AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 If you haven't checked the Thurs. announcement, NL claims to have solved the sun>glass issue with a special shader that reflects and is transparent to caustics. This is fabulous news if it works as advertised! After all this time and drama, M~R might actually have some application for archvis work. Being NL, there's always a flip side. They've obviously known about this for some time and they could have soothed a lot of frazzled nerves if they had just come clean about it. In fact, it was their refusal to give a straight answer on this very question that led directly to numerous bannings on their forums. Remember? Me and several others were speculating that some of the announced material features could be used to get around the sun>glass issue? Tom giving his usual non-answers? Me and several others getting pissed enough about it to call him on it? Tom banning us with no warning? At the very least he could have said something like, "yes, it's possible that these new features could provide a workaround for sun>glass. We are currently investigating and will have an announcement soon." Unbelievable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jona loewe Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 nice feature...especially for archivz. but i was asking myself the same: why didn't they announce it two weeks ago? why all the trouble with angry customers? of course this kind of communication does not strenghten my trust in NL... maybe they created this solution only a few days ago? but nevertheless...one of the most important problems seems to be solved so far. we'll see the limitations of this solution, when people get to play with it. tomorrow there is another "surprise" left...maybe we'll see the missing displacement best regards jona Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 It would be interesting to know if they came up with the idea themselves, or if they got it from our discussions at the forums. Another "I guess we'll never know." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 The feature is indeed great! and very welcome too. But please don't chop it to pieces until you guys have actually tested it and used it. Atleast be fair and give it a chance before you kill it completly. NL knows this is a much requested thing and they have been working hard to get it to render both fast and to look good with a easy way to set it up. In one week you will be able to use it yourself. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 In fact, it was their refusal to give a straight answer on this very question that led directly to numerous bannings on their forums. Remember? Me and several others were speculating that some of the announced material features could be used to get around the sun>glass issue? Tom giving his usual non-answers? Me and several others getting pissed enough about it to call him on it? Tom banning us with no warning? At the very least he could have said something like, "yes, it's possible that these new features could provide a workaround for sun>glass. We are currently investigating and will have an announcement soon." Unbelievable. One could be forgiven for for thinking they were being baited, no? Seems like an easy way to rid the herd of undesirables prior to release... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Ah, the excitement builds again. BTW, what round, or should it be new and higher plateau, will this be? Let's see, there was pre-Alpha, pre-Beta, pre-RC1, pre-RC2, pre-RC3, pre-RC4, pre-RC5, and now, pre-V1. What I am saying is, keep the pre-release hype and excitement in check until this one lives up to expectations. With NL, it would not be a new experience if the excitement crashed to disappointment. Keep cool dudes and dudettes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 i am not excited. why? well i posted that already twice in 2 previous threads. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 But that's expected buffos, you wouldn't be excited if it started raining diamondcrusted golden frogs from heaven. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Maximus. Did you read why I AM NOT? I explained why. Just read it. My feelling is (if i did understand well) that the result with the new AGS will be to much CG like. Wait and see Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 It's quite impossible not to read it since you post it in just about every thread ..dude. Spamming is not healthy Yet again you judge it before you even had a chance to test it, please give it a chance and then feel free to slaughter it all you want if it makes you unhappy. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 The feature is indeed great! and very welcome too. But please don't chop it to pieces until you guys have actually tested it and used it. Atleast be fair and give it a chance before you kill it completly. Max, slow down with the KoolAde, would you please? Gulping anything down too fast is likely to choke you. Calling a workaround a 'feature' abuses the meaning of the word, but if it works then it doesn't really matter. Did NL post any visual examples? The only program I've ever used that does proper architectural glass is Lightscape. I know Jeff and co. are selling some architectural glass shaders for vRay, so maybe thet are as good as the LS material was. I've built pretty good shaders for C4D and fr2, but its the reflection model that is the issue, and I don't mean just using Blinn. Not that I know anything about coding these things, but its been explained to me that LS used a better method for shading reflections and transmissives. The result was a better glass, and it was a single button, too. So I'm happy to try out the functionality of this new ability of Maxwell to do sun+glass, but it doesn't sound like they are sticking to the whole 'physical model' thing. It doesn't matter much to me, but it does seem to matter to them, so it makes me wonder about what goes on when someone suggests a workaround to Oscar Cano. 'Uncompromised' shouldn't have an asterisk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jona loewe Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 @maximus3d: good proposal makes sense to me....so i will stay excited at least for 6 days!! feels better than being suspicious. @buffos: concerning the cg-look you are exspecting, is it just a feeling, or based on some knowledge/other experience you made? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I'm sorry sir, i do not drink KoolAde. And don't worry, i won't choke either. I understand non of you are happy, and that will never change. Sorry for what i typed as the words offended you guys when they had a trace of positivism in them / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 First : I had to post for more than a month. OK? Do you get it??? Second: MY OBJECTION is that they did not announce the LIMITATIONS. Do you get that tooo? Nothing to do if its good or bad. It has to do with beeing tricky. But i guess you dont want to understand... P.S .....self cencored... jona@ just a feelling. I think that a refractionless glass will be good for exterior archivis... but not closeups. Just a feeling. When i have a justified opinion i try to explain it in concrete arguments... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I know you want only bad news buffos and you will get them, don't worry. You need more fuel to keep your fire alive / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Well, I think the limitations are obvious--no refraction and no caustics. Whether it will look good enough is something everyone will have to determine for themselves. Let's not be so petty that we can't give credit where credit is due. If it works as advertised it's a least better than what we had before. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Maximus i think you want to hear it. I dont want bad news. NL is just full of tricks and lies. Can you argue that NO. So please stop beeing the devils advocate. I really wonder why you are not on A-team. All fan-boys are. Herve included...... Yes maximus you understood well. You made me angree I am not responsible for NL actions. They just say ***** and i point them out. Adam, i am not sure about caustics. I think caustics can be done that way. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 The only program I've ever used that does proper architectural glass is Lightscape. I know Jeff and co. are selling some architectural glass shaders for vRay, so maybe thet are as good as the LS material was. I've built pretty good shaders for C4D and fr2, but its the reflection model that is the issue, and I don't mean just using Blinn. Not that I know anything about coding these things, but its been explained to me that LS used a better method for shading reflections and transmissives. The result was a better glass, and it was a single button, too. I always found that with Lightscape, you had IOR distortion with their glass material. If you tuned IOR down enough to get rid of the distortion (like for a kitchen cabinet door with a glass panel), there was no reflection. Several people, me included, said they wanted "cheat" glass. To figure true refraction of huge flat panels is a ridiculous waste of energy and time. We just wanted it to be shiny and see-thru to a degree that we had ultimate control over. I realize there are aspects of architectural glass that I don't understand, so I'm very interested in the verdict on this "workaround" from users who specialize in exterior viz. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 20, 2006 Author Share Posted April 20, 2006 Adam, i am not sure about caustics. I think caustics can be done that way. No, I don't think so. What makes this possible is specifically excluding caustics from the material. Otherwise you have the same old problem. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 I understand non of you are happy, and that will never change. I do not appreciate that. The statement says that the discontentment expressed by myself and others is baseless, that it exists just for the sake of existing. We have managed to articulate some very specific problems, and more often than not, suggested solutions. I have personally put time and effort into making things better, both in public and behind the scenes. Others have, as well. The point is not to be perpetually unhappy, it is to improve the product and the relationship between its maker and owners. We will all be happy, we may even dance in the streets, one day over Maxwell. But there are still a lot of changes that must be made, mostly by NextLimit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Well, I think the limitations are obvious--no refraction and no caustics. Whether it will look good enough is something everyone will have to determine for themselves. Let's not be so petty that we can't give credit where credit is due. If it works as advertised it's a least better than what we had before. Is someone really going to want to compute caustics for curtain walls on a 50-story skyscraper? Even a closeup of a condo unit? I wouldn't waste time on something like that. Simple direct caustics is required in order for light to pass through a dielectric, I think. Even simple direct caustics makes for a huge hit regarding computations. I want to experiment with this new material. If tranparency and texture can be controlled and portrayed without the dielectric computational hit, it will be an extremely useful material. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Buffos Ok time for a explanation yet again to make things clear to you. Assuming people are bad and will continue to be bad due to past or present behaviour is not always true, in some cases yes it is but not always. Things change, people evolve and so on.. Firstly, i'm aware of all previous problems and so are NL, that's a known fact already. But my choice is to not care about it, i'm not allowing it to take over my life and consume all my time as i have far bigger concerns to think about which i mentionened in another thread here and on the Maxwell forum before. And no i'm not on the A-Team, just a common regular user like anyone else on the forum. Not even a fanboy as i have given NL my fair share of negative critcs via email and Msn. I'm sure i made you angry or something like that buffos but this is about a piece of software so if you get all angry over that then it's your problem, not mine. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
buffos Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 well fran, i guess if we had the promised programmable materials kit we were promised, i could write a dozen experimental versions of such materials. Its not hard. If you actuallre read carefull toms announcement, its say about GHOST material. So i guess the solution may be just that. A superposition of a "nothing here" element and a scanlike coating to recreate reflections. I really cannot tell from 2-3 pictures. But if i have it in my hands i could propably find out what approach they did follow I also agree that for EXTERIOR archivis, this material is just fine (although bye bye unbiased... idont care about it, but they have maded our **** thaaaaat big about unbiased...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CHE Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 Yes, it looks like the new Architectural Solution Glass (ASG) would do the job. I agree with Fran, architectural glass does not have to be physical correct in most of the cases. AGS is indeed a very welcome option. Here is the direct link to the "teaser" movie by Next Limit. http://www.maxwellrender.com/files/ags+ml.mov Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuumx Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 well fran, i guess if we had the promised programmable materials kit we were promised, i could write a dozen experimental versions of such materials. Its not hard. If you actuallre read carefull toms announcement, its say about GHOST material. So i guess the solution may be just that. A superposition of a "nothing here" element and a scanlike coating to recreate reflections. I really cannot tell from 2-3 pictures. But if i have it in my hands i could propably find out what approach they did follow I also agree that for EXTERIOR archivis, this material is just fine (although bye bye unbiased... idont care about it, but they have maded our **** thaaaaat big about unbiased...) Buffos, please do not make assumptions about how this material performs until the final version is released. 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