Everything related to Maxwell Render and general stuff that doesn't fit in other categories.
#397098
arcmos wrote:
Thu May 10, 2018 4:52 pm
or even Arnold (that is not bundled with Max and Maya)
Well, if you’re under maintenance or are a subscriber to one of the 3 collections, then you have access to Arnold. Check your Autodesk account. Rendernodes are NOT included. :wink:
My bad that was a type - this is exactly what I've meant.I am under a subscription for Maya. My point was that Maxwell is loved not because it is the fastest render engine or the only available. Absolutely not.

Well not sure about MODO but dropping support for software like Solidworks is in my opinion a very bad idea. I don't work in Solidworks but I know a few top level studios who does - they design truly prestigious fragrances and super popular FMCG products and they are a crazy fans of Maxwell. That would be a huge loss of a business for Nextlimit ...
and .. well . .quite a bunch of disappointed industrial / product designers :))

That is precisely what I was writing earlier here about. NL should clearly define where are they going and what would be their primary focus for Maxwell.
My bet would be do primary focus on Product / Arch Visualisation. And keeping that in mind dropping support for things like MODO .. yep maybe .. but stopping Solidworks - makes absolutely no sense.
#397100
Tea_Bag wrote: We have recently been told that future developemnts of plugins like MODO & Solidworks will be dropped. Will Next Limit reconsider to continue development? :(
Well, we are just developers, we don't decide those things. But I don't think this will be reconsidered unless something changes in the market. Solidworks being discontinued itself long time ago make it like impossible to be back on maxwell to me.
#397101
That is precisely what I was writing earlier here about. NL should clearly define where are they going and what would be their primary focus for Maxwell.
My bet would be do primary focus on Product / Arch Visualisation. And keeping that in mind dropping support for things like MODO .. yep maybe .. but stopping Solidworks - makes absolutely no sense.
I'm on the same page with you about focussing on Archviz and Productviz. But I think focussing on the most used DCC would also make sense. I doesn't make sense to support and develop a plugin for a couple users. I would concetrate on Max, Maya, C4D, Rhino and Sketchup.

@Next Limit
A survey about usage etc wouldn't be a bad idea 8)
#397110
Solidworks actually is hitting new records on selling and revenue (based on news on their website) .. Soo .. :roll: I don't know if they are discontinued itself - looks like they are doing fine.
But well ..
@arcmos - I totally agree regarding the plugins ... All I say is that even development of those plugins should have very sharp focus towards the chosen path. And if something is not really a necessity for the very best results in this industry but rather a "nice feature to play with" it only distracts both developers and users.

For Maya users it is very hard to appreciate the value that Maxwell studio brings, for instance.

Personally, I think that charging for connectivity plugins - is a bad idea. As Maxwell studio itself can't really "create anything" so no matter what industry you're from - you will be using your software and then approach Maxwell for visualising. So, technically, having "Studio" as a standalone piece of a software - is pretty .... unnecessary .. again .. in my opinion. And Charging for something that "is not a complete product" is .. well ... something that is hard for users to appreciate and definitely will not help to build loyalty.
I do understand that development of those plugins requires time (and investments) - and in order for NL to continue doing great products it has to earn more than it spends .. otherwise - well .. it won't last long right ? :)
I'm just saying maybe NL should name it a bit differently. Or, maybe re-pack or re-bundle it. This thing is probably something to think about, but again - it is not what should the first priority.
Because if you're making money with Maxwell - then it is not a problem to pay for stuff. Especially for studios - So, again, what is important is that to make sure that Maxwell has a sharp focus towards very specific tasks so that when Studios or freelancers decide on what tool they going to use - it would be a no brainer for them.

Cheers.
#397112
I agree that one of the things that almost killed maxwell is the new licensing system, as me too used maxwell in more than 1 3d app, even if only to swap models. and i never understood the need for studio. i think it consumes a lot of the devs energy while most of the users will never use it as 3d app is needed for creating the content and most of those users want full integration. hei, it's never too late to say "we were wrong" and change the system again.... i really think that reverting to previous licensing chart plus extended trial period for new users can change a lot. for me, denoiser made the shift from rendering a scene all over the weekend with 4 computers, to rendering it overnight with one. let others see it and get it, we want faster development, more online pre-made content, materials etc....
#397114
Very interesting and disturbing conversation. I love Maxwell Studio. I'm a new user and I use multiple 3d applications for different reasons and different purposes so Studio as a stand-alone renderer was the first choice --a no brainer for me. I'd hate to be limited to only one of my 3d applications in order to use Maxwell Render. Please don't get rid of Studio. :D
#397115
It all depends on your pipeline. Most studios, and even independents like myself, standardize their workflow. I can understand having Maxwell Studio be an integral part of that pipeline, but most are going to stick with the software package that they've settled on. I can work in 3DS Max or Maya (or Cinema 4D for that matter) but, for a variety of reasons, have standardized my workflow around a Maya pipeline. As much as I love Maxwell, and I really do, I find myself experimenting more and more with Arnold because of the tight integration. I would love to see Maxwell integrated that fully.

I have no problem with NL offering Maxwell Studio as a stand alone product, but I do think that if it's going to do more than their respective plugins are going to do, then it should be a package product.

Ideally I should never have to open Maxwell Studio or MXEd for that matter.
#397120
mjcherry wrote:It all depends on your pipeline. Most studios, and even independents like myself, standardize their workflow. I can understand having Maxwell Studio be an integral part of that pipeline, but most are going to stick with the software package that they've settled on. I can work in 3DS Max or Maya (or Cinema 4D for that matter) but, for a variety of reasons, have standardized my workflow around a Maya pipeline. As much as I love Maxwell, and I really do, I find myself experimenting more and more with Arnold because of the tight integration. I would love to see Maxwell integrated that fully.

I have no problem with NL offering Maxwell Studio as a stand alone product, but I do think that if it's going to do more than their respective plugins are going to do, then it should be a package product.

Ideally I should never have to open Maxwell Studio or MXEd for that matter.
I'm almost the same as you: sticking to maya, playing every now and then with another engine, and go back to maxwell :)
and yes, opening studio happens usually by mistake ;)
#397124
I understand the need of Maxwell studio ... back in the days. I believe it was designed to help set up lights (an materials) for those who uses CAD software rather than DCC. And it worked fine, I, personally knew, quite a few product designers who would do stuff in their Solidworks / Rhino systems and then export everything to studio for a beauty shot. However, these days - they tend to prefer "1 button solution" (read- Keyshot) - it is not even close to Maxwell's quality - but it is super fast and super simple.
Because in the end of the day - those who design products - they are not visualisers / photographers / rendering artists - and they will never be .. in fact most of them have no intentions to be. But in most cases they are asked to present their work - so - it is MUUUUUUCH easier for them use something where you can push a few buttons and get almost instant feedback .. so-so quality - but something that could be placed in their pitch or internal presentation .. and once the concept is sold - it is not their business anymore - all assets are send to professional visualisation studio / artists and those would do commercial beauty shots for Clients / Consumers.
Bottom line - those who use CAD (not DCC) they NEED a tool to visualise their creation - but they don't want to dig too much into the process - they want to spend as less time as possible in visualisation process and as much time as possible in the design process. That's why simple tools like keyshot do exist in their pipeline ... I never heard that anyone would say that they like images from key shot - but everyone says that it is easy to set up and render.

And that is unlike guys who uses DCC (Read - Digital Content Creation) software, like Maya, Max, etc. We do want to spend time in tinkering around for a prefect grain or interesting bokeh - this is our thing. We are visual artists, that's what we enjoy doing.

So, maybe ... just .. maybe - if there is a need for stand alone studio - maybe it should be stripped down version ... pretty much like a full screen "FIRE" engine with a few buttons to click and a library of materials to drag-n-drop. Easy to import your model. Navigate your virtual camera (simple one) and have a bunch of presets (HDRI studio environments, Skies, Materials, and maybe a hook for HDR Lightstudio) That is something that maybe even I would use just for the sake of speed and simplicity. That way you would have a faster, lighter and simpler version of Maxwell. Could be installed on laptops for quick "Prototyping".

That is something that I would like to have.
#397125
honestly if you kill maxwell studio you just put a final nail in the coffin on maxwell render. Its the only thing that makes sense.
They should just work the opposite, remove all these scattered plugins, focus on Maxwell Studio, 3ds Max, Maya. only.
plugins = resources, developers, and a lot of time. Maxwell is integrated in way too many apps. And its suffering on developing for the amount of time it takes to support all these others imo.

i rather have a maxwell studio fully capable of previz, fast, more polished, fire that works perfecty, multi gpu, everything perfect, than just 1000 plugins and slow development.
Maxwell studio is great tool, thinkin of havin that go away is just death of whole software imo.
#397126
For those not using max, or maya, say Sketchup for instance, the Maxwell plugin is fantastic and I would hate to see that disappear. Having to purchase a $3000 program to run Maxwell render is beyond a lot of people, even on monthly subs. I currently do not find Studio to be the friendliest of programs to use, but for Maxwell models I purchase, opening them up in Studio and changing materials/deleting lights in the scene to make them usable as references in Sketchup etc, Studio is invaluable. I think it could be a little more stable. I also think that maybe it should be bundled in with any given plugin instead of needing a separate license... Who knows, but maybe Next Limit have plans to expand the capabilities of Studio...???
#397127
Okay, I'm just going to throw it out there . . . Youtube content.

Most of my purchase decisions (on practically anything these days) stem from watching Youtube videos. I even buy stuff I didn't know I needed until I'd watched a bunch of Youtube videos. I purchased Substance Designer because of Youtube. I purchased Quixel because of Youtube. I purchased Marvelous Designer because of Youtube! I even get Sketchup plugins because of Youtube and not because of that Toolbox exchange thing . . . well, I have to get them from there but I learn about them on Youtube.

And, yes, there are those 3d applications that I purchased because I already knew about them, Maxwell being in this category. Specifically, I purchased Maxwell Render because I'd admired it from afar for a very long time and then one day Next Limit just happened to have this really great 2 for 1 sale (buy version 3 at a great price and get version 4 for free). So, I couldn't resist and I finally purchased Maxwell Render. Well, that and I was getting really annoyed with my previous renderer of choice, which shall remain ghosted. But, it all worked out because I've absolutely fallen in love with Maxwell. I think Studio can do quite a lot of stuff --it hasn't let me down yet.

As for Youtube: perhaps consider hiring someone just to do Youtube videos on a routine basis (monthly at the least; the more often the better). Most of the Maxwell content on Youtube is old and/or plugin specific and those often turn out to be more about the 3d application rather than the joy and depth of Maxwell Render. This is where Studio could play a role. It'll keep the focus squarely on Maxwell and it'll translate to the plugins easily. So, there you have it . . . Youtube. From a marketing standpoint it can do more than you might realize. Hey, it got me to spend money on products I didn't even know existed! :D

But, alas . . . maybe I'm weird. I think Studio is just . . . well, absolutely wonderful after all.
#397128
Totally agree on youtube content. It is a must have these days. Seriously. Plus it is a very good opportunity to showcase images and animations (rendered with Maxwell) outside Maxwell web gallery :)
Regarding studio - I don't have issues with it .. I just think if the chosen (by developers) path is focus on DCC then Maxwell studio is just a waste of their time and resources and maybe it should be stripped down to be much lighter and faster to grab (requiring less to no development effort)
However if developers would prefer to focus on CAD industry - then maybe it would be better to reduce the use of plugins and use them mainly as a "bridge" to transfer content into studio - that way they can focus on suit development as a standalone piece of software. ...
altho the history showed that if the software is not the first in the pipeline - it is better to make it as a plugin. as best as you can. Meaning if you're not creating anything in studio but rather using it as a tool to visualise something created somewhere else - then it is better to pick the main sources and adopt to them.
Unless you're making something completely new and unique.

Just saying. In the end of the day - Next Limit needs to make money. If they will not make money they will not be able to develop such products. IF they will have less money they will not be able to develop those products as fast as we wish they would. So in order to make money there should be a clear focus on the majority (or profitability) of a user group.

All I meant is that currently it feels like Maxwell is designed for everyone and for everything - which is maybe wrong. And once the priorities would be set and be straight and narrow focused - everything would start to make sense. Everything from plugin's functions to licensing models.
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 8
Let's talk about Maxwell 5.2

Features are closed and tested, we are testing plu[…]

Help Volume RED

I found that best way to assign a maxwell material[…]

Materials Library not working

Do you mean via web? Or on a particular software?

I'm writing a converter for curves from Houdini to[…]