DAZ Studio Pro BETA [Project Iradium] - version 4.8.0.4!

1202123252645

Comments

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 31,630
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:

    You know what, so far, I have only seen a couple of renders that have been good, but nothing that has really blown my socks off. If I so wished, I could get a 4GB EVGA card for under £100, which, might I add, is actually less than I paid for my 2GB card this time last year. If I see something that really makes me sit up and salivate then, maybe, just maybe, some way down the road when I can comfortably afford the card, I might just take the plunge with the full release.

    So, come on guys, impress me...

    CHEERS!


    ...doing my best but it's a learning curve, especially with figuring out materials and how to put the sun where I want it Seems it's placement is is tied to local location, time zone differential from GMT, and day/time of day.
  • namffuaknamffuak Posts: 3,013
    edited December 1969

    Spit said:

    I found this on page 7 or 8 by namffluak...

    Not until 4.8 goes live. What have you defined to DIM as the 32-bit and 64-bit install directories? Note that, if you do install both flavors, these two paths MUST be different. DIM installs Studio to ‘\DAZ 3D\DAZStudio4 Public Build’.

    As an example, I install to ‘D:\bits-32’ and ‘D:\bits-64’.

    So it will go in my Program Files folder (which I already have defined for 64-bit in the Applications tab of DIM settings) but with Public Build attached to the name. So that's good.

    After install I'll just have to figure out where the content goes (and change if necessary)....

    Spit - the beta is separately configured from the release as far as layouts and such - but it will use the same CMS, either Postgres or Valentina if you haven't converted yet. What I do is create a new directory for beta-specific content and then add all my existing directories into the beta directory manager. You just want to be a bit careful on where you save scenes and presets while working with the beta to avoid clobbering something you're working on in the release version.

    DIM works best if you don't try to use it to install the same content into two sets of directories - if you try, first DIM will get confused, followed shortly by you getting confused. (Been there) :-)

  • namffuaknamffuak Posts: 3,013
    edited December 1969

    R25S said:
    R25S said:
    R25S said:
    R25S said:
    R25S said:
    I need some help with the Iray Emissive Shader.

    I can`t get a glow effect.
    In the Viewport they look like they are glowing but in the final render they did not. (see Picture)

    Have I missed to change some Parameter or else?

    Your scene looks pretty well lit anyway - are you sure that isn't simply washing out the glow? I do see a bit of glow in the eye pieces, lowering the environment light may make it more obvious (as it would for a physical item).

    You`re right, Richard.
    After adding a Skydome (the first Picture had no additional lighting - that was the Problem) it works fine.

    But the Skydome did not render - it`s all black in the final Picture. I thought I read about Fixing that Problem but can`t remeber...
    Can you help me with that Problem, too?

    The skydome is casting a shadow. To use it, you can select the surface of the dome and open the Surface tab. In Presets> Shaders > Iray you will find an Emitter shader. Apply that and set the Luminance value higher. :) that will make it emit light and light the scene. Or, delete the dome and add an HDRI to the Environment in Render Settings. Either will work. :)

    Kat


    Yes; it light the Scene but the Sky (Clouds, Stars, Sun and so on) did not show up in the final Render; it only chance Color from black to Brown or yellow and White - depending on the value of the Luminance.

    Try setting it way up in strength. Like 50 K

    Kat


    this is what happens with a Maximum Luminance of 10000000000; no Sun, no Clouds...

    Can you screenshot your environment and Emitter settings? :)

    Kat


    with Emitter Settings you mean the Emission Tab?

    You're missing one minor but key step. Plug the skydome image (jpg or whatever) into the environment map.

  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 3,333
    edited December 1969

    Greetings,

    Kyoto Kid said:
    ...doing my best but it's a learning curve, especially with figuring out materials and how to put the sun where I want it Seems it's placement is is tied to local location, time zone differential from GMT, and day/time of day.
    Punt and assign the sun node to follow a null, or a Distant Light. Makes life VASTLY easier. :)

    -- Morgan

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    artoir said:
    I dunno what I'm doing wrong, but I just threw the Iradium beta in my basket, checked out, hit the download button and when my downloader opened it was empty. I tried it like three times. Am I missing something? I have seen people posting test renders and they look great, can I try it too!?

    Thanks!

    Public Beta is turned off by default. On the Store page, http://www.daz3d.com/daz-studio-beta are step by step instructions.
  • macleanmaclean Posts: 2,177
    edited December 1969

    User812 said:
    With that, I've enjoyed the progress 3delight continues to make especially in this release. things are much snappier and faster than what they were just one year ago.

    As a rough guide to how 3Delight is improving, a render I potsed earlier took 35 secs in 3Delight 4.8. That same render in DS3 took 1min 13secs.

    So even if you never use Iray, 3Delight is now at least twice as fast as it was a couple of years ago.

    mac

  • KatherineKatherine Posts: 296
    edited December 1969

    RAMWolff said:
    So, found some more info on my current card. Need to know what this all means..

    Operating System: Windows 8.1, 64-bit
    DirectX version: 11.0
    GPU processor: GeForce GTX 760
    Driver version: 347.52
    Direct3D API version: 11.2
    Direct3D feature level: 11_0
    CUDA Cores: 1152
    Core clock: 1006 MHz
    Memory data rate: 6008 MHz
    Memory interface: 256-bit
    Memory bandwidth: 192.26 GB/s
    Total available graphics memory: 4096 MB
    Dedicated video memory: 2048 MB GDDR5

    System video memory: 0 MB
    Shared system memory: 2048 MB
    Video BIOS version: 80.04.F0.00.1E
    IRQ: 16
    Bus: PCI Express x16 Gen3
    Device Id: 10DE 1187 28481462
    Part Number: 2004 0010

    I see the CUDA Cores are up to snuff I think but then I'm very confused about the Total available graphics memory VS Dedicated video memory.

    If my card is up to snuff then I'll leave the idea for a replacement alone for now.

    Thanks...

    Total available memory is what they "list on the box". :) Makes it sound more powerful. The one you want to pay attention to is Dedicated Memory. That is what is actually used by the card for GPU rendering. You have about the same specs here as I have at home. 4 impressive GB that are really just 2 usable. I need a new card as well. CUDA Cores aren't bad on this. They are good to have, but again, if the scene won't fit on the card (The dedicated potion) all the cudas in the world won't matter for GPU. :) If it does fit on the card, then ya, you want a card with a good number of cores. So....4GB dedicated memory first, then between those cards, the one with more CUDA cores. :)

    But, on a positive note, I am doing some pretty nice renders on my 2GB. I think I have had one scene I had to revert to CPU. But I am not putting more than one figure. The rest is props or backdrops etc..... It will be a few months before I upgrade. I know people assume we all have supped up power machines, but really, we are your average user at home. :) That being said, when you get a card, get the most you can afford so you do not run into frustrations down the road. And in my case, I am looking at cards that will play nice together so I can add more later.... May keep that in mind as well. Spooky can give a lot more info on specific specs for specific cards. I just tell him to buy me one that works. *grin*

    Kat

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Kyoto Kid said:

    ...doing my best but it's a learning curve, especially with figuring out materials and how to put the sun where I want it Seems it's placement is is tied to local location, time zone differential from GMT, and day/time of day.

    Kat's render was impressive and if there are further improvements made to 3Delight then 4.8 is still a definite prospect. Iray can wait for me as I have no intention of using CPU mode or upgrading my graphics card.

    As long as I have something I can use and learn I'll be happy

    CHEERS!

  • Sphinx MagooSphinx Magoo Posts: 533
    edited December 1969

    I did a quick pair of renders to compare 3Delight and Iray...

    Wow. Nice. Real nice.

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    maclean said:

    As a rough guide to how 3Delight is improving, a render I potsed earlier took 35 secs in 3Delight 4.8. That same render in DS3 took 1min 13secs.

    So even if you never use Iray, 3Delight is now at least twice as fast as it was a couple of years ago.

    mac

    Now there's news regarding the new build that does make me warm to it.

    CHEERS!

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    SmallFry said:
    I did a quick pair of renders to compare 3Delight and Iray...

    Wow. Nice. Real nice.

    Let's have a look.

    CHEERS!

  • macleanmaclean Posts: 2,177
    edited December 1969

    I asked about fixing transparency in Iray, but don't have an answer. Does anyone know anything about this?

    I had pills with 90% Opacity and a tex on them, and they come out black in Iray.

    Also, assuming there's a way to fix this with one of the included shaders or whatever, can I then include that in a product? Or is it proprietary info?

    mac

  • KatherineKatherine Posts: 296
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:
    This one took just under 54 seconds to render (2GB card). Simple, but I like animals.... lol It took longer to find the branch in my content.... *sigh*

    Kat

    Ok, now we're getting somewhere. It's clear Iray has potential and this is the only render I've seen that has truly shown that.

    Nice going

    CHEERS!

    Keep in mind, I work here. I have had months to learn this renderer. Other users have had less than 48 hours and I am MAJOR impressed with the progress so far. Kudos to everyone who is using the beta and digging in. We are really enjoying helping and seeing what you are doing with it. :)

    Kat

  • DoctorJellybeanDoctorJellybean Posts: 3,667
    edited December 1969

    I just tell him to buy me one that works. *grin*

    Kat

    Tell him you want a Titan X %-P

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 13,761
    edited December 1969

    Is it weird that I keep using emitters to light everything?

    Heh.

    For some reason I just don't like using spots or points.

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Played with it last night, great potential.

    Too bad they didn't include the Iray realtime render engine also, I guess I'm spoiled by the direct feedback of the Octane viewport.

    Peter.


    Let me start with a little explanation. Sorry about the wall of text. LOL.

    Iray has three modes. Real time, interactive and photoreal. Photoreal tends to be at about, on serious cards,

    1 frame per second, which makes it not so good for manipulation in the viewport. It is Unbiased.

    Interactive is Biased and tends to be, again on serious cards about 20 frames per second.

    Realtime is designed to be similar to the current DS viewport (Though it is definitely better in some respects) and is designed to be about 60 frames per second, again on serious hardware. On a serious machine, think a $3000 video card or better, the concept is to use Real time for viewport manipulation, and then blend into photoreal (Through Interactive or not) when you stop moving things.

    Iray Realtime has some significant limitations. It only works on some NVIDIA cards, and unlike Interactive and Photoreal it has no CPU fallback. It also, if your scene gets big and you have something like Chrome open you can get a graphics card conflict, which is very likely to crash the Video Card Driver, which definitely crashes DS, and on the Mac forces a reboot. (Right there, no chance to save anything.)

    With game level content, this isn't an issue, with typical DAZ3D content, and less than professional grade cards, we decided not to implement it.

    Instead we are using our existing smooth shaded drawstyle, for movement in the viewport, which blends into Interactive and then Photoreal in Iray viewport style. If you catch it wrong you can still get a stutter for movement, but with carefully setting of the response times, that is minimized as long as you are running a good card.

    Note for these purposes I am not talking about a card with less than 4GB and for best results I am talking abou the GTX 770/970 or better in GeForce cards or the Quadro K4200/K5000/K5200/K6000 cards.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 31,630
    edited December 1969

    Totte said:
    Kerya said:
    Thank you for your answers. I hear your opinion. I am the developer of games and interactive applications and work with Mantle me personally more comfortable than working with Nvidia. I pointed out to app developers also took into account the wishes of their end users.

    Best regards to the users and the developers.

    Uhm ... is this Mantle a physically based render engine for AMD cards?
    I don't know - that's why I am asking ...

    And remember - Daz probably has to pay for each render engine that is implemented into DazStudio ... which is free.
    So there are other things playing into the decision which render engines are put into DS.

    I suspect this is Mantle:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mantle_(API)

    Mantle is a low-level rendering API targeted at 3D video games.[4] Mantle was originally developed by AMD in cooperation with DICE starting in 2013.[1] Mantle was designed as an alternative to Direct3D and OpenGL, primarily for use on personal computers, although the GPUs present in the PlayStation 4 and the Xbox One are supported by Mantle.[1][5] According to AMD, Mantle will make a slight shift in focus after March 2015 to other areas since the Mantle-derived Vulkan API from the Khronos Group is largely replacing it in the gaming space

    If it is, it's certainly not the same thing as what Iray is doing, nor is supported on Apple operating systems.

    Right, Mantle and Vulcan are realtime gaming APIs, which could be used for the OpenGL viewport, but it's not for "Photrealistic renderering". If you see something extremely cool in a game, you should keep in mind that it is most certainly prerendered and precalculated, even things like reflections and things like that are, as they are too time consuming to do fully in real time.

    IRay, 3DL and other render engines are made to render thing not in real time, except using extreme systems. nVidia ships a system with 8 cards as 12GB VRAM per card. You stack a rack of those and you can make HD animation renders in real time, but you could also get yourself a private Jet for the same money.
    ...well not maybe a private jet (those cost multiple millions and up) but a quite possibly a Cessna 421C.or if you have the need for speed on the ground a a Lamborghini Murciélago.

    2008_lamborghini_murcielago.jpeg
    1024 x 768 - 188K
    421new_ext1.jpg
    513 x 252 - 18K
  • R25SR25S Posts: 590
    edited December 1969

    namffuak said:
    R25S said:
    R25S said:
    R25S said:
    R25S said:
    R25S said:
    I need some help with the Iray Emissive Shader.

    I can`t get a glow effect.
    In the Viewport they look like they are glowing but in the final render they did not. (see Picture)

    Have I missed to change some Parameter or else?

    Your scene looks pretty well lit anyway - are you sure that isn't simply washing out the glow? I do see a bit of glow in the eye pieces, lowering the environment light may make it more obvious (as it would for a physical item).

    You`re right, Richard.
    After adding a Skydome (the first Picture had no additional lighting - that was the Problem) it works fine.

    But the Skydome did not render - it`s all black in the final Picture. I thought I read about Fixing that Problem but can`t remeber...
    Can you help me with that Problem, too?

    The skydome is casting a shadow. To use it, you can select the surface of the dome and open the Surface tab. In Presets> Shaders > Iray you will find an Emitter shader. Apply that and set the Luminance value higher. :) that will make it emit light and light the scene. Or, delete the dome and add an HDRI to the Environment in Render Settings. Either will work. :)

    Kat


    Yes; it light the Scene but the Sky (Clouds, Stars, Sun and so on) did not show up in the final Render; it only chance Color from black to Brown or yellow and White - depending on the value of the Luminance.

    Try setting it way up in strength. Like 50 K

    Kat


    this is what happens with a Maximum Luminance of 10000000000; no Sun, no Clouds...

    Can you screenshot your environment and Emitter settings? :)

    Kat


    with Emitter Settings you mean the Emission Tab?

    You're missing one minor but key step. Plug the skydome image (jpg or whatever) into the environment map.

    I did not recognice that this was missing (normaly it is set automatic, as far as I know).
    But in the first try, setting the map, doesn`t chance anything. Just after deleting the Emitter Shader the Sky is shown in the rendered Image but now it is really dark and not clear

    test2.jpg
    900 x 692 - 246K
  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 13,761
    edited December 1969

    The render times are way longer than I typically see in 3delight (thank god I'm going to be upgrading stuff soon), and there are some things Iray can't do, but... holy poot, the results are nice.

    Still chugging on my Arealight vs. Emitter test, and I have to say Iray Emission is blowing away comparable stuff in 3Delight.

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:
    This one took just under 54 seconds to render (2GB card). Simple, but I like animals.... lol It took longer to find the branch in my content.... *sigh*

    Kat

    Ok, now we're getting somewhere. It's clear Iray has potential and this is the only render I've seen that has truly shown that.

    Nice going

    CHEERS!

    Keep in mind, I work here. I have had months to learn this renderer. Other users have had less than 48 hours and I am MAJOR impressed with the progress so far. Kudos to everyone who is using the beta and digging in. We are really enjoying helping and seeing what you are doing with it. :)

    Kat

    Ahh, I see,

    Well, I'm definitely more inclined now to give 4.8 a whirl when it comes out as a full release, but, I want time to get to grips with it all and I don't have the time to commit to that now. The improvements to 3Delight are encouraging and that's enough for me right now. Iray in CPU mode doesn't appeal.

    CHEERS!

  • JohnDelaquioxJohnDelaquiox Posts: 1,147
    edited December 1969

    Does anyone have any tips on using the Emissive Shader?

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:

    The argument there is that it is fine with anything else if you use CPU rendering. I'm somewhat cagey about that. I'll only get 4.8 and a new card if I see something that totally makes me want to do it. Otherwise I'll stick to 4.7 thanks.

    CHEERS!

    Try it. The only person that can determine if it will do what you want is you.
  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 3,333
    edited December 1969

    Greetings,
    So... I'm actually more behind the times on this than I thought. Does Iray have its own special shader language? Is it a 2D shader language, or 3D?

    E.g. Is it possible to make an Iray shader that takes into account depth into a material? (For example, could you make a marble texture where a cutaway of the object shows the same veins as the surface?)

    I have to admit, Iray came out of nowhere for me. I'm happy to see it, as I've been vaguely envious of the folks doing Octane renders on dA, but I'd really never heard of it before this. As I said, more behind the times than I thought...

    But I'd love to know more about creating shaders for it.

    -- Morgan

  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited March 2015

    Kyoto Kid said:

    Right, Mantle and Vulcan are realtime gaming APIs, which could be used for the OpenGL viewport, but it's not for "Photrealistic renderering". If you see something extremely cool in a game, you should keep in mind that it is most certainly prerendered and precalculated, even things like reflections and things like that are, as they are too time consuming to do fully in real time.

    IRay, 3DL and other render engines are made to render thing not in real time, except using extreme systems. nVidia ships a system with 8 cards as 12GB VRAM per card. You stack a rack of those and you can make HD animation renders in real time, but you could also get yourself a private Jet for the same money.
    ...well not maybe a private jet (those cost multiple millions and up) but a quite possibly a Cessna 421C.or if you have the need for speed on the ground a a Lamborghini Murciélago.

    Ok, those are very impressive! If you have the wherewithall to do that with Iray then all power to you. I'll just admire from here for the moment....

    CHEERS!

    EDIT:

    Wait, were those photos!?

    Post edited by Rogerbee on
  • KatherineKatherine Posts: 296
    edited December 1969

    maclean said:
    I asked about fixing transparency in Iray, but don't have an answer. Does anyone know anything about this?

    I had pills with 90% Opacity and a tex on them, and they come out black in Iray.

    Also, assuming there's a way to fix this with one of the included shaders or whatever, can I then include that in a product? Or is it proprietary info?

    mac

    Hi Mac,

    You can try setting a value in the Translucency Weight and add the map to it's color property. You may need to play with the setting a bit to get the look you want. I don't have that set I don't think..... If you have a specific cutout area where you hide polys, then you'd put that map in the Cutout property. But this sounds more like a translucency thing. Translucency and Refraction are the 2 weight properties used to make things "transparent"

    Kat

  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    wilmap said:
    Can someone tell me how to turn off the yellow when you select something. I can't find anything to do this anywhere.
    It is in the Draw Settings pane now. (It used to be in tool settings but nobody could find it there, and we now have quite a few options so we needed a new pane anway.
  • RogerbeeRogerbee Posts: 4,460
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:

    The argument there is that it is fine with anything else if you use CPU rendering. I'm somewhat cagey about that. I'll only get 4.8 and a new card if I see something that totally makes me want to do it. Otherwise I'll stick to 4.7 thanks.

    CHEERS!

    Try it. The only person that can determine if it will do what you want is you.

    When the full release hits, maybe.

    CHEERS!

  • ToyenToyen Posts: 1,651
    edited December 1969

    Skin under more realistic lightingg conditions.

    2 lights inside the room - TV (blueish) and lamp on the left (warm).

    Then there´s an image assigned to the dome to emit light which does not seem to be making that much of a difference to the scene. (Unlike uberenviroment, the image you assign to it always makes huge difference when it comes to lighting).

    I quite like the skin here.

    By the way, it´s an unfinished render. Just a preview : ) Let me know what u think.

    Now I´m gonna try to play with the shader settings and see what they do.

    sleepskin.png
    1000 x 375 - 644K
  • DAZ_SpookyDAZ_Spooky Posts: 3,100
    edited December 1969

    maclean said:
    Rogerbee said:
    Mmmmm,

    With the two side by side, I don't see all that much difference, aside maybe for the 3Delight render making the glass look a little better.

    CHEERS!

    Oh, there are a lot of differences - at full size anyway. But yes, glass seems to be far better in Iray.

    Unfortunately, other things are disappearing. Some of the pills have a 'break' in them (to snap them in two). That doesn't show up at all in Iray. I'm wondering if the light bounce is killing some of the definition.

    macAre the breaks modeled or a Displacement map?

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 31,630
    edited December 1969

    Rogerbee said:

    Done! Of course, there's nothing that says DAZ *must* remove 3Delight - and the render engine has been good to DAZ, I can easily see them keeping it as an alternative (and maybe even adding others) rather than getting rid of it.

    Cheers,

    Cliff

    It does get me wondering though. What do they want the future of DS to be!? The fact that they've been shouting so loudly about Iray could maybe indicate that this is where they're heading. Who can tell yet! (That's a justified 'yet'!)

    CHEERS!
    ...I see this more as a "competitor" (I use the term loosely) to Lux and Octane. It doesn't require a plugin bridge, it can function in either CPU or GPU mode giving the same high quality results (and Iray's CPU mode is much faster than Lux's CPU mode), and it costs 0$ to use (well, save for the power bill to run the computer).

Sign In or Register to comment.