kippu Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 glynn maxwell forum was a lot of fun when it was released ....i used to just read when i had nothing else to do , plus there were lot of much talented artists there ...its nice to take a peek Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trino Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 thanks for the info. I read more about it in their forums. I would like to know if anyone has some images of the first gallery they published ?? i was told they still are great examples of the "quality" maxwell offered at that time. I would like to see those. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 Here are a few, I'm pretty sure they are from 2004-2005 period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trino Posted September 30, 2009 Share Posted September 30, 2009 i can see the noisy feel in the last 3, and the gamma looks different than Vray renders, some how desaturated, more like a regular photograph. I have to say they look prety good, IMO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
visuallab Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I find the price for updating a full license ok, but node license way too high; I think the full license should include some nodes too. yep, I think so. Full licence got to have at least 1 render node. I bought 2 full licence (1 free) - so I have now 12 (3x4) licence 1.7. For now I have 3 comp. so I have to update 1 full + 2 node... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I think anybody who "used" (I use the term loosely) more than one of the RC versions has already suffered enough and deserves free upgrades for life. I actually have eight licenses. Eight! WTF. So if I were to upgrade it would be nearly $3200. I think I'll stick with mental ray. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 There isn't any incentive for me to upgrade, since I am extremely happy with the production engine I use now. People who started with Maxwell in the alpha/beta stage of development had a completely different experience with both Maxwell and Next Limit than those who bought V1 and later. When viewed from a fresh perspective, I wouldn't discourage people from buying or upgrading. I wouldn't encourage them either though - they're the competition! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrianKitts Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Can anyone speak to if there's a performance advantage to version 2? Did it help rendering times at all? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 I'd like to know that as well, the promotional material NL was sending out made it seem like it was faster but who really knows. Fran, do you know if Fry will be taking advantage of GPU rendering? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted October 8, 2009 Share Posted October 8, 2009 Fran, do you know if Fry will be taking advantage of GPU rendering? Sorry, I don't know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jotero Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hallo all cornell box test maxwell 1.7.1 | 2h:20m, SL: 14.76, Benchmark: 45.12 cornell box test maxwell 2 | 2h:20m, SL: 14.61, Benchmark: 42.56 cornell box test maxwell 2 | 213h:03m, SL: 25.91, Benchmark: 45.65 ciao torolf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 It only took Maxwell 213 HOURS to smooth out that noise? Looks like they've made real progress. (Sorry, completely unfair jab, Ive never used Maxwell.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Sorry but I've got to agree with Tom here, even for the 2 hour scenes that's just to long to to wait for a noisy image. Maybe NL will figure out a way to use GPU's to speed up their render times. It also looks like Maxwell 2 is slower than Maxwell 1.7, is that right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 2.0 resolved the metal and glass faster but 1.7 looks like it did a better job on the ceiling and walls... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mario Pende Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 213 HOURS! My God! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 213 HOURS! My God! Yes, that is a silly rendertime. I have daisychained 8 quads and an i7. So even using 9 computers that is still probably going to be a day off waiting for Maxwell. I dont think ive ever seen Maxwell and FryRender go toe to toe. I think it would make interesting reading. Fran? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJLynn Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I remember one of the money shot renders from the beta days. It was an exterior night shot of a hotel. Render time was around 2 months. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I think Fran has said before Fry is a little faster. I usually used it with 10 dual core machines and would be able to get 1 relativley clean render out of it per every 12 hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tella Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 It depends a lot on what you render. Although in some situations it doesn't show great improves on some others it is much faster. In general I think the noise pattern is more uniform and less bothering. This is NL's site showcasing V2: http://www.maxwellrender.com/version2/ I mostly do exterior archviz and, with 1.7, I usually was around 1-4 hours per render at 2000x... with a q6600 (4 cores). Some conflictive scenes (partial interiors with sun light and so) could take 2 days or more though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I think Fran has said before Fry is a little faster. I usually used it with 10 dual core machines and would be able to get 1 relativley clean render out of it per every 12 hours. Are you referring to Fry or Maxwell? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 It depends a lot on what you render. Although in some situations it doesn't show great improves on some others it is much faster. In general I think the noise pattern is more uniform and less bothering. This is NL's site showcasing V2: http://www.maxwellrender.com/version2/ I mostly do exterior archviz and, with 1.7, I usually was around 1-4 hours per render at 2000x... with a q6600 (4 cores). Some conflictive scenes (partial interiors with sun light and so) could take 2 days or more though. Tella, Thanks for your input! I find the comments discouraging though: 1: "noise pattern is more uniform and less bothering" is actually quite funny. 2: "partial interiors with sun light...could take 2 days or more though" are probably my most typical/favorite scenes. 3: "1-4 hours per render at 2000x... with a q6600" Tha does sound promising though. But I dont like the inflexibility of the scene dictating the render time vs a large degree of control-ability in a non-biased engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Are you referring to Fry or Maxwell? Maxwell Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tommy L Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I honestly think that unbiased render engines are the way forward. But they are still sloooowww. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 If they can get them to work with GPU's then they have a chance because the only real way to speed them up is through faster hardware. 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