Dear content authors: Please continue to support 3delight

Masterstroke

The only reason for me to keep 3delight is, that it converts better to octane render. ;-)

Daywalker Designs

Ron Knights said:

Categories and all that stuff are needless complications. It's better just to organize, alphabetize, etc from the start.

Even then, there is no guarantee that how you want things organized is a way that makes sense to me. For example, I believe you've said elsewhere on this forum that you don't like products being in vendor named subfolders; I do, as it helps with providing a list of products used in promotional renders.

linvanchene

Offtopic: 

@ is 3Delight the better option for OctaneRender material conversion?

The only reason for me to keep 3delight is, that it converts better to octane render. ;-)

This week Otoy staff commented that

They are exploring making MDL a module after OSL is done.

MDL = Material Definition Language  = shader language used by Iray

http://www.nvidia.com/object/material-definition-language.html

So there is still hope that in the best case scenario one day the OctaneRender plugin for DAZ Studio can read Iray shaders directly from the DAZ Studio scene and render them with the OctaneRender kernel.

The shader defines how the material looks like with all its physical properties.

The kernel settings define in which quality and speed the scene is rendered.

 It does not yet seem clear if the current DAZ Studio SDK provides the MDL text for a material.  Potentially there is a property attached to a DAZMaterial which provides this.

compare:

https://render.otoy.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=44&t=57905

- - -

@  converting shaders in general

As this example shows it is a huge difference between

- a 3rd party render engine being able to actually read a different shader language and render it pretty much identical

- setting up a set of conversion rules that tries to define how parameter A in render engine A translates to parameter B in render engine B

-> If shaders can be directly read from the DAZ Studio scene and rendered in another render engine this would certainly yield better results then any conversion rules.

And that is the whole challenge with Iray to 3Delight conversion.

Iray does work with real world  physical material properties defined by MDL. 3Delight does not.

- - -

More lossely phrased:

It is an easy  task to find a conversion rule to translate a diffuse or glossy 3Delight material to an Iray version.

It is extremely challenging to find any set of rules to take a  Iray water material or subsurface scattering settings and transform them to anything similar looking in 3Delight.

- - - 

kyoto kid

daywalker03 said:

SteveBerr3D said:

Personal, I want a choice of both,if its only Iray I will take my money else where.  I had to bypass a lot of good producducts because of Iray only and I cn;t find any tutrals on HOW to use it si I skip it.

Sb

How to use what, specifically?

..I think he is referring to using/converting Iray shaders for use with 3DL which is one of the topics addressed in this thread to which there has still been no satisfactory solution.

nicstt

daywalker03 said:

Ron Knights said:

I understand content creators often must go with whatever makes the most economic sense to them in terms of their content and the formats they choose. I can't argue with that choice. 

My only problem is that I'd really need to eventually stop trying to use my Macintosh for DAZ Studio and buy a PC that I could configure according to my needs. It is hard to justify this expense because my Mac computers satisfy all my other needs. Not only that, but I'm still suffering because DAZ is unwilling to go over their organization scheme and finally make sense of it.

Because of the organization problems and prevalance of iRay, I don't buy much any more. "Making Art" has become a chore that I rarely can endure.

The problem with them redoing the organization is that it will break thousands of users saved scenes, because those will look for the resources in the locations they were when the scenes were created and they will no longer will be there.

Personally, I'd sooner they break it, than issues not get resolved, or progress not made.

Look at what they did with 4.9 in an attempt (IMO) to fix a non-existent problem. Then there is the introduction of G3, again it broke backward-compatability. So Daz will do it if it deems it necessary.

I bought into G3, and don't regret it; I loathe the mess (again my opinion) that is smart content and DRM.

nicstt

daywalker03 said:

Ron Knights said:

Categories and all that stuff are needless complications. It's better just to organize, alphabetize, etc from the start.

Even then, there is no guarantee that how you want things organized is a way that makes sense to me. For example, I believe you've said elsewhere on this forum that you don't like products being in vendor named subfolders; I do, as it helps with providing a list of products used in promotional renders.

Actually, I wish Daz would either enforce all products must be clearly vendor only, nor none.

I prefer it; I generally know, or can easily find out who made it, that makes it a doddle to find.

 

kyoto kid

nicstt said:

daywalker03 said:

Ron Knights said:

I understand content creators often must go with whatever makes the most economic sense to them in terms of their content and the formats they choose. I can't argue with that choice. 

My only problem is that I'd really need to eventually stop trying to use my Macintosh for DAZ Studio and buy a PC that I could configure according to my needs. It is hard to justify this expense because my Mac computers satisfy all my other needs. Not only that, but I'm still suffering because DAZ is unwilling to go over their organization scheme and finally make sense of it.

Because of the organization problems and prevalance of iRay, I don't buy much any more. "Making Art" has become a chore that I rarely can endure.

The problem with them redoing the organization is that it will break thousands of users saved scenes, because those will look for the resources in the locations they were when the scenes were created and they will no longer will be there.

Personally, I'd sooner they break it, than issues not get resolved, or progress not made.

Look at what they did with 4.9 in an attempt (IMO) to fix a non-existent problem. Then there is the introduction of G3, again it broke backward-compatability. So Daz will do it if it deems it necessary.

I bought into G3, and don't regret it; I loathe the mess (again my opinion) that is smart content and DRM.

...if it happens I will probably just throw in the towel and up and quit because I'm not about to go back and fix all the broken paths of the epic level scenes I created for the last four+ years. I already found one (the kitbashed diner scene I did) that has a bunch of broken links and gives me two large grey boxes where a number of props are.

Daywalker Designs

kyoto kid said:

nicstt said:

daywalker03 said:

Ron Knights said:

I understand content creators often must go with whatever makes the most economic sense to them in terms of their content and the formats they choose. I can't argue with that choice. 

My only problem is that I'd really need to eventually stop trying to use my Macintosh for DAZ Studio and buy a PC that I could configure according to my needs. It is hard to justify this expense because my Mac computers satisfy all my other needs. Not only that, but I'm still suffering because DAZ is unwilling to go over their organization scheme and finally make sense of it.

Because of the organization problems and prevalance of iRay, I don't buy much any more. "Making Art" has become a chore that I rarely can endure.

The problem with them redoing the organization is that it will break thousands of users saved scenes, because those will look for the resources in the locations they were when the scenes were created and they will no longer will be there.

Personally, I'd sooner they break it, than issues not get resolved, or progress not made.

Look at what they did with 4.9 in an attempt (IMO) to fix a non-existent problem. Then there is the introduction of G3, again it broke backward-compatability. So Daz will do it if it deems it necessary.

I bought into G3, and don't regret it; I loathe the mess (again my opinion) that is smart content and DRM.

...if it happens I will probably just throw in the towel and up and quit because I'm not about to go back and fix all the broken paths of the epic level scenes I created for the last four+ years. I already found one (the kitbashed diner scene I did) that has a bunch of broken links and gives me two large grey boxes where a number of props are.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

Ron Knights

I've been working most of the day on setting up "Categories," and reorganizing my stuff, yet again. Jack Daniels and Jim Beam have helped the task. i can see a path where, in a few months, I could likely put together a customized PC that will give me the best chance of handling iRay.

I believe it's important to recognize just what direction your chosen interest is taking. It's not easy to use, maintain, and upgrade computers, if you're on a limited budget. Anyone who knows my personal history knows my own story. 

I do believe our lives, our pursuits, are much easier, if we recognize the trends, and do our best to gear our decisions toward them. Iray is the most dominant rendering system right now. The 3Delight options are dwindling. If we want to avoid further pain, we need to try and catch up to current technology, support the current trends. 

That is really the story with computers. Eventually you need to find a way to move up to current needs. That is what I'm hoping to do, in the next few months.

kyoto kid

daywalker03 said:

kyoto kid said:

nicstt said:

daywalker03 said:

Ron Knights said:

I understand content creators often must go with whatever makes the most economic sense to them in terms of their content and the formats they choose. I can't argue with that choice. 

My only problem is that I'd really need to eventually stop trying to use my Macintosh for DAZ Studio and buy a PC that I could configure according to my needs. It is hard to justify this expense because my Mac computers satisfy all my other needs. Not only that, but I'm still suffering because DAZ is unwilling to go over their organization scheme and finally make sense of it.

Because of the organization problems and prevalance of iRay, I don't buy much any more. "Making Art" has become a chore that I rarely can endure.

The problem with them redoing the organization is that it will break thousands of users saved scenes, because those will look for the resources in the locations they were when the scenes were created and they will no longer will be there.

Personally, I'd sooner they break it, than issues not get resolved, or progress not made.

Look at what they did with 4.9 in an attempt (IMO) to fix a non-existent problem. Then there is the introduction of G3, again it broke backward-compatability. So Daz will do it if it deems it necessary.

I bought into G3, and don't regret it; I loathe the mess (again my opinion) that is smart content and DRM.

...if it happens I will probably just throw in the towel and up and quit because I'm not about to go back and fix all the broken paths of the epic level scenes I created for the last four+ years. I already found one (the kitbashed diner scene I did) that has a bunch of broken links and gives me two large grey boxes where a number of props are.

Exactly the point I was trying to make.

...part of the reason I have no interest in using DazConnect.

SteveBerr3D

How to usw Iray.