Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Umm...Windows and NTFS is NOT the only OS/filesystem combo Studio operates on...and just because Windows chooses to fly in the face of standards doesn't mean everything else does, too.
Well, seeing that they would still have to make OS/File systems as independent versions anyways, why not simply design the widows version to handle content/File systems specific to that version....Like most 3D programs (Including D|S save for numbering sys) do already?
My point still stands, or rather, flies in the face of archaic standards already practiced by 3DS, Lightwave, Blender, poser etc.. ;-) They don't seem to have a problem with flying in the face of archaic standards by following a natural numbering system, which is why I bring it up.:)
Archaic or not, there is many reasons for choosing file names. And I for one, would prefer Daz studio NOT start truncating names of content in the content library. It's bad enough that part of the Content library (the Poser side) doesn't look anything like what I see in my file system, and half the stuff that ended up there, I've never been able to locate and use in studio.
I say, that if a PA has decided that a file name is going to be XYZ, then it should be displayed in the content library as such, and nothing else.
How is anyone ok with 001-002-003 as opposed to 1-2-3?
Well I'm sorry, but I disagree, and would like to see daz follow the same route as most other software developers have already done so, and I really see no issue in this...As it stands, there is absolutely nothing wrong with following the same numbering in win 7's explorer, and being that its a simple request, it really shouldn't garner such resistance.
It's not like I'm asking for a complete overhaul just an accurate reflection of the user's numbering system.
How is anyone ok with 001-002-003 as opposed to 1-2-3?
If i'm understanding your request properly, most likely in simple terms of file system and programming sorting and organization, 01 is not equal to 1, 001 is not equal to 1. Sorting the numbers 01, 2, and 03 as part of file names would be.. 01, 03, 2. Sorting 1, 9, and 10 would be 1, 10, 9. That's why you have leading zeroes as place holders for the total number of items you wish to increment by. This is standard programming and OS logic across the board. Your suggestion will not work in any development language.
For the 1-2-3 ... 9-10-11 in principle Windows7 is showing that in the right order - but most software still shows different behavior.
Try to look at a folder with 1-2-3 names with Irfanview - you get the good old 1-10-11-2- ... sequence
Which is a good reason for me to still name my scene files and renders 01, 02 and so on.
Programming languages evaluate and sort text (and numbers that set to variables defined as text) by character, not total values. so instead of 1, 8, 9 10, 11, 12 you will get 1,10,11,12, 8 , 9 when sorted, which is why the 0 value is included to properly sort as it has a lower ascii value than the other numbers.
Ahhh, but there is a setting within Infran view that can display a natural numbering order for your files. :)
The geek is strong with this one!....God, I'm jealous, scientists and mathematicians are gods among men for me, too bad I suck at math, or I'd be a somewhat competent scientist. Thanks again for the explanation!...I'd still like to see a cosmetic change though... ;)
IF, daz was willing to do as you ask, akin to that order thing that IrfanView has as an "Option", I still will not use it. The key word is "Option" not forced down my throat, lol.
Numbering and date systems aside. My issue, being new, is that IF daz starts showing things by different names from what I'm looking for, I'll never be able to find anything that I've purchased. That's just not good for anyone.
There is a good thread on Gamma correction here: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/54913/
[quote that IF daz starts showing things by different names from what I'm looking for, I'll never be able to find anything that I've purchased. That's just not good for anyone.
They already did that to me when they changed names for dim takes two to three times as long to find saved download if I need to now
(Ignore this post, I replied too quickly w/out reading the gamma correction thread)
There is a good thread on Gamma correction here: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/54913/
Thanks but I don;t need to know how it works, and that thread is primarily talking about 3Delight.
I want to know how the interface between Studio and Iray works and what Iray is doing for gamma correction, as there appears to be some huge debate amongst very knowledgeable practioners.
I don't understand it all, but this info may help. http://blog.irayrender.com/post/14310848190/physically-plausible-scene-setup
There is a blurb on gamma.
Thànk Kevin, but no it doesn't. Been there, read that.
evilded's question is not "How does gamma work in general?" but rather, "Does gamma work the way it's supposed to in the beta?"
I think it doesn't. For one thing, you're supposed to be able to use the gamma input in Image Editor on a texture to correct it if it's too saturated, but changing this value doesn't visibly change the texture when it's rendered.
...while this deals with HDRI's, there is no mention of how to decrease the "blue" effect when using just the Sun/Sky
That would be with the SS Blue-Red Tint slider in your environment controls
Please report the (perceived) issues with gamma, if you haven't. Even if it is working as intended, DAZ needs to be aware that it isn't clear and may want to adjust the way things are described or presented in the UI to address that.
Well it's definitely working for me on iray renders. I had to cut it back to about 1.2 - 1.4 to get the right colors, brightness, and contrast, otherwise the image was way overexposed.
Personally, I don't perceive an issue, but I would like to know how it is implemented. Does it work the same as 3Delight, with the 0,1 and 2? Or does it interpret the gamma of textures differently?
I found the gamma in the engine (tone mapping settings) and the gamma in the image editor to be working just fine. Smaller number in image editor means brighter texture, larger number means darker texture. The engine behaves in the opposite, (which I believe from what I read is exactly what you want) higher number in the tone mapping settings means brighter scene while lower number means darker. If you set the image in the image editor to 2.2 or 0 and leave the tone mapping setting at 2.2, it will look like nothing happens, as it's basically already at ideal. If you want a bit richer look try setting the tone mapping to 2.5 and the image editor to 2.5, it's a subtle effect but rather nice. more extreme numbers grant more wild effects. Adjusting the gamma in the image editor is a nice way to give your character a sunburnt look. =)
The environment map's gamma can essentially be tweaked even further by adjusting the slider next to it up or down from the default 2 it rests at in environment settings - the intensity slider is also worth playing with.
Here is a compilation of quick tests I did to confirm if the GC was broken or working as intended. Again, my opinion, but it looks like it is working to me.
Nope, I just tried it again, and it doesn't work for me at all. No matter what value I put in the gamma setting in Image Editor, it doesn't change a thing. It won't even start rerendering the image (I have the main viewport on Iray). I'll file a bug report.
(BTW I filed another bug a week ago for a crash report, the status is still "Being processed" and the only response I got was an automated email saying to check the forums for help)
He he... I filed a crash/bug report about a week ago and detailed everything I did up to the point where it crashed. I got a response, and the tech wanted me to detail what I did up to the point where it crashed. :D
I agree, and can understand the ever-shifting UI that D|S goes through can be a bit irritating. I always had a beef with window's numbering system and was overwhelmingly overjoyed when I was able to bypass the hated 001-002 bull excremental way of numbering and might have been a bit overzealous in my expression of my bias against that numbering convention! BTW I went from Win ME ->98SE->2KProSP2->7HP and didn't realize that the natural numbering convention originated in XP!
He he... I filed a crash/bug report about a week ago and detailed everything I did up to the point where it crashed. I got a response, and the tech wanted me to detail what I did up to the point where it crashed. :D
Maybe it was too detailed.;-P
I am trying to install the beta files and am getting this error:
Install Manager cannot find a required path. The package for "Scene Builder for DAZ Studio Public Build +Beta+" requires that the installed path for "DAZ Studio 4.x Public Build" be defined. Make sure that a path for this application is present on the "Applications" page of the "Settings" dialog, then try again.
The problem is I have no idea how to do what it says, lol.
There are three core files for the Public Build. You need to install the DAZ Studio 4.8 Public Build +Beta+ file before the other two. Once the main file has been installed, Install Manager will know where to put the other two.
Thanks :D It worked :D
You're welcome.
Enjoy. The Beta is a lot of fun. Downright addictive. :)
does it have a send to origin for props out in the yonders?