[Thomas An.]

Can you try to be a little reasonable? You wish to have redone 70 pages and 10 months worth of gallery images within two weeks ?
Doesn't this type of thinking sound a little like "lets tie a stone on V1.0 ... if it floats on the river it is innocent... but if it sinks then its a witch... "

Also, what method did you use to determine that these older images are now untouchable ? From my simple tests the output is quite comperable and I have at least one image where the output appears superior. (of course it is a non-architectural image; since I am on a different field than you)

Have you ever wondered why we haven't seen any nice imagery from the A-Team, I mean they had months to work with V1 and in all that time no one had a chance to produce any WOW type of work?

No, it hasn't occured to me since this line of thinking of attaching motives based on wishfull thinking is based on conjecture. I would rather see what happens now that V1.0 is out.

[Maxer]

No Thomas I simply pointing out that a majority of the people here purchased Maxwell based on what they saw from the Alpha\Beta. What we have now is a totally different evolution of Maxwell that may be inferior to the beta as many people are finding out. I'm not expecting 70 pages of imagery to be redone, but what I did expect was some comparison between architectural images done with the beta and those done with V1.

I'm not out to kill V1 and I didn't start out thinking negatively about it, but after doing some testing and spending weeks trying to get cooperative rendering to work I've decided that the beta was superior in many ways. The material editor is just the latest example where the difficulty level has shot up with little if no return in image quality compared to what I was using.

No, it hasn't occured to me since this line of thinking of attaching motive to others involves conjecture. I would rather see what happens now that V1.0 is out than what may have happened behind closed doors.

I agree, there could have been many reasons why they didn't have any imagery to show us, I'm willing to concede that. But what is stopping them now?

[Thomas An.]

"What we have now is a totally different evolution of Maxwell"

True.

"... that may be inferior to the beta as many people are finding out".

or it maybe superior to beta.
You could be right ... but you can't expect me (us) to agree with you readily on this one so soon. Especially since my last jewelry tests were quite satisfactory.

"but what I did expect was some comparison between architectural images done with the beta and those done with V1"

Yes, that would be ideal, but it is a marketing issue. Now the lack of this step does not imply automatic inferiority or presumption of guilt (it could be either way).

" after doing some testing and spending weeks trying to get cooperative rendering to work "

Ok, you have some technical difficulties (understandable)... but cooperative rendering is not the lighting algorithm used. It is a network thing. I don't see how this presents v1.0 as having "cartoonish renders".

"The material editor is just the latest example where the difficulty level has shot up with little if no return in image quality compared to what I was using"

Well the material editor is a generalized version of the the beta system. In that sense I feel it is far superior. What was missing from it, is an explanation presented in ways that will make people "click". The beta system was a mere subset of the new one... and although I am not 100% positive just yet (still doing tests on it) but it seems to me that if we limit our use to only one BSDF (including for plastics) and try to always use complex IOR for all metals (such as silver, gold, copper, etc) then we are back to beta simplicity.

[morbid angel]

[Hybaj]

Ok so let's say it this way.

With V1 it's much harder to acheive the same "realistic" or more "eye-satysfying" look. With beta it was much easier to get that look because it was almost automatic.

Yeah it depends strongly on the artist himself. People like Zuliban know how to juice maximum from their renderers. It looks like it doesn't matter what renderers these people use. They just do great pics everytime...

But it's getting much more harder even for a good artist to make those classy pictures we have seen before. The AA looks ugly, the grain looks worser (even though noise clearing is faster) ... now how do you overcome these things even when you're a good artist?? Even not so great artist were doing amazing works with under 20 minutes of setting everything up in the beta.

I don't say it's impossible. It is possible... but what amount of tweaking,setting up and post production does it take??? Hmmm???

EDIT : But WHY were the images produced from beta nicer?? Light propagation? Beta materials? Grain/AA ?? Probably alot of things in the V1 are the same as in beta but still .. weird...

Maybe we should do a competition or a study where people would try to acheive the look of beta. After they get the picture to the same ehm "eye pleasing quality" they will tell us all the steps they have done to get it to that look. Maybe then we are finaly going to be able to name the factors/features that are the real culprits. Maybe then we will finaly understand what makes a really good picture.

[DELETED]

DELETED

[juan]

Thanks for sharing your opinions.

It would had been a bit unfair comparing the first alpha of Nov 04 with the rest of the render engines. Beta was released so much later and there was not a big change in the technology so people already knew how to use it. Months later the gallery was impressed. Maxwell 1.0 was released 25 days ago, we can not expect people get the most of it just now, it never happens in this way. Our mission is to provide the tools to make it easier and this is just what we are doing now, allow you to create advanced presets just with a click. The old material system was too limited, can't you remember the huge issues with clipmaps or dielectrics? could you be happy without multilight or emitter + no emitter mixture? It is in the human nature remembering only the good side of the things ( Thank goodness!), but we need to be as objective as possible. The challenge is not bring beta quality back because 1.0 internally is better in absolutely all the areas. The challenge is bring the friendly use back, which has very sense and we totally agree with that idea; this is the way we follow now.

Juan

[arch4d]

really good to hear, juan!

thanks for this statement.
i see you guys hear our thoughts and fears !

[bugyboo]

I didn't forget how we want Maxwell to be faster and less noisy basically.
the Question is rather than new material system is v1 treats light diffrently than beta or the new imporvment of its technology should be used on right way or you wont get the "The Beta Feel of realsim" !!

thanx for this statment, Juan!

[Maxer]

Good to hear that someone is listening Juan, hope we see some results soon.

[Frances]

deleted

[lllab]

very good words Juan!

Francis, again i see it very different, i feel still quite the same in v1 as beta, i am sorry i cant share your opinions at all.

i respect of course that you see it that way, but there are also other people feeling it different. it is not a "fact" that v1 is absolutely different to beta or rc5, it is an opinion.

maybe you are a little biased (;-) against v1? have you worked with it deeply or did you straight go back to beta?

cheers
stefan

edit: in fact what disturbes me is that i feel TO MUCH like in beta still, regarding plugins and some bugs. hope NL will give us nice and solid updates soon.

[Frances]

deleted

[lllab]

" I don't recall telling anyone that they were wrong for liking V1"

well its sounds like, you state all the subjective things you dislike as facts.
it is just subjective that the material editor is complicated or not good or something. and it is subjective that v1 is getting not so nice results as beta.
others see it very different.

so at the end yes there are different opinions, i didnt stated you where wrong, but just to sperate facts from you subjective experience and feelings.

i never said your feelings are wrong, i just say they are subjective, and others migth see the same thing different.

cheers
stefan

[DELETED]

DELETED