[mverta]

just curious but who in thier right mind wouldnt think that a unbiased renderer would have a glass window that doesnt allow the sunlight through

yes thats some logic you have got

Again, you continue to justify the assumption, because of how REASONABLE it is.

And you're right! It's reasonable! But if you're purchasing something, and a particular feature is CRUCIAL to you, and you don't check first, that's on you!

You'd be well within your right to say how stupid it is that it doesn't work, but not to call people liars, and theives, and criminals, and as*holes, and douchebags, and child f*ckers, and everything else I've seen or seen deleted in the past months. And no, not all of you have said this, but many people talk like they spent $400 on Maxwell because it promised this feature, and so it's deception.

_Mike

[ajlynn]

You actually used the word assumption. For the 5th time, I agree it's a reasonable assumption, but assumptions aren't wise places to make purchases from, nor strong places to launch entitled rants about.

Good swing, though...

_Mike

This is the lamest thread I've seen here that actually involved a moderator. Are you serious Mike? Or have you gotten sick of the forum and are taking a devil's advocate position for fun. This line of reasoning is beneath you, unless of course you're practicing so you can run for Congress.

[mverta]

it is NOT an assumption
This issue ( and others) is already fixed in the experimental versions of the engine that we are developing now. We are working to stabilize this engine and provide it to you in next releases of Maxwell.

Raven, you are wrong, but close to being right. You're assuming the experimental version referred to is RS1+.... next "releases" not "release" necessarily


_Mike

[dd_]

i didnt nor do i think it was a feature in a unbiased based on real physics renderer sorry but this has to be a saturday joke on us

just doesnt make sense in the way you are reacting to such a logical thing
and no i didnt assume, nor did i assume it would be ready when they said

this doesnt make sense at all sorry


and i for one have not called anyone anything on any thread (apart from m8)

[mverta]

Again- how can Maxwell be physically accurate if glass and sunlight don't interact in a physically accurate manner?

adehus -

You've made a great arguement for how this might be "stupid" as far as architectural visualization guys are concerned (I don't care, myself), but again, I never said you guys weren't make a "reasonable" assumption, but why since it's' just an assumption you talk like it was a broken promise.

And I STILL haven't seen the answer to that question. Man, if I needed that, I sure would've found out before shelling out $400 bucks!!!

_Mike

[markps]

Fixed in 1.0... what is this then?

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... highlight=

[rivoli]

come on mike. sunlight trough glass doesn't have to be listed as a feature as much as a the capacity of a reflective shader to actually reflect the surronding scene. and quite apart from this sunlight and glass used to work, somehow.
this is one of my first maxwell renders, that patch of light at the bottom right is sunlight actually passing trough a glass window:



this one is another alpha one, you can clearly see sunlight at the bottom of the "pool":

[RedRaven]

it is NOT an assumption
This issue ( and others) is already fixed in the experimental versions of the engine that we are developing now. We are working to stabilize this engine and provide it to you in next releases of Maxwell.

Raven, you are wrong, but close to being right. You're assuming the experimental version referred to is RS1+.... next "releases" not "release" necessarily


_Mike

so am i right in 'assuming' that although it doesnt work now or in RC5 or even version 1 we will get the 'feature' in a future release as part of this purchase - as Juan, in the qoute above, says, "...provide it to you in next releases of Maxwell"

[mverta]

Fixed in 1.0... what is this then?

I didn't say it was or wasn't fixed at all! I was asking about the justification for months of some of the most dispicably disrespectful communication and personal injury I've seen in awhile. I love when people talk about how NL is so disrespectful so they're going to be just as bad as though the two wrongs make a right. Especially since I seem to get sweeped up in it.

_Mike

[Frances]

Mike, you're kind of painting yourself into a corner here.

Maxwell is a new render engine based on the physics of real light. Its algorithms and equations reproduce the behavior of light in a completely accurate way. All of the elements in Maxwell, such as light emitters, material shaders, cameras etc., are entirely based on physically accurate models.

Ask yourself if you would expect sunlight to be able to pass through glass (as it does with almost every other render engine) after reading this on the Maxwell home page. We really aren't being nit-picky here.

Either the Maxwell engine is able to reproduce accurate results based on the physics of real light or it isn't. If sunlight cannot pass through glass, then the Maxwell engine is unable to reproduce accurate results based on the physics of real light. They need to stop making this claim or make good on it. Simple.

If you don't have an answer, then admit it. But don't try to make us look foolish for expecting something that Next Limit claims is at the very kernal of Maxwell.

[markps]

so, all this debate was just to have some fun on us?

Fixed in 1.0... what is this then?

I didn't say it was or wasn't fixed at all! I was asking about the justification for months of some of the most dispicably disrespectful communication and personal injury I've seen in awhile. I love when people talk about how NL is so disrespectful so they're going to be just as bad as though the two wrongs make a right. Especially since I seem to get sweeped up in it.

_Mike

[seco7]

Mike, first of all thanks for being on the forum at all. Your presence is the only ray of light in this process ... my opinion of course.

But that said, I really don't understand your position. There are a zillion assumptions made about what software will or will not have compared to the marketing material. Under your argument if NL released Maxwell on 5.25" floppy drives it would be our fault for not expressly asking prior to purchase, even though the technogy has been defunked for years. Or the color red, NL marketing material never said it could render the color red! Is everyone dumb for purchasing during the "last chance" promotion without expressly knowing if it could render red? With NL communication philosophy over the last year? Wow Mike ...

[leoA4D]

Mike, I read your post the other day and thought it was well written and believable. You have completely undid that. You are not leveling with us. You are playing a childish and silly game when serous money has been exchanged. Get to the point! We are entitled to know what is going on.

[RedRaven]

i'm lost now. Lets start agian. Mike can you state what you know about sunlight passing through glass (please). Is it fixed? will we get it? maybe? or is it prooving harder than expected and therefore delayed - i would be happy with a open statement of where we are with this.

[mverta]

Buffos -

You are about 1 micron from getting it. I can just feel it. You and the other guys are totally right about it being a reasonable feature. You're right about it "should" being in there. I'm not arguing that for you guys who need this.. I'm talking about the very important gap between such assumptions, and all the hate.

If you really needed this feature, and saw the words "unbiased," I can see how you'd be hopeful. But you could've 1) asked first to be sure or 2) Purchased Maxwell on the "hope" that it would.

SO then you fire up Maxwell, it doesn't do this, and you write NL: Sorry, I was really hoping it did this, but it doesn't, and I need it. Refund, please.

That's a far cry from being promised something EVEN IF IT'S A REASONABLE FEATURE and then calling people ass*oles for months.

_Mike