[Voidmonster]

Sorry for not responding directly to your tests, SJ.

I've been pondering what you've got here. It's a very, very useful test. Thank you for doing it!

I've got some questions though.

First of all, why are you using a different gamma value between beta and V1?

Second, what SL are the images rendered to?

I'm wondering if V1 doesn't successively add bounces to its calculations as it goes along. Also wondering if perhaps light isn't getting eaten by the material.

Would you be willing to post your MXS files for this? It might be useful if others could monkey with the settings and try to match the beta image, if it's possible.

[Thomas An.]

First of all, why are you using a different gamma value between beta and V1?

I have come to this conclusion as well in regards to V1.0. It seems gamma 2.45 for v1.0 is like gamma 2.2 for beta (or something to that effect)

[SJ]

First of all, why are you using a different gamma value between beta and V1?

I have come to this conclusion as well in regards to V1.0. It seems gamma 2.45 for v1.0 is like gamma 2.2 for beta (or something to that effect)

Yes, I tried to match the overall appearance of both renders as much as possible. That's why the gammas are different.

Second, what SL are the images rendered to?

Both were rendered to about a SL of 17. The V1-rendering was calculated on a P4 3.0 HT and the Beta on a P4 2.6 non-HT for about the same time. So it seems, the SL are going up faster in the Beta, but I read somewhere that they are not proportional. So I think these numbers are not very relevant.
Ultimately, the V1-rendering had more rendering-power at its deposal.

The MXS can be found here

[mverta]

Yes, it's true that beta SL's don't correlate 1:1 with 1.0's.

_Mike

[DELETED]

DELETED

[Frances]

So what is the number of bounces hard-coded to in V1? It shouldn't be a secret, should it? You guys are all dancing as fast as you can to try to think of an explanation that will placate the masses, or at least the more observant. The BS about the new materials being the culprit is just that -BS. That leaves us with either the emitters or the engine. Which one is easier to fix?

Better get busy with that.

Frances, it's not about bounces... and yes, the material model has a huge impact on the renders. Whether you are deliberately devaluing or being ignorant of the facts, your oversimplification and resultant slamming is putting you dangerously close to irrelevancy. I'm not here to defend Maxwell, I'm here to clarify rambling, incorrect tantrums like yours so we can all find our way clearly to what - ostensibly - we all want. Which is the most realistic, best looking engine possible. I've already stated, and it can be quanitfiably proven, that both engines have pluses, with 1.0 at the advantage in accuracy in specific areas and performance, while beta seems to posses an "overall" feeling that we like, even if it's hard to define. But tests like this, and a battery of my own, and of others, are comitted to trying to nail down what is truly an elusive issue, and absolutely nowhere near as simple - nor conspiratorial - as you suggest. Just freakin' be a part of the solution, already.

_Mike

Was your responce really called for? I had the temerity to actually voice what I suspect is the problem that is illustrated in this thread. Fewer bounces. If I am wrong, just say so. If you want to personally attack me, then do so in a forum where I can respond in kind without fear of being banned.

[mverta]

Frances, calling my honest answers and responses BS is a personal attack. Not only are you calling me a liar, but a mouthpiece. And the insinuation that I just ban people I don't like instead of being diplomatic is another one. Believe me, if that were the case, you'd be the first to know about it.

Like I said, v1.0 has quantifiably better performance and accuracy in many areas, while there is also no question that beta produced different results in certain scenes, which I can absolutely attest to, and think it would be in the long term interest to see both served.

_Mike

[JCAddy]

must every thread turn into this?

[mverta]

Best chance is just to post back on track, HB...

_Mike

[Frances]

Frances, calling my honest answers and responses BS is a personal attack. Not only are you calling me a liar, but a mouthpiece. And the insinuation that I just ban people I don't like instead of being diplomatic is another one. Believe me, if that were the case, you'd be the first to know about it.

Like I said, v1.0 has quantifiably better performance and accuracy in many areas, while there is also no question that beta produced different results in certain scenes, which I can absolutely attest to, and think it would be in the long term interest to see both served.

_Mike

Saying what you believe is not lying. There is a difference. You have me confused with someone else, someone I came to blows with about this very subject. What a short memory some people have. My criticism of Maxwell is just that - a crit of a software, one that I've paid money for and looked forward to using in production.

I chose not to post any of my experiments because I could not be concise and methodical enough for my findings to be considered conclusive or objective. I believe this thread demonstrates very well what many of us are seeing as a problem with V1. Many people have loads of work to do and can still find time to research and experiment. I am not that kind of person. When I become dissatisfied to a certain point, I give up. But I'm not a tester, I'm just a customer. A rambling, axe-grinding, tantrummy customer.

[mverta]

I chose not to post any of my experiments because I could not be concise and methodical enough for my findings to be considered conclusive or objective..

If you've got comparisons, Frances... there's no way it can hurt to post them! We've got a perceptive group here; I really wouldn't worry about not following scientific method. In fact, I think the larger the sampling of images, the better our chances of finding patterns. Seriously.

_Mike

[aitraaz]

well, one thing's for sure - for some of us dimmer folks such as meself, working in studio under tight time schedules can be quite an adventure. Started out about 8 hrs ago, things seemed ok, simple enough. What I've ended up with is having to position the model in the middle of the south pole, still can't get any sunlight (tried roaming through central Africa for about an hour in search of the sun), daylight time is around 4 am and the render looks like its on the planet neptune (blue/emerald green), materials with 8 plus layers & coatings creating strange irridescent rainbows on common materials, switched to the rs0 engine out of desperation which seems quite determined in spraying enormous masses of white dots everywhere. I'm clueless. Tomorrow is another day i guess

[Thomas An.]

Edit --

[Frances]

If you've got comparisons, Frances... there's no way it can hurt to post them! We've got a perceptive group here; I really wouldn't worry about not following scientific method. In fact, I think the larger the sampling of images, the better our chances of finding patterns. Seriously.

_Mike

They aren't comparisons. They are just tests I did with V1 trying to learn the materials.

[JDHill]

@SJ: Thanks for providing the .mxs. I've only 1 other question (I hope I haven't missed it somewhere else in the thread)...what was the emitter material used in the beta image? Thanks.

@aitraaz: could you say what's the lat/lon of your location, and what time of day you were looking to get? I haven't seen these problems.

Thanks,

~JD

When I become dissatisfied to a certain point, I give up.

...as do I. And so we come to the end of our infrequent correspondence.