ok, in your example, Traci, you've said that i've chosen to render, chosen being operative...  is there anything, an add-on type app. or uh, i dunno [puts on blonde wig and bambi eyes] something that could tell me that what i'm wanting to render will eat up x-amount of um, GBs? and if there isn't, why isn't someone out there not creating one?  hehe

I don't know about Cycles because I haven't used it.  Now, Octane does tell me how much of the memory on the GPU I'm using but only AFTER I've started the render.  I think there's part of the python script that comes with Octane which will give you a texture count before you start rendering but I'm going on memory here as I am on a different computer - a laptop that can't use Octane because it has an AMD card. Octane and iRay only run on NVidia video cards.

So if SM enables GPU rendering will they be limiting Cycles to NVidia video cards as well?  Making 3 render engines a lot of folks can't use........not seeing much business sense in that.

By your logic you're basically telling me game developers should remove the High and Ultra Graphic settings because it won't work on a somebody's laptop. So the rest of us who can play on those high settings must just be happy with low settings? That's basically what you saying that we should be happy with CPU rendering only. Can you not see the flaw in your thinking? Any form of limitation is NOT a good decision. PERIOD.

So if SM enables GPU rendering will they be limiting Cycles to NVidia video cards as well?  Making 3 render engines a lot of folks can't use........not seeing much business sense in that.

i dunno, really, honestly do not know.  what i can say, about myself, is that if i go to a buffet style restaurant, i'm tasting [yes, i'm still hungry, dammit] a little bit of everything because how else do i know what i might like/dislike.  i can also say about myself that i like options... esp. when i'm hungry, be it food, creative endeavours, etc.

For some reason she thinks adding GPU rendering replaces CPU rendering, even though we have mentioned it a few times it doesn't. She thinks having the added option of GPU rendering (note the word ADDED) is unfair to those who have AMD cards, or non at all.

You can get 4gig GT740s for under a 100 bucks brand new in the box................

8gig R9 390 Radeons for just over 300..............

And, if you're running Poser on a laptop those cards won't be much use.

You can hook any PCIe desktop card to a laptop and use it to render with as long as it has either an Express Card or Mini PCIe slot that the wireless card is plugged into. Almost all laptops have wireless thru Mini PCIe and many have Express Card slots or the option to swap something like the DVD drive out for one.

So if SM enables GPU rendering will they be limiting Cycles to NVidia video cards as well?  Making 3 render engines a lot of folks can't use........not seeing much business sense in that.

i dunno, really, honestly do not know.  what i can say, about myself, is that if i go to a buffet style restaurant, i'm tasting [yes, i'm still hungry, dammit] a little bit of everything because how else do i know what i might like/dislike.  i can also say about myself that i like options... esp. when i'm hungry, be it food, creative endeavours, etc.

As should we all - have options.  Which has been my point all along...........giving people options! Another render engine, PBR or not, that requires specific hardware and specific computers, LIMITS the options available.

Another render engine, PBR or not, that requires specific hardware and specific computers, LIMITS the options available.

And not having that option altogether is more limiting. So again, why are you fighting GPU support?

Giana said:

ok, well, i do in fact have nVidia, however it is an older system.  so i guess my question would be this:

if you can render using GPU, can you not also render using CPU... i mean isn't CPU simply a default kind of thing?  i don't mean necessarily the mixing/potential overflow type thing, i just mean doesn't one always have the CPU option?

Exactly!! Depending on the render engine. For example, if you use Cycles in Blender (or if GPU rendering is enabled in the next version of Poser), and you want to create/render a scene that you think will use more memory than you have on your video card (or you don't have a capable card), you use the CPU to render it (but it will be slower than GPU rendering). What happens if you try to render a scene that will consume more memory than is available on the video card varies. Some software will crash the video card drivers (which usually means a temporary lock-up of the system until the video drivers recover - and of course the program will crash), and in some instances the system will crash (the old GPU renderer with LuxRender was famous for this).

But this can be completely avoided. For an example, the way Iray has been implemented (which is a PBR now integrated into DAZ Studio), when the render engine is invoked, it monitors video RAM usage/requirements, and if the scene is to big to fit into video RAM, it will default to CPU only mode, thus protecting the user from inadvertently crashing the video card by trying to use more ram than it has. Proper implementation of Cycles into Poser could provide a similar feature to protect the user from trying to do something they can't.

I have been using PBR renderers  (primarily GPU based) almost exclusively for a couple of years now, and I have never had a total system crash (this includes being a beta tester for an Octane plugin and beta testing LuxusCore for Carrara), and have rarely experienced a video card/driver crash. This includes the "beta" version of LuxCore GPU. Now, others may have different experiences, but considering I use a laptop for all my work, I would guess that I should experience more issues than the typical user simply because laptops often have video driver issues that desktops don't.

The integration of GPU rendering would in no way take away the ability of the "average" Poser user (what ever that is) to use the CPU rendering that SM is working on now. It would simply provide more options for improved render performance. GPU rendering can easily be 5X - 50X (or more) faster than CPU rendering, depending on your system configuration (and your budget). So, by supporting both the CPU and GPU modes of Cycles, SM would be allowing the greatest possible use/adoption of the new version of Poser, regardless of system specs. No need for an Nvidia card, you could still use Cycles in CPU only mode. However, those people that have invested in high end Nvidia cards would also be able to use Cycles to take advantage of their investment.

So IMVHO, based on my experience and the facts, there has been a lot of FUD (Fear Uncertainty, and Doubt) spread about the integration of both GPU and CPU rendering with Cycles. It will in no way keep anyone from using the CPU only mode that is planned now.

The integration of GPU rendering would in no way take away the ability of the "average" Poser user (what ever that is) to use the CPU rendering that SM is working on now.

LOL that is what we have been saying all along, so I don't know why Glitteratti is against adding GPU rendering. It's an added benefit.

Nice to see progress on the better renderer in Poser Pro 

About the Cycles,can be used with AMD GPU too in Blender,I'm using Cycles in Blender with AMD GPU,this will depends how this will be implemented in Poser Pro

Hope this helps

Thanks,Jura

[edited for personal attack]

It's even becoming so that lurking here, is just a waste of time....

It's all marketing these days, sneak peek or full blown release. Anything brand associated, Including this thread, speaks for the product... Especially pre-release images of core program functionality.

Lets get something out there.

All GPU render engines have hardware requirements. Coding for older stuff is not going to happen. You have to draw the line somewhere in the sand.

The current Cycles requirements are:

Nvidia GTX 4xx and up that support Compute 2.0 for CUDA rendering.

And...

ATI HD 7xxx cards with GCN architecture for OpenCl

Each one of these sub engines has limitations that the CPU version does not. Texture size, number and type, etc. And these are the specs on the most current version of Cycles. I have no idea what Posers restrictions will be, but quibbling over something no one has even seen must be the new norm...  But it isn't is it?

Even if GPU support is not put in, that does not mean it could not be added later. Lots of things have been added to Poser over the years and it never fails to start debates on why something was not put in there from the very beginning. Do you want to dive in with OpenCl code that is still being tested and developed? Or do you want to just add the CPU code that is very stable and the developers that actually wrote it are finished with it?

Cycles was released to the public not only so it could be included in other programs, but so there would be a lot more developers adding to the code base that will remain under the Apache License.

What does this mean for all of us? It means that we will be getting a new Render Engine in Poser that used to be developed by a small group, and now anyone can look at the code and expand on it for everyone to use. Anything that Smith Micro adds to it could be added to Blender or any other software that uses the engine for that matter. Same goes the other way around because Blender has no plans on dropping it any time soon.

We win no matter how you look at it, and get a PBR Engine that is supported, still being developed, etc. The CPU version is very stable, and lots of people know that.........

Once the OpenCl GPU version is stable and can load simple little things like HDR files, start screaming for the GPU version.

You can get 4gig GT740s for under a 100 bucks brand new in the box................

8gig R9 390 Radeons for just over 300..............

And, if you're running Poser on a laptop those cards won't be much use.

You can hook any PCIe desktop card to a laptop and use it to render with as long as it has either an Express Card or Mini PCIe slot that the wireless card is plugged into. Almost all laptops have wireless thru Mini PCIe and many have Express Card slots or the option to swap something like the DVD drive out for one.

OK, so we're at $100.00 or $300.00 how much is this little rig gonna run someone?  My research says between $199.00 and $279.00.
You do realize, of course, that $100.00 is a LOT of money for a hobby, right?  I mean most of us are HOBBYISTS.

I don't think that anyone posted anything especially mean spirited about the PBR...if someone in charge of a piece of software says "we've added a PBR" to a bunch who have used Luxrender, Cycles with Blender and Iray, the very FIRST question you're going to get is "is gpu rendering enabled?". And that is pretty much how it's gone. If you don't want people to ask questions, speculate or comment either favorably or negatively, then don't post anything. We all would have been none the wiser. But if you're going to post stuff early on, be prepared for the barrage of questions and opinions which are sure to follow. I don't know anymore if we're lucky to have seen an early peek or unlucky to be honest. Seems ppl want either total gushing praise and give complete lack of respect and spite or they want ya to just shut up, neither of which I find palatable.

if SM wants to add a PBR I think that's fine, but I also think it should be finished by the time we PURCHASE it, meaning every option should be either taken care of and implemented properly at purchase time or not included at all. I'm not keen on buying software I think is only half finished. Why buy software only to have to wait for a feature? That doesn't even seem like good business to me. Number one, the promised feature may never come or show up in a subsequent version that we need to shell out money for again. And much as I like being friendly and all and like a lot of the ppl involved in the production of Poser, SM is not my family. It's a company I give money to to give me a piece of software to use. We're not kin or married. And I owe them nothing but the money I give them when I buy Poser and they owe me nothing more than to produce that software. But they need to know what it is I'm looking for in the software in order to get me to buy it. If I don't tell them, they won't know. Sure I'll wait and see what's in it when all the features come out, and I'll keep an open mind, but if I think something is "off" I'm gonna say so. I want so much for SM to put out something awesome. I'm hoping they will. Even still.

Laurie

 thanks for the update Nerd,

pleasing to see some light at the tunnel's end 

Here are a couple of renders I did on the weekend while testing out the new render engine of Poser 11.  First, I loaded up a Quixel Suite test model created by Michael Pavlovic. It's an awesome helmet that has only one material zone with a single albedo, specular, gloss and normal map.

These are rocks I made, textured in Quixel Suite and rendered in Poser 11 using SuperFly.

Here are a couple of renders I did on the weekend while testing out the new render engine of Poser 11.  First, I loaded up a Quixel Suite test model created by Michael Pavlovic. It's an awesome helmet that has only one material zone with a single albedo, specular, gloss and normal map.

These are rocks I made, textured in Quixel Suite and rendered in Poser 11 using SuperFly.

 

Very nice, Teyon!  Care to share render times?

I honestly didn't clock but nothing took longer than 5 to ten minutes. I know that much because I got through half an episode of Archer while rendering each.

I honestly didn't clock but nothing took longer than 5 to ten minutes. I know that much because I got through half an episode of Archer while rendering each.

VERY cool!

I've been really impressed with it so far. My experimenting with the engine has been limited because I'm busy with my side of making the app (what a fun discussion that'll be on these boards). That said, I have found that if you're making PBR texture maps in apps like Quixel Suite or Substance Designer, a glossy/specular setup works well. I haven't tried metalness/roughness but since the glossy/spec works so far, I'm not inclined to pursue the other method right now. 

yummmm.... that helmet looks delicious, and i'm assuming not only because of the nice sculpt, and the texture, but also because of the render engine...

thanks for posting that, Teyon...

I've been really impressed with it so far. My experimenting with the engine has been limited because I'm busy with my side of making the app (what a fun discussion that'll be on these boards). That said, I have found that if you're making PBR texture maps in apps like Quixel Suite or Substance Designer, a glossy/specular setup works well. I haven't tried metalness/roughness but since the glossy/spec works so far, I'm not inclined to pursue the other method right now. 

ROFL, might I recommend you just forego sneak peeks and just surprise us all? Definitely safer.

     The helmet materials look great.  The rocks have good granularity and interplay of shadows and diffuse light.  Looks like depth of field blur on the foreground rock?

Uh... guys?

We're getting something new and it's still in the early stages of development. In fact, it's an entirely "new thing" and I'm sure that has shocked a community that doesn't always deal well with "new things." It's pretty radical, too, involving the finished product of what the software produces, which even elevates the drama.

But, don't beat each other up over it and don't beat up Nerd, who was just providing some demonstration renders for caustics... They weren't skin textures, clothing or composition demonstrations. I saw the caustic capability in them, even if they weren't tweaked perfectly. And, caustics is something we've never had, natively, and has been cried over by the community ever since I can remember. Now we have the capability within reach, isn't that a nice thing?

Who cares about Poser vs DS? The only thing I care about is Poser improving its viability as a product and I see this as a step in the positive direction. Native GPU vs CPU support? Who cares? There are enough options out there for anyone of any particular budget, so it's not the sticking point some might think. A CPU-Only customer will have the option of benefiting from the product, as is, natively, and can always expand their options with future purchases. This sort of thing is true with any manufactured product.

But, what we should really care about is a community that has people who seem quick to act to escalate conflict and who, apparently, believe that "getting personal" is an acceptable behavior in a debut thread about an upcoming product. In my personal opinion, these sorts of people want to demonstrate to others that they didn't get enough toys as a child or something... Play nice with each other. Please?

Here are a couple of renders I did on the weekend while testing out the new render engine of Poser 11.  First, I loaded up a Quixel Suite test model created by Michael Pavlovic. It's an awesome helmet that has only one material zone with a single albedo, specular, gloss and normal map.

These are rocks I made, textured in Quixel Suite and rendered in Poser 11 using SuperFly.

THANK YOU Teyon!

If these were posted by Nerd, as a sneak peek, this thread wouldn't have taken such a wrong turn other than the debate on the required dual GPU and CPU support ..

As apparently it was MY comment the one that started this whole thing and brought in the Glitterati self-appointed sole defender of Poser, I'd like to set a few things straight with her too as I was totally appalled by her attack to Laurie ..

Let's get some facts straight: Glitterati3D joined 2011-08-03...  LaurieA joined 2001-10-08.. I joined myself  in 1999-03-31

More actual facts... Glitterati has admitted here that jumped to DS and then back to Poser... Laurie for over a decade was using ONLY poser... myself NEVER used anything else but Poser 

Final point on facts.. Glitterati is using Poser as her hobby.. Laurie proffessionally ( we are not friends - I know and respect her from her work and these forums over the years - no personal contact ever).. myself.. I use Poser to SURVIVE!

It's my main source of income and I make a living out of it  for the last 15 years!  

Glitterati apparently thinks she cares more..

 If she truly believes that her own credentials AND motives are far more eligible to point out honestly to SM which is the way our beloved software should go to keep its followers and lure in more... then I just rest my case!

---

@ renapd: I wish there was a 'thank you' button here..

I feel I have to say this.

I want to hear what the DAZ users and the people who develop content for DAZ studio are saying, about Poser, in a Poser forum.

We shouldn't be treating it like a tree house where the boys won't let the girls in.

I don't have enough experience or expertise in Studio to make the comparisons and observations that Zev0 and Rawnrr can make about Poser, and I value their input.

I am a grown-up, I can see that they are sometimes biased, but I want to know what they think nevertheless. They have experience and skills  that I can learn from.

If I suspect that what they say isn't true, or is overstated, I can verify that for myself.

at the top, and upfront, i do not think, nor believe that any one person's opinion is more, or less, important than the person who arrives next.  what i do think needs to be addressed is the delivery of whatever opinion you may have if you're so inclined to share it.  mostly i don't come into the forums because of all the endless bickering... no scratch that - it's not really the bickering but the sheer amount of venom that exudes in the bickering, and i just don't understand it [nor do i need yet another person to point fingers at any labeled "troll" as that only adds to the pile of smelly stuff that's so pervasive already].

i'm not saying to stick your fist in your mouth whenst someone walks all over you, as each person is responsible for teaching others what is acceptable to them and how they wish to be treated.  just as how we teach people around us about ourselves by the way we comport ourselves.  we all have boundaries which need respecting, even in conflict.  without respect, for others, but p'raps more importantly for yourself, you can justify your own poor behaviour and easily allow yourself to mis-interpret someone else because of feeling defensive all the time rather than even allowing for the possibility that you've read things not intended, and it just becomes an endless cycle.

i sit back and try to picture all of us in an actual room together, try to imagine just what that would look/be like - in reality, and not just some 'i'm safe here at the other end of my modem' snarky imagined POV.  i mean just because you're sitting behind a monitor does not alleviate one's responsibility to interact with others as they would face to face, or without some form of decorum.

i'm here to try to learn a thing or two... or 20,000, but i'm frustrated with having to sift through so much detritus just to find a nugget beneath a haystack. [again, i wish to thank those in this thread for clarifying a number of things for me.]

and here, too, i sit back and think about this --   what if i were a new user to Poser, or a new resident of Rendo, or both.  and yea, now i have my own little Poser newbie forum, but am i the type to stay in my little corner of Poserverse? absolutely not, so i come exploring... and oops!! i wander into this forum, or this thread, or, well, take your pick.  and i have questions, i want to learn, my manual says something i just can't figure out on my own, or my tutorial is saying "do this" but the "this" doesn't exist that i can see.  now how in the heck am i potentially going to feel posting my question[s] after reading through x-number of threads that have so much bloody negativity?  well, of course, i can suck it up, and who knows, maybe i get help and pleasant help at that, or maybe not.  or maybe i feel so intimidated, or feel concerned about being put down or maybe jumped on for my ignorance, i don't ask for help.  and maybe i find someone in the galleries and instead ask them my question in a sitemail.

regardless, the bickering hurts everyone, from those who willing participate [i see that as poor self-respect so it only reinforces that feeling and one is hurting themselves]; to those who stop coming because of the lack of sense of community even though they have so much we can learn from and/or feel inspired by; to those who read, get turned off and never bother to come again, because without "new blood", ideas eventually just become too derivative [look at the box office as of late with all the sequels]; and to those who might feel quite sapped of creative energies simply because wading through the forum, well, it can be emotionally exhausting at times.

as i said in another post, i think posting concerns or thoughts on the new release is important.  and even though i've never used DS, i too am interested in the DS opinion of what they see... [excellent point, Nanette]

there can be value from everyone as long as everyone's intent is TO ADD value.

[edited because i forgot a comma and to BOLD text in my last sentence] :o

Unlike many people here, I'm not very aware of everything which is happening in the 3D industry. I can only notice that the problem of compatibility is increasing over the years. When I started with Poser 4, I could use all 3D resources available on many websites with my V3. Now, I see that Gen 3 and V7 are no longer compatible with Poser (at least so far). So, if the competitor doesn't want its characters and resources to be compatible with Poser, what can SM do to solve this problem ? As someone else said earlier in this forum, it seems to me that compatibility is one of the most important issues for the future of Poser. I love Poser and I have never wanted to change despite many attempts to learn the other software. But my greatest fear is to discover, in a couple of years, that I can no longer find quality resources for Poser because most artists have choosen to create resources for the new DAZ characters. So, I am waiting impatiently to know how the next Poser is going to deal with this issue.

forgot to say that whilst i do understand the need to sometimes go a bit overboard in word selection because we all are not face to face, cannot read each other's vocal inflections, nor one another's body language, taking a step back first, before responding/replying, can sometimes help dissipate that immediate knee-jerked, quickly pent-up emotion... just a thought, to use, or not, as you're wont to do...

very eloquent, Simbad... :)))

@ Teyon:

Much more apealing Renders, thank you :)

It was last week, July 7, I had this conversation in chat. "I think it would be a great idea for poser to use cycles as their new render engine". Another chatter replied, that would be a logical choice. And bam...the announcement yesterday appeared in the forums. At first I was elated, but then the usual drama unfolded in these forums with the usual suspects. I've visited other forums as well (RDNA, Hivewire). Folks over there are civilized compared to here.

After going thru these 5 pages of posts, I'm going to direct my thoughts to Charles, the product manager.

I've bought Poser since Fractal Design started with version one, I didn't really start using Poser since Meta Creation Poser 3. with the exception of poser 2, I've bought every versions of Poser, from Curious Labs, E-Frontier, and now Smith Micro. I joined Renderoisty in 2001. So I've been around. I've been 'loyal' to Poser.

I don't model, I don't texure, nor do I sell any resources. As you may have noticed my SN, I only do renders. I do buy content. A lot of content. I'm your typical Poser user, so it is important for Charles to listen to what I have to say. He did mention "Content is King".

I need a good medium to make the content that I bought with my hard earn money become really nice renders/pictures/images. A good renderer will do the job. 2 years ago I was lusting for a decent renderer. I found that in octane, I saved my pennies and bought it last year. I was very happy with it. I've even found some nice folks to teach me how to use it.

I was so disappointed when you mentioned that Superfly aint that super because you decided to turn off the GPU rendering feature just to make Poser backward compatible with an archaic material room? That's equivalent to buying a Ferrari and just using first and second gear to drive on a race track. Why are we going backward when everybody else is moving forward?

How many epic multi texture multi figure multi environment scenes do you see in all of the poser galleries? How many of those scenes require more than 4 GB of Video memory, and if so, can't you just switch to the CPU part of the cycles to do the rendering then. Yes, I did my homework, Cycle has that ability/ How are you going to render animation with just the CPU(s)?

Look, all I'm saying is, you can use CPU for folks who have no Video cards, but don't leave us without the GPU options, because folks like us do have the money to buy content, software, and hardware.

Keep up the good work. I hope your decision is not edged in stone cuz I've set aside some $$ for the upgrade and I want Superfly to be really Super, not mediocre.

Oh, you can call this whining, I don't really care. Successful companies often hire focus group (whiners) to conduct studies before they l create viable products.

Peace!

Cycles has two GPU rendering modes: CUDA, which is the preferred method for NVIDIA graphics cards; and OpenCL, which supports rendering on AMD graphics cards.

https://www.blender.org/manual/render/cycles/gpu_rendering.html

reading and research.  I does it. 

Intel probably not supported,  but if your using that,  it's your own fault. 

about bloody time , good news indeed ,since  this engine is based on cycles , so iam assuming its gpu powered ? 

The GPU render doesn't support the full feature set the CPU render does. If we implement GPU support we end up limiting capabilities of the render. Things like limiting the number of texture maps in the scene. I'm with you on speed. I just don't want to sacrifice quality to get there.

truth is, GPU rendering is hardware challenging. If you don't have at least 2GB GPU RAM you will probably run into problems with lager scenes. but even then there are ways around it (like not using ridiculous 4K textures when you're only rendering at 2K) Octane for example comes with a script that lets you reduce the size on any textures in the scene. to disclaim an option just for some limiting factors is not a good choice, considering you still can fall back to CPU or even Firefly.

for those interested in render facts for cycles, have look here:

 http://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?239480-2-7x-Cycles-benchmark-%28Updated-BMW%29

     The helmet materials look great.  The rocks have good granularity and interplay of shadows and diffuse light.  Looks like depth of field blur on the foreground rock?

Yes there is depth of field in the image. It was actually pretty easy to setup once I understood what an F stop is. Thanks youtube!  :)

@ Teyon:

Much more apealing Renders, thank you :)

Thanks. :-) Not sure if or when I can post more images. I'm kind of swamped but I saw the thread and figured I should share my renders. 

yummmm.... that helmet looks delicious, and i'm assuming not only because of the nice sculpt, and the texture, but also because of the render engine...

thanks for posting that, Teyon...

Cool. :) Happy to do it.  So this is one material with texture maps "faking" other material types because for me, I like doing it that way. Imagine what someone way more skilled than myself in materials can do with this bad boy. :D

WOW!

Let's see. SNEAK PEEK. Not the full monty but a quick look at a small subset of what is to come. From alpha software.

All that noise....

Poser 11 will not have the CPU enabled cycles. Perhaps a PRO version of the program will. 

(Hmm. A version for the hobbyist and a PRO version with more pro tools. Where have I seen this before?)

And if a hobbyist wants to step up, they can into a familiar place, just needing to learn the new tools. Using the stuff they had before, IF there is PRO version. Still early in game.

And for the old timers, your work flow will still work, right?

You shuffle off your stuff to another renderer, well you still can. You just have another option in-program now.

Thanks for the sneak peek. I look forward to seeing what else is going to be with the new Poser.

[edited for quoting deleted post]

BB can do anything, absolutely anything (apart from Anamorphic stuff I mean).

But anyway, regards the Mud Shader, it wouldn't surprise me if Baggins is hard at work, noding feverishly on 'BB_MudWrestle' as we speak!
In fact, I'm guessing it will be a take on his awesome Chocolate Shader, and trust me, that one already has more potential than Chocolate Bunnies ;-)

@Teyon
Thanks for the renders, looks good :-)

It was last week, July 7, I had this conversation in chat. "I think it would be a great idea for poser to use cycles as their new render engine". Another chatter replied, that would be a logical choice. And bam...the announcement yesterday appeared in the forums. At first I was elated, but then the usual drama unfolded in these forums with the usual suspects. I've visited other forums as well (RDNA, Hivewire). Folks over there are civilized compared to here.

You do make a very valid point.  Since the start of the year I have been spending more time at RDNA and a lot of the people posting are the same people, even if the names are different.  There reason is quite simple it is far more civilised than here.  OK that is my opinion but anyone can take any of the threads here and look for a similar titled thread at RDNA and make their up their own minds. I much prefer RDNA but if the people are the same and the subject matter is the same what is the difference?

I notice we have reached page six and not a moderator in site.  I am not saying anyone should be banned, or that anyone is a troll, I am not even saying what has been said is wrong, just perhaps there are better ways of saying it.  This is not the only thread where there is no input by a mod and this just weeks since the new rules came into force and the people that have left were invited back.  What a shame it became business as usual within days.

Oh and to come back on topic.  Thanks you so much Nerd for the Sneak Peek, I really do appreciate your efforts and that of Teyon.  I also totally understand if this is the last Sneek Peek we ever get.

Agreed. Comparing this thread to the identical RDNA thread is just embarrassing...

I think the idea of cycles is a good one. CPU limited is fine by me, although I did have to upgrade cards recently and now have an Nvidea card (my ATI 7970 was overheating, so while I was waiting for the new thermal materials to arrive ($3 worth) I couldn't stand the down time and bought a GTX970 for $400). The idea of CPU base so that as much of the existing materials nodes still work is brilliant IMHO, especially given the number of Poser users who have still to venture in to the material room... and, as has been said, there is no preclusion to GPU rendering either in the Pro version, or as an SR.

Cycles supports instancing (hint hint)

Also, if the new Poser version is to 'celebrate' 'content as king', could we get a better search function... deeper into metadata than just the title? DS HAS to have it, because of their inane library structure (which if you meddle with might cause issues with your entire OS, according to the DAZ documentation), but their smart content does work pretty well. It'd be nice to be able to search a dozen runtimes and actually find something like a pose for M4 that has the entirely useless name of '12'.

Nice renders Teyon! Really showed what was possible... very impressive mask!

@Hornet
With respect, you have to remember that Nerd has a position to uphold now, he's not just a member of the community - he's more than that.  To casual users and noobs, what he posted probably looked enticing for one reason or another, who knows.  But seriously, most users are going to look at that initial post from him and think to themselves, is this a joke or something?

As you're one of the level-headed people here, ask yourself this (and be perfectly honest about it); do you honestly think it was a good idea for the Poser Product Manager to post such an uninspiring demonstration for an upcoming release of Poser?  Surely the idea is to wow people, not scare them off, so it's not the replies that are scaring people off into DAZ territory, it's the unprofessional style of post he chose to make, and it's worse when you consider there is already a massive amount of discontent among the Poser community for how far behind the program already is.  Last thing we need to hear is that the upcoming version is already behind by default.

No wonder people are pissed-off about that, and to be honest, I think the replies here are pretty tame all things considered.

Personally, as I've already said, I think Cycles is a very good idea, but the lack of GPU rendering is a very bad one.  We've been rendering with GPU for like five or more years now, yet they tell us it's not going to do that in Poser (even with a renderer that supports it - lol).  So I understand you not liking peoples responses here, but fact is, most of them are perfectly justified and rather tame considering the poor effort Nerd demonstrated.  That's nothing against him personally, but for a product manager to post what he did, that's just not on.  Being a "Sneak Peek" it should show something enticing, but it didn't, and even worse, they're even telling us that what we obviously expected from that renderer, isn't available.

They charge for this thing, so they need to show some professionalism, and basically, get real.

"you decided to turn off the GPU rendering feature just to make Poser backward compatible with an archaic material room?"

I wish nerd would come back and clarify this issue. I feel like this hasn't actually been said, although it is plausible. We have not actually been told WHY the GPU is not supported. The group assumption is that they are avoiding some extra work motivated by backward compatibility, and the argument against it is drop the compatibility rather than the GPU support. I'm concerned about that but also about something else.

Some of the nodes implemented in Cycles/Blender are BETTER than the "equivalent" nodes we have in FireFly. I dont' want just the nodes from FireFly. I actually want the Cycles nodes for a lot of reasons. For example, the Poser Reflect node cannot be made to deal with anisotropic reflections at all and the specular Anisotropic node only deals with lights, not reflections. (And also doesn't work right) Conversely, the Cycles Anisotropic BSDF node does both CORRECTLY. I do not want compabiliity with the poser Reflect node. I want the Cycles Anisotropic BSDF node - period. In fact, add that back into Firefly, please.

I want to make clear that PBR is a new style of parameterization, not a new style of rendering. I've been doing "physically correct" rendering in Poser quite well since we got IDL, SSS, and Fresnel_Blend. But, we still have problems with light transmission, anisotropy, attenuation, and too many artifacts with IDL, so I'd like to see a new renderer that doesn't have those problems, and a node system capable of implementing ALL the physics. Almost all of the shaders I'm building in FireFly are trying to implement what the Cycles nodes do directly. I want the Cycles nodes - not the FireFly nodes!

I note also that Cycles is not a pure, unbiased renderer. It is also capable of non-photo-real shading (NPR), such as toon rendering. There are lots of examples of Cycles materials on the web showing how to build various NPR shaders with the Cycles nodes. Google for "cycles toon" - you'll see it isn't just about physics. So if you think we actually need FireFly for that, you're misled.

On the other hand, there are some great things about FireFly nodes - the ability to do arbitrary math is terrific. I don't want to lose that. The arbitrary math isn't motivated by lighting effects - it's motivated by procedural pattern generation. I can make so many patterns that don't exist as pre-built nodes simply because the FireFly nodes include all the basic math operations. Yes I understand many of you would never make a procedural fish scale pattern generator from + - * / on your own and you hate those nodes. Cool - don't use them.

So - I'm not sure I understand the value proposition of hiding all the Cycles nodes in favor of the FireFly node implementations. Nor have we actually heard that, but ... if that's what is happening, then I'd like to argue against that. If that is also the underlying cause of preventing the use of GPU mode, then I strongly argue against that. The Cycles node system has capabilities that I've long wanted, but have no way to get in FireFly and obviously now I never will. 

Backwards compatibility is good, and I would like to see, to the extent it can be done, a subset of the FireFly nodes work in SuperFly mode, even if that means CPU only. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater - if GPU can be supported, and the user has only to rewrite some nodes into some other nodes (which I or SnarlyGribbly could probably automate) that allows quickly porting physically correct shaders from FireFly to SuperFly, I would prefer that. If FireFly nodes can't be supported at all and existing shaders need to be converted to Cycles nodes, in order to use Cycles as Cycles, and not as SuperFly, that's not so bad. Give us Cycles mode, where there is no backward compatibility, but we DO get the Cycles BSDF node system and we DO get GPU rendering.

@Baggins
And that is why you should be working with them!
I hope they listen to you.

@Hornet
With respect, you have to remember that Nerd has a position to uphold now, he's not just a member of the community - he's more than that.  To casual users and noobs, what he posted probably looked enticing for one reason or another, who knows.  But seriously, most users are going to look at that initial post from him and think to themselves, is this a joke or something?

As you're one of the level-headed people here, ask yourself this (and be perfectly honest about it); do you honestly think it was a good idea for the Poser Product Manager to post such an uninspiring demonstration for an upcoming release of Poser?  Surely the idea is to wow people, not scare them off, so it's not the replies that are scaring people off into DAZ territory, it's the unprofessional style of post he chose to make, and it's worse when you consider there is already a massive amount of discontent among the Poser community for how far behind the program already is.  Last thing we need to hear is that the upcoming version is already behind by default.

Since you ask, my honest opinion was that they were not the best renders but I also took into account that it was a Sneak Peek and the fact that it had a code name told me it was early days.  A lot depends, I think, on what Nerd was trying to do, if he was trying to show that the new PBR was hot stuff then it was a mistake.  If he was trying to give something back to the users by letting them in on the fact that caustics were in the Poser 11, the Holy Grail for some users, then he was trying his best for his customers and who can fault him on that. While I am on the subject of being honest my first thought was, 'that is interesting' and a very close second was "wrong forum, this can only end in tears."  Which is why I then went to RDNA to follow the thread there and waited to page six for I became involved here.  Why did I become involved, well I recently emailed a mod stating that I thought that the forum had improved recently, just after the new rules were posted.  So my thread came out of the frustration and realisation that nothing really has changed.  It also explains why most of my response had little to do with the title. 

@Nerd
Just wanted to say, in addition to Baggins technical post, please do not underestimate the importance of simplification when you merge both engines into the same node system.  I mentioned colour-coding earlier, but actually, there's a better way than that.

There needs to be a switch at the top of the Material Room where users can switch between CPU-NODES and GPU-NODES, because that way, no one will ever have to wonder whether each node works with the GPU or not.  If you don't implement that, the uptake of the system will be impaired due to outright confusion.  There is nothing better than knowing that every node you add, will work in the mode you have chosen, so there absolutely needs to be a mode selection switch (if you do end up giving access to the GPU).  It might sound trivial, but believe me, that is one design oversight you absolutely need to avoid - there MUST be a switch to show only the relevant nodes for the renderer you're working with, otherwise, users won't know whether it is failing due to their own node structures or mode incompatibility.

There absolutely MUST be a switch.

"you decided to turn off the GPU rendering feature just to make Poser backward compatible with an archaic material room?"

I wish nerd would come back and clarify this issue. I feel like this hasn't actually been said, although it is plausible. We have not actually been told WHY the GPU is not supported. The group assumption is that they are avoiding some extra work motivated by backward compatibility, and the argument against it is drop the compatibility rather than the GPU support. I'm concerned about that but also about something else.

Some of the nodes implemented in Cycles/Blender are BETTER than the "equivalent" nodes we have in FireFly. I dont' want just the nodes from FireFly. I actually want the Cycles nodes for a lot of reasons. For example, the Poser Reflect node cannot be made to deal with anisotropic reflections at all and the specular Anisotropic node only deals with lights, not reflections. (And also doesn't work right) Conversely, the Cycles Anisotropic BSDF node does both CORRECTLY. I do not want compabiliity with the poser Reflect node. I want the Cycles Anisotropic BSDF node - period. In fact, add that back into Firefly, please.

I want to make clear that PBR is a new style of parameterization, not a new style of rendering. I've been doing "physically correct" rendering in Poser quite well since we got IDL, SSS, and Fresnel_Blend. But, we still have problems with light transmission, anisotropy, attenuation, and too many artifacts with IDL, so I'd like to see a new renderer that doesn't have those problems, and a node system capable of implementing ALL the physics. Almost all of the shaders I'm building in FireFly are trying to implement what the Cycles nodes do directly. I want the Cycles nodes - not the FireFly nodes!

I note also that Cycles is not a pure, unbiased renderer. It is also capable of non-photo-real shading (NPR), such as toon rendering. There are lots of examples of Cycles materials on the web showing how to build various NPR shaders with the Cycles nodes. Google for "cycles toon" - you'll see it isn't just about physics. So if you think we actually need FireFly for that, you're misled.

On the other hand, there are some great things about FireFly nodes - the ability to do arbitrary math is terrific. I don't want to lose that. The arbitrary math isn't motivated by lighting effects - it's motivated by procedural pattern generation. I can make so many patterns that don't exist as pre-built nodes simply because the FireFly nodes include all the basic math operations. Yes I understand many of you would never make a procedural fish scale pattern generator from + - * / on your own and you hate those nodes. Cool - don't use them.

So - I'm not sure I understand the value proposition of hiding all the Cycles nodes in favor of the FireFly node implementations. Nor have we actually heard that, but ... if that's what is happening, then I'd like to argue against that. If that is also the underlying cause of preventing the use of GPU mode, then I strongly argue against that. The Cycles node system has capabilities that I've long wanted, but have no way to get in FireFly and obviously now I never will. 

Backwards compatibility is good, and I would like to see, to the extent it can be done, a subset of the FireFly nodes work in SuperFly mode, even if that means CPU only. But don't throw out the baby with the bathwater - if GPU can be supported, and the user has only to rewrite some nodes into some other nodes (which I or SnarlyGribbly could probably automate) that allows quickly porting physically correct shaders from FireFly to SuperFly, I would prefer that. If FireFly nodes can't be supported at all and existing shaders need to be converted to Cycles nodes, in order to use Cycles as Cycles, and not as SuperFly, that's not so bad. Give us Cycles mode, where there is no backward compatibility, but we DO get the Cycles BSDF node system and we DO get GPU rendering.

I don't recall Nerd saying that they were gonna sacrifice GPU rendering for compatibility with the material room, but I have a lot of the same questions as you BB about the Cycles nodes, especially how they're gonna make Poser nodes that are geared toward faking now do faking AND physically based functions. I realize this is not every Poser node, but a lot of nodes I just don't see transferring over very well :). I would rather see two material rooms then to see them try to shoehorn making Cycles work into a system that really isn't compatible. Hopefully we'll see what's what soon :).

Laurie

Quote: The GPU render doesn't support the full feature set the CPU render does. If we implement GPU support we end up limiting capabilities of the render. Things like limiting the number of texture maps in the scene. I'm with you on speed. I just don't want to sacrifice quality to get there.

there are no differences in GPU and CPU shader nodes, that simply would not make sense.

limiting factors for GPU (NVIDIA) renderings are:

no smoke/fire

SSS - still experimental

no open shading language

CMJ sampling - still experimental

displacment/subdivision - still experimental

and, of course, the limitations in texture maps (size and count) depending on the card you use.

https://www.blender.org/manual/render/cycles/features.html

Disclosure Statement: I am NOT a DAZ Merchant at this time

I have V4 Products For poser here on this web site I do NOT have any 

relationship with NVIDIA or any other hardware related Commercial entities<<<

Wow this thread really spiraled out of control (not surprising)

I must Agree with Zevo& Co who State quite correctly that a CPU/GPU option is best for all.

Look at Iray In DS 4.8 for Example.

I Dont have A Nividia Card ( LOL not even close) 

However I can still use Iray,with substantially increased render times,

and the Little mini live preview window is a no go on my Current set up.

I have chosen Instead to use the FREE one click "Mcjteleblend" Script

to Send my DAZ and Easily imported poser Scenes, to Cycles for my 

occasional photoreal still images.

Cycles is way more friendly to my little Intel GMA4500MHD graphics Card

When I upgrade My hardware It will be nice to enjoy  GPU rendering in Both Iray and or Cycles.

While I am not outraged by the Samples nerd posted

I think he and Teyon should probably next  post the stereotypical poser female portrait shot with SSS on the Skin sitting in a darkened room with rim lighting

which frankly is the only thing this user base actually seems to care about anyway.