Quote - Reading Kerwin's rig specs makes me feel like I live in the stone ages, LOL!

I saved for three years to build that rig myself.   I had to shovel coal into my previous workstation.  (Kept the office nice and warm, though . . .)   Zbrush tends to like a lot of CPU and memory (you can get away with less, but I do a lot of tight deadline stuff these days for my day job(s), so I'm making back just enough to afford that little bit of luxury.  (I'm certainly not making enough on Poser/DS4 assets to justify that rig.)

Lots of single board workstations with I7 (second series) are going cheap these days and I can't believe how cheap memory has become.   I paid less than $150 for the 24GB Corsair kit.

I remember buying my first 5MB (that's megabytes) hard drive for my BBS in 1985 for $1000!   Computers seem cheap today!   There seems to be more compute power in my telephone now than the computer I learned to program on.   (In those days we programmers would don our leopard skins and take down a wolly mammoth for the clan dinner before writing another 100 lines of assembly code.)  Those were the real stone ages.  You kids today with your iPhones, and your pagers, and your fax machines, and the pierced-I-don't-know-whats don't know how good you have it!   (I'm now having a bad case of grumpy-old-programmer-syndrome and have to lie down.)

:D

-K

Quote - > Quote - ...

It probably can't be easily done. From everything I've learned about render engines, they all use shaders differently. No render engine is shader compatible with another. The best you can hope for is an approximation like what Paolo does with Reality working with Studio and LuxRender.

Or what Snarly does with Pose2Lux. Let's not forget we have our own LuxRender exporter.

Good examples of my point--thank you.  An approximation is what I'm driving at.

-K

Quote - > Quote - While we're on the subject of technology, what about shader tree/map compatibility with poser?   For me this has been near the #1 reason why DS4 has trouble with existing Poser content created by 3rd parties (including some DAZ brokered artists.) Cheers!

-Kerwin

 

You are aware of this part in the Poser manual:

Technology or content provided in part by

Portions of the FireFly renderer and associated shading technologies ©2002 by Pixels Digital, Inc.

 

I guess in order to make DS compatible with the Poser shader tree DAZ would probably have to obtain a licence from PixelsDigital**.** IMHO that's like asking E-on to make Vue compatible with Bryce materials or vise versa**.
**

Why yes, I was aware, but that's because I've been around both Poser since V2 and DS since V1.   But as I said in another post, achieving good compatibility between renders is certainly within reach.  Pixel-for-pixel, identical rendering with identical is not likely possible for the reason you cite, every renderer is a little different (even between versions of the same program!)

But DAZ isn't coming close.  They're not mapping even the identical Renderman-like nodes between the programs.  So, no, DAZ does not need to license Pixels Digital's tech (unless they want to), but they could at least parameter map the brick shader with equivalent paramentes and to give a sort of minimal compatibility.

If you study the two shader systems, they are not that different.  In fact as PAs, we can move most mapped stuff (color, displacement, bump, etc.) between the products with relatively little tweaking.   But even for this, when DS4 reads the CR2, it decides to turn on a glossy node that makes everything look like plastic for many content files.

IMHO, it not too much to ask DAZ (which claims to read Poser files) at least map what is mostly compatible.  Sadly, IMHO they are not rising to that rather low bar, hence forcing many content providers to simply say "Not tested in DAZ studio."  With a little work, DAZ could get much better fidelity to existing Poser textures (virtually all the most common Renderman-like nodes are supported in both products) than they are doing.   Not asking for pixel-level perfection, but it seems that there is lack of emphasis on Poser compatibility.  The purely manual (and tedious) process of translating shader trees forces an increased reliance on high density bit-mapped textures to simplify delivering content.   This increases memory use and reduces usability of things like props where procedural textures tend to make more sense.

So, rather than a question, I'll give DAZ my 2 cents: Don't make it hard for Poser users to take their existing libraries in DS4.  Don't make it hard for Poser content developers to deliver DS usable content.

Hopefully that clarifies what I mean in terms of compatibility.

 -K

Quote - Right now, the much more affordable and easy way is to buy additional copies of DAZ Studio for each computer you already own, or for a bit more put together a dual processor/6 core (24 thread) Xeon workstation.

Kevin

Heh.   Already have a i7-980x 3.33Ghz w/ 24GB of RAM workstation.  I could spend another few thousand to use Dual-Xeon instead (the two CPU chips for 3Ghz six cores run towards $2500 alone--Newegg has them $1639 each for the x5680.)   I have suggested that DAZ create and overlord process to shuttle frames/renders to other DAZ studio nodes.      

In any case, SM and Maxon have provided me with very satisfactory network rendering solutions for some time.   I seem to remember that DAZ's pitch is that DS4 is superior technology to Poser (and hence I should be quick to give up on Poser and switch to DS4.)   Network rendering is apparently a convienience I need to do without in DS4.   I was hoping that it would be DAZ's job to negotiate with 3Delight.

Manually moving frames or tying up my main workstation is a pretty 1990's solution.  Of course, buying a super high-end workstation is one solution, but it doesn't let me use cheaper nodes I can pick up for less than $1000 each.  It would cut into the content budget to buy such pricy silicon to solve DAZ's licensing issues with 3Delight.

Let's see what DAZ says--the question was to them.

-K

Quote - Daz isn't even 10 people I bet...lol. If you include the PA's perhaps....

I was never quite sure how people thought Daz was this big, huge company. In the scheme of the American business landscape, it's a mom-and-pop. They are big to us, but not in the general scheme of things ;).

Laurie

I ran a business search on them a feww weeks ago which indicates that they're less than 50 employees and do $10M-$50M in business anually.  Since they're privately held, there is very little good information about them.   My own (outside sources) put the number closer to the $10M/yr side of it.   Not very big, really.

It's been hard for me to guage the size of their PA program.  I did ask once (along with sales stats to help guage the market for brokered products) and I think I got the "that's confidential" response--no point in asking questions here.   If I was to reformat that into a question for DAZ, it might be:

• Can DAZ give some idea of the size of the customer base for Genesis?  For V4/M4 products?   What is expected size of the customer base using Genesis in about six months from now?   These would be really useful to help content makers guage the market transition from Gen4 to Gen5.   3D Content development for models like V4 and V5 represent a considerable effort on the PA's part--misguessing the market can have disasterous consequences for PA.   DAZ and SM should possibly consider how they can reduce that risk.  From basic appearances, V4/M4 has a big market and runs on lots of platforms.   Genesis only runs on DS4, really just coming out of beta.   For example, a key figure technology, Geografting, only came out in an update in the last three weeks--it is not well documented from a content creator side.
   
• A more general question for DAZ: A a broker, technology provider, and content maker, what is DAZ doing to reduce the risks for brokered artists who may be venturing into Genesis technology?   [That's a softball, Rand.   Hit it out of the park!  ;)  ]

-K

Quote - > Quote - ...so basically we are "written off" because those of us on limited budgets don't have the disposable income to buy a big ticket item like a new computer every couple of years.

Ok, let me get this right. You actually are upset that Daz will not cater to your OLD computer and to make this concession because you can't afford to buy a new computer??. You must be joking ;). I hope you don't mind if I say so, but that is beyond ridiculous. They're a business. They can't do that. And I completely understand that and I can't afford the newest version of either DS OR Poser. However, I don't feel so entitled that I expect them to make concessions just for people like poor little me. shakes head

Laurie

I think a more sensible point (rather than the specifics of a individual user's computer) that DAZ might address with us is the subject of resource utilization.   I'm blessed with a fast workstation and oodles of memory.  DAZ has made claim in the past (I thought) that it was more resource efficeint that Poser in several areas; a principle example being it's dynamic loading of morphs.   I have not found in my own testing a substantive different between Poser 9 and DS4 in terms of memory usage.   Your milage may vary, of course.  

However, I used inexpensive, older computers as render nodes that don't have oodles of memory and some are pretty dated.   Questions for DAZ:

• When will we see network rendering in DS4?  Not even the pro version of DS4 seems to support this common 3D feature.
• If DAZ plans to offer network rendering, will the requirements on the render nodes be equal to or less than DS4 Pro itself.  (The question is not as facetious as it might sound on first blush--more advanced node management software leverages virtual memory/disk techniques to allow render nodes to handle big renders, albeit more slowly, than high-end workstations.)

-K

[Almost 24 posts in 12 years!   I must be going for the record today.]

Quote - Ok let me post a negative one in a positive. I want to be able to show what Genesis can do. ;)

There are a number of excellent threads in DAZ's forums on this.   Genesis is indeed cutting edge technology for quite a variety of uses.   

To get you started there is the main Genesis Render Thread (70+ pages and counting):

http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=165191

Then there is Genesis' product page, which gives many of the technologies involved:

http://www.daz3d.com/i/products/genesis?

There is a really good video by Rand (yes the same Rand who started this thread) and another artist which is on DAZ's video channel:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DQON0BWRxCs

here's the channel itself:

http://www.youtube.com/user/WWWDAZ3DCOM?feature=watch

You should be able to see some of the neat features of the Genesis series and DS4 in those videos.

-K

Quote - kerwin wrote

Quote - While we're on the subject of technology, what about shader tree/map compatibility with poser?   For me this has been near the #1 reason why DS4 has trouble with existing Poser content created by 3rd parties (including some DAZ brokered artists)

If I'm clear about what you are asking, it'll probably never happen, because as I undersand it, all render engines read shaders differently, even Renderman based ones like Firefly and 3Delight. The best you could hope for is something to convert or approximate them as Paolo does with Reality between D|S and LuxRender. Kevin

An approximation as you suggest would eliminate a huge amount of work at certifying content for DAZ.   Right now when you load a stock piece of Poser content (CR2 format) into DS4, you get a very poor interpretation (mostly the maps and some basice settings.)   Frequently items come in with additonal very wrong settings (yes, I've filed bug reports) such as setting "glossy" to 100%.    I'm not such an idealist that I'd expect 100% compatibility, but I think it is safe to say a bit more could be done to improve that compativility and increase the amount of content that works out of the box with DS4.   For end users with large libraries of non-DAZ content (for set pieces and props, for example) this would reduce the effort of employing that content in DS4, thus easing the transition (of those users who want to transition) to DS4.   I think we can all agree it would be beneficial to both DAZ and its PAs if there are more users on DS4 since that is the ideal platform for Genesis (today.)

For content creators, better shader mapping means that it's easier for us to offer support for both platforms, rather than deciding to create a custom set of shaders only for DAZ (using their proprietary shader tools and nodes) or choosing only Poser's proprietary shaders and nodes.   My question is intended to elicit (from DAZ) what their official positionis on this, since there has been precious little movement on shader translation between Poser and DS  in the past ferw years.

Good shader building in either product is time consuming.   Tools that even reduced that work by 50% could increase product compatibility.   I've considered my own shader translater between P9 and DS3A/DS4 but the minimal documentation, and the dependence on plugins for some key services (ubershader, for example) creates risk barrier for a commercial product to do the translation.

Cheers!

-K

Quote - I only jumped in and stated this, because I was in a unique position to kind of help squash that rumor...

So, in the interest of elimionating any more egregious rumors, my additional questions for DAZ (NOT IgnatusSerpentis) are:

• What is your public position on brokered content?  Do you want more V4/M4 submissions?  Will you be accepting submissions for non DAZ figures?  (I concede that this one is based on the rumor that DAZ will not accept brokered items for Poser and 3rd party figures not brokered by DAZ.) Are you encouraging DAZ content developers including your own brokered artists to spend more time on Genesis?   I thought I knew the answer to these, but since my statements are referred to by one of your supporters as egregious (which means colloquially., outrageous or prone to error.)   Is it merely a rumor that you are seeking brokered artists to develop for Genesis rather than continue to invest in the V4/M4 line?    (I do have multiple posts in my files from your PA manager that seem to indicate a preference--let's use this as an opportunity for DAZ to clearly state their preferences in open discourse.)
   
• As you are undoubtly aware, developing content for Genesis has been a signifcant challenge with the new technologies.  Do you feel that the lack of compatibility technologies between DS4 and P9 (see my previous post for a citation of a few of the compatibility issues) are somewhat forcing PAs to choose direction?  Do you feel additional compatibility technologies should be given higher priority to reduce this effort and make it possible for PAs to easily deliver content for both DS4 and Poser platforms?   DAZ is, after all,  has been well known for many years as a tool maker for content for both platforms (FST now CCT for example).  
   
• Will CCT be improved to more easily and readily generate poser-ready content, as FST had been in the past?   (While I agree CCT has subsumed most, if not all, FST tools, several tools do not generate, at this point, poser-usable content.)

-K

Quote -
...you are saying is supposedly refusing such...

..refusal of generation 4 content is nothing more than a rumor ..

I did not say any such thing...please do not put words in my mouth.   I simply said that DAZ has been applying pressure in a paticular direction (Genesis) and has made clear (to me at least) a preference for that particular direction.  I also indicated the process for accepting or rejecting 4th gen content is not transparent, which does not state what DAZ will or will not accept to broker.   There is a difference.  I believe the forum mods her at rendo have pretty clearly asked (like three times) for us to pose quesitons to DAZ and let DAZ answer, so I will not belabor this further.   My questions are intended to elicit specific answers of policy from the DAZ representives who initiatied the dialog.

-K

I'm personally skeptical that any open discussion can take place with DAZ using the internet forum medium.  (Disclaimer: I have had substantive discusions with Rand and Dan by email.)

So a few questions for Rand and Dan to think about:

• How can DAZ hope to recapture the goodwill of the Poser customer base through an uncontrolled policy of censorship and bans on their own forums?   This is where the discussion should have been taking place.  Why come here to a third parties forums when you're unwilling to discuss the issues in your own house, so to speak?   When will you revamp your forum policies so that you can get feedback from all your customer base?
• As a former DAZ PA, I felt strongly pressured by DAZ to stop work on V4/M4 series products and focus all my efforts on DS4 & Genesis.   Since DAZ as a Broker is always at the concent of DAZ to accept a product, this is clearly attempting to drive PAs in a specific direction.   Shouldn't DAZ just be clear about this?
• DAZ's PA process and how it selects what to broker is fundamentally opaque.   There seems to be no written criteria as to what DAZ wants from PAs and has to be obtained purely from folklore and statements by PA team managers in a non-public forum.   Shouldn't DAZ make clear what they want to broker, for what tehcnologies, in a public way?   
• Why was Poser compatibility such a low priority in the Genesis release cycle?   Should DAZ have made that an up front need?   Much of the angst now felt by customers and PAs alike is that the compatibility appears (I am not saying it is, but appears) to be of a low priority.
• Why has the necessary documentation and SDKs been so absense, that third parties have been somewhat disabled from filling the gap?   (I applaud D3D's work at moving morphs, at least one way, into DS4.)   A major discouragement is that the DSF format is poorly documented and is not, at least as of today, likely to be fully stable.   This disables thrid parties from improving Genesis to Poser (and vice-versa).  Should DAZ put a much higher priority on documentation and format stability to reduce the risks for 3rd parties. 
• DAZ and its followers frequently excoriate (always wanted to use that word in a post) SM for not adopting DAZ technologies.   Has DAZ adopted capsule zones and dependent parameters in DS4?  PMDs?  Can you please show us your roadmap to make DS4 more compatible with existent poser technologies.
• While we're on the subject of technology, what about shader tree/map compatibility with poser?   For me this has been near the #1 reason why DS4 has trouble with existing Poser content created by 3rd parties (including some DAZ brokered artists.)
• When will DAZ support preview of realistic light fall-offs in DS4?   How about preview of those falloffs?   The dependency on plugins for lighting features is a productivity killer.

I'm not saying these things to be mean to DAZ.   I wish DAZ well and continue to by content from DAZ almost every week, but my own journey as longtime customer of DAZ, becoming a PA, and then becoming an ex-PA have made me keenly sensitive to the business and technical issues raised above.   DAZ has asked to command a premium price for its content, and to win my business it needs to start acting like a premium business.

Cheers!

-Kerwin

[Wow!  Nearly 20 posts at Renderosity in 12 years!   I'm becomming dangerously outspoken! :) ]

I'll add one small comment on the whole SubD thing and then disappear.

SubDs, especially sub-dividing the entire form as DS4 proposes as best, is not the sole way to get smooth joints in a humanoid manikin.  Usually you need more geometry where the body's soft tissues can distort more in relation to its bones or where muscles might tend to bulge.   These also tend to be spots where joints offer the greatest degress of freedom such as elbows and kness.   Judicious application of additional geometry in those spots can go a long way to creating a smooth, skin-like surface deformation.

Simply solving smoothing issues by subdividing everything burns resources that could be more judiciously applied to dynamics, rendering the next frame in animation, etc.

-K

Be sure to read the tutorial here

http://wiki.daz3d.com/doku.php/wiki/software/dazstudio/4/userguide/importing_exporting/tutorials/triax_figure_to_poser/start

before attempting export.   It will save some fustration.

-K

Quote - I had a post removed from the Daz forums about V5. I have no idea why since it was just stating that it appeared the V5 was nothing more than a morph set for Genesis and that without a Poser version, the value just didn't seem to be there....

V5 just doesn't seem worth the high price tag. Anyone else feel this way?

DAZ mods are working overtime to delete posts of those that express concern or skepticism of their current direction, focus, support or prices.   It's somewhat haphazardly applied as I see some posts go and then others which seem more strident stay.   They seem to be pretty touchy about references to prices or negative review of products . . . especially their own DAZ originals.

When some folks expressed skepticism at the rather heavyweight process for getting V5 to Poser via the CR2 exporter, those posts were quickly deleted.

I've pretty much given up on posting to the DAZ forums as a result . . . too political as to what you can say and can't say.

-K

Quote - rendo staff said one could send update-emails through rendo.
did anyone here ever use this? does it work :) ?

I get them from time to time and update products based on Rendo notices.
-K