[tom]

I think Maxwell cannot produce such an artificial look even if it works for whole day.
What about this?
http://img42.echo.cx/img42/8972/dragthewaters28pu.jpg

[tom]

More than 6m 46s

[ivox3]

Tom,

Saw that image the other day in your Maxwell Mueseum,, just wanna ask ...is the water a straight modeled mesh or a little RF?

have a good day have a good time , i3.

[tom]

Not with RF, I handmodeled it and yes it doesn't look like a water, mostly like a glue

[ivox3]

well i'll be damned. .......and what are you talking about .., it totally looks like water. ......real fine work.

how can i be down? ...

[tom]

Thank you ivox3
Frankly, I can't remember adehus but if you need I can find and re-render that scene. (btw/ it was done with alpha) However, I didn't put this here to compare the rendertimes of course but the quality you have. Roses have thorns you know.

[giacob]

I think Maxwell cannot produce such an artificial look even if it works for whole day.
What about this?
http://img42.echo.cx/img42/8972/dragthewaters28pu.jpg

sure but in 6 minutes it produces a bunch of uncomprehensible dottes...
besides do u think for instance that an image made by zuliban with vray is so worse than an image made da zuliban with maxwell as to justify 60 hours rendering an neat image use? ? i dont really think... o r at list i think that only few refined people would apprecciate the difference ( which most of the clients are not)
i like maxwell but i am not like those mothers who say theyr son is the best and flawless .. or a rendere engine producer...

anyway at very top level having at your disposal an adequate machine maxwell would be the best choise... though i would be curios to check what an expert user of another engin would get having at his disposal 50 hours rendering!!

[aitraaz]

Roses have thorns you know.

[thomas lacroix]

Roses have thorns you know.

yes and water is wet

[aitraaz]

Aut insanit homo, aut versus facit

[tom]

just for example ( image is not mine)
Software: 3ds max 7
Rendering engine: Vray 1.46.xx
Render time: 6m 4.6s
Hardware: P4 2.4 Ghz, 512 mb ram
Features: Refractive GI caustics activated



how long would it take in maxwell?

Features: Maxwell Render reality
Simulation Time: 6h 46m @ SL18.25

[Micha]

And now this test for big scale poster in a size of 8000x6000.

I hope once a day the NL team say: yes, Maxwell is slow and we try to get it faster. So the communication could be simplier and the user will feel, NL understand the problem.

But if I remember me right, I have read that more speed it is on the todo list. Also I have read, the first goal is a stable Maxwell and optimization is the next step. So, we can hope.

Here an interesting comparsion. The redqueen rendering seems to be very fast. I can not see any Maxwell image. I will play with the scene, but texturing is in Rhino difficult. Maybe, some other (max) user like to do it too.

[Mihai]

The Vray image may have taken 6m, but it's not usable and those splotches would be even more noticeable when printed. If you can make the splotches disappear, make it look like it's not floating, then give us the final render time plus the time it took you to setup, test and tweak. This should always be the final work time. Just comparing render time is irrelevant with a renderer like Maxwell.

I hope once a day the NL team say: yes, Maxwell is slow and we try to get it faster. So the communication could be simplier and the user will feel, NL understand the problem.

Ofcourse they have said this, several times really. They have also said that stability and features are a priority over speed optimisations at this stage and once everything is in place and working together, more time can be spent on optimisations.

[sam7]

[0h 34m 16s] , current sampling level : 11.82

(^ used Neat Image; M~R Raw Image)

I sort of like this grain, more than this blur GI implementations

[sam7]

Of course!

This is the MXS file

BTW the direct comparison of rendering times is not really correct since the machines are completelly different.