Oddly enough, I don't remember seeing this observation before, and it surprised me. 

As I've been checking various items of a new product for Daz compatibility,
it's become clear that Daz renders "hard items" much better. 

The picture tells the story.  Though the camera angle isn't quite the same, you can
see that the default Daz render is sharp and correct, while Firefly is fuzzy
with inaccurate shapes.  (Actually the Daz picture is more like the REAL Poser 4
renderer, which I've missed ever since the advent of Firefly.)

My python page
My ShareCG freebies

so you are comparing it based on their default settings ?

Have you tried the "P4" renderer in Poser ?

Daz does some things differently than Poser for sure. I found mechanicals looked better. 

Firefly looks better to me but that could be settings etc. The fuzziness might be texture filtering.

 

LukeA

My latest novel

Believe me, I've been fiddling with texture filtering, shading rate, etc, for years,
and this is the best I've been able to get in Firefly.   The new ersatz P4 renderer
is a little better, but default Daz brings back the clarity of the real P4.

My python page
My ShareCG freebies

Your Firefly render looks to my eyes to be displaying issues related to using too high a shading rate(try 0.2 - 0.5) and perhaps use of texture filtering on the image-map nodes (set to "none"). Displacement set by mistake on materials can cause undesirable bulging or mis-shaping of the model at rendertime, as can polygon smoothing on some models.
I have no idea about D/S default render settings, but Firefly usually needs tweaking.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

Can you post your render settings or Firefly?

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

How can you even say that. Even though your lighting is too extreme, I see shadows in firefly I don't even see in Daz Studio.

Way too many people take way too many things way too seriously.

Sure.  Here's my standard setup.

The Texture filtering is set to Quality for the render I showed, but it's even worse
with the filtering Off.  (The lettering looks 'scrappy')

My python page
My ShareCG freebies

pixel samples 2? default is 3. you made it lower? 

and your renders dont have the same lights for christ sake and the same materials.

Raising the pixel samples to 5 or higher should help, although I'm surprised about the texture filtering off result (it's usually sharper for me). The polygon smoothing may be causing problems depending on how the model has been made (I don't have too much experience here but I know it can be an issue).

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

Change your Post filter Type to sync and the renders become sharp.

---

Ulli

"Never argue with an idiot. They drag you down to their level and beat you with experience!"

just reset the render settings and render again. it should be better.

Lower number of pixel samples = inferior antialiasing (your problem).

My Freebies

Also try unchecking smooth polygons. I have seen this with several models that where imported into Poser straight from 3dmax as obj files.

Poserverse The New Home for NYGUY's Freebies

I would like to see a real apples to apples comparison of the two render engines and see factually their strengths and weaknesses.

 

LukeA

My latest novel

When I first started out with Studio and them moved to Poser, I was disappointed with the results I got with Poser.  The default lighting and render settings are much better in Studio.  

Once I learned more about lighting my Poser renders got better, but I still wish the defaults were better for quickie renders.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home

Quote - When I first started out with Studio and them moved to Poser, I was disappointed with the results I got with Poser.  The default lighting and render settings are much better in Studio.  

Once I learned more about lighting my Poser renders got better, but I still wish the defaults were better for quickie renders.

You can set up your own preferred state that Poser will load upon starting the app. Or you can just save lightsets and render presets if you want to do it that way.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

Quote - it's become clear that Daz renders "hard items" much better. 

Hold on there!

You're not even rendering at the default settings in Poser, but even if you were, how does comparing the renderers at default settings mean anything at all?

Second, you're not actually talking about "hard items" - you're talking about how your color maps look, which is directly impacted by the values you've got set and should not be using.

Texture filtering is a complicated subject, and is necessary for images that produce moire patterns. Otherwise, turn it off. Poser makes a mistake enabling that by default and it drives me batty explaining this every month for the past 2 years.

Have a look here at some "hard items" rendered in Firefly:

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/full.php?image_id=1840092

I had to use post processing to create some subtle blur and dispersion, because Firefly made the details so sharp they were not recognizable as a photo, which is what I was going for.

Look at the "EN951" near the tail. That was impossibly sharp edged black on white. I had to use a filter to make it look the way cameras produce black on white.

Look at the radio antenna, how smooth and anti-aliased it appears. You can't set pixel samples at 2 and then complain that Firefly doesn't anti-alias hard things well.

As for mis-shape - well if that product was designed to be used in Poser then it should have been tested with smoothing turned on. There is no reason for shapes to become bloated. There is a good reason to use smoothing. Compare the stove exhaust pipe on the two renders. The Daz version is not smoothly curved, while the Poser version is. If you were going to pick which one does hard things more realistically, I'd say that smoothing blows the doors off not smoothing. Now maybe you can enable that in Daz, in which case that's another example of operator error.

I think both renderers can produce detail and sharpness that is perfectly adequate. I know Poser can produce realistic shapes from low-polygon props if the model author knows what he's doing and is designing for Poser. Otherwise, if the modeler does not know what he's doing or is not aware that he is designing for Poser (as is common with freebies and props made for sub-D capable renderers) then you get bloat.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

If BagginsBill is correct about the smoothing, then that would be disappointing because you'd need to create a D|S version and a Poser version with tighter bevels to "cheat" the smoothing.

Otherwise I agree with Jules 53757 - changing the Post Filter Type to Sinc and pixel size to 4 whic greatly sharpen the Poser image, though I've observed artifacting. In D|S, the Catmull-Rom filter will give you a nice look, somewhere between a Gaussian (too blurry for my tastes) and a Sinc.

BB that's a terrific render, but it's still too sharp.  I know you put some effort into reducing that, it could still stand to have a little blur on the far planes.  Super snappy image though just the same.

My Freebies

Quote - If BagginsBill is correct about the smoothing, then that would be disappointing because you'd need to create a D|S version and a Poser version with tighter bevels to "cheat" the smoothing.

For as many situations as I can think of, if a model is designed for Poser's Reyes polygon smoothing and is "watertight" (i.e., the edges are NOT broken) then it will appear much the same with Catmull-Clark subdivision.  For models that HAVE had their edges broken (which is many, because it allows many fewer polygons in the final model, e.g. much of Stonemason's work) these will go nuts when Catmull-Clark subdivided.

My Freebies

When you say "broken edges" are you speaking of vertices with no edges connected?

I mean adjacent polygons that are made up of different but co-located vertices, if that's more clear.

My Freebies

Easy fix - merge vertices. Do you think the stove above has adjacent edges / vertices? If it's "cleaned up" do you think the Poser version will look like the D|S version? 

 You can switch off smoothing easily for each prop. If you want smoothing on a part of it and no smoothing on another, either model right or break the model in parts and use different smoothing on either part.  

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

Well the point was, it's possible to model in ways that are suitable for both Reyes polygon smoothing and Catmull-Clark Subdivision and be able to take advantage of both techniques with the same model (I thought there was a question to that effect, could be mistaken).  Simply merging adjacent vertices on models that were intentionally designed with broken edges (e.g. Stonemason's stuff) will make them unsuitable for Reyes smoothing; and breaking the model into parts (which is what Stonemason e.g. does) can make it work with Reyes but won't work well with Catmull-Clark Subdivision.  While it is possible to model for both, a lot of popular content simply is not going to work well with both methods.

At any rate this is kind of a side issue to what Ockham's problem is, the "blowing out" effect that can happen with some models in Reyes rendering doesn't seem to be what's going on here, really just looks like antialiasing quality is poor.

My Freebies

very interesting

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

split vertices was a standard thing that people were told to do to get sharp edges in poser. Its become less needed in Poser with smotthing angles , and the smoothing checkbox. 

Yes, Daz Studio has smoothing. It smoothes by material, which gives more control than by object or body part.

mac

"Smoothing by material" is phong shading, which Poser can also do (pretty much any 3D tool or game can).  This won't affect the sharp corners that are visible in the profile of a model, but D|S does included Catmull-Clark subdivision, which must be applied to the entire model.  Poser (Reyes polygon smoothing) is actually more controlled in this aspect, since polygon smoothing can be turned on or off by bodypart.  For D|S it's the whole model, and a lot of models that are designed for Poser's polygon smoothing won't work with it (which is what we've been discussing).

My Freebies

Just my two cents, but I'd say that your Irradiance caching is to small also. And using sync rather than box is the way to go, as has already been suggested.

"A lonely climber walks a tightrope to where dreams are born and never die!" - Billy Thorpe, song: Edge of Madness, album: East of Eden's Gate

Weapons of choice:

Poser Pro 2012, SR2, Paintshop Pro 8

 

 

I've found Firefly to be a pretty capable renderer once you get your head around those settings. This is straight out of Poser, my standard render settings for quality and speed. Rendered in P7SR3 in about 5 mins.

Very simple materials - no bump or displacement. Just regular diffuse and specular for this test (which was mostly about lighting). The lights were fairly straitforward as well, 1 point & 1 spot  (I used falloff on these), & 1 IBL with probelight image (light based AO).

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

(Click to enlarge)

Next one uses pretty much the same lights, same simple materials but with some displacement, and this time I added some DOF for added depth.
Same render settings except i increased pixel samples to 15 to handle the DOF.
Took a fair bit longer to render but still not hours (had a quick cuppa and it was done when I got back)

I thought these renders were pretty sharp anyway...for a bottom end app.

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

I think it might help Poser if there were a few more render presets for people to choose from as standard, as a quick start perhaps

 

PoserPro2014(Sr4), Win7 x64, display units set to inches.

                                      www.danielroseartnew.weebly.com

Quote - (which is what Stonemason e.g. does) .

 
keep in mind many of my early models were made at a time when the only render engine Poser had was the p4 engine..smoothing,firefly,displacement etc weren't available so splitting verts was the best option and at the time caused no problems at all.
I now use smooth groups from 3dsmax & in D|S I use smoothing by material to get hard edges,If I have a model that needs to be subdivided I'll do that sub-d in max,I also try to disable smoothing in each prop/figure so what the user does in render settings makes no changes to the model.

Cg Society Portfolio

Quote - Just my two cents, but I'd say that your Irradiance caching is to small also. And using sync rather than box is the way to go, as has already been suggested.

isnt irradiance caching for AO?

To me the big problem is the post filter being set to "box". I never ever use "box". I always use "sync" since it is MUCH sharper. I also find that smooth objects really works only on organic forms such as huminoid figures but not whell on inorganic forms. Finally I think Poser does better with some form of fill light, low IBL or textures and a dark color in the ambient.

That said, thanks for the comparison. I have been interested in d/s but find the content installation and lighting controls confusing... I LOVE the PowerPoser and I wish so much Poser had a tool like that. I have also always prefered the UI sliders to those horrible Poser dials.

Quote - To me the big problem is the post filter being set to "box". I never ever use "box". I always use "sync" since it is MUCH sharper.

you want even more sharper?

we already have to sharp renders. he he

ockham:

As a user of DS and Poser, I agree with you that DS seems better suited at "default" settings for quick renders regarding hard/soft issues with models.  I have the same problems in my model testing.  But I am only a hobbyist renderer without the latest versions, or a decent PC, and have not yet ventured into the advanced levels cited in this thread.

Having said that and after reading thread, several experts here have proven Poser is quite capable of rendering models correctly if created correctly by author.

pjz99, bagginsbill, stonemason:  (or anyone with help)

I am trying to break onto author/vendor scene.  Gave away a few freebies using same technique as stonemason with hard/soft groups - splitting verts.  For simple non-morphing props this seemed fine, but the project I am on now requires morph targets externally created which require 'watertight' model.  I am having same problem as ockham, and I will go back and retest in Poser 6 with all I learned here so far.  I am creating specifically for Poser and DS, but I don't have access to versions you might use, and would appreciate any help you guys might offer.  Models are non-organic with discernible hard edges.  I did not close proximity bevel or chamfer, because poly counts are high enough already, but if I have to remodel I will.

Thank you in advance,
Take care all...
Ken

"I have been interested in d/s but find the content installation and lighting controls confusing"

I have a tutorial which might help with lighting (and cameras).

http://digilander.libero.it/maclean/DStutorial.htm

mac

Cool, thank you maclean. I had been searching for such a tutorial and this looks excellent. I am looking forward to d/s3 and downloaded the trial. Any indication of likely price for the fully loaded d/s3? I prefer the less intrusive GUI and certainly the posing tools but I don't know at all about dealing with a user learning curve or whatever you call it. I don't have much brain power to devote to learning anything new these days...

Stonemason: 

Quote - > Quote - (which is what Stonemason e.g. does) .

 
keep in mind many of my early models were made at a time when the only render engine Poser had was the p4 engine..smoothing,firefly,displacement etc weren't available so splitting verts was the best option and at the time caused no problems at all.
I now use smooth groups from 3dsmax & in D|S I use smoothing by material to get hard edges,If I have a model that needs to be subdivided I'll do that sub-d in max,I also try to disable smoothing in each prop/figure so what the user does in render settings makes no changes to the model.

I think you understood what I was getting at but just to be sure: that wasn't any kind of complaint about your modeling work, which is excellent, just an observation about how it behaves (at least the older stuff).  Keep up the good work :)

My Freebies

Quote - I am trying to break onto author/vendor scene.  Gave away a few freebies using same technique as stonemason with hard/soft groups - splitting verts.  For simple non-morphing props this seemed fine, but the project I am on now requires morph targets externally created which require 'watertight' model.  I am having same problem as ockham, and I will go back and retest in Poser 6 with all I learned here so far.  I am creating specifically for Poser and DS, but I don't have access to versions you might use, and would appreciate any help you guys might offer.  Models are non-organic with discernible hard edges.  I did not close proximity bevel or chamfer, because poly counts are high enough already, but if I have to remodel I will.

If you need morph targets and the model has to be watertight, then imo you need to either do things similarly to how Stonemason just described his more recent work and disable polygon smoothing for the entire model, or live with higher poly count and try to come up with topology that works with Reyes polygon smoothing (basically add more edges where bulging occurs).

My Freebies

Since this thread was started by ockham, I thought I'd demonstrate something using ockham's beautiful freebie - the 1920's refrigerator.

When I turned on polygon smoothing, things went a little haywire. I had to go around turning off smoothing or adjusting crease angles for various parts. But I wasn't able to fully take advantage of the smoothing because too much of it had unwanted bulges. A few extra polygons would take care of that, but since they're not there, I couldn't get all of it to show off nicely.

However, the handle ... now that's a work of art, ockham.

Here is the handle rendered without smoothing. It's a little hard to see, but if you look at the curve on the left-most part, you can see it is made of just 5 polygons. You might have to zoom this image to see it clearly.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

And here it is rendered with smoothing on. Now the edge is smooth and rounded. A refrigerator doorhandle is clearly not "organic" but there is enough curve here that smoothing makes a big difference.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

in answer to ice's query, increasing IC increases FFRender's calculations per screen pixel for IBL/AO, IL/radiosity, gather.

(Click to enlarge) Screenshot (not rendered) example of part of model.  No textures, disp, bump, etc.

pjz99:

Thanks for info.  I already modeled both ways, but I was hoping to not go back in with added bevels on high poly version.  On low poly version I might give it a go.  I am not a newbie, but I have different modeling skills than stonemason and I don't use 3dsMax.  I model via hard/soft edge topology, and have to admit that after 10 years I am stumped regarding "disable polygon smoothing for the entire model".  Is this something specifically done inside Max, or do I need to hack my OBJ file parameters, or are you referring to turn off smoothing via Poser in model attributes?  I created topology based on what I want to accomplish with models.  I would have created exactly same topology even if I used Max.

I tried playing with smoothing and crease options in Poser 6, but my model just seems to go two ways:  all soft or all hard without regard to planned smooth groups.  DAZ Studio uses 3Delight Renderer, and now I know Poser uses Reyes.  Is that FireFly?  Poser 6 uses Reyes also?  Is it a sub-version of BMRT?  I will have to research Reyes further.

Also, what versions of Poser (or DS if applicable) do you guys use (especially ockham, pjz99, bagginsbill, stonemason, carodan, and maclean)?

Would it be o.k. to add link to a small forum where I uploaded WIPs on this project including some DS test renders?  Or should I just upload some test renders here?

Take care all...
Ken

Quote - I model via hard/soft edge topology, and have to admit that after 10 years I am stumped regarding "disable polygon smoothing for the entire model".  Is this something specifically done inside Max, or do I need to hack my OBJ file parameters, or are you referring to turn off smoothing via Poser in model attributes? 

Since you just answered your own question (the last option) I'd say you are not stumped at all.  Something that is a bit confusing is that Poser's interface and documentation use "smoothing" interchangeably with Phong shading and Reyes polygon smoothing, which is bad because they don't really have much to do with each other.  An area of overlap in the most recent versions of Poser (7 and Pro for sure, maybe 6 as well) is that the setting "Crease Angle" in object properties applies to both Phong shading AND Reyes polygon smoothing, but that's the only shared setting I can think of.  The Poser setting I was talking about is on the Parameter Dials window -> Properties tab, "Smooth Polygons".  If your model is a figure (multiple bodyparts) this setting is separate for each and every bodypart.  It's not really your fault that this distinction doesn't seem obvious, it's because Poser's interface and docs confuse the two aspects of rendering (it confused me for a while too).

Firefly is a Reyes renderer, as is 3Delight (DAZ|Studio's renderer).  D|S does not make use of Reyes polygon smoothing though, and up until recently there wasn't any option in D|S to round off low-poly models; recently they added Catmull-Clark subdivision as a feature that can be applied to an existing model.  Since you're an experienced modeler I'm sure you already know how Catmull-Clark subdivision behaves, but be aware that it acts quite differently from Reyes polygon smoothing. 

Basically, with Catmull-Clark subdivision, the points that make up the profile of a model, from any angle, are moved inwards to form a b-spline - the curve formed is not constrained to intersect each point (and in fact it never really does).  With Reyes, the points that make up the profile are not moved at all, and the curve formed is more like an Akima or Bezier spline - the curve formed is constrained to intersect each point.  You probably know this difference between spline types already, just providing this info for any who are curious.  You can see this going on with your katana hilt, where the inner part of the grip is being shrunk inwards (assuming that is a Poser render with smoothing on, it looks like it is to me).

The curves formed by the two methods are very different, but with enough control points (that is, edges of your model) they can appear much the same.  Frankly I wish Poser would dump the whole Reyes polygon smoothing approach and join the rest of the world (Catmull-Clark subdivision) but I think that is unlikely to ever happen.

My Freebies

Quick (composited) 'default' DS render.

pjz99:

Thank you for your input, and the link to Reyes Wiki page.  Reyes sounded familiar to me when you first mentioned it, and after visiting Wiki, I remembered I researched them years ago while studying about BMRT, Phong, Catmull-Clark, Doo-Sabin, Delaunay, and etc.  I was very impressed when I found out they did the planet transformation at the end of Wrath of Khan.  I just need to re-familiarize myself with Poser 6 rendering abilities.  I am still stuck in working in Poser 4 mode, so I rarely fire P6 up, and I am trying to make my products capatible with P4 as well.

As far as the picture I posted, it was only a screenshot (quick 4X antialiasing phong render in Deep Exploration) and not an actual Poser or DAZ Studio render.  To illustrate the correct rendering aspects of my models smooth groups, and hard/soft edge topology.  The inner part of the Katana hilt is actually a separate model.  In fact, entire model is made up of individual real world parts.  Only one part was caged/Catmull-Clark Subdivided, the Tsuba (hand guard).  I prefer the long process of hand looping all topology to suit my needs.

Thank you again for all your help.  I may have more questions after I resume testing in Poser 6.

Take care all...
Ken

Quote -
pjz99--
I think you understood what I was getting at but just to be sure: that wasn't any kind of complaint about your modeling work, which is excellent, just an observation about how it behaves (at least the older stuff).  Keep up the good work :)

no worries :) ..that old P4,PP content doesnt hold up very well with todays tech,not just smoothing but textures also look terrible,I still see the ocasional render in firefly that uses P4 style bump maps

Quote - the distinction doesn't seem obvious,

I agree there,its hard to know what people mean when they refer to posers smoothing,do they mean Reyes or Phong smoothing?two very different things that should have been given different names.

**DaremoK3.. **I'm not sure if other modelers have this option but you might look into using 'smooth groups' for your exported obj's,unlike the Poser crease angle which can only be done on seperate objects or body groups,smooth groups can be done to selected faces on an object,
here's an example obj.
http://stefan-morrell.com/3dsmax_Smoothgroups.zip

Quote - Also, what versions of Poser (or DS if applicable) do you guys use (especially ockham, pjz99, bagginsbill, stonemason, carodan, and maclean)?,

I use Poser 6 through to Poser beta,PoserPro is my personal choice for fast rendering.
& I use D|S 2(I stay a build behind the public version as it usualy has a bigger user base) ,& I'm a big fan of D|S 3 too.

hey Bagginsbill..have you looked at D|S3 recently?..I'd love to see what you could do in shader builder & shader mixer which seems to offer many things Poser does and some...the only thing D|S users are lacking now is a 'D|S Bagginsbill' :)

 

Cg Society Portfolio

Daz sent me a note about D|S 3, asking if I'd like to beta test. I (rudely) never responded. I should answer that guy - been too busy. Also I'm sort of in a conflict-of-interest involvement with SM at the moment.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

stonemason:

Thank you.  I downloaded your example.  I will take a look and see if I can come up with a viable solution.

Does Poser 6 see smooth groups differently in .pp2's as opposed to smooth groups in .cr2's?  I am considering building main model component (Katana blade) as a .cr2 that would be non posable except for included morph targets.  Then all interchangeable parts would be smart prop parented .pp2's.  Would I need to compensate smooth groups in OBJ depending on groups ending up a figure or a prop, or does this even matter?

Thanks again for your time and input.
Take care all...
Ken

"hey Bagginsbill..have you looked at D|S3 recently?..I'd love to see what you could do in shader builder & shader mixer which seems to offer many things Poser does and some...the only thing D|S users are lacking now is a 'D|S Bagginsbill'"

I second that.

Actually, BB, I think you'd be impressed by  DS 3. Not just by Shader Builder/Mixer, but by the way DAZ have opened up the whole of DS to 3rd-party coders. In fact, the full DS SDK is now completely free, (it used to cost $1000), and allows anyone to delve deep into DS and come up with all sorts of cool plug-ins and scripts. The documentation is also pretty thorough so it's not difficult to get started.

Like Stonemason, I stick with the current (non-beta) public version. DAZ have now settled on a fairly simple system where they post a stable version on Download.com and have a 'beta' (but usually pretty stable) version available at DAZ. Plus at the moment, they have DS 3 which is in beta, but has some remarkable improvements and new features.

mac

I reckon the firefly render looks more detailed personally!

*Things look better in Daz * ...really!?!

Quote -

Actually, BB, I think you'd be impressed by  DS 3. Not just by Shader Builder/Mixer, but by the way DAZ have opened up the whole of DS to 3rd-party coders. In fact, the full DS SDK is now completely free, (it used to cost $1000), and allows anyone to delve deep into DS and come up with all sorts of cool plug-ins and scripts. The documentation is also pretty thorough so it's not difficult to get started.

mac

The Trolltech plug-in SDK not the scripting SDK? Very interested, have link?

Awsome pic Patorak !

*Awsome pic Patorak !

Thanks!  I haven't used studio a whole lot.  Gotta admit,  I was impressed by the way it handled displacement maps.

I'm way confused. It started when patorak said nothing more than "really!?!".

Could you elaborate what you meant there?

Then Andrew said some pic is awesome.

Which is the picture that is awesome? Is there an awesome picture you linked to or something? I'm not trying to be an ass - I really don't know what is awesome.

Patoriak - that image you posted 4 up from here, are you saying that was a Daz render? And are you saying that is good or bad?

I see no displacement, but I do see a lack of polygon smoothing - the figure's sillhouette is clearly polygonal instead of rounded, and there are no shadows, so I'm really confused as to whether this is what being called awesome or is it something else?

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

remember this guy?

My Freebies

Quote - I've found Firefly to be a pretty capable renderer once you get your head around those settings. This is straight out of Poser, my standard render settings for quality and speed. Rendered in P7SR3 in about 5 mins.

Very simple materials - no bump or displacement. Just regular diffuse and specular for this test (which was mostly about lighting). The lights were fairly straitforward as well, 1 point & 1 spot  (I used falloff on these), & 1 IBL with probelight image (light based AO).

awesome, it looks real.

-Lara

---

♥ My Gallery Albums    ♥   My YT   ♥   Party in the CarrarArtists Forum  ♪♪♪ 10 years of Carrara forum ♥ My FreeStuff

*I see no displacement

Try cleanin' off your monitor.

I cleaned off my monitor, but I still see a guy with a bag of popcorn, smiling moronically.

It does look real, though.  Almost photographic.  Skin tone looks kinda fake.

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

Gamma correction, anyone?

Seriously, I'm asking. You said you were impressed with the way it handled displacement maps. It doesn't appear to have any displacement - it appears exactly like a bump map.

At the edges the figure has no obvious 3-dimensionality on the surface. And, as I said, it distinctly lacks even simple roundness that you get with sub-division surfaces or you get with REYES polygon smoothing as in Firefly, which is a kind of automatic displacement to get low-poly objects to look smoother.

I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

This is a closeup of the elbow. I can see a tiny bit of displacement, but it's as it should be - nothing awesome or impressive, simply working as promised.

But how can you care about the displacement when the shape of the figure is so linear anyway? You should turn on polygon smoothing or sub-D or something. Otherwise, the increment provided by the displacement is overwhelmed by how wrong the shape is in the first place.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

ROFL Oh for f***s sake...Coke or Pepsi?:lol:

Both engines produce good results when settings are properly applied.

D|S 3Delight is somewhat easier to use straight out of the box and is rispec standard allowing the use of renderman compliant shaders while Poser Firefly has better accessibility to surface settings so edges out the D|S front end for 3Delight in usability for average users.

Any way you cut it to get the best results you're going to have to learn how the render engine of choice  works and create appropriate surface settings.

If you want grab-n-go rendering and are satisfied with using other people's shaders , D|S. If you want better control and to roll your own, Poser.

You want to learn something about how materials work in general download the Kerkythea material editor guide. It's a good primer on the theories and practices of material/shader creation and easy to follow. (Mr Baggins Bill sir, your information is priceless but you use the "M" word too often and it frightens off the folks that have to remove their shoes to count up to twenty.)

Interested in rispec, go to the MOSAIC blog page and have at it, enough info and links there to keep a body busy for awhile.

In my most recent gallery pic here on Renderosity the vase texture is a fractal generating node based material converted to rispec using MOSAIC and rendered through the D|S 3Delight front end. The magnolia branch uses another material node set-up in Blender also converted through MOSAIC.

HLSL anyone? Nvidia and ATI developer info pages.

Now I just want info on the free DAZ Studio Plugin SDK that maclean mentioned. :biggrin: (Last I checked it was $199.00 unless you have a current commercial QT license.)

FYI:

DAZstudio 3 and DAZstudio3 advanced are out now:

forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php

and yes, the SDK is for free.

best regards,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Cool, now is it part of the DS3 core or available as a separate DL?

When following your link and clicking on the Free Studio Plugin SDK page link it redirects to the support section/ developers info where the Plugin SDK is still listed as $199.00

I'm not arguing, just trying to track it down so I can DL it.

*Cool, now is it part of the DS3 core or available as a separate DL?

*I'm also a bit puzzled about this, when I follow the link, it's says that the SDK is free but when I go to that page, I still have to pay $199,- .
But perhaps because this is a early bird release (the official release is tomorrow), they are not completely ready.

regards,

Bopper.

-How can you improve things when you don't make mistakes?

Quote - I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.

I thought the pun was pretty awesome. :laugh:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home

Quote - > Quote - I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.

I thought the pun was pretty awesome. :laugh:

care to explain it to the rest of us?

Quote - I thought the pun was pretty awesome

Pun? What pun? I'm totally lost now. You quoted me, but mentioned a pun. I didn't make a pun.

What the hell is happening in this thread?

I know what's going to happen next. When I start questioning what somebody actually means by some statement I can't make sense of, somebody usually says "you're just arguing semantics". That one usually stops me cold. Yes, when I ask what you MEAN, I am asking about semantics. Brilliant - thanks for the scientific term that changes nothing. LOL

I'll leave you guys to your popcorn.

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

I can't resist any longer....

Bagginsbill, thread title + Patorak's posted render  = pun

That wasn't really anything negative towards you BB.

My Freebies

Quote - I can't resist any longer....

Bagginsbill, thread title + Patorak's posted render  = pun

....?

Apparently the Ben Grimm character is called the Thing - I didn't know that since I'm not into comics at all.What a waste of half an hour Googling.

"Things look better in Daz"

---

Renderosity forum reply notifications are wonky. If I read a follow-up in a thread, but I don't myself reply, then notifications no longer happen AT ALL on that thread. So if I seem to be ignoring a question, that's why. (Updated September 23, 2019)

o.k., I get it - the thing.  it would look better in carrara or max, too.
but nobody has explained the giant polythene bag of popcorn yet.
one tip, however: when going to the cinema, take a giant bag of popcorn and throw it around, like confetti. this is also a good thing to do when standing up and shouting at the screen, of course.

It's an inside joke with me and Bagginsbill, don't worry about it.

My Freebies

Hope this is not off topic.

I have never used D/S for anything other than the setup tools.  But since reading the info on improvements in D/S 3 I plan to try it out and see what it's all about
  But I am wondering how much their "Advanced" version will cost. 
  The main advantage that I see that D/S may have over Poser is still the sub D option. (clarkes mull or what ever it's called again.)   I have recently been very impressed with the D/S setup tools as opposed to the setup room in Poser.
  As to wheather things look better in D/S than Poser, I don't agree.  Never having done any renders in D/S myself I am judging from renders of others I have observed.  Perhaps the new D/S with it's "improvements" will change my mind.

. 

A HOMELAND FOR POSER FINALLY

The prices are already listed:
http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=115030&sid=c524874f43cc4dc1bb61095dcaefa31d

In the free version:
Improved Render Engine (exactly WHAT is improved is ambiguous, for sure the shading engine, IBL/HDR, Area Lights/Shadows, and Global Illumination is NOT included in the free version)
aniMate Lite - Special thanks to GoFigure!.
Visual Helpers for Cameras and Lights - Special thanks to Dreamlight.
Selection/Bounding Box Display
Render Album
Visible in Render
Plugin SDK

The "Advanced" version is $97.47 for regular people, $52.48 for platinum club members.  The much more expensive "bundle" looks to me to be a terrible deal - not that I'll be spending money on this stuff anyway, at least not for a long while until you eager guinea pigs debug it for me.

My Freebies

>> " What the hell is happening in this thread?"

JenX, that minx, has deleted half the posts that would otherwise make this thread comprehensible.

I still have no clue what the popcorn guy is about.

And frankly, the Thing image didnt impress me either. Am I missing something there as well?

But I concur with the earlier poster that said, in essence, "Use what works for you". My images are pretty simple, texturally, so it really doesnt matter what render engine I use. I like the results in Firefly, even though they're only minimally different from the old P4-style renders... still, it's enough difference to work for me, and right now that's about all that matters, right?

docandraider.com -- the collected cartoons of Doc and Raider

What is the Philosophy of Art?

Mental=Technical

Emotional=Imagination

Will=Purpose

I do suggest a study of non computerized art.

Banaman

http://universeabovetheearth.com/

Personally I think Play-doh is a better medium for 3d work but all these nerds insist on using computers and polygons and stuff.  I think they're weird.

My Freebies

* I had a feeling that was a Play-doh tongue.
Banaman

http://universeabovetheearth.com/*

Quote - Personally I think Play-doh is a better medium for 3d work but all these nerds insist on using computers and polygons and stuff.  I think they're weird.

I'd wondered what that tongue was made of.  Pretty nice sculpting...

EDIT:
DOH! Banaman beat me to the punch.  :cursing:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Wisdom of bagginsbill:

"Oh - the manual says that? I have never read the manual - this must be why."
“I could buy better software, but then I'd have to be an artist and what's the point of that?"
"The [R'osity Forum Search] 'Default' label should actually say 'Don't Find What I'm Looking For'".
bagginsbill's Free Stuff... https://web.archive.org/web/20201010171535/https://sites.google.com/site/bagginsbill/Home

Look at the color and texture - clearly it's silly putty !

Klebnor

Lotus 123 ~ S-Render ~ OS/2 WARP ~ IBM 8088 / 4.77 Mhz ~ Hercules Ultima graphics, Hitachi 10 MB HDD, 64K RAM, 12 in diagonal CRT Monitor (16 colors / 60 Hz refresh rate), 240 Watt PS, Dual 1.44 MB Floppies, 2 button mouse input device.  Beige horizontal case.  I don't display my unit.

Quote - ROFL Oh for f***s sake...Coke or Pepsi?:lol:
Both engines produce good results when settings are properly applied.

 

Ahhh, the periodical attempts at establishing the pecking order!  LOL

I'm way too opportunistic to lock myself into one or the other.
I try to use the tool that fits task at hand.

Hi, my namez: "NO, Bad Kitteh, NO!"  Whaz yurs?
BadKittehCo Store  BadKittehCo Freebies and product support

Quote - Personally I think Play-doh is a better medium for 3d work but all these nerds insist on using computers and polygons and stuff.  I think they're weird.

Now we're talking!

I'm still handier with regular and polymer clays then I am with, um, Mudbox!

Hi, my namez: "NO, Bad Kitteh, NO!"  Whaz yurs?
BadKittehCo Store  BadKittehCo Freebies and product support

This is ridicuoulsly off-topic but since there seems to be some preoccupation with my prehensile girl-meat avatar image, trust me, there's crazier stuff in reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX7wfsDfySc

strangely hypnotic.

My Freebies

personally I think things look better in Povray or Kerkythea.... but thats just me... (or Indigo or Yayafray tho I've not gotten poser content into those yet....)

Quote - Personally I think Play-doh is a better medium for 3d work but all these nerds insist on using computers and polygons and stuff.  I think they're weird.

Hmpf! MUD is obviously the superior choice for anyone with taste and discernment. :rolleyes:

It comes in a variety of colors.

The consistency can be altered to accommodate any level from liquid to solid.

You can mold it, shape it, paint it, bake it, make pies with it, bath in it ( for a ridiculous amount of money), fling it about carelessly, use it to obscure unwanted details  AND it squishes delightfully between the toes.

Try that with your silly play-doh.

*I'm trying to understand what you're talking about.

It was a joke Bill.  I'm loadin' morphs and got bored.

*This is ridicuoulsly off-topic but since there seems to be some preoccupation with my prehensile girl-meat avatar image, trust me, there's crazier stuff in reality.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LX7wfsDfySc

strangely hypnotic.

Awesome!

I lowered the shading rate .21 and the changed the pixel sample to 4.

Poor poser froggy has spots that didn't render.

---

♥ My Gallery Albums    ♥   My YT   ♥   Party in the CarrarArtists Forum  ♪♪♪ 10 years of Carrara forum ♥ My FreeStuff