Devin Johnston Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I don't have any strategy for dealing with NL because they treat me just as bad as any other customer they've got. When we first started talking to them about buying our licenses we went through all kinds of stuff trying to get them to commit on future upgrade prices, or when the final version would be released. They would always give an ambiguous answer to both questions which didn't make us feel too good, but we didn't have any reason to believe they were being deceptive. Our final contract stated that if cooperative rendering didn't work we could get our money back. We never indicated a time frame because there was no reason for us to believe that Maxwell wouldn’t be coming out in a few months. I'm still a little skeptical but I'm hoping that in the next few months we will see V1.0. It's not going to be what I paid for but it will have cooperative rendering which was the only reason we purchased so many licenses. It’s still a big old mess, I really expected more from NL but so far I haven’t seen anything useful and I think sticking it to them once and a while on their forum isn’t that bad considering how much of my money they’ve got. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted March 20, 2006 Author Share Posted March 20, 2006 Man, you are Ghandi-like. If I had that much cash tied up in M~R I'd have sued them from one end of the globe to the other. "Ballistic" would not begin to describe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 The way I see it suing them won't get me what I want, it will just cost me more money and time. I'm going to eventually get Maxwell in one form or another so unless I really want to make life tough for my self it's better to just play along for now. I have learned my lesson though, I'll never pre pay for a pre release software again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I have learned my lesson though Hopefully we all have. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 So, in light of some of the new facts, and being pretty convinced that NL is about as dishonest as they come, heres a new list for maxwell 1.0: 1). RS1+ = borked 2). RS2 = no concrete proof that it really exists. (seeing how honest nl has been so far this can be taken into consideration at this point) 3). Material wizard = marketing slant at its worst. I mean, this is really simple. 4). Multi Light control = there was a video once. hope it will still work for 1.0. Animated .gifs don't mean very much 5). Normal maps = they put a button there, maybe thats all 6). Lighting presets = silly gimmick 7). Dispersion = who knows? 8). SSS = doesn't look good 9). sunlight + glass = forget about it 10). Network render = good reasons for being sceptical 11). Maxwell forum moderators = do they really exist? What a mess. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 I'm trying to lock NL down to a list of features, right now this is what I've confirmed from Maxwell's web site & A-Team posts. -Maxwell V1.0 (as stable as RC5 if not more) + 64 bit version -MXED (Standalone material editor) -Material Wizard -Multi Light Illumination Control (can change sun intensity not position) -HDR/MXI Lighting -Objects hidden to camera (can hide shadows as well) -Lighting presets -Complex IOR/SSS/Dispersion -Anisotropy -Cooperative/Network Rendering -Resume rendering -Render output 32 bits per channel -Reflected caustics -Sun behind glass (Tom says it's improved) -Weight mapping -Transmittance mapping (also known as alpha mask) -Multi sub object materials (Tom says this will come in V1.0) -No procedurals in V1.0 -Can use grayscale images to get gradiance in the transmittance -Normal Mapping -bump mapping -HD option -Alpha Channel rendering -3D Motion Blur -Light editor -Tone mapping Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricklyne Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 Hey be fair. NL never said that would be a feature, it was all assuption on our part (heh, heh). ....you laugh, yet this was an actual excuse or justification used by Mike at the Forum during the RC debacle. His reasoning (after the customary and acceptable amount of word-twisting and issue-meandering) was that since Sunlight-through-glass, wasn't an expressly listed feature in the initial feature-list, then there was no justified reason to expect nor demand it. It caused a massive furore before, Victor stepped in to calm the waters with the info regarding the RS2 Engine. It was mind-boggingly dumbfounding that he (Mike) could even think of trying to use that excuse. On the flip side, those of you who may not have recently visited the anti-Maxwell forum, authored by he-whose-name-shall-not-be-mentioned (on NL forums anyway;dugge) http://www.dugge.de/phpBB2/viewforum.php?f=1&sid=042acecc75faa83d813671775612da70 ......might be pleased to learn that there was a whole lot more to this Realflow saga, extending all the way to mistreating (banning, censoring, you know.......the usual) Realflow forum users the same way, Maxwell forum dissenters get gestapoed. So you're not the only ones who get this kind of "special" treatment when you misbehave. http://www.geocities.com/fcastle3/nl_forum_censored_post.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
yog Posted March 20, 2006 Share Posted March 20, 2006 ....you laugh, yet this was an actual excuse or justification used by Mike at the Forum during the RC debacle. Yep, that's exactly what I was refering too. It always makes me laugh every time I think about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 ...It caused a massive furore before, Victor stepped in to calm the waters with the info regarding the RS2 Engine.... Something that confuses me: The assertion was that RS2 would fix the caustics problem, and also that RS2 was the render engine in RC1-4. So I did a test - Vlado had posted an example on the Vray forum of a Max scene that would not render correctly on an MLT renderer because of the caustics problem, it used a small ball as a Vraylight/Emitter, in a reflective assembly not unlike common ceiling or desk lamps, pointed at a small scene with 2 walls and a floor, one wall and the floor being diffuse and the other wall being a mirror. -In a correct render, caustics cause a pattern on the wall and floor that looks like an average IES profile light. The mirror shows this pattern. -In an MLT (or Maxwell Beta) render, you see the light on the floor and wall, but you don't see the pattern in the reflection because caustics aren't seen in reflections. I tried it in Vray and Maxwell Beta and confirmed all this. Then I tried it in both Maxwell RC1 and RC2 (the versions I had downloaded - at the time all RCs were removed from he download site). The result should have looked like the Vray render, but with fireflies and the general ugliness of an RC1/2 render, but instead it looked like the beta render only with fireflies etc. Either the early RCs did not have RS2 or RS2 did not solve the problem. Anybody else have any insights? I hope I had just misread what was being said about the RSes and RCs. I posted the results and a Maxwell person (name withheld) told me they were interesting and asked for the scene file, but never followed up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Something that confuses me: Either the early RCs did not have RS2 or RS2 did not solve the problem. Anybody else have any insights? I am not a member of the Church of Maxwell, I do not kneel at the Alter of The Spectral Light...but I still harbor a small degree of faith. That faith is that the rs2 engine is the Holy Grail. I have not seen it myself. But I have talked with Mike Verta and he has, he seemed convinced that rs2 was the answer to our prayers. So I believed him, and at least on that point still do. I want to believe, I really do... 'Cause what's there now ain't cuttin' it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bricklyne Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 .........But I have talked with Mike Verta and he has, he seemed convinced that rs2 was the answer to our prayers. ......... ............Mike was also pretty convinced that the images in the white paper were produced by the RC's (1-4, that is), and that hours after the release of RC1, we would all be eating humble pie ( something about "hero-shots", or something like that? Apparently in Archviz, hero-shots mean something completely different, because, I'm pretty certain those looked like flannels, {or were those towels?} with shiny balls and Christmas ornaments. But that's just me......) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Don't forget the part about the Hand of God, silver platter and golden shaft of light. (Funny that - M~R can't render the golden shaft of light - no volumetrics.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Maby the RS2 engine didn't have caustics enabled? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Golden shaft? The one I got wasn't golden... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 It could also be that the new material system screwed with the caustics. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Maby the RS2 engine didn't have caustics enabled? It did caustics in the same sense that the beta did them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 All I mean is that the v1.0 engine will not be able to do a few very important things...we have been told. So you either completely give up hope or you go on the idea that the rs2 engine is the keeper. Mike says he has seen it do amazing thing. Though none of the rest of us have. Now, knowing that you have a dead-end, fatally flawed engine, and a 'keeper'...why do you continue developing the wrong one? I just don't get it. I know the bit about needing to get something out soon, but that is mostly due to the refusal to communicate with the customers. Most people have been very patient and would continue to be if they knew what was going on and had 'updates' to play with. Hey, maybe even contribute some ideas. Nothing makes people want to play along like being made a part of the team. Fran--you always keep me smiling! Thanks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 All- I've started a thread over at Johann Dugge's Maxwell Uncensored forum that tries to initiate some brainstorming over the types of things users can do given the situation with Maxwell and Next Limit. If it sounds like something you'd like to contribute some of your thoughts to, please take a minute to stop over there and share: http://www.dugge.de/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=36 Thanks, Andy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 Now, knowing that you have a dead-end, fatally flawed engine, and a 'keeper'...why do you continue developing the wrong one? I just don't get it. Not surprisingly, I have a theory about that. This really is pure speculation, but I think RS2 will be faster and will solve the sun>light and other problems endemic to RS1, but at the expense of image quality. NL couldn't abandon RS1 without also giving up the only thing that makes M~R remotely worthwhile--superior image quality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Not surprisingly, I have a theory about that. This really is pure speculation, but I think RS2 will be faster and will solve the sun>light and other problems endemic to RS1, but at the expense of image quality. NL couldn't abandon RS1 without also giving up the only thing that makes M~R remotely worthwhile--superior image quality. Interesting thought, and they have mentioned that they intend to allow users to switch between different rendering engines. Hmmm... wonder which one will be physically accurate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I don't see how RS2 could possable make it if the image quality is less than RS1. Honestley what is the point of using Maxwell if not for the images it creates? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I hope you're wrong Adam. If rs2 doesn't do the same beautiful lighting, but rs1 doesn't do the work we need...then Maxwell is a failure. Its not the best of both, its neither. Maybe there's a top-secret rs3...huh? huh? That'ld do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 ...If rs2 doesn't do the same beautiful lighting, but rs1 doesn't do the work we need...then Maxwell is a failure. Its not the best of both, its neither. Exactly. (how do you spell "precisely") No matter how good Next Limit says Maxwell is, no matter how kick-butt the A-team says it is, the images will speak for themselves. Even if I am satisfied with Maxwell, I will still not be satisfied with Next Limit. I'm the customer and I get to decide that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 I may land a project soon to animate a dining space full of backlit glass, lit crystal beads everywhere, softly curved surfaces...many, many lights and refractive/caustic objects. Too bad Maxwell won't be ready. I did say 'animate'. Not even Devin's setup would do it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted March 21, 2006 Author Share Posted March 21, 2006 I hope you're wrong Adam. I hope so too! 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