[Mihai]

sam7, if you could post the scene as fbx for example, otherwise all we can do with it is hit render

[juan]

You don't have any bitmaps in it do you?

Hi adehus,

You can ignore bitmaps writing -bitmaps:0 in the command line. The render will not fail

Juan

[sam7]

@juan: I think I saw this parameter in the documentation, but never new what to use it for. now I know. thanks

@Mihai Iliuta: You are right... here is the scene in LW

@adehus: Sorry, forgot about the bitmap. I used it for specular channel but has no effect, for this scene... I think.

[giacob]

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

frankly i am not sure, talking about reality, that in real world uncoloured glass would look so grey

[Micha]

Upps ... i have seen I have forget to post the link to the sponza atrium render comparsion (redqueen impress me - 1 hour). maybe some maxwell user like to post images there:

http://hdri.cgtechniques.com/~sponza/

and here some nice images from Richard Rosenman:

http://www.richardrosenman.com/sponza.htm

I render the scene and after 16 h it is very noisy.

[tom]

Tom- Looks pretty good. What are the specs on the computer (computers?) used? Which build of Maxwell is it? Any Neatimage or comparable?

P4 2.8HT // 1GB DDR2-533 // FSB800 MB // SATA 120MB HD
Maxwell Render 1.2.2a beta with -hd // no denoiser, no post

[sam7]

23h @sl17.63

(originally rendered in 1280 x 928; no denoise, color grade changes only)


nice, but SLOW!

first sampling levels are really fast, but for the smooth of caustics it takes ages...

[Maximus3D]

Damn Sam that looked good! very nice glass but it's a shame it took forever +1 to render even on your supercomputer nice work anyways!

/ Max

[aitraaz]

Yeah true but maxwell's slowness is tied to its calculation methods, which at time present, still have alot of drawbacks...ironically, for path tracing renderers, maxwell is rather fast ( )....

Check, for example, winosi (a noble opensource ( ) renderer which has a few things in common with maxwell:

http://www.winosi.onlinehome.de/Docs.htm

Ray-hit evaluation-wavelength intensity-rgb accumulation buffer, then a series of refinement iterations etc, etc...So while its not identical the approach is pretty much convergent with maxwell, as can be seen in the gallery (area emitters, spectrum emmission, etc...):

http://www.winosi.onlinehome.de/Gallery.htm

(clicking on each image gives a description of algorithms used in each individual image)

So in this case render times go from 1-2 days (for simple scenes) to something like 200 hrs for scenes a little less simple, but not much...( There's only a single developer and its open source so its optimization/development is slow...)

Essentially the issue is that with standard raytrace engines, where paths are traced from the camera, there's a limit to what 'physically accurate' effects you can achieve (note the vray glass-maxwell glass comparisons done here)...So in these new engines paths are traced from the lights, and a whole field of new effects can be calculated with a high level of precision, and, of course, the downside is slowness, essentially because the render engine has to blast away with absurdly high amounts of lightrays...

So while we know that for NL speed is a priority (and we all expect speed increases October) i would'nt hold my breath, meaning maxwell will be significantly faster a bit longer down the road...(hope i'm wrong )

[giacob]

besides i think that average people would prefer vray render to maxweel becouse of the noise of the latter
only cg people wuold apprecciate the major realism of maxwell ( though spoiled by noise)

[sam7]

The BIG question here is:

How good are improvements in M~R final?!?!



(Can an offical beta tester post an image with rendering times of current M~R version, please?? )

[WillMartin]

besides i think that average people would prefer vray render to maxweel only cg people wiuold apprrecciate the major realism of maxwell ( though spoiled by noise)

Giacob, without a specifier, this comment actually illumates a big hole in your opinion. I have a friend who is a professional photographer. In the past I briefly showed him LightWave for kicks, showed him how you achieve realism and "do photography" with/in it via explaining a few of the multiple methods that are used for getting "realistic-looking __[whatever attribute]___..." Even though he is very interested in visual media, he quickly started getting that glazed-over look from the abstraction of it all. While I don't mind too much fiddling with those settings, for him the knowledge of how to fake the reflection of a light via working spec and glossiness sliders was obviously not something his mind wanted to open itself up to, and I can't really blame it. It is similar to HTML; if you know it and are into it, then you have fun with the code, but most other people when they see something like "#1088F0", their minds just don't want to even try to wrap their around it. "Why can't I freaking just put 'CYAN?!!''"

But when I again showed him 3D CG via the M~R plug-in, it all clicked in his head easily and immediately (of course) and inspired much more interest -- and I can see him using M~R after the full release comes out, whereas any other 3D app that is out there now I can almost guarantee he would never touch. That image of the glass rendered in ~6 mins in Vray looks very good (though not done by you?), and I don't think most people would say otherwise for that subject; and setting up a larger scene in Vray, if you really know what you're doing, I'm sure it can achieve 95-100% of the realism of a Maxwell render. But here is what I believe is a modified/specified version of your statement that is more corrent:

I think your average person would appreciate the realism of the output of well-done Vray as much as Maxwell render, but from a doing standpoint, I also think your average person would be much more likely (by a landslide) to want to try create images with Maxwell than Vray or any other renderer currently available.

I've just done my first "colored liquid in a glass" renders ever, and it is so neat and fun that in the end the long rendering time (of this BETA of M~R) means nothing to me. I would've spent days fiddling at the keyboard/mouse trying to get this look with LightWave's renderer. If you're good at Vray, more power to you. I'm not and am having fun with Maxwell despite it being slow (which LW also is when you turn on radiosity and caustics, btw).

-Will

[giacob]

a part that a photographer is not quite an average person...
it's just a matter of taste
before maxwell i hated twiking with mr,; after maxwell ( for certain kind of image) i regret those nice twiking with mental ray!!!
dont misunderstand me though...i like maxwell and i can see that (noise apart) in many scene , ( above alla exterior scene) is better than the other and not so slow, but hate the fact that the light dont pass trough glasses, the fact i cant use procedurals shaders, the fact that for interior scene i have to wait such a log time........and least , but not last, i am not so fond of photografy and u have to be a bit of a photographer to handle maxwell well
...perhaps i am just average users
besides till the end of october make no sense using it since the changes that will be made

[def4d]

I tried and learned with 3ds Lightracer, brazil, Mental ray, and Vray before knowing Maxwell.
My favourite for speed/quality was Vray, after tweaking for days & nights all the inter-dependant settings to approach acceptables results...
Today my favourite for quality, and for quick settings is Maxwell.

Im one of lot of people who still use their older renderer for work, and Maxwell to push the reality at an unknown level.

(Sorry for the poor English that is mine)