[DELETED]

DELETED

[hyltom]

Ouch! This is painful.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[hyltom]

Personally, i find the quality very good (not far from beta, sometime better) but concerning the material editor, I 'm agree with you.

EDIT: Actually, what I hate the most is the interface of the softwares (Studio or material editor). For sure there is no designer to handle this part. It's a shame...even Microsoft product are more user friendly.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Fernando Tella]

You have a material wizard for that.

[juan]

Hi all,

Wizards are further improved for the next update, which will be focused in achieve the best workflow possible. You will be able to create clipmaps, car paint, ags..etc..with just one click.

Juan

[Fernando Tella]

That sounds goood.

[devista]

Hi all,

Wizards are further improved for the next update, which will be focused in achieve the best workflow possible. You will be able to create clipmaps, car paint, ags..etc..with just one click.

Juan

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Burkhard]

one click? that's great! with 60000000000345544 possible materials this measn only 60000000000345544 clicks

seriously...somehow the wizard materials don't look like the good old beta materials right now what am i doing wrong? end of seriously

when can we expect this update? more or less i mean..a month..several months..after world war 3?

...after world war three we just need not more than a few Materials

[Joss]

Beta produces much more quality images.

[Mihai]

No, it doesn't.

Try at least to give the material editor a chance, it's not more complicated than dealing with other material making procedures in other software, most of the time it's easier. Besides it gives you the chance to make materials (that do exist) which just couldn't be done with the beta.

Just take the time and learn what each of the components of a bsdf layer do....there's not that many.

[morbid angel]

I dont usually post, but I wanted to voice my opinion here. When beta was around, maxwell gallery was filled with images stunning to the eye. Even today I look at them and they are fantastic. I am yet to see such images from any of the versions other then beta, including 1.0.

Simply put: an image is worth a thousand words. There is a thousand words on this forum, but no image.

[Joss]

No, it doesn't.

Sorry Mihai, but it is. Usually i don't buy software on my own money, and the fact, i've spent some on this program means something, at least for me. I clearly see difference between beta images and new ones. It's very subtle, but this is difference between "very nice GI image" and "photorealistic image". When first images was posted by Mike(i believe it was Mike), there was clear difference between them. One was "photo-like", and other was very CG'ish. Someone substracted one image from another, and the difference was more obvious.

Try at least to give the material editor a chance, it's not more complicated than dealing with other material making procedures in other software, most of the time it's easier. Besides it gives you the chance to make materials (that do exist) which just couldn't be done with the beta.

With beta i don't have to give some "material editor" a chance. It was working nice with default ones. And maybe i could create many more new materials with new material editor, but i don't like to. Cause it's senseless to create materials for non-photorealistic renderer, i know dozen of other renderers that will produce similar image with many more features that needed in real production.

To be honest, i didn't ever opened studio since release, after doing some tests. It's useless for me. Just waste of money, time and hopes.

PS: And i'm agree with Dmitry.