Maxwell Render | Official public forum

OK, can someone point me in the right direction. How to adjust the MW FIRE window resolution in RHino 5 (64)

THanks,

It works no differently in Rhino 5 than in Rhino 4 -- there is the resolution of what is actually rendered, controlled by the Quality setting in the Maxwell Fire window's right-click menu, and then there is the size of the Maxwell Fire window: the rendered image is stretched to fit the window. I'm not sure about what you mean, though, so just let me know if this helps or not.

I just needed to grab the corner of the window and drag it ! I though I remembered Rhino 4 right clicking and typing pixel dimensions.

Oh well.

Thanks JD

JDHill wrote:It works no differently in Rhino 5 than in Rhino 4 -- there is the resolution of what is actually rendered, controlled by the Quality setting in the Maxwell Fire window's right-click menu, and then there is the size of the Maxwell Fire window: the rendered image is stretched to fit the window. I'm not sure about what you mean, though, so just let me know if this helps or not.

Hi JD,
resolution to me is a far more telling value than the word quality.
Was it maybe possible to somewhere sneak in the display of resolution too?

I don't know, because while it's technically true that it controls the resolution of the pixels rendered, I think there are a couple of reasons why it could be bad to call it that:

1. What does resolution=5 mean?
2. Since the rendered resolution gets stretched to fit the fire window or Rhino viewport, it's not actually the resolution you see.

So, I called it Quality, for those reasons, and because it works here pretty much how it does in Studio, and that's what Studio calls it. To serve the purpose intended -- that of being preview tool -- one should not necessarily care, or need to be aware, of the actual resolution that's being rendered. This is the rationale behind it, anyway, so please let me know your thoughts.

JDHill wrote:

1. What does resolution=5 mean?

Here I rather had expected some pixel values

I actually wasn't aware (or couldn't remember) that raising quality equals
higher res (there were a lot of other factors thinkable which could impact quality).
Resolution is in so far great as it's immediately understandable, not of so many abstract parameter as Benchmark
or Sampling level.

JDHill wrote:[*]Since the rendered resolution gets stretched to fit the fire window or Rhino viewport, it's not actually the resolution you see.[/list]

That makes sense, unfortunately.
That said: Every Photoshop user will still extract more information from knowing that that he's actually looking at a 320px/160px image, (just stretched to size of a hand)
than just from an abstact number. No big issue at all though.