[true]

I really want to say no...but I can't use it for my production now because it is too slow for me to meet the deadline....

by the way, I am doing architecture visualisation

[andronikos916]

I have done many interior renderings in 2-3 hrs...

Speed depending on various things, but I consider maxwell as a Arch. Viz production tool since it is lighting fast the setup and very predictable.

Also you will see the entire rendering instantly - therefore you can cancel the render process to fix the possible problems and issues you might have.

Imagine rendering an interior scene and the at the bottom right coner (after 4hrs of rendering) to have a chair inside the wall, or a texture problem...

...with maxwell no more!

cy,
Andronikos

[lwan]

Imagine rendering an interior scene and the at the bottom right coner (after 4hrs of rendering) to have a chair inside the wall, or a texture problem...

...with maxwell no more!

have you ever heard about bucket selection ? far more handy for that problem !

[Becco_UK]

Maxwell is fast enough when rendering a single, simple primitive: ie, a cube.

[arch4d]

if you try to reach the quality maxwell gives you,
you save much time doing the settings.

i mean, if you want to render an image with caustics, reflections and so on with radiosity in cinema´s advanced render, you´ll spend much time on setting the scene.

since it´s much easier to set the scene in maxwell you can save this time.

and, in my opinion, when you´re using caustics, radiosity etc. cinema for example needs the sam time or more to render the scene.

so, i don´t think it´s too slow.
could be faster, and i wish so for the final release, but for me it is not too slow.

[ludi]

agree

[tom]

Hi m200,

Unfortunately the adjectives "slow" or "fast" are quite relative.
So, it would be better if you consider the results in the forum.
Speed depends on scene complexity and render size.
Besides, Maxwell generates unmatched results...

Best regards,
Tom

[DELETED]

DELETED

[DELETED]

DELETED

[tom]

adehus,

It is relative because you cannot consider time with other renderers
because there's no alike about its technology. It's the same with
comparing melons to watermelons. They seem alike but it's not.
The results you have with other renderers are not the same about reality.

Best regards,
Tom

[Mihai]

adehus, don't factor in only the rendertime itself, but how much of your time you used to put all the lighting and materials together, tweak, test, adjust aa, adjust photons, adjust caustics, adjust gi and on and on.....

That is the effective time you should think about because human time costs more than machine time. While a machine is rendering you can work on another project.

[Maya69]

ok tom all people i agree with the fact the maxwell calculated the right solution lightning

but, if you want using in prod for work (buisness) is difficult because the time render is higher specially with interieur rendering and dialetric material

it is sure maxwell is the futur but i need make a good rendering in a few time.

[Thomas An.]

From my experience so far, anything involving caustics in Maxwell can be insatiably slow, but also insatiably real.

It boils down that "slow" basically means more expensive. It is more expensive to produce a Maxwell render because of the extra CPUs needed.

So, I would not use Maxwell for all my work, only for the high end clients that pay the most. In other words its like a luxury render whose results command a luxury price tag.

[Maxer]

The problem with that theory Tom is that many many people don't care that Maxwell is unique in it's rendering method. They only care about how long it takes to get their work to their client. If you say Maxwell is unique and gives superior output but it takes 4 days to simply render out your image after you've done all the other modeling and material work, does it really matter if the output is unique? I'd venture to say no, to the people who will be producing work on a constant basis (professionals) there are many other engines out there that are not as good as Maxwell but are capable of producing their images in reasonable amounts of time (less than 12 hours). So they sacrifice a little quality and realism, isn't that better than telling your client you don't have his images ready because you chose to use a render engine that is 10 times slower that most other engines on the market, and he'll just have to wait! Don’t get me wrong I love Maxwell and I plan on using it as soon as it’s ready but don’t mislead people into thinking that it’s capable of production work because the plane fact is it’s not.

[Maya69]

it is true

i think maxwell is good solution for exterieur rendering

i m agree is very good approch for render solution

you lose machine time but you win humain time

this equation is right for exteieur scene but for inteieur you don't have for example ies profil you lose humain time for modelling light !!!