andyboy wrote:I own both VfR and Maxwell as well. I'm a bit new to both, but have been doing renderings for years with other software. I'm getting nice results from VfR, but have yet to get an image from Maxwell that didn't have an unacceptable amount of noise. The two images posted above show the power of Maxwell, but one is noisy, and the other took 2.5 hours to render! Is it just me, or is it absurd for so simple a scene to take so long to render? I am an industrial designer and I am always pressed for time. My clients don't want to pay a ton of money for images of their projects, so time is a real concern. I can't afford to wait 2.5 hours for a render to finish, especially if (as often happens) I discover I don't like a particular material or I messed something up.
If I can't figure out a way to do faster renderings I may have to consider the possibility of abandoning Maxwell. $500 down the drain....
Fast speed in Vray (or any) actually means "
no reflective caustics" ... and this in return means not true photorealism. Basically what you are saying is that Vray is giving you good enough "illustrations".
If your eyes cannot distinguish the difference between 95% and 99% of realism then Maxwell was never the tool for you in the first place. (its a virtual photography / light simulator)
Also, ultimately, there is no such thing as slow render ... it is a matter of CPU horsepower... and ultimately hardware cost.
The deal about Maxwell speed is known (due to its use of more rigorous lighting algoritms) ... and has been known since november 2004, when the first testers made their first comments. I knew about the Maxwell speed before even pre-ordering it (even back then). People buying Maxwell now have no excuse that it is $500 down the drain due to speed. Also as NL promised back then ... speed has increased over the early alphas to several hundred percent (at least 400% or 4x).