[daros]

i think fryrender has caustics off.

All engines (except Maxwell) have reflective caustics off (by habbit). That is how they claim fast speeds.

But isma's nice test's with indigo show's clearly the caustics in the flash scene.

[Thomas An.]

i think fryrender has caustics off.

All engines (except Maxwell) have reflective caustics off (by habbit). That is how they claim fast speeds.

But isma's nice test's with indigo show's clearly the caustics in the flash scene.

True,
Indigo is a spectral engine and does not claim fast speeds either.

A better wording might be: "most (if not all) non brute-force engines ..."
... or alternatively, "wherever there is a claim for fast speed there are likely no reflective caustics"

[rivoli]

maxwell, indigo and kerkythea, they all show them in the flash scene. vray does reflective caustics as well, unless you turn them off (I guess they weren't on when isma rendered that one).

[isma]

I must ask if the caustic ones were activated

in vray the caustic are activated
but they had more need time to be visible
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/8122/test11vh1.jpg

[daros]

i know thomas, i was only saying that FryRender claims to be physically correct as Maxwell but their speed comparision test has the caustics off.
In the fray render forum the guy rendered the images says that hi is happy with the speed of his test without telling that caustics are off.
That fake's 100% isma's comparision.
Vray dosn't claims to be phisically correct, as you say.

[rivoli]

in vray the caustic ones are activated
but they had more need time to be visible
http://img236.imageshack.us/img236/8122/test11vh1.jpg

thanks isma, I missed that one.

[Thomas An.]

i know thomas, i was only saying that FryRender claims to be physically correct as Maxwell but their speed comparision test has the caustics off.
In the fray render forum the guy rendered the images says that hi is happy with the speed of his test vithout telling that hi has the caustics off.
That fake's 100% isma's comparision.
Vray dosn't claims to be phisically correct, as you say.

Got it. I know
In an indirect way my comment was that: The reason for leaving caustics off is likely due to habit from use of other engines.

[rivoli]

speaking of caustics, do you remember when we had volumetrics? before maxwell I'd never seen indirect reflected/refracted volumetric caustics like that. those were caustics.

[Thomas An.]

speaking of caustics, do you remember when we had volumetrics? before maxwell I'd never seen indirect reflected/refracted volumetric caustics like that. those were caustics.

That was sweet indeed !
If NL can do it once ... they can do it again though.

[rivoli]

yes, I'm sure they can. now that I got used to maxwell, I tend to forget how exciting it was at the beginning.

[isma]

I have asked and they have told me that the caustic were on


the caustic in fryrender still need improvements (as many other things)

[Thomas An.]

I have asked and they have told me that the caustic were on


the caustic in fryrender still need improvements (as many other things)

Thanks Isma ! No problem ... you are only the messanger, nothing wrong with your efforts... as a matter of fact, your multi-engine comparison effort is very appreciated

[isma]

thanks Thomas

[Frances]

Let me just go and render a virtual reality set with the Maxwell baking feature so that we can compare. Oh wait... Maxwell doesn't have that. :

Irrelevant.

In the patent field, if a prior art device contains components A,B and C and a new proposed design incrorates A,B,C and adds a "D" .... it still infringes. The examiner may pass it as a patent, but it maybe questionable in courts later.

Misconception:
If the components of a device were pre-existing then it is not novel.

Actual:
Novelty is defined as a unique combination of components. The components might be pre-existing, but if they are combined in new (previously) unatemtped ways to form a single mechanism with unique character then it is considered novel over the prior art.

Maxwell needs to be seen in its a entirety ... as a combination comprising (but not limited to) spectral engine + physical camera + physical sky + physically based material system in one rendering package that functions as a digicam.

What's your point? My point is that two engines have had the same launch point. That's why I used italics.


And my comment was relevant. You just didn't get it.

And thanks isma for posting these comparisons.

[daimon]

Now we need a render from Arnold Renderer to compare all the renderers that exist and make sure which one is the best