[noseman]

Hi there Tyrone, is the topic on the Cinemaxwell bug list up to date?
I haven't installed (and won't bother) cinemaxwell yet because it seems to be too buggy.
I don't have any time to experiment and debug it, so please tell me if the bugs in the topic are valid.

Thanks.

[Tyrone Marshall]

Check the date of the issue, I usually post the date when I update the file.

It is as current as the lastest release.

I would install V1 as it has surpassed the "alpha" and "beta" experience.

[Rochr]

Except it´s slower.
I just went back to RC5 and it renders a hell of a lot faster again.

[Tyrone Marshall]

Except it´s slower.
I just went back to RC5 and it renders a hell of a lot faster again.

V1.0 renders faster than alpha, beta, RC1, RC2, RC3, RC4, and RC5 on my machine. Not sure about what is happening for you.

But if you want to take many many many steps backward then that is your choice Rochr. I would be interested to see what you are testing and how this is so that you are getting slower renders on V1.0.

[Rochr]

Since RC5 works well on my machine and it has almost everything i need except for hd-option, i don´t exactly see it as a step backwards.

But here´s a scene i´ve been trying out in 1.0.


Considering that it´s an extremely simple scene, and only contains about 1% of the amount of objects i normally put in a scene, it still have an unacceptable amount of noise after 10 hours, it´s not exactly what i call fast.

Especially considering that this considerably larger one took me 50 hours in total in RC5. And in more than twice the resolution as the lamp image.

[Tyrone Marshall]

If you are using the same materials, lighting, and etc. from RC5 then no wonder. You should use all newly created materials from V1.0 as a lot of the materials have changed, i.e. Nd, and ISO has changed. A number of other things which make simply loading a pre-V1.0 and rendering it as is a problem.

I still do not understand exactly what you are comparing. I have not run into a case where V1.0 is slower than a previous version. I have run quite a number of scenes rendered from RC5 and they come out better in V1.0 and in less time.

[Rochr]

I probably could´ve explained it better in my last post.
I made the lamp scene yesterday after installing 1.0, so it´s a brand new scene, and it´s neither the same materials nor lighting. The lamp scene above contains nothing but a white diffuse material and 3 basic mxm materials. I haven´t used any textures as with the second image.

What i find strange is that this simple lowres scene with no textures and new mxm´s takes so long to clear up, while a complex scene in RC5 with highres textures and thousands of objects, and in much higher resolution, renders faster. I had a lot less noise 10 hours into the tech scene than what you see in the lamp image here.

I think that´s a resonable comparison.
I don´t know why it´s slower, but it is.

[noseman]

So the "final" version of cinemaxwell is still crap.
Since it is FINAL it should be fully functional.

NL screwed up again.
Can you please tell me what NL's excuse is now?
I have kept my mouth shut for over a year and you know that.
What's wrong with these people?

[Rochr]

I think the best thing you can do is to try it on your system. Probably the only way you can find out if it works better or not.

[kmwhitt]

Noseman:

Don't waste your time with the Cinema plug-in! It has less functionality than it used to (i.e. - image map limitations, emitter intensity problems, etc.) Also, the render settings don't save within Cinema - how long have we been complaining about this?

Kevin