[paaco]

We are trying to build an efficient workflow based on maxwell and 3dsmax.
So far we have a couple of hundred models prepared with maxwell materials (mxm files).

It´s becoming very hard to maintain a longterm strategy when things change so dramatically with every new plugin-release.

When I open an old file I lose material names and the new plugin creates several thousands of materials (one per object?). This is virtually useless.


Please give us back the linked MXM:s or at least give us a solution where all our work( and the money put into it) is not in vain.

[Mihnea Balta]

The plug-in should automatically convert every mxm (reference) material you had in the old scene into a new-style material. We're looking into the name problem right now, we'll make it keep the old names. If you're getting more materials than you used to have it's a bug and we'll handle it immediately (we're testing it now).

Keeping backwards compatibility is obviously very important for us and we'll take every possible step to ensure that you don't lose any work when you switch to the new plug-in. However, would you still need the referenced mxm files if the conversion goes smoothly?

[paaco]

I think that the referenced MXM:s have some advantages that are really useful. For example when we are using the same material in several different scenes we just have to update one mxm-file. We have put some effort into adopting this approach to our model- and material-librarys. Yes I would appreciate if there still is a possibility to reference MXM:s although I also think it´s convenient to be able to create materials inside MAX.

There is also an issue of converting all our library models to the new system. Even the material-conversion works smoothly we still have to open-and-save the old library-models which means quite a lot of work due to the amount of files involved.

[Mihnea Balta]

Both bugs you mentioned (not preserving names and creating one material per object) are now fixed. We'll release a bugfix build tomorrow with this and many other improvements.

We'll think about re-introducing the MXM reference mode.

[andrebaros]

Yes, PLEASE re-introduce the MXM reference mode. We've just build up a library of MXM materials which we link to several files for each project (which we then link together at render time). It's much easier to work on a broken up file knowing that the materials will be consistent because they always reference the same MXM.

[Fernando Tella]

Yes, it would be great if we could reference the mxm; if we change something we get a notification in the panel (something like happens with the preview now) which means that it has changed and the path of the file is greyed out. At this point the material won't be referenced, but it would be again if you save the changes back to the mxm.

Would it work that way?

[casey]

Referenced MXMs are by far the best method for us, too. We won't be upgrading plug-ins until that feature returns (please say it will!)

Even if we are able to edit everything inside MAX, we would still prefer to then save out a material from inside MAX to a nice MXM file, and then reference that, because it's much more convenient and easy to use on large projects. We can check them into source code control, etc. MAX's material library system is crap, and the MXM reference node is a perfect way for us to work around it.

- Casey

[JesperW]

We'll think about re-introducing the MXM reference mode.

It was very useful in terms of workflow efficiency.
Please consider it seriously.

[Maxer]

I just need to say this; you can't and shouldn’t be messing around with the compatibility of materials. I've spent days creating and editing materials, the thought that with every new update I'm going to have to fix some kind of problem with each material is insane and at this point with a 1.X release it just shouldn’t be happening. NL please get this one right.

[casey]

So, I'm assuming the new plug-in doesn't allow MXM references yet?

(waiting to upgrade until it does)

- Casey