Sooo… when will you tell us which is which?
Regards, Jakob (who doesn’t deal too well with waiting, although he’s way to old to be part of “instant gratification” generation )
I think that 2, 3 and 4 all look as if there’s a LED ice cube in the drink. Or maybe some really nasty food coloring chemicals Also the SSS along the surface tension on#1 seems more natural, with the yellow color being subdued where the material thickness is small.
-Jakob
All good points !
It could be a render engine issue not giving us enough parameters for the thin section translucency, or could be a user error. I am still fiddling with the parameters.
With Cycles I have not been able to get the thin SSS areas to look translucent/watery enough. Even after boosting the SSS radius all the way to 5000. With some settings (changing lightness over 50) the edges get white, but not watery.
With Cycles there is also a distinct different between lightness of 50 and lightness of 51; as if it switches to a second algorithm after 50 and the transition is not smooth)
Technically didn’t use Maxwell … the image was found laying on my drive from a long time ago. Also, I don’t have the latest Maxwell anyway (last one I got was 2.7)
Sure, I am testing to see how far Cycles goes to know when to use. Helps to make a poll about what people think between the two engines. Wasn’t meant as global render comparison.
Besides, Maxwell is kind of irrelevant now. The original Maxwell engineers are working on the Bella project now.
Cycles didn’t do too well on this, but I am pleasantly surprised with it. For interior scenes and architecture work it is just great. Cycles also can go far for most product renders except the most demanding ones with liquids … best thing is, it’s included in Rhino. All other engines would have to justify the extra cost.
Bella has a lot of potential and contains the newest physics code, but it’s still green and the UI needs more refinements here and there. The output is like a Cadillac though.