Jeff Mottle Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 For those that don't check the home page as often, I just wanted to mention that I just posted our first interview in a very long time, too long. So we will come back with a bang featuring an interview with the makers of Maxwell. http://www.cgarchitect.com/upclose/article1_NL.asp Enjoy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jaguar lover Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Great reading! Many of my questions got answered. There has been a mysterious shadow keeping facts away from us regarding the maxwell render engine. Now the shadows are gone! Keep up the good work mr Mottle! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Welcome back Jeff, with a BANG! I can't wait to read this today! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 interesting. thanks Jeff Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Johnson Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Thanks from me too!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Thanks for the update! I do wish that they offered a demo of their software for free, I like to test out a product before I buy it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
STRAT Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Thanks for the update! I do wish that they offered a demo of their software for free, I like to test out a product before I buy it. I 1000% agree!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher Nichols Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I 1000% agree!!! I was actaully happy with their response, and completely understanding considering the crap that goes on in some of the forums such as the Vray forum. It just sucks because I will not be trying it myself... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I was actaully happy with their response, and completely understanding considering the crap that goes on in some of the forums such as the Vray forum. It just sucks because I will not be trying it myself... I agree with you, Chris. I understand their explanation for the fee. In the context of professional work US$400 isn't much. I will pay it once the C4D version is ready. I would ALMOST get it for the Max version and get the 30 day demo, but I'm too old to be trying to learn yet another program. But why won't you be using it, Chris? I took that to mean 'we won't use it at work (until its tested, tested, tested.)" But for your own use at home you wouldn't? If the company is being truthful that motion blur and DOF are almost no-cost in rendertime, that could make the engine more attractive for film work, where those are needed features to work with live plates. I don't need much motion blur for architectural stills, and I'm not trying to fake film so DOF is not something I would use much either. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Ernest, What concerns me is this age problem you are talking about.... I am 53.60 years old..... Do you think there is any hope for me.... Should I reformat my hardrive and pickup some additional fast memory for me before I try Maxwell....? Or should I get a new experimental beta bios to be flashed.....!!!! See you and Happy New Year Elliot PD: I know I am not the oldest one here.... He he he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 What concerns me is this age problem you are talking about.... I am 53.60 years old..... Do you think there is any hope for me Elliot I'm sorry, no. You are done. Couldn't resist. Should have, but didn't. No-one is too old to learn new things, but only if it serves your goals. Right now I am learning the ropes of Cinema and I'm frustrated at going back to beginner after 25 years in rendering. And there are SO MANY other programs that do all sorts of cool stuff. But I cannot spend all my time learning them, so I am going to pass up things I would otherwise love to learn and use. It sucks to be confronted with your limitations, but there they are. I feel that at my age I need to keep focused on what I want to accomplish with my work and give up on keeping up with the yutes. Damned yutes, with all their energy and potential. Maxwell is one that I consider well worth the time to buy, learn and use. Max is not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William Alexander Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Great interview! Still think the buy the beta is a win win, in this case for maxwell! A focused development with cost controls and probably the not so intented "bad pr" just pushed the interest over the top. In the long run the renderer will be a more stable, well thought out and implemented program. Really like the HDRI possibilites. Could be a very powerful tool to leverage the speed of other renders when Maxwell's is prohibitive for animation and such. Ernest & Elliott, Too OLD:D ? I guess the spirit is willing and the flesh is weak...... or is it the other way around? Guess I'd better stock up on the erbal supplements & Geratol (lubricate the south bridge?)........ the next bend (kink) in the road is aproaching fast! WDA Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Elliot Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Ernest and William, My problem is that I think I am 25 years of age but my body is not letting me carry the story anymore.....! However, my 7 year old twins are demanding that I behave like a 25 yrs old dad. A few days ago I went to lenscrafter looking for some very light eyeglasses that I could wear all day long without hurting my face... Is that another sign of being old.... Not having patience to read a sofware manual... is that being old. Calling tech support before I actually even try the manual... is that old... Being mad a Norton Antivirus.... Is that being old....? Blaming Discreet for coplanar surfaces... is that being old...? Pretending that Maxwell is a like an easy Lightscape.... Is that being old...? YEAP, I AM OLD..... He he he I want it easy....! Regards Elliot I know both of you are younger.....! Translated.... that means you have more patience....! He he he Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 I know most of you disagree with me about Maxwell offering a free demo copy of their software, but here's what I'm thinking. Since it's in beta they don't seem to be to sure of it's overall capabilities or applications beyond architectural visuilization, maybe there having issues with compatability. I want' to know before I hand over $400 that what I'm working with is going to work, if there are problems I want to know about it before hand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sawyer Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Devin, of course you may be right I don't really think anyone has a great way of doing this beta stuff yet. At vray everyone donwloads the beta and works with it and when it crashes or has bugs 1/2 of the vray forum bellyaches about what bad software they have and the other half reminds the first half that the software is a beta. Now everone uses it (beta) in production which requires a huge investment in quality control on Chaos's end so when bugs do come up they are dealt with quickly. I like this quote: "Most of the current render engines do nice light simulation jobs, but they usually require a lot of trial-error tests and they provide too many parameters which are not intuitive, since the techniques used are not strictly based on physics. Maxwell guarantees the calculation of light propagation as in the real life with a few parameters, so it's more like touch-and-go. This is the main feature of this engine and I think people perceives it as a tool that can be easy to use and profitable for their developments." You had me at light propagation Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
abicalho Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Is it just me or do I not buy their cheese? What's the point of "light propagation as in the real life with a few parameters" if your light source is not a real life one? Does it support Photometric values (Candelas, etc) or does it support a "Random" multiplier (which means nothing in real life)? Do they support IES Distribution, IES Sun, IES Sky or other Sky distributions (CIE, etc)? They did not answer those questions (even though Jeff asked) and that makes me not trust their marketing pitch. Sorry, I'll only believe it when I see it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ernest Burden III Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Is it just me or do I not buy their cheese? The cheese is only good when you do the Koolade chaser. What's the point of "light propagation as in the real life with a few parameters" if your light source is not a real life one? Good question. Their site says 'light sources with a surface area greater than zero' meaning, I would think, no 'point' lights. So the lights have a surface area. IES? You are right, they don't say. But why the hell not, with so much existing IES data available. It would be a stupid oversight. But coming from the software world, its possible. Do they support IES Distribution, IES Sun, IES Sky or other Sky distributions (CIE, etc)? I've never had IES sky data. That sounds interesting--where can I find that? The part of all this that is so nice sounding to me is the 'few parameters' part. Lightscape is such a joy to use because you have to tell it only a few bits about a light and the materials in the space and it just works and looks right. No falloffs, no map sizes, self-shadow biases, etc. Pass the Koolade! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 4, 2005 Share Posted January 4, 2005 Ernest your right about the 'few parameters' part sounding good, if it is like lightscape then that would simplify things quite a bit. I don't know about you but I'm tired of the endless tweaking I have to do with programs like Vray or Final Render. I would love to see a program that could take some of the guess work out of lighting and really give you a good quality image with very little tweaking. If it could do that and was stable then I might be able to see past the no free demo issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackb602 Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 I agree that having few parameters and physically accurate results is very tempting, even if it means longer render times. In the larger 3d/cg world, this seems to horrify some people because it takes away choices from the illustrator. If you're working on visual effects for a movie, that makes sense; you would want your tools to be as flexible as possible to get the precise results you want. Those effects often have nothing to do with the real world, which is part of what makes them so fascinating. The crucial difference in architecture is that, for better or worse, we're stuck with the physical world as it is, and the properties of light and materials in that world. I know there are a wide range of "cheats" for global illumination that will make renderings look better, but I'm more interested in understanding how light will really behave in a built space. So rather than "fixing" a scene by adding fill lights for example, I want to "fix" the design so that it makes the most of natural light. The main reason I'm interested in Maxwell is that it seems to handle the subtleties of natural light more accurately than any other renderer I've seen. I'm really looking forward to getting my hands on the Cinema 4D version when it's ready. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rivoli Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 I know there are a wide range of "cheats" for global illumination that will make renderings look better, but I'm more interested in understanding how light will really behave in a built space. So rather than "fixing" a scene by adding fill lights for example, I want to "fix" the design so that it makes the most of natural light. Jack true, if you are an architect (which means arch visualization is not your job), the idea of having an accurate tool to simulate (or maybe to simulate is not the rught verb in a maxwell context, let's say to demonstrate or prove) the actual distribution and behavior of light will be really appealing. as you said, you can concentrate on the design, but once you solved the "light problem" (maxwell will do the trick) you sholud start dealing with materials for instance (not mentioning the 3d model itself). materials in a digital world mean shaders, algorithms, approssimations in terms of specular values, highlight values diffuse values and so on. light will act in different ways on different surfaces, giving to the space of your architecture different looks depending on a huge amount of factors (even a cloudy sky). i don't think one can count on maxwell to achieve photorealism. photorealism is a matter of choices, when you take a photo you make a lot of choices in terms of exposure, contrast and so on. you don't have the real thing before you eyes, but a representation of this thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackb602 Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 true, if you are an architect (which means arch visualization is not your job) Well, I actually am an architect that has started an architectural visualisation firm, but I know what you mean. So I'm using 3d software mainly as a production tool for my clients, but also for my own architectural projects. And a client isn't necessarily going to be interested in accurately showing how a project will look in the real world, which is why I will still rely on "biased" renderings for much of my work. I still have a great interest in using accurate renderings as a way to study unbuilt space. And I agree that there is no single "correct" rendering for a given space. But there are general lighting conditions that require specific architectural responses. For example, Juha Leiviska's work in Finland is intimately tied to the quality of light in that part of the world. At the other extreme is the Patkaus' response to the intense sun of Houston. Not all architects share this interest, but I think it's one of the most important qualities of any building. You're also right that photography is still just another a representation of a space, but a good photo will capture that space in a convincing way. No tool I've seen can really represent the full range of light as well as the way the eye perceives it, and I don't think I'd want such a tool anyway. But the more accurately and completely a renderer can capture all this information, the more valuable it is to me. Jack Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ismael Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 I agree with Alex in all his statements. They state they are working with universities etc. to validate the photometric and radiometric results and also that MXI format and the promise of a viewer. From all this "working on this and that" I would think they should have included in the Alpha at least a way to query Illumination at a point, and at at least some examples using some "real luminaires". Maybe they have and I am not aware of it... I've yet to see why there are so many so excited about Maxwell. Don't get me wrong, if they deliver something that surpasses Lightscape and anything more than that provided by Viz4 onwards I'll jump in too even if I will have to pay 2 times the alpha price. Regards, Ismael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 One question I have is what are Maxwells capabilities going to be with regards to using distributed rendering. Everyone knows that one of the biggest drawbacks to using GI or Radiosity is the time it takes to do the calculations, that's why distributed bucket systems were created. The Maxwell site says that the program can "exploit all the processors available on your system” and they use the example of an 8 processor system. I don't know anyone who has a workstation with 8 processors in it, so does that mean it can't use other computers to calculate the data? I think they need to provide much more detailed information on their web site for people to make an intelligent decision. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Trick Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 ...what are Maxwells capabilities going to be with regards to using distributed rendering... ATM you have to buy $395 licenses to be able to render on each 2 processors: these can be on the same or different machines. With the Maxwell rendermanager you can either assign a task to multiple machines (distributed rendering) or let each machine render one frame or task (sequential "network" rendering). When you are rendering a frame on ONE machine, there is the possibility to interupt the rendering after which you can start it again at a later time (The FPrime way). In a future release this will also be supported when doing distributed rendering on multiple machines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Devin Johnston Posted January 5, 2005 Share Posted January 5, 2005 So you have to buy a $400 license for every 2 processors you have? The program costs roughley $1000 doesen't it come with some processor licenses already? What about a render farm, if you have 100 slave machines are you going to have to spend $20,000 to set up Maxwell on all your computers just to net render, or are you saying that for distributed rendering it's an additional $400 for every 2 processors you wish to add? 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