Mr. F gets "delighted". In my final render at 4000x4000 I am reducing the diffusion on the sword handle but pretty-much like the shiney blade effect.

One of my initial attempts at creating an ocean scene in DAZ Studio. I'm still improving upon the ocean texture map and also have a number of them with different sea conditions. Model is the Warroak.

An IW43D Prototype car rendered in what I think is a "MAX Lite" look- version 3 maybe. I hear lots more interesting DAZ STUDIO shaders are on the way- so who knows yet how "MAX-Like" DS can actually get later on?

A landscape scene made using RubiconDigital's Terragen kit available in the REN store. This scene has a Terragen back plane, a mesh terrain mapped with a Terragen terrain render and then RDNA's Fields model. Also- the DAZ Songbird and Botanticals Flower CD Sunflower. The sunflower exhibits some UV mapping problems that also shows upon on some other 3rd Party scenery models I have imported into DS.

I have used Terragen for years so have a nice collection of my own skies, terrains and oceans I will be using in DS scenes.

M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicle- one from my De Espona model collection- I converted this from a MAX file and brought it into DAZ Studio- looks very much like the MAX 3 render of the original, I think. Of course- maybe its a "Lightwave Lite" look too, heh!

The old X-Wing StarWars model from the StarWars Model Archive. Imported great into Daz Studio.

Just to see if I could do it- I also imported the De Espona USS New Jersey battleship into DAZ Studio. It's a fairly big model (I converted it from the MAX original).

One more view of the Warroak at sea.

You should turn on shadows to add some depth. Without, it looks very flat and lifeless.

Must agree with stewer here VERY FLAT and unimpressive without shadows :-/

My website

YouTube Channel

Attached Link: http://brian.curiouslabs.com

Yeah, I noticed that in many of his renderings.

That's why they're tests. Rendering with shadows takes about twice as long. I've already posted images in previous threads with shadows on. Go down and take a look. As I've also previously said- these are only test images, not final works of art meant for a panel of ten judges. They are also meant to basically show that LOTS of DIFFERENT models can be loaded into Daz Studio, not just Poser models.

One other comment reguarding why I generally do NOT use shadows is that I do not LIKE shadows in most of my own 3D projects. I stopped using shadows in both Poser and Vue over a year ago when I was personally amazed at how much I liked the images WITHOUT extra shadows. Faster Renders and stuff I liked much better. Many of you 3D guys just AUTOMATICALLY assume that shadows are BETTER and that Photo-Realism is BETTER STILL. I totally disagree based upon my own experience as a very SUCCESSFUL Commercial Illustrator who has sold lots of my 3D work at a nice profit. SHADOWS are nasty interferences in getting high quality film and print reproductions. DS and Vue render shadows ANYWAY- its just that they are much SOFTER and far better to deal with in commercial printing and publishing that CRAPPY "normal" shadows that everyone else thinks are so cool. Based upon my previously posted test renders with shadows ON- I determined that for my own personal use that shadows were not worth the extra wait, and I didn't like them anyway. A Flatter 3D Look has made me lots on money! I think it is great that so many 3D'ers all run "into the shadows" all the time. I like taking my nice big commission checks to the bank- because my work doesn't look "3D" and doesn't look like EVERYONE ELSE scrambling around in 3D. TELL ME I'm WRONG! (heh-heh).

Hehe. I don't use Daz, and before Veritas777 came into the 3dsMax forum, I didn't know what it even was, but I have to come back here now and again, because I get a kick out of this guy. I don't think I've seen someone so pumped up about a piece of software before. I just have to comment though on what you said above. LOL. I work professionally in the FX industry as do many of the folks on the 3dsMax forum. I for one have to wonder why, if you're making so much money, you just don't upgrade your hardware to something more "industrial", since it seems to be speed that you're most concerned with. Oh, and also why use such low-end software? Again, if speed is your main concern, and you're making all this money, then there's no better investment for a professional than to put it into some higher end software that is 10X faster at rendering than this Daz Studio seems to be. If you were using Max, for example, rendering shadows is nothing. Doesn't take up but a few seconds of rendertime in scanline, and even raytraced shadows aren't that expensive (in terms of time consumption). GI (Global Illumination) is a must for my industry, and can be costly in terms of time, but without shadows there's no way your portfolio would be impressive enough to get hired at any large production house where you could possibly make the big bucks. I don't know who your clients are, and you said you're an illustrator... where exactly have your works been published outside of public websites and galleries? I mean, maybe illustrations don't need realistic shadows to look impressive to clients, but I think if your competition uses them, and has the same or better talent than you do, you could be in for some rough times financially. I hope you have your clients well-guarded! Hey, in your own words "Tell me I'm wrong!" hehe. ;-)

It would seem that we have our first DAZ Studio evangelist :-) NO offense really but if you are some kind of "anti shadow" artist then why were you over at the Lightwave forum last week trying to argue that those flat images looked like lightwave renders. and doing the same thing in the Bryce forum?? IM glad you have found a modern Day app that will free you from the burden of using posers outdated technology( no open GL etc.) but frankly those renders youve posted Dont look any better than poser renders I am Glad you've found success as a " no shadoow" artist But I must ask if you think flat one dimensional images are so cutting edge and are so averse to any render times, why bother using a 3D program at all? Just use Adobe illustrator or corel Draw

My website

YouTube Channel

They are also meant to basically show that LOTS of DIFFERENT models can be loaded into Daz Studio, not just Poser models. If you want to impress people, show images of how D|S imports Poser figures without tearing them in a dozen pieces. Loading and phong-rendering simple 3ds meshes is anything but impressive - even less when you need Poser as a file converter.

I love those veritas renders. I don't know if it is or not to do with the lack of shadows but the pics just look great to me! I think I like them because they look more like they've been drawn than photorealistic. I never thought of deliberately leaving shadows out. I for one, can see how he could easily make money out of this sort of art. You're talking to a gal who was brought up on the original superman and batman comics (no longer reading them because the art isn't as good as it used to be) as well as has a nice kitchy underwater fish pic up on the wall with dolphins that look like poser dolphins. Love esther

MY ONLINE COMIC IS NOW LIVE

I aim to update it about once a month.  Oh, and it's free!

Great looking pics, i love it veritas breaks the norm and doesn't use shadows, those pics are terrfic and unique, seems to me he's got it going on

Just letting you know the A-Wing (not X-Wing) seems to be missing the textures for the engine flare. I'd also like to say let's all play nice here and try to keep the tone civil if possible.

Well, I'm glad to see Veritas has some fans out there. I have nothing against him personally at all, and I love his enthusiasm, but since he did ask for people to "tell him he's wrong", I decided to give my perspective. :-) All in all, I disagree with it being a UNIQUE concept in 3D to turn off shadows. I think for most people starting out, it's a revelation just to get them turned ON. LOL. Realistic Light and shadow is one of the most difficult things to master in 3D software, and I see all too often newcomers (especially to the more complex 3D applications) just avoid adding lights and shadows to their work altogether. There's evidence of this throughout the galleries. For example, it's a tell-tale sign that you are new to Max when you simply render your images with the default lighting and no shadows... because that's the way it's set up to render when you initially open the application for the first time. So most people new to the software don't know how to add lights to a scene, and just hit the render button as-is. Anyway, this is getting silly. Veritas, no hard feelings man, congrats on your success, and keep up the enthusiasm. :-)

He'd be wiser to be careful with the enthusiasm, actually. Considering the cheerleading the presaged Poser 5, and the trouble that followed (add to that the fact that we don't even have a version 0.9 of DS to evaluate, and there are some -major- hardware changes in the next few quarters that could quite literally destroy it....or any other app, for that matter), the old adage 'What goes around comes around' springs to mind. As well as 'Those who fail to learn from history are doomed to repeat it'. Cross compatiblility with existing Poser-centric content is flakey at =best= (pathing issues that could be Poser related, DS related, or content provider related. Or all three), Open GL is doubly flakey vis-a-vis drivers and configuration, much of the basic functionality is either disabled or unoptimized (shadows, for instance). A lot of other functionality will be dependant on plugins, and that will open a whole 'nother can of frustration as you get into the issues of who's plugin is responsible for not working with plugin X,Y, and 2. It's looking interesting at this point, but it is =FAR= from being anywhere near ready for more than the tinkerer at this point. And as the next release will be a public beta, not a 1.0 gold, there will be a lot of room for the less technically inclined to understand.

estherau- you are one of the few really kind and thoughtful people here at Renderosity! And there are more, I know, but most of them prefer to LURK I think. Well, thanks for the comments. As I stated in the thread title, these are "Test Renders"- not FINISHED Art. I always do TEST RENDERS, don't you? Why render TESTS with shadows on if it takes twice as long? If an image looks like it really needs shadows--like maybe a DARKER Frazetta look, I might use them. Stewer- your statement about "importing Poser figures without tearing them in a dozen pieces. Loading and phong-rendering simple 3ds meshes is anything but impressive" You truely don't know what you are talking about here, bud. -"Tearing them into a dozen pieces"? What are you grasping at? Phong rendering? These were rendered in DAZ Studio with the 3Delight renderer. Your ANTI-DAZ, Fanatical Pro-P5 BIAS is really starting to show through now. You and some others are only here to BASH Daz Studio it seems! SinnerSaint - I own MAX 3 and Lightwave 6.5 but rarely use them. I can easily afford upgrading to the latest versions or buy Maya or anything else I want. But I use PHOTOSHOP as my primary finishing software and nearly all my 3D work winds up looking fairly different than a 3D look. For me, my bottom line is: Is this MORE FUN and EASY than doing it in MAX or Lightwave? The answer is most certainly YES. As far as getting to a rendered look that I can further manipulate in Photoshop- DAZ Studio is really terrific. Sorry about my ENTHUSIASM- I realize I should be a Whiner and Moaner and constantly SNIPE at people the way the whole P5 deal seems to work. Actually LIKING the software and the company that makes it is a BIG NO-NO and must be crushed by Renderosity Cynics! Teyon- I was WONDERING when someone would notice that it was an A-Wing and not an X-Wing! I realized it after I made the post- and in fact have an X-Wing I converted from Lightwave that I will be posting soon. I really expected my biggest BASHING would come from StarWars Fans. Thanks for the very CIVIL tone and note. It's AMAZING that someone actually can make a friendly comment without being angry and fanatically cynical, etc. wolf359- I know a number of artists who do things like you have posted and make a HUGE AMOUNT of money doing it. I know that may not be your cup of tea, but I think many in the Lightwave and MAX forums who think that their way is the REAL WAY to do things to are often VERY misguided. People may own lots of hardware and all kinds of special effects software, but often very simple things work for better, especially for people who like to work at their homes and make lots of money doing it "the other way". I really can't, and won't, tell you exactly what I do to make a VERY COMFORTABLE living that allows me to travel around the world and spend the majority of my time in my luxury condo in Hawaii where I am FORCED to watch beautiful daily sunrises and sunsets, and make my main weekly journey into "town" to get all my checks in my P.O. Box and deposit them into my bank account- It's a HORRIBLE LIFE without the LATEST VERSIONS of MAX and Lightwave (HEH!) I'm DOOMED to FAILURE! (He-he). I wish I had listened to all the RENDEROSITY "experts" (ho-ho). Why is my LIFE so BAD??? DAZ could never pay me enough to work for them. I do what I do with DAZ Studio just to make my own POINT- and don't really care what all the cynical little weasels say.

Dude, you need to chill

calm down mate! - no point in getting mad, lifes to short ya know? well for the tearing, I've seen figures that render ok in Poser, but have probs in DS.. I think thats what he was refering to... for some reason, with some figures, say the shoulders will render fine in Poser, the same figure in the same pose, will have massive gaps in DS.. something for the programming team to fix methinks...

**PS the problem figures export from Poser into other Apps such as LW Maya and tS A-ok... so it is a bug in DS at this time..

Veritas, You're kind of beating everybody over the head with your point, which is that you think Daz Studio has great potential. I think you should just show your renders and let then speak for themselves. They're great (in my opinion) and probably show the software off better than anything else I've seen. But you are coming off as a "shill" who works for Daz and has been sent here (and apparently everywhere else) to whip up enthusiasm for the software. Not a bad thing, per se, but it is a little bit of a turn-off. -jjsemp

He does come off as selling a Tom Vu informercial doesn't he?

Phong rendering? These were rendered in DAZ Studio with the 3Delight renderer. Once you calmed down a little, we can have a thorough discussion about rendering and shading techniques and how the default shading of D|S is - just like in Poser - an implementation of the Phong shading model.

Ok gang, we really need to turn the conversation to things other than the person posting...perhaps things like what could be better with the test renders? Or, dare I say...test renders of your own. This is the Daz Studio forum afterall...I would imagine most of you either have it or plan to get it. Instead of ragging on Veritas, try to either restrict your comments to the work presented or post work you feel better display the potential of the program. Personally, I have no intent on getting Daz Studio but I was still able to give a constructive criticism of the artwork presented here. I'd also expect that sort of thing to continue when others are posting or I will be forced to take steps. Veritas, while I understand your recent reply to comments previously made, I must also ask that you try to take the higher ground too. Sometimes the open hand works better than the closed fist. Now, again, I ask you all to play nice.

"wolf359- I know a number of artists who do things like you have posted and make a HUGE AMOUNT of money doing it." Any artist making a good living is great news in my opinion But your rethoric about other 3D artist "fleeing into the shadows" while you rake in the Big $$Bucks$$ with your cutting edge" no shadow" renders and your luxury condo, come off as a bit antagonistic. and NO offense but You have been in at least three forums here Frankly evangelising this D/S app and posting images that are decent but not particularly impressive. :-) Im sure we are all Glad that you are exited about your DAZ Studio renders But you cant expect everyone in this somewhat Jaded forum to be as enthusastic about those alpha renders as you are.

My website

YouTube Channel

Let's see if I can do this without discussing the "poster" at all :)

D|S is a cute tool. And its a nice alpha. The 3Delight renderer is not bad for a middle of the road to low end rendering engine like Firefly in Poser 5. In fact, neither 3Delight or Firefly really have any significant advantages over the other... and both are much better than the P4 default renderer.

Now, obviously a good D|S render will be "as good as" a bad Max renderer and so on, so the question is in some forms meaningless... but in terms of flat out technical ability - the current Max and Lightwave render engines are better than 3Delight and Firefly. Live with that. And we don't even need to discuss the latest versions of Maya and Max that run Mental Ray.

What confuses me is why someone who is, by their own admission, specializing in non realistic renders to use as a baseline for extensive post processing would try and simultaneously claim that their renders are an example of render engine capabilities.

Yes, you could take Max and turn off all the shadows, use non photo real textures, ignore most of the more complex mapping options, use a fairly flat lighting set up and so on and wind up with images that look like this. You could also do it in Bryce, POV ray, C4D and just about anything else that can sling pixels. It's cute, and I am glad it's making someone money. Hell, it's even "art" ... but what it >ISN'T< is a powerful display of a rendering engine or the potential of a tool.

Of course you can make money with this stuff, the market is a cool place. I know artists who make money drawing what are essentially stick figures. It's a funny world out there... but it doesn't mean D|S is breaking new ground render wise.

Renders from D|S have been taken to 2-3 other forums and shown off as being "as good as" 3Ds Max or Lightwave renders... and they were clearly not as good as most of what can be done in those programs.

I like the potential in D|S. I like Poser as a market. I even make money with it. But before you go running around showing flat, simply lit scenes with fairly low res textures and trying to trumpet how amazing it is in other forums... you might really want to think about how badly it will get spanked.

BTW - if we are talking about impressing non proto real renders, you might like this one and certainly this one.

I think you are underestimating both 3Delight and FireFly. Sure, neither of them will recreate the GI or ray tracing features that Mental Ray does, but that's not their direction: While they aren't nearly as fast, both have a lot in common with Pixar's PRMan, at least version 10 - about the same feature set (sometimes even more, PRMan 10 could not ray trace) and the same REYES algorithm on the backend. They won't win a prize in ray tracing speed but they can get any LW or C4D user's envy with their micropolygon displacement and accurate depth of field.

"They won't win a prize in ray tracing speed but they can get any LW or C4D user's envy with their micropolygon displacement and accurate depth of field. " Your right of course, when looked at without the MR or the Max 5 light tracing features they are pretty cool... and the micropolygon displacement is sweet.

Vray for 3dsMax has a superior micropoly displacement and very accurate true DOF built in. Plus it renders GI with irradience map, and is about 3 times faster than Mental Ray and twice as fast as Brazil. There's no comparing FireFly or 3Delight to either Brazil or Vray. Caustics, true DOF, micropoly displacement with soon to be unlimited resolution capability, true caustics and motion blur are just some of the things that stand heads and tails above these lower end renderers. The most important is the speed, because without that, GI is virtually useless in a production environment, and animation NEEDS speed. Also, network rendering is something you can't do with Poser or this Daz program effectively here either. So it's useless to professionals. There's TONS of things that you can't do with Firefly or this Daz thing that you need for true realism and professional productivity. Subsurface Scattering, light disbursment, mat materials for seamless compositing of CG with real life scenes, true HDRI, translucency WITH fog color, true refraction with IOR values, and not to mention rendering to fields, etc. Shall I continue? Multiple shader types like Oren-Nayer-Blinn, Aniostropic reflections, GLOSSY reflections, etc. etc. etc. ;-)

"Multiple shader types like Oren-Nayer-Blinn, Aniostropic reflections, GLOSSY reflections" You should visit the Material Room some time. "There's TONS of things that you can't do with Firefly or this Daz thing that you need for true realism and professional productivity." You do realize that most VFX shots in feature film production were rendered without all these features? You might want to read some of the production notes from LOTR or Finding Nemo to see how they faked their way to get around ray tracing. By your standards, PRMan would be a highly unprofessional renderer.

"You do realize that most VFX shots in feature film production were rendered without all these features?" Absolutely. And you realize why they had to fake it? Because it's very expensive when dealing with the slim margin of time they have to get the production completed, which is an issue that might come to pass very soon with the advancement of incredibly fast GI and raytrace engines that are surfacing. HDRI is used often in feature productions to reproduce accurate scene lights and reflections. If you mean to indicate that the Poser application and this Daz program can be used as stand-alone applications for serious film and animation productions, then you must be lost. Sure, their renderers are based on some truly proven solutions, but there are a new generation of renderers out there poised to bring a whole new element of possibility to VFX and animation. Animal Logic, Blur Studios - they all employ Brazil and Vray in their work to some degree, and will probably migrate towards using them even more as the software matures. I'm not knocking PRMan in any way. However, let's not confuse Poser and Daz Studio as being much more than a hobbyists tool, because on their own, as individual applications, they aren't very useful for much more. Unless of course you're a professional illustrator. PS: I'm not knocking anyone for being a professional illustrator, nor a hobbyist. Anything to do with the arts is a worthy endeavor.

I think it'll be a couple of years until we see GI being broadly used in feature film production. Rendering a nice still image in a decent time is one thing, but getting it to a point where it's suitable for animation production, i.e. flicker-free and predictable, is a different thing. HDRI as used in many movies is usually done by environment mapping in conjunction with baked AO or AO in a separate pass, and not with the single-pass raytracing algorithms that, from what I know, Brazil and VRay are using (I don't own 3ds, so I have no first-hand experience with these renderers). What's keeping Brazil, final Render and VRay out of the big studios is that they're closely tied to 3ds max. Larger studios want to be able to customize their whole pipeline, and Mental Ray and PRMan allow them to. If you mean to indicate that the Poser application and this Daz program can be used as stand-alone applications for serious film and animation productions, then you must be lost. Ah no, I never tried to indicated that. For serious production, these programs are way too inflexible in how they let you control the rendering workflow. None of them allows you to render separate passes, re-use shadow maps or bake textures. However, let's not confuse Poser and Daz Studio as being much more than a hobbyists tool, because on their own, as individual applications, they aren't very useful for much more. That's true. The average Poser user doesn't want or need the advantages of a programmable shading pipeline. I think FireFly and 3Delight are too complicated, the majority does not want to bother with displacement borders or shading rates. Many users are not very happy with FireFly, I and I expect most of them won't be happy with 3Delight either. I think a less flexible but easier to use renderer like in Carrara would be much better suited for the Poser community. Personally, I don't give much for Carrara - I can't get excited about a renderer that knows only Lambert-Phong shading. I want the ability to layer multiple highlights and to use displacements to create wrinkles. But I certainly am not representative for Poser users.

Stewer, I agree with you 100%. It might be a couple years before major studios pick up on these new renderers for their pipeline, but eventually it will happen. I don't know about Brazil, but Vray's irradience mapping and photon mapping allow for some VERY fast environmental GI, especially geared towards animation. For example, if it takes several hours to render the first initial frame, it's probably worth it since you only have to run that lighting calculation once for any camera move, and then subsequently you can render thousands of frames in a fraction of the time based on that initial cached solution. Separate passes with matte and shadow composits can be used for moving objects where the light needs to change in every frame. Anyway, they really should open a "Render Theories" forum where we all can discuss the pros and cons of all the renderers out there. Now that would be interesting.

And here I thought Daz was simply providing a rendering tool for us amateurs and hobbyists to broaden their customer base for their products by providing a low cost (free) software to work and tinker with. All this tech stuff, IMO, is overkill.

Warmest Regards,

Dallas

Attached Link: www.cgtalk.com/forumdisplay.php?s=&forumid=21

Here's a link to a more appropriate forum. It is quite possible that Brazil and VRay find their way to the studios once they get more flexible interfaces (Brazil is supposed to get a RIB parser) - other non-mainstream renderers did so before, e.g. RenderDotC, Jig or BMRT. But I think by the time we have photon mapping as fast as Z-buffer is now, we will see a complete RenderMan implementation running on the latest commodity graphics hardware, setting new standards for high rendering speed. nVidia is aiming in that direction with cgFX and it looks promising.

"All this tech stuff, IMO, is overkill." Well, obviously some of us are very interested in "this tech stuff" - even the hobbyists and amateurs. The reason it is relevant at the moment is because someone here insisted on coming into the forums for the much larger packadges and screaming about how Daz Studio was as good a render engine as anything else. Sometimes, you call "shennanigans!"

I guess I just think that since this is a Daz Studio forum, I was under the impression that it would be that which I would expect to see here. What "it" can do. If the person doing the shennanigans is to be called on it for going into the "Larger Packages" forums, he should be called on it there is all. And after all, this is just an alpha of the product, not the final version, so I guess I just expected to see more in here on what D/S does. No offence was meant to anyone who is interested in the tech stuff, I just feel this isnt really the place for it. Just my opinion, no better or worse then anyone elses opinion.

Warmest Regards,

Dallas

A technical discussion of what D|S is and isn't - taking the form of comparisons with other rendering engines - seems perfectly suited to this forum to me. ~shrug~

Cinema4D Plugins (Home of Riptide, Riptide Pro, Undertow, Morph Mill, KyamaSlide and I/Ogre plugins) Poser products Freelance Modelling, Poser Rigging, UV-mapping work for hire.

...I prefer the facts given here (even if they might be more technical than some people care to know) over hype and specualtion.

Cinema4D Plugins (Home of Riptide, Riptide Pro, Undertow, Morph Mill, KyamaSlide and I/Ogre plugins) Poser products Freelance Modelling, Poser Rigging, UV-mapping work for hire.

"...I prefer the facts given here (even if they might be more technical than some people care to know) over hype and specualtion. " I agree; people like Stewer, for example, approach DAZ Studio and it's abilities from a totally different technical aspect than I do; he sees things I don't, and by comparing and contrasting them to other packages, rendering engines or lighting models, helps me to understand how D|S is actually working and, more importantly, helps me see any possible shortcomings or untapped potential. By better understanding what we've got, we also get an idea of what we don't have, and, in a positive way, things we can either expect or, at the very least, hope for. It's that kind of outlook that'll help D|S improve; moreso, in most cases, than rose-coloured-glasses fanfare.

I'm trying to follow rendering engines information. So far I have gathered that Carrara limits you to one rendering 'style'? What about Cinema? That 3DS Max is somehow 'rigid'? That Maya allows you to use different renderers like Mental Ray? How does Lightwave fit in? So 3DDelight isn't used with the more expensive applications at all?

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Caly, I'm not sure what you mean by 3ds Max being "rigid", but what Stewer and myself were discussing is that the rendering plugins for Max (Brazil, Vray, etc.) are specifically programmed for Max, and can't be easily customized to work in a render farm that uses it's own custom software or workflow like Mental Ray or PRMan can. Carrara is very limited in the sense that it can only use the Phong shader for your materials (more high end software makes use of MANY different shader types like, Oren-Nayar-Blinn, regular Blinn, Phong, Metal, Aniostrophic (sp?), which all give you more flexibility in the way your materials react to light, shadows, and color diffuse. Max and Maya (Lightwave as well I believe) both allow you to use different brands of renderers, not just the default. The new version of Max comes with Mental Ray built in, but you can still use Brazil or Vray as well if you want. This is somthing you can't do in Daz Studio or Poser or many of the other lower end software. But what stewer pointed out, and is true, is that the renderers built into Poser, and now Daz, can do some great things if used properly (but are often NOT used correctly by the general user). They don't do GI or caustics, which is a let down in my book, but as Stewer pointed out, these things CAN be faked with some effort and creativity to a convincing degree. Cinema has a good renderer built in, but seems to be missing some things like micropoly displacement, which Firefly for poser actually does have, and it's also available in Vray for Max. I don't have Cinema, but it seems speed and flexability would keep it from competing with more higher end raytrace engines. That's an overview in a nutshell. It would take FOREVER to point out every difference of every renderer out there, and a whole seperate forum to devote to it.

My question is, where does Bryce's renderer stand in the grand scheme of things? It seems like the average Poser user turns to Bryce for their renders because it's so easy to use and does some pretty realistic images, but it's so DANG SLOOOOOWWW. And it doesn't seem flexible at all. Forget about getting GI with Bryce, you have to use a light dome and that only adds to the slow render times. But how will it compare to Daz's forthcoming renderer in terms of speed and quality? Personally, I think Firefly is a great renderer IF you can get the hang of it, but very few people want to play endlessly with confusing wire connectors and complex setup schemes just to ALMOST match what can be done in the higher-end software in minutes. Seems counter-productive to me. Why doesn't DAZ (and Poser for that matter) just adopt the use of high end raytrace software like 3dsMax and all the rest are capable of? Is it just too expensive?

Simply, yes, it's too expensive.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

"Why doesn't DAZ (and Poser for that matter) just adopt the use of high end raytrace software like 3dsMax and all the rest are capable of? Is it just too expensive? " Anyone have an idea of the cost to license these highend renderers? I am sure that it is costly but I am just curious. :) BabaLouie

I was given a price of 850 USD for a "Developer Version... ...of mental ray 3.2 that allows direct access to the mental ray API, is available directly from mental images to third parties on an OEM/VAR basis for integration into a wide range of applications, including CAD, styling design, architectural design, visualization, and numerous Intranet/Internet applications, that require sophisticated and interactive rendering capabilities" for a single copy of Mental Ray. Which means I could use it to develop a program that makes use of it as a renderer, but not for distribution. The distribution level version was, um, 3500, plus the fee per copy, which I didn't hear because I was still reeling from the other two. Suffice to say that it would place the price of a copy of either of these programs into the area of 1,000 USD almost at minimum, and that the folks would still have to purchase the renderer separately. As Stewer knows, I am a fan of Firefly, and 3Delight. What we really need to ask for isn't that these renderers are included in the package, but that the programs have the ability to save to a file format that they can use. Heck, I'd be happy to be able to save out to POV ray and Rib format (assuming I could find a decent BMRT link still, since it's been canned forever (:((() Being able to save out to format supported by different renderers would be a huge slice of heavenly fun. And as for the renders above: Nice images. Shadows are too soft. I don't agree with the flatness, they look firly dimensional to me, but my aesthetic tastes lean towards shadows for hints of texture and depth. The image with the bird and flowers, for example, appears chroma-keyed and poorly blended, like paper cutouts placed one over the other. Reminds me of some of the less exciting Warhol works (I'm not a fan). This is not an attack, btw -- I'm merely noting that the images aren't what I like -- not that they are bad.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

Ynsaen .... well that is rather expensive! I had no idea that it would cost so much. It certainly gives me a better appreciation for a free program such as Terragen and what it can do along the lines of rendering. I had always thought that the cost of the high end programs was because of the tools, interfaces and in some cases the ability to multi-proc. thanks, BabaLouie

"I had always thought that the cost of the high end programs was because of the tools, interfaces and in some cases the ability to multi-proc." It is ... mostly it's all about development and R&D time. I would SERIOUSLy doubt that Discreet (3ds max) is payign more than $100 per license for the Mental Ray engine - probably much, much less. BTW - renderers like Terragen are usually extremely special case for landscapes... and as such don't really "fit in" here at all.

It is ... mostly it's all about development and R&D time ...And size of market. Look at the bussiness model that Daz now uses, as apposed to the high-priced figures available from Zygote or sites like turbo-squid.

Cinema4D Plugins (Home of Riptide, Riptide Pro, Undertow, Morph Mill, KyamaSlide and I/Ogre plugins) Poser products Freelance Modelling, Poser Rigging, UV-mapping work for hire.

I realise a lot of folks can't afford the extra money, but I would pay an additional $100 in a heartbeat in order to get a high-end renderer. Just curious, what type of renderers are used in programs such as Terragen?

BabaLouie, from what I gather programs like Bryce and Terragen use their own special rendering packages that are geared towards their unique application. Meaning, you can't customize the settings very much because they're designed to give you a specific result. You can tweak the quality of the render, and play with materials and techniques a bit to "fake" certain things, but the overall solution isn't very flexable. If you're doing an interior scene, for instance, Bryce isn't capable of doing real GI (Global Illumination) or Photometric Lighting, and I don't think Vue is able to either, so these are things you'd have to fake. So if you're an architectual visualisation artist, and your client wants to use real ergo lighting solutions for an interior scene, you'd have to turn to a higher end application like 3dsMax or 3dsViz, because lower end renderers just won't produce these results. Most of us won't ever have to worry about being THAT specific though, but just the fact that you COULD be in some higher end renderers is pretty cool. I have seen some pretty cool renders from Poser 5 (firefly), and use it myself as often as I can because I like it, but if I need to do a scene with more complex natural lighting, I often turn to a higher end program for this. Granted, Firefly probably COULD do the job if I put in some extra forethought, but it takes me so much longer to get there, and it renders a little too slow for me. Daz's renderer looks promising, but I haven't installed the program yet, so I'm not sure. I haven't seen anyone do anything too exciting with it yet, but it's still in alpha so maybe that's why.

'So if you're an architectual visualisation artist, and your client wants to use real ergo lighting solutions for an interior scene, you'd have to turn to a higher end application like 3dsMax or 3dsViz, because lower end renderers just won't produce these results' hmm well.. the Lightscape engine has Ergo Lighting.. and thats used in trueSpace 4.3 though to 6.6... (also has radiosity, volumetrics etc and a half decent modeler... but cos it's cheap ppl forget about it)

Hi, Khai. Yeah, Lightscape engine is one of the best all around. Don't know how fast it is, but I know they were the first to come out with radiosity, and seem to keep right in with the newest developments in lighting. But I think what keeps Truespace out of the hands of pros is not only it's "cheap" price, which makes some guys skeptical, but also it's big, bright, colorful interface that can tend to be very distracting. Maybe they changed this in newer versions, but when I had it, the interface was a little "amateurish", and I think many guys who do serious modeling and modeling to precise scale got very distracted by it. I don't know how customizable it is either. Just like in Poser and Bryce, the big buttons and colorful displays just take away from workspace. I think that's where Daz is going to have Poser beat.

well.. the interface is lingering ;) as to precise? well it's precise to 3 decimal places.. shrug sure is enough for me lol as to customising.. well 5 onwards uses a completely floating pallet system for the tools.. and you can 'undock' and 'dock' tool icons to make new pallets as you need.. strange thing is, while it's a icon driven program, ppl complain about that.. yet, Photoshop is a mainly driven icon interface (the toolbar that is main used all the time lol)... yet no one complains about that?

Fido13... thanks for the answer, not knowing anything about renderers, I had no idea that they were that specific. Khai ... I have TS 5 and PS 7, and to be honest, I could never get past those tiny little icons in TS. Too many and too hard to see, at my age anyway. As for PS, yep, it has plenty of icons as well but I find it much easier to navigate PS because of the size of the icons as well as the fact that everything can be docked. The workflow in PS makes better since to me as well. I just plain could not get the hang of TS, I really wanted to, but just could not manage it. :) If there has been one constant complaint about TS, that I have heard, it is about the interface. I really wish they would change the interface, if they did, I would consider upgrading. As it is now, TS sits on the shelf. :(

lol seen the interfaces for Maya Max and lightwave... and ran screaming .... you say that tS has too many icons.. those have 2 many buttons and menu's and submenus... and submenus of submenus... wish we could find away to streamline all 3D apps... but as each new feature gets added....

I have been a Truespace user for a long time, and it is a great program... especially considering it's price. I have also been a Max user for years and Maya for a while, and I can totally understand why Truespace jsut isn't used on that level. There is SO much in Max (and to a lesser degree Maya) that no matter what the task there is a tool there to help you out... from built in rigs for car's to ragdol rigs for people. And now Mental Ray. I >LOVE< Truespace.... but when the time comes to do something funky for a client I pull out Max.

"lol seen the interfaces for Maya Max and lightwave... and ran screaming .... you say that tS has too many icons.. those have 2 many buttons and menu's and submenus... and submenus of submenus... wish we could find away to streamline all 3D apps... but as each new feature gets added.... " This is true, but Max at least is totally configurable. You don't have to have ANY Icons visible, only top level menu if you want. I never used Truespace, but I know it's definitely not as flexible in the GUI area. I have used PS, and even though it's THE best graphics editor around, I'll be the first to admit that it's the most clumsy piece of GUI nightmare I've ever used. That damn floating toolbar is a pain in the ass, and you always need the thing open. As for Poser and Bryce, never used em, but the sight of their GUI scares me. This Daz one doesn't look as bad.

LOL... you do know that you can DOCK that toolbar in PS, Sinner. ;)