1)
2) Regarding how "slow" Maxwell is... my mental ray R2 that used to be posted here, takes 8+ hours to render. Maxwell can do that exact shot in 1.4 hours. Its speed just depends on the nature of the scene. So far, Maxwell's speed has not been an issue for me.
_Mike
Forgive me mate, I don't really have experience in Mental Ray. However I suppose it makes sense because mental ray would need to do more calculations to try and simulate the lighting conditions while maxwell is actually MADE to make those calculations, make them faster and more accurate.
D4327 - Hmm.. it's not that so much... they just have completely different approaches towards light propogation. Maxwell was designed from the ground up to simulate physical phenomena in a way that mental ray wasn't. And as it is, Maxwell is only at 1.1. Even our next Maxwell in testing is faster... that's just how it goes. But again, rendertime is just one little piece of the puzzle.. setup time, etc. is a fraction of the time normally spent. There is a video tut that I did on the maxwellrender forum if you're interested.
you know it's just retarded how awesome that model of R2 is. Also is Maxwell just a stand alone renderer? I've never heard of it. Does it work with other 3d apps?
Mike, that R2 is awesome and so is your Incom T-65. Is there any chance you might grace us with some more Star Wars stuff? I would love to see your take on a Neb-B or a TIE Interceptor.
These days I like to wait until I really have enough reference material to do it right. I would rather wait, get all the materials, and then really go all out; rather than rebuilding the same mesh a thousand times. I've just done that too much. I agree a TIE seems the natural companion, and I've got a Tantive IV hallway that's basically ready to texture. But I've actually been thinking about tackling a 3PO as my first ever character project. Not sure yet...
Regarding how "slow" Maxwell is... my mental ray R2 that used to be posted here, takes 8+ hours to render. Maxwell can do that exact shot in 1.4 hours. Its speed just depends on the nature of the scene. So far, Maxwell's speed has not been an issue for me.
Well, if you can, I'd tell you to try Mental Ray 3.5. I recently thought about switching to Maxwell, but MR 3.5 changed my mind completely about it. It's a lot faster and can give you the same results. There are several new features in this version that are programmed to be physically accurate, including a full daylight system like Maxwell has. I don't know if this version I'm using, is available outside of 3ds max 9 though, so I can't tell if you can try it (Unless you use MAX 9 heh)
Forgive me mate, I don't really have experience in Mental Ray. However I suppose it makes sense because mental ray would need to do more calculations to try and simulate the lighting conditions while maxwell is actually MADE to make those calculations, make them faster and more accurate.
Just to clarify, I'm still admin on the Maxwell forum, I'm just not listed, so feel free to hit me up... Also, I have mental ray 3.5., and it is still the opposite experience from working with Maxwell. Maxwell is more than physically accurate - is it a true non-RGB spectral renderer with unique properties. It's also about a billion times easier to use I wil never go back. Ugh.
You definitely have to unlearn the ages-old "random cheats" method and think "real," but it's a shallow curve. There is only 1 type of material, and it has only 5 controls - Reflectance, Transmittance, Roughness, Anisotropy (optional) and Bump (optional). 6 if you want to count SSS (optional). 99% of R2 was done using only 4 of those controls.
The settings all correlate inter-dependently via the rules of physics, so you're naturally covered in terms of light-propagation. Just like the render globals: There are no controls for AA, no "photon" samples, no indirect settings to tweak, no caustics to worry about; no nothing.. it's just physically accurate, spectrally calculated light propogation from moment one.
I'll be doing a material video pretty soon that covers the basics. Once you understand the basic relationships, you can literally build shaders without ever having to test them and know almost exactly what they'll look like, because the behaviour is so predictable.
You definitely have to unlearn the ages-old "random cheats" method and think "real," but it's a shallow curve. There is only 1 type of material, and it has only 5 controls - Reflectance, Transmittance, Roughness, Anisotropy (optional) and Bump (optional). 6 if you want to count SSS (optional). 99% of R2 was done using only 4 of those controls.
The settings all correlate inter-dependently via the rules of physics, so you're naturally covered in terms of light-propagation. Just like the render globals: There are no controls for AA, no "photon" samples, no indirect settings to tweak, no caustics to worry about; no nothing.. it's just physically accurate, spectrally calculated light propogation from moment one.
I'll be doing a material video pretty soon that covers the basics. Once you understand the basic relationships, you can literally build shaders without ever having to test them and know almost exactly what they'll look like, because the behaviour is so predictable.
_Mike
I am still learning to make materials in maxwell, its so different from other material editors.
In my experience I would set some settings, render and wait. Just for it to look nothing like what I set.
In maxwell not only is it more predictable the material preview is much more accurate since it uses the actual renderer.
^^^^ MR does the same. I haven't had to change settings in materials after rendering in 95% of the cases. BTW, i'm not slagging of Maxwell here. I think it's a great piece of software. I just don't think it's as practical as Mike is making it to be. I really can't wait 1.5 hours for a render test. In MR I do the same render in 10 minutes.
First of all, let's not accuse me of misrepresenting the software, or misleading users. I've done neither. I work with this engine every day, and have been part of its development since day 1. You are welcome to download my video tuts from the NL forum and see me working with the engine in realtime, if you like. I know its strengths and weaknesses, and only endorse the engine from personal experience. Viper, do you think I'm being paid to endorse it or something? The fact that you think it would take 1.5 hours to render a test says you absolutely haven't worked with this engine to any great degree. I speak only from experience - it's faster, easier, and yields better results than my previous engine, mental ray. By a mile. Surely, I'd be crazy not to use it.
Personally, I like to recommend to all my competitors that they please not use Maxwell, but stick with their current engine
My guess is that you didn't want to learn it, so you didn't. You never got the results that I did, so why would you like it? I wouldn't! In the end, it really doesn't matter what you use; it matters what you end up with. I'm ending up with better product. My work has improved, I spend my time creatively, not technically; my clients are happier, and I'm making more money with Maxwell. That's kind of the bottom line, for me.
Darth Maya - without a guide, the material system is so completely different than everything we've ever done in CG, I'm not surprised you are having the same problems I did when I first started using it. I swear, the key is to think about reality, not CG. If you want a shiny plastic ball, you think about a shiny plastic ball: what is it? It's a high-roughness base with a glossy clearcoat. So that's what you make - a high roughness layer, with a low-roughness layer on top. You get your reflectance colors based a bit on eye, and if you're smart, a bit on real world settings. We're just used to having to define specular, diffuse, color, reflectivity, all that shit manually, and with no absolute guide. Maxwell brings physics into the equation to handle all that, so instead, your challenge is to know what the actual material you're making IS, in the real world. If you have questions or issues, just post on the forum at NL and we'll help you out. It's dirt simple once you unlearn a bit. How else do you think all these clueless architects are putting out photorealistic renders? They've never even heard of texture maps
I swear, the key is to think about reality, not CG. If you want a shiny plastic ball, you think about a shiny plastic ball: what is it? It's a high-roughness base with a glossy clearcoat. So that's what you make - a high roughness layer, with a low-roughness layer on top. You get your reflectance colors based a bit on eye, and if you're smart, a bit on real world settings.
This sounds so very cool. Kind of what I've always been looking for in a 3d renderer. I don't know about the rest of you but I'll always find myself looking at surfaces on the way to work - staring at the subway walls, seats, lights, and trying to really see why those materials look the way they do. OK, I know I'm crazy...
Mike, can you do your 3d modeling (with no textures) in any application and then import the bare models into Maxwell and build your scenes & texture everything there? Or do you need to just use it to render/texture scenes that are complete with everything set up and all the lights in place? I use Silo a lot for modeling, for example, so I was just wondering if I could just use Silo/Maxwell as a complete solution and just export my Silo models as OBJ or 3DS and import them all separately into Maxwell to texture, light, assemble and render the scenes. I guess this would all depend on if Maxwell is just a render plug-in for different apps or a stand-alone application.
Maxwell has a standalone app. that comes with it called Studio.. but I recommend using it via plug-in from Max or Maya or LW or whatever. So whichever app you normally bring your Silo models into, you just texture and light from there.
First of all, let's not accuse me of misrepresenting the software, or misleading users. I've done neither. I work with this engine every day, and have been part of its development since day 1. You are welcome to download my video tuts from the NL forum and see me working with the engine in realtime, if you like. I know its strengths and weaknesses, and only endorse the engine from personal experience. Viper, do you think I'm being paid to endorse it or something? The fact that you think it would take 1.5 hours to render a test says you absolutely haven't worked with this engine to any great degree.
I think you might have taken my post a bit too seriously mate And I tested Maxwell for 2 full days before making a decision. I do think however that you should let people know what machine you are using. Cause it makes a huge difference on Maxwell.
I speak only from experience - it's faster, easier, and yields better results than my previous engine, mental ray. By a mile. Surely, I'd be crazy not to use it.
Yeah, you're right here. I don't disagree
Personally, I like to recommend to all my competitors that they please not use Maxwell, but stick with their current engine
Heh, I'm not your competitor. I'm studying to be a software programmer. CG is just too stressing here in Brazil to make it worth working with.
My guess is that you didn't want to learn it, so you didn't. You never got the results that I did, so why would you like it? I wouldn't! In the end, it really doesn't matter what you use; it matters what you end up with. I'm ending up with better product. My work has improved, I spend my time creatively, not technically; my clients are happier, and I'm making more money with Maxwell. That's kind of the bottom line, for me.
This is the only part where I think you took a left turn and got it all wrong. But if you are happier and more satisfied with Maxwell, then by all means use it. From my tests, I found Mental Ray to do exactly what I wanted in much less time. And to be honest, not all of the stuff I do is supposed to be realistic, so Maxwell would be a problem in some cases. So there you go
But that last little thing you threw in there about not being interested in photorealism I'd say makes just about all the difference in the world. If you deliberately want non-photorealism, then Maxwell is definitely not the way to go. It was my mistaken assumption that photorealism is the common goal 'round these parts. 'Course now that I think about it.. even non-realistic shaders would still benefit from the kick-ass light propogation and indirect stuff. Ah, well...
One thing I feel strongly, though... is that in general, the Ep.1 effects were the best of the 3.
_Mike
An interesting comment. Do you feel that way because TPM used more practical models than AOTC and ROTS did? What is it about the vfx in TPM that you feel is superior to AOTC and ROTS? Just curious.
Now I'm sorry I brought it up, because I honestly don't care enough about those movies to bother having a discussion about them. I don't know if it's a question of practicals or not - I saw a ton of practical models from 2 and 3 while I was at the archives - but certainly I felt that overall the production on the fx was higher for 1 - probably because there was more love for it, nobody working on it knew how much chimp it was going to blow (certainly never saw Jar Jar coming), and people weren't burned out on the whole thing like they were by the time Ep. 3 wrapped. Anyway, Ep.1 looks the least like a videogame of the 3, to me.
Posts
2) You're an idiot.
insults wer much more interesting when they include phrases like "lowbred cur" and "a pox on both your houses" i dunno adds a little class :P
but i digress
That R2 is impressive, most impressive.
Banned.
Forgive me mate, I don't really have experience in Mental Ray. However I suppose it makes sense because mental ray would need to do more calculations to try and simulate the lighting conditions while maxwell is actually MADE to make those calculations, make them faster and more accurate.
Can we see some wire renders, please.
Take care, mate.
Bug200 - Yep, I'll get some together for ya.
_Mike
_Mike
_Mike
_Mike
Well, if you can, I'd tell you to try Mental Ray 3.5. I recently thought about switching to Maxwell, but MR 3.5 changed my mind completely about it. It's a lot faster and can give you the same results. There are several new features in this version that are programmed to be physically accurate, including a full daylight system like Maxwell has. I don't know if this version I'm using, is available outside of 3ds max 9 though, so I can't tell if you can try it (Unless you use MAX 9 heh)
Anyway, keep up the good work.
Frequent updates at our Discord channel!
Hey,
For as Max users, take a look here.
The 2 videos are great; they explain Maxwell Render 3dsmax plug-in features very well.
You have also Maxwell Render Forums.
There you will have Mike, (was Maxwell for Maya Moderator), and Nico, (is Maxwell for Rhinoceros Moderator), help, and lots of info.
Take care.
_Mike
Frequent updates at our Discord channel!
The settings all correlate inter-dependently via the rules of physics, so you're naturally covered in terms of light-propagation. Just like the render globals: There are no controls for AA, no "photon" samples, no indirect settings to tweak, no caustics to worry about; no nothing.. it's just physically accurate, spectrally calculated light propogation from moment one.
I'll be doing a material video pretty soon that covers the basics. Once you understand the basic relationships, you can literally build shaders without ever having to test them and know almost exactly what they'll look like, because the behaviour is so predictable.
_Mike
I am still learning to make materials in maxwell, its so different from other material editors.
In my experience I would set some settings, render and wait. Just for it to look nothing like what I set.
In maxwell not only is it more predictable the material preview is much more accurate since it uses the actual renderer.
Also I look forward to that video Mike.
-Nick
Frequent updates at our Discord channel!
Personally, I like to recommend to all my competitors that they please not use Maxwell, but stick with their current engine
My guess is that you didn't want to learn it, so you didn't. You never got the results that I did, so why would you like it? I wouldn't! In the end, it really doesn't matter what you use; it matters what you end up with. I'm ending up with better product. My work has improved, I spend my time creatively, not technically; my clients are happier, and I'm making more money with Maxwell. That's kind of the bottom line, for me.
Darth Maya - without a guide, the material system is so completely different than everything we've ever done in CG, I'm not surprised you are having the same problems I did when I first started using it. I swear, the key is to think about reality, not CG. If you want a shiny plastic ball, you think about a shiny plastic ball: what is it? It's a high-roughness base with a glossy clearcoat. So that's what you make - a high roughness layer, with a low-roughness layer on top. You get your reflectance colors based a bit on eye, and if you're smart, a bit on real world settings. We're just used to having to define specular, diffuse, color, reflectivity, all that shit manually, and with no absolute guide. Maxwell brings physics into the equation to handle all that, so instead, your challenge is to know what the actual material you're making IS, in the real world. If you have questions or issues, just post on the forum at NL and we'll help you out. It's dirt simple once you unlearn a bit. How else do you think all these clueless architects are putting out photorealistic renders? They've never even heard of texture maps
_Mike
This sounds so very cool. Kind of what I've always been looking for in a 3d renderer. I don't know about the rest of you but I'll always find myself looking at surfaces on the way to work - staring at the subway walls, seats, lights, and trying to really see why those materials look the way they do. OK, I know I'm crazy...
Mike, can you do your 3d modeling (with no textures) in any application and then import the bare models into Maxwell and build your scenes & texture everything there? Or do you need to just use it to render/texture scenes that are complete with everything set up and all the lights in place? I use Silo a lot for modeling, for example, so I was just wondering if I could just use Silo/Maxwell as a complete solution and just export my Silo models as OBJ or 3DS and import them all separately into Maxwell to texture, light, assemble and render the scenes. I guess this would all depend on if Maxwell is just a render plug-in for different apps or a stand-alone application.
Thanks,
Jeff
I think you might have taken my post a bit too seriously mate
Yeah, you're right here. I don't disagree
Heh, I'm not your competitor. I'm studying to be a software programmer. CG is just too stressing here in Brazil to make it worth working with.
This is the only part where I think you took a left turn and got it all wrong. But if you are happier and more satisfied with Maxwell, then by all means use it. From my tests, I found Mental Ray to do exactly what I wanted in much less time. And to be honest, not all of the stuff I do is supposed to be realistic, so Maxwell would be a problem in some cases. So there you go
Frequent updates at our Discord channel!
But that last little thing you threw in there about not being interested in photorealism I'd say makes just about all the difference in the world. If you deliberately want non-photorealism, then Maxwell is definitely not the way to go. It was my mistaken assumption that photorealism is the common goal 'round these parts. 'Course now that I think about it.. even non-realistic shaders would still benefit from the kick-ass light propogation and indirect stuff. Ah, well...
_Mike
_Mike
The LW plugin still sucks ass. BUt oh well....
M.
The Lightwave plugin ain't worth shat matt, I completely agree, I'll look at Maxwell again when they sort out the Lightwave plugin.