[nicole]

Of course all Maxwell license holders (whether V1.x or V2) would still be allowed to post in the Maxwell forum.

Cheers!

Nicole

[Luca_Studioaltieri]

still no news on sunlight thru glass or have I missed that ?

i think we can extract "indirect" news... exactly when we are watching images of v2 showing caustics or shadows casted by rough glass.
about glass and sun i'm thinking in very positive way about V2..

[def4d]

Seeing Nicole, i thought you were annoucing something big, though it's a nice news at less for me

[nicole]

Sorry!

[zdeno]

so when this service pack 2 will finally arrive ?

where all "those not so good things" are finally repaired (fixed) ?

bump, SPEED, rough glass, colors of strong emitters, RGB>Spectral conversion, normal mapping, metal shaders, hdr enviroments with small sun point, SSS with one face, even materials system will give possibility to make ANY shaders BUT it is all better now, not NEW - I HAVE already paid for that!

New are IES so price of V2 should be extremelly low then

[simmsimaging]

With some of the last improvements - especially IES and that HDRI improvement - I'm starting to get tempted to upgrade..... Not sure yet, but this looks to be a great release so far.
b

Well, I think you will have to update... After all, you will be really jealous when you read the render times and when you see the new materials in action...

Well, I pretty much render everything in Vray these days.... so I doubt the render times will make me too jealous, even with the upgrade

I think the new materials look promising though. I really do miss the Maxwell material system - so much simpler, and with layers should be even easier to setup complex materials. Wonder if they will be accessible with Node Joe?

b

[corneliu]

With some of the last improvements - especially IES and that HDRI improvement - I'm starting to get tempted to upgrade..... Not sure yet, but this looks to be a great release so far.
b

Well, I think you will have to update... After all, you will be really jealous when you read the render times and when you see the new materials in action...

Well, I pretty much render everything in Vray these days.... so I doubt the render times will make me too jealous, even with the upgrade

I think the new materials look promising though. I really do miss the Maxwell material system - so much simpler, and with layers should be even easier to setup complex materials. Wonder if they will be accessible with Node Joe?

b

You have a nice Portfolio.
With all the post you do to your work I see why you don't need realistic rendering.

[simmsimaging]

Thanks.... I think.....

In my experience Vray is quite capable of images as realistic as Maxwell. Perhaps mine don't show it that well, but I think it's still true, with a few minor exceptions perhaps - although with a lot more expertise required.

The real beauty of Maxwell is not it's realism, it's the easiness of the process of achieving that realism. YMMV.

b

[Asmithey]

Actually, after seeing your portfolio, I had to run to fridge and grab a beer! Your images made freaking thirsty

Nice work!

Aaron

[mverta]

I must admit I'm always stunned when people can't see the difference between Maxwell and, really, anything else. A bad render is a bad render, but in the hands of an expert, there's no missing the difference.


_Mike

[Fernando Tella]

Well Mike, I think the difference can be seen, but sometimes that difference is not needed. If you have to make an image for an advertisement you could use Maxwell, Vray, watercolors, acrylic paint, scanner, photographic material,... You just have to use the right tool for your job.

[mverta]

What does that have to do with anything? Yes, if you're putting on a puppet show, Maxwell isn't much use to you. We're talking about the photoreal quality of "photoreal" rendering engines. Maxwell is the best today, in ways that to me seem really pronounced. If your goal isn't photorealism, then use anything you want. Among photoreal approaches, Maxwell's strengths show up right in the render in ways other engines don't. But there's a philosophical difference, too: Some people, either because of hardware or time, can't afford to use Maxwell. Other's can't afford not to. It just depends on the level of quality you're after.


_Mike

[Fernando Tella]

I think you are right if you are strictly after photorealism; Maxwell is the easiest and best quality. When you can deviate a bit from photorealism other engines can excel at reducing rendertime at the cost of that deviation.

You may say that those deviations from photorealism are what steals quality in the end; I don't think it's always true; sometimes it is, and really makes the difference, but sometimes it's better to change some aspects of what would be "real" to make it more convenient to your porpouses and get a better quality result. Meaning with "quality" not photoreal quality but artistic quality.

I don't think we should consider photoreal quality alone as the main porpouse. There are a lot of determining factors that make your work A quality and sometimes photoreal quality is not even in the list.

On the other hand NL is making the best photorealistic tool which is the intended goal. I think we agree on that.

[def4d]

What about NL paints?

Edit : i meant Holland photorealism paints

[simmsimaging]

If you have the time you can do it in Vray, Mental Ray, or Maxwell or whatever. The quality is the same IMO and in the tests I have done for myself. I've seen quite the few plasticky and crap renders done in Maxwell though, and the things that make Vray faster are the things that make it look less real out of the box. If you turn on all the bells and whistles it's just as "real", and can be nearly as slow as Maxwell. It's really about where you want/can spend your time and how much you have.

That all said, this is mostly an old and really unprovable argument though, so really it's a waste of time - and you know it better than I Mike
b