[mverta]

I don't know what else to tell you guys... whether it makes sense to you or not, that's the deal! Promise! They don't need more bodies, for the same reason that having more piano players doesn't make the music any better.

Bottom line, plug-ins are getting the love as the primary way people are going to use Maxwell. Personally, I'm a Maya guy, and comfortable in that environment; I don't see myself using Studio, so I'm with you. I'm happy with what I see happening progress-wise on the Maya plug-in.

_Mike

[Maxer]

Ok Mike I appreciate what you've said, I realize you have no control over what they do and your doing your best to make lemonade out of lemons. If there developing the plugins so that most if not all features available in studio are also available in the plugins that's all were after.

[mverta]

I realize you have no control over what they do and your doing your best to make lemonade out of lemons. If there developing the plugins so that most if not all features available in studio are also available in the plugins that's all were after.

Well, actually I'm just approaching it selfishly: Are they building the plug-ins to do what I paid for them to do? (Interface my Maya with the Maxwell render, with all features fully supported.) Yes. Okay, then I'm happy. I guess Studio is cool, but I know it's not stealing from the primary focus. It's just that right now, there's a lot more than can be done in Studio development that's not directly core-dependent, like the GUI. Our plug-ins are only interested in what's going on at the heart of Maxwell, so they kind of have to hang out a bit waiting for each function to lock.

_Mike

[lllab]

hmmm..

well i mostly just work in cinema4d with the plugin,

BUT i also like to open my mxs from time to time in studio, test out some light situatuions with fast preview, putting some custom materials together...

so i am very happy to have both. and to be honest i dont think it is too hard to make just an interface like studio for NL. they already have realflow, i think they might reuse big parts of the interface and just link it with the maxwell features. most studio features are necesarry for maxwell anyways. so whats the problem? i dont think studio is costing much extra time for NL.

you want to have only the plugins? thats crayzy, i want both for my money.

cheers
stefan

[mverta]

Well #1, Studio is beta software still in development, and #2 plug-ins will allow you to do all of Studio's stuff in your host, that's what they're for.

Certain things like the Focus Ring tool, for example, will probably not be integrated into the host anytime soon, but that's a guess, and it's the only thing I can think of in Studio that's like that right now.

_Mike

[Rochr]

They're not forcing Studio on you, brother, they're just developing a necessary interface for someone who's needs differ from yours. Plug-in development is no less a priority, it's just that you can't fully develop a plug-in for core features that aren't complete. But plug-ins are getting lots of petting and stroking and love, so don't you worry your little head about it

_Mike

So i´ve been told before...
I honestly don´t worry to much about it anymore, since i don´t expect them to deliver. I would love to be proven wrong though.

...it's just helping to level the playing field and make Maxwell available to the widest userbase.

Fair enough and i´m all for giving people without 3D apps something to work with. But achieving this by first pissing on the majority of the customers is not a very good move.
And i think most normal companies would agree with me.

If there developing the plugins so that most if not all features available in studio are also available in the plugins that's all were after.

Agreed!

[mverta]

I've only had 8 posts on CGArchitect, so it wasn't hard to find the post you are referring to. My exact quote is:

• Rs1+ was devised because the total time for development of Rs2 for release would've been too great. Users need something to work with sooner than that. And because so much of the development time has gone into Studio and the materials (which are really Rs2's materials), then at least 2/3rds of the development time - if not more - is progressive. Rs2 works, and needs more time.

It's a touch confusing; I understand why you might have thought that, but I wasn't saying Rs2 had been pushed back because of Studio, I was saying that Rs2 was pushed back just because of its own complexity and since so much time had been spent on revisions which will carry into the future, the effort was progressive. Might've been more clear if I'd said:

• And because so much of the development time since then has gone into Studio and materials, then at least it's progress we'll continue to benefit from in the long term.

Sorry for the confusion.

_Mike

[Maya69]

sorry mverta

i have a studid question

rs2 is deliver with release 1.0 ?

rs2 is avaible after release ?

rs2 is free for customer of release 1.0 ?

[mverta]

Rs2 is the next-generation engine, available post-1.0.

Free? I have no idea.

_Mike

[Maya69]

ok next generation

but rs1+ work correctly with glass probleme, with speed otimisation, with cooperative render ?

i want make confiance in nl

but if nl don't solve this probleme i can't considere release 1 as release

this just a beta !!!

[dd_]

my 2 cents worth
i said right from the begining that i can wait aslong as it take but my number one fear was that version 1 would be missing features and stuff we need and then version 2 which we would pay for would contain them. is it me or does this sound like this is happening. unless our free gift is a free version 2 which works as we where told version 1 would.
i aint flaming im just voicing my concerns.

[dd_]

exactly my point
legally they have delivered version 1
what comes after is what comes after (when we all know that should be version 1 or not)

like i said i have always said give them enough time to develope it proper. but my fear was getting a below par version 1 and having to fork out more cash for the v1 we actually wanted/was promised
but i think the clever thing was the free gift statement as this gives them a loop hole to actually give us the real V1 for the price we already paid for.
like i said i aint flaming im just airing my thoughts that i had right back nearly 1 yr ago.
as you can see im using it for clients and im trying to use it on a regular basis so its not like my faith has gone to the dark side. and even though im using it for clients its a fight to get the turn around to match my client needs with all the corners i have to work around and the time of the renderings. BUT I WANT MAXWELL TO GROW INTO WHAT I KNOW IT CAN DO and i am willing to wait aslong as it takes, just dont give us a version 1 that really isnt PLEASE

[Kabe]

Well, though some of the plugins features have to wait for advanced
features in the core, quite a few don't.

Just some examples from the Cinema plugin:
* To fix custom "mxm" support in the Mac version
* To have hierarchical export
* To fix stupid crash bugs, some of them in there since the very first version
* To write a working date entry routine

Nothing of this would have to wait for RC6, but still there's really not much
movement on this issues ever since.

And here my opinion is that releasing that kind of plugin code into public
would speed things up tremendously.

The alternative is to be the "Jack of all trades, master of none".

Kabe

[dd_]

ie fix the if left open in c4d dont crash once c4d is reopened
so many times ive closed cinema down only to reopen it the next day to find i didnt close the maxwell plugin down. then i have to go find the plugin and remove it, restart cinema and then close the maxwell dialog window, shut cinema down and then place the plugin back in the folder
this is an olllllllllllllllllllllllld annnoying BUG that imho needs fixing please.

[garyswindell]

There's no energy or crew working on Studio that would otherwise be working on plug-ins... it's just helping to level the playing field and make Maxwell available to the widest userbase.

_Mike

It seems that NL should immediately stop working on this silly renderer and sell the technology that allows studio to be created without using any programming resources. THAT is amazing technology.

Question - Do plugins (and SDK!) need work? Answer - YES. Unequivocal yes.

Question - Are programmers required to work on plugins? Answer - YES. Again unequivocal.

Question - Are programmers required to work on studio? Answer - YES.

SO HOW CAN YOU SAY NO ENERGY IS BEING SPENT ON STUDIO THAT COULDN'T OTHERWISE BE SPENT ON PLUGINS??????????????????????

2 + 2 <> 5 (except in NL land)