[seco7]

well, yes, i'll bet

Sorry for threadjacking, but I'll take that bet also Oilivier.

[leoA4D]

Since the M~R offering included only V1, are we to understand that V1 will have a beta+/RS1+ engine and not be able to do sunlight thru glass? And, we will be expected to pay for V2/RS2 engine which may or may not be able to handle sunlight thru glass?

[mverta]

Guys -

I have a question:

I'm not an architectural visualization guy, so the whole sunlight+glass thing isn't as important to me, but I went back and looked over all the previous Maxwell features, and I don't see this having ever been specifically mentioned as a feature.

I guess it's something you might think would be in there, but most of you guys talk like it's the reason you bought the program, either because you assumed it, or it was promised as a feature. You certainly complain like it was. Assumptions aren't a good idea, and it's never been listed as a feature, so I'm just wondering why so many of you have the stance that it's the end-all-be-all feature.

It wasn't in there when you bought it, nor listed as a feature. So if it's this crucial feature, why did you buy Maxwell?

I would like to see an answer that doesn't involve you telling me how important it is to your work; but why you bought Maxwell without knowing if it could do this, and was never listed as a feature.

_Mike

[markps]

Well Sunlight through glass is not a feature.. It not working is a BUG. And a nasty bug.

Since SUNLIGHT itself it is suposed to be there. it not workign with glass is simply a broken feature.

Maxwell incorporates a physically-based sky simulator: the user simply specifies the geographical location and the time of day for a scene and Maxwell will automatically handle the rest. This physically-based sky model will also include and extension to simulate various atmospheric phenomena.

Guys -

I

I guess it's something you might think would be in there, but most of you guys talk like it's the reason you bought the program, either because you assumed it, or it was promised as a feature. Well, assumptions aren't a good idea, and it's never been listed as a feature, so I'm just wondering why so many of you have the stance that it's the end-all-be-all feature.
_Mike

[mverta]

If an engine has a limitation that's not a bug.

My car can't fly either. That's not bug. I just WANT it to. But the dealer never said it would, even though it would let me get around that freakin' Los Angeles traffic.

Try again.

_Mike

[leoA4D]

Numerous influences got me to buy in. One of those influences were NL's photo gallery with architectural viz images. And, I do not remember NL touting M~R as an industrial design or graphic design focused tool. It is reasonable to conclude that with arch viz images and NL courting arch viz, arch viz is a viable market for M~R and obviously sunlight and glass are natural components of arch viz.

My question to you: How come you are only now making these assertions and asking such a question? What is NL's official position re your question?

[markps]

That's semantics.

If you say something is supposed to work.. If you have a building with window glasses and it doesn't work.. you have to say. "Sunlight works but only in clay models" if you don't say a thing it is misleading.

[RedRaven]

surely an architectural rendering engine has to have a facility to allow light to pass through glass - if not whats the point of a physically based render engine when you have to fake it.

[markps]

It is like selling icecreams.. but you have to bring your own cone from home because the icecreams come with no cone or spoon..

Well a feature that doesn't work is the same as not having it. If you have to fake the sun in order for it to work you'll have to turn it off anyway.

surely an architectural rendering engine has to have a facility to allow light to pass through glass - if not whats the point of a physically based render engine when you have to fake it.

[mverta]

It is reasonable to conclude that with arch viz images and NL courting arch viz, arch viz is a viable market for M~R and obviously sunlight and glass are natural components of arch viz.

Assumption. A reasonable one, but an assumption. Not justification for entitled harangues and personal insults.

Next?


_Mike

And I don't know about NL's position on this; I'm asking this for me, partially because I'm geniunely curious, and partially because I've been reading rant posts about it for months, and I suddenly realized people were talking about it like they were promised it, and I don't see that anywhere.

[RedRaven]

It is like selling icecreams.. but you have to bring your own cone from home because the icecreams come with no cone or spoon..

Well a feature that doesn't work is the same as not having it. If you have to fake the sun in order for it to work you'll have to turn it off anyway.

surely an architectural rendering engine has to have a facility to allow light to pass through glass - if not whats the point of a physically based render engine when you have to fake it.

thats a perfect anology

[mverta]

That's semantics.
.

Incorrect. It was never listed as a feature.

Next?

_Mike

[markps]

Pick me! Pick me!

Next?

[RedRaven]

That's semantics.
.

Incorrect. It was never listed as a feature.

Next?

_Mike

over the past 10 months i have read page after page of debate about how to get sunlight to pass correctly through glass -- why didn't NL simple say don't bother 'sunlight through glass is not and will not be a feature'

[dd_]

ok so they cant fix it and now they saying it was never mentioned in the features list, BUT you gave us a sun system and a glass material that couldnt work together and nowhere was it mentioned that it would. so if it cant be fixed atleast say " it cant be fixed sorry" why are you now attacking the clients with the assumptions bit
we took it as a fact that both the elements would work together


sorry for the rant but i do think this is an odd approach to take here