Quote - > Quote - Hmm. I'll leave it up to others to decide if it's worth doing. I think most people will use simple cylinders and stuff for glowing objects. A figure as a light source is probably a very rare thing.

It would also be a good idea, if we did it, that the geometry exporter asks the material system if it is going to glow, before bothering with the calculation.

It shouldn't take more than five minutes to implement, so I wouldn't be particularly sad if it ended up not being used too much.

I don't think the geometry exporter should be talking to the material system at all. I'll provide an API that lets you specify what to pick up from Poser, how to preprocess it and then get the data out via generators. It won't compute the surface area until you ask for it.

Would be nice to have.

Wishlist for geometry:

• OBJ import
• request for statistical info for one/all geometries
• Catmul-Clark for certain geometries (via parameter?) to smooth low-poly objects.

Quote - so the mathematical pure sphere is in the code?

and the code tells Lux if the sphere is bigger or smaller? 

Yes in the LuxRender engine. Hit-testing a ray against a sphere (a point and a radius) is mathematically the 2nd simplest thing to execute in ray tracing. The simplest is hit-testing against an infinite plane.

Even one triangle is more complicated than a sphere. A low-poly spherical mesh is about 100 times more expensive than a sphere.

TransformBegin
Translate -0.196301579475 -0.336000919342 0.199367716908
AttributeBegin

AreaLightSource "area"
"color L" [1.0 1.0 1.0]
"float gain" [1.56250002328]

Shape "sphere"
"float radius" [0.0654069767442]
AttributeEnd
TransformEnd

Kawecki's shadow-without-something-casting-it trick is interesting... I do mostly fantasy renders, myself, that need strange glows (these emitter objects are looking beautiful!) and unusual effects... that could be useful.  Thanks for sharing.  :) 

Quote - > Quote - so the mathematical pure sphere is in the code?

and the code tells Lux if the sphere is bigger or smaller? 

Yes in the LuxRender engine. Hit-testing a ray against a sphere (a point and a radius) is mathematically the 2nd simplest thing to execute in ray tracing. The simplest is hit-testing against an infinite plane.

Even one triangle is more complicated than a sphere. A low-poly spherical mesh is about 100 times more expensive than a sphere.

Thanks! This is an important information. Does this mean all Lux "build-in" shapes () are mathematical solutions? If yes. wouldn't it make sens to replace spotlights with a disk-shape to make the lightsource visible in the scene if checked in the GUI?

Noob problem time.
I downloaded PoserLuxExporter_alpha_1-10e.zip and unzipped it to /Runtime/Python/poserScripts as indicated in Getting_Started.txt. I ran the script and nothing appeared to happen. I tried moving everything to /poserScripts/LuxExporter as indicated in the comments of the script itself, but still no joy.

I can run LuxPose.air and it brings up the GUI and generates an output file. But running PoserLuxExporter.py within Poser doesn't open a Python window or, after several minutes with a very simple scene, generate any output file that I can find. I have Poser 7. Do I need Poser 8 or 2010 to run this?

The Lux output files are in /poserscripts/toLux. You need to open the generated .lxs file in LuxRender. The reason you can't see what's happening with the script in Poser may be because the script window somehow got behind the Poser program window. It's happened to me a couple times ;o).

Laurie

Quote - ... Do I need Poser 8 or 2010 to run this?

Nope. As far as I know, it should run fine in Poser 7.

Laurie

is there anywhere in the air file, or anywhere else, that supports alpha channel for background?

the /toLux folder isn't created.

Quote - > Quote - so the mathematical pure sphere is in the code?

and the code tells Lux if the sphere is bigger or smaller? 

Yes in the LuxRender engine. Hit-testing a ray against a sphere (a point and a radius) is mathematically the 2nd simplest thing to execute in ray tracing. The simplest is hit-testing against an infinite plane.

Even one triangle is more complicated than a sphere. A low-poly spherical mesh is about 100 times more expensive than a sphere.

thanks for the info. it makes sense now.

" I have Poser 7. Do I need Poser 8 or 2010 to run this?"

runs fine for me in PoserPro (not 2010) so it'll run in 7.

later I'm testing it in 6 and 5.

Quote - the /toLux folder isn't created.

Hmmm...don't know what to tell you then.

Maybe you should post your platform, OS, general specs and the version of Poser 7 you are running (sr1, sr2, etc.)

Give the programmers as much info as you can. It helps them ;o).

Laurie

or, maybe because of security settings or something, try to manually create the toLux folder and then see if it works

I evidently broke Python somehow - it works on a different computer. I'll have to do some troubleshooting. Thanks for the assistance.

Quote - or, maybe because of security settings or something, try to manually create the toLux folder and then see if it works

If the outputpath can't be created an error should be generated with a hint.
Look at Line 45 In the script.

Quote - I evidently broke Python somehow - it works on a different computer. I'll have to do some troubleshooting. Thanks for the assistance.

Maybe it's just because you have another python script running. Poser 7 does not allow to start a script (without warnings) if the privious script started didn't end.

bagginsbill will you add to the Sampler the Pixelsampler  ''samples'' options?

Actually, I found my problem. I'd set a PYTHONPATH environment variable, pointing (only) to an install of Python 2.6. Apparently it was in conflict with Poser Python.

i downloaded now adp00's folder with the script and bagginsbill's GUI. i also instaled adobe AIR to my computer.

i run now the python luxexporter and it exports. i opened LUXPose and hit OK. what now?

Open luxrender, load your scene and render.

You might try reading the Getting_Started.txt file.  It gives you the instructions in more detail.

BTW, I've mentioned this before, if you use the LuxPose UI, run that before exporting, not after.

Quote - Open luxrender, load your scene and render.

You might try reading the Getting_Started.txt file.  It gives you the instructions in more detail.

BTW, I've mentioned this before, if you use the LuxPose UI, run that before exporting, not after.

it worked thanks

Is there a way to set the sun's brilliance?
I understand how to transition it, turbidity and some of the aconst, bconst etc..........

i am a little behind so sorry to ask old questions.

how did you guys use glossy materials when exporting to Lux?

v4 with a skin converted from a v3 texture, a plane with a photo background on it.. 1 hr render time

and just to show the difference, here's the poser render (cropped a little differently, but the same angle, lights and everything)

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - so the mathematical pure sphere is in the code?

and the code tells Lux if the sphere is bigger or smaller? 

Yes in the LuxRender engine. Hit-testing a ray against a sphere (a point and a radius) is mathematically the 2nd simplest thing to execute in ray tracing. The simplest is hit-testing against an infinite plane.

Even one triangle is more complicated than a sphere. A low-poly spherical mesh is about 100 times more expensive than a sphere.

Thanks! This is an important information. Does this mean all Lux "build-in" shapes () are mathematical solutions? If yes. wouldn't it make sens to replace spotlights with a disk-shape to make the lightsource visible in the scene if checked in the GUI?

Not a disk - that still throws light in all directions.

My render of the boxed point light earlier "points" the way. You want to have some kind of shell around an area light that contains the light - just like real life.

So - what I'm thinking to do is provide the ability to use any arbitrary prop as a shell around a light. Then I will provide two ways to set it.

1) For each spotlight, individually, you can pick a shell and it will be emitted as an area light inside the shell instead of a Lux spotlight. The shell will rotate and scale with the Poser spot light, so you can easily point it just as you do in Pose.
2) For all spotlights that don't have an individual shell assigned, define a default shell. This will have a separate toggle switch so you can leave the spotlights as they are.

This is very easy to do. And it gives me ideas for little products - a collection of spotlight shells that you can use in LuxPose.

Quote - bagginsbill will you add to the Sampler the Pixelsampler  ''samples'' options?

Sure.

Quote - Open luxrender, load your scene and render.

You might try reading the Getting_Started.txt file.  It gives you the instructions in more detail.

BTW, I've mentioned this before, if you use the LuxPose UI, run that before exporting, not after.

My version (almost ready) runs LuxRender automatically, from the GUI. grin

a lot of Poser users will need to learn how to light. you will not set the softness but the size of the lights.

Quote - My version (almost ready) runs LuxRender automatically, from the GUI. grin

does it allow for an alpha channel background?

Quote - i am a little behind so sorry to ask old questions.

how did you guys use glossy materials when exporting to Lux?

I generate a Lux Glossy material if there is Specular set in the root node or a Blinn connected somewhere.

You can use some nodes to modulate Specular_Value and Specular_Color color as well.

Quote - > Quote - bagginsbill will you add to the Sampler the Pixelsampler  ''samples'' options?

Sure.

thank you. i was learning all the rendersettings in LuxBlend the last days.  and i noticed that when you set teh samples very low you can get very fast preview renders. so you are able to see how the lighting will look without waiting hours.

4-8 samples is great for preview. 256 and 512 is good for final rendering. i noticed that you can really get rid of the noise.

IMO

edit

Quote - > Quote - My version (almost ready) runs LuxRender automatically, from the GUI. grin

does it allow for an alpha channel background?

I'm not dealing with backgrounds just yet. Try loading your background image onto a one-sided square and place it behind your subject. I don't know what happens if there is alpha in the image file. Maybe Lux will respect it. If not, you can attach a transmap of the alpha mask to the square.

(Note: Squares can be resized (X scale, Y scale) to match the aspect ratio of the image you want to use on it, and scaled up big using the master Scale dial.)

Note also that LuxRender will never support a faked background the way Poser does. It only deals with real 3D objects in the scene.

Quote -

v4 with a skin converted from a v3 texture, a plane with a photo background on it.. 1 hr render time

and just to show the difference, here's the poser render (cropped a little differently, but the same angle, lights and everything)

 

What did you use for lighting in the Poser Scene, before you exported to LR?

Quote -

I'm not dealing with backgrounds just yet. Try loading your background image onto a one-sided square and place it behind your subject. I don't know what happens if there is alpha in the image file. Maybe Lux will respect it. If not, you can attach a transmap of the alpha mask to the square.

(Note: Squares can be resized (X scale, Y scale) to match the aspect ratio of the image you want to use on it, and scaled up big using the master Scale dial.)

Note also that LuxRender will never support a faked background the way Poser does. It only deals with real 3D objects in the scene.

according to what I've seen/read, if you set the alpha channel, it will respect the alpha channel, and allow you to bring it into photoshop as a transparent png where you can place a "faked background"

I'm already doing it with a square (as shown in the images I posted earlier), was just wondering if alpha channel was going to be supported yet or not.

Quote -
What did you use for lighting in the Poser Scene, before you exported to LR?

one of the render studio light sets

Quote -

v4 with a skin converted from a v3 texture, a plane with a photo background on it.. 1 hr render time

and just to show the difference, here's the poser render (cropped a little differently, but the same angle, lights and everything)

 

Really good to get everyone to use Lux insteed of Firefly :) :)

Anybody ready to make a website for the Exporter? At first mainly to declare some basics and show off a few renders as samples (including Firefly vs Lux).

does gpu-lux need an exporter of its own?

Quote - Anybody ready to make a website for the Exporter? At first mainly to declare some basics and show off a few renders as samples (including Firefly vs Lux).

I can do it :)  it's what I do for a living..

Quote -

v4 with a skin converted from a v3 texture, a plane with a photo background on it.. 1 hr render time

and just to show the difference, here's the poser render (cropped a little differently, but the same angle, lights and everything)

OMG...the first thing I noticed was the HAIR! Oh my goodness...Poser hair has never looked that nice ;o).

Laurie

Quote - does gpu-lux need an exporter of its own?

Not at all. The file format is the same. Just a different implementation of the render engine.

You could probably try it already.

At home (I am not there at the moment) I have a graphics card I think will work. It has 112 processors in it. !!!

OK, so.. what is the "OFFICIAL" name of this? (if I'm gonna work up a website design and stuff, I sort of need to know that) :P  

is it just Poser Lux Exporter?  or you going to do like LuxPose (i.e LuxBlend), or what?

I'm fairly convinced of LuxPose. I already changed all the file names - don't really want to change them again because there are a lot of statements import luxpose.whatever

hi bill, yes, i thought so. but the gpu lux is command line tool that comes without readme, unless i missed it of course. thought it would be plugable into the luxrender.exe, but didnt find out how yet. it is searching for a kind of configuration file that the luxrender does not need.

i have tried the octane demo, and now that i saw it i cannot wait 10 hours for a render any more. i need gpu. like air to breath :)

ok, I "slapped something together".. let me know what you think :)

I don't have much information about this yet (haven't read through the forum, just found out about it yesterday)

Possible Site Layout

Quote - > Quote - does gpu-lux need an exporter of its own?

Not at all. The file format is the same. Just a different implementation of the render engine.

You could probably try it already.

At home (I am not there at the moment) I have a graphics card I think will work. It has 112 processors in it. !!!

The current file format of luxgpu is different, geometry is in ply format, attributes are in a.b.c=xxx form etc, so it won't work.

It may be better to wait until LuxRender incorporates the gpu engine code.

Quote - Keith, did you watch the video demo of the near-realtime GPU rendering, somebody showing an Audi R8 materials being edited with feedback in a second or so? It's pretty incredible.

I was going to buy a new desktop for heavy rendering duty, but maybe all I need to do is buy a new video card. grin

Yep, saw it.

As for the videocard, I'm certainly upgrading mine.

So when are we going to see all these LuxPose renders in the gallery then ?????? :biggrin:

Exporter works very well indeed and it's fast!!  Almost as quick as the 3DS Max one (which is very fast indeed) so much kudos for the coding!