[Frances]

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.

Opinions are like seats. Everyone has one and they should be sat on.

[Thomas An.]

even though I can see the point of comparing two betas....

1. This implies a bias. Setting an experiement in a way that "conditions" the outcome.
2. That would imply an admission to inferiority. It is as if saying that "we know v1.1 would be a no context .... so lets chop-down Maxwell a bit to make Fry look bigger"
3. People had no qualms comparing the Maxwell beta engine full-monty against the top of the industry mature solutions. There is no reasone that Fry should be pumpered (unless the people who conduct these tests have an axe to grind)
3. Fry had time to copy the Maxwell ghost material. The fry ghost (to my knowladge) did not appear until (conveniently) after the announcement of the Maxwell AGS solution. In that sense, the use of beta1.2.2a is like putting Maxwell to compete with its own future.
4. Fry does not use caustics (or its caustics are severely minimized). Caustics is the forefront of realism and also the cause of noise or rendertimes .... by delaying the implementation of fulll caustics, Fry operates (at least temporarily) under the ruse that it is a faster engine.

Also, such tests should not be done in vacuum.
1. The Fry time result cannot be veryfied (The tester could be falsifying and we wouldn't know)
2. The test is done in vacuum. That is, the scene is not publicaly available. The tester can always choose unfavorable Maxwell settings on purpose depending on the presence of bias.

[Renato Lemus]

mmmh, maybe fryrender is a little biased.

http://www.fryrender.com/phpbb2/viewtop ... c&start=15

if it is a bad geometry issue, maxwell didn't mind.

[glebe digital]

if it is a bad geometry issue, maxwell didn't mind.

It's an interesting point, MWR doesn't seem to mind too much if surfacing isn't too perfect, with the exception of dielectrics.

[Fernando Tella]

Don't you have the feeling that it has been done with too much haste?

Anyway I'll keep an eye on how it evolves.

[Frances]

mmmh, maybe fryrender is a little biased.

http://www.fryrender.com/phpbb2/viewtop ... c&start=15

if it is a bad geometry issue, maxwell didn't mind.

The maxwell and vray versions weren't back lit.

[Frances]

Also, such tests should not be done in vacuum.
1. The Fry time result cannot be veryfied (The tester could be falsifying and we wouldn't know)

Think about what you've just said here.

When you mistrust others, you lose the trust of others in return.

[Thomas An.]

When you mistrust others, you lose the trust of others in return.

It is a matter of methodology... not mistrust.

An experiment needs to be repeatable and peer reviewed. Tests that are done in vacuum are inherently questionable ... both for context and for intent.

[Frances]

When you mistrust others, you lose the trust of others in return.

It is a matter of methodology... not mistrust.

Then explain what you meant by "The tester could be falsifying and we wouldn't know". Please.

It's a render comparison. Just because it doesn't meet your specifications, it doesn't mean it is without merit.

[Mihai]

It's not easy to make accurate render comparisons, so I don't see the merit of posting a misleading comparison. Perhaps for the merit of the initial troll-like post of vansan...

[Frances]

It's not easy to make accurate render comparisons, so I don't see the merit of posting a misleading comparison. Perhaps for the merit of the initial troll-like post of vansan...

I agree that the post you mentioned was not in good taste or any spirit of fellowship. But I will take this opportunity to say that the faults of the comparison should not be used to judge Fryrender or Feversoft poorly.

[Maximus3D]

Someone is moving towards the dark side... don't let the demons trap you there.

/ Max

[aitraaz]

I mean, maybe the exact same scene, same sunlight/sky same long/lat, same lambertian diffuse single mat might be the best way to compare, at least for light distribution. I guess we'd all need multiple web cams and stopwatches to empirically verify such a thing lol...

[Frances]

I mean, maybe the exact same scene, same sunlight/sky same long/lat, same lambertian diffuse single mat might be the best way to compare, at least for light distribution. I guess we'd all need multiple web cams and stopwatches to empirically verify such a thing lol...

The flags. Don't forget the flags. And watch where you step.

[glebe digital]

the faults of the comparison should not be used to judge Fryrender or Feversoft poorly.

I agree totally.
Fry looks interesting, I'm interested to see what happens when caustics are integrated.