[Polyxo]

Satisfaction depends on the digestion of something taken. Some take it fast and some not. Take your time...

I also don't like the arrogance of these words.
Hyltom is also correct with his remarks about the licensing scheme.As a matter of fact one has to pay a
sum which is tremendously higher than the original investment to get back the number of seats we originally had.

Such a sentence again, although correct qualifies everybody who says it as a whiner.

[tom]

Will you take it fast if you had to pay for V2 2760 Euro vs 495 Euro for v1 to get an upgrade of the exact same tool? I'm not and it's not question of quality.As I said earlier in this post, the improvement of quality is here, I'm still not sure concerning the speed improvement, but what I'm sure is that NL is cheating us with the new licences but after all when I read you comment I'm not surprise. You and them seem to treat customer the same way. If we don't upgrade we are some stupid moron it seems...

Please contact sales support about it. There are already enough amount of threads complaining about the price. You are free to find it fair or unfair and I respect. But please don't inject this into every technical discussion.

Polyxo, dear Calico Jack has suggested (1.7 + Photoshop touch) > 2.0 and again suggested 1.7 glass > 2.0 glass. So, I just thought he needs more time to realize the facts and that's all. This is not about liking or not. Sometimes there are technical facts and those facts can't be a source of discussion as they are facts already. If you grab a single sentence and quote as it's said alone, that may sound harsh of course. This is how TV channels earn.

[mverta]

Guys, I hate to break it to you but Tom is on rock solid ground when it comes to the performance of various aspects of the material system. The improvements to the BSDF model and transmissives are HUGE, and will not be bettered by 1.7 in any regard whatsoever. The idea of using Photoshop to magically improve dielectric performance is honestly so stupid I'm not going to address it.

_Mike

[leoA4D]

...If you grab a single sentence and quote as it's said alone, that may sound harsh of course.

"...The idea of using Photoshop to magically improve dielectric performance is honestly so stupid I'm not going to address it." –mverta

[glebe digital]

There are already enough amount of threads complaining about the price. You are free to find it fair or unfair and I respect. But please don't inject this into every technical discussion.

Polyxo, dear Calico Jack has suggested (1.7 + Photoshop touch) > 2.0 and again suggested 1.7 glass > 2.0 glass. So, I just thought he needs more time to realize the facts and that's all. This is not about liking or not. Sometimes there are technical facts and those facts can't be a source of discussion as they are facts already. If you grab a single sentence and quote as it's said alone, that may sound harsh of course. This is how TV channels earn.

In fairness I think the threads/comments about price [and other aspects] have been pretty restrained.........and Tom, as always you do your very best in what isn't your native tongue. Respect.

I don't think you can really separate the technical issues from the financial......everything's a balance.

[hyltom]

It's seems you understand what you want, so let me quote what I understand from Calico's comments...he has never mention using photoshop to improve SSS or dielectric.

I agree that 2.0 has a better/deeper colors but it's a fact that when you own some 3d- and rendering software, you own photoshop as well
and you tweak those colors with it as you like it.

Just to show you how stupid i could be!

I just use the replace color tool in photoshop and it take me less than 5 mn...you give me 5 more and i make it look like glass

Other thing, Tom and Mike, it 's nice you come here to comment but, there is 3 page of speed comparison about V1.7 and V2 and I haven't here anything about that from you.

[tom]

Yes, it's very easy to do it in PS as long as you have a v2 reference as in this example. If you have 5 mins more I'd like to send you a 1.7 render without showing how it would be with 2.0. Will you be able to guess/show how it would look like if it was rendered in v2?

[hyltom]

May be, may be not...anyway I don't want to fight about the V2 quality improvement. I haven't make any complain about that. The color are richer (can be achieve in photoshop, i don't care...the fact is that they are better), the dielectric clear faster than before, the SSS are way better...I agree with all this.
I have take note about your proposal concerning the licence policy, so I will contact the sale support. Now I'm more concern about the speed improvement and that's what this thread was about. For me this is a very important matter as it can justify or not the new licence policy.

[mverta]

hyltom, taking your argument at face value, it's like you're saying that speed improvement is the sole reason to upgrade, so if it's not substantial enough in your opinion, it's not worth it.

Now, I can't tell you what you find worth it, but there's no way this statement isn't utterly dismissive of the giant laundry list of improvements that have been made. And it is faster, on top of it. And again, the dielectric performance can in no way be faked in Photoshop, come on, already.


But like you said, you agree that the image quality is substantially improved, but you don't find the current speed increase speedy enough for you to upgrade. So what's your goal? Are you just announcing your intention not to upgrade, or are you asking NL to continue working on speed improvements? If it's the latter, I can't imagine you actually think they need reminding. Speed improvements and optimizations are constantly obsessed over.

So what's your goal?



_Mike

[hyltom]

The speed improvement, if there is, is important to me to justify the new licence policy, not the upgrade. If you tell me that V2 is 8 time faster than V1.7 so then I can understand that my 8 V1.7 licence (this was given by NL and I haven't ask for them. Now I'm using most of these licences to get better speed when I'm working on some project) become just one.

From the test I have done with the V2 I agree to upgrade just base on the quality improvement, it's only the new licence policy that restrain me to update.

[mverta]

But your decision to arbitrarily attach the license policy to your perception of speed is just your decision. I justify the license policy by including stacks and spectral>RGB improvements and HDR lighting performance. Since those are off the charts better, the license policy is more than justified to me.

So again, we find different aspects of the engine important, I guess, but then you're back to explaining why you're not upgrading. And okay, I'm sure the message has been received.

I'm still not sure what your goal is. If you demonstrate conclusively that you don't find the speed increases fast enough, and have decided that speed increases are what does or doesn't justify your upgrade, then all you've done is proven your own conclusion.

Plenty of users, obviously, feel the other improvements justify the policy, so what are you expecting?


_Mike

[hyltom]

I'm hoping a review of the licence policy. I will find it much more fair if one licence could be use for few computers.

[mverta]

Well again, you made that point at your first post.

You're a great Maxwell user and your product shots are first rate, but if I were NL, I'd have no idea what to do for you. You can't please everybody; there are just tons of users who've upgraded who would've made your same argument had they felt there were speed increases, but no dielectric increases, or HDR increases, or spectral improvements, or stacks, or plug-in improvements, or network improvements. There'll always be somebody who says, "yeah, well I think X is most important, and I don't think there's enough more X in this upgrade, so the license policy is unfair."

And to suggest they "review" it is to suggest they didn't spend months on the decision, carefully analyzing and debating, and asking about what to do. They did.


_Mike

[Mattia Sullini]

In my opinion we are not considering one simple thing.
Softwares usually need to be filled with new features in order to be considered accepted as a major upgrade.
Maxwell is amazingly simple (for someone intollerably simple) in terms of features... no visible upgrades or addons could be conceived, keeping in mind the philosophy of the guys at NL.
The only thing that can be done is keeping of making it as close to reality as possible, and evidently sometimes the price for this evolution is a radical rewriting, such the one i think v2 is the result of.
If they are giving me a software that produces better results, even if the price is a partial incompatibility with older scenes and materials, well, i still believe it is worth the upgrade.

I hope you all will be able to translate my awful englitalian, today i am quite tired, sorry!

[Richard]

Guys I think as dollar value goes up with the upgrade and in Hyltom's case quite significantly so does ones level of criticism!

For me fortunately the level of expenditure to upgrade is nowhere near as much a burden yet I still tend to judge the improvements based I guess on the wishlist - How many features of those requested have been implemented to justify V2 as not being v1.8?

Personally just the improved bump mapping and colour multilight are huge improvements, the IBL improvement upon announcement had me really excited yet still the inability to vary channels through multilight keeps this feature still in the to hard to use basket so it means nothing as an upgrade feature.

I think it is rather easy to understand Hyltom's situation here - upgrading is a larger chunk of money and the touted speed increases aren't so evident to him from his testing, does then the upgrade warrent? AND where are the touted speed increases anyway, particularly as he has shown in his tests V2 is actually comparatively slower? Fair question!!