Suggestion for indigo free vs indigo commerical

[Jambert]

For Christ sake, choose the watermark then... I just say that putting it at the speed of the direct free competition isn't that bad...

A user might be able to understand indigo inners but don't grasp the difference between using two modes is beyond my comprehension.

Sorry I'm not bilingual, I understand the difference . Maybe you're right and two modes would engage people to upgrade to licensing, sounds good...

[Phoenix]

am i the only one who thinks that speed limits would make free users turn away more than a watermark and resolution restrictions?

its a very bad idea, imho.

I absolutely agree with you!

And also the watermark is quite fine as it is.
I think in its current form it's a good kind of advertising if images are posted e.g in some forums or generally shown to other people.

But the current resolution limit is a little bit to restrictive indeed in my opinion.
That's because 1000x700 (or 960x720 as the last expedient resolution in 4:3) is an absolutely uncommon resolution! If it would be enhaced just a little bit, let's say up to 0.8 megapixels, at least the common 1024x768 would be possible.

Wouldn't that be still restrictive enough?

[pixie]

And also the watermark is quite fine as it is.
I think in its current form it's a good kind of advertising if images are posted e.g in some forums or generally shown to other people.

Any special reason for anyone wanting to expose their latest and greatest work with watermarks? And why is that so bad o pick between two modes?

[Phoenix]

And also the watermark is quite fine as it is.
I think in its current form it's a good kind of advertising if images are posted e.g in some forums or generally shown to other people.

Any special reason for anyone wanting to expose their latest and greatest work with watermarks? And why is that so bad o pick between two modes?

I think you completely missunderstood me.

What I mean is, the watermark is a good promotion for Nick and Indigo (if the images are well done ), not for the artist (here it's the image itself, perhaps ). And that's something I can good deal with for using it for free!

And I never said, that two modes would be bad, did I?

But I'm quite sure, that it wouldn't be a good idea to artificially slow down the program even more than it still is as a result of it's unbiased nature.

Come on, Nick decided to earn money with his work and he has every right to do so.

So if you want highres and watermark free renderings, than buy it or look for alternatives like Luxrender or something.

Otherwise be happy with what you get.
Of course everyone can suggest or ask for things, but Nick is not obliged to go into it if it's not in his interest.

I for myself be thinking about buying a license, as soon as I scraped the needed money together and if there is still a lifetime license left than.

[pixie]

And also the watermark is quite fine as it is.
I think in its current form it's a good kind of advertising if images are posted e.g in some forums or generally shown to other people.

Any special reason for anyone wanting to expose their latest and greatest work with watermarks? And why is that so bad o pick between two modes?

I think you completely missunderstood me.

What I mean is, the watermark is a good promotion for Nick and Indigo (if the images are well done ), not for the artist (here it's the image itself, perhaps ). And that's something I can good deal with for using it for free!

And I never said, that two modes would be bad, did I?

But I'm quite sure, that it wouldn't be a good idea to artificially slow down the program even more than it still is as a result of it's unbiased nature.

Come on, Nick decided to earn money with his work and he has every right to do so.

So if you want highres and watermark free renderings, than buy it or look for alternatives like Luxrender or something.

Otherwise be happy with what you get.
Of course everyone can suggest or ask for things, but Nick is not obliged to go into it if it's not in his interest.

The key is here
->look for alternatives like Luxrender or something

Which isn't exactly a bad thing per se, but not exactly desired I guess...

[Phoenix]

... So if you want highres and watermark free renderings, than buy it ...

Ups sorry, I just recognized that you still hold a license.

So in fact it doesn't even affect you!

[dominike]

A limitation of 7 megapixels is long ways from the original free version. Limiting the cores would be a good way to give people incentive to buy the full version, but still leave people with a decent free version.


(quote]

Hi

I am a student who is considering buying the license. Dispite my interest on it, no one is giving me a straight answer of:

How many megapixels with the comercial license?

wll I be able to render faster, and will the quality be better?


Thank you


dominike@ymail.com

[dominike]

fryrender one: 795 €
maxwell 1.7: 671 €
VRay for C4D: 948 €
----------------------------
Indigo: 295 €


There is a complete free version of Indigo, but not an actual one. I bought it also, and didn't do commercial projects with it. YET.
I was a student, too, and I worked besides to get things I couldn't afford.
I am working a bit more now to overcome the extraordinary expense of 300 Euros I spent on a hobby.
neo0, why don't you try to earn money with your skills? Spend your free time 2-3 months in front of the computer and your 3D application, and not in bars. Not during week. Or not during the whole week. Ask for architects in your surroundings, or stand builders. Show the how good you can render their work, and offer a moderate, little price for the first time. If you done 3-4 jobs, you should easily be able to buy Indigo.

Hi

if you got indigo licence, why not exchange it?

I have got maxwell 1.7

let me know

[pixie]

How many megapixels with the comercial license?

wll I be able to render faster, and will the quality be better?

In a 64 bit OS you're only bound to the memory available, and it will render at the same speed.

[benn]

Heya dominike, the full version renders at the same speed but has no indigo logo (watermark?) and no resolution limit.

Hey all - another idea i've been floating is to have a 'pay 10euro to render this at full size' button. It'd let you render one scene at full resolution as many times as you want. I think this is a cool idea myself.

[Godzilla]

I don't think people would like that very much ben, it doesn't seem very professional.

[zeitmeister]

... But a funny idea indeed! )
Other demo software runs only 30 days, but without any restrictions. I think C4D runs forever, but is restricted to 640x480 pixels, but I'm not sure.

My two cents:
leave the demo restrictions as they are; in comparison to other rendered demos I think they are very kind.
Free is 1.1.18.
Slowing down a demo or restricting render speed on a demo machine is definately the baddest idea I ever heard of. You want to sell a fast unbiased renderer, so you shouldn't let the demo show how slow it renders!

[pixie]

... But a funny idea indeed! )
Other demo software runs only 30 days, but without any restrictions. I think C4D runs forever, but is restricted to 640x480 pixels, but I'm not sure.

My two cents:
leave the demo restrictions as they are; in comparison to other rendered demos I think they are very kind.
Free is 1.1.18.
Slowing down a demo or restricting render speed on a demo machine is definately the baddest idea I ever heard of. You want to sell a fast unbiased renderer, so you shouldn't let the demo show how slow it renders!

I was under the impression that choice was good, and perhaps if only that mode available it would be a bad thing since you wouldn't have a faithful representation of Indigo at all, still Demos are considered to present a subset of functionality that of the complete product, allowing the user to chose between two hardcoding modes such thread=1 and watermark would give him two set of experiences and would trounce the spectrum of competition, because it would go on after the free segment, and on commercial.

I keep talking about it because people seem to take the slowing down option as the only solution available and it isn't presented as such,,,

[FakeShamus]

I actually like the pay-as-you-render idea, Ben. it would allow you to test at the demo size and then if you have some paying gig that requires larger, you can "order" the full-size capability. this would be especially nice if you could have those individual renders add up to the full price of a license. it would be like a rent-to-own option, making it more affordable for people starting out and trying to establish themselves as professionals.

[CTZn]

I don't support most suggestions (and certainly not limiting speed) as I'm fine with the demo as it is. If you peeps can all come to a consensus then why not, either what don't mess with it