Why should i buy an Indigo License ? serious question...

[fused]

I have to second that.

[benn]

And I will third that.

[naxos]

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 you should give the last beta link in this section too

i start tests again...

[naxos]

Here is my simple test...

as you can see, Maxwell is still faster...



http://www.heberger-image.fr/view.php?i ... XvsIG.jpeg

Also, as my first MX test was 50 ISO, i had to reduce that down to 7 ISO with Indigo...
Only standards 3dsmax shaders here...

regards...

[Zom-B]

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!

[CTZn]

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 indeed not values we see commonly around here (f-Stop 1/1.4 ?). But that's because this is so different from my own habits, I am strictly no photographer.

So one thing you could do to raise the comparaison quality would be to post the Indigo scene if you want. To be precise I'm wondering if you used suspersample (<1) with Indigo or not. That would internally multiply the frame buffer resolution.

[fused]

>1, you mean (:

naxos, your test is much more interesting than just comparison (at least for me). it shows that:
- indigo 2.2.1 rellay is a lot faster than 2.0.12
- indigo does not have problems with sun (generally small lightsources) and phong shading in 2.2.1

[naxos]

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...

[naxos]

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 indeed not values we see commonly around here (f-Stop 1/1.4 ?). But that's because this is so different from my own habits, I am strictly no photographer.

So one thing you could do to raise the comparaison quality would be to post the Indigo scene if you want. To be precise I'm wondering if you used suspersample (<1) with Indigo or not. That would internally multiply the frame buffer resolution.

I'm a not-pro-but-well-skilled photographer (my APS is the expensive but nice Canon 5DmkII), and i'm used to get lenses with f1:1.4 diaph... to get nice depth of field...
Of course, with architectural pictures we more often use f11 or even f22

I just opened the scene, put a directional light for the sun, then export with latest beta2 of Maxingo to latest Indigo... no other settings but the shutter speed and the camera aperture to fit Maxwell's settings...

[naxos]

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

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

[CTZn]

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 produced by Maxigo, then Indigo is using its default wich is: doubling internally the frame buffer.

That's one thing.

edit: thanks for the scene

[CTZn]

Ah sorry, I was meaning the IGS file(s) (those in xml format). I use Maya

To be complete perhaps join the exported MX scene too, though I never used it. Someone else could compare their matching.

[Stinkie]

We LISTEN and RESPOND QUICKLY to bug reports and feature requests.

True. Now, I can certainly understand if a company isn't able to implement requested features in a snap. But bugs should be squashed as fast as humanly possible. NextLimit seems to have a different take on this. One I'm not too hot about.

Maxwell v2 will come with a Modo plugin, which is something I look forward to, but yours truly will be trying the demo very, very extensively before upgrading. If the Studio is still as clumsy, buggy and prone to crash as it is now ... my money stays right where it is. In my girlfriend's pocket.

[fused]

In my girlfriend's pocket.

[naxos]

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 produced by Maxigo, then Indigo is using its default wich is: doubling internally the frame buffer.

That's one thing.

edit: thanks for the scene

was set to 2... by default i guess