[Maximus3D]

Same rule apply to contructive criticism, you don't criticize without having anything to criticize about, otherwise it is pure and normal bashing. Nothing else. Right now we have no information on the progress of those dear features you all want so badly, until you do know more then criticism has it's place, until then.. no.

/ Max

[garyswindell]

Some people insist on focusing on -in this case- "imagined" negatives. You are assuming that the features your concerned about have not yet been addressed.

This one is near the top of the "most naive posts" list.

[garyswindell]

Same rule apply to contructive criticism, you don't criticize without having anything to criticize about, otherwise it is pure and normal bashing. Nothing else. Right now we have no information on the progress of those dear features you all want so badly, until you do know more then criticism has it's place, until then.. no.

/ Max

We do all know that we don't have these features at our disposal.

Using your logic when V1.0 is still scheduled for delivery a year from now we won't have anything to complain about.

[Maximus3D]

You know that's just such a strange behaviour, just because people aren't nagging and complaining constantly like you guys then you gotta put them on your shitlist. If anything that's very clearly childish behaviour at it's best.

/ Max

[ricardo]

This is surely not the final interface of interactive emission.

Please, when you are up to it, add a timeline...


Ricardo

[michaelplogue]

You know that's just such a strange behaviour, just because people aren't nagging and complaining constantly like you guys then you gotta put them on your shitlist. If anything that's very clearly childish behaviour at it's best.

/ Max

I hope I'm not being included in that list Maximus!

I'd like to think as my remarks as 'voicing a concern' in a reasonable manner, rather than nagging and complaining. I rarely complain, unless my coffee is cold.

[b-kandor]

I would just rather see some sort of progress along these lines than something I really wasn't expecting. The concern is that NL may be getting distracted by really cool widgets - something that could be released with version1.xx. If we can get some assurances that advances are being made in what we need, I think we'd be happier for it.

No worries Michael! I wont misconstrue. Remember "Love looks forward, hate looks back, anxiety has eyes all over its head."

[Maxer]

I don't see any reason why this thread should turn into another screaming match between those who love NL and those who don't. This is the first time in months that anything positive has come out, I'm not counting RC5 because that should have been delivered back in October. I'm so tired of the whole debate; let's just enjoy something new and fresh while it lasts.
PLEASE

[iker]

Incredible

btw/ A big hello to Thomas An.. welcome back

[Mihai]

Hopefully after 9, NINE, pages people are finally accepting the lighting update feature. I guess it's so nice your brain doesn't want to accept it.

How much has this feature alone simplified lighting design? How much? A lot?

Think about it, you have an interior showing both daylight and incandescent lighting, your client says: I wonder what it would look like if those ceiling spots where a bit stronger.....10 seconds later....

Or don't even tell them, just say, ok I'll have to charge you another render sshhhhh.....

[mrcharles]

I've been thinking about the issue a number have raised re. baking the solution and moving the camera and capturing another point of view... it seems to me that...

The render is tied to a camera point of view. Many of the real-world image characteristics depend on the material's geometric relationship to the camera and lights. Changes to the camera position would require "reinterpreting" the surface irradiance solution for such effects as specularity, caustics, reflections, fresnel effects, anisotropy, etc.

However, it seems that one could perform this calculation and since all the local values are already solved for the gathering of a new solution should proceed much quicker than the original render

Tweaking surface shaders is also complicated since it would invalidate the initial solution at the surface. But, if Maxwell tracks incoming irradiance flux as well as outgoing, then a much faster rerender with new material settings should be possible.... but changes to a material IOR would certainly affect everthing past the initial "bounce" and solution speeds would be much less than a changed camera viewpoint.

[Kabe]

This is much what I figured out so far:

The MXI file keeps for each pixel an equation like this:

f(L0) + f1(L1) + f2(L2)...

.....

The pros:

...
The number crunching depends on the number of lighs involved...

...this assumption would be true only if the calculation actually starts at the lights. I take an educated guess though that the calcualtion starts at the camera, so in the end it does *not* depend on the number of lights. Lights are just stop surfaces with a spectral color so to speak. My gues is that they simply store a spectral value with high dynamic for each pixel, not some magic f(L1)

The cons:

F/stop: changing f/stop won't result in DOF changes. Better disable it.

Shutter speed: If motion blur is involved, changing it will not result in changing blur, just quit on that one also.

I have asked the same thing, however there actually *is* even a real life technic that captures and stores an image in a way which allows to set the focus afterwards - if they would have something like this, it would be absolutely mindblowing. I don't know a solution for the motion blur problem.
I wouldn't call the absence of this feature not exactly a "con" though

Kabe

[Kabe]

There's one thing I wonder - beside the f-stop and shutter time feature:

What happens to the file sizes of an MXI that stores the result for a huge
number of independent lights

I'm confident that light arrays like the ones shown in the example come to
rescue though.

The more I think about it, the more I think that quick setup times
and such features make you fast in "customer space".

Kabe

P.S. to NL: Noticed the change of wind direction if you throw something
to chew into the round of howling wolves around you?

[giacob]

Maximus let me say to u that u ar really, really boring when scolding people simply because they make some critic reamarks ..... it is also ill-mannered calling this light critics as whining etc...
michaelplogue.. he is undoubtely a supporters of Maxwell render so if he express a critic..leave him alone...dont be rude and unpleasant... refrain sometimes from this useless comments.. if u can... besides they have the effect of inflaming the criticizing rather than soothing it...that is just because of your irritating behaviour

[ludi]

I don't belive my self...
Could this new feature mean, that we could just add 4-5 "dummy" emitter into the scene, without ANY mind of light setup.

Hit Render =>
And doing the (real & artistic) light Setup afterwards? (not the position of course)