Hy thomas can you share that scene in other format please, the Mac people can't decompress using .7z
JesperW wrote:... would you say the beta would have been as close to the photo as the alpha?
Nope. As far as I can tell the alpha was even faster (provided we made judicious use of the bounce control)I understand the alpha was slower still than the beta.
Thanks Jasper(And cred to you for having the energy to do tests with RC3, since NL have said themselves that it's crap. I suspect the tests are still useful to them. Myself I'm busy with other pieces of buggy software )
Agree as well, but that photo looks a bit cg'ishThomas An. wrote:
As far as I am concerned the Alpha was the best Maxwell ever (and it had working clipmaps and volumentrics) they should have backaged it and sold it as Maxwell Lite....
i still have them all backuped in my drive, but i doubt we are allowed to share them (of course not here on the forums).Aksel Karcher wrote: Talking about this, does anyone know where to get the Alpha and the according Max-Plugin back from again?
I don't know yet. It could be either or.rivoli wrote:back to glass/water again. thanks for keep testing this thomas, looks we have to start it over again. do you think that refractions are totally off because of rc limitations or it may be the old method that doesn't apply with the new engine?
It is a true photo, with no post process other than converting to grayscale.aitraaz wrote:but that photo looks a bit cg'ish
Hi guys, is there possible to specify in a script[…]
Not really as de-noise is not selected. I just wa[…]
Wow! :D Nice render