[ivox3]

explain yourself Pixel!!

[ivox3]

I have a feeling it's a Beta render with every workaround known to man...

....certainly looks like the beta

[aitraaz]

Naaahhh...

was just wondering. it may turn out to be an alpha render.

or a vray render? Could it be?

[rivoli]

it may be. pixel posted this message on page 36 of this thread:

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... &start=525

it doesn't sound like it comes from a betatester, so either he was enrolled within the last two pages or he cracked the beta core and made it work with caustics, sun and dielectrics.

[aitraaz]

or he cracked the beta core and made it work with caustics, sun and dielectrics.

Yep. And now he's Mr. T, go figure...

[ivox3]

it doesn't sound like it comes from a betatester, so either he was enrolled within the last two pages or he cracked the beta core and made it work with caustics, sun and dielectrics.

Lmao.

[JDHill]

...it's not Maxwell...

[The Pixel Artist]

Uh huh...looks good, then. You been promoted to the A-Team, mate?

Nah, more like a V-Team'er

this is not another hoax, is it?

Sadly it kind of is. But no more so than Maxwell.

or a vray render? Could it be?

Bingo, we have a winner. Yes it is Vray w/ PPT set to sample size of 0 (unbiased). Now for some reason Vray doesn't have these issues with it's unbiased solution. So what's the deal NL? Why is it so hard? Well of course it's your direction and your undying "Unbiased of bust" mentality.

Now also keep in mind that none of you could really tell a practical difference, except for the fact that you knew that it couldn't possibly be true because there's no way Maxwell could do this. And if you guys couldn't tell do you really think our client would be able. Also keep in mind that my tests are 5 times the resolution (1600x900 vs. 600x450) and in less time with basic less noise (or at least the same). Plus this is on a completely un-optimized "rendering system" as PPT just a, more or less, a proof of concept add-on. Once 1.5 comes out (which will be much sooner than M~R V1.0) it will not only have a sun/sky system, physically accurate camera system, and 10x the features but it will also have a more optimized "adaptive PPT" system. The standalone option for several program should also be available before V1.0. Here's a link to adaptive PPT if you’re interested. (I'm sure the current noise in my image test would be completely resolved with this optimization)

http://www.spot3d.com/vray/images/stuff ... e_ppt.html

The main point of this is that, NL, your wasting so much time developing a system that we don't really need instead of integrated that great algorithmic core of yours into a hybrid system that could "display" the same results 10x faster. And if you really were clever you'd also leave the purely unbiased solution option for when we do need it for scientific or special uses.

As far as I’m concerned all “unbiased” means, beyond your big marketing hype, is its an un-optimized, inefficient system that waste precious processing time and makes no real use of today’s underutilizes hardware. You want to give us a true next-gen rendering solution?… Then give us a high quality “hardware accelerated” rendering system based on your core technology.

Am I the only one that thinks this way?

[mgroeteke]

LOL this forum is becoming really a sort of wunderkammer for all kind of render engines...

markus

[Maxer]

Amen!

I think you've got to be the smartest man alive, this makes absolute since to me in every way. Sure let NL continue down the Unbiased path and in 5 years we may have an engine that is as fast as Vray is today. However I don't have 5 years to waste on waiting for Maxwell to attain the feature set or the speed necessary to make it a production product. I know that others have in the past suggested that NL create a biased option for those of us who need speed as opposed to accuracy. I believe that faced with a deadly slow engine that has serious flaws and is Unbiased or one that can do everything that was originally advertised and is fast and biased most people would take the second choice.

[Bige]

wow a 39 page tread.......

I came till page 6. Did I miss something?..
Fill me in please

[ludi]

I'm thinking that NL needs to be nicer to it's OSX users, cuz Windows users are going to be buying Vray (at least until Chaos comes out w/Vray for OSX)

To the minority of 3% worldwide?

[JDHill]

Now also keep in mind that none of you could really tell a practical difference...

...it's not Maxwell...

Sorry, but when a person isn't completely involved in counting the number of bounces through various materials in all of these examples, the difference is more than apparent. For me it was, anyway. I couldn't have told you what renderer it was, but it was definetely *not* Maxwell.

I didn't originally scroll down to see your denoised version...I thought that the first one looked as if it had been denoised *enough*. Biased/unbiased buzzwords aside, the image is flat, lifeless, and sterile. If this was the type of result that Maxwell would produce...I would never have bought it.

Now...

Does this relatively intangible difference matter to your customer? Probably not. But it does to some of us. If you *like* the overall tone of The Pixel Artist's example, there is a clear solution...use VRay. Nobody is stopping you.

I already know there are many who think it's a *silly* position, but nevertheless, I am willing to wait.

~JD

[JDHill]

I couldn't have told you what renderer it was, but it was definetely *not* Maxwell.

Umm.. of course- it didn't show Maxwell's signature screwy shadows. Aside from that, your point would be more persuasive if you'd have made it before the 'game' was up.

Not to nitpick, but scroll up a few...

[4 HeRo]

I couldn't have told you what renderer it was, but it was definetely *not* Maxwell.

Umm.. of course- it didn't show Maxwell's signature screwy shadows. Aside from that, your point would be more persuasive if you'd have made it before the 'game' was up.

But he did