[JTB]

I understand your point of view, but I disagree. Maxwell's core render engine is the main product. Sure, NL could spend their time developing gimmicks and features and charge extra for them, but they wisely choose to spend their precious development time on improving speed and physical accuracy of the render engine.

They sent out a survey to their customers, and to my understanding, speed was the number one requested improvement.

Speed is just a number... Fast or slow, this is what Calico Jack talks about... There is no way for Maxwell to become fast... Just faster than it is now...Then again, there is no fast unbiased rendering...
However Calico Jack's argument about Modo is very strong...

Just compare Maxwell to Modo 401. The quality is almost the same and you get brilliant modeling tool in the same price.

What most people do is this... They choose the modeling app that suits their needs and then can look for the best renderer... For example, I would never like to work with Modo, I needed Max...
Since I don't know Modo, I can't have an opinion on how fast or easy Modo's renderer is...

It's true that Maxwell render times are sometimes huge, but what I like about it is that I get very predictable results:

Well, I don't worry about Maxwell's mistakes, I worry about my mistakes and I would like to be able to re-render fast because no matter how fast I setup a scene, it is very easy to make a mistake

[vandigital]

Sure. There's no innovative stuff like SWAP tool kind of thing etc. Just some speed/quality improvements and thats not enough.
Just compare Maxwell to Modo 401. The quality is almost the same and you get brilliant modeling tool in the same price.

Must say that we haven't seen the whole package yet but I'm little worried. Don't get me wrong I like wery much of Maxwell but
my clients don't. I need a tool which is able to create photorealistic stuff fast. I think Maxwell is a good tool for people who like to do some
artist stuff but isn't not optimal tool for professionals like me.

Im just going to say this, same thing happened during the 401 reveals. people wanted rigging and animation and for like 3 weeks all they showed was render improvements and people were doing the same exact thing you are doing right now getting worried about stuff they haven't seen yet. Maxwell 2 has alot more to offer then you might think I would just wait and let next limit do their thing with the reveals and at the end you can decide if you were let down or not.

Talking on the speed subject that is becoming a noexistent issue with the new processors I mean seriously the new i7's can crank unbiased renders out as fast as a high quality vray render and look better. And they are very affordable hardware. In a year theres going to be no reason why people cant use maxwell on a daily basis for 1 day projects. Heck I use it for 1 day projects even now. My interiors really only take a few hours to render on my new i7 system. Same with Fry render very clean renders quickly.

[rusteberg]

looking good........ however, the only thing worrisome to me is the massive redirection in color... i liken it to a change in film type. from the side by side comparisons on the v2 page (which is really cool to be able to scroll through and see the difference opposed to having a side by side image) it looks like 1.7 renders are shot with a standard color negative film while v2 is shot with E6 (highly saturated/vibrant colors). Similar confusion with emitter colors? It seems that in order to get something true to camera physics, it would take two different exposures to capture the color of the emitter (higher stop/higher shutter speed) and a lower exposure to focus on the "middle grey" of the subject being focused on? but who knows, maybe v2 is 'next limit generation' film?

i think it has been mentioned in the wish list thread before, but it would be nice to have a preset of different films to choose from that affect the way color is portrayed opposed to having only one film back in other words..... For instance tungsten film vs. daylight film would post night and day results (quite literally) and would make the maxwell daylight system much more dynamic (as a work around i have sometimes increased the blue channels on hdri's to achieve the impression that it was shot with tungsten) and if i might add, wouldn't this then become truly unbiased as there is no mechanism in existence that can capture exactly what the human eye perceives...... just some of my insights, no demands or complaints. and as a disclaimer i'm open to argument...

[kami]

i think it has been mentioned in the wish list thread before, but it would be nice to have a preset of different films to choose from that affect the way color is portrayed opposed to having only one film back in other words.....

In addition to that thougt: the noise should also correspond to the type of film you use and look more like grain

with these options: maxwell render really gets "as difficult, as taking a picture"

[Bubbaloo]

looking good........ however, the only thing worrisome to me is the massive redirection in color... i liken it to a change in film type. from the side by side comparisons on the v2 page (which is really cool to be able to scroll through and see the difference opposed to having a side by side image) it looks like 1.7 renders are shot with a standard color negative film while v2 is shot with E6 (highly saturated/vibrant colors). Similar confusion with emitter colors? It seems that in order to get something true to camera physics, it would take two different exposures to capture the color of the emitter (higher stop/higher shutter speed) and a lower exposure to focus on the "middle grey" of the subject being focused on? but who knows, maybe v2 is 'next limit generation' film?

I disagree here too.

I want the same colors I put into Maxwell to come out. If I put a vibrant red texture in my scene, I damn sure want it in the final render. Now it will be just that way.

[NicoR44]

+1000

[Richard]

YES!!!!!!

I must say the bump and normal map result improvement is stunning! This has been one of my gripes and seems to be a MAJOR improvement! I'd still love to see the results under physical sky where for me previously bump seemed to be all but lost previously!!!

I am really impressed by the HDRI shadow results, previously the results using HDRI seemed to be limited in use due to shadow loss and therefore of little use but now that looks to all change!

These with the speed improvements really are great insights in what next may come!!!

Congratulations!!!

[rusteberg]

just some of my insights, no demands or complaints. and as a disclaimer i'm open to argument...

whatever floats your boat! some are more bulletproof than others...

[fuso]

Morning everyone,

As much as I like Maxwell as an innovative and unique render engine, I don't get it that people make such a big deal
out of a version 2.0 which, in my opinion, is still in beta stage! Even though I've been with it pretty much since the
beginning, I can still step back and look at what we have right now. And I don't want to be a party pooper, trust me.

A lot of those praised features have been working just fine in much earlier releases and from my point of view these
should be working fine in something called version 2.0. We had SSS, frosted glass, displacement and normal maps
working with pretty stunning results in the past. Has everyone forgotten about that? As for the speed improvements,
that is a very good development indeed but is expected to improve in new versions. I don't even criticize the speed of
Maxwell in general, considering what it is capable of and how much time you save on setting up your scenes.

I just keep fingers, arms and legs crossed that the new release will hold up to the rather high expectations everyone
seems to have these days. Maybe some of you also remember how disappointed we have been in the past as versions
have been released in a rather buggy state. I believe all the work should go into creating a stable version and not into
experimenting too much with fancy new features. The core should work and be accessible from all platforms through
the plug-ins. The studio app is still a waste of time in my opinion.

I know my comment here doesn't sound too constructive, but I felt like I wanted to vent it out as I started getting
rather annoyed with all those people acting like there wasn't even any competition for Maxwell at all. For sure I am still
a huge fan and I use it on a daily base with pleasure. But try to keep an open mind and look at the bigger picture at
times as there are other render engines who have achieved more from alpha stage to version 2.0. Just have a look at
the 'wish list' and you might agree.

Hope I don't get misunderstood here... So when is the big day then??

[mverta]

Maxwell's primary focus is unparalleled realism; a bar which it set, and continues to set. The improvements in image quality alone are not subtle - they're huge, and this will be readily apparent and stunning (you can't already tell?!!!) when you work with it. And speed, well speed is always welcome. And there's more.


_Mike

[fuso]

@ mverta: If this is a reply on my post then I'd like to think you missed my point. First of all, I have to disagree with
you on the huge difference in the comparison images. If you look at the 1.7 images, do you really think the version
name is justified there? Would it not rather be a version which is in an early stage of development?

As for the speed, if I look at the hardware I have to throw at a render job in order to meet a deadline (look at the
specs in my signature) I can only say don't do this at home if you haven't got the budgets for it. (and I'm using 3 of
those machines in cooperative mode to get something out in a reasonable amount of time) But I remember times when
I did use Maxwell at home on a single CPU Athlon rendering something over night with acceptable results!

Once again, it's not like I don't appreciate the huge amount of work, enthusiasm and passion which went into creating
this outstanding piece of software. All it is, that sometimes I feel a bit cheated on and that I feel that a number of
customers here have lost their sense for realism. If I wasn't a huge fan I wouldn't even bother writing this.

[tokiop]

Fuso, I agree about the version numbers, alpha (also had atmospheric scattering) vs beta/1 features. Alpha was working well but not a final product either, and needed rewrite for evolution.. Maybe unbiaised development is like unbiaised rendering, it takes time but the result is worth it !

It seems, like you wish, that the developers are focusing on doing a solid, stable core, optimising, better support for existing features (bump, normal map, rough dielectics). Better quality and rendertimes... if you forget the version numbers I think it nice !

[big K]

fuso,
sometimes memories of the past are better than it actually was.

I did use Maxwell at home on a single CPU Athlon rendering something over night with acceptable results!

We had SSS, frosted glass, displacement and normal maps
working with pretty stunning results in the past. Has everyone forgotten about that?

if you are talking about the beta stage you have to show me the results and rendertimes you are talking about.
i am also here from the beginning and things like displacement were introduced in the post 1.0 times.

i think maxwell has developed quite well in the past (maybe not as fast as expected and sometimes with some steps back - but hey this is how development works) and i am looking forward to 2.0, which, until now, shows pretty good improvments in features i appreciate (speed, quality and workflow)

michael

[Hervé]

something you guys forgot....

at the point where Maxwell is (1.7) even a "slight" improvment is HUGE... remember that the devil is in the details...

I mean During Rembrandt period (yes the painter), you could also find other painters almost as good as him.... but this slight difference is HUGE in terms of final work.......

... AND... computers are faster... and faster.... voila...

Nobody forces you to drive a Ferrari if you think it's drinking too much Gaz...

[kami]

I can agree totally agree fusos critics and I think they are very well spoken.

I chose Maxwell because of it's approach so close to reality and because it just created the best images. All this is still true!
I chose it, even though it creates a lot of following costs (for hardware especially) and I certainly do not mind if it gets faster, but the speed is not the reason I bought it.

But there is still a lot to be achieved. A professional software should be STABLE and USER-FRIENDLY. And on those both points, maxwell is way back in alpha stage. I'm so glad I don't have to work with studio anymore, because it crashed all the time on OS X Tiger, and I'm working now on windows with the great rhino plugin (thanks, JD). But there are so many little things that are still bothering me. A few examples:
- sun through glass
- intersecting blocks
- caustics behind glass (or water)
- no hdri's with sharp shadows
- weird bump mapping
- black dots of death
- no clear error message when crashing
- network render is a mess
- atmosphere settings are way too complicated
- lens effects are also a lot of trial-and-error (I still use photoshop for glare effects)

I know, a lot of that will be fixed in 2.0, but it's really disappointing that I'll have to pay a lot of money for a new version, even if the other version is not stable and has a lot of missing featuers.

Enough rant ... I still use and love maxwell, but sometimes I got the feeling that all those useful things posted in the wish list and bugs section never get fixed, which is a shame, because all those users you got here on this news board would give a very good feedback.

cheers, kami