TBKoen Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hi peoples, I purchased maxwell as well. The thing i noticed is that a scene with allot of geometry renders as fast as a simple scene (as a matter a fact you can enter the render time so i concluded this by the quality of the scene), this might be due to the fact that is doesn't optimize the lighting. It's true, the renders seam like it is slower then mental ray, vray or radiosity, but it saves allot of work getting the right result.. the maxwell materials don't even need work, they look great just plainly applied to an object and the eviroment en global lighting settings are very easily set up. One night of rendering is more then enough to get a beautifull interior of exterior still. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Hi peoples, I purchased maxwell as well. The thing i noticed is that a scene with allot of geometry renders as fast as a simple scene (as a matter a fact you can enter the render time so i concluded this by the quality of the scene), this might be due to the fact that is doesn't optimize the lighting. It's true, the renders seam like it is slower then mental ray, vray or radiosity, but it saves allot of work getting the right result.. the maxwell materials don't even need work, they look great just plainly applied to an object and the eviroment en global lighting settings are very easily set up. One night of rendering is more then enough to get a beautifull interior of exterior still. I have Maxwell too... I totally agree! With Maxwell you can save a lot of time setting up a scene - the reason is because you do not need to fake anything... Some of my renderings are at cgtalk.com http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?p=1751647#post1751647 I will post future renderings there too... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I have Maxwell too... I totally agree! With Maxwell you can save a lot of time setting up a scene - the reason is because you do not need to fake anything... That is what I am used to with Lightscape. You put in the lights that the designer spec'ed, and then see how they will really look. Oh, I fake the power quite a bit, but I never have to put in lighting rigs, fake ambient, skyight, etc. But LS isn't going to move into the future, this renderer may. Thank you for posting the images, and your experiences. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I created this webpage to upload all my renderings with Mawell Rendered a lot of your maxwell related questions will be answered there... http://ixor.gr/maxwelltest/maxwell.htm Also read that thread: http://cgtalk.com/showthread.php?t=180534&page=10&pp=15 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 I have Maxwell too... I totally agree! With Maxwell you can save a lot of time setting up a scene - the reason is because you do not need to fake anything... Some of my renderings are at cgtalk.com http://www.cgtalk.com/showthread.php?p=1751647#post1751647 I will post future renderings there too... hmmm... so much for being an artist... even a good director or photography, or good arch. photographer spends a lot of time setting up lights before shooting. You always need supplimental lighting, even in the real world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TBKoen Posted November 22, 2004 Share Posted November 22, 2004 Why? you can put in lights in the scene if you want to as well;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stark3d Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 look like crap really guys so 1990's makes me sick Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 That is what I am used to with Lightscape. You put in the lights that the designer spec'ed, and then see how they will really look. Oh, I fake the power quite a bit, but I never have to put in lighting rigs, fake ambient, skyight, etc. But LS isn't going to move into the future, this renderer may. Thank you for posting the images, and your experiences. I do not have seen anybody using Lightscape... only one guy that he was doing some amazing scenes his name is: Chen Qingfeng this is his gallery... http://cqfcqf.gfxartist.com/artworks anyway what is the story with Lightscape? I do not want to ruin this thread - because it is about maxwell but I can not understand why not to use Lightscape then? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramon Aranguren Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Actually Lightscape was a software developed not for rendering purposes, but for photometric studies in light design field, it had a poor render engine and raytracer, so you had to take the radiosity solution and atore it and import it in max to get a descent scene, but it was accurate as hell!!! the thing is that they put lightscape inside the max environment and it became what we know as radiosity since version 5 along with mental ray, the thing is that if this maxwell dude has an accurate and real physical calculation brain, it might be the best thing out there, and the rendertimes might still be, like some said, a matter for later!!! i'm anxious to see more! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Actually Lightscape was a software developed not for rendering purposes, but for photometric studies in light design field, it had a poor render engine and raytracer, so you had to take the radiosity solution and atore it and import it in max to get a descent scene, but it was accurate as hell!!! the thing is that they put lightscape inside the max environment and it became what we know as radiosity since version 5 along with mental ray, the thing is that if this maxwell dude has an accurate and real physical calculation brain, it might be the best thing out there, and the rendertimes might still be, like some said, a matter for later!!! i'm anxious to see more! thanx for the info Ramon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nateg Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Another disgruntled Lightscape fan playing with Maxwell. I agree with TBKoen, Maxwell doesn't seemed to care whether the geometry it has to deal with is simple or super complex. This model is quite large, but it rendered to the same quality in the same amount of time as many of my extremely simple first tests. 2Hrs. Intel 3.0GHZ 512 RAM In terms of the earlier discussion concerning the role of physically based software such as this one, I think its fantastic. Just like Lightscape did, this kind of software gives the designer the opportunity to see the “real” ramifications of a design decision in the “real” world. Other kinds of “faked” lighting techniques aren’t as valuable in this sense. Because they rely on exaggerations and suppositions their usefulness is primarily limited to the selling of a project or idea. A physically based renderer lends itself to critical investigation, not just hyped imagery. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PiXeL_MoNKeY Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Actually, Eric, these were not my words, but Splutterfish's words. Long ago (and I mean like 2 years or so) SF's CEO posted in our forum saying that the demo version available was intended to be a lot slower than the shipping version. I really don't remember her name, but she said that we couldn't "take any conclusions from the demo available (in their website), because it's extremely slow when compared to the final version", or something like that (the whole thread was taken off because it quickly became a flame). Yes I remember that thread prior to it getting removed. Her name is Connie Jacobs and she is the COO of SF not CEO. That thread was clouded with all kinds of mispreceptions and alot of flaming. But enough of this disscussion don't need another flame like thread. I still feel Maxwell is going after a niche market that is looking for quality over quantity. Unlike some of the other readers I am feared by a renderer that gives me limited options and just have me tell it how long to render. I want to be incontrol of my final output, not Next Limit. We will see what the future brings of this render as alot can change from alpha to final release. my 2 cents, -Eric Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Ouch Ceballos Looking at your system scale, I'm wondering if that's why you have so many problems. You have it set to 1,000,000 max units equals 1 Meter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would fix that if I were you, for I bet Maxwell requires everything to be in correct physical units. Could you set up that scene correctly and rerender that same scene and post some more results? Chris J. Crhis so we have to set the Scene Scale at: if (1 Unit = 1mm -> Scene Scale at 0.0001) if (1 Unit = 1cm -> Scene Scale at 0.001) if (1 Unit = 1m -> Scene Scale at 0.01) correct me if I am wrong plz! I do not won't people here to use that faulse information! thanx... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceballos Posted November 23, 2004 Author Share Posted November 23, 2004 Ouch Ceballos Looking at your system scale, I'm wondering if that's why you have so many problems. You have it set to 1,000,000 max units equals 1 Meter!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I would fix that if I were you, for I bet Maxwell requires everything to be in correct physical units. Could you set up that scene correctly and rerender that same scene and post some more results? Chris J. we both wrong, the picture shows 100,0000 ..odd, strange value.....i dont know if this is correct. Is that the value for 100 Max units? If so , my scene is ok. I have set Max System unit scale to cm, 1 unit= 1 cm. I render the scene , everything looks ok. But if the value was set to 100 in Maxwell Scene scale , it shows 0.0100 Max units. It looks very odd that value to. I render the scene again, and it looks terrible. I have no clue about what is correct here or not. Someone correct me if i wrong. Or teach me, hehe!! Ceballos Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 ceballos I am also doing some testings right now... also I e-mailed maxwell about that... soon we will figure that out... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ceballos Posted November 23, 2004 Author Share Posted November 23, 2004 ceballos I am also doing some testings right now... also I e-mailed maxwell about that... soon we will figure that out... hehe, i think we reply to thread at the same time, and i also have send a mail to the tech team , yesterday Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Andronikos Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 hehe, i think we reply to thread at the same time, and i also have send a mail to the tech team , yesterday these guys will be crazy replying to e-mails... haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kunstraum.tv Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 here is my first maxwell render.....very simple scene, nothing special. but the setup just took 30sec. ....from the basic technique it´s very close to the "make it look real button". for lazy architects like me in some cases very helpfull. for control freaks not so useful. but one thing is clear, it´s far far far away from being useful in real productions. but remember the first days of vray :-) rendertime 4h (far far too much) on normal 3.06 intel machine. http://www.kunstraum.tv/maxwell.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jucaro Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 During the first generation of pentiums, Lightscape took very long to compute and render a typical medium-high detail scene. I remember leaving the computer overnight just for LS to compute the lighting solution. Those time, and overnight render was acceptable, so I dont see why maxwell's long render times wont be. On another note, if there's a Project Deadline extender plugin for MAX..well...I just might dive into the Maxwell bandwagon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
totmacher Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 does somebody known, if it possible to bake the lighting into a texture with maxwell '? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fran Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Actually Lightscape was a software developed not for rendering purposes, but for photometric studies in light design field, it had a poor render engine and raytracer, so you had to take the radiosity solution and atore it and import it in max to get a descent scene, but it was accurate as hell!!! the thing is that they put lightscape inside the max environment and it became what we know as radiosity since version 5 along with mental ray, the thing is that if this maxwell dude has an accurate and real physical calculation brain, it might be the best thing out there, and the rendertimes might still be, like some said, a matter for later!!! i'm anxious to see more! Well. That's quite a story. Where did you get that from? Lightscape 3.0 through 3.2 had a render engine that is far superior to Max's. Ernest - don't read this with low blood sugar - have some breakfast first! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rick Eloy Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 (..)the thing is that they put lightscape inside the max environment and it became what we know as radiosity since version 5 along with mental ray (..)Using Jeff's words: this is like comparing oranges and apples. Max's radiosity engine is very different from Lightscape's you can't really compare them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 Ernest - don't read this with low blood sugar - have some breakfast first! Thank you, Fran. I should wait until the poodle is completely dry in the microwave. Interestingly, I first saw Lightscape at a demonstration by a collegue for we NYSR people just before it was ported to NT. I wasn't very impressed because it was too literal. It came off as un-artistic. It was later, when I bought v3.0 that I realized that I could exagerate the results to get the look I wanted from the otherwise accurate results. I guess I just like to turn good data into bad, while the rest of you try to turn bad data into good. (Just poking fun, people, make sure you also ate your Cheerios). If Maxwell pans out, it may be good on both ends, especially if its in Cinema, so I can actually use it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidR Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 My understanding is that Discreet, having bought Lightscape a couple of years earlier, folded it into Max5 (and 6 and 7). You're saying it's not the same? I know the interface is different, but the result differs too? I wonder why. I saw this as one of Max's strengths -quick scanline, lightracer (slow but easy to use + predictable results), lightscape radiosity, and mr. I choose to wrestle with mr, but after seeing Chen Qingfeng's stuff, I have to respect what Lightscape (in Chen's hands!) can do. Maxwell lighting reminds me of his stuff. ie: perfect. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted November 23, 2004 Share Posted November 23, 2004 My understanding is that Discreet, having bought Lightscape a couple of years earlier, folded it into Max5 (and 6 and 7). You're saying it's not the same? It isn't. It could have been, but they chose to go in another direction. Physical accuracy requires real-world units, which both Max and Cinema lack, but I guess Maxwell will have some way of dealing with that. 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