Sunlight through glass

So I've been following this raging debate over at the Maxwell Render forums regarding the physical accuracy of renderers and the specific problem of visualizing the following scenario, to the best of my understanding:

Architectural rendering folks want a renderer that can accurately depict sunlight, through glass into the interior of a space. They want this interior lighting to be visualizable from the exterior of the space as if you were standing outside with your camera, looking through the window, into the interior of the space.

here are some quotes:

1.
- - - - - - -
No one has presented a proper sollution to this problem.
I´m referring to rendering an interior space seen from an outside view in sunlight, trough glass without cheating.

This is a milestome in 3d art!!
If the MR team feel confident to deliver this in due time ok!!
  - - - - - -

2.
  -- - - -
I assume you mean it would be a milestone for Maxwell? Every other renderer I've ever seen can handle this very easily.
  - - - - -

3.
  - - - - -
he key is that he said "without cheating".

No other renderers can do it in the physically correct way. They all make it up.
  - - - - -
etc.

Is this a difficult rendering scenario for RADIANCE or any other renderer or are these people missing something? There are some seriously pissed off people in the Maxwell Render forums, especially a lot of architect types who seem to think that the beta releases of M-R should solve all of their problems. I was more curious about the ability of Radiance to handle this type of scenario versus M-R which claims to be a physically-based renderer.

Thoughts?

Let me also be very clear that, after reading the vituperous

kirk

···

------------------------------

Kirk L. Thibault, Ph.D.
[email protected]

p. 215.271.7720
f. 215.271.7740
c. 267.918.6908

skype. kirkthibault

Hi Kirk,

I think the challenge to rendering the interior of a building through a glass facade is exactly the same trouble you would have photographing it -- the reflections will tend to overwhelm the interior unless there is direct sun penetrating the space, something architects try to avoid. Typically, an interior is less than 10% as bright as the exterior during daylight conditions, and this is (roughly) the amount of light reflected by standard glass. Therefore, the reflections are intermixing with the light from the interior, and it's difficult to see any details that aren't confused.

Things are made better if you can get just blue sky or something without detail in the reflection, or use a polarizing filter and shoot near the Brewster angle, where all the reflected light is of a particular polarization. This would be a nice trick that Radiance (unfortunately) cannot do properly, as it lacks polarization in its simulation. (Well, we had to cut back somewhere...)

-Greg

Kirk Thibault wrote:

So I've been following this raging debate over at the Maxwell Render forums

Hi Kirk,

Can you imagine?:
"hey, how come my rendering is all splotchy? Radiance sucks!"
"no, you suck!"

The Maxwell forum likely suffers from a few immature folks stirring up trouble. This afflicts most of the CG forums I've participated in unfortunately, save for the radiance-online lists. The Radiance user base is a class act. I've made many friends here, and learned a lot. As usual, I feel we all owe the biggest debt of gratitude to Greg Ward and Peter AB for this, but there are many many people who contribute in big ways to make this the resource what it is.

- Rob Guglielmetti
www.rumblestrip.org

Rob

There are some pretty whiney folks over in the M-R forums, throwing around phrases like "class action lawsuit" and the like. It appears that there are some (mostly) architectural people who are claiming that their business projects are being affected by the failure of Next Limit to release the newest beta version of their software. Personally, I would consider basing the welfare and completion of my business projects on beta software risky, to put it mildly. Suffice it to say that a lot of the huffing and puffing seems to be projection of some people's frustration with their own lack of judgement. I believe these people think they have the "right" to sound off because they paid $495 and don;t ever seem to get any answers as to when the next version will be out, etc.

And yes, Rob, i can very well imagine the dialog you posted below! There would be a whole thread dedicated to how Radiance sucks because of splotchiness and the fact that it doesn't make their coffee in the morning.

The fact the Radiance attracts the user community that it does is a testament to its creators and keepers. Thanks folks.

···

------------------------------

Kirk L. Thibault, Ph.D.
[email protected]

p. 215.271.7720
f. 215.271.7740
c. 267.918.6908

skype. kirkthibault

On Jan 17, 2006, at 1:30 PM, Rob Guglielmetti wrote:

Kirk Thibault wrote:

So I've been following this raging debate over at the Maxwell Render forums

Hi Kirk,

Can you imagine?:
"hey, how come my rendering is all splotchy? Radiance sucks!"
"no, you suck!"

The Maxwell forum likely suffers from a few immature folks stirring up trouble. This afflicts most of the CG forums I've participated in unfortunately, save for the radiance-online lists. The Radiance user base is a class act. I've made many friends here, and learned a lot. As usual, I feel we all owe the biggest debt of gratitude to Greg Ward and Peter AB for this, but there are many many people who contribute in big ways to make this the resource what it is.

- Rob Guglielmetti
www.rumblestrip.org

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

Hi Kirk,

It is interesting to see some of these comments. I am not exactly clear on the problem that they are trying to solve though. But I think one thing to keep in mind is that a lot of people (architects, designers and the architectural rendering folks) have a lot of pre-conceived ideas about how light should behave and how a scene should appear. These preconceptions can lead to a lot of problems when it comes to evaluating or simulating physical performance.

-Jack

Kirk Thibault wrote:

···

So I've been following this raging debate over at the Maxwell Render forums regarding the physical accuracy of renderers and the specific problem of visualizing the following scenario, to the best of my understanding:

Architectural rendering folks want a renderer that can accurately depict sunlight, through glass into the interior of a space. They want this interior lighting to be visualizable from the exterior of the space as if you were standing outside with your camera, looking through the window, into the interior of the space.

here are some quotes:

1.
- - - - - - - No one has presented a proper sollution to this problem. I�m referring to rendering an interior space seen from an outside view in sunlight, trough glass without cheating.

This is a milestome in 3d art!! If the MR team feel confident to deliver this in due time ok!! - - - - - -

2.
-- - - - I assume you mean it would be a milestone for Maxwell? Every other renderer I've ever seen can handle this very easily.
- - - - -

3.
- - - - -
he key is that he said "without cheating".

No other renderers can do it in the physically correct way. They all make it up.
- - - - -
etc.

Is this a difficult rendering scenario for RADIANCE or any other renderer or are these people missing something? There are some seriously pissed off people in the Maxwell Render forums, especially a lot of architect types who seem to think that the beta releases of M-R should solve all of their problems. I was more curious about the ability of Radiance to handle this type of scenario versus M-R which claims to be a physically-based renderer.

Thoughts?

Let me also be very clear that, after reading the vituperous

kirk
------------------------------

Kirk L. Thibault, Ph.D.
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>

p. 215.271.7720
f. 215.271.7740
c. 267.918.6908

skype. kirkthibault

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction

About MR history and current situation (
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10185).
Well the whole thing started a while ago when the promised and sold the
certainty to get a finished software for a certain time (last September).
This did not happened (they are still speaking of final candidate version
RC0.5 and so on).
The software is not yet finished (it is not version 1.0).
Not yet implemented on all the platform where was supposed to run (on Mac is
still beta although they promised something in the next Œ24¹ hours) and
doesn¹t support all the plug-ins for 3d application that are indicated on
the web page.
This doesn¹t sound so appealing to me as well and I would understand
somebody delusion about the matter.

Having said that, I also need to add that I requested (as other friends did)
details about the physical accuracy of the renderer.
I never got an answer.
Is it itself an answer?
G.

PS these are my personal opinions.

···

____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses

Hi Giullio and others following this thread,

<RANT MODE>
It seems to me that this is a problem with proprietary shrink wrap software renderers. Who really knows what is going on under the hood, whose word should be taken for the validity of the physical model, what validations have occurred?!

Users see the product marketing materials that talk about Global Illumination and "physical accuracy," and they believe the hype! That seems to me to be pretty dangerous if you are going to be using the tool to somehow "validate" design issues!

I know that there are systems that have implemented GI to varying degrees and sophistication. But the problem is you probably have to be an uber expert to use them and/or code up custom material/lighting shaders. Still though the question is what validation has occurred. I think that most commercial renderers and users of said systems are really not that interested in physical validity, they are most interested in the outcome/appearance of the final image. It does not really matter how it get there.

It seems to me that the one commercial product that showed some hope in its original (pre-acquisition) form was Lightscape. However, Rob Guglielmetti has explored and written pretty extensively on this topic seemingly with only partial satisfaction (my apologies to Rob G. for such a cursory summary, he did some really excellent work on this). Note I also believe that the original developers of Lightscape were truly interested in enabling people to use a tool with a reasonable and practical level of physical validity.
</RANT MODE>

Best,

-Jack

giulio antonutto wrote:

···

About MR history and current situation ( http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10185). <http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10185).>
Well the whole thing started a while ago when the promised and sold the certainty to get a finished software for a certain time (last September).
This did not happened (they are still speaking of final candidate version RC0.5 and so on).
The software is not yet finished (it is not version 1.0).
Not yet implemented on all the platform where was supposed to run (on Mac is still beta although they promised something in the next '24' hours) and doesn't support all the plug-ins for 3d application that are indicated on the web page.
This doesn't sound so appealing to me as well and I would understand somebody delusion about the matter.

Having said that, I also need to add that I requested (as other friends did) details about the physical accuracy of the renderer.
I never got an answer.
Is it itself an answer?
G.

PS these are my personal opinions.

____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses

------------------------------------------------------------------------

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction

I do totally agree with you :slight_smile:
Ciao
G.

···

On 18/1/06 2:23 pm, "Jack de Valpine" <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Giullio and others following this thread,

<RANT MODE>
It seems to me that this is a problem with proprietary shrink wrap software
renderers. Who really knows what is going on under the hood, whose word should
be taken for the validity of the physical model, what validations have
occurred?!

Users see the product marketing materials that talk about Global Illumination
and "physical accuracy," and they believe the hype! That seems to me to be
pretty dangerous if you are going to be using the tool to somehow "validate"
design issues!

I know that there are systems that have implemented GI to varying degrees and
sophistication. But the problem is you probably have to be an uber expert to
use them and/or code up custom material/lighting shaders. Still though the
question is what validation has occurred. I think that most commercial
renderers and users of said systems are really not that interested in physical
validity, they are most interested in the outcome/appearance of the final
image. It does not really matter how it get there.

It seems to me that the one commercial product that showed some hope in its
original (pre-acquisition) form was Lightscape. However, Rob Guglielmetti has
explored and written pretty extensively on this topic seemingly with only
partial satisfaction (my apologies to Rob G. for such a cursory summary, he
did some really excellent work on this). Note I also believe that the original
developers of Lightscape were truly interested in enabling people to use a
tool with a reasonable and practical level of physical validity.
</RANT MODE>

Best,

-Jack

giulio antonutto wrote:

Re: [Radiance-general] Sunlight through glass About MR history and current
situation ( http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10185).
<http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10185).>
Well the whole thing started a while ago when the promised and sold the
certainty to get a finished software for a certain time (last September).
This did not happened (they are still speaking of final candidate version
RC0.5 and so on).
The software is not yet finished (it is not version 1.0).
Not yet implemented on all the platform where was supposed to run (on Mac is
still beta although they promised something in the next Œ24¹ hours) and
doesn¹t support all the plug-ins for 3d application that are indicated on the
web page.
This doesn¹t sound so appealing to me as well and I would understand somebody
delusion about the matter.

Having said that, I also need to add that I requested (as other friends did)
details about the physical accuracy of the renderer.
I never got an answer.
Is it itself an answer?
G.

PS these are my personal opinions.
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
  
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

Giulio and Jack,

I agree as well. I do not think the M-R users are angry because the software is not quantitatively accurate enough for their liking, it is obvious that the users of M-R want photoreal renderings, not physically accurate, quantitative data. The mob appears to be restless because of the unfulfilled promises that M-R appear to market - I think the users have various but specific 2nd or 3rd order desired effects for the renderer (caustics, sun behind glass or whatever) - things they believe add photorealism to their renders (things that "look cool"). I don;t think they really care about or appreciate the quantitative physical accuracy of the solution, they just want all of the subtle physical phenomena to be present in their output. Trying to mollify that kind of user amidst many other similar requests is almost impossible I would think, regardless of how M-R market their renderer. Then multiply that by the number of platforms and 3rd party 3D modeler plug-ins they tout and you have a recipe for ... well what they have on the forum.

Man, that is an angry crowd on the forum though.

If anyone is interested, here is a thread that demonstrates the sunlight through glass "problem" that started this whole discussion.

http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=11102

kirk

···

On Jan 18, 2006, at 9:23 AM, Jack de Valpine wrote:

Hi Giullio and others following this thread,

<RANT MODE>
It seems to me that this is a problem with proprietary shrink wrap software renderers. Who really knows what is going on under the hood, whose word should be taken for the validity of the physical model, what validations have occurred?!

Users see the product marketing materials that talk about Global Illumination and "physical accuracy," and they believe the hype! That seems to me to be pretty dangerous if you are going to be using the tool to somehow "validate" design issues!

I know that there are systems that have implemented GI to varying degrees and sophistication. But the problem is you probably have to be an uber expert to use them and/or code up custom material/lighting shaders. Still though the question is what validation has occurred. I think that most commercial renderers and users of said systems are really not that interested in physical validity, they are most interested in the outcome/appearance of the final image. It does not really matter how it get there.

It seems to me that the one commercial product that showed some hope in its original (pre-acquisition) form was Lightscape. However, Rob Guglielmetti has explored and written pretty extensively on this topic seemingly with only partial satisfaction (my apologies to Rob G. for such a cursory summary, he did some really excellent work on this). Note I also believe that the original developers of Lightscape were truly interested in enabling people to use a tool with a reasonable and practical level of physical validity.
</RANT MODE>

Best,

-Jack

giulio antonutto wrote:

About MR history and current situation ( http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10185).
Well the whole thing started a while ago when the promised and sold the certainty to get a finished software for a certain time (last September).
This did not happened (they are still speaking of final candidate version RC0.5 and so on).
The software is not yet finished (it is not version 1.0).
Not yet implemented on all the platform where was supposed to run (on Mac is still beta although they promised something in the next ‘24’ hours) and doesn’t support all the plug-ins for 3d application that are indicated on the web page.
This doesn’t sound so appealing to me as well and I would understand somebody delusion about the matter.

Having said that, I also need to add that I requested (as other friends did) details about the physical accuracy of the renderer.
I never got an answer.
Is it itself an answer?
G.

PS these are my personal opinions.
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

Jack de Valpine wrote:

Hi Giullio and others following this thread,

<RANT MODE>
It seems to me that this is a problem with proprietary shrink wrap software renderers. Who really knows what is going on under the hood, whose word should be taken for the validity of the physical model, what validations have occurred?!

Users see the product marketing materials that talk about Global Illumination and "physical accuracy," and they believe the hype! That seems to me to be pretty dangerous if you are going to be using the tool to somehow "validate" design issues!

Can I get an amen-ahh!

I got into it with a CAD/modeling pundit several years ago, when he stated in a review that Viz was capable of producing renderings that were "95% accurate". What the hell does that mean? Well, I asked him, and he said he spent a full day with Stu Feldman (one of the two founders of Lightscape), and that was what he walked away with. I told him he didn't get his money's worth on the half-day seminar. We went back and forth on this, I told him he was doing his readers a great disservice, and in the end I was made to feel like a loser for being in such a small industry that no one cares about. Something about "if you want to stick with Lightscape, good luck, it's not going to be supported anymore, blah blah..." The good news is, it forced me to finally learn Radiance. =) The problem is that that review went into Cadalyst magazine, which is read by lots of Architectural CAD drafters and renderers, and as you mention they aren't necessarily concerned with the goings on under the hood. And then you have people showing renderings to clients and saying "oh yes, that's what it will look like, we used software that's 95% accurate!" Which is amazing, since many of these people driving the program don't know how to read a polar curve on a luminaire cutsheet. Oops.

I know that there are systems that have implemented GI to varying degrees and sophistication. But the problem is you probably have to be an uber expert to use them and/or code up custom material/lighting shaders. Still though the question is what validation has occurred. I think that most commercial renderers and users of said systems are really not that interested in physical validity, they are most interested in the outcome/appearance of the final image. It does not really matter how it get there.

...and if the result looks nice in half the time, screw accuracy. That was a lot of the complaining I saw on the M-R forums, was how slow it was. It's comments like that that really give you insight into how little these people understand the problem of solving GI.

It seems to me that the one commercial product that showed some hope in its original (pre-acquisition) form was Lightscape. However, Rob Guglielmetti has explored and written pretty extensively on this topic seemingly with only partial satisfaction (my apologies to Rob G. for such a cursory summary, he did some really excellent work on this). Note I also believe that the original developers of Lightscape were truly interested in enabling people to use a tool with a reasonable and practical level of physical validity.
</RANT MODE>

Thanks Jack. I was merely trying understand the product's limitations because I wasn't ready to commit to learning radiance in production. =8-) And you are right about the developers. At least in the case of Rod Recker (the other Lightscape developer), I definitely felt like he was interested in giving the world a tool. Sure, getting rich off it is a nice bonus, but he seemed to be interested in taking that Cornell education and channeling it into a lighting tool. He's a really nice guy and wish him the best of luck at Autodesk. It's truly unfortunate what happened to that product, but then again it was severely limited in what it could do. Of course, who knows what it'd be like today had the right people stayed in the decision-making seat. Then again, how far can one go with radiosity? (Well, I guess the folks at Lighting Analysts can answer that one, and the answer is "pretty damned far". Their AGI product continues to improve, and with people like Martin at PSU doing validations with it, it becomes more and more robust. But I still prefer Radiance.)

Interesting thread; sorry for the somewhat off-topic verbiage, but I think we all learn from these exchanges too.

- Rob Guglielmetti
www.rumblestrip.org

Just in case:

We have just completed a validation of 9 daylighting simulation
packages. This validation will be published in the reference book on
Lighting Engineering under the editorship of academician J.B.Aizenberg
and I can confirm that only Radiance and AGi32 provide correct
qualitative and quantitative results.

We've got 17.7% maximum relative difference with SuperLite 2 and
higher than 150% relative difference with Lightscape.

We wanted to test Inspirer from Integra Inc., Japan, because they
claim it provides phisycal accurate simulation results. But,
apparently, they didn't provide us with the package for evaluation.

···

Jack de Valpine wrote:

Hi Giullio and others following this thread,

<RANT MODE>
It seems to me that this is a problem with proprietary shrink wrap
software renderers. Who really knows what is going on under the hood,
whose word should be taken for the validity of the physical model,
what validations have occurred?!

Users see the product marketing materials that talk about Global
Illumination and "physical accuracy," and they believe the hype! That
seems to me to be pretty dangerous if you are going to be using the
tool to somehow "validate" design issues!

Can I get an amen-ahh!

I got into it with a CAD/modeling pundit several years ago, when he
stated in a review that Viz was capable of producing renderings that
were "95% accurate". What the hell does that mean? Well, I asked him,
and he said he spent a full day with Stu Feldman (one of the two
founders of Lightscape), and that was what he walked away with. I told
him he didn't get his money's worth on the half-day seminar. We went
back and forth on this, I told him he was doing his readers a great
disservice, and in the end I was made to feel like a loser for being in
such a small industry that no one cares about. Something about "if you
want to stick with Lightscape, good luck, it's not going to be supported
anymore, blah blah..." The good news is, it forced me to finally learn
Radiance. =) The problem is that that review went into Cadalyst
magazine, which is read by lots of Architectural CAD drafters and
renderers, and as you mention they aren't necessarily concerned with the
goings on under the hood. And then you have people showing renderings
to clients and saying "oh yes, that's what it will look like, we used
software that's 95% accurate!" Which is amazing, since many of these
people driving the program don't know how to read a polar curve on a
luminaire cutsheet. Oops.

I know that there are systems that have implemented GI to varying
degrees and sophistication. But the problem is you probably have to be
an uber expert to use them and/or code up custom material/lighting
shaders. Still though the question is what validation has occurred. I
think that most commercial renderers and users of said systems are
really not that interested in physical validity, they are most
interested in the outcome/appearance of the final image. It does not
really matter how it get there.

...and if the result looks nice in half the time, screw accuracy. That
was a lot of the complaining I saw on the M-R forums, was how slow it
was. It's comments like that that really give you insight into how
little these people understand the problem of solving GI.

It seems to me that the one commercial product that showed some hope
in its original (pre-acquisition) form was Lightscape. However, Rob
Guglielmetti has explored and written pretty extensively on this topic
seemingly with only partial satisfaction (my apologies to Rob G. for
such a cursory summary, he did some really excellent work on this).
Note I also believe that the original developers of Lightscape were
truly interested in enabling people to use a tool with a reasonable
and practical level of physical validity.
</RANT MODE>

Thanks Jack. I was merely trying understand the product's limitations
because I wasn't ready to commit to learning radiance in production.
=8-) And you are right about the developers. At least in the case of
Rod Recker (the other Lightscape developer), I definitely felt like he
was interested in giving the world a tool. Sure, getting rich off it is
a nice bonus, but he seemed to be interested in taking that Cornell
education and channeling it into a lighting tool. He's a really nice
guy and wish him the best of luck at Autodesk. It's truly unfortunate
what happened to that product, but then again it was severely limited in
what it could do. Of course, who knows what it'd be like today had the
right people stayed in the decision-making seat. Then again, how far
can one go with radiosity? (Well, I guess the folks at Lighting
Analysts can answer that one, and the answer is "pretty damned far".
Their AGI product continues to improve, and with people like Martin at
PSU doing validations with it, it becomes more and more robust. But I
still prefer Radiance.)

Interesting thread; sorry for the somewhat off-topic verbiage, but I
think we all learn from these exchanges too.

- Rob Guglielmetti
www.rumblestrip.org

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

--
Best Regards,
Ilya A. Zimnovich mailto:[email protected]

And I think we are still interested about it!

But money talks and we need to satisfy both worlds (nice images and
physically based rendering to some extents). But I agree with most of what
Jack has been said here..

Regards,

Pierre-Félix Breton

···

----------------------------------------------------
(speaking as a 3ds max product specialist here - having participated in the
Lightscape 3.2 -->viz radiosity work...)
  
-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack de
Valpine
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:23 AM
To: Radiance general discussion
Subject: Re: [Radiance-general] Sunlight through glass

Hi Giullio and others following this thread,

<RANT MODE>
It seems to me that this is a problem with proprietary shrink wrap software
renderers. Who really knows what is going on under the hood, whose word
should be taken for the validity of the physical model, what validations
have occurred?!

Users see the product marketing materials that talk about Global
Illumination and "physical accuracy," and they believe the hype! That seems
to me to be pretty dangerous if you are going to be using the tool to
somehow "validate" design issues!

I know that there are systems that have implemented GI to varying degrees
and sophistication. But the problem is you probably have to be an uber
expert to use them and/or code up custom material/lighting shaders. Still
though the question is what validation has occurred. I think that most
commercial renderers and users of said systems are really not that
interested in physical validity, they are most interested in the
outcome/appearance of the final image. It does not really matter how it get
there.

It seems to me that the one commercial product that showed some hope in its
original (pre-acquisition) form was Lightscape. However, Rob Guglielmetti
has explored and written pretty extensively on this topic seemingly with
only partial satisfaction (my apologies to Rob G. for such a cursory
summary, he did some really excellent work on this). Note I also believe
that the original developers of Lightscape were truly interested in enabling
people to use a tool with a reasonable and practical level of physical
validity.
</RANT MODE>

Best,

-Jack

giulio antonutto wrote:
About MR history and current situation (
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10185).
Well the whole thing started a while ago when the promised and sold the
certainty to get a finished software for a certain time (last September).
This did not happened (they are still speaking of final candidate version
RC0.5 and so on).
The software is not yet finished (it is not version 1.0).
Not yet implemented on all the platform where was supposed to run (on Mac is
still beta although they promised something in the next ‘24’ hours) and
doesn’t support all the plug-ins for 3d application that are indicated on
the web page.
This doesn’t sound so appealing to me as well and I would understand
somebody delusion about the matter.

Having said that, I also need to add that I requested (as other friends did)
details about the physical accuracy of the renderer.
I never got an answer.
Is it itself an answer?
G.

PS these are my personal opinions.
____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses
  
_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general
  
--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction

Hi Pierre-Felix,

You are too right money does talk and the needs of the clients that we all find tend to dictate the market. I have always found that a big challenge is customer education, educating the customer about what is possible, why and what the value-add is. With respect to talking about the pros and cons of specific technologies, I find it best to pick the appropriate place, project and client.

Regards,

-Jack de Valpine

PS, do you have any sense for what will happen to Maya/Max/Viz with the Autodesks acquisition of Alias?

Pierre-Felix Breton wrote:

···

And I think we are still interested about it!

But money talks and we need to satisfy both worlds (nice images and
physically based rendering to some extents). But I agree with most of what
Jack has been said here..

Regards,

Pierre-F�lix Breton
----------------------------------------------------
(speaking as a 3ds max product specialist here - having participated in the
Lightscape 3.2 -->viz radiosity work...)

-----Original Message-----
From: [email protected]
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jack de
Valpine
Sent: Wednesday, January 18, 2006 9:23 AM
To: Radiance general discussion
Subject: Re: [Radiance-general] Sunlight through glass

Hi Giullio and others following this thread,

<RANT MODE>
It seems to me that this is a problem with proprietary shrink wrap software
renderers. Who really knows what is going on under the hood, whose word
should be taken for the validity of the physical model, what validations
have occurred?!

Users see the product marketing materials that talk about Global
Illumination and "physical accuracy," and they believe the hype! That seems
to me to be pretty dangerous if you are going to be using the tool to
somehow "validate" design issues!

I know that there are systems that have implemented GI to varying degrees
and sophistication. But the problem is you probably have to be an uber
expert to use them and/or code up custom material/lighting shaders. Still
though the question is what validation has occurred. I think that most
commercial renderers and users of said systems are really not that
interested in physical validity, they are most interested in the
outcome/appearance of the final image. It does not really matter how it get
there.

It seems to me that the one commercial product that showed some hope in its
original (pre-acquisition) form was Lightscape. However, Rob Guglielmetti
has explored and written pretty extensively on this topic seemingly with
only partial satisfaction (my apologies to Rob G. for such a cursory
summary, he did some really excellent work on this). Note I also believe
that the original developers of Lightscape were truly interested in enabling
people to use a tool with a reasonable and practical level of physical
validity.
</RANT MODE>

Best,

-Jack

giulio antonutto wrote: About MR history and current situation (
http://www.maxwellrender.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10185).
Well the whole thing started a while ago when the promised and sold the
certainty to get a finished software for a certain time (last September).
This did not happened (they are still speaking of final candidate version
RC0.5 and so on).
The software is not yet finished (it is not version 1.0).
Not yet implemented on all the platform where was supposed to run (on Mac is
still beta although they promised something in the next �24� hours) and
doesn�t support all the plug-ins for 3d application that are indicated on
the web page.
This doesn�t sound so appealing to me as well and I would understand
somebody delusion about the matter.

Having said that, I also need to add that I requested (as other friends did)
details about the physical accuracy of the renderer.
I never got an answer.
Is it itself an answer?
G.

PS these are my personal opinions. ____________________________________________________________
Electronic mail messages entering and leaving Arup business
systems are scanned for acceptability of content and viruses

_______________________________________________
Radiance-general mailing list
[email protected]
http://www.radiance-online.org/mailman/listinfo/radiance-general

--
# Jack de Valpine
# president
#
# visarc incorporated
# http://www.visarc.com
#
# channeling technology for superior design and construction