Bongo51 Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 yes, I read many trade mags... and if I read a glowing review of the product, then purchase this product based (in whole or in part) on this review only to find out that the reviewer had left out the companies sorded past, or known customer support issues. I don't get angry with the company, but with the magazine. It's in the reviewer's best interest and that of the reader to be presented with the whole story, and ALL information which makes it the product that it is. Maxwell is a fine rendering engine. Let's not deny that. Otherwise they wouldn't have sold THOUSANDS of licenses for an alpha version of the software. The renders were damn fine, and it's both strange and conclusive that their website still has mostly alpha/beta renders in their gallery. They have had some serious, serious production problems. Perhaps there was a fire... perhaps victor's head exploded.. who knows. The fact of the matter is this, they handled it like a teenager high on something bad. They actively hid progress (or lack of it) they made lofty goals which even I knew couldn't be met. Here I was on the forum telling people to calm down since V1 was certainly not coming out at christmas time. They duped many, and thus created this horrid feedback loop of hope followed by anger. It's the actions of a total neophyte company, which surprised me since realflow has got nothing but high regard... A review needs to at least touch on Next Limit's active disinformation campaign. I mean really.. they had blatant LIES on their website for months! I was broadcasting that all over the forum and was thanked by many who did decide to purchase anyway, and were thankful to do it with eyes open. At every corner they have chosen the road of deception and played the shell game with our money. So, how can a review be anything but a little tainted by such an obvious liability to what could have been a 'star wars' kind of rendering engine. I mean, imagine if Next Limit had handled this with professionalism and humour? I also think that automatically, anyone that has endured the waiting/lying game is disqualified to write any reviews. Interviewed, or a source.. sure, but we are all just to damn fed up with Next Limit's antics to be anything but extremely biased. my 2 cents. edit: PS... Also, I think everyone is being extremely overoptimistic... do we remember RC1? Next Limit had the audacity of making this huge stink about it.. calling it VERSION1 and announcing it on the website... like ... IT'S DONE! Once the Sh** it the fan.. that is, once anyone actually tried to install the buggy pre-alpha 'thing' it was instantly.. silence... then quickly RC2... Oh, look at the improvement... it's so much better... here's RC3 with all kinds of fixes. Well, RC5 still doesn't do what the BETA DOES. If anyone now has the stones to remind Next Limit that on several occations they have brought out the royal trumpets and sounded the all clear... only to deliver what can only be described as a work in progress.. an EARLY work in progress... they get banned. If anyone wrote the truth (the above) in a review, in an international mag.. it would be a serious blow to the product, which is why they have done such a mob-style cleanup before V1(version 1 for the third time) is released. My question though, is... what exactly will we get. If we use the past as a guide it will quickly be renamed RC6 with lots of excuses and emails pointing out how many more features it has over RC5. This is what my money is on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 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. Certainly not! I'd imagine an opening paragraph that gives a quick gloss over of past problems with the thrust of it leading up to the big question- have they lived up to the hype and/or attoned for past mistakes? No need to do a huge history, just need to make it clear to the uninitiated that there have been an unusually large number of significant problems in the past. It's true, it's noteworthy, it needs to be said! Give me that kind of latitude and I'll write a great review. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 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. Quoted for agreement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongo51 Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 fran, I applaud your move. For kicks you should check back and see if your message is still there. I posted a similar message... you know.. "no here anymore... to much negative... good bye" I watched and it lasted less then 10 minutes before somebody deleted it. If only there was some way to notify the entire forum that the moderators are actively removing any negative posts. Also, their move to make the forum an Maxwell owners only forum now is making a lot more sense. We have a forum where anyone who is presenting non-NL friendly info is instantly removed, plus no outsider can come in and ask someone directly what's up. That forum is looking more and more like the Truman show. EDIT; actually I had assumed that one could read, but not post as a non-user... but in fact they have made it impossible to even browse the forum unless you have already purchased maxwell. Does that seem odd to anyone else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackb602 Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 EDIT; actually I had assumed that one could read, but not post as a non-user... but in fact they have made it impossible to even browse the forum unless you have already purchased maxwell. Does that seem odd to anyone else. Interesting. So if I'm a potential buyer and want to talk to other users about Maxwell, I am forced to do so on uncensored forums which are not controlled by Next Limit? My disgust with Next Limit is somewhat tempered by the entertainment value of watching an organization, not content to simply shoot itself in the foot, running the foot through a wood chipper and then setting it on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 A review written here would be a very onesided with a very very negative undertone to it type of review, it don't take a genius to see that. So i have my serious doubts about such a idea unless you want to put yourself in a shadowy spot. A serious review should be done by someone who's not affected by the complainers or the praisers otherwise it'd be a worthless review of a product. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 someone who's not affected by the complainers or the praisers otherwise it'd be a worthless review of a product. Who would be so uninvolved as to meet that criteria, yet know enough about the industry to be able to write something meaningful? And another point that is that there is more to a product than the product itself. Using a software package to produce your bottomline rendering product means you are in business with the software maker. So its not just 'hold your nose'. Past performance is a very good indicator of future returns, and using Maxwell professionally opens your business up to significant risk of chaos and frustration. Or should I say Chaos and frStation? If all a reviewer has to do is say whether Maxwell can make pretty pictures without much fuss, then anyone can write that. But NextLimit has made the company behind the product a very important factor in determining the viability of software in deadline-critical, eat or starve production. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivoli Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 A review written here would be a very onesided with a very very negative undertone to it type of review, it don't take a genius to see that. um. actually as long as architecture and visualization go this is the best place where one can be. CGA is a great resource for anyone doing arch viz, and a few posts above Jeff had made clear how a review should be written in order to be objective and fair. it looks like a professional way to do it to me, and I have no reason to doubt that coming from CGA a review of a renderer would be anything other than professionally done. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I'm sorry guys but i'm gonna have to disagree (again), i know you don't wanna hear anything else but negative stuff here. I do think that a review done here would have a strong tone of negativity plastered all over it no matter who writes it, if Jeff writes it it'll be the same as you guys have a strong influence on him and what he will write. Yet again i'm sorry to say that's a unavoidable fact. And no, i'm not gonna write a review anywhere so don't worry. I already lost enough friends and work due to my position about Maxwell Render. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I already lost enough friends and work due to my position about Maxwell Render. I can't imagine anyone finding your position on this stupid piece of software to be a deciding factor for much of anything, but if what you say is true you then really ought to give that some thought! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Adehus, i consider it a loss on their side if they choose to let feelings about a piece of software get inbetween a friendship or work, sure it's no fun to see it happen but atleast i know i'm not the weak one as emotions about something like that shouldn't ruin both friendship and work, it's plain silly. On the other hand.. now recently i hooked up with new clients who are very interested in getting Maxwell renderings by me. They could care less about all this drama going on behind the scenes, they just want their renderings done and done well and they consider Maxwell being the tool that can do it for them. That's also all i care about, to make them happy at the end of the day no matter the tool being used and the history and problems it has/had. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Any and all reports/reviews of all NL products must objectively include the truth/facts regarding the company's business methods since day 1. Is V1.0 going to include the features originally advertised? Many people bought in and the company cashed in those purchases and is not going to deliver on what they told the public would be delivered. Was the advertising fair to prospective buyers a year ago? Six months ago? To get the original advertised features, will it require V1 & V2? Should customers that bought the V1 product as initially advertised have to pay for V2? Why no refund policy when the company did not meet its promised objectives? Did some buyers get refunds? Has the company been reasonably open and responsive to its customers in the past? Today? There are so many questions like these and we all have our opinions about the answers. Nonetheless, how can an objective report, after v1.0 arrives, not include something about the company's business ethics and methods? If the report does not include the facts, published and experienced, as they are known in the public domain, it would be sweeping the truth under the rug. Please, no more artificial cleansing. Again, is the past performance of a company an indication of future performance? Can the truth after 26 April '05 exclude the truth that precedes that date? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I do think that a review done here would have a strong tone of negativity plastered all over it no matter who writes it What would you define as 'negative'? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Ernest, i don't think i need to even say what counts as negative. You know that just like the rest of the world does. And no need to start splitting hairs describing the definition of the word "negative" either. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Ernest, i don't think i need to even say what counts as negative. You know that just like the rest of the world does. And no need to start splitting hairs describing the definition of the word "negative" either. / Max Max, you fail to realize that this is a forum for architectural visualization. Perhaps you're unqualified to comment on the attitudes of people here without first trying to use Maxwell for the purposes that everyone else here wants to use it for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I'm aware of that this is strictly for archviz people and no i'm not ignoring that fact either, sure i'm unqualified as i'm not a diehard architect, not even a noob architect (yet). But then again, people comment on my attitude so i should have the same right to comment on theirs, right ? As a reminder.. NL haven't yet posted all news about features and enhancements, fixes and all that jazz. There's more to come, perhaps they even have something in store for all your archviz guys'n'girls. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Ernest, i don't think i need to even say what counts as negative. You know that just like the rest of the world does. What I mean is that the reality is that there are a lot of ongoing problems with Maxwell and also on relying on NL in the future. No responsible review should overlook those. Calling something 'negative' that points out facts-on-the-ground is just another label. Of course you would want to look at features, functions, ease of use, etc. But if MWR1.0 is released with any major flaws for one industry or another, these would need to be covered to have a meaningful review. If the good stuff and the bad/missing stuff is covered in proportion to the program itself, would that be 'negative'? As a matter of fact, many reviews I read include mention of the reviewer calling tech support to see how that aspect goes, and they write about it. The company behind a product is fair game, and when you're talking about a product like SketchUp or Cinema4D then that would be a very 'positive' review. NextLimit is making their own bed, and a review should reveal potential problems someone will encounter when buying the product. That's the point. A review does little-to-nothing for those of us who already bought it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 A review written here would be a very onesided with a very very negative undertone to it type of review, it don't take a genius to see that. So i have my serious doubts about such a idea unless you want to put yourself in a shadowy spot. A serious review should be done by someone who's not affected by the complainers or the praisers otherwise it'd be a worthless review of a product. / Max Your premise is mistaken, i.e., that no one with negative feelings about NL could possibly write a fair and balanced review of the software. Trust me, in my other career as a lawyer I don't always hold my clients in the highest regard, but that doesn't interfere with my duty to act as a zealous advocate on their behalf. Secondly, your assumption that Jeff has been unduly influenced by what he reads here is rather insulting. I'm sure he's quite capable of making up his own mind in the face of others' opinions. IMO he's been quite level-headed about this whole thing. Third, it's not reasonable to expect someone with no familiarity with Maxwell to write an informed review. It takes quite some time to get up to speed with the product in order to appreciate both its strengths and its weaknesses. If you read 3D World, for example, and know the players, you'll also know that the people who review the major software packages are long-time users of those packages. Sure, there's a potential for bias, but unless you give the reviewer six months to familiarise himself with the product, there's no way he's going to be able to comment about it knowledgeably. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 A review written here would be a very onesided with a very very negative undertone to it type of review, it don't take a genius to see that. So i have my serious doubts about such a idea unless you want to put yourself in a shadowy spot. A serious review should be done by someone who's not affected by the complainers or the praisers otherwise it'd be a worthless review of a product. / Max Max, you amaze me with you undying loyalty to Maxwell and NL, if they were looking for someone to write a puff piece about them you would be their man. How can you simply dismiss all the "negative" stuff that they've done to you and us over the last year and think that it should have no mention in a serious and truthful review of Maxwell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Wow so much to read.. too little time to reply :/ gotta make it short as i got my deadline tomorrow morning. Ernest: Alright i understand. Adam: Ok thanks for pointing that out, i understand. My mistake. Maxer: Okies, sorry my fault. I'm not blind, just choosing to not care. Sorry to cut my replies short but i haven't got much time now / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Maybe their could be 2 reviews. 1 from a person entrenched in the whole process another from an illustrator who picts up the software fresh. It could be part of a larger article and the 2 impressions can be compaired, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I think it would almost have to come from someone that had kept up with the whole Maxwell evolution, but doesn’t own a copy or have any stake in whether it fails or succeeds. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeff Mottle Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Secondly, your assumption that Jeff has been unduly influenced by what he reads here is rather insulting. I'm sure he's quite capable of making up his own mind in the face of others' opinions. IMO he's been quite level-headed about this whole thing. Thank You! Wow! I post an opportunity for people to get their opinions out in the public is a professional way and my integrity is questioned, the site's integrity is questioned, the idea's integrity questioned. Sometimes I think you guys are more interested in debating something than actually doing something about it. Unreal! I never said the review could not include history about the company, but I think it should wait until after the full release. Maybe the review states things were bad and now they are good, or maybe otherwise, but I think the problems thus far could easily be summed up in a short paragraph without making the review all about the problem with the company. You only need to mention the problems once and people can make up their own minds as to whether or not that is a factor in their purchasing decision. A product review is primarily about the product not the company. AGAIN, that is not to say the problems with support and customer service can not be mentioned, but I'm not interested in publishing a diatribe about Next Limit. And no this has nothing to do with me working for a company that resells Maxwell. (Actually we don't reselll Maxwell, we just have it sittting in virtual space waiting for is to release like everyone else). I'd like to think my integrity is worth a bit more than that. I'd love to know what and when I did something that has ever brought into question the integrity of the information on this site. Unbelievable. Ok flame away.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Maxer: Okies, sorry my fault. I'm not blind, just choosing to not care. / Max So you choose to ignore the facts and pretend that everything is ok, and I guess when you fart it smells like roses.:-) Unbelievable Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 No i never said i pretend things are ok, don't put words in my mouth please. I just choose to not care about what's going on since i think there are far more important things in life than to worry about stuff i cannot do anything about. It's much more important to have food on your table each day, and a place to live, then if a renderengine and a company do what they do it's not really of my concern. Btw, new announcement coming today too keep your eyes open.. / Max 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