, not human rights violations or war crimes. Yes some lost some money and that sucks, some were not treated professionally that sucks too, but there are still plenty of really good alternatives out there, many of which you were using before Maxwell came along.

 

Anyway, I've not taken your comments personally, but did feel the need to clarify the mission of CGA.

[Adehus]

Trying to make NL become good corporate citizens seems a bit lofty ideal - in business it is almost always the most unethical people that win out at the price of ethical people, this is axiomatic.

 

I guess I don't quite agree with that... either most companies are relatively honest, or most are much much better at hiding their corruption. At least in the US. Any company that brazenly ignores it's agreement with it's customers (and then goes on to taunt them and penalize them for their frustration) doesn't deserve to survive. If NL was in the US, NL quite simply would not be in existence.

 

If you want to stand up to it, the only thing to do is legal action or as you said before, spread the word as much as possible. For legal action, there are 8 days left until the 1.0 release, at which point a legal case will be more difficult

 

Well, I think that those whose word is most influential should be more involved in spreading the word. NL will release 1.0 in a matter of days, but they won't likely change their business conduct. Watch what they do and keep up the pressure! It is imperative for the health of our industry that we maintain at least minimum expectations of professionalism from our vendors.

[AJLynn]

Jeff-

 

Are those numbers for Max users or all users? How big a percentage are Max users? And is mental ray 3rd party in this system? I ask because the availability of Maxwell for a LOT of 3D programs, including Sketchup, certainly must be as large a factor as anything else.

[_PopArt]

I guess I don't quite agree with that... either most companies are relatively honest, or most are much much better at hiding their corruption. At least in the US. Any company that brazenly ignores it's agreement with it's customers (and then goes on to taunt them and penalize them for their frustration) doesn't deserve to survive. If NL was in the US, NL quite simply would not be in existence.

 

 

i guess we need a new may '68 civil rights movement for the cg industry.. not a bad idea!

 

probably all of the complaining has had an effect on NL, even though they are so obtuse its hard to see the effect. I think that the free license they are giving and some of the constant screenshot we are seeing these days are a directly result of people keeping up pressure on them, even if most of them by now have become 'martyrs'

 

I would not like to immagine how things would have gone if nobody ever made any protests, maybe a 1.0 release in 3rd quarter of 2009:p

[Fran]

Make a stand, people.

 

Well, here is my piddly little 2 cents worth. I took the image links out of my gallery thread.

 

I'm removing my gallery submissions until further notice. The low level of professionalism on the part of forum personnel has led me to conclude that this forum is not an appropriate place for showing my work.

_________________

- Fran

[Adehus]

I'm not sure I agree that I am turning a blind eye to what NL has done, but what would you propose I do....

 

I can respect most of what you're saying. To be totally honest, a good part of my unease comes from the potential conflict of interest between you as an administrator for this site and you as reseller for the product. Again, I don't think you'd intentionally alter your outlook because of your various involvements, but I think it's human nature to be influenced by our interests. I guess ultimately that's for me to deal with

 

I think that an article by you that provided an honest review of Maxwell would be hugely valuable. This is the site for CG architecture, and nobody has done a comprehensive review of Maxwell's suitability for our specific needs.

 

If you're too busy, I'd be happy to do it

[Christopher Nichols]

The last few night's I've been writting the article for 3Dworld which will accompany the survey results from the industry survey. Curiously of those who do use third party rendering engines the usesage looked like this:

 

Scanline: 19%

 

V-Ray: 48%

Maxwell: 17%

Brazil R/S:13%

FinalRender 12%

 

 

Bear in the mind the question asked which thrid party engines were being used in Production

 

I think a few things should be put in perspective. New software will generally get a good response and can go either up or down depending on the users needs. There was a time when Vray, finalRender, and Brazil were all new, and I would say that back then, it was pretty much split even. Some people got very disgruntled with fR, and their stock dropped. Vray then started to outperform brazil in speed and price and it took a lead. Now I hear that fR got better and that Brazil is working on some new cool things, but generally you can see where the chips have fallen. It seems completly normal that a program like maxwell would, that is presenting itself as a new paradim in lighting, would take a higher than expected % of the market share. It is way to early to judge how that will be until it spends a good 1 to 2 years in production. As far as defining "in production" I would say that in the early days of Vray and Brazil and fR... people would claim to be using it "in production" when in fact it was FAR from it.

[yog]

The last few night's I've been writting the article for 3Dworld which will accompany the survey results from the industry survey. Curiously of those who do use third party rendering engines the usesage looked like this:

 

Scanline: 19%

 

V-Ray: 48%

Maxwell: 17%

Brazil R/S:13%

FinalRender 12%

 

 

Bear in the mind the question asked which thrid party engines were being used in Production

I must say that caught me completely off guard.

Although I would say that Maxwell has really great natural light reproduction, I've yet to have had a paying job where I could have afforded to use it, my deadlines are just way too tight.

 

Damn, I must be attracting the wrong clients

[_PopArt]

I can respect most of what you're saying. To be totally honest, a good part of my unease comes from the potential conflict of interest between you as an administrator for this site and you as reseller for the product.

 

This is a valid point, but hes put up a maxwell topic on his forum which allows for anyone to say what they think about maxwell, and so far the majority of posts have had a pretty negative (and objective tone). If conflict of interest were at stake, certainly a higher degree of censorship would have been maintained.

 

OTOH, an article about Next Limit and maxwell render written by Adehus for 3D world, that sounds like an interesting idea:)

[yog]

are you o sure though?

http://usa.autodesk.com/adsk/servlet/item?siteID=123112&id=6861081

having friends in high places can make people arrogant:)

It doesn't surprise me. A previous prefered rendering partner for Autodesk was Final Render, at one time it was the only one they would personally endorse.

And whilst a very capable renderer, capable of some great results, the parent company is the only one I know that could match Next Limit for customer disservice.

[Jeff Mottle]

When Maxwell 1.0 releases I would be more than open to having someone do a review of the product for CGA. Like any review that is published on this site there are a few things to keep in mind:

 

1. It has to be a fair evaluation, all bias has to be absent from the review. This means you report the bad AND the good fairly and professionally.

 

2. If there are bad features to report, then it first has to get passed through the vendor for review so they can determine if the software is being used improperly, there is a work around to report or if it will be addressed in a future release. Note: Just because a software may have bad features does not mean it will not get published. We simply want to ensure all angles have been covered before reporting something does not work.

 

If you are interested in doing this, shoot me an email at: jmottle@cgarchitect.com

[AdamT]

Yes, I can see how that e-mail exchange is going to go:

 

Jeff: "we see that features x/y/z aren't working yet, will this be fixed in a future update?"

 

NL: "yes! These will all be addressed in a free update to be released SOON!"

 

LOL

[Adehus]

Yes, I can see how that e-mail exchange is going to go:

Jeff: "we see that features x/y/z aren't working yet, will this be fixed in a future update?"

NL: "yes! These will all be addressed in a free update to be released SOON!"

LOL

 

Therein lies the problem...any truly comprehensive review would have to include an honest assessment of their history of customer relations... quite the hot potato!

[Jeff Mottle]

Therein lies the problem...any truly comprehensive review would have to include an honest assessment of their history of customer relations... quite the hot potato!

 

My suggestion would be to do the review based on support and customer service provided after the release. Support is one area that has been covered in past reviews as well, so I don't see why this should not be off limits now. Again is has to be done professionally. I see no reason why this could not be done.

 

In fact, if you guys really want to use CGA to your benefit, we could get a group of people together to really push the limits of Maxwell and report extensive data about rendertimes, features etc. If done right it would stand alone as "the" resource for what Maxwell can and can not do.

[Adehus]

My suggestion would be to do the review based on support and customer service provided after the release.

 

With all due respect, wouldn't that be like writing a biography of GW Bush that doesn't include the Iraq war?

[_PopArt]

With all due respect, wouldn't that be like writing a biography of GW Bush that doesn't include the Iraq war?

 

It depends, im sure there are a few out there. But i think the point is, writing an article about maxwell 1.0 which talks about the nightmarish scenario leading up to its release would be a bit strange, certainly it wouldnt have many precedents.

[Adehus]

It depends, im sure there are a few out there. But i think the point is, writing an article about maxwell 1.0 which talks about the nightmarish scenario leading up to its release would be a bit strange, certainly it wouldnt have many precedents.

 

Perhaps, but no other software company I know of exists in such infamy. When someone sells you something and then fails repeatedly to deliver on it (lying to you all the while), that's a story. When they finally deliver, the question that needs to be answered is- can they/have they redeemed themselves?

 

Will any review of Vista, once it's released, fail to acknowledge all of the delays? Of course not. The question the reviewers will attempt to answer will be whether or not Vista was worth the wait. And in that case, there isn't the prepayment factor or a history of (and I'm putting this cheritably) intentionally misleading users.

 

Any review that didn't include serious caveats about the history of NL and Maxwell would do a disservice to readers, and would run afoul of even the most basic fundamentals of journalism. That really isn't seriously debatable, is it?

[Jeff Mottle]

Perhaps, but no other software company I know of exists in such infamy. When someone sells you something and then fails repeatedly to deliver on it (lying to you all the while), that's a story. When they finally deliver, the question that needs to be answered is- can they/have they redeemed themselves?

 

Make no mistake, any review that didn't include serious caveats about the history of this company would do a disservice to readers, and would run afoul of even the most basic fundamentals of journalism. That really isn't seriously debatable, is it?

 

This is why I am suggesting the review be done after the release of the full version. What if NL actually did change and their support after v1.0 was good. I'm not saying they will, but given the review would be of v1.0, the review of the support should be as well. I think within the first few months, people should be able to get a good idea of the type of support they will be getting and if it is possible for it to change from where it is now. If it stays the same, then that is what would be reported.

[Adehus]

This is why I am suggesting the review be done after the release of the full version. What if NL actually did change and their support after v1.0 was good. I'm not saying they will, but given the review would be of v1.0, the review of the support should be as well. I think within the first few months, people should be able to get a good idea of the type of support they will be getting and if it is possible for it to change from where it is now. If it stays the same, then that is what would be reported.

 

When I said:

 

"When they finally deliver, the question that needs to be answered is- can they/have they redeemed themselves?"

 

I was making the point that you can't honestly evaluate their support after the release without comparing it to their prerelease conduct.

 

Again, simple journalism basics- your history follows you, and it is entirely fair (and frankly a journalist's obligation) to provide a comprehensive outline of all relevant factors. Ask GM, Microsoft, heck... ask any politician... they've all seen this in action. You don't screw up this badly without it becoming a legitimate part of your reputation. Nobody who intends to use a review as the basis for making a purchase deserves anything less than the full story! The software could be great, but if the company has a history of leaving users high and dry, prospective users deserve to know this... we all know that support is an extremely critical aspect of a software purchase.

[Ernest Burden III]

Obviously, CG is not a mature industry yet, but isn't it our obligation to evolve it?

 

This is a bit of a tangent, but I am very pleased with the direction the idustry is taking. I think it's maturing rapidly. Things like this forum and the salary survey are extremely positive directions. The NextLimit situation is unusual, and that's damned good. In the bad old days, we would all just be in the dark. Having eachother to talk to has been the best thing about a bad thing. We aren't likely to improve this situation, but we will be improving future ones by the public nature of the issues.

 

The arch-vis industry is being infultrated by professionalism, NextLimit notwithstanding. Just think of them as a speedbump on the road to a better industry.

[Devin Johnston]

When I read a review of a piece of software I'm looking for a clear and concise description of what it is capable of. I want to know if it has any major flaws or bugs and generally how it operates and what the differences are between it and any previous versions. I can't say that I recall ever reading a review which also reviewed the company producing the software in any great detail. This is however not a typical situation and there have been a lot of people burned by NL's actions. I understand Jeff's point about reviewing V1 after it comes out as well as seeing if their customer relations are any different, but I also understand Adehus's point about not ignoring past history. It's definitely a tough situation but CGA must keep everything unbiased (History in the making) so that people can get a real picture of Maxwell's capabilities as well as any problems they may face in the customer service area.

[Sawyer]

Yeah I think that I might not want to read a review about NL. If they cleared everything up I wouldn't want to read a 5 page report about software company failure. I think a simple "NL past history aside" or even linking someone here to let them read about the history in detail.

Now that said if they have not cleared the issues and I buy into the software and 2 months later promises are dropped I get pissed and talk out of line on the forum get banned and THEN learn about the history I think I would be pretty upset.

[AdamT]

I think there's validity to both arguments, but I'm not sure that two months is adequate to determine whether NL will have changed its spots. Think about it for a minute; the chief complaint about NL is that they don't deliver on time and they lie and/or mislead about when they will deliver.

 

Undoubtedly there will be some shortcomings with 1.0, even beyond the ones we already know about. So people are going to ask them when its going to be fixed, and NL is going to say "soon", or "in some days". Do you report that naked statement, or do you preface it with some background about NL's serial dishonesty regarding upcoming releases?

 

If it plays out that way I think you'd be remiss in disregarding their track record.