All posts relating to Maxwell Render 1.x
User avatar
By mverta
#106125
Adam Trachtenberg wrote:I mean, this isn't some little thing where you might say, "hm, good question let me check."
Is for me. I'm from visual effects where everything has been a cheat for as long as I can remember. Maxwell represents, philosophically, a quantum shift in thinking for our business. I see the sun+glass thing and I think, "big, deal, just render one pass without glass and put the windows in later." We've gotten plenty of televsion and film fx done for awhile before Maxwell. But I'm asking about it for you guys anyway ;)

_Mike
Last edited by mverta on Sun Jan 08, 2006 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
By giacob
#106127
it's a long time since i am maturing the thought that dielettric and direct ligth in maxwell are intrinsequely conflictual and there is no solution...
User avatar
By Lutz
#106128
for me too is importetd that in architectural renderings the sun+glas thing works!!!
User avatar
By rivoli
#106137
mverta wrote: I see the sun+glass thing and I think, "big, deal, just render one pass without glass and put the windows in later." We've gotten plenty of televsion and film fx done for awhile before Maxwell.
so did anyone who does arch viz. fact is, it's not that easy when the renderer can't render out different passes, hide objects from cameras, doesn't have any kind of caching or baking and so on. in this case you're better off with sun/glass working as they should.
Last edited by rivoli on Mon Jan 09, 2006 12:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
By markps
#106150
As long as you are on that path... any news on clipmaps? that's is cenrtainly a big thing :o
User avatar
By macray
#106157
anyone registered the scale? There is no 55 degrees but 2x90 degrees.

Anyone else thinking that the new image doesn't show any new things? At least I don't see any improvements. This image could have been done in BETA, or?

Can anyone point out improvements/new things/ new materials... in this image, please!
User avatar
By dutch_designer
#106212
makeReal wrote:can someone volunteer to fix the clip map problem?
I'm sure we could club together to hire an external programmer for NL, so we could have clip maps.
lol, funny man :roll:
By Nuno Faria
#106222
mverta wrote:Physical sky + Sunlight (not skydome) penetrating glass, then penetrating glass sphere, and leaving strong caustics. My glass settings are a touch dark; most likely attenuation settings. Is this what you guys are worried about?

Image

_Mike
Image

just to compare noise...
User avatar
By ivox3
#106223
What is this second image? ...a faster rendertime/ sunlight thru glass and it has caustics on the walls ..? ....i'm not sure i understand where the image is from.
User avatar
By VisualImpact
#106227
Ivox3, second image is done with beta.
By Nuno Faria
#106262
ivox3 wrote:What is this second image? ...a faster rendertime/ sunlight thru glass and it has caustics on the walls ..? ....i'm not sure i understand where the image is from.
you'll have to start from page 33...
my point is: from this example (comparison), there's no diference for current beta.

best regards,
nuno
User avatar
By aitraaz
#106265
Nuno Faria wrote:
mverta wrote:Physical sky + Sunlight (not skydome) penetrating glass, then penetrating glass sphere, and leaving strong caustics. My glass settings are a touch dark; most likely attenuation settings. Is this what you guys are worried about?

Image

_Mike
Image

just to compare noise...
Well, looks like no difference as relates to noise. The reflections in the RS1+ test look alot sharper, which lead to believe that they've fixed the 'glass bluriness' problem which would be a big improvement. :) No reflected caustics from the glass spheres, though...
User avatar
By ivox3
#106267
Adam Trachtenberg wrote:Over 28,000 views of this thread? GD!
28769 currently ........the sad thing is that i think a large part of this number could be divided by a dozen users. I personally represent 282 of those views! :lol:
User avatar
By hyltom
#106269
Nuno Faria wrote:my point is: from this example (comparison), there's no diference for current beta.
Well I think the new core is maybe a little bit faster.
mverta's computer is a P4 2.2 yours is a P4 3.06 ghz...means more than 30 % faster. Then the hyperthreading is not enable in mverta's computer, is it the same case for yours? If this is not the case so I think there's a big difference of render time between the beta and this RC. And as mverta said the new core is not optimized which, i presume, was not the case of the beta.

All this means that for the same amount of time the new RC will be less noisy...little bit less.

Hyltom
  • 1
  • 28
  • 29
  • 30
  • 31
  • 32
  • 57
render engines and Maxwell

Ai actually can’t compete with a proper CA[…]