[mverta]

Maxer - pulled them because they're outdated, been busy... you know how it is.

Rochr - you can't DO decent concrete without image-based textures. Go get some image-based texture maps. You can't make lemonade without lemons; you can't make photo real textures without photos. And God help you if you say procedurals, because procedurals look fake 90% of the time. There are a billion resources for concrete maps or... dare I say take a picture of some.

A materials database is cute. It also won't cover every situation, no matter how thorough it is, and the bigger it gets, the more unweildly it becomes. If you have 8 billion wood maps, you tend to use the same 5 over and over again anyway, so why not just take the half hour and learn how to make them and save yourself the trouble?

_Mike

[Frances]

deleted

[mverta]

That's okay, Frances, nobody ever listens to me. I posted a "Maxwell 1.0 READ THIS OR DIE" and I still see posts about ND 1.0 objects being black about every other day.

_Mike

[lllab]

"People bought Maxwell partly because it was easy to set up"

no not at all.

i bought it cause i can make awsome renders with it;-)
man really, it isnt that complicated isnt it???

to be honest i find NLs adverisment a bit strange- like a camera. maybe this is true for like with a "haselblatt" in pro hands or so, it is no pocket one click cam for sure...(and thats good so)


cheers
stefan

[Rochr]

Rochr - you can't DO decent concrete without image-based textures. Go get some image-based texture maps. You can't make lemonade without lemons; you can't make photo real textures without photos. And God help you if you say procedurals, because procedurals look fake 90% of the time. There are a billion resources for concrete maps or... dare I say take a picture of some.

I´m well aware of the editors inability to create rough surfaces, and that part in particular take away the "greatness" with this material editor, as well as limit its use considerably. The point with creating materials like that yourself, is that you don´t need to rely on overused photos in case you can´t find the right surface anywhere nearby.
You say that procedurals look fake most of the times. Perhaps they are, or perhaps it´s just a matter of learning how to use them.

[aitraaz]

What the hell happened to JDHill?

[mverta]

Perhaps they are, or perhaps it´s just a matter of learning how to use them.

uhh.... whatever you say. You want to try nail photorealism with procedurals, good freakin' luck.


_Mike

[Maxer]

"People bought Maxwell partly because it was easy to set up"

no not at all.

i bought it cause i can make awsome renders with it;-)
man really, it isnt that complicated isnt it???

to be honest i find NLs adverisment a bit strange- like a camera. maybe this is true for like with a "haselblatt" in pro hands or so, it is no pocket one click cam for sure...(and thats good so)


cheers
stefan

lllab, yes Maxwell made great renderings (I'm still waiting to see any from V1) but that's not the only consideration I had when I purchased it. It was also very important that the workflow of the product was simple and strait forward in both the lighting and material categories. Despite what Mike and Mihai say, this new system is more complicated and harder to work with while producing less than spectacular results. My proof is the lack of imagery both on this forum and on NL's web site, there still using mostly beta imagery to sell Maxwell.

[jdp]

my guess is that the gallery updater isn't working...

[Frances]

deleted

[Rochr]

Perhaps they are, or perhaps it´s just a matter of learning how to use them.

uhh.... whatever you say. You want to try nail photorealism with procedurals, good freakin' luck.

You see, to me, realism is not important. Having the option to use procedurals when creating materials is. I never bought Maxwell for photorealism, but its great lighting abilities, and that´s not necessarily the same thing.
Little did i know that its material handling would suck big time.

[mverta]

to me, realism is not important.

Then Maxwell ain't your engine. If you think Maxwell's developers were interested in getting totally accurate light propgation only to cripple the image with bs materials, you've completely missed the point of Maxwell.

Rochr go over to Mihai's Wood Material thread where he's trying to nursemaid you though basic material creation or maybe check out Ray Dream Designer.

_Mike

[Mihai]

This is ridiculous Rochr....you did know Maxwell didn't have procedurals, what are you complaining about exactly? Procedurals are limited in their use anyway, and trying to make an even somewhat convincing concrete material, or even worse wood using only procedurals......you'll spend ten times more time on it, than simply using a texture.

[lllab]

beside that maxwell is great also for non realistic things, i use it for that too. great ligth is important for both. maxwell gives that.

cheers
stefan

[mverta]

They probably just saw the "DIE" part and steered clear.

I tried the warm and fuzzy approach for the RC 5 release and approxmately 2% of people read it. This time I threatened people and I think we got closer to 25%. Everyone else is just pushing on the "pull" door.

_Mike