[The Pixel Artist]

I guess if the dielectric/sun problem was fixed one of the "A-Team" guys would have posted a render by now. :/

exactly. Instead they give you this (http://www.ag-systems.net/images/stereotactic.jpg), not a dielectric in sight.

Please A-Team, prove me wrong. Render a scene just like the one I did. It took me, what, 25 min to setup and wouldn't it be a perfect beta test of your system.



UDHill:
Sorry man, but I call "Bullshit". Yes we all have a trained eye around here, but "if" maxwell was able to do this and my vray version was just a post in the gallery section no one would even question, including you I'm sure (yeah I know you'll say different). It look flat because IT REALLY A FLAT SCENE. There no detail. Here it you want depth heres what Vray can do with a good use of 4 hours.
http://www.thepixelartist.com/c2004008/ ... b_1800.jpg

JDHill i think you are wrong

For a proof... i beg Pixel Artist to render the exact same scene with Maxwell Beta.

You will see the exact same picture.

I hope we will have it soon.

Better yet, heres a test. Which is which (and will you might eventually get it, be honist with just how long it take you)
Image 1:http://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... ay25bq.jpg
Image 2:http://img219.imageshack.us/my.php?imag ... ay14eu.jpg

Amen! Wink Very Happy

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.

You know the truly sad thing for us and our industry is that we now live in a time the hardware to render image as visually photorealist as anything in maxwell or vray in minute if not second or even realtime (not that we need realtime). Hell, Nvidia/Dell just annouced a quad SLI 7800 system. Can you really imagine what could done with that. That image I made in 3:30 hours could easily be done in seconds. Vitually all of the major limitations keeping us from having a HQ truly photoreal hardware accelerated rendering system are gone (it's really been possible for more that 5 year). And for some really some reason this industry has been to lazy/scared to develop it.

You want a laugh, look at what the F'n PS2 can do with Gran Turismo 4's photo mode.

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/artic ... 344184.jpg

http://ps2media.ign.com/ps2/image/artic ... 755090.jpg

[ajlynn]

Sorry man, but I call "Bullshit". Yes we all have a trained eye around here, but "if" maxwell was able to do this and my vray version was just a post in the gallery section no one would even question, including you I'm sure (yeah I know you'll say different). It look flat because IT REALLY A FLAT SCENE. There no detail. Here it you want depth heres what Vray can do with a good use of 4 hour

With you on every point. Yes you can tell it's not Maxwell - for one thing, the image is done by a renderer that works properly. It's really not in any noticeable way inferior to what Maxwell can do, just a bit different, and I would argue that given the Vray feature set versus even the feature set promised in Maxwell 1.0 (procedural textures... alpha maps... we're waiting for Maxwell 2.0 now?) given time to do a detailed scene the Vray render will come out better than the Maxwell. It won't look like Maxwell, but so what?

What's the complaint with the render? That it doesn't have enough color noise? Are you seeing bias that I'm not? (Can you actually see bias?)

BTW, the point on hardware rendering - have you seen nVidia Gelato?

And I'll guess that #2 is Maxwell.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[JDHill]

Sorry man, but I call "Bullshit".

...I thought I already did that...before you 'revealed' the charade.

Honestly, don't take it so personal.

By the way, I'll not play the comparo game. I would never claim the ability to discern this from that every time. The scene you presented just wasn't a good one for fooling people, that's all. I don't deny that certain setups can look very similar on another renderer. It's the ones ones that can't that I'm referring to.

As I said before, if VRay satisfies your needs, by all means, use it.

~JD

[ystmrk]

Here it you want depth heres what Vray can do with a good use of 4 hours.
http://www.thepixelartist.com/c2004008/ ... b_1800.jpg

If maxwell render could make only such an image, I would not buy it.

Of course, I feel dissatisfaction in the present conditions of maxwell render.
I wish that content of the white paper is realized.
I do not need mediocre GI-render.

[aitraaz]

Getting back on topic, I wish to hell NL would put the whole material system down and not touch it again until sky/sun/dielectrics and clipmaps are working 100%. The beta material system provided 99% of what I *need*. OTOH, this engine is going to be nearly worthless to me without the aforementioned capabilities.

The material system is cool and all, but save it for 1.x or 2.0.

I'm not out to argue, or anything, but i think the material system is *the only way* to fix the persistent problems manifest in the beta. Having said that, to return to your point, yes, maybe some of the more fancy nanometric stuff (and nostradamus-style ior indexes) could be pushed back to a later date...

[ajlynn]

It's the ones ones that can't that I'm referring to.

My turn to call bull****. Give me the model file and I'll do the same quality render in Vray, Cinema4D and maybe mental ray and FinalRender if I have the time.

[Maya69]

see annoncement

new image by miha

[paxreid]

It's the ones ones that can't that I'm referring to.

My turn to call bull****. Give me the model file and I'll do the same quality render in Vray, Cinema4D and maybe mental ray and FinalRender if I have the time.

This is arguable...and I am sure you are talented in each of these programs..

but...

this begs the question.....why are you here putting yourself through the torture of waiting for a rendering engine you think you can emulate with so many other engines? What are you here for then? I am not attacking you or being offensive..just seems strange to me.

[Olivier Cugniet]

see annoncement

new image by miha

interresting pics, for texturing everything goes better

[paxreid]

see annoncement

new image by miha

This seems very very promising. Nothing really new..but it is a reminder at the power of the layered system. As I was reading though his process, I was thinking of all the benefits and unlimited variation possible.

Amazing...

[ajlynn]

Here it you want depth heres what Vray can do with a good use of 4 hours.
http://www.thepixelartist.com/c2004008/ ... b_1800.jpg

If maxwell render could make only such an image, I would not buy it.

Of course, I feel dissatisfaction in the present conditions of maxwell render.
I wish that content of the white paper is realized.
I do not need mediocre GI-render.

With all due props to Adrian (damn good work there) that's not the "only" image Vray could make from that model. With more CPU time the GI could be better - though I don't think it's necessary, and I think the render time here would put Maxwell to shame.

And (correct me if I'm wrong) I think I see some things in there that Maxwell can't do. Displacement for the grass and roof? Alpha maps in the plants? Do I detect some procedural textures and a sky photo in the environment that's being reflects by the window glass, which has a slight "oilcan" bump effect and is not noisy?

[ajlynn]

this begs the question.....why are you here putting yourself through the torture of waiting for a rendering engine you think you can emulate with so many other engines? What are you here for then? I am not attacking you or being offensive..just seems strange to me.

I want the render engine I was promised when I bought Maxwell - that does produce better images than Vray etc, in reasonable time, and is easier to use (saving me time with setup). Also I want the "physically accurate" features because of my interest in architectural lighting - but the way it is now, with some key glass+light functions missing and the speed issues, it's not good enough for that. So it can be used in a limited way for visualization renders (not for analytical ones, which I consider just as important) but so what - so can all these other programs, which are faster and more completely functional.

I really do think that if NL fixes the various problems with MR it will be better for my purposes than these other engines, but that doesn't do me much good when they're way behind schedule in fixing the problems.

[giacob]

weight maps are really new to maxwell....not new in absolute because they look light mixmap a mask map on procedural 3dmax.. (dont they?)... surely they broaden very much the possibility to create new materials...
.. in the end there are some reason to be satisfied with the development..
fire flies are disappeared and the rc seems to work decentely... we can create many more materials...besides i like this way to shows the development dayly through the images of a-team testers..

[Maximus3D]

Those new images looks real good and using weightmaps for those things, sweet idea i like that, it makes materials quicker to make and opens up new doors to what you can do. Wonder what more they implemented..

/ Max