So yes, it's currently under 10 minutes to do that wine bottle render with Superfly. Comparatively, Firefly is taking longer than that to just calculate the Indirect Light, gonna go ahead and cancel the Firefly render now because...well...I got stuff to do.

LOL, I was gonna say in my reply above the same render in Firefly would take forever, but I tried to avoid comparisons. 

I might get worried about that normally but as it is you, I'll skip any concern.

I will try my hardest to survive your lack of concern.

Thanks. :-) Stefan has shown me that I need to simplify my approach to making materials now. Some of the stuff I've made could be done with fewer nodes. For example, the gold in the Wine bottle render is not the same node setup as the gold in the Pawn render. The Pawn uses way more nodes to achieve basically the same result and I kind of feel like the one in the Wine render looks better.

 it appears you don't need specular node for these area lites.  maybe just diffuse, scatter, reflect, refract, fresnel.

thx fr renders!

Actually, I haven't used a single reflection or refraction node in any of these renders. Fresnel and Glossy are fast replacing those for me.

does your gold have diffuse node?  I recall when I did my first gold render in P8, BB told me to cut diffuse down, like ~ 0.01.

Keep in mind what you're seeing on the poser surface is likely to change but here are the material settings for these two reflective metals. If I want to be fancy, I could throw in a fresnel too but this is really all I needed.

great!  only one node. we shall see how its implementation develops!

Was going to post this too, hence the grammatically incorrect "are" in the post earlier.  I feel like I may have posted this here already though, so if I did, sorry:

Also, besides the fact the code isn't done yet so things will likely change anyway, my render times shouldn't be too indicative of anything. I am running a first generation i7. Really should upgrade at some point.

I really like the materials, reflections and such but isn't this a little grainy? Is it a limitation of the technology? I have the same exact problem with Iray, everything comes out grainy. Reality renders I've seen also have the same problem. I hoped this wouldn't be the case here as well but I guess it's just the way it works. To be honest I prefer Firefly results to both the new renderer and DS but that's just a personal preference.

Well, at the time, I wasn't sure about the optimum render settings, as things were still very basic in the interface. That's no longer the case. I also am aware now about ways to get rid of fireflies based on how I set up my scene that I wasn't aware of.

With render engines like Cycles and iRay, you tend to have to let the render engine do several passes before you get a quality image if you're rendering passes with Superfly you can render passes or have it do a full render right away, which was something else I didn't know about until recently.

Well, at the time, I wasn't sure about the optimum render settings, as things were still very basic in the interface. That's no longer the case. I also am aware now about ways to get rid of fireflies based on how I set up my scene that I wasn't aware of.

With render engines like Cycles and iRay, you tend to have to let the render engine do several passes before you get a quality image if you're rendering passes with Superfly you can render passes or have it do a full render right away, which was something else I didn't know about until recently.

So you can get smooth renders like firefly with superfly? That's actually really great news! I also really like the fact that you can do a full render right away and not passes. I hope the settings are a little easier than Iray, there are so many parameters that can go really wrong there! I'm looking forward to more examples :)

"With render engines like Cycles and iRay, you tend to have to let the render engine do several passes before you get a quality image if you're rendering passes with Superfly you can render passes or have it do a full render right away, which was something else I didn't know about until recently.

Hi by "passes" may I assume you mean Samples??

In Blenders version of cycles you set the sample number as high as you can get away with before causing unacceptably high render times for your hardware.

As for the grainy renders the  samples numbers
for a highly reflective surface like Chrome are going to have to be nearly twice
as high as the sample rate for a material like Skin if one seeks to avoid graininess and those Glittery artifacts.

That is why I prefer Cycles over Iray  and still use DS4.7 with  the free teleblend DS/Poser scene converter &Exporter ATM.

I want to see skin:)

No, I meant passes, in Cycles you can render passes, where the image is refined on each pass - this works in conjuction with how many samples you set for your various effects. The samples tell it how to handle pixels in each pass, while the passes actually draw those pixels. At least, that's been my understanding of the process. 

With render engines like Cycles and iRay, you tend to have to let the render engine do several passes before you get a quality image if you're rendering passes with Superfly you can render passes or have it do a full render right away, which was something else I didn't know about until recently.

Your description bears no resemblace with the Cycles I have used in the last 4 years. Render passes are e.g. diffuse, specular, z-depth etc. which have nothing to do with the number of samples and the integrator one can choose for Cycles which have again no connection with the tile size used by the render engine. I am mistified to the max about this "thing" and its relation, if it has one, with Cycles.

new poser render system may help simplify material room, thus obviating concerns we've seen in re: complex shaders with too many nodes or with too much math.  it seems more intuitive.

Perhaps it's an issue of multiple uses for the same terminology.  There's render passes for compositing and render passes as in the machine does a pass at making the image. Both are correct.

I really hope Smith Micro surprises us with some fantastic new abilities, and includes them on the "regular" version, rather than the Pro version. They haven't done enough to earn my desire to spend the extra money on Poser Pro 2014.

I want to see skin:)

Here's a render of a head scan from Ten24 that was rendered in SuperFly. This is the raw render. I don't know if my shader is all that great but I like the result.....

.... especially after a little color grading in Photoshop:

thanks for the post, Teyon.

Thanx for those renders, Teyon! )

Happy to oblige

Looks good. Average render time?

Didn't clock it. I did it while I was in the shower this morning. 

....That may have been TMI.

Hopefully there weill be a "Render Superfly" script comparable to the currently included D3D "Render Firefly" script, which includes a render timer...

tsk tsk, Teyon, certainly you've learned that after every image you've posted, there's been someone to ask after rendering times...

[hands you a stopwatch for the next image posting] :D

Nice renders but to be completely honest I have yet to see anything here that is qualitatively better than what I have seen bagginsbill create with the old fire fly and his various IDL setups particularly on the non organic "chess piece" stuff

I suspect others  here are quite curious about the render times because right now,IMHO, faster render speeds is the only selling point for this implementation of

this "superfly"over the Old Firefly to my aging 50+ bifocal aided eyes at least.

I honestly am not trying to be discouraging  but these render posted thus far still have that  "inside the poser universe", look to me

Perhaps its your lighting

look at this render of that same ubiquitous head  scan mesh

http://blendernerd.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/Render_720.jpg

Your skin is actually better, but your lighting still looks"poserish" to me

Here is another Blender cycles render

http://www.blendernation.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/render_17.jpeg

Perhaps its just me but these "superfly" renders dont much look like what I have come to expect from cycles.

Woo hoo! Heads! I keep imagining Sigourney Weaver busting in and clobbering that head with an accompanying spray of milk. Nice renders to be sure. As wolf pointed out, but failed to elaborate, wait until Bagginsbill gets his hands on that renderer. Still lifes and scanned heads are all well and good but I think the new renderer is probably going to get more mileage with coquettish Faerie lolitas and oily overbumped vickies than anything else.

(Just to clarify, I like coquettish Faerie lolitas)

These are the images to which I refer they look as good /better than the ones teyon
has posted IMHO

SMART IBL

SM would be wise to consult BB about how his
SIBL system can integrate with the new "superfly.

wait until Bagginsbill gets his hands on that renderer.

Bagginsbill will be able to do very little. From the material room screenshots posted, 90+% of Cycles is hidden behind the scenes and unavailable to users. Doing work, wasting time and money with the only aim to castrate something that exists and works deserves a silent implied facepalm.

I like the images that Teyon has provided. Personally I would have dialed up the focal length to get less of a 'snout' but that is just my personal preference. Others may have different opinions.

Issue on the table for discussion is the implementation of the render engine in Poser, Discussion of results should focus on:

a - comparison with existing render engine Firefly. Will superfly give us more realistic results at similar level of effort? I have the impression from his words Teyon has not gone to great length in optimising the shader. I am pretty sure Bagginsbill once het gets his hands on it and got the hang of it will be able to squeeze a higher level of realism but hey there is only one Bagginsbill in this Poserverse. What is imporant is what lesser mortals can expect. If this represents the new 'standard' result I think we are definitely moving forward. A render with 'normal' Firefly of this male's model would help to compare.   

b - what are the typical artefacts we can expect with this render engine?  I will not be glowing nostrils. What will it be? Granularity?  I do not see much of granularity in these images of Teyon so trust that aspect is in hand. To me the result looks very passable but I am not a specialist in this field.

c - How will our existing models look when rendered Superfly? What can I expect when I call Roxie or V4 with Hi-res standard skin to the stage? 

There's Bagginsbill renders of one of those heads using Firefly floating around in a thread or two somewhere here...

wait until Bagginsbill gets his hands on that renderer.

Bagginsbill will be able to do very little. From the material room screenshots posted, 90+% of Cycles is hidden behind the scenes and unavailable to users. Doing work, wasting time and money with the only aim to castrate something that exists and works deserves a silent implied facepalm.

Except for the fact it has already been stated there will be an easy way and also there will be a way for users to play underneath the hood as it were, but then you know that because you have commented on that elsewhere.

Exlcuding the strange ghosty fire one, that last pic of the chess pieces that Seeker quoted from looks far more realistic to me than the bobbles in the bagginsbill thread do. Maybe it's the graininess that adds a bit of something to it. Those bobble pieces in that thread look like they were rendered over and image and are out of place. The lighting is better but lighting isn't the only thing that makes an image believable. The bobbles are too perfect giving the whole thing an artificial feel. 

The head in the linked pics is not the same head as the one in Teyon's renders. The ears, mouth, nose, skin, everything is different. Unless Teyon's version was sculpted more, the only thing the two heads have in common is they are both bald. The linked head image is again too perfect. Perfectly shaped ears and symmetrical face, the nose reminds me of M4/V4's nose. Compared to the asymmetry of Teyon's example. And I don't remember seeing any renders from firefly with that much depth in skin detail. I'd like to see some examples of a similar render from firefly if anyone has them.

Ambientshade, the head in that one cycles image is the Lee-Perry Smith 3d scan model done by infinite realities/triple gangers. There's working links for downloading the open source model here (including .ztl) at the bottom of the page

http://www.jonasavrin.com/2011/01/15/free-3d-ir-head-scan-release-smart-hdr-ibl-vray-2-0/

I couldn't find the BB Firefly renders of the Perry scan head nor could I find the head that Teyon is rendering (personal sculpt?) but I didn't look very hard as I'm not super interested in hyper-realist head models.

I did come across this funny thread though, the more things change the more they stay the same. :)

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/?thread_id=2771491&page_number=7#msg3456082

Maybe he owns stock in that restaurant.

Lol. Good point alias, would be the only explaination that makes sense.

Ambientshade, the head in that one cycles image is the Lee-Perry Smith 3d scan model done by infinite realities/triple gangers. There's working links for downloading the open source model here (including .ztl) at the bottom of the page

http://www.jonasavrin.com/2011/01/15/free-3d-ir-head-scan-release-smart-hdr-ibl-vray-2-0/

I couldn't find the BB Firefly renders of the Perry scan head nor could I find the head that Teyon is rendering (personal sculpt?) but I didn't look very hard as I'm not super interested in hyper-realist head models.

I did come across this funny thread though, the more things change the more they stay the same. :)

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/?thread_id=2771491&page_number=7#msg3456082

Actually, the head in my render is a different head. It's by the same folks but it's a completely different scan that was used in a skin rendering tutorial for Modo. It comes with the head and something like 8 texture maps, of which I only used two. Also that odd ghostly fire piece was my experiment with the volume node. Hey, I never claimed I knew anything about shading. I'm a sculptor, darn it! :D

or...

Here's another analogy.

Recently, someone thought it was a good idea to celebrate with fireworks by launching them off his own head. Anyone that actually cared about that person would have said "No, don't do it, that's fucking stupid."

It's unfortunate that if anyone here hints at that they get turned on. Sycophants and yes-men never bring the best work out of anyone.

The ignore function is a nifty thing. Especially for yet another sock puppet.

Just had a read through this thread...

Really, despite a few OK looking renders, it just made me realise again why I have been avoiding this forum.

Intelligent discussion re pro's and cons are sorely missing throughout. Anytime someone raises a valid issue they are more often than not shouted down by the We Luv Poser crowd who really don't seem to have any interest in the overall functionality of the software.

The trouble with a sneak peak is you can't really tell if your looking at an elbow crease or a butt crack until more details are revealed. 

Oh and just so I don't get thoroughly trolled for daring to comment here without the appropriate connotation.

Wow, them renders are Amazing!!!. I'm so excited!!! Sigh...

Oh, really? So on July 26th, in this thread, you didn't quote a post from the forums over at RDNA in which it was explicitly stated " Of course there will be advanced settings that need some time to learn but you will be able to lean those as you go." but which you proceeded to ignore while complaining that there would be no advanced settings?

Odd, because I certainly responded to that post by pointing out your own post demonstrated your complaint had some issues.

If you had the faintest idea of what you are talking about, which you definitely don't, you would know that the late Nerd3D was talking about the parametrization of the Cycles engine, not of the structure of shaders. Keith, go to Blenderartits and read carefully the 755 page thread about Cycles, get Blender, go thru a couple of hundreds of tutorials ranging from a trivial matte material to volumetric fogs and clouds and then, only then, come back to discuss about Cycles because then, only then, you will know it enough to have an opinion about what Cycles is and is not, about what Cycles does and does not.

Signed: somebody who started using Cycles the next day after the nightly build included it for the first time, i.e. about 4 years ago.

[edited for quoting deleted content]

As this is a 'sneak peek' it is difficult to have an in depth discussion on the pros and cons, something even you seem to accept. 

I am perfectly prepared to read, try to understand and maybe even accept valid issues but a lot of what we have seen here appears to derive form an all encompassing hatred of SM.  I don't use Daz at all because it does not suit me, that does not make me a Poser lover or a Daz Hater and more to the point I do not go to the Daz forums anywhere and denigrate Daz management.

I also notice such hatred does not appear in the same thread in the RDNA forum, I suspect that is because it would not be allowed for very long, if at all.

I am all for a wide and open debate and try, not only see the situation from another's point of view, but also re-evaluate my own.  I have difficult doing that when the 'valid issue' is no such thing and is more of, in my opinion, an irrational rant.

I hope I don't have to come in here again and say this, but you folks need to start acting like adults in these forums.  The reason that Nerd3D isn't saying anything in his post is because he and his company keeps getting bashed.  Calling software companies losers is NOT acceptable. Read the ToS.  You can voice your opinion, but do so in a constructive and civil manner.  If you can post civil in other places, I would advise you to do the same here.  So start acting like appropriately.

obm890 Wrote:
"I bought Marvelous Designer 2 when it was $100. Now that would buy me 6 weeks of 'rental' of MD4. Not gonna happen. MD4 can do some nice tricks, but it's not $450 better than what's in MD2."

I wish I'd bought it when it was $100, it's a great program but that's about all it's worth to me ($100 for a permanent licence).  But same here, I will not rent software (under any circumstances), and every time a software publisher puts on a slimey Adobe-Greed-Suit, I just smile at Blender, GIMP, and Make Human more and more and more :-)

@Teyon
Thanks for the renders you've been posting, and of curiosity, are those green circles colour indicators that will change depending on compatibility with the current render mode chosen (though I understand if you're not allowed to say)?

[edited for quoting deleted content]

This is a sneak peek of a yet-unfinished new feature.  It is not a full and final disclosure of all details.  I would certainly hope that Nerd3D is busy baking more Poser cookies for us, and that there will be more sneak peeks in the fullness of time.

@  3DFineries

Sounds good to me, good luck and gratz on the new role!

This forum can be brought back to a productive and creative environment, but there is a long road ahead for those wanting to realise that. But as they say every great journey begins with one small step :)

Lets hope this is the start of that transformation that leads to a better Poser forum for all Renderosity members.

Forgive me for not being overly optimistic at this point, I am hopeful though ;)

[edited for quoting deleted content]

And back to lurk mode...

@  3DFineries

Sounds good to me, good luck and gratz on the new role!

This forum can be brought back to a productive and creative environment, but there is a long road ahead for those wanting to realise that. But as they say every great journey begins with one small step :)

Lets hope this is the start of that transformation that leads to a better Poser forum for all Renderosity members.

Forgive me for not being overly optimistic at this point, I am hopeful though ;)

Now there I can heartily agree with you and there is a lot I can understand and agree with you on your other post, we might disagree on how we got here but I share your concern about where we are.

as stated somewhere in this thread, i believe, but i'm being too lazy to bother to look, i'm still using P6. [gasp]

i am very slowly trying to get back into Poser and trying to learn things.  so many questions, not enough time.

and i'm pretty sure that somewhere in this thread i also shortlisted a few desirable things that would make me interested in upgraded [and having an extremely rude awakening after doing so... snort].  and one of those things i listed was 'ease of use'.

i am not of the push-button ilk, i like learning, but at the same time, if i feel as if i'm not accomplishing much of anything, it does get to be discouraging.  and, though i mayn't be the brightest bulb in any given box, nor am i terribly daft either.  and i'm stubborn, which in terms of learning, works in my favour.

but there is something that keeps running through my head... i keep seeing posts scattered throughout this thread that refer to what BB might be able to do with the upgrade once it's available, and given a number of hours to acclimate & play with the program.

and i mean absolutely zero, ziltch and nada disrespect whenst i say this, but i personally don't want to have to be reliant upon a single person, or a small group, to pass along information as to how to get the best and most fabulous of renders.  i appreciate all the posts, all the dedication, that BB and a handful of others give to Poser users - i think it quite generous of them to share as freely as they do.

however, the update needs a certain kind of intuitiveness & simplification**, not only for selfish reasons [i don't want to go into absolute shock & feel utterly lost coming from P6], but also because there seems to be so many push-button folks out there.  if a newer version of Poser was also a kinder and gentler version too, i think it might have a certain appeal that might be lacking otherwise.  i realise, and accept, the fact there are always learning curves, as there should be, but i shouldn't lose hair or sleep or whatever trying to figure things out on my own.  information passed along by BB should be the icing on my cake, not the cake itself.

** and yes, i did note that Teyon is using very few nodes, so at least p'raps some of i what i hope to see will be realised