where can we download poser IES shader?

thanks

There is none yet ice-boy. It's not ready. You must read...lol.

Laurie

 IMHO poser should be redone, but not all at once too many ppl will see the change and say "It's too different. Why can't they leave well enough alone. P4 was good enough for me. I don't want to learn all this new stuff." 

They should do it in increments starting with the material room(see what bb said), then the pose room (lights, cameras etc) then the hair room(more control over styling strands), the face room(no one seems to be able to use it), the setup room (how I couldn't tell you. I don't use it but other ppls comments seem to imply it's more difficult than it needs to be I could be wrong though). Each time updating the render engine as needed. Finally over hauling the render engine because I would imaging all this incremental updating would make it a mess.

Quote - I now have IES lights working in Poser. This will work in any version since Poser 5. It's a matmatic script that reads an IES file and generates a Poser light shader with math nodes that implements what is in the file.

Just say something isn't possible in Poser, and I can't help but look into it.

I would have done it much quicker but it took me a long time to understand the IES spec. The script is actually only about 40 lines of code.

YES!!!!!!!
Here are two site and
http://www.metalumen.com/products/iesall?sub=70
http://www.colorkinetics.com/support/ies/
Type this into a Google search: ies light download
for more.

It will probably be till next week that I finish this. I'm having to do a lot of measurement of how Poser's spotlight works.

I'm taking advantage of the UV "mapping" of a light. The light cone is mapped onto a UV space, with U=.5, V=.5 in the center of the light cone, and the edge of the light cone at the edge of the UV space (0 to 1). Any point being rendered (lit) corresponds with some point on that UV map.

I'm having two problems.

The first trouble I'm having is that the UV distance to the center does not correspond exactly with the angle within the cone. The correspondence is a non-linear function. If it was linear, then halfway between center and edge would be half the cone angle. But it isn't.

I did a quick and dirty approximation just to verify the concept. But now I'm trying to get the exact function. Given r, the distance from the UV center to the point being rendered, what is the angle? I have built a goniometer in Poser so I can take a bunch of measurements but it is tedious work. Then I have to figure out what the function is.

The second problem is that spotlights are set up with a maximum cone angle of 160 degrees (giving a maximum deviation from center of 80 degrees). But some of the IES lights produce non-zero light between 80 and 90 degrees. In fact, some go all the way to 180 degrees. (They emit light up and down.) Such lights must be modeled as two spot lights in Poser. I'm not trying to tackle that yet. I'm just trying to get the angle UV mapping to go out to 180 or at least really close.

The strange thing is that as the cone is widened, the UV mapping changes non-linearly. I.e. if the UV radius r = .09 matches 45 degrees with a 160 degree spot cone, it should be expected that it would not change by a lot with a 170 degree spot cone. It should be something like .09 * 160/170 which is not a big change. But it does by a lot.

I suspect there is a 1/sin(theta) term in the equation somewhere. As the deviation angle theta approaches 90 degrees, 1/sin(theta) goes to infinity.

If the UV mapping of the light was public knowledge, I would not have to do all this experimenting.

 I don't know that the interface itself needs to be rebuilt from scratch as much as some of the features could be optimized:

• Another render option besides Firefly for realistic renders would be great
• Having animation be a different room from the pose room 
• A means to more easily add dynamics to conforming clothing
• Soft body physics on figures
• A light studio room

And I agree with BB about getting some real SSS

Quote -
The second problem is that spotlights are set up with a maximum cone angle of 160 degrees (giving a maximum deviation from center of 80 degrees). But some of the IES lights produce non-zero light between 80 and 90 degrees. In fact, some go all the way to 180 degrees. (They emit light up and down.) Such lights must be modeled as two spot lights in Poser. I'm not trying to tackle that yet. I'm just trying to get the angle UV mapping to go out to 180 or at least really close.

As someone who doesn't really know anything about this, why not use a point light in cases above 160 degrees?

Because point lights are not UV mapped, which means the shader has no angular data at all. It would have to compute that, which I can do, but it requires that every time you move the light, you type in its new coordinates into the shader.

If there was a LightPosition node, this would not be a problem.

But then you have an additional problem - you can't rotate a point light. So if a directional light is implemented as a point light pretending to be a directional light, you have a hard time controlling it. You'd have to enter rotation parameters into the shader to change its orientation. This would be very tedious. Entering coordinates every time you move it, and rotations every time you want to re-orient it. That's possible but not usable.

On the other hand, a pair of spotlights, with one parented to the other, would work great.

 BB, have you played any with Carrara?  One of the things I like about Carrara lighting is that the various types of lights can be placed in the scene as objects.  It makes it easier to work with rather than rotating a light around a globe.  That might be a fix for your light position and angular controls.

except.. he's trying to get something working in poser....?

I don't know what you mean, about "rather than rotating a light around a globe".

In Poser, I grab spotlights just like objects and I move them with the mouse. I don't use the light globe at all except for infinite lights.

And I don't have Carrara. Or any other non-free 3D app.

I use the Top View (Ctrl-T) and Front View (Ctrl-F) a lot to position spot and point lights. Then I usually point them at something. If not something in the scene, then I add a dummy object just as a target, which I hide during renders. I then am only dealing with stuff I can grab. No dials, no numbers.

I don't have the slightest problem with using Poser's UI to position and orient lights. I have a problem with having to manually enter numbers every time I do those things. I want to find an IES light solution that does not require any more than the usual way of working with lights.

 I'm just asking since the topic of the thread is how poser could be rebuilt.  It was just an idea to serve for comparison...

Okay bill, I get what you are saying about using two spotlights.  I'm assuming you should line them up perpendicular to the camera.

For most architectural lighting, yes you'd point one up and one down. But there are other scenarios. I don't really know what they are. I'm just beginning to learn about architectural lighting.

Quote - Poser needs to be especially to run correctly in a 64-bit environment instead of patches of 64-bit codes into an out dated 32-bit core program. But, it will not happen if is so it will be done over a period of time within releases as LaurieA  said this way it doesn't scare anyone off.

Are there any specific issues that you're running into with the current 64-bit version of Poser Pro 2010?

I'm actually pretty happy with current Poser 8 SR3 except for those really irritating IDL contact/occlusion shadow blotches.  I do wish you'd added a "Run at lower priority" internal option but that's a pretty small thing.  Overall I'd say Poser 8/Pro 2010 is the biggest leap forward since maybe when you whent to the Firefly engine in the first place.  Memory management wise I don't really have any complaints and I'm a 64-bit user, I'd have to go very far out of my way to try to make it blow up memory-wise.  Never happens in normal use (normal for me anyway), actually never have had an out of memory type failure since Poser 6.

I like Poser 8. So far, the only problem I'm having with SR3 are splotches with IDL rendering if I use lights with inverse square falloff. BB has already instructed me how to make Poser run at a lower priority (which actually increased my render speed slightly...go figure), so that really isn't a big deal as pjz99 said. I think that lighting problem needs fixed, but it does not ruin my whole experience ;o). I really like the IDL.

Laurie

Yeah for the price especially, there's a ton of value in the current version compared to pretty much any other 3D suite out there with the exception of modeling and texturing, and that's generic enough that I don't think it would be all that beneficial to try to integrate something like that.  There are better renderers of course, but generally their price is much higher and of course there's the immense body of Poser-specific content already available.

What really cripples Poser is the old spherical falloff rigging system that all that legacy content is already set up in, and good luck growing out of that.

Quote - I'm actually pretty happy with current Poser 8 SR3 except for those really irritating IDL contact/occlusion shadow blotches.  I do wish you'd added a "Run at lower priority" internal option but that's a pretty small thing.  Overall I'd say Poser 8/Pro 2010 is the biggest leap forward since maybe when you whent to the Firefly engine in the first place.  Memory management wise I don't really have any complaints and I'm a 64-bit user, I'd have to go very far out of my way to try to make it blow up memory-wise.  Never happens in normal use (normal for me anyway), actually never have had an out of memory type failure since Poser 6.

I may be mistaken but dont you have a Cinema4D license??

Yes, yes I do, and in fact I use it heavily nearly every day - and it cost about two thousand dollars.  Poser 8 cost me less than ten percent of that.  For the price, Poser is a pretty great app.

Understood,I
was just curious why one with Cinema4D would even bother with poser render/IDL/blotchiness issues
but whatever works for you.

Cheers

No, they shouldn't. Poser was great until they started messing with it and allow it to depend on external non-related applications. If that is what rebuilding seems to be (and it looks like it) then I say, no.

It is the ability to depend on 3rd party apps that allows choice in those apps. Witness the new library options from 3rd parties, all of which can be first-class library apps, through the web services API. They can be written in any language.

Component based modularity is a winner. The opinions you express are legitimate (in the sense that there are real reasons for them) but I'm not convinced, swayed, or influenced by that particular opinion, and neither is SM. You might as well stop saying it at nearly every opportunity.

No comment :-) A question was asked, I answered, i do think I'm allowed to do so.

Quote - Understood,I
was just curious why one with Cinema4D would even bother with poser render/IDL/blotchiness issues
but whatever works for you.

If I'm trying to sell Poser content, I'd be kind of a jerk to market it with renders done in Cinema - with my promo stuff, I can give any Poser user my scene file and if they hit render, they will get exactly the image that is shown in the promotional pics.  So it behooves me to max out Poser as much as I can.

edit: maybe I'm in a minority here with promo pics for poser content, but y'know, misrepresentative promo pics really bug the shit out of me.

Quote -
If I'm trying to sell Poser content, I'd be kind of a jerk to market it with renders done in Cinema - with my promo stuff,

Well IMHO it would only be a deception to sell Lightsets /environments for poser
but use renders from C4D or MODO etc.

Daz uses lightwave renders in some of their promos but place a big disclaimer stating such.

I have found the poser renders tend to HIDE flaws in poser products  that become clearly manifest in Vray ,AR3 or MODO,
and I am Certain DAZ user are in for quite
a shock when they start rendering their favorite canned DAZ /poser optimized content in a physically Correct  high detail Engine.
but that's another thread.

Cheers

In the larger world that's called "bait and switch".  If the vendor can't get a given item to look good without postwork in the native app it's going to be used in, then it's dishonest to sell it with those kind of tricks employed. 

Quote - I have found the poser renders tend to HIDE flaws in poser products  that become clearly manifest in Vray ,AR3 or MODO...

Importing Poser content into different apps for rendering has its own set of problems anyway, especially when magnets come into play (anything rigged for V4 for example).  Some of the flaws that appear in other apps are purely due to that, and not particularly the fault of the content.  The thigh bend on V4 for example will never work right in any non-Poser/D|S render app (not that it's exactly perfect even in Poser) unless you export point-level animation, because it's done with magnets.  Maybe there are a couple of apps that make use of the Poser SDK, but interPoser Pro doesn't, and it doesn't do Poser magnets at all.  Also materials will never be converted 1:1, anything more than the minimum material information is discarded - that's not anything unique to Poser either.

Ummm...  You do know you can do this in Poser, too, right?  Infinite lights are different in that they aren't really located anywhere but represent a direction.  If you switch to the local lights, you will find that they can be rotated and moved via the parameter dials and I think even parented to other objects.  I use the front and side views to place them within the objects I want to emit light (and usually have to turn the shadows off for these objects also).

In this pic I have four spotlights hidden in the lighting fixtures.  The lighting material (not the actual light, the apparent light) is just white in the diffuse and ambient channels.  The light cones are trans maps.

There is a glitch in the lights' falloff, unfortunately.  The area of light doesn't correspond to the area of shadow (you may be able to see it on the deck chairs' shadows).  I couldn't manage to fix it and eventually lost interest in the whole project.

Quote - Ow! bagginsbill makes my pointy head hurt.
And yes, Poser does need to be streamlined to make it look and work like a modern program, instead of a retread of something ten years old.
But it should also be cheaper, under fifty dollars if possible, and be a perfect release requiring no service packs or patches. A complimentary box of Raisinettes included in the packaging would be a nice touch too.

My pointy lil head hurts too but make mine Twizzlers!

all i know is that humans and skin are the important parts of poser rendering. and since we render so much skin we still dont have SSS. SSS is important. this is not an option but a fact.

in response to the original thread title alone... an old but still relevant article :)
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

Quote -
in response to the original thread title alone... an old but still relevant article :)
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

That is a Great site, April!!!....Unfortunately I just spent a half-hour poking around it, which I should have spent doing something more useful.  :lol:

The UI for Poser 8 was a complete rewrite. The things in that (great) article happened. Suddenly you couldn't use comma to enter a number - Euro users were flummoxed. Suddenly (and still) the parameter dials are mysteriously slow when there are a lot of them.

I do not want to see a complete rewrite. I want to see lots of little "bags on the side", as we say in software speak. Thank you very much.

SSS is an example of something that can be a wonderful bag on the side. I just need a couple new functions and I can do it well. A completely new renderer could offer some great new abilities, but more than likely would lose a lot of the existing nooks and crannies we can take it to at the moment.

i second that very heartily.

*in response to the original thread title alone... an old but still relevant article :)
http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html

*Great article, I also read the next two articles of the author about UI's, I makes me understand why poser users don't like D|S and vice versa, they just don't work the way they expect it to do.
I often use autocad and Rhino3D simultaneously and I get the same problems: they have similar functions, but they behave different: You mentally have to set a switch to use the other program.
And I think that's the problem with all 3D programs: when I try to learn  to use a new program and I want to use a function I know, beacuse I have used it in another program, it always doesn't work the way I expect it to do.
There should be some kind of standard for this, Modo401 has a great option to use different interfaces like 3Dstudio, Maya and others. If poser at least wants to attract some D|S users, they should have a D|S Interface option.

best regards,

Bopper.

Quote - What really cripples Poser is the old spherical falloff rigging system that all that legacy content is already set up in, and good luck growing out of that.

Maybe it is time to stop supporting legacy content and offer a second piece of software to help people convert things over to the new systems.  Or they could make 9 a bridge and let everyone know that in 10, old features X,Y, and Z are gone for good.  There's no need to be a packrat forever.

I mean things like the reflection light multiplier don't belong in the poser software anymore.  The new software should ignore that flag and if they follow bill mat room suggestions, it wouldn't be that difficult to update all your old maps anyways.

April, as someone who's learned a little bit about coding, yeah you never rewrite everything.  In fact a lot of coding it just borrowing code from one place and putting it somewhere else.  However from time to time you need to go through your products and ask, what works, what doesn't, what's needed, and what is no longer needed?  Then you go from there and start replacing/removing/updating as best you can.

My opinion on poser is that it has passed through so many hands through its iterations, it's getting to be time for a good purging and house cleaning of features as well as a few needed additions.  So while joel says programmers like to level and rebuild and that's bad, at least in poser's case it needs a bit of remodeling done.

Is the FACEROOM really needed by anyone? Did SM ask for that in the survey? I think if the discussions here are any indication nobody seems to use it and those who tried gave up when they could not use it.

 APRILYSH! Where have you been HIDING?! Good to see you again ^_^

Also.. yes.. please no complete rewrite since it's likely to break existing functionality. It took several SRs in BOTH Poser 8 AND PP2010 8and with the latter you'd think they had at least THOUGHT about it) to fix the comma issue. And the whole world just ISN'T the US of A... we are a few hundred millions outside ;)

I'd like the Firefly renderer to actually USE its capability. As I understand, it has the ability to DO reall SSS and more - but is crippled at present. (Stewer.. WHY?!)

Real SSS is probably the best thing introduced in the next Poser version. That would sell it to me (providing that GC is STILL present.. I still feel kinda "meh" for having to buy the "Pro" version to get that.. because WHOA what a difference it makes! I don't NEED all those export/import thingies.. I use Poser and render in Poser. I do have Max (although an ancient version.. anyone remember 3.5 LOL) BUT I model in Hexagon which exports objs that imports to Poser without any odd plugins anyway...

So I'd like Poser 9 to incluse GC and SSS. Those two things would make me buy it and abandon any previous version. (well.. not abandon, but effectively abandon at least)

And yea.. I use the face room. I like the Face Room. it's a great, and very overlooked feature of Poser. The thing is, too many Poser users are fixated on the Daz characters, which do not work in the Face Room, and therefore finds it useless. for those of us who actually use and like the native Poser people, the FaceRoom is WHAT makes these figures worthwile :) (wel that, and the fact that they do not look like the generic Daz characters ;) ) 

I think it would be nice if SM could give independent figure creators a way to add face room support.

...but not too soon, because I'm kind of glad that's one thing I don't have to worry about as it is.

 Ohh yes. Antonia with Faceroom support.. what a bonus. I don't know why they aren't adding FaceRoom support in general btw. It's probably difficult.. but they could SELL it and make it another sales parameter for Poser rather than DS...

On the other hand.. the native Poser figures sorta rely n the FR support for proper versatility while for instance V4 has the ethnic morphs "built in" (well not built in but at least available as an add-on...

Still.. I honestly like the face room. One thing I'd love though is if the texture option could be made to match the body.. Who' want a dark-skinned face on a light-skinned body?! Without body support the skintone option is .. useless!

Quote -  Ohh yes. Antonia with Faceroom support.. what a bonus. I don't know why they aren't adding FaceRoom support in general btw. It's probably difficult.. but they could SELL it and make it another sales parameter for Poser rather than DS...

On the other hand.. the native Poser figures sorta rely n the FR support for proper versatility while for instance V4 has the ethnic morphs "built in" (well not built in but at least available as an add-on...

Still.. I honestly like the face room. One thing I'd love though is if the texture option could be made to match the body.. Who' want a dark-skinned face on a light-skinned body?! Without body support the skintone option is .. useless!

What's weird is earlier versions of Poser would ask you if you wanted the body texture to match the face and would make an attempt at matching them but that just sorta went away somewhere along the line.

The face room should'nt be limited to faces. It should be simular to the 'Edit Object" function in Vue that allows you to raise or dig .

You mean the morph brush should be called face room?

• The morph room. great idea .

i think people don't understand what the Face Room does.  maybe i've misunderstood it all these years, but what it seems to do is allow you to use push and pull the face to dial those all those morphs in the heads Poser base figures that people seem to miss.  i don't see how the Face Room could automatically interpret what morph dials do without some sort of consistent and central naming convention.  in a lot of ways, it would be up to the 3rd party creators to make their figures compatible, not the people who make Poser.

it does not add morphs that don't exist.  that's what the morph brush does, as bagginsbill mentioned, and imho, it works great already.  i really would not like it moved to its own room so that it's 2 clicks and a whole "room" load away rather than one plain click.

I really love the face room, but I do wish it would work on every figure. I can imagine using it on Chip & Cookie or M4 & V4, very cool.

I've used it for various projects that used the poser figures and it works great. It allows me to create a bunch of different character, with a few clicks, instead of moving all kinds of dials or having to load all kinds of morphs, until you find the one you like. It also saves quite some money on all kinds of face morphs. I'm a person who hardly uses body morphs, mostly faces.

It's a shame it's so limited. It's the same with a lot of poser features, most don't even use them, since they're to DAZ orientated and hardly looking beyond that, to make full use of all that poser has to offer.

IIRC, the FaceRoom limitation was purely financial.  WOPAT (Whoever Owned Poser At the Time), didn't want to pay whatever Daz was asking to enable their figures.

I'm not sure what Daz is up to but Daz Studio is apparently now AKA "Super Avatar Studio" and is somehow tied in with the 3D avatar creation technology they got when they merged with Gizmoz. With that and the new game SDK, it looks like Vickie will be showing up in a lot more places.

Quote - IIRC, the FaceRoom limitation was purely financial.

Correct.

Quote - WOPAT (Whoever Owned Poser At the Time), didn't want to pay whatever Daz was asking to enable their figures.

It was the other way around.
As the Face Room technology was bought in, the fee for setting up additional figures appeared to be controlled by the owner of it rather than by WOPAT.