[Tea_Bag]

Tom and NL Team Please post some of your awesome tests that you guys usually do! Thanks for the improvements and addded features in this update! ill try play more with 2.6 sooon!

[tom]

Check this

[simmsimaging]

Pretty cool Tom

Any answers on that particle question: can the size of the spheres be reduced to an arbitrarily small size, or are they capped at 1mm? I suppose I could work around it by scaling the entire scene way up, but that introduces other problems/hassles.


Thanks /b

[Bubbaloo]

Any answers on that particle question: can the size of the spheres be reduced to an arbitrarily small size, or are they capped at 1mm? I suppose I could work around it by scaling the entire scene way up, but that introduces other problems/hassles.


Thanks /b

Is your scene scale correct? I have been rendering particles at a MINIMUM of .5 and they are rendering as a very fine mist. http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... 48&t=37607

[Tea_Bag]

@Tom -That is just crazy

[simmsimaging]

Is your scene scale correct? I have been rendering particles at a MINIMUM of .5 and they are rendering as a very fine mist. http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/view ... 48&t=37607

Thanks for the reply Brian.
I think it's correct. I just made a quick superspray in Max and sent it over. It reads as a bit less than 1m tall (Studio shows everything in metres, correct?). What scale is yours at?

Wondering what res you are rendering at too? See below. At 800pixels it doesn't look so so bad (but not great), but at 4K you can clearly see the spheres. I know that making these semi-transparent etc will help, but I'd like to see the base size smaller still anyway. These are set to a size of .001

[Bubbaloo]

My particle limit boundary was probably about 1 to 2 feet tall. I've been rendering these tests at about 1280 x 720. At .5, the particles are very fine and if I go any lower, they almost disappear. If I was to input .001, I'm sure I would see nothing. I really think it must be a scale issue, but it's hard to say.

[simmsimaging]

My particle limit boundary was probably about 1 to 2 feet tall. I've been rendering these tests at about 1280 x 720. At .5, the particles are very fine and if I go any lower, they almost disappear. If I was to input .001, I'm sure I would see nothing. I really think it must be a scale issue, but it's hard to say.

Can I send you my Max file to have a quick look at? Or the MXS if that is easier?

NP if you don't have time.

Just like to figure it out - the potential looks pretty cool from your tests

[Bubbaloo]

My particle limit boundary was probably about 1 to 2 feet tall. I've been rendering these tests at about 1280 x 720. At .5, the particles are very fine and if I go any lower, they almost disappear. If I was to input .001, I'm sure I would see nothing. I really think it must be a scale issue, but it's hard to say.

Can I send you my Max file to have a quick look at? Or the MXS if that is easier?

NP if you don't have time.

Just like to figure it out - the potential looks pretty cool from your tests

Sure, I'll take a look. No problem.

[pavel59]

I was really excited about a new major upgrade, but I'm now quite unhappy with it.
I was quite happy with 2.5 and Rhino V5 but now it's all messed up, lights and textures.

I will try more, but it's really frustrating when you find your well tuned setup doesn't work anymore.

I cannot see any improvement on speed, it seems to take much longer to clean the scene now.



paolo

[simmsimaging]

Sure, I'll take a look. No problem.

cool - thanks Brian!

Here's a link to the mxs. I seem to have misplaced the max file, but I can easily generate another if you need it. It seems to have scaled over from Max accurately ( I work in cm there, but it's not been an issue coming over to Studio so far)


/b

http://www.simmsimaging.com/upload/file ... st.MXS.zip

[numerobis]

wow, Tom... the ball is really great!!!

[juan]

Hi Paolo,

I was really excited about a new major upgrade, but I'm now quite unhappy with it.
I was quite happy with 2.5 and Rhino V5 but now it's all messed up, lights and textures.

I will try more, but it's really frustrating when you find your well tuned setup doesn't work anymore.

I cannot see any improvement on speed, it seems to take much longer to clean the scene now.

There are not significant changes in performance apart from massive improvements in displacement and some general improvements in noise, but definitely this version should never be slower than 2.5. Also there is no reason lights and textures are messed up, maybe there is some missing detail that is causing your problems, it might be something in the way Rhino exports data to Maxwell. Could you please elaborate on what is exactly happening to you?

Thanks,

Juan

[JDHill]

I was really excited about a new major upgrade, but I'm now quite unhappy with it.
I was quite happy with 2.5 and Rhino V5 but now it's all messed up, lights and textures.

I will try more, but it's really frustrating when you find your well tuned setup doesn't work anymore.

Would you care to elaborate? V5 has its own share of issues, but they should not affect actual rendered images. What seems to be exporting differently, what is the nature of the differences, and which version of the plugin were you running before you updated?

[Bubbaloo]

Sure, I'll take a look. No problem.

cool - thanks Brian!

Here's a link to the mxs. I seem to have misplaced the max file, but I can easily generate another if you need it. It seems to have scaled over from Max accurately ( I work in cm there, but it's not been an issue coming over to Studio so far)


/b

http://www.simmsimaging.com/upload/file ... st.MXS.zip

Can you do a pack n go on the file?