AdamT Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 Agreed. I don't see the point in doing a direct lighting comparison; that's the only thing that Maxwell *does* do in a reasonable amount of time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongo51 Posted May 15, 2006 Share Posted May 15, 2006 being an architectural 'enthusiast' where I LOVE designing and rendering structures it's not my primary focus. I have noticed a clear difference in useability with maxwell, a difference that seems mostly ignored. Maxwell is STUNNING and very speedy for most general product and object renders... and OK and very slow for architecture work... What maxwell does best is almost ignored... what it does worse is what Next Limit is pushing... ?? I think anyone thinking they need a renderer for large (scale) projects should seriously consider ALL of their options. Those who want a renderer for still-life or anything smaller then a 6foot x6foot space, Maxwell is amazing. Anyone else notice this? Personally I would recommend Vue Infinite for architectural renders.. between the bio systems, weather and true volumetric effects AND the fact it's at least 3x faster AND the results are noise free... AND it's cheaper... It seems like all the hoop-jumping and compositing required with maxwell make it a really poor choice for architecture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlytE Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I think anyone thinking they need a renderer for large (scale) projects should seriously consider ALL of their options. Those who want a renderer for still-life or anything smaller then a 6foot x6foot space, Maxwell is amazing. That there makes alot of sense to me and would appear to support both sides of the fence. While on one hand maxwell is capable of producing 'photographs' in a still life scenario, it appears that the bigger your scene is the harder and longer it struggles. Given the nature of the software and its obsession with physical accuracy, it would seem that it is just not yet suited to large open space architectural rendering. I would still like to know more about the differences in the beta though. On one hand we have a chap who has tested v1 thoroughly and found it to be faster, yet on the other hand we have a host of other people labelling the research as dubious. Its like the da vinci code all over again hehe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FlytE Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Speaking of the da davinci code.... I guess theres no finer example of why to stick with vray than our bud jesus aka zuliban. The guys images are an inspiration and hes still my favourite 'renderer' bar none http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/16842-apartamento-1618-a.html http://www.cgarchitect.com/vb/14268-hamburg-haus.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olbo Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Oh yes, ... Zuliban definately knows how to create beauties. :D edit: Imagine Maxwell would render such a pic in 4-10 hours and it wouldn't be unbiased ... I guess noone of you would care about biased or not anymore. ;o) take care psor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I guess noone of you would care about biased or not anymore. Did anyone, besides the nextLimit fanatics, ever care about absolute unbiased? Does it make resonably accurate pictures with ease and beauty? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olbo Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 You are right Ernest, sorry for being generalising - happends from time to time. And no it doesn't! ps: There are a lot of NL fans then ... take care Oleg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Speaking of the da davinci code.... I guess theres no finer example of why to stick with vray than our bud jesus aka zuliban. The guys images are an inspiration and hes still my favourite 'renderer' bar none Yep, Zuliban has produced some very nice work. As others have said, the tools do not make the work, it is the person using the tools. Despite all the shortcomings with MWR and NL, some have managed to produce respectable, professional renderings with MWR. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olbo Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Yep, Zuliban has produced some very nice work. As others have said, the tools do not make the work, it is the person using the tools. Despite all the shortcomings with MWR and NL, some have managed to produce respectable, professional renderings with MWR. Quoted for agreement. And as we can see, Maxwell becomes just another renderengine that we have to learn. As easy as taking a photo ... true! A good photo needs a good photographer ... hehe. :D take care Oleg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adehus Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I would still like to know more about the differences in the beta though. On one hand we have a chap who has tested v1 thoroughly and found it to be faster, yet on the other hand we have a host of other people labelling the research as dubious. Its like the da vinci code all over again hehe Nobody's labeling ThomasAn's research as dubious- it's just limited in scope. It's a product shot test, where light *isn't* trapped within a scene, and Maxwell has always been relatively fast at that. His test primarily shows that caustics resolve faster in V1 vs beta, etc. That's good news for people doing product scenes. OTOH with interiors, where light bounces around endlessly, it really is a completely different ball game. Here's an example of what I'm talking about: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15707 Giacob's test isn't as complete as ThomasAn's, but it is consistent with my experience. I really do believe that render speed is going in the wrong direction for interior work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Everyone makes a great point about this test, I was disappointed that it wasn't of an architectural scene and was instead a product shot. I also agree that Maxwell's strongest showings are also in small scenes and product shots, and I guess you could throw architectural exteriors into that list to. I guess the bottom line is that Maxwell has certain areas that it works very well in and others that it really doesn’t have the capabilities of handling at this time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I've been thinking about what the difference between quality of light in the beta and V1. V1 is like being in your 7th grade classroom. At night. It's different and doesn't feel right. Or as someone else said: beta = film V1 = video Now, you can do stunning exteriors where the sun/sky system does it's thing, or you can do a Pepeland trick and take off the roof and get some nice light and fairly fast sample resolution. But...I mean, really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 I'm also in the beta was better group, I don't know if were ever going to get back to where it was with this V1.xx situation. I pray that it is there with the RS2 engine but God only knows when well see it, if we ever see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_PopArt Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 Caustics do work faster, but everything else is slower and noiser. Not a nice tradeoff. Its borked, let hope they can fix this. Pepeland hehe:) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
leoA4D Posted May 16, 2006 Share Posted May 16, 2006 And, how much more money will we have to pay out for RS2 and (hopefully) the beta look? I just can not believe 1/ NL has unlimited funds at this time, 2/ that V1.0, @ a grand a pop, is selling well and 3/ the upgrade to RS2 will be free. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bongo51 Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 Leo, if they decide to charge us for a render core that they have been working on since before V1 is released... It's not our fault they needed 3 tries to get it right. class action law suit... sign me up! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted May 17, 2006 Share Posted May 17, 2006 If they charged for it I wouldn’t buy it, unless it was a quantum leap forward in speed and functionality. 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