So I remade geometry, from the dimensions they gave (but not the lamp - it’s too small, but they gave the model name - maybe lamp will be available later). If you’d like to try make smth similar, as they did - it’s in *.iges format, just import it in max.
indeed…im excited to see what nextlimit has done with the _release_ coming today(maybe), altough im not expecting anything you never know, and with an extra license it just might be really usefull now.
I’ve not used maxwell or even looked at it since the disasterous RC releases, sort of gave up on it in a way, hav’nt even bothered to visit their forum.
But got to admit, from the emails i’ve received from Next Limit, that it looks like they made a hell of a lot of progress with it, and it looks very promising, and like you said, the additional licence will be very handy, and probably needed.
It’s going to be a couple of weeks before i get time to test it out, but i’m really looking forward to it this time. Or have i spoken too soon
not look too long at those images produced by (oh dear) Maxwell but 2 things hit me:
the red wall does not bounce the red to the areas around, and the light dispersion is not so “hot” as seen before the shadows are too dark…?
is it just me? :roll:
well guys I can say that this test will be very hard to match. I mean not because of different renders, but because even maxwell cannot match exectly to the photo. The reason for this, every surface even the most non reflective one still have reflective paramiters. And the reflections will dim the scattered light.
If you pay attention to maxwell’s render the bleed of the light is much more significant on the sealing for example.
So without knowing the exact values of the cornell surfaces one can never reproduce the photographic result. Plus in such simplicity, sure the test can be close. The true test comes in a full interrior with alot of detail and light.
yeah…
thats what i previously thought…
but i reckon i would see in the photo the room reflected on the mirror ball or in the cylindr…but they re not there…is it? :shock:
It’s not as perfect as on photo, but nevertheless - still impreses me. Yet simple, but nice advertising desision.
)