Maxwell Render Cinema 4d Mac Crack
Taneka Tarring
Hello
the plugin work fine now with maxwell v4 without need to install v3 or copy files from v3 folder.
but to work must copy _pymaxwell4.pyd and pymaxwell.py to : C:\Program Files\Next Limit\Maxwell Render 4\python\pymaxwell\python3.5
import mxs can import scenes created by V4 but after test if the scene exported from blender it will imported without problem but if it created by sketchup for example it will imported with very large scale
Yes i understand , for example a script to render maxwell scene is easy to created and run from python idle with import pymaxwell without need use cmd .
Like the example in the thread i posted above from maxwell forum.
Maybe they can do something and inside the plugin we can use simple function with the converted scene.
In your plugin it take long time to export and to preview materials . with bmaxwell and other maxwell plugins is faster specially the material preview.
Why that ? And any idea to make it faster ?
The time needed for a completed Maxwell render of interior scenes - which is what I work on mostly - is starting to take its toll on me as the viz demand has increased exponentially in my office. I am considering trying to learn Vray because it seems to perform quite well. Even though the final output in my opinion is still much more CG than Maxwell, it is still quite nice and perfectly acceptable for what I do.
I jumped into Maxwell as soon as I started doing viz work, and the material system makes sense to me, whereas vray and other biased renderers seem to have an endless amount of parameters to adjust, same for lighting set-ups.
First, I think the whole biased/unbiased issue is somewhat overblown and misunderstood. Unbiased just means that the engine is not taking certain steps that most engines take to increase speed at the expense of accuracy. An unbiased renderer does produce an accurate image, but usually one that's been approximated by a biased engine is as good as you need.
Vray does have more parameters to work with, but they're not that hard to grasp. It does take longer to set up, and for me the time I spend on set up could be better spent on designing. That's why I'm getting back into Maxwell - I've got a bunch of MXM files, I assign those to a model imported from Sketchup, turn on the sun and sky and hit go. Usually I don't need to do test renders, because the exposure is adjusted on the fly, and I have enough computing power now to get Maxwell to run in reasonable time.
Vray has the ability to be very fast, and the material setup doesn't have to take very long - it's pretty much the same as most other software except Maxwell - but there are situations where it can be slow. For example, a project I did this summer had an unusual lighting scenario, and doing it realistically in Vray (using the actual lights) was giving me over 24-hour renders, so I ended up faking it. Maxwell would have actually rendered the scene faster, and I would have spent a lot less time setting it up.
thanks Andrew, as always very insightful and helpful. I was actually just over at the Fryrender site -- looks quite promising with ridiculously short rendertimes. I just wish they offered a demo version. I just grabbed the Vray demo, I'll try to play it this weekend -- I've also heard Chris' videos were quite good.
Yes I saw that fryrender recently and it looks like same thing as maxwell, yet faster! So, now you know that if you got patience you can get same quality in less time for half of the price in preorder, just you will have to wait about the same time as with Maxwell for thing to develop. However, that seem functional enough for some thigns, so perhaps you could try. And about demo, well as you remeber, Maxwell also did not put the demo untill v1.o release. Probably cause of pyracy...
Lightning setup ask for some reading between the lines to avoid time consuming situations and sometimes, that means faking. When you got lot of lights you should replace them with luminous geometry (which is simillar to Maxwell) and you get fast results. If you put all the lights you will render for 20 hours or more.
But let me put it this way, I would gladly use both Maxwell and Vray if I could. Thing is, I am also kind of bored with Vray, would love to try something new. I did some tests with Maxwell and it is certainly much better for exterior renders and not so slow at that. And you could make couple of boxes look great with that Maxwell phisycall sky.
Thanks Branko -- you confirmed exactly what I was thinking about using Vray for production work and Maxwell for the true money shots. I have also seen some of the animation work done with Vray and I know that is not possible with Maxwell at this point -- and I would love to start showing the bosses some walk-throughs (they're easily impressed).
I know Olivier C. was interviewed on this site, really beautiful images. I've been having a string of luck getting purchases approved at work, so maybe I'll try to put in for VRay and Fryrender pre-order, as well as Chris' DVD's. Might as well keep an aresenal of tools at my disposal.
Chris' DVDs are the single best thing I've seen. I'm trying to learn VRay amongst having CRAZY deadlines right now with one architect who is using us for design/build, but paying us well for it. I just haven't had time...point being, if they are willing to buy the renderer, the DVDs will increase your production time. WELL worth the money.
I've been using Maxwell for over a year and I've tried the Vray demo, ease of use is Maxwell's biggest asset over Vray. Since I have very limited experience with Vray I can't comment on how quickly it is to set up but I know that it's going to be a longer process than Maxwell. Other than that I don't think Maxwell has much to offer that Vray can't do. That's not to say that I think Maxwell is worthless but it's single biggest problem is it's speed and NL seems unable to do anything about it. If I were faced with a decision between the two I would definitely go with Vray, but if you can afford both then you will probably find a use for Maxwell when time allows.
Maxwell can give you 99% photorealism, and when I say can give, I mean I've seen many examples of this, but I've also seen many that didn't, and I thought to myself "how is that possible" I won't mention any names or examples, but I was really shocked that it could produce something pretty awful really, not photorealistic at all, and they were'nt going for NPR...I tryed Maxwell myself and did not find it easy at all, just as difficult as any other renderer...but in the hands of the right person, it will do amazing things...
Vray will give you 90% photorealism, which is more than adequate to portray an idea, if someone needs more information than that, then they're just crazy anyway...I think there is even a way to make vray unbiased, but its going to be very slow...
I can see how having an easy to use, simply push a button and get results every time. Unfortunately this type of thinking will hold you back. There is no such thing as a perefct render software. They all need finessing, and they all require post work.
If you are not rendering in passes, yet relying on the software to crank out the image for you, then you are waisting time and limiting your work. I have seen work done in Cinema 4D with heavy post work in Photoshop that easily blows away the best Maxwel and Vray Renders.
I used to worry that the software would advance to the point where anyone can just hit render and get good results. We are pretty close with Maxwell. However, when you use the software as a crutch to disguise a lack of artistic ability or experience, it will show. Everyone's renderings all start taking on the same character.
try to be different and push the envolope. Don't worry so much about which program to use, they are only as good as the user behind them. Also, versatility is the key in this business. If I have to look at one more bedroom or living room scene in an applicants portfolio, I am going to get sick. I would rather hire soemone who can compose and manually light an office tower in the scanline then a person that can purchase a bed off turbo squid, make 4 walls, and hit go on Maxwell.
I'd agree that there are renders I like to do that I'm pretty sure you can't do in Maxwell. But when you want to do a photoreal render with very little prep time and great GI and you really don't have time to put any thought into it, who you gonna call?
I think the prep time really becomes less of an ordeal in V-ray once you are more familiar with it. I know I spent hours preping scenes and now if I have the time I will play but I can do a really fast set up now and not worry about it.
That's totally true, there is alot more to producing a great render than just the render engine, like I was saying, it is VERY possible to make a crappy render with Maxwell, and you wouldn't think so, it cracks me up everytime I saw the splash screen for Studio, and it says "AS EASY AS TAKING A PHOTO"
first, thanks for all of your intelligent, well thought out replies. If I posted this in the Maxwell section, I think it would have unfortunately disintegrated into a NL bashing party as it seems most topics over there do.
- I agree Jefferson, it is not the engine but the person behind it. I'm not looking for the easy way out, but that balance between production-type work that I need to pump out, and the more artistic work/labours-of-love.
- AJ/Manta -- I think you nailed it -- for some situations Maxwell is the better choice, but because of some glaring limitations (animation), Vray is the way to go -- so ultimately, having as many tools at your disposal is advised
I did start to play around with Vray, and must admit I was suprised at the decent results I got with not too much effort. I remember struggling with Scanline forever just to get something even remotely acceptable. I'm sure as I become more familiar with it, it will be useful to me -- I must say though, the amount of parameters does intimidate me.
b37509886e