Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Are there plans for implementing photorealistic and physically accurate water volumes as opposed to just materials. Or both?

Example is, you create a box and apply the shader and the volume of the box is calculated according to real world properties. ie fog, occlusion, color differences.

If not being done so already, I truly believe this is worth exploring!

This is a good idea, i been thinking about the same myself but i never got to the stage of posting it here. But i think you're right tho, they will most likely implement this as Maxwell just gotta have a good connection with Realflow. That i think is a given
For all those nice looking underwater shots this feature would kick ass!

/ Max

Yes! Another robust addition to the most accurate 3D renderer ever built.
Its only getting better and better!

This could be an good use for Volumetric and Topologic Procedurals for Materials

As Oscar said, "Maxwell will handle procedural texture and geometry, but these features will only be avalaible with the stand alone interface." Now we must wait to see what it can look like within maxwell

Im all for procedurals. Procedurals, in every case, are key to truly natural and photorealistic materials that may possible be controlled one day on an interactive level, proving a strong ground for future computer game markets.

Again, Im all for procedurals!!

Rather than make a new thread on water, I'll just add to this one. Victor posted this info:

"18 feb 2005
..there are plans to make realistic water shader.
Particle rendering is almost ready, a dielectric material works nice but we will investigate an exact water material."

The quote above came from this thread:

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4860

The latest build of the Dreamscape plugin for 3dsmax has an excellent water shader. It uses turbidity control with SSS to give a very realistic water color with volume/depth falloff.

Since the Maxwell sky has turbidity & Maxwell shaders have SSS now, maybe these could be implemented/combined into a realistic Maxwell water shader fairly easily?

I disagree. Although bump maps on dieletric materials are considerable in my opinion, textures as you stated would be destructive to the nature and selling point of this product.

I beleive we should help in keeping Maxwell as physically accurate as possible. In the interesting case of NextLimits pipeline for Maxwell, render speed comes second when it comes to dealing with realism and accuracy. Well, maybe speed is somewhere in the middle if you will.

I strongly think the less visual trade off for speed in such a unique product as this one the better...For sure!

Am I alone in my argument?

Beers,

Paul W.
3D Visual FX & Animation

tokiop wrote:This could be an good use for Volumetric and Topologic Procedurals for Materials

As Oscar said, "Maxwell will handle procedural texture and geometry, but these features will only be avalaible with the stand alone interface." Now we must wait to see what it can look like within maxwell

It looks like it can't do it...

really def4d? this is like the fourth or fifth ooooold thread you've bumped today. look, i get it, there are features you want that haven't happened and probably won't ever happen (i wanted them too! ).

but it's kind of an a**hole move to remind everyone of this today when we're maybe getting a little enjoyment from the announced speed-up of renderings in 2.0, which is definitely the *main* thing all of us have been waiting for.

and... be careful what you wish for. remember when we were all excited about displacement... then when we got it and tried to use it.... even the strongest render boxes were brought to their knees!!

anyway, i'll be soooo happy to get faster/cleaner renders. that'd be more than enough to make me forget all about procedural clouds/dirt/water volumes, etc.

I've just bumped facts, sorry dudes
I'm not happy with announcements, especially when they're about a release i'll have to pay for, i consider procedurals should have been here for a long time...
I don't plan to buy Maxwell 2.0, i mean it's a joke

Let's just try to wait def4d and see all the announcements have first and then make a decision if it's worth it or not, it's too early now to say if it will suck or rule. I won't be able to afford the upgrade cost anyways so i'm no matter what stuck with 1.7.1 so for me it doesn't matter either way. It's just interesting to see what they been doing all this time. Honestly my hopes were not high but this first reveal shows promise for future reveals.. and i do hope they have alot more up their sleeve for us.

/ Max

I'm considering free 3D solutions, installing Blender yesterday evening, i've just discovered LuxRender for example, and on the paper it seems it JUST does those things Maxwell CAN'T do.
I don't think i'll have Maxwell realistic results with it, but i look for flexibility in my tools, life in their communities, hope in the developpement curve, and seeing that even a free renderer can do it is just crazy.
I'm patient, but the limit is the reason...

No bad words here, just my thoughts

it JUST does those things Maxwell CAN'T do

How exactly do you know what Maxwell Version 2 can and can't do after 1 announcement? Take Magnus' advice and wait for more announcements. What you got with version 1 wasn't perfect, but it was certainly the best for what it was meant to be (rendered photorealism through accurate light distribution). Now as far as bringing up these old posts with hints of future features from developers, have you ever paused to think that maybe they stopped commenting on future features because of these types of reactions? So, in essence, you and those like you who make these "you promised us this feature" posts have destroyed any chance of open communication regarding future features because the mere mention of a feature by developers becomes a demand from you from that point forward. Great job!

aooowww Def4, you destroyed everything.. ahhrrgghh..

http://www.goear.com/listen/939484a/Sea ... he-Stooges

nice bump (displace?) Hervé