[andrebaros]

Oops I exceeded the maximum number of ! points.


And something called "EULUMDAT"
Which looks like it might be even better than IES Support!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


http://www.osram.com/osram_com/Lighting ... index.html
http://www.erco.com/en_index.htm?http:/ ... 0_eulumdat

[def4d]

Yes, it's a great addition!

I'm asking myself how it works, a special emitter material perhaps?

[rusteberg]

whoa...... easy on the sugar there andre.....

[Cadhorn]

Yes, it's a great addition!

I'm asking myself how it works, a special emitter material perhaps?

i'm wondering that too. also, how/if it will work with multilight. i imagine it would but.... ???

[Mihai]

Yes, it works with multilight

[rusteberg]

Yes, it works with multilight

that sounds yummy......

[Josephus Holt]

would someone like to enlighten me on why it's something to get so excited about? ...like IES for dummies?

[ivox3]

Some clients are wise to it and expect an accurate depiction of lighting fixtures -- IES will provide that.

We are talking about specific clients here, ..so, ..most users will never have to worry about this, but I'm glad we have it now -- for the one's who need it, it has been a long road and deal-breaker not having it. And for the one's who don't officially need it, it should add some nice realism. win win.

[paxreid]

Is MW2 going to provide illumination data via channel output? Similar to what Lightscape used to have?

[-Adrian]

And it really looks good in the samples, very clear shape.

[def4d]

Does IES in Maxwell disperses light?

[Hybaj]

And it really looks good in the samples, very clear shape.

With the experience from Indigo which has IES support for a long time, the clarity and sharpness looks actually very very artificial in the images. You know.. you got nice chamfered hi-detail models, superb materials with quality textures and then whoa.. a very artificial looking sharp IES caustics pattern on the wall (not all IES presets look artifical.. just those with fine caustic lines)

Something like a decayed blur option and a bit of parametric noise distortion would definitely help put some realism into the IES lights but that's alot of work to do so.... you know.. something is still better than nothing

[Mihai]

You actually do have some control, if you don't want those really sharp IES lines. You can make the pattern blurrier. But better to be able to make them also sharp if you need that, than having them always blurrier

[def4d]

I'm starting to understand what you happy testers mean, when saying we gonna forget the 1.7 !

[Cadhorn]

would someone like to enlighten me on why it's something to get so excited about? ...like IES for dummies?

If you've never encountered it, then I wouldn't worry about it. But, if you've had a client give you a list of a dozen or so different light fixtures and ask for an accurate rendering.... it's definitely an "oh shi*" moment for me. That's when I start hemming and hawing: "well, the uh, pictures, i mean renderings... will be uhm good and uh pretty, but not uh necessarily totally accurate?" And maybe most clients won't be able to tell the difference if you spend enough time looking at images of output from those fixtures and bending over backwards to make your emitters do something similar. Honestly, I've really only had one client (a lighting designer with 30+ years experience) who looked at my rendering and was like "no, that's not what the output would look like. try again."

To answer your original question, google "IES data" (ignore the Israeli Employment Service links ).

In a nutshell: IES support could save you a whole lot of messin' around trying to fake up some emitters. I know, some Maxwell purists will say "just model the fixture". Sure, I've got time for that (super-accurate models of a dozen different fixtures)... and then I've got infinite computing resources/money to wait for the caustics to clear....

okay, this is my fifth post about IES... stepping away from the keyboard... now waiting (semi)patiently for 2.0.