As I remember, if you click the option to show all hairs in preview, it will export.  Or something like that.  Obviously i don't use dynamic hair either, though always wanted to try.

Quote - Trying to make a snowglobe, looks like the dome does not have enough polygons for a smooth surface. Interesting effect though. ;)

if you have "curves with edges" you may try out setting the catmull-clark option from the GUI. Or just edit "dataOut.bbml"; look for "ccprops" and change from 0 to 1 or 2 (don't use very high values).

Catmull-clark subdividing is a gift from odf to make low-poly objects usable with Lux.

Quote - It is working for me also on Poser Pro 2010.

What i do wish for in Luxrender, is a way to easily see what rendering algorthm is actually being used.  I may have got that confused with something else, but I see that Luxrender defaults to Metropolis, though it supports other methods.  I chose a different method in the Luxpose GUI, exported, and did a render.  I didn't see anything different.  Is there something i am missing?

Should work ... I go look what the issue is.

It is working.  My question was about Luxrender, not the plugin.  I was just hoping that Luxrender would display the method used without having to check the scene file.

Poser 8 SR3
Steph 4 with basic Texture
2 Point Lights

Exporter 14b

Render information at the bottom.

Still not really happy yet.It looks odd under her eyes and her right bicep.

Quote - Didn't somebody say with the right setting in Poser dynamic hair get exported? (sorry, I don't use dyn Hair with Poser).

Yes, but I'm not sure they looked closely.  You will get something from exporting dynamic hair, but nothing really useful on close inspection.  Poser hair uses the 'lines' syntax of .objs... basically, the face definitions 'f' are replaced with 'l's.  Poser will only export them as faces (I can only assume it does so because lines aren't supported in most applications).  Generally, I have to open the .obj or the .hr2 and change all the hairs' 'f's to 'l's, in order to have them import into Lightwave correctly.  I was skeptical that it would export to Lux, since it was Poser doing the converting, but I thought maybe it might work differently via Python.  Apparently not.  :tongue2:  I can wrangle hair by hand, but not with code, or I'd volunteer.  I can at least come up with some examples, perhaps.

Quote - I can only find really abstract info on this. It is an implementation of the "Perez All-Weather Sky Model". This model is not actually based on physics, but is an empirical model. Empirical means "we are able to imitate a real phenomenon to a pretty good degree even though the math we're using has nothing whatsoever to do with how the phenomenon actually happens."

I don't know why Lux, which is in all other ways physically based, uses this empirical model instead of a physical one. It is old - was published in 1993.

As with many empirical models, there are a bunch of constants that have very little to do with any sort of intuitive understanding of what to do with them. We have six; a, b, c, d, e, and turbidity. Of these, only turbidity has any sort of intuitive value. The others are used as follows:

sky pixel luminance = [1 + a * exp(b / cos theta)] * [1 + c * exp(d * gamma) + e cos^2 gamma]

where theta is the zenith angle of the sky pixel being rendered and gamma is the angle between the sky pixel and the sun.

Does this help? Not even me. And it doesn't even begin to explain how colors are produced - it only talks about luminance.

When I have time, I will experiment with these coefficients and supply a bunch of named presets. Eventually I may come to understand what they actually do instead of randomly trying them and construct some simpler UI in front of these six values. Something that would let you use buttons like "more/less blue, red, or yellow", "more/less hazy", "more/less variation from straight up to horizon", etc.

Thanks BB.
Looks like something to experiment with Fri NiteSat AM while waiting for Earl to pass, if I still have power.
Sounds like shades of my Nautical Navigation Days,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twilight

DisneyFan I just tried a simple prop and added dynamic hair and it exported to lux fine. Of course it was just one group and not styled, but it worked. Did you have show populated checked in the hair room?

Does anyone know if Poser's Python API has a way to find out whether an object is dynamic hair? Once I know what's hair, I should be able to turn it into cylinders like LuxBlend does.

Edit: X-Post with pokeydots

Quote - Does anyone know if Poser's Python API has a way to find out whether an object is dynamic hair? Once I know what's hair, I should be able to turn it into cylinders like LuxBlend does.

Edit: X-Post with pokeydots

I can find 

poser .kNodeTypeCodeHAIR
poser .kParmCodeHAIRDYNAMICS
Actor .HairGroup

and - BINGO!

Actor .IsHairProp

Pokeydots - Yes, I do, although that shouldn't affect how the geometry exports.  Did you look at it from different angles?  Can you show me a render?  I'm not doubting you, as much as I'm doubting my own sanity... ;)

(Meanwhile, looking at my hair prop in Lux, it is indeed treating them as triangles)

Thanks ADP! I could have looked it up myself, but I was having my breakfast and just about to go to work. :laugh:

Here's a closer look:

   
From certain angles/distances, they look like strands, but they're actually triangles... and the curlier the hair, the more distorted it looks.

EDIT: Unless they changed the exporter to export lines correctly, after Poser 7... which is possible...

Quote - Thanks ADP! I could have looked it up myself, but I was having my breakfast and just about to go to work. :laugh:

I know you can :)
But why not delegate? Heart it should work well in a "team" ;)

Quote -    
From certain angles/distances, they look like strands, but they're actually triangles... and the curlier the hair, the more distorted it looks.
possible...

Nice for sort of gras, some plants :)

Quote - Nice for sort of gras, some plants :)

LOL, I suppose it is.  Good for a lawn, but bad for a character's head... :m_wink:

Quote - Here's a closer look:

   
From certain angles/distances, they look like strands, but they're actually triangles... and the curlier the hair, the more distorted it looks.

Are those the guide hairs?  If so, that is the problem.  You need to have the show populated checked.  Although you may very well, as I just tried to do a quick one.  I can't even get LuxPose to complete when exporting Dyn Hair.  It just errors out.

Er, no... populating it doesn't help.  Lines is lines, heh.

I'll look into this over the weekend.

have you ever thought about just reading the name of the file being edited?  if it is untitled, use the default name, but if it has a name, just export it as the name..

like if you are editing untitled then export it as LuxExport or whatever it's currently called (can't remember off the top of my head)

if you are editing like "my room.pz3" then export it as "my room.lxs"

I was thinking that is what BB wanted to do, but Python didn't have a method to catch that.

Quote - I was thinking that is what BB wanted to do, but Python didn't have a method to catch that.

then why not have a default name, but a text box allowing you to change the filename before exporting.. at least that gives the control to the user rather than the script so to speak

Cool, thanks.    Sorry to throw this in there, it's probably not very high priority.  I've got enough trans-hair in my collection to be happy for a long while.  :m_wink:

Quote - have you ever thought about just reading the name of the file being edited?  if it is untitled, use the default name, but if it has a name, just export it as the name..

like if you are editing untitled then export it as LuxExport or whatever it's currently called (can't remember off the top of my head)

if you are editing like "my room.pz3" then export it as "my room.lxs"

Really a very good idea!

Now we just have to find someone who can tell us how we get the name. Nobody? 

Can't get the name. That was what I was asking a week ago, specifically to implement that feature.

Regarding those hair "triangles" - they are just the hair points being interpreted as a polygon. They aren't triangles. They are n-gons where the tip connects back to the root.

This scene uses one IBL in Poser, set to 100% intensity. The image is one of the stock images Poser delivers. Additionally I used one spot with 20% on the figure to get a few highlights. No mangeling done yet with the texture. It's an old one I use sometimes, full with nodes, so it's good for tests here.

What Lux does with environmental light is just fantastic. Rendertime: 3 minutes. Because I reduced the light intensity.

Environmental light works differnt in Poser than in Lux. In Poser we used to use a skydome (or skyglobe) with an image attached. This one is for reflections and highlights. Additionally we have to use an IBL with a small and "blurry" lightsetting of the same image.

Lux needs only one of them, the hires one.

Lux computes the global lighting from this image and diplays the image as it where attached to a skyglobe. So all we need to do in Poser is adding a HDRI to an Image Based Light. Sadly we can't see anything in Poser from the background image.

Anyway. I made it available to get some experience which kind of images work and which not.
To turn the background image use the Y-rotation for the light. Anything other than Y is ignored.

Download Version 1-15c

Quote - Regarding those hair "triangles" - they are just the hair points being interpreted as a polygon. They aren't triangles. They are n-gons where the tip connects back to the root.

Yes, you're right.  I was using the wrong word.  

Quote - Can't get the name. That was what I was asking a week ago, specifically to implement that feature.

that's why I also suggested giving us a place to enter a name (fill it with the default name, but let us enter an optional name (which replaces the default name for future uses, by saving to some kind of "conf" file or something.. just a thought)

Quote - > Quote - Can't get the name. That was what I was asking a week ago, specifically to implement that feature.

that's why I also suggested giving us a place to enter a name (fill it with the default name, but let us enter an optional name (which replaces the default name for future uses, by saving to some kind of "conf" file or something.. just a thought)

This is already available with the actual GUI.

You can name a "storage-path" and you can give a filename to use.

ok, I haven't downloaded it since .11 I think because I've been AWOL :P

guess I should try the latest and greatest before making suggestions.. lol

bagginsbill where did you download the new sponza atrium?

bagginsbill where did you download the new sponza atrium?

ADP, I've got a problem with the output path, this is the error:

Compiling /Applications/Poser Pro 2010/Runtime/Python/poserScripts/ScriptsMenu/LuxPose/luxmatic/nodes.pyc

Version alpha 1.15, exporting Lux files to /users/richard/documents/luxrenders/snowglobe/.lxs

Traceback (most recent call last):

  File "/Applications/Poser Pro 2010/Runtime/Python/poserScripts/ScriptsMenu/LuxPose/PoserLuxExporter.py", line 184, in ?

    f = open(fname, "w")

IOError: [Errno 2] No such file or directory: '/users/richard/documents/luxrenders/snowglobe/.lxs'

I've set the output path in the GUI to folder /users/richard/documents/luxrenders/snowglobe.

This worked perfectly yesterday.
 

I am not bagginsbill ...
the only sponza atrium I know is downloadable here:
http://hdri.cgtechniques.com/~sponza/
Click on the green Download at the upper right side.

Quote -  
I'm experimenting with environmental light.

This scene uses one IBL in Poser, set to 100% intensity. The image is one of the stock images Poser delivers. Additionally I used one spot with 20% on the figure to get a few highlights. No mangeling done yet with the texture. It's an old one I use sometimes, full with nodes, so it's good for tests here.

What Lux does with environmental light is just fantastic. Rendertime: 3 minutes. Because I reduced the light intensity.

Environmental light works differnt in Poser than in Lux. In Poser we used to use a skydome (or skyglobe) with an image attached. This one is for reflections and highlights. Additionally we have to use an IBL with a small and "blurry" lightsetting of the same image.

Lux needs only one of them, the hires one.

Lux computes the global lighting from this image and diplays the image as it where attached to a skyglobe. So all we need to do in Poser is adding a HDRI to an Image Based Light. Sadly we can't see anything in Poser from the background image.

Anyway. I made it available to get some experience which kind of images work and which not.
To turn the background image use the Y-rotation for the light. Anything other than Y is ignored.

It must be because it's early & I'm on my first cup of coffee as I'm not understanding what you're trying to tell us here. It's not your English, that's fine I just can't get my head round what you're saying.

Quote - Didn't somebody say with the right setting in Poser dynamic hair get exported? (sorry, I don't use dyn Hair with Poser).

I said that. And it does get exported, as opposed to "only guide hairs get exported" or "doesn't get exported at all".
I thought it would help, as then (hopefully) no one starts to create code that tries to mimic the way Poser populates the surfaces with hair when that can be fixed by a simple click ;-)
That's like trying to fix Poser's texture references. If Poser can do it, let Poser do it, concentrate on what Poser cannot do. But that may just be my point of view :-)

Four pages ago LaurieA posted a render of her nekkid standin, at the time she mentioned what looks like a huge faint ring on the ground, in the last two renders I've let go for a while I've seen the same ring, the render I've got going right now has two rings & a single point light.

ps I set the light to 500% size & 200% strength as per LaurieA's settings so it could be that that's causing it, can someone confirm it?

I am getting rings too, but I believe I made it go away once.

I'm really confused and in a hurry, but I think I switched Integrator from bidir to path and they went away.

Quote - Pokeydots - Yes, I do, although that shouldn't affect how the geometry exports.  Did you look at it from different angles?  Can you show me a render?  I'm not doubting you, as much as I'm doubting my own sanity... ;)

(Meanwhile, looking at my hair prop in Lux, it is indeed treating them as triangles)

I re-did the render today from different angles, and you are right, they do look like triangles

Quote - > Quote -  I really wish I knew what I was doing wrong.... I get rid of all of the relative paths in the lxm file and make them constants. I make sure that all the paths are correct to images... I try to run it in LuxRender and it crashes... I live all the relative paths, I get errors in LuxRender but it still runs and renders fine on one machine, even though from what I am told it should have problems rendering correctly. I seem to be the only one having this problem. I'm running Windows 7, Poser 8, LuxPose 1.14, and LuxRender v0.7... It doesn't crash if I comment out the lxm file, but then of course everything is a nice shade of gray.

I do get errors like this in the LuxRender Log window:

[2010-09-02 14:01:43 Error: 14] Static loading of color texture 'default' failed.
[2010-09-02 14:01:43 Error: 41] Couldn't find color texture named 'Color_Round'[2010-09-02 14:01:43 Error: 41] Couldn't find float texture named 'Color_Mul_74'

and the last thing it says before crashing is:

[2010-09-02 14:03:21 Warning: 0] Parameter 'from' not used

 

[2010-09-02 14:03:21 Warning: 0] Parameter 'to' not used

Then I get a popup window saying:

Runtime Error!

Program: C:Program Files LuxRenderluxrender.exe

This application has requested the Runtime to terminate it in an unusual way. Please Contact the application's support team for more information. 

I have tried running the sample that comes with Luxrender and that goes through fine without any trouble. So I don't know what I am doing wrong that is causing so much trouble. I have been in contact with a couple of the people working on  this project and the LuxRender Devs, and both have told me that it is a problem with relative paths vs constant paths, but that doesn't make sense since I have taken out all of the relative paths. And it is not just one scene that I have tried, it's all the of the scenes I have made and tried to move over to LuxRender. 

The errors about 'from' and 'to' seem to be normal.  Though it does not seem to prevent luxrender from working.

OTOH, the other errors make me think you are using Poser Materials, which do not work with LuxPose yet.  I don't know if that has anything to do with the 'Runtime error', though I would think not. 

This is a very beginning work-in-progress, and as such does not have the ability to convert much more than Poser 4 textures.  That is changing, and probably will change rapidly soon.

Don't give up, it's only getting better!  In other words, try a simple scene with just image-based textures and see what happens.

Oh, I don't plan to give up, I want this to work. I'm just annoyed that I can't fix the problem or figure out at all what could be causing the problem.

Quote - Quote - "Didn't somebody say with the right setting in Poser dynamic hair get exported? (sorry, I don't use dyn Hair with Poser)."

I said that. And it does get exported, as opposed to "only guide hairs get exported" or "doesn't get exported at all".
I thought it would help, as then (hopefully) no one starts to create code that tries to mimic the way Poser populates the surfaces with hair when that can be fixed by a simple click ;-)
That's like trying to fix Poser's texture references. If Poser can do it, let Poser do it, concentrate on what Poser cannot do. But that may just be my point of view :-)

  Ah, I see what you mean. So yeah, Poser can output fully populated hair-that-shouldn't-be-polygons as well as it can guide hair-that-shouldn't-be-polygons. :m_wink:

  So it's down to what Poser can't do, is output dynamic hair correctly. That'll take some code. But if I'm the only one who likes it, it's not exactly a pressing need, here, LOL. It'd just be something nice to keep in mind for the future, if you want the challenge. I don't know how easy it is to pull lines apart by segments, then translate them to Lux cylinders and spheres, and en masse; it sounds kind of messy to me.  

Quote - I am getting rings too, but I believe I made it go away once.

I'm really confused and in a hurry, but I think I switched Integrator from bidir to path and they went away.

Right I'll give that a go when I'm back in Windows.

Quote - So it's down to what Poser can't do, is output dynamic hair correctly.

Poser isn't outputting anything. In Poser the hair polygon is just a line of vertices. Either only one guide hair per vertex (of the geometry the hair group was placed on) or a fully populated area.
The python exporter has to find a way to output it into something useful. But it only needs to be done for one hair, no one has to implement a method to populate the whole area between the guide hairs...

aawww.. ain't he cute? :P

 That's true, if you're looking at the original prop you're growing the hair on, rather than the hair itself.  I guess it depends on if you want to recreate each finished hair (or guide hair), or just mimic the parameters Poser uses to grow it on a prop, and create it from that.  The hair does actually exist as a physical object, after it uses the parameters from the hair room to grow it.

  Just to make sure I'm making sense, here's a visual representation.  The top bit is from the actual .pz3.  I used the ball prop I used before, but used a text editor to reduce the growth to one hair, to simplify things.  (You could do that in Poser, if it let you select growth groups by vertex, rather than by polygon, but it doesn't work that way, except in the cloth room.  But this works just as well.)

 Anyway, as you can see, it actually stores the hair as geometry, rather than as a bunch of paremeters attached to the main prop, from which to grow hair.  From my experiments, you actually can have hair parented to a prop that it was not grown from, yet still be viable, and styleable - the caveat being, you can't mess with the growth controls, because it's got no source to grow on anymore.  As far as the renderer is concerned, it doesn't actually care what you grew the hair on.  As long as it's parented to something, it's happy. 

If you can figure out how Poser takes the data from the growth controls and the styling controls, and turns it into the geometry that's actually in the prop, then maybe it would be the better route to recreate that.  Otherwise, the only option is to analyze the finished product.

Quote - Here's a dynamically haired rat (byTiny's furred rat version of Noggin's rat) rendered in LuxRender. This was about 5 minutes.

  Hee!  Well, the hair-that-shouldn't-be-polygons does work well enough as very shaggy/wet hair, at least.  Cute rat is cute.  

Excelent finding/exploration, DisneyFan!

I'm sure you and odf are able to get Poser hair working with Lux!
Things here are going better every week. It's very exiting.

Quote - Here's a dynamically haired rat (byTiny's furred rat version of Noggin's rat) rendered in LuxRender. This was about 5 minutes.

holly god s....

fuzzy hair with soft shadows and GI.

juhuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu we will use dynamic chair .

As there seems to be absolutely no point to post anything here, I'll leave this thread now...