[rivoli]

Just don't say maxwell can handle 2300000 polys in 8 minutes and bake a render with the same quality.

would you mind sharing your scene here as well? I'd really like to try it myself with the latest version. just sincerely curious, no intention to start any flaming/renderers war.

But I think 8 mins will take voxelization only

I don't know. for what it matters I just rendered a 3.500.000 polys scene, it took less than 2 minutes for voxelization and with sky and sun was perfectly noise free after 5 minutes. it wasn't exactly like yours, but still.

[Frances]

Maybe it was the only cracked version he could find

In order to post here, you must be a licensed user.

[Neil Evans]

Very true, I take it back then!! Still strange to use an outdated version though.

[numerobis]

In order to post here, you must be a licensed user.

...does the whole forum is locked now? I didn't know that.

[Renato Lemus]

I would like to try that scene as well. Fry render looks great, but it's unfair to show an image from maxwell beta without knowing the material and sky settings he used.

[Frances]

Very true, I take it back then!! Still strange to use an outdated version though.

Not if you want a level playing field. Vray is different because it only recently got physical sun/sky.

[rivoli]

Why should he compare Fryrender beta to Maxwell V1?

it's just that that beta had very big problems with dielectrics, and it really shows when you compare the two images (and the maxwell one has a reflective brown mat while the fry one a diffuse one). even though I can see the point of comparing two betas, I don't find it really useful. lets wait for fry 1.0 then (as suggested by the poster over at the fry forum).

with this being said fry does look very promising and fast, for this reason I'd like to have the chance to see how maxwell 1.0 does with the same scene.

[Renato Lemus]

Very true, I take it back then!! Still strange to use an outdated version though.

In these comparisons MXW beta was used on purpose.
A cracked maxwell 1.1 is already at e-mule, pirates cracked it since NL released the very first alpha. And they are coming after Fry...hahahahaha (just kidding)

[aitraaz]

WTF?

[Frances]

Why should he compare Fryrender beta to Maxwell V1?

it's just that that beta had very big problems with dielectrics, and it really shows when you compare the two images (and the maxwell one has a reflective brown mat while the fry one a diffuse one). even though I can see the point of comparing two betas, I don't find it really useful. lets wait for fry 1.0 then (as suggested by the poster over at the fry forum).

with this being said fry does look very promising and fast, for this reason I'd like to have the chance to see how maxwell 1.0 does with the same scene.

But there are many who feel that the quality of light of the mw beta was superior to v1.x. So perhaps the user felt that achieving the beta lighting quality was the worthier goal.

[rivoli]

But there are many who feel that the quality of light of the mw beta was superior to v1.x. So perhaps the user felt that the beta lighting quality was the worthier goal.

good point. speaking of which, the two look very much alike from this point of view. well, if you try hard to never mind those windows and, of course, rendertime (even though I wonder what machine the maxwell and vray images rendered on, cos I gather that the poster of those fry tests didn't render them).

[Frances]

But there are many who feel that the quality of light of the mw beta was superior to v1.x. So perhaps the user felt that the beta lighting quality was the worthier goal.

good point. speaking of which, the two look very much alike from this point of view. well, if you try hard to never mind those windows and, of course, rendertime (even though I wonder what machine the maxwell and vray images rendered on, cos I gather that the poster of those fry tests didn't render them).

Good point.

[vansan]

My computer is mostly similar to dideje's.
Yes, I chose beta because of the better light distribution than the 1.1 version. All dielectric issues are not taken in account, just scene lighting solution. As soon as fry will get the release status I will test-render it with GI-caustics and compare it to m~r 1.1
No cheating, just render competition

[Thomas An.]

My computer is mostly similar to dideje's.
Yes, I chose beta because of the better light distribution than the 1.1 version. All dielectric issues are not taken in account, just scene lighting solution. As soon as fry will get the release status I will test-render it with GI-caustics and compare it to m~r 1.1
No cheating, just render competition

Beta, does not have a better light distribution tp v1.1 (maybe v1.0, but not 1.1). This has been discussed extensively.

[Mihai]

I think if you want to make a render comparison you should always use the most recent available versions of a renderer. There's no point in matching version numbers since one company might decide to call an update 1.5, while another company might call an update 1.1.

Would you consider an accurate real world test with Vray 1.5 and Mentalray 1.5? If you did that, people would be utterly confused.