[vansan]

...troll-like post of vansan...

Ha-ha! Panic?
I've made a maxwell 1.1 render, and it's not better than beta as I expected. Maybe a little bit less noisy, but the light solution is bad for me.

[Frances]

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.

They are. Where did you get the idea that Fryrender doesn't have caustics?

[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.

They are. Where did you get the idea that Fryrender doesn't have caustics?

I'm sure I picked that up over there, wish I knew the thread.

[Frances]

It is possible to disable caustics. But they are on by default.

[glebe digital]

I'm yet to see any great 'glass' renders.........MWR gallery is full of them.
I know it's early days, but that's what I've got my eye out for.

[Thomas An.]

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

A finding is verifyiable only if repeatable by a number of parties. This is standard academic practice. We do not even know if the tester is doing justice to Vray either (not just Maxwell) ... and it has not been established whether the tester has (inadvertedly or not) introduced errors, personal motives and skill limitations to the test.

At this point I am not sure which part of "standard peer review" and process transparency implyies a personal whim on my part.

Of course you are welcome to quote yourself and continue with a monologue.

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

[vansan]

Thomas An.

Skills? What skills do I need to apply 4 made-by-wizard materials and specify location & sun/sky position?
I'm not the maxwell fan and I'm not advertising any render, so what?
I just apply similar scene setups and press render. Give your own scene to betatester and ask him to make a shot, and make your own comparison.

[Thomas An.]

Thomas An.

Skills? What skills do I need to apply 4 made-by-wizard materials and specify location & sun/sky position?
I'm not the maxwell fan and I'm not advertising any render, so what?
I just apply similar scene setups and press render. Give your own scene to betatester and ask him to make a shot, and make your own comparison.

There is nothing wrong with doing a test .... but (if it is intended as a true comparison) before publishing it around (and especially on a competitor's own forum) it should be made available to all. Testing "transparency" means that it can be repeated in other platforms by third parties (other than userelf) and there should be enough Fry users to repeat the test too. ("Enough" Fry users imply both satisfyied and disatisfied ones). Untill then ... it is not very useful ... its claims wrapped in mystery, and in the end more of an advertisment campaign for this other engine.

[andrebaros]

It's interesting that Vray and Maxwell are the standards to measure Fry against. Just a few years ago it was Brazil and Final Render, before that Mental Ray and Renderman... Not like any of them went away, it's just interesting to see who the current champ is that people are trying to knock down. Even Lightscape and Radiance still pop up once in a while.

I have to say though, Maxwell really raised the bar.

[The Pixel Artist]

Well, I think that bar will be raised by Fry soon. (and very high... oh if the world only knew)

[Thomas An.]

Well, I think that bar will be raised by Fry soon. (and very height... oh if the world only knew)

I see.

[Frances]

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

A finding is verifyiable only if repeatable by a number of parties. This is standard academic practice. We do not even know if the tester is doing justice to Vray either (not just Maxwell) ... and it has not been established whether the tester has (inadvertedly or not) introduced errors, personal motives and skill limitations to the test.

At this point I am not sure which part of "standard peer review" and process transparency implyies a personal whim on my part.

Your specifications are built on academics. Not everyone is concerned with the level of detail that you are. I could see your misgivings about the comparison if it was claimed to be based on academic practice. It was not, from what I can gather. It was a simple, first blush comparison. It is understandable that you would wish to disregard it or refute it.

Falsification infers an intent to deceive on the part of the person submitting their findings. Just so you know for future reference.

[Miles]

Well, I think that bar will be raised by Fry soon. (and very high... oh if the world only knew)

Well, this one's clearly sitting on a bar stool

[Maximus3D]

TPA: Atleast you managed with one thing, you took this down less than constructive discussion way down to a childish level with your too large and stupid image at the bottom of your post. That image proved your and your fellow Fry friends goal here clearly, no further comments necessary on that.

/ Max

[Frances]

... That image proved your and your fellow Fry friends goal here clearly, no further comments necessary on that.

/ Max

Can you explain this please? I agree with you about the siggie picture, but what are you implying with the rest of your statement?