it is a bad assumption to say that people are close minded, without knowing who they are and what they stand for.
I hope you understand the reasons behind why blender exists.
lets not make it personal
I wonder if the best solution for this discussion would just be to ask the Maxwell Renderer programmers to write an export script or plugin for it, and maybe also include it with the renderer. The Blender code is available, the Python API is too, and as long as you don’t sell the plugin or the script and make it freely available you should also be allowed to include it with your commercial software. The Maxwell Renderer producers have every interest in having this tool around if it boosts their sales, and they know the internal workings of their renderer and their API better than anyone else. It could be a win-win situation, so why not just ask them? I don’t think I’ll ever use it, but it’s silly to actively dissuade the support of commercial software.
Clipi wrote:
Eventualy I have not doubt somebody will write the plug-in for Maxwell.
What holds you from trying to write it yourself? In this whole discussion you’re expecting somebody else to write it for you. The fasted way to get a Maxwell plugin for Blender is to take the initiative to write one yourself. The Blender community will certainly support you with all the development questions you’ll have.
In maxwell forum there are several user of Blender hoping to see an plug-in
Just wondering what the answer from the Maxwell developers on these questions was. Are they willing to write an exporter for Blender??
Yes, any other renderer, even blender, It just takes experience and maybe postprod.
Everything about light would not be possible. It is not because there is “maxwell” in the name of the product that all of a sudden, that renderer become allmighty. I studied light phyisics long enough to know what is “totally scientific complient” and the most advanced renderer in that field is RISE, and it’s made by scientists for scientists for light simulation, but it is far too complicated to be usable on artistic projects.
http://rise.sourceforge.net/cgi-bin/makepage.cgi?OldGallery
And even that one is far from being totally scientifically correct.
I’m not disputing the fact that maxwell may be the Next Big Thing© but personally I can’t tell any difference between the renders of maxwell and realistic renders produced by other raytracers such as Brazil or Vray, or even Yafray.
IF maxwell rener looks so good it is also because they have the money to hire excellent modellers to make an excellent gallery. I’m sure that a noob with maxwell won’t make something far better than a noob with yafray.
1)Maxwell hasn’t got quantum effects.
2)It does not simulate neither real eye (wich has its own interesting “artifacts”), nor real film (that is the only way to produce “real-physics based” motion blur )
So its physics is fake and it’s no different from other renderers 
Kidding, of course, but this “real physics” feature isn’t anything exceptional. and in fact makes me suspicious… Whom they’re trying to sell it? Movie makers use PRenderman, it wasn’t even raytracer for quite a while, but it’s stable and relatively fast. Scientists couldn’t care less about artistic value of a simulation (well, not exsactly, but…) Small-time and amateur animators are interested mainly in speed and esase of use…