Visibility of lights not respected

[TubeSmokeGuy]

TBH, I don't expected so much resistance and sorry, I feel a little bashed.

Nobody needs to use it if he/she doesn't want. But having the OPTION would make things a lot easier. For me it makes absolutely NO SENSE that lights which inherit a visibility parameter and fade to zero are STILL VISIBLE and shining. Expected would be, that an object with VISIBILITY ZERO is INVISIBLE. This alone is for me a reason to make this change, as soon as it will be possible. I know, fading with visibility looks incorrect but with some tweaking of the start and end key tangents you can achiev results, which are not bad. And for this you have to only animate one track which you can SIMPLY INHERIT to many many objects by SIMPLE LINKING. This is an EASY-TO-GO solution for me! Also often you don't have the time to render and compose multiple passes. So, all-in-one renderfootage is the gold solution in this case. IDK where you come from, blockbuster movie industry, tv shows / series, games, etc.? We work business to business for engineering industry clients with tight deadlines, tight budgets, just a hand full of generalist artists, heavy scene data and demanding customers. We cannot allways go the "usual" way. We have to use shortcuts and the visibility fade is a very well working shortcut! And for the client it makes no difference if it is a post production fade with 2 clean passes blended over another or a visibility fade rendered in one go out of the application. The product fades out and thats it, everything fine. All that solutions with light explorer / scene explorer, setup multiple wire parameters via script, parameter collector, etc. are over complicated, compared to what I want / suggest.

[^Lele^]

Use a lightMaterial, then, and fade those nodes: see how it'll work.
There is no resistance from me, or the other users.
It's an impossibility within max, and there is no way around it for us at chaos.
So, besides giving you alternatives, we can't do much else.
The resistance is all yours, that i can see, to said alternative workflows.

[TubeSmokeGuy]

The resistance is all yours, that i can see, to said alternative workflows.

I don't want to fight. I simply wanted to explain my point. What I do is comparing. The suggested solutions on the one hand and my request (simple linking with inherited visibility) on the other hand. And the result of that comparison for me is, that the suggested solutions are overcomplicated, compared to what I request. I hope I was able to explain it well.
I understand that there is nothing you can do and I am thankful for your suggestions. Unfortunately they don't solve the issue. But thats not your problem or your fault. So, thank you and peace!

Using objects with LightMtls could work in some cases, thanks. I will try it.

[^Lele^]

I don't want to fight.

I'm entirely not sure where you drew the fight from.
Reread the thread, it's as tone-plain as they come, with as much factual info as anyone may wish for.

You're ofc entirely entitled to your opinions, so if the solutions proposed in place of your unachievable wish feel too complicated, so be it.

Using objects with LightMtls could work in some cases, thanks. I will try it.

I very much doubt you will get what you're looking for, that's why i suggested you to try it.
You're overlapping a compositing approach to a light transport one, and it's simply not meant to work that way.