[smeggy]

Good to know

Layered textures, *proper layered textures with alpha* was my biggest concern and it looks like that is being addressed which pleases me no-end. Stacking without order seems like a recipe for chaos and unpredictability.

IES would be great as it's another way to eliminate a good amount of guesswork from interior scenes. < prod please hehe

[mverta]

IES would be great as it's another way to eliminate a good amount of guesswork from interior scenes. < prod please hehe

Yeah, I brought this one up some time ago and they were already way ahead of me. With the introduction of complex IOR there's an idea that some users need super-accurate renderings, even at the expense of time. And being able to plug-in IOR data and IES data has just got to be key to that, for ease-of-use. Personally, I can see IES being used a ton more, in every day productions as well. I mean, I'd use it, right now. There's no way that's not going to be incorporated sooner or later...

You know, there's that adage about "under promising/over delivering" and with RC5 I'm trying to make sure people know that it's really just a tease. 1.0's going to have a lot of stuff in it that RC5 doesn't have, and RC5 will absolutely have bumps and you know, weirdness here and there. But for any of us who fired up the previous RC's, or who've worked with the Beta, there's no way you're not going to feel better about the whole thing.

I mean just looking at Tom's "as-sexy-as-a-Cornell-can-be" caustics render you're seeing something beta couldn't do anywhere near as well. It's low noise, artifact-free, didn't take a billion hours to render, etc. For me, even though it's one of a lot of similar images I've seen, I think it's a pretty good poster boy for the fact that things are looking up!

_Mike

[mverta]

No problem, Ernest -

And I think you're really on solid ground here with a lot of your comments. Like I said, there's stuff I want to say, and can't... there's a bigger picture here... past 5, past 1.0. I'm not saying that you can just placate paying customers with substandard stuff and expect everything to be alright, 'cause that'll never work. But I think if I were in the Big Chair over at NL, and I was faced with a situation where I hit some sort of technical roadblock, I'd get my users a workaround, and work the problem as fast as I could. But I'd also be in their unenviable position of building the road, not just going down it. So it's bound to be a rougher-than-usual ride. I think what you may be driving at, beyond the obvious practical concerns, is a fear that the developers would somehow be comfortable with a "let them eat cake" philosophy, and I can tell you that this is absolutely not the case. It's a rough market, and everyone's got that healthy Fear of God thing goin' on. But it's a brave new world, brother... and plus there's all this math.

So, I hear you with the pass/fail sun thing, but I think we gotta let it play out a bit more. We just don't know enough yet. I'm in a similar boat with the texutres. Except I have the luxury of really getting to know these guys, and I'm super-impressed with their dedication and talent. Let me put it to you this way: they're as good behind the scenes as their communication can be poor up front So that's why I'm here helping to bridge the gap. Dudes don't sleep as it is, and I'm happy to kick off some posts during my render tests to lighten their load.

Let me also just say that the rest of the guys on A-Team, no doubt silent today because they're running tests, are solid. Really diverse group; you got your scientific types.. real analytical and methodical, fiercely concered with protocol and terminology, physical accuracy, and then you got guys like me, who come from film: I don't care how it works, hold the damn thing together with duct tape, but it needs to work RIGHT NOW. And then you got guys in the middle, whether it's architects, or product guys... I mean, everyone's fighting to make sure it's what they want it to be.

At first I thought it might lead to a lot of conflict and infighting, but I swear our needs overlap by 90%. Pretty much everyone needs mostly the same things, and then there's me who won't shut up about motion blur and someone else who won't shut up about intereference patterns or whatever.

It's a good crew. I think you guys should feel well represented.

_Mike

[mverta]

Which features will NOT be in any 1.xx but will be in v2.0

There's no way that list is final yet. You know, that's the thing about all this undiscovered country, sometimes you're surprised by how much you can acutally do, and which things you can't. I think the generally understood feature set is ambitious anyway, but what I like about the current way things are going is that it's not arbitrary. That is, the developers are trying to streamline features based on need, and not some random set of reasons.

But 1.0 isn't going to be some stripped-down engine! I mean... I've never heard anything less than a really solid feature set for it. But I think NL would be wise not to commit too much to the more advanced things, because 1) Oops. That could've gone better before and 2) This development team tends to suprise people with what they can do. So I think there's some organic ebb and flow there.

Like I said... RC 5 is just a step. It's not 1.0 It's a WIP, and it's supposed to be at this point.

But I think our community here, the userbase, the paying customers, could all use a really good shot in the arm, you know, to feel less "suspicious" and personally I believe that's in RC5.

But like Lincoln said, "You can please some of the people all the time; you can please all the people some of the time, but you can't please all the people all the time." Some users are going to fire up RC5 and for any number of reasons - maybe they just unfortunately pick the weak spots by accident, they're gonna bum out for a minute. But then someone else is going to pull up some cool caustics-thing and love it. It's really hit or miss when you're in development. But I think when people see it, they'll feel a lot more like staying on the ride, and feeling good about the rest of the journey to 1.0.

_Mike

P.S. I've got to return to testing, now... some renders just came out of the oven. But feel free to continue posting and I'll get to your questions when I get back. Thanks!

[aitraaz]

Well, let's not give me too much credit. I just typed up a post and said, "pretty please can we put this out?" and like, 3 minutes later it was up. Everyone agreed it was time! Plus, there's actually a lot of positive stuff to talk about, and it's a new year... good to get it off to a good start.

One other thing - I was braced (I bet we all were) for an absolute sh*tstorm, no matter what I posted, and I pretty much was ready to take a thorough smackdown, but you guys have stepped up and done exactly what you said you would. You said you just wanted info, and it would help. You got it, and you're right, the entire tone on this board was different today than it's been in a long time. That's goodwill on both sides like we've not seen for awhile. It's all good.

Well this brings up a good point - if you were expecting a shipstorm following your righteous effort in trying to give as much info as possible to the user base, then, as righteous as you may be, you still have an overtly negative view of a good deal of the maxwell user base.

Today's info was much needed, and no doubt much appreciated, but I doubt it surprised anyone here - the current development status as outlined by you more or less fits what everyone here imagined (unrealistic longings aside).

The user base (again the majority) has again and again showed a great deal of support through tough times (many purchased a year ago on the promise that a production ready (meaning *really* production ready) render engine would have been released months ago, and has continued to contribute in total silence, and has generally always stated that it would be willing to wait as long as it takes provided that they werent 'misled' as concerns deadlines and the engine status, eg; communication.

So its a good step to get the 'maxwell strikes back' year on the right track, so why not go one step further? A little more faith & patience with the maxwell user base, which, believe it or not, has also been an invaluable and enthuiastic (as much as possible, having been kept in the dark as concerns the development process which is bound to irritate) asset...

I immagine that some of the recent banned members, surely one of which you are so fond of chiding (who incidentally *has* contributed to the forum positively in the past and will continue to do so) would also have been very pleased with the information given out today, and would continue to participate (positively) in this curious WIP which has come to be known as maxwell...

Think about it "cousin"... and thanks for the info...

[mverta]

as righteous as you may be, you still have an overtly negative view of a good deal of the maxwell user base.

Think about it "cousin"... and thanks for the info...

I promise I don't have an overtly negative vew of the userbase, I just wasn't going to underestimate the destructive tendencies of a couple of members, one of whom is no longer with us, and at least one of whom has impressed me to no end today. In any case, I really am glad to help however I can, and for that you're certainly welcome. I hope in time you find that I am sincere, fair, and attentive, if not sarcastic to a fault.

_Mike

[Nicolas Rivera]

Hi Mike, let me start by saying that you have no idea how much relief your comments have meant to me. You have brought peace to my new year and i can now say i'll be willing to stay calm and wait as long as it takes for my RC5 and longer RC5 for OSX.

Mike we have started 2006 the best way possible, with communication.

Thank a lot.

[Romans]

Hello Mike,

thank you for your information, they are clarifieing a lot!

Here are some questions, that I am very curious to know:

I am an architect and sometimes I use Maxwell render within 3ds max for architectural visualizations.
For me there are some limitations using the Maxwell render system.
I would like to ask, if there are options in the final release to overcome this limitations.
Here are the problems:
- Cameras: the Maxwell camera produces 3-point perspectives, that means, that the vertical edges (lines) are converging with height. This is not very useful for architectural images there vertical lines have to remain vertical (2-point perspectives). In 3ds max exists a so called camera correction modifier that resolves this issue (works fine with scanline and also with mental ray). But this helpful modifier cannot be applied to a Maxwell camera. Please inform me if there will be a solution in Maxwell.

- In the render output sequence dialog does not exist an option to adjust the desired image resolution quality (for example 300 dpi or others). Because of this it is necessary to render very large images (only works with the very slow hard disk-option). Please provide an option for this.

- There is no translator or support for Multi/Sub-object materials. This is really a serious problem if you want to render trees for example (like xfrog-plants). It is not a handy option to re-assign Maxwell materials to every part of imported 3rd party tree-object. Is there a solution for this?

Thanks in advance,

Greetings, Roman

[tokiop]

Thanks Mike, Victor and the team

[michaelplogue]

you have test a clip map ?

It's on the list... I'm sorry I'm not allowed to comment further, but that doesn't mean it's not good news.

_Mike

Hmm... I'm confused as to how this topic is so secret? It's a relativly simple question. With RC5, do transparency maps work? It's a yes or no question.

It's been mentioned in this thread that each individual user has his own "pass/fail" feature. Transparency maps are mine.

So, is it yes or no? It either works or it dosen't. I won't be angry if it dosen't, I'd just like to know.......

[mverta]

Michael, it's not that it's so secret, it's that I'm not specifically allowed to comment, is all. No great conspiracy theory.. I'll try and get clearance to say one way or another for you.

_Mike

[michaelplogue]

OK. thanks Mike.

[mverta]

Could've let this bake longer, but it's cool anyway: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... hp?t=10486

Thanks, Tom for the image!

_Mike

[tom]

Thank you for pointing it, Mike. Yes, I could have it bake longer and this was also with an early test version, anyway. But I think it's an unusual material setup and more or less demonstrates the benefits of new material system.

[smeggy]

NDA's are a bitch eh

As a developer myself I know what it's like. I'm not even allowed on our particular users forums, let alone post anything! We're not officially supposed to have any unsupervised contact with the user base at all