... and i won't, for sure

ZomB wrote:... tabulated spectrum data for every color based parameter, like albedo etc. ...

That IS exactly what usual artists don't want to read

when i can find time i'll test with a complex scene... again with standard shaders only (more because i can't manage materials well to have the same in both renderers...)

Now it is a lot possible that my (default) params for rendering are not the good ones regardless of that scene... a bit with Vray : the default settings are not the fastest ones... help me setting the scene and i'll rerender... Be sure i'm not here to proove Maxwell against Indigo, but as the title ...

Your sun and camera settings seem to be different between the 2 renderers. Try to mach those as well. I can't : Maxwell uses UP as "north" and daytime settings for the sun... no one light is used for Maxwell : only emitters and the sun system... about the camera : i put the same settings, but the I...

here are IGI, last benchpicture and MXS files :

http://rapidshare.com/files/269855976/MXvsIG.rar.html

enjoy !

Renderer params are :

Pathtrace with bidirectional on
max num of consec rejections (???) : 1000
super sample factor : 2
bvh threshold : 500 000

now i set supersampling to 1 and test again

Okay, thank you for that information naxos ! So, to make my point clear, if MX is not using any supersampling of any sort then in the indigo scene file, under the <renderer_settings> section, <super_sample_factor> must be set to 1. If the section or this very option are not visible in the files pro...

here is the scene : both used with Maxwell and Indigo : no changes...

http://rapidshare.com/files/269828837/ff.rar.html

Hi naxos I believe that the biggest issue when comparing software performances is how you can also compare your own skills with each. I'm not putting in doubt your abilities naxos, I'm talking about subtelties . First thing I want to say is that I'm a bit choked by the MX aperture used, that's inde...

ZomB wrote:Maybe you already know, and my tired eyes only tricked me,
but I hope you haven't used pure white for the pots & co,
since this slows down convergence, using max 80% of RGB spectrum (204).


Anyway, nice comparison are always welcome!

all those are standard default grey...

Here is my simple test... as you can see, Maxwell is still faster... http://www.heberger-image.fr/view.php?image=32284_MXvsIG.jpeg http://www.heberger-image.fr/view.php?image=32284_MXvsIG.jpeg Also, as my first MX test was 50 ISO, i had to reduce that down to 7 ISO with Indigo... Only standards 3dsm...

Far away faster ? Really? What version of Indigo did you test ? I made a little comparison rendering myself using the latest Indigo version 2.2.1 (rendering speed increased in 2.2.1 compared to 2.0) and Maxwell demo 1.7.1. Ok i tested 2.0.12 just because i've been to the download section... maybe y...

* We're cool and lightweight, eg we don't spend time on making a studio, we just make better plugins and a faster render core. * It's just going to get better and better, and we listen to our users. * You're supporting a smaller company and promoting competition in the unbiased rendering market. * ...

You right !

some kind of quality vs rendering time bench pictures...
regardless of the price difference too...