FREE Maxwell Render for Sketchup (free version).
-
Thanks.
Are there any tutorials on how to create hybrid emitter/IES luminaries or other best practices in creating luminaries that will be on-camera?
Is it ok to physically model lamps with Maxwell, or could it result in very slow rendering?
-
I've seen some good posts on the Maxwell forum about IES files in hybrid arrangements and you might want to do a search there to see what other people who work more in that field do... I'm not Arch Viz (more sci-fi/fantasy) so I tend to not worry about those types of things very often. There are many other Maxwell users on this forum who are more qualified than me to comment on this and I hope one of them chimes in here...
As far as physically modelling light fixtures it can be done, and with amazingly realistic results, but it often does come at the costs of higher rendering time. In particular there are two areas that can increase rendering time and both are related to caustics:
-
Overly smooth reflections -- this is simple to fix, just make the reflector material rougher... and generally this is more true to life, I've noticed people often tend to overestimate how "smooth" a surface really is.
-
Caustics seen through dielectric(glass)/SSS materials -- this is particularly bad if the emitter is completely encased... unfortunately this is a known issue with Unbiased rendering in general and if anybody manages to solve it using truly unbiased techniques it will be big news.
Best,
Jason. -
-
Thanks. Apart from the "Tutorials / FAQ" section should I be looking anywhere else? I found some info but is not exactly what I was looking for, I will search more.
-
The WIP/Gallery sections tend to have the most information after the regular Maxwell Render V2 subforum... Tutorials/FAQ section will not have much of value as it's mostly older stuff.
Best,
Jason. -
OK, I'm getting a little better at this but have some Q's.
n settings you can set the number of threads MW uses... In one of the tutorial videos say that you can hit the 'dot' and say reset and it will work out how many is sufficient.
What happens if mine says 0? Does it mean I have no cores at all in my system???
Here's a job I'm doing at the moment. 3 storey specialist Medical suites. I've chosen to export them at 1024pix as they are for a website so I didn't think they needed to me any bigger. Sample level 14 with a little opacity applied to trees and peeps.
-
@unknownuser said:
What happens if mine says 0? Does it mean I have no cores at all in my system?
The default is 0 and it means that it uses all cores/threads available. If you are using Windows you can open the Task Manager > Performance and there CPU usage should be close to 100% for all threads.
-
Thanks Zoom, but why is there an option if it just defaults to your system's performance?
-
Because you can set it for less than the maximum to allow other programs to use those remaining resources more efficiently... setting it for 0 is adaptive and that is where I leave it most of the time.
BTW, you are getting some strong vignetting in your render due to the small focal length of the camera -- In the future, if you do not want the vignetting there you can easily remove it by enabling the de-vignetting option (under Simulens) and moving the slider to to 100%.
Best,
Jason. -
Thanks for your advice, Jason. I'll give it a try tomorrow.
-
@utiler said:
Here's a job I'm doing at the moment. 3 storey specialist Medical suites.
Andrew, that model was rendered with "FREE" Maxwell Render for SketchUp!? -
No Irwan, I bought the license but still the output res is only 1024pix...
I'm really enjoying how easy it is to drive!!
-
Hello, I am still a bit confused on the differences between the Draft and the Production engine. In their website they say "Maxwell Render is unbiased: for any given scene, both the draft and production engine will eventually produce the identical image" but from some of the responses here I got the impression that for more complex lighting you need the Production engine. So now I don't know what to expect from the Production engine. Would it produce an even better result or would it produce the same result but faster?
Or maybe that "eventually" is only theoretical, and for complex scenes the draft engine could take many days to produce a result that the Production engine can do within a few hours? (i.e. you will practically never wait for the Draft engine to finish)
-
Pretty much -- in the Unbiased world "eventually" really means "longer than you want to wait"... it's a promise that remains unfulfilled because you wont test it. Much like if you keep walking in a straight line you will eventually end up back where you started (by circling the earth) -- nobody will ever actually put this to the test so it remains a widely accepted truth that nobody actually sees.
The optimization of the FIRE engine (the draft engine here) is such that it will give reasonably fast results for scenes with simple light interactions... with the primary focus on speed of feedback while making changes -- this is useful while you are setting camera, materials and environment settings.
Interior shots are generally anything but simple... relatively low light-levels and lots of emitters, combined with lots of bounces and complex materials/surfaces.
The production engine (this is the real full-power Maxwell engine) is optimized to actually render to Maxwells full potential -- it's not concerned about giving you fast feedback while you are working, it's there only to give finished results.
Both engines are necessary in a complete workflow, but given the option you would never choose the draft engine for final work... and the circumstances where it might be suitable as such would be mostly limited to Arch Viz scenes lit by physical sky or IBL and product shots lit by IBL.
With alot of skill and patience you can pull it off -- but it will take longer and will definitely be noisier than is necessary.
Think of it like the difference between SketchUp free and Pro -- yes you can create presentations without the tools in Layout (part of the Pro version), but it is cumbersome and more problematic than it needs to be and will likely not look as good... not to mention that you will likely have to have some other expensive software (Illustrator/In Design) to complete the project anyway.
People use SketchUp free for many things but its designed purpose at this point is primarily Google Earth modelling -- the fact that it can do considerably more is mostly a testament to the community of Ruby plugin authors we have here.
Best,
Jason. -
@zoom123 said:
for complex scenes the draft engine could take many days to produce a result that the Production engine can do within a few hours? (i.e. you will practically never wait for the Draft engine to finish)
If you recall this thread you will see that for a reasonable scene, the difference between draft and production is incremental, not night and day. My impression was that it gets a slightly better result a little faster - maybe 10-20% (My subjective impression) If you give it a torture test scene, like one small daylit opening and complex emitters, sure, you may see a big difference, but I think it more has to do with how well you set up the lighting situation. It all depends on the kind of scene you are trying to render...
-
As I said -- Arch Viz lit only by Physical Sky or IBL will work (more or less). However start adding emitters and more complex materials/models and things become difficult for the draft engine to resolve very quickly.
Your scene setup was pretty basic for Maxwell therefor the difference between engines is minimal (as you say).
This falls under knowing the limitations of the tool and working within them.
There is also an issue with uneven power of emitters -- basically the idea is that the sun is a much more powerful source of light than the emitter materials... when you put both light sources in the same scene the emitters often look "grainy" due to the uneven power ratio (Maxwell prioritizes powerful emitters).
Best,
Jason. -
Thanks, now that difference is clear!
Another question:
I've been looking at arroway textures (ex: http://www.arroway-textures.com/en/products/concrete-1/contents ) and I noticed they provide several different kinds of maps (diffuse, bump, specularity etc). How would I apply those textures with Maxwell for SU?
I understand how to add the diffuse and bump maps, but where would I add the specularity / glossiness map?
Also there are some textures where a bump map is provided and in addition they give a value for displacement. How can I do that?
-
This is where we bump up against the limitations of the "stand-alone" plugin as far as materials are concerned -- as things stand right now there is no way to map specularity within the stand-alone plugin... you will have to use MXED (I'm sure you've heard me say that before). In order to do that you will have to download the demo version of the full Maxwell Render Suite.
This may change in the future, obviously there is already a request in place to allow the embedded character type materials to map specularity but when (and in what form) this arrives I could not say.
Within MXED mapping specularity is a fairly simple operation which you can see my video for here: http://youtu.be/sof2gfMQXwc
Displacement is a simpler matter within the plugin-- under the bump section you will find that you can choose from bump/normal/displacement and load a texture/settings as needed... but before you get too far into working with displacement materials please read this thread as it will save you alot of wasted time/bad results: http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?p=352777#p352777
Best,
Jason. -
Thanks!
Would it still worth to buy the arroway textures (or similar) even though I will not be able to use the specular maps? How much worst would the result be without the specular maps?
Regarding Bump and Displacement maps, some of the textures would say something like "diffuse 100% - displacement 50mm" (http://www.arroway-textures.com/en/products/stonework-1/contents). With the plugin it doesn't seem possible to change both the bump and the displacement at the same time, it is one or the other. Or maybe I didn't understand something?
-
I have already made some of the Arroway materials into MXMs (and linked SketchUp materials) -- however I cannot supply the texture maps to make them work (which each user has to purchased from Arroway on their own).
If you do decide purchase the textures I can share the sets I have already made into materials to at least allow you to have access to the best Maxwell can produce with those particular sets.
The sets I currently have already made are:
http://www.arroway-textures.com/en/products/wood-flooring-1
http://www.arroway-textures.com/en/products/edition-1
http://www.arroway-textures.com/en/products/concrete-1I'm open to doing other sets but those are the only sets I currently own so it will have to wait until I can purchase more.
As far as displacement (and the plugin) goes you are right, you can only have one method active for any material -- whereas in MXED you can have all three types active in various combinations... hopefully you are getting the hint, it's worth downloading the Maxwell Render Suite demo to get access to MXED (at least until the materials in the plugin are beefed up).
Best,
Jason. -
Thanks for the help!!
I am mostly interested in their stone textures ... if I get the Render Suite demo will I be able to create and save the materials and keep those materials to use with the stand-alone plugin even after the demo expires?
@unknownuser said:
at least until the materials in the plugin are beefed up
Any insider info about when that would happen?
If I buy the stand-alone plugin now to what sort of free upgrades will I be entitled to? Just minor ones or major ones also? (e.g. 2.6.20, 2.7 or 3 also?)
Advertisement