Adehus Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 So...does anyone feel that V1.0 has made any progress from the perspective of the end user? In my experiences, not so much, but I'm curious to hear from others. Between my personal experiences and what I've read elsewhere, it seems as though: -Cooperative rendering is almost impossible to make work -Glare doesn't work -Multilights crash most systems -Plugins are *awful* - FormZ plugin received almost no attention, and still uses beta material names (dielectric, plastic, etc.) and does not translate them well into the new matl system. Users of other plugins report similar problems. -Nobody outside of the ateam seems to be able to comprehend how to use the material editor (certainly not I). -OpenGL speed in studio is much worse than before. -Many memory leaks -No HDR export -No HD rendering -No render resume -SSS doesn't work So... anyone seen any upside? Feel free to add to the list or take issue with any of my points. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I just got done replying to tom's "non-answer" to someone's question about "nd". Since Nd is a generelized approach of measured ior, it's truly experiemental. For example, a typical glass has Nd 1.5 but this is not highly precise comparing to a measured ior data. So, feel free to set Nd depending the look you need. Why? Why? Why did they choose to do things this way? Why? It is the most ridiculous time-wasting mechanism that anyone ever implemented on purpose. At least our trial-and-error could be based on real world data. Otherwise it's like trying to scratch your back with your feet - only our 4-footed friends are really good at it. And according to Mike Verta, Attenuation is based on an object's size. SIZE. Can I say "size" again? Objects with the same texture need separate materials according to size. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AdamT Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I still haven't dl'd the program yet and I can't say I'm in any hurry to. I imagine there would be quite a poopstorm on the NL forums if they hadn't preceded the release with their Stalinist purge. It is sort of gratifying to see the true believers taking their first trembling steps along the path of doubt/frustration/anger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I've had relatively good luck with the new material editor in Max, it will crash if you do certain operations but over all it's a good addition that makes working with materials easier. One the other hand cooperative rendering has me pulling my hair out. I don't understand why some people can get it to automatically merge MXI files and others can't. I've tried for two days to get it to work and so far nothing, I have to manually merge them right now. As for speed I believe my original predictions on just how many CPU it will take to get a print rez image out were correct if not under estimated. I did a test last night using 14 CPU's on a 3000*2250 image and the noise was still considerable. I haven't even tried to use studio and I won't unless it offers some super special advantage over the plugin. All in all I'd say that it's a marginal improvement over RC5 but there no where near a V1 yet, and I tremble to think about how long this process is going to take before were done with all the V1 updates and we see a V2. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 Why? Why? Why did they choose to do things this way? Why?... I saw Tom's post, and was glad to see your response... the complexity of the material generation is absurd, and to suggest that you just need to screw around with it until it looks like you want it to really seems to go against everything that Maxwell was supposed to stand for. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 you just need to screw around with it until it looks like you want it to Yeah, that's my current workflow in rendering. I thought this was supposed to be a quick setup? Well, for an ideal diffuse I suppose it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Agreed, they've severely over complicated the process and made it way to technical for the average user. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 I've done some renders with 1.0 and i must say i'm tempted to uninstall it all and go to the beta again. I looks like the RC5 alot more complicated, and lots more bugs. Maybe the problem is i dont understand the materials, but i dont have that much desire to understand them, its all way to complicated, and what is the new maxwell motto? 'just point and shoot its easy like a camera?' This sucks:( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Hehe if you don't have the skills to use a hammer then you can't blame that on the hammer, right ? / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 So is it possible to use the materials from a plugin the same way as with Beta? I haven't had time to work with it much yet, but I see that at least with Cinemaxwell and Maxll (some of these need better names - Rhinoll, Mayall and Maxll don't sound nearly as good as Cinemaxwell) the same settings are still there. Do they still work? I wouldn't mind using the materials in a Beta-like way, but with the MXM system to bring in preset lights, AGSes, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 In Max the materials are basically the same as the beta if you use the wizard, but you will still need to use Maxwell's material editor to create them. It's still a little clumsy, and it crashes from time to time but there is potential there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Hehe if you don't have the skills to use a hammer then you can't blame that on the hammer, right ? / Max yes, exactly, i dont have the skills. But it doesnt look like you have them either Maxer: Thanks, I've been trying those:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Hehe if you don't have the skills to use a hammer then you can't blame that on the hammer, right ? / Max Now that's not fair. NL is advertising ease of use, but ve've got a set of very talented people here who are mystified by this. They tell us this software is great because we don't need to spend countless hours tweaking lighting settings (as if it takes any of us more than 10 minutes to set up light settings) but we have to spend countless hours tweaking material settings instead. They have material settings that depend on the thickness of the object. Non-refractive materials need an index of refraction. But it's not an IOR, it's an "ND". There are presets but maps are missing. The whole thing is inexplicable. But, sure, it's the users' fault. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Hehe if you don't have the skills to use a hammer then you can't blame that on the hammer, right ? / Max When someone designs a hammer with a handle too small to grasp, is it your skills or a poor hammer design? 'Blame the users' is a NL tactic, Max, no reason for us to hit eachother with it. I meant to ask you by email, but here's better since all can read your answer--how is v1 working out for you? Have you done anything you wanted to post yet? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Magnus, I can build my own computer, but not if the motherboard comes as a circuit board, a handful of capacitors and some soldering wire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Sorry my joke got taken so seriously i apologize if it offended you guys again. But Ernest like everyone else i too experience problems with 1.0, no discussion about it still having bugs and troubles but those parts of it which works will i use, the rest i do with some other tool. It's not the end of the world just because it's buggy now. The few small tests i done weren't that complex due to the fact that system requirements have increased now and i cannot render my highly detailed models with 1.0 unless i upgrade to 2 gig ram or more and that's not gonna happen in a long long time (sigh). And no i haven't done anything worth posting yet, my tests are too ugly for that and i'm still battling to remove the virus my system is infected with when that's done then work and testing starts again.. Btw Popart, you're right. I'm a complete total incompetent fool. Finally you noticed it thanks! / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Btw Popart, you're right. I'm a complete total incompetent fool. Finally you noticed it thanks! / Max me too:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Magnus, the thing I'm having a problem with is the fact that Maxwell alpha/beta was quite intuitive - things worked as we expected. I liked the old material methods, they just needed some enhancements. As others have mentioned, the complexity of the new materials (and intimidating user interface full of arcane terminology) more than offsets any benefits of easy lighting setup. I will add that I've been looking at the documentation, and the explanations for the material editor are much better than what was provided previously. I recall that the RC version had such comprehensive info as "Attenuation: to change the attenuation, adjust the spinners..." or something like that. And that was it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 So is it possible to use the materials from a plugin the same way as with Beta? I haven't had time to work with it much yet, but I see that at least with Cinemaxwell and Maxll (some of these need better names - Rhinoll, Mayall and Maxll don't sound nearly as good as Cinemaxwell) the same settings are still there. Do they still work? The short answer is not now, and that's my biggest issue (among many!). The translations of beta materials into the new material system look horrible... plastics don't look like plastics, and metals look like black lacquer paint. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Yes Fran i know the alpha and beta both were dead easy to work with and that everybody wants that ease back, but i think they chose this direction to give users the ability to create complex shaders with layers and real accuracy, the alpha and beta type shaders were very limited that way. Both types has their advantages and disadvantages, let the developers add both and fit in a easy workflow for them both in the plugins and the Studio, i'm sure they will do something like that so people will find it easier to use, that new Wizard thingy could be in the plugins or something like that so it makes life easier for all. I don't know, i'm not a coder.. yet. On a personal note, i do like the complex science based shaders. But that's just me (sorry). We should still have the easy shader stuff there, no argumentation needed about that / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted April 29, 2006 Author Share Posted April 29, 2006 Hehe if you don't have the skills to use a hammer then you can't blame that on the hammer, right ? / Max Max- would you care to look through my list at the beginning of this post and explain how any of those problems are the fault of the user? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nope Adehus i don't feel like it now, it's weekend and i'm not in the mood to get into another pisscontest on here yet again. You just have to manage without my comments hehe / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gattomanzo Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Nope Adehus i don't feel like it now, it's weekend and i'm not in the mood to get into another pisscontest on here yet again. You just have to manage without my comments hehe / Max confess Max... you're in A-Team right? :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Maximus3D Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 Hehe Gattomanzo, if i were i'd be on the forum helping out people there with a A-Team tag below my nickname, you know i have neither so i'm just a regular noob user struggling to get a render out like everyone else Dissapointed to hear that ? hehe / Max Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gattomanzo Posted April 29, 2006 Share Posted April 29, 2006 of course my chum... i was just joking. i was joking about your last answer was much like Mihai's ones. In fact at last, after installed the 1.0 i've seen his name inside ateam's materials folder. now we all finally know why that guy is so in love with Next Limit... btw ..anyone was able to obtain a scattering fx? probably im the true stupid here... 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