HDR Pro-Sets Urban Storm OUT NOW! Product Updates - Price Cuts - Other Info (Commercial)

13

Comments

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    ouch!...


    ..being thankful it wasn't a walnut.

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 5,852
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    ouch!...


    ..being thankful it wasn't a walnut.


    I don't like 'em, so whilst more likely to throw, I'm less likely to have. I do like coconus though ... ;)
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    I hate coconuts...


    ...especially on the back of the head.

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 5,852
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    I hate coconuts...


    ...especially on the back of the head.


    Back to peanuts then ... :)
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    yeah you know what Health and Safety are ike

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 5,852
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    yeah you know what Health and Safety are ike

    A bunch of nuts? ;)
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    Fruit and nut cases

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604
    edited March 2014
    Post edited by Chohole on
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    chohole said:
    hey the're playing my song.
  • MystiaraMystiara Posts: 38,545
    edited December 1969

    da lime inn da coconut

  • MystiaraMystiara Posts: 38,545
    edited December 1969

    One thing I forgot to mention is that there were a couple of requests that I include the .HDR versions of my HDRIs in previous DAZ Studio versions of my packs, but I decided against it after going back and looking at how they are currently setup. This was suggested because .HDR which is now able to be loaded natively in DAZ Studio usually brings much smaller file sizes than the .TIFF format needed before. However the scaling I did to the TIFFs in my previous set means that they are actually smaller than their .HDR counterparts in the Poser or Carrara versions. Since replacing them with the .HDRs would actually make downloads bigger (opposite of intention for the update) I felt that it would be best to leave it as is and suggest people make use of the Carrara textures as replacements in their DS Presets if they would like the increase in resolution (which will not usually make much visual difference in renders).

    can they make the ds presets .zip a separate d/l file?

    downloading 2 gigs for a preset thats prolly kilobits is ludicrous.

    untitled2.jpg
    600 x 335 - 30K
  • DimensionTheoryDimensionTheory Posts: 431
    edited December 1969

    Give me some time to mull over an update, I was under the impression I did them after the HDR update they were done before so they are still using TIFFs and they're full resolution. There wouldn't be a separate installer for presets but that should make the DS and Poser installers the same.

    One concern I have doing this I hadn't thought about before is what will happen to the TIFFs, as far as I know people will be left with the residual files still there and they'd have to delete them on their own which isn't good. If it can't be done automatically or I can't get word to everyone how to delete them everyone who downloaded previously would have 3.5GB of files not doing anything. There's also the issue that FixMyPCMike touched on in that it will break compatibility with any version of DS from before the update which I'm not entirely sure I should be doing yet. I'm fine with my new sets having that restriction because I'm one that intends to use new features as they're available, but making something previously working not work is a bit different.

  • FixmypcmikeFixmypcmike Posts: 19,012
    edited December 1969

    Give me some time to mull over an update, I was under the impression I did them after the HDR update they were done before so they are still using TIFFs and they're full resolution. There wouldn't be a separate installer for presets but that should make the DS and Poser installers the same.

    One concern I have doing this I hadn't thought about before is what will happen to the TIFFs, as far as I know people will be left with the residual files still there and they'd have to delete them on their own which isn't good. If it can't be done automatically or I can't get word to everyone how to delete them everyone who downloaded previously would have 3.5GB of files not doing anything. There's also the issue that FixMyPCMike touched on in that it will break compatibility with any version of DS from before the update which I'm not entirely sure I should be doing yet. I'm fine with my new sets having that restriction because I'm one that intends to use new features as they're available, but making something previously working not work is a bit different.

    DIM would remove the tiff's if they weren't in the new package. There currently ISN'T a version compatible with pre-DS4 versions of DS, as the DS version is .duf's and the Poser version uses .hdr's

  • DimensionTheoryDimensionTheory Posts: 431
    edited December 1969

    DIM would remove the tiff's if they weren't in the new package. There currently ISN'T a version compatible with pre-DS4 versions of DS, as the DS version is .duf's and the Poser version uses .hdr's

    Pre-DS4 I understand and I'm fine with that, I moved away from DS3 for content a while back because it was so hard to have two versions installed etc. Switching to HDR would break compatibility with anything pre 4.6.0.2 though which I'm a bit unsure about.

  • MystiaraMystiara Posts: 38,545
    edited March 2014

    maybe, leave those as a "legacy" installer and make a brand new ds4.6 installer?


    seeing a lot of the 'legacy' on other pc items.

    Post edited by Mystiara on
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    Yeah there are some that still use DS4 (not 4.6) and some who still use DS3

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    tdlmake has been able convert hdr to tiff for quite some time...so it could be possible, if the hdr were in the format that tdlmake accepts, to make a scripted converter that just runs them through tdlmake.

  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    After this conversation and what mjc just wrote I am thinking why use HDR's at all if they have to be turned into Tiff anyway.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    After this conversation and what mjc just wrote I am thinking why use HDR's at all if they have to be turned into Tiff anyway.

    Well, then they are directly usable in Luxus and Reality. Luxrender can directly use hdrs...and 3Delight support is expanding.

    I don't expect that it will be very long before 3Delight will be using them without converting. The latest versions of 3DL are adding support for things like physically plausible shaders and more 'realistic' type handling of light/materials.

  • SimonJMSimonJM Posts: 5,852
    edited December 1969

    Szark said:
    After this conversation and what mjc just wrote I am thinking why use HDR's at all if they have to be turned into Tiff anyway.

    That's a very good question! I also have a sneaking thought that the .tdl files created when 'optimising images' goes on are just 're-badged' jpegs (or another popular file format). I suspect .hdr files (how about .env files?) are/were used as they are deemed to be 'specific purpose', so it seems/ed logical to make use of them.
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    Simon mjc's post above might have something to do with it.

    Oh I am not saying don't supply HDR's but I can now see why DT is going this way to make them more compatible with other software, always a good thing when selling products.

  • kitakoredazkitakoredaz Posts: 3,526
    edited March 2014

    Hi I hope Dimension Theory teach me where is problem.:roll:

    I add your Yosemite pack Light preset,DT-Yosemite12.duf. in my scene.
    The picture is good, and light balance seems really good without many tweaking.
    (I think, if I try to adjust each parameters of UE2 by myself, it seems difficult)

    Then I hoped to make more clear shadow, and find your product use shadow catcher,
    and it was made to catch distant light shadow only. is it right?

    Then I think,,, when add distant light to make shadow with IBL ,
    usually set the Distant light direction =IBL generate light direction.
    your yosemite light (scene) presets is planed to work so?

    If you set distant light whiich fit to IBL generate light,
    why these two pic shadow are perfectly opositte?
    (I hide your shadow catcher plane, then add simple plane to test.)

    Pic1 I render by UElight with occlusion shadow only, (I enhance change converted tiff image ganmma to 1.0 , in image editor.
    with gammacorrection 2.2 render setting on)

    Pic2 I render by distant light only. (though I can see clear, the distant light direction, of course it make shadow to the direction)

    I do not check all your light preset of yosemite, but
    I found some preset distant light are much with IBL direction
    but some are not.

    then your HDR image direction for UE, are fit to the Dome maps direction correctly or not?

    IF I simply need to change distant light direction for some preset only , no problem.

    but If the generated light direction not much Dome background maps,, I need to rotate Dome or UE.
    About your Yosemite Light sets, do I still need to rotate dome fit to IBL?

    yosemite12DistShadow.jpg
    481 x 576 - 120K
    yosemite12AOshadow.jpg
    481 x 576 - 151K
    yosemite12.jpg
    481 x 576 - 116K
    Post edited by kitakoredaz on
  • DimensionTheoryDimensionTheory Posts: 431
    edited December 1969

    Seems like that is an issue with UberEnv rotation. Others have mentioned the issues that UberEnv has with it's mapping lined up alone with myself here in this thread. I'm not entirely sure what to do about it other than going through and patching presets with that issue to recalibrate the rotation of the IBL, but if I do that and DAZ decides to fix the bugs with UberEnv I will have to go through and redo them again. It should not be giving you much issue in your render though, the IBLs are not casting light high in contrast. All of the directionality of lighting is coming from distant lights, that's why they're there. IBLs are just adding some more color coming from the environment. You shouldn't need to be messing with the lights at all, if you want stronger shadows on the ground you can modify the shadow catcher material to change shadow strength. All the presets should be set to match the shadow strength of the backgrounds.

  • kitakoredazkitakoredaz Posts: 3,526
    edited December 1969

    I understand, I may need not think much. and it is not your mistake. I just hope to confirm at curernt,your product are desigend to
    remove the famous UE2 problem , or not.

    but

    IBLs are just adding some more color coming from the environment

    I do not think so.
    if the IBL direction is not much to the background,
    the color or AO effect are not much with backgorund.
    then may not need to use IBL image to generate the effect.

    when we need to use IBL with same enviroments,
    I think it is not just to add rondom complex effect (Ao or added color from enbironments)
    which are expected fit to environments image. (blue green, ground color,, etc,,and catch the color from the direction)

    see pic 1. when I render image with DY-yosemite 12 without distant light.
    when see this pic,from background image,(trees)
    sun cast light from left to right. (from trees white and dark parts)

    bat ,I feel,, the added white Cone surface actually get light from right to left.
    right side is more bright. left side are dark. then AO work so.
    (it is my feeling)

    to confrim,, render pic without any tweaking (with the shadow catcher, UElight,Distantlight).
    your distant light and shadow catcher work, then the cone surface left grey part turn white.
    and make shadow witch fit to direction of background image.

    But it is not real effect caused by IBL (HDimage) , distant light remove real AO effect too.

    last pic ,,, turn off distant light, Now IBLgenerate light only.
    then add plane to get occulision shadow generated by IBLimage. it is real effect, I think so.
    then if we use HDR image with background image, to get the effect . do not you think so ?

    IBLimage2.jpg
    481 x 576 - 183K
    default.jpg
    481 x 576 - 280K
    imagedirection.JPG
    584 x 739 - 98K
  • kitakoredazkitakoredaz Posts: 3,526
    edited December 1969

    I really hope,, if vendor offer HDR set for daz studio, please ask DAZ when DAZ correct the problem or not.
    (I really hope vendor ask it to daz. yours can request strong daz more than user.

    I do not know If there is reason DAZ can not correct the problem.
    but there are many sets made for DAZ ue2 and user just buy them.
    and UE2 is DAZ studio default light sets,,

    Usually we expect, most of image sets for daz studio,, fit correctly for UE2.

    may not expect, the IBLimage not fit to background. for just add some color effect for UE2 problem.

    and I think vendor hope daz correct it too,,, you must make your product, which work correctly,

    and may not recommend ,use your HDR set with daz studio to get real effect,
    may better use with Carrara or Bryce (or Poser too?) etc, at least it work as vendor desigend .

    your work quality not much for current daz studio untill DAZ remove the problem.

  • DimensionTheoryDimensionTheory Posts: 431
    edited March 2014

    I thought that I should mention a few things regarding the HDR-Prosets I have on my mind.

    I'd decided a little while back that I was going to focus on making these sets basically pay for themselves, the trip I took to Yosemite helped me figure out that these sets are a lot of fun and good experience for me. Before that I'd put a lot of value on them because they were hard work and they required expensive equipment which I'm sure people can understand, the time it took to get the process down was long and tedious. When I lowered the price it was in part because I felt a bit guilty keeping it the same while my understanding of the process increased and my equipment costs went down. It's not that I don't think they were worth their original price because I do (looking for HDRIs of this resolution etc elsewhere will give much more expensive results without any program specific setups). The enjoyment I got out of that Yosemite trip made up for it though and I realized that's what I wanted these to be. I want to put these sets together for the joy of doing them and let you guys have them so that I can keep making them.

    That said the deal with UberEnvironment really frustrates me, it always has and I'm at the point where I don't want to do any more of these sets until I have an alternative or it's working the way I need without issue. Urban Recreation had it easy enough because I didn't need to manipulate the IBL as the scenes were intended as static without the ability to rotate backgrounds and lighting (this was mentioned a bit earlier in this thread). At the request of users I switched to a setup that allowed everything to be rotated and at that point I started wrestling with UberEnvironment to get it working properly, I've done so many calibration renders to make sure it's direction was proper it's not even funny and something still seems to be going wrong (I don't have any idea if an update at some point flipped the environment mapping or base UberEnv rotation whether it was my fault and shipped out wrong or not etc). Things flipping around when doing the parenting added to the confusion and it ends up a situation that's kind of just taped together waiting to fall apart which really bothers me. Add this to the notion that all my presets are going to break the day that UberEnvironment gets fixed (if it does) and hopefully it's understandable that I don't really want to work with it anymore.

    I'm not going to be doing any patching to UberEnv in it's current state on current presets, I don't want to keep patching then have to patch again when things are resolved on another end. When I'm happy with the way that it's functioning or I have an alternative I'll issue updates for all previous sets, and in the meantime I'll be looking into my own solutions for an alternative that I can include or a way to make Uber consistent. There are some ideas I have which may be pretty quick to implement, if I get good results I'll bring them up here for people to discuss. I wont be doing any new sets until I can find a solution.

    I really hope this is understandable. It all just comes down to how much I personally care about these sets, they aren't my best sellers but they are my favorite to work on and it matters to me that they work in a way that I and everyone else is happy with.

    Post edited by DimensionTheory on
  • DimensionTheoryDimensionTheory Posts: 431
    edited March 2014

    IBLs are just adding some more color coming from the environment

    I do not think so.
    if the IBL direction is not much to the background,
    the color or AO effect are not much with backgorund.
    then may not need to use IBL image to generate the effect.

    My reasoning for that statement is that it is still beneficial to use the map regardless of it's rotation (on the Y axis as it is in your renders), and that the render result differences are minimal considering how low in contrast the directional IBL effects are. Were the IBL to be rotated in a way that made the skylight coming from the bottom it would be different, but you are still getting blue casting from the sky and brown casting from the ground with more light coming from above etc.

    Post edited by DimensionTheory on
  • DimensionTheoryDimensionTheory Posts: 431
    edited December 1969

    The idea I had looks better and is accurate enough not to need a distant light for any directional help, full specularity based on the environment map and it's all dependent on my skydome. All I'm doing to change the light is switching my skydome texture. I can't get it working with my shadow catcher though.

    Testing.jpg
    1000 x 1300 - 741K
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    I thought that I should mention a few things regarding the HDR-Prosets I have on my mind.

    I'd decided a little while back that I was going to focus on making these sets basically pay for themselves, the trip I took to Yosemite helped me figure out that these sets are a lot of fun and good experience for me. Before that I'd put a lot of value on them because they were hard work and they required expensive equipment which I'm sure people can understand, the time it took to get the process down was long and tedious. When I lowered the price it was in part because I felt a bit guilty keeping it the same while my understanding of the process increased and my equipment costs went down. It's not that I don't think they were worth their original price because I do (looking for HDRIs of this resolution etc elsewhere will give much more expensive results without any program specific setups). The enjoyment I got out of that Yosemite trip made up for it though and I realized that's what I wanted these to be. I want to put these sets together for the joy of doing them and let you guys have them so that I can keep making them.

    That said the deal with UberEnvironment really frustrates me, it always has and I'm at the point where I don't want to do any more of these sets until I have an alternative or it's working the way I need without issue. Urban Recreation had it easy enough because I didn't need to manipulate the IBL as the scenes were intended as static without the ability to rotate backgrounds and lighting (this was mentioned a bit earlier in this thread). At the request of users I switched to a setup that allowed everything to be rotated and at that point I started wrestling with UberEnvironment to get it working properly, I've done so many calibration renders to make sure it's direction was proper it's not even funny and something still seems to be going wrong (I don't have any idea if an update at some point flipped the environment mapping or base UberEnv rotation whether it was my fault and shipped out wrong or not etc). Things flipping around when doing the parenting added to the confusion and it ends up a situation that's kind of just taped together waiting to fall apart which really bothers me. Add this to the notion that all my presets are going to break the day that UberEnvironment gets fixed (if it does) and hopefully it's understandable that I don't really want to work with it anymore.

    I'm not going to be doing any patching to UberEnv in it's current state on current presets, I don't want to keep patching then have to patch again when things are resolved on another end. When I'm happy with the way that it's functioning or I have an alternative I'll issue updates for all previous sets, and in the meantime I'll be looking into my own solutions for an alternative that I can include or a way to make Uber consistent. There are some ideas I have which may be pretty quick to implement, if I get good results I'll bring them up here for people to discuss. I wont be doing any new sets until I can find a solution.

    I really hope this is understandable. It all just comes down to how much I personally care about these sets, they aren't my best sellers but they are my favorite to work on and it matters to me that they work in a way that I and everyone else is happy with.

    For me yes totally understandable and sad at the same time. Having looked into what it takes to make HDRIs I soon stopped looking and doff my cap to anyone that can do this well. As you know people have been screaming at DAZ3D to get this fixed for some time as it has been like this since late DS3. Have you tried applying pressure on them? Is it a case they can't fix it I wonder.
  • SzarkSzark Posts: 10,633
    edited December 1969

    The idea I had looks better and is accurate enough not to need a distant light for any directional help, full specularity based on the environment map and it's all dependent on my skydome. All I'm doing to change the light is switching my skydome texture. I can't get it working with my shadow catcher though.
    interesting and this might interest you http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/18364/P210/#569698
Sign In or Register to comment.