@notareal said:
I don't know certain for Maxwell for SU, but if it works in contexts of SU, it's limited to max 4GB. Same goes with Twilight. Only 64-bit programs access more RAM (mainly render studios).
Thanks. Would something like Twilight that works within Sketchup also limit the CPU, or if I get the i7 2600K instead of the i5 2500K I will get the full 15-30% difference?
I installed both applications and I am trying them. I might even add the 14 day Shaderlight Trial to the mix!
Thanks. I will start by using something like Twilight or Maxwell for SU on Windows 7. How much RAM will they be able to access?
@unknownuser said:
I like to think so too -- but I'd like to help prevent bad information from circulating (if I can) only to make the comparisons between engines based on the very real differences.
First thank you for the info you gave so far.
I would be very glad if I could be given a comparison between the engines based on the very real differences. Actually that is what I was asking, the pros and cons of each. It seems there is nobody that knows both applications well enough to do this.
Thanks.
Regarding CPU, how much difference would a core i7 2600K make over core i5 2500K when it comes to rendering times?
Similarly, would 16GB of RAM offer a noticeable performance benefit over 8GB of RAM?
Hello,
Would upgrading my video card help skethup models to render faster with something like Twilight or Maxwell? Or render engines do their work by using mainly the CPU?
Thanks
@massimo said:
@unknownuser said:
Is there an online database for Twilight compatible materials that is close to what is offered by Maxwell?
You can use any materials made in Kerkythea with Twilight and I can tell you that Kerkythea's material editor is quite powerful.
Here are some links for Kerkythea's materials.
http://www.kerkythea.net/forum/viewtopic.php?p=57370#p57370
http://www.kerkythea.net/joomla/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=42&func=select&id=3
Thanks massimo. Still the way they have materials organized at Maxwell seems better with all 4000 materials in one searchable database. On the other hand the ability to create materials with Kerkythea which is free is a big plus, since from what I understand to create materials for Maxwell you need to buy the Studio which is very expensive.
Jason, from the comparison here http://www.maxwellrender.com/index.php/home/maxwell_for_sketchup/faq Maxwell for SU doesn't seem to be missing much from Maxwell Render Suite. Is this indeed the case? (there is a quite big price difference)
What are "Multilight" and "Render Channels"? Are these features that Twilight has?
One thing that I like in Twilight are the quick render presets which you can use to get a result quickly. This is a good thing when you are learning and you test a lot of things with "trial and error". Does Maxwell offer anything similar?
But I must say that the materials database of Maxwell seems huge compared to what is offered by Twilight? Is there an online database for Twilight compatible materials that is close to what is offered by Maxwell?
@jason_maranto said:
If you haven't already, you should watch these:
Best,
Jason.
I watched the first three. They are really good. I tried to find similar video tutorials for Twilight but I couldn't find any of the same quality. For newbies like me good training material is a huge plus.
Does any of those videos shows how the artificial lighting with emitters should be done? Looking at the titles I didn't see anything. I also scanned the Maxwell for SU manual but I couldn't find any detailed instructions of how to do artificial lighting. Detailed info seems to exist only for the full Maxwell program which uses a different interface and I assume has functions that are missing from the free application.
Thanks Francois,
I installed both and I started reading their manuals and playing with them.
The installation of Twilight was basically one click, while for Maxwell i was a bit more involved (nothing too difficult though)
One thing I noticed is that Twilight has specific tools for adding lights while for Maxwell this seems to be done with emitters which doesn't seem to be as direct and intuitive.
srx, HD limitation is not a problem for me as I am not a pro. In fact I would start with the free/demo versions that offer even lower resolutions.
Is Twilight more user friendly? If that is indeed the case then this is important to me.
What are the other limitations of Maxwell for SU compared to Twilight?
Hello Francois,
While both application are supposed to be relatively easy compared to some other similar programs, they are still not as easy that a newbie like me can learn them good enough within a few days to make a decision. (and I don't want to spend more time than that)
What I am looking for is not necessarily an answer that "X is better" (unless X is indeed better in almost all aspects), but rather the pros and cons of each application when compared to each other to help me decide which one would be better for me.
For example (totally random points which are probably false):
Maxwell SU is easier to learn for a complete newbie
Adding realistic artificial lights with Twilight is much easier
Maxwell SU renders faster
There is a free training course for Maxwell SU that will get you up to speed faster
Twilight has a large and friendly online community while any kind of support for the free version of Maxwell SU is very limited.
Maxwell SU doesn't support X and Y while Twilight does.
etc
I would be grateful if anybody who knows both applications could offer me such a pros/cons list, even if it wasn't complete.
Thanks
Thanks srx.
Both the Free Version of Maxwell and the Demo version of Twilight seem to have the same resolution limitations.
What are the other limitations of the Maxwell for SU compared to Twilight? (leaving aside Maxwell studio, Kerkythea and Thea)
Also, are they both equally easy to learn?
Hello!
I am looking for a free renderer for SU that is relatively easy to learn. Can somebody that tried both Twilight and the new Maxwell for SU tell me the pros and cons of each when compared to each other?
Is there any other free (or unlimited time demo) renderer that would be better and equally easy or easier to use than the above?
Since upgrading the CPU will not improve Sketchup to such a degree that would make that 100MB file workable with all layers visible I decided to postpone the upgrade for later. I will just add 2GB of RAM for now.
Thanks Mac.
If I don't do a major upgrade I will definitely add 2GB more RAM and see how I can take advantage of it best.
If I do upgrade to an i5 then I will carefully overclock it. The 2500K was made to be overclocked so I don't think I will have a problem. As I said I overclocked my current CPU from 1.8GHz to 2.8GHz when I got it 5 years ago and probably this is why it lasted me for so long.
I would prefer not to have to deal with optimizing the model or using various techniques to keep everything running smoothly. The ideal for me would be to just upgrade to a fast CPU and solve all the issues I have (with the kind of models I am working with). But if this is not going to be possible and I might need those optimizations and techniques anyway even if I upgrade to a faster CPU, then I might just postpone the major upgrade and just add a bit of RAM for now.
Thanks. Would an i5 overclocked to about 4.5GHz be the best option, or there is another CPU that can offer better Cost/Performance when it comes to Sketchup?
@unknownuser said:
Your model will cripple any computer though. You can help with upgrading somewhat but cannot eliminate the problems. I guess there are lots of 3D plants in that "garden".
Thanks. Since I upgraded to an SSD for the OS my computer is running smoothly in general since I am not a gamer and I do not usually run any very resource intensive programs.
Sketchup, particularly large files such as this, is my main problem. This is why I am skeptical about doing an upgrade that might not help as much as I would like.
Are there any plans for a new version of Sketchup that will better take advantage of newer technologies?
Hello,
I am using a PC I build 5 years ago (with upgraded video card and an SSD for the OS) and I wonder if upgrading would make signifigantly increase the performance of in Sketchup.
My PC:
Core 2 Duo E6300 (1.86GHz Overclocked to 2.8GHz)
2GB DDR2 RAM
Radeon HD 5670 (512MB)
Windows XP Pro (32Bit)
My Problem:
A 100MB Sketchup file of a house. When I enable the "garden" layer it becomes extremely slow and practically unusable. (model statistics attached)
An easy upgrade would be two get 2 more GB of RAM (although XP will not see all of it)
A more expensive upgrade would be a new motherboard/CPU/memory, with an i5 2500K overclocked to about 4.5GHZ, 8GB of RAM, with Windows 7 (64Bit)
Would an upgrade to the i5 system significantly increase the performance of Sketchup, making that 100MB file usable with all layers on? Is there a graphics card upgrade that can offer better results for a lower cost?
Thank you
P.S, I run a few tests I found in this forum:
With this test: http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=20076 I am getting about 18.5fps the first time I run it, over 60fps after.
With this test: http://forums.sketchucation.com/viewtopic.php?f=72&t=3819 everything is smooth up to scene 9, with scenes 10 and 11 becoming increasingly choppy when moving around the scene (but nowhere as bad as with my 100MB file)
Thank you all for your help! I installed 2 renderers so far and I will soon try the other free ones you suggested in this thread! (I will go only for free ones for now, since I am only an amateur)
I installed Podium and IDX and I played with both for an hour or two. IDX seems to have more options (more control over light and materials, while Podium seems to only have 2 sliders - "Light" and "Reflect"), the UI is more intuitive on IDX, and the resulting image is larger (for the free versions). But of course the result is what matters most and I need more time to decide on that. What I can say about the result is that the two renderers render the scene in a very different way and I wouldn't call the results of either photorealistic. But I guess that has to do more with my model and the amount of work I did rather than the renderer! Am I right to assume that to get photorealistic (or near) result I should tweak every surface and every light on the scene?
@unknownuser said:
Hi Zoom, When it comes to selecting render software, you will be hard pressed to find agreement. I have tried Podiun, KT, PovRay, and IDX. All of them have different strong, and weak points. In addition, after you work with one for a period of time, you become vested in it, and will tend to prefer it over others.
This is what I am afraid actually! That I will get used with the UI and workflow of one program and then it will be hard to move to something better! I understand that people can have different opinions but I would like to hear your opinion and the pros and cons of each one of those programs.
Thanks!
