[mverta]

Ok... I opened your scene and just hit render. Right away I noticed a problem: Gamma 1.0 and Burn 2.2.

Compare:



On the far left is MW 1.0 default of .8 Gamma, 2.2 Burn. In the middle is my personal preference, .9,2.45. This most closely represents the Beta default, in my tests. On the far right is yours, 1.0, 2.2. You see the artificially "burned" highlight on the building. This is exactly why I'd asked you about it... you can see it right away, and it's totally CG looking.

In my opinion, .9, 2.45, which looks most like Beta's default, is the most pleasing Gamma/Burn combination, but even .8/2.2 is better.

Now I'll look at the materials.


_Mike

[mverta]

Okay...

If I've said this once, I've said it a million times:

RULE #1: DO NOT USE LAMBERTIAN MODE.

It ALWAYS looks wrong. The sort of "glowy," flat look to your materials is absolutely because of this. Practically speaking, (and technically speaking), no material in the real world is perfectly lambertian. Apparently, there are some space-grade materials that get kind of close. But these aren't obscure, space-grade materials, they're stone and metal and concrete, etc. If you learn nothing else, learn this. Lambertian, BAD.

I'll make some updates and post.


_Mike

[Leonardo]

Okay...

If I've said this once, I've said it a million times:

RULE #1: DO NOT USE LAMBERTIAN MODE.

It ALWAYS looks wrong. The sort of "glowy," flat look to your materials is absolutely because of this. Practically speaking, (and technically speaking), no material in the real world is perfectly lambertian. Apparently, there are some space-grade materials that get kind of close. But these aren't obscure, space-grade materials, they're stone and metal and concrete, etc. If you learn nothing else, learn this. Lambertian, BAD.

I'll make some updates and post.


_Mike

Right now I'm looking at a rock big enough to hide myself

[mverta]

rendering some comparisons now... should be helpful...

_Mike

[Leonardo]

rendering some comparisons now... should be helpful...

_Mike

Could you check the scale of my model?? it seens to be at scale... BUT if I add a light bulb from the library, the light bulb is a lot smaller than my model

[sensor]

Great folks... Special classroom!! lucky day big honour

[mverta]

Ok...

Before I continue, I wanted to show just what sort of impact these first two adjustments make. The only difference between these images are the Burn/Gamma settings, and changing Lambertian mode in the materials to roughness 90. Everything else is identical.

Original




New



The first image looks "punchier," but the same settings which are causing that, are also robbing it of its photorealism, even at this early stage.

The bottom image is far more photographic, but in comparison, it seems a bit washed out.

What we have to do now, is work on getting the bottom image to feel equally "lively," without sacrificing what it has in subtlety, which is definitely more photoreal. That's no problem.. it's in the materials, which are next.

_Mike

[iandavis]

Leo

there are some points I wanna add, even though they don't relate directly to the scene you are exploring.

VUE:
- The render you have, isn't the best Vue can produce. With the appropriate tweaks, one can come very, very close to maxwell. Closer then shown here. So, as much as the Maxwell render is getting the full bore art college critique, the Vue image also stands to improve just as much. I'm not being insulting. I have been messing with Vue for quite a few hours now, and my renders looked similar to yours for quite a while. My point... keep vue in the game.
- my last vue scene was 2.8 BILLION polygons, and the render times at full quality were still only a couple hours. Also, try rendering that many trees, rocks, and volumetric clouds in maxwell. Vue is designed for outdoor renders. It's ability to create convincing spaces full of incredible detail is unmatched anywhere in the consumer software realm.
- vue seems to have issues with video drivers. I have problems in all four of my machines. Nvidia6200, RadeonX800, Radeon9550, Nvidia5200. They all either crash horribly or just lockup the GUI to the point of it being unusable. I'm using all the newest drivers (tried about 10 different versions, none improve the picture). The only real way to use Vue in my experience is to run it in software OGL mode. Then it's kind a sluggish, but on the 6200 and the x800 it's perfectly useable, though frustrating.

Maxwell:
I've never met a more overly complex software interface. I used to develop interfaces for a living... and this.. ughhh... So it's no surprise that your images have the mistakes mentioned by Mike. I've gone through the manual several times in great detail and some of the issues (like lambertan textures and using multiple layers) took quite long to connect to the render quality in my mind. Let's face it, the simplicity of Vue is like being set free in a meadow by comparison.
- Maxwell has the highest capacity for realism. Unfortunately it's expensive. If you threw the resources and time into Vue I believe you could get 90% of the way there. However, that extra 10% in maxwell does come at a cost. Heavy, HEAVY render times to get comparible noise-free (or low-noise) images. Limitations in built in natural systems... not even any atmospheric haze!. Huge memory requirements. Fields of geometry grass in maxwell would bring most of our machines to it's knees begging for mercy.
- NO ANIMATION. Vue has the ability to very quickly animate your building, flythrough, etc. Since Vue does have a million different quality settings, you can dial in exactly the level of realism you need and balance it with a low per frame time. For the job of a moving preview maxwell would be suicide. For a large scene like yours... what is the size of the scene file? 400MB? Well, for a 10 second flythrought it would need to generate approximately 120000MB of data... think about that. Also, DV resolution render times would be (in my experience) 3x that of Vue for professional (not photorealistic) results. Also, Vue generates real world effects during animation. Cloud movement, wind blowing the trees, volumetric light effects, etc.

Sorry for the rant. Just, it's really important to use the right tool for the job. I have spent literally hundreds of hours in the past few months messing with Vue, LW and Maxwell. I recommend you look at some of the results (if you haven't already) achieved by Vue gurus to see how completely useable it is for professional work. It fills the need for exterior visualization WAY better then maxwell. Using maxwell for a scene like yours just seems frustrating, and I have YET to see a really convincing exterior render with maxwell. 90% of the interiors have big "maxwell noise" signs all over them... BUT any of the product shots, or smaller scale scenes all look AMAZING.

So, after all this ranting... Maxwell for product visualization. Vue for architectural or natural scenes. I've tried using vue for my small scale jobs, like a stainless steel library kiosk... no matter what I did the maxwell one always looks substantially better. On the other hand, my considerable effort to use maxwell for large scale objects always has the reverse effect. I actually believe it to be something with the very math of the engine.

Leo... I suggest focusing on the Vue image and learning Vue a bit better. Though Mike is a Maxwell God, I think in his profession he will admit that the mantra is "use the right tool for the job' and using maxwell for your scene WILL result in a finished product that does look bit more photorealistic. But when you add Vue's volumetric lights, clouds, sky, haze, and literally billions of trees, rocks and grass... well... which looks more realistic your house and a complete scene... or a really photorealistic house in a black void. right tool for the job.

Don't be discouraged leo.. just keep at it.

I think it's time we have a render challenge.

I'd be really interested to know if I'm full o'poo or if my experencies and viewpoints are shared by others.

[Leonardo]

HAPPY FRIDAY PEOPLE!!!!!!!!!
iandavis,
Thank so much for your Rant, it makes my afternoon more interesting
Now being completely honest, Maxwell and Vue are awesome programs... So hopefully nobody is looking at my renderings and thinking "God, that software is a pice of poo!"
People!!.. I don't do much justice to neither one

Unfortunately, I'm an architect who doesn't get that much time to play around (I wish I could though ... but, by the time that I get home... the least thing I want to do is turn on a pc )

Anyway, It took like 8-12 hours to render that scene in Vue... am I doing something wrong?
(I'll post the vue file so you can give it a shot, if you get the time)

leo

Leo

there are some points I wanna add, even though they don't relate directly to the scene you are exploring.

VUE:
- The render you have, isn't the best Vue can produce. With the appropriate tweaks, one can come very, very close to maxwell. Closer then shown here. So, as much as the Maxwell render is getting the full bore art college critique, the Vue image also stands to improve just as much. I'm not being insulting. I have been messing with Vue for quite a few hours now, and my renders looked similar to yours for quite a while. My point... keep vue in the game.
- my last vue scene was 2.8 BILLION polygons, and the render times at full quality were still only a couple hours. Also, try rendering that many trees, rocks, and volumetric clouds in maxwell. Vue is designed for outdoor renders. It's ability to create convincing spaces full of incredible detail is unmatched anywhere in the consumer software realm.
- vue seems to have issues with video drivers. I have problems in all four of my machines. Nvidia6200, RadeonX800, Radeon9550, Nvidia5200. They all either crash horribly or just lockup the GUI to the point of it being unusable. I'm using all the newest drivers (tried about 10 different versions, none improve the picture). The only real way to use Vue in my experience is to run it in software OGL mode. Then it's kind a sluggish, but on the 6200 and the x800 it's perfectly useable, though frustrating.

Maxwell:
I've never met a more overly complex software interface. I used to develop interfaces for a living... and this.. ughhh... So it's no surprise that your images have the mistakes mentioned by Mike. I've gone through the manual several times in great detail and some of the issues (like lambertan textures and using multiple layers) took quite long to connect to the render quality in my mind. Let's face it, the simplicity of Vue is like being set free in a meadow by comparison.
- Maxwell has the highest capacity for realism. Unfortunately it's expensive. If you threw the resources and time into Vue I believe you could get 90% of the way there. However, that extra 10% in maxwell does come at a cost. Heavy, HEAVY render times to get comparible noise-free (or low-noise) images. Limitations in built in natural systems... not even any atmospheric haze!. Huge memory requirements. Fields of geometry grass in maxwell would bring most of our machines to it's knees begging for mercy.
- NO ANIMATION. Vue has the ability to very quickly animate your building, flythrough, etc. Since Vue does have a million different quality settings, you can dial in exactly the level of realism you need and balance it with a low per frame time. For the job of a moving preview maxwell would be suicide. For a large scene like yours... what is the size of the scene file? 400MB? Well, for a 10 second flythrought it would need to generate approximately 120000MB of data... think about that. Also, DV resolution render times would be (in my experience) 3x that of Vue for professional (not photorealistic) results. Also, Vue generates real world effects during animation. Cloud movement, wind blowing the trees, volumetric light effects, etc.

Sorry for the rant. Just, it's really important to use the right tool for the job. I have spent literally hundreds of hours in the past few months messing with Vue, LW and Maxwell. I recommend you look at some of the results (if you haven't already) achieved by Vue gurus to see how completely useable it is for professional work. It fills the need for exterior visualization WAY better then maxwell. Using maxwell for a scene like yours just seems frustrating, and I have YET to see a really convincing exterior render with maxwell. 90% of the interiors have big "maxwell noise" signs all over them... BUT any of the product shots, or smaller scale scenes all look AMAZING.

So, after all this ranting... Maxwell for product visualization. Vue for architectural or natural scenes. I've tried using vue for my small scale jobs, like a stainless steel library kiosk... no matter what I did the maxwell one always looks substantially better. On the other hand, my considerable effort to use maxwell for large scale objects always has the reverse effect. I actually believe it to be something with the very math of the engine.

Leo... I suggest focusing on the Vue image and learning Vue a bit better. Though Mike is a Maxwell God, I think in his profession he will admit that the mantra is "use the right tool for the job' and using maxwell for your scene WILL result in a finished product that does look bit more photorealistic. But when you add Vue's volumetric lights, clouds, sky, haze, and literally billions of trees, rocks and grass... well... which looks more realistic your house and a complete scene... or a really photorealistic house in a black void. right tool for the job.

Don't be discouraged leo.. just keep at it.

I think it's time we have a render challenge.

I'd be really interested to know if I'm full o'poo or if my experencies and viewpoints are shared by others.

[DrMerman]

Leo, nice model mate! It'l be really really REALLY interesting to see how mike works his magic on it. Liking the progress so far...

[mverta]

By the way, before I continue... you started this thread as a "comparison", but it really isn't - the conditions are far too different to be considered apples-to-apples.

The vue image is lit with an even light/overcast look, while the Maxwell image has a sunset look with direct shadows. The vue image has clear sky/clouds as its backdrop, which doesn't match the lighting, and isn't helping that image, either, but that's a topic for another day.

Anyway, I just quickly did a Maxwell render - still using your materials (non-Lambertian this time) - using an overcast HDR, just so can see even-ish lighting on the model.



Also, I should point out that when doing material work, it's best not to have an overly colored light source, otherwise you can't tell what you're seeing accurately. For my material work, I'll be using more neutral lighting.

_Mike

[Maxer]

Leo, what kind of map did you use for your grass? It looks great from this distance, how does it look up close? I've been looking for a good way to do grass in Maxwell, can you give some pointers.

[lllab]

leonardo, thanks for your great answer, you do have time to answer long other post though.

i still find the trees very nice, not the building of course. mverta did that much better.

cheers
stefan

[mverta]

Actually, I'm working on the grass right now... not crazy about the map, actually...

_Mike

[mverta]

First round of changes:

I make my stone/concretes with 2 layers: 1 high roughness layer, and one medium roughness glossy sheen that's very subtle, like 90/10 weightmap.

One thing I've noticed is that your texture maps, like the roof tiles and the trees are very "cartoony" looking. They're super saturated, and don't look like photos. Remember: Garbage In, Garbage Out. It's very difficult to get photoreal work without strong textures to start with. Here the only one I've corrected so far is the grass, which, lightness aside, was overly saturated. These things add up.

A ways to go yet, but here's the first preview, with some noon day lighting.



The trees need a recoloring, and the texture map for the wood pieces needs replacing altogether - it's an image of a couple of logs, which when mapped to this geometry, leaves that strong black line along the surfaces. I'll be replacing it with a similar wood, but without the "prebuilt" stepped logs in the image.

_Mike