_PopArt Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 All will be forgotten if v1 is a big improvment? I had no issues with most of what you have said here and after this post but found this a bit too optimistic if you are including NL, the company, along with M~R. As far as the company, I would recommend caution going forward until NL has repaired its reputation/credibility and has a proven and permanent set of professional business ethics that applies to every aspect of the company from the top to the mob – oops, sorry, mods. All IMHO, of course. I agree with you Leo4Ad, but i am biased. After having watched the whole thing, i honestly doubt i will ever have a good opinion of them, unless they all become born again christians after the 1.0 release. What meant to say was that, if the 1.0 release is very good, and doesnt have any major limitations (with the new archi glass mat for example), new users probably wont know to much about or care much about what went on up until now. You are right that for future development (especially about the RS2 engine), nl's ethical track record is something one has to consider. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 For the record, mverta did have a post over there saying he thought v1 was a good bit faster than previous versions, but he hasn't done a head-to-head comparison. Kind of unbelievable. Speed is M~R's No. 1 issue ... you'd think someone would check and see how it compared to previous versions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 Speed is M~R's No. 1 issue ... you'd think someone would check and see how it compared to previous versions. It's one thing to say 'everyone knows this method is slow'. That is very true, we must all accept that as one of the cost that we pay to get the benefit of the high-quality results. However it's another when the NL President posts in the release-candidate phase that we should expect a speed improvement of about 10X. He chose to put that number out in public. So what happened to 10X? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 It's one thing to say 'everyone knows this method is slow'. That is very true, we must all accept that as one of the cost that we pay to get the benefit of the high-quality results. However it's another when the NL President posts in the release-candidate phase that we should expect a speed improvement of about 10X. He chose to put that number out in public. So what happened to 10X? I think 10X was about RS2. Scene independent lighting, true working sunlight glass, and everything great under the sun is RS2, maybe even the parting of the red sea is RS2. I guess its a question of faith, makes you wonder:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I completely agree. However, we must go forward believing that is possible. Sounds faith based – NL, pots of gold, Santy Claus, Toothe Fairy, etc. Yuk, yuk. Sure, we gotta believe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I think 10X was about RS2. Scene independent lighting, true working sunlight glass, and everything great under the sun is RS2, maybe even the parting of the red sea is RS2. I guess its a question of faith, makes you wonder:) Victor's V1 Report 1 Nov '05, http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=7962 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 For the record, mverta did have a post over there saying he thought v1 was a good bit faster than previous versions, but he hasn't done a head-to-head comparison. Kind of unbelievable. Speed is M~R's No. 1 issue ... you'd think someone would check and see how it compared to previous versions. It's beyond unbelievable that none of them would have tested to see if there was any speed increase. We all know that since there has been no mention of cooking times that there has been little if no speed increase, if there was that would have been part of the announcements. That means that my predictions as to how long and how many CPU's it will take to get a print rez interior image out over night were correct. Again for those that missed it to get a 2500x2500 image out in 12 hours will take 32 AMD Opteron 275's. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 I wouldn't think that the increase in speed is dramatic in 1.0, there could be some noticable (however that word is spelled) speedincrease due to the refining of the core they done now but not like it's making a 12 hour rendering take 12 minutes or along those lines / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 there could be some noticable (however that word is spelled) speedincrease due to the refining of the core they done now... I would expect nothing less. I would be shocked if there wasn't at least some increase due to core optomization. What's worrisome is that NL seems to be throwing in new features even now, so when does that core get optomized? Shouldn't that take more than a day or two? Can you be adding features after getting the core in fighting shape? And yes, everything I've heard about the Maxwell magic stuff has refered to rs2. Pity it isn't going to be in v1 because 1, that's what we all thought we were buying, and 2, because I want to get my hands on that render magic now, not later. We'll see soon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave davidson Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 to be honest i dont expect that much of a speed increase and i can live with that. my number one issue is the "look from the beta" which we aint seeing and every image we have seen so far for V1 looks noisy and most look cg which i was my number one fear. they say the look hasnt gone and i shall give them the benifit of the doubt at this point as i havent tested it myself. but they posted these images to show off and that is something that hasnt happened from my point of view. i hope they havent dug a hole with the deadline they have set. ive always said dont post a date until its on the server ready for download. well i guess we will all see very soon Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 v1, 26 April, jury duty, 27 April. I'll check the forums mornings and evenings for the poop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dave davidson Posted April 22, 2006 Share Posted April 22, 2006 i would say v1, 26th and new forum on the 27th no need to look for poop cause there will be no place to post it. they delivered it so no need to discuss it kthxbye if u get me Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 my number one issue is the "look from the beta" which we aint seeing and every image we have seen so far for V1 looks noisy and most look cg which i was my number one fear. Mihai said that this is due to the unlimited material possibilities with the new material editor, that because it's so powerful it's easy to create materials that don't look good. He also points out that you can now make materials that don't even exist in the real world. At first while I'm reading that I'm nodding my head saying that makes since. After thinking about it for a while I find that I'm asking my self why I would need to create a material that doesn’t exist in the real world if the whole point of Maxwell is to be a physically accurate "lighting simulator". It also kind of makes me mad that they have taken such a simple material setup and complicated it to the point where I can't even make a simple material without doing a tutorial. I also don't buy into the explanation that the A-Team doesn’t know the material editor well enough to create a convincing material. If that's the case then we're all in real trouble because if his explanation is true that means that a group of Maxwell gurus who are developing the software can't figure out how to make a convincing material. How in the world am I going to figure it out if they can’t! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Well there are the presets, but I'm looking forward to materials that don't exist in the real world. Half the stuff I do now has nothing at all to do with reality. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Mihai said that this is due to the unlimited material possibilities with the new material editor, that because it's so powerful it's easy to create materials that don't look good. Goodbye simple materials? The obvious way to compare the 'beauty' of the original renders to the new system is to match the old materials--simple diffuse, etc. See if the new engine can render basic mats well, not complex mats not very well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 But didn't they create that small standalone materialeditor thingy which you can use to simply create beta style materials with for the purpose of making the beta lovers happy i don't know.. Btw, i can't post on the forum now. Could be they're upgrading it or patching phpbb or some temporary problem with the server. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 The standalone material editor was created to improve the workflow for those who prefer using plug-ins over Studio and still want the benefits of the new complex materials. I was told the material wizard was developed because NL overestimated the abilities of it's userbase in the area of material creation. It is our ineptitude and inability to understand the new material model that keeps us from producing good renders. I may have misunderstood, but I believe there was also to be a provision for converting beta materials to work with the new release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 The material wizard may be useful, but even using the studio program creating materials like the beta isnt so difficult, if you avoid doing weight mapping and bsdf layrs and coatings and all that. At a certain point, i think after RC4 the decided to put lambertian materials back in which could indicate that the new hype realistic material system was having to much of an effect on the overall rendering quality and times, which i dont think is surprising. MLT is really accurate stuff so if you have all of these really complicated material possibilties is will surely effect the way the engine works. This could all be due to my ineptitude though:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 It is our ineptitude and inability to understand the new material model that keeps us from producing good renders. Since it appears that almost nobody was able to get beta quality materials out of rc5, is it really fair to blame the user base? Not to mention the fact that it doesn't appear as though the A-team testers could do any better! I think NL has been way too in love with the science of material creation, and overestimated the user base's desire to follow their lead. Hopefully they are rectifying that- I personally would have been largely content with beta's materials (which leads to a long laundry list of irritation regarding their development priorities...) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Oh well, good or bad i don't know. All i do know is that the powerful materialeditor which was in RC5 started to franticly tickly my artistic nerve and that's a good thing! hehe Wonder what they're doing to the forum now.. it's kinda down and non-working. / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Wonder what they're doing to the forum now.. it's kinda down and non-working. / Max The God-child must have decided to just ban everybody, now it's his private playground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Griger Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Btw, i can't post on the forum now. Maybe they banned you Max for posting here too much, LOL I'm really looking forward to the material wizard and the new material presets. The largest source of frustration I ran into with RC5 was the time I invested tweaking my materials. ~ Paul Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Hehehe yay! party on then.. \o/ maybe you guys are right / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuumx Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Mihai said that this is due to the unlimited material possibilities with the new material editor, that because it's so powerful it's easy to create materials that don't look good. He also points out that you can now make materials that don't even exist in the real world. At first while I'm reading that I'm nodding my head saying that makes since. After thinking about it for a while I find that I'm asking my self why I would need to create a material that doesn’t exist in the real world if the whole point of Maxwell is to be a physically accurate "lighting simulator". It also kind of makes me mad that they have taken such a simple material setup and complicated it to the point where I can't even make a simple material without doing a tutorial. I also don't buy into the explanation that the A-Team doesn’t know the material editor well enough to create a convincing material. If that's the case then we're all in real trouble because if his explanation is true that means that a group of Maxwell gurus who are developing the software can't figure out how to make a convincing material. How in the world am I going to figure it out if they can’t! Maxer, it is not the fact that the materials Mihai was referencing are not real, it is more that the conditions to produce certain materials, we may or do not quite have the technology to produce. Nonetheless the materials are still phsyically accurate. Case in point, you could simulate a material with Maxwell Render that could only be produced in the construct of a controlled vacuum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Continuumx Posted April 23, 2006 Share Posted April 23, 2006 Since it appears that almost nobody was able to get beta quality materials out of rc5, is it really fair to blame the user base? Not to mention the fact that it doesn't appear as though the A-team testers could do any better! I think NL has been way too in love with the science of material creation, and overestimated the user base's desire to follow their lead. Hopefully they are rectifying that- I personally would have been largely content with beta's materials (which leads to a long laundry list of irritation regarding their development priorities...) Speak for yourself, I did not have problems with RC5 and materials that can match or surpass the Beta engine. 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