Everything related to Maxwell Render and general stuff that doesn't fit in other categories.
choo-chee wrote:
Wed Jul 11, 2018 10:10 am
judging from facebook posts made by NL it appears the company is into autonomous vehicles now .... less into rendering.
What a lot of nonsense. Seems they've lost it.

Since you've been around a long time choo-chee, what would be your state of the art renderer suggestions for industrial designers that need to migrate away from MR, see my comment with software mentions above; OBJ transfer of files would suffice; I checked out Redshift, but that does not work with design software or OBJs.
I don’t know any integrated renderer for Solidworks except Keyshot. I don’t understand why you don’t want to use a DCC software?!? IMHO it would make the most sense to me in terms of dependency etc.

Here’s two examples of 2 product designers I know:

Import native files into 3ds Max - use any render engine for Max

Siemens NX
Export step - Import in 3ds Max
Export iges - Importing 3ds Max/Cinema 4D
Using Okino PolyTrans|CAD+DCC Translation System

Check this links:
http://help.autodesk.com/view/3DSMAX/20 ... 62C5AE0B32
https://www.maxon.net/en/products/workf ... -exchange/

3ds Max can import the Alias wire format, Solidworks files and NX files.
Keyshot renderings just look awful, from what I see from colleagues, and proper photo studio illumination as well as grass, flowers or other assets that occasionally need to be added, are a pain or just not working with Keyshot. I think it's more of a millennial one-click quick-fix tool, not really photographic, like industrial designers want to have it.

Possibly migrating dozens of users is already a painful, but then introducing yet another intermediary software between industrial design softwares and whatever renderer will not work; that means learning not only a new renderer but also that intermediary software. In larger workgroups, this would be neigh on impossible to justify in front of management.

Having designers outputting OBJ files from Alias, NX or Rhino, importing them into MR Studio, then rendering - it was and is a swift and easy process, as far as the operating methodology is concerned. That is why I am looking for renderers that allow the same simple workflow, so only a new renderer must be evaluated and learnt.
keyshot is excellent but for products not for nature or architecture ; and every render engine have unique features.
if i have studio i will use many render engines maxwell for top quality ; other render engines for acceptable and quick renders
the problem of maxwell now is the slow developement compared to other render engines and the team don't listen to the users requests .
there are hundreds of request since years and some of them are easy to added in studio; if the developpers listen we will see a better version of maxwell.
now : slow development ; no plugins update since long time (no new developers) ; give up some softwares ....; no new features after months of waiting just fixing some bugs , and the big problem they don't listen to users.
I don't think Keyshot is good for products, the renderings don't look filmic or photographic and importing and working with external assets, whether plants, furnitures, books or other props that are essential in product scenography today is a pain in Keyshot or not possible. Maxwell Render Studio was by far the best in an industrial and product design environment, if only it would not have grossly fallen behind in speed and features (define a constant grid and then snap to it - so simple, but no chance; using IES files for today's LED illuminants - so basic, but no chance). Maxwell Render Studio really could have been something.

Do you have some non-keyshotted suggestions?

Redshift ain't working with OBJs. Vray doesn't really work like a photographer thinks and feels just overwhelming.
I think we shouldn't compare Maxwell and Keyshot. They have completely different purpose ..
Keyshot is god for what it was designed for - quick and dirty viz - and, requests for those quick and dirty shots and way more often than it should be.
Yup - these days are the days of "NOW" so the faster it is - the more preferable. At least on the first stage. Because everyone is always in constant rush.

When we do product design - clients usually would like to see quite a lot of renders in extremely short time span - so there is no time to start up the Maxwell. You use Keyshot only in those cases when your pencil sketch is worse than what you could possibly pull out of the Keyshot in few minutes.

What I've meant by stating that Studio as quite unnecessary as a standalone product - I've meant for those of us who uses Maxwell as a plugin. For sure if studio is your only way to Maxwell render then - it is a fairly good tool to use. But if you work in Maya, Max . .Cinema .. you don't really need it . .as it can't offer anything that you wouldn't already have in your DCC.
That's what I've meant.

Like it or not it is always going to be speed VS quality. And not in every case speed is preferable. Once you approve the concept - it is absolutely fine to invest some time (or render farm credits) to fire-up a beautiful render.

And, let's be honest ... if you're doing in Maxwell something for yourself ... like I do those lightsabers, for instance .. you don't have a deadline ... or budgets .. or clients .. so you can afford yourself to set up an overnight rendering.
Then if you're working for a client and they can't wait that long - man, invest few euros on Ranch and get your image in half an hour. It is absolutely worth it.

But what rally beautiful about Maxwell .. is that it makes us think more before we start rendering. Remember how it was with painters. To paint something it might take you half a day, sometimes a week. So you would choose really carefully what you going to paint. In comparison snap a pic is just a tap away so you don't really invest much thinking into what you are shooting. Same with fast rendering.

That's a very unique thing that not many of us realise, but I believe that Maxwell's approach - makes us better artists. And that's invaluable.
Nasok wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:45 am
I think we shouldn't compare Maxwell and Keyshot. They have completely different purpose
I'm not saying I want to compare them. Since Keyshot is awful, I am searching for an alternative to Maxwell Render for all our users.
Nasok wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 7:45 am
For sure if studio is your only way to Maxwell render then - it is a fairly good tool to use
For Creo, Alias, Catia, NX and SolidWorks users, Maxwell Render Studio is the only tool, for lack of plug-ins ; )

I looked at Redshift as suggested above and the quality was superb, but no plug-in for industrial design and product design software : (

So, the search continues...
Redshift is okay .. but very limited.
But I do understand the necessity of a fast solution. IN my case, I use Maxwell when I can afford it to myself (When I have time / money) when I need to rush - I use Arnold.
Its approach to rendering is the closest I found.

It is also not really fair to praise the quality of one render engine and speed of another. If you would want to sacrifice quality in exchange of speed - then Maxwell might not be the best solution for you.
In fact there is unlikely an answer to your search that you would like. The truth is that users of all those apps (Solidworks, Rhino, Catia, Alias studio, and etc) they are designers .. product designers, industrial designers .. maybe even engineers ... but not visual artists. They are not visualisers. They need tools to design. To develop the shape and how it is going to work. It is not their job to visualise.
That is why there is no much practical reasons to invest time to develop the tools that are unlikely to be used.

On the other side - There should be a solution for those users of those CAD apps. Maybe like a some sort of "Bridge" to a visualising platform.
Right now what we do is that we have a product / industrial designers to create the design and we have a separate visualisers to bring that design to a client-facing visuals. So designers - design. Visualisers - visualise.
Nasok wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 10:32 am
They are not visualisers. They need tools to design. To develop the shape and how it is going to work. It is not their job to visualise.
Sorry, I strongly disagree, from first-hand experience. The 80s and 90s are over, where designers packaged what engineers prepared and where artists airbrushed what designers designed.

A designer in a Tier-1 company is a visualiser. A designer in an external design studio needs to be a visualiser. A designer-maker must be a visualiser.

Tom Ford rightly said already many years ago that today's designer must be a generalist, a director of life. The future belongs to the T-shaped industrial and product designer, as Don Norman re-iterated, not the navel-gazing specialist.
So you're expecting your lawyer to be your dentist also ?
For sure - generalists .. it is when you can do lot of things but none of them are mastered.
You can start being a generalist but if you want to master something you need to narrow down your focus.
Imagine you have 100% of your skills / attention / dedication - you would invest 25% in concepting, another 25 in designing, then another 25 in visualising, and to finish the circle another 25% in presenting (selling) .. that is great if you're going to be cheap and aim for a low quality ...
If you dedicate yourself to design you .. for sure can think about how it wold be visualised later .. and about possible light solutions and materials and etc, but without mastering visualising on the same level as design - you will always fail to deliver the top quality images.
Visualising means studying the light, the photography, the composition, the colour theory, the light / colour mixing ... in fact studying and mastering those might take you much longer than studying design ... you can study both of course ... sacrificing quality of both.
Nasok wrote:
Wed Jul 18, 2018 11:16 am
So you're expecting your lawyer to be your dentist also ?
No, for that analogy amounts to nothing but whataboutism.

The simple truth is, for many years, MR Studio actually was a competitive solution for industrial and product designers; easy to understand (still is), easy to use (still is). Then, competitive solutions emerged that delivered the same look at a far greater speed. No surprise the forums here hardly see any good interaction anymore, they're nearly dead.
I think forums are quiet because of different reason.
What you're picking up here is just a surface of the problem ... and it is childish to blame the developers.
Maxwell never was the fastest render engine. Not then, not now and it never will be. Maxwell is here not for the speed. It's here for the quality which is second to none. Still. Pretty much unmatched.

If you can't afford it to yourself, if you can't manage client's expectations and your team's project time - that's another question. Maxwell is not fast, but what's more important it's accurate. It delivers the great quality images. Need speed - use render farm.
It is better than getting your images faster but being unable to increase the quality. If other render engines, deliver satisfactory quality for you - then I see no point of being here.
Maxwell is not the cheapest engines out there. Some of the engines are even free.

We all here because we value accuracy and quality of this render engine. If that is not the case then "we" are just finding excuses to our procrastination in learning a different software and trying to blame the developers that they are "not catching up" with the rest of the world.
I think NextLimit is very unique company, it is not easy to do the things they do and also hear such feedbacks from community.
  • 1
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8

Hey guys, I'm recently been tasked with some look […]

Andreas is right - FIRE preview doesn't really sho[…]

Let's talk about Maxwell 5.2

We have planned a 5.1.2 patch for September, but[…]

4K Support not working

Oops. Sorry, I opened V4 not V5. The latter fits i[…]