Maxwell Render | Official public forum

Hello everyone, this is my first message here ...

I've been using the RC as you all, and my conclusion is:

WHAT DO WE NEED THE MAXWELL STUDIO FOR?


I think it's the main problem there. To make a 3D environment is a waste of time and resources. We all use a 3D modeller program wich we've learned to control. We want to model, apply materials, lights, cameras, and animation on our own program; we only want Maxwell to do what it's designed for: make great renders.

This issue was commented before, but after the RC1 I think it should be an evidence to all.
I propose Next Limit to not continue with Maxwell Studio, but improving the renderer performance. Please ask the customers!
Maxwell Studio should be, instead, a simple external material and environment editor.


WHAT DO I WANT FOR 1.0?

1. Stable, functional and predicitible application
2. Solve major bugs on betas: "black" dielectric materials, clip maps, etc
3. A good external material editor with customizable preview for maxwell-specific materials
4. Compatibility with 3d-application native materials, at least diffuse ones, to make easy to use third-party object libraries
5. Normal maps
6. Less possible technical terms, or at least the typical pop-up bubble explaining the parameter, like icreasing ozone value results in an darker sky. We will not study physics to run a renderer

When everything's done we well have the perfect 1.0 we all want.
Then go for the 1.5 or the 2.0, with Maxwell Studio and everything you want. But once again there will be other things we want before (better skies with clouds, better and more pluggins, displacement maps, etc)

Thanks for reading, wait for your comments.

Can you please open a Poll about this point?
I think NL will not understand if they don't see the numbers.

pixelarq, have you thought about people with software that don't have any advanced capabilities to set up cameras? Or texture?

You can still work the way you are used to via the plugins, only having to apply materials to your objects. In that case the only thing you have to do in studio is make and save materials, so you can then apply them in your 3D software.

indeed, its great the have the option to do either. I prefer the studio as I have just exported a simple interior straight from modo into the Studio and got a preview within a short time... this is fantastic for me as no 'middleware' is required

-neil

I agree with you. I don't feel good with the new studio. I have buy Maxwell, because NL says, Rhino will have a plugin. But this plugin dosn't work right since many months. Nobody seems to work on it. Why do we not get little bugs fixed immediately after report?

Befor I have used a renderman renderer. And I have used a shader writing tool and can import my shaders/materials to my Rhino plugin. The workflow is good.

I think, if NL fixed all the bugs of the render engine and fixed the bugs of the plugins, it is enough work for the next months. But than we could start to do professional work. Please, don't spend so much time at the maxwell studio. I have the feeling, NL try to impress so much potential users as possible, but forget the current users. Also please stop writing new plugins. Please finish the current work (engine + plugins) befor.

I don't like a geometrie export workflow. Promised was a plugin version.

Daros, I agree with you, but as I've said it's my first post here. I think Next Limit team or at least an older, well-known member should start the poll.

Mihai, Kris: I think the Studio is a good idea, but only WHEN the render engine and the plugins are completed and solid-as-rock.
And mihai, if someone have no idea of basic 3d, surely he doesn't need Maxwell!


Regards,
Diego / Pixelarq

[quote="Mihai Iliuta"]pixelarq, have you thought about people with software that don't have any advanced capabilities to set up cameras? Or texture?
[quote]

NL could make an agreement with one of the less expensive CAD software houses and build a plugin for it. Maybe, the agreement is, that the 3D software is without all modeling features and very inexpensive. If a user like to export all the geometry, the user could buy this software. For example XSI seems to be not so expensive.

I'm tired to hear, new users, new plugins. Here are many current users and they are waiting since a long long long time. Promised was good working plugins. Stop expansion, make quality products now, finish the started work from some months befor.

maxwell intergrated stable inside 3dsmax, maya, rhino or whatever would be my favourite, too....but i also can understand their idea behind the studio version. but i think it´s not up to us to make wishes i think it´s already decided to go on with the studio...and for that i try to get used to...and maybe next week it will work without crashes..

For those who want to use Maxwell Render from applications that don't really support materials and textures at all, the Studio is a great app. For example I had to bring everything in through 3DS just to apply materials before, a completely time-wasting step. And not even there could I have material previews... Studio solves this. (Or will, in a bit, when it's slightly less shaky... )
/j

yes, it reminds be a bit about lightscape the UI was also a pain in the a!"!§, but the results were brilliant...and even today they are great...shame that it was killed by max

Sorry but with Lightscape you was able to handle crash-free 2 millions of polygons 9 years ago.

i'm rather agree with you Micha

to NL : perfect already 3d soft plugins, before develop a complex and labourious standalone application !
thinks that we are also customers... with deadline projects, and professionnal constraints (like you )

Well, I guess I'm biased, not having a plug-in, but it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense to stop working on the Studio at this stage. As for the suggestion that Maxwell does a deal with a cheap app. for the rest of us, come on.....

Miles

I prefer to have working and improved renderer and plugins, than a stand-alone application wich -don't make illusions- will take several months of Next Limit resources.

With the beta we had a great, stable renderer, with a couple well-known bugs and limitations.

Now we have a crap renderer and an unusable stand-alone application.

I'm totally sure: if NL were only working on the renderer, we would have in our hands at least the beta without bugs and with some extra features. Keep in mind Next Limit is not an huge enterprise wich can assign two hundred programmers on a project to meet the deadline, their resources are limited, and such a 3d application is sure a big effort. I think they'd to wait until 1.0 to start with the Studio.

Hope I'm totally wrong and NL fixes the render today, but while waiting the patch, I will unistall RC and go back to beta. As Pabl0 said, we've deadline projects.
Regards
Diego / Pixelarq

i have to agree and i did before the rc came out. i dont want to work in a stand alone application to render i want to be able to do it from my 3d app which in this case is c4d. i dont mind the fact that there is a studio but please please please fix the renderer we love to love please then sort out the studio.