- Tue Nov 08, 2011 8:43 pm
#349297
I understand that you've gotten used to Max instances being treated as Maxwell instances. In hindsight, it was probably an error on our part to introduce this feature despite the problems. As I said above, no other engine (that I know of) does this, everybody renders instances as copies of the original, precisely because of how badly they are implemented in Max. How big is the impact of having the instanced objects render as clones in your cases? What is the limiting factor, the memory used during rendering, the export time, the disk space taken by the MXS, or something else?
It wasn't about broken or inaccurate motion blur, it was about broken instances. Max has a habit of taking two completely different objects and telling us one is an instance of the other, especially when working with data imported from CAD programs. This issue kept coming up, with customers asking us why they were getting screwed up renderings, and us telling them to disable instancing. The motion blur complications are an added bonus; it's possible to make it work, but it would have taken longer to implement and the plug-in would have become harder to maintain and extend.
In the end, we can probably add the feature back, but it would take a significant effort. I'd like to understand how big the issue is for people who were used to the old behavior, especially since at some point we made the "Export Max instances as Maxwell instances" option disabled by default, and nobody complained then.