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
Well all the Connect stuff has lost the renderer improvements (both of them are getting new builds).
Just the Beta, Andy. DIM only. Aaand object to a more and more heated discussion, mostly due to DAZ's Connect DRM plans and the impact that has on the files on everyones Content Libraries.
Funnily, no one has yet shed the dimmest light on the fact that the planned behaviour of their DAZ Connect might be considered a criminal act... depending on the laws of the country in which the file scanning and phoning home takes place.
Up to two years behind bars and/or a payment up to fifty grand is the "reward" around here.
@Arnold C. .... i overlooked the heated discussion, was to bussy with skin fiddling
So - what does that mean in short? i dont want search my way through 500 postings - Daz connects their shop (our account) with screening of our harddisk? is it that what started the furious discussion?
They're going to implement DRM on(some?) content sold by DAZ, and they're going to implement content delivery and installation only through the mechanism (currently called "Connect") they're building into Studio. They're implementing product placement/suggestions into Studio based on what you have in your account - or something like that. They haven't said when that will go into effect, just that it will eventually. Currently, using "Connect" is optional.
Naah, DAZ stated, that some of the content files will be be more heavily encrypted and you'll need DAZ Connect to update them. Further they said that at a certain point it might be, that you'll only be able to download your stuff through their new DRM Protection Toy. That's the point I guess where the sh.. met the fan and all the funniness started.
The scanning and phoning home would be my personal addition to the discussion; I'm not firm what your Swiss Data Protection Act says, under the German Data Protection Act scanning and phoning home data from someones computer, for commercial reasons, without explicit allowance is a minor. Regardless of what's being scanned and what phoned home and what an EULA may say, which, from a (in these parts) judge point of view the casual customer don't read anyways, so the scanning type of company would be most likely always on the loosing side.
Electronic Art's Origin software and it's original 2011 EULA would be a "best" example for how to paint a bright and shiny crosshair on your own back for your customers to aim at... I guess it's needless to say that EA's attempt failed majorly and they changed this EULA some times in a row that year.
There ar two long threads for discussin the Connect system, but as a note it has been said multuiple times that no existing content that comes via DIM will later be restricted to Connect only. Also, there is no scanning - the system gets a list of your content from Daz, and a key for the machine, and that is used to enable your encrypyted Daz content - DS doesn't look for files on your system and report what you have to Daz.
@Arnold C. .. well that would be about the same in Switzerland.
...
Reimport (export -import) is a core function... i dont see a way how they could effectively encript products and stay in the market. Must be a laughable try... if they control to much.. DAZ Studio Software - will be hacked and on torrents fast.... I payd DAZ more then any other 3d company this year...because of a consumer friendly marketing model and a free software. If they like to risk this.. well their business
EDIT.. i just see Richards posting above mine... good, thank you for clarification.. so i can still fiddle happily on iray skins .. i am not worry.. first because all my content is payd - and that's only so - because DAZ's businessmodel made me a loyal customer. I hope that stays that way as long as possible.
Well - a little bit worry about the "and a key for the machine" .... but that's for another thread ..
Back to skin fiddling
"Funnily, no one has yet shed the dimmest light on the fact that the planned behaviour of their DAZ Connect might be considered a criminal act... depending on the laws of the country in which the file scanning and phoning home takes place."
Do you consider DIM somehow legaly actionable because your required to log in to get your products downloaded? Because it is the exact same thing. The only difference is not needing a seperate program. So is it criminal to need to actually log in to get your files from a site? Because if it is pretty much all of e comerce is out the window. There is no phone home other than an inital verification of account. If you don't want to do retain your password etc then you don't. If you want to be off line an unconnected then you log out. The program will notify you when there are updates but but they are pushed down based on what you own and what is checked off as already downloaded. Just like DIM.
Thanks for the clarification, Richard. So the Connect software part will receive a list from my "Product Library" of my DAZ account. Further I assume it will use something like a hardware hash from the rig it's installed to, to create the decryption key, once and locally, and without transmitting any bit of data outwards. So DAZ will never ever find out that I've DM's Kama Sutra in my Content Library...
Umm, wait!!!
ok - skin fiddling thread.. that's what actually started my question to 4.9 ...
NVIDIA Iray related
Now i just master the red after 3 weeks testing - and now this!!!! i really have a unlucky timing with DAZ.. first i payd about 500usd for gen2 fems in the 2 or 3 weeks before Gen3 started.. and now this.... kidding more or less
@ Arnold C. So DAZ will never ever find out that I've DM's Kama Sutra in my Content Library
.
..
That might be the real problem behind connect for many.... not that i mean you - Kama Sutra is harmless.... but just hearing the word "CONNECT" will stop let's say 10 - 50% of active buyers from buying new content
Question - will connect also work with TOR and anonymous VPS and Proxy?
No really-- ANDY!.. back to skin fiddling
Right, back to tropic...
I made some test renders of my recent skin setup for Genesis 2. I don't recognize the DS4.9 render would be more blue, having them side by side and switchtabbing the picture viewer. That may rely on the fact that I'm using the diffuse map on the translucency map slot, slightly darkened (monochrome), and don't use any SSS Reflectance Tint. Aside from a difference on the transparency on a Glass shadered part of the costume the renders are, skinwise, identical.
I assume, that the green circled map from your picture posted above is your glossiness/roughness map? You might try a different angle for your render, I'm using a similar method to draw such map and discovered a sharp edge on areas where I have a change from a darker to a ligther grey. Gradients might be the solution for that, still trying to find the right approach using those.
I also tried a simplified approach to create a roughness map out of a stanndard specular map, inverted and greyscale-adjusted to a certain strength.
Doesn't work well, if I get a right amount of glossiness on one part, it will get either too shiny or too dry on another.
@Arnold C. "I assume, that the green circled map from your picture posted above is your glossiness/roughness map? You might try a different angle for your render, I'm using a similar method to draw such map and discovered a sharp edge on areas where I have a change from a darker to a ligther grey. Gradients might be the solution for that, still trying to find the right approach using those."
you have good eyes - yes that is one of my first test maps... and it did exactly what you said. (to hard edges in glossy)... now i just mask a area and fill the selection with a circle gradient...the background (not mapped above) is also not white anymore (100%).. i use a 80% grey now and have the glossiness parameter 0.99.... but still testing... my values need a higher bump, with flattened nose and makeup parts - will post a working example when i am happy and gone trough different hdri's render with it.
Well i am not worry about the new shader... if it can be corrected with tint.. then it is just a minor change - just a tad lesser red in how transmit using base colors.. (tint multiplied base)...
Thanks... but Fielmann says otherwise...
I discarded PBR Specular/Glossiness for now, for the reason that "Glossiness" should be the inverse of "Glossy Roughness", due to the documentation, but a greyscale in a value inverse to a decent roughness value doesn't produce the expected result. Like I wrote some time ago above.
I'm currently working on a not so fixed solution for a the roughness map, so it can be used as a kind of standard to determine glossiness in dependency of the roughness value set, to allow different strenghts with one and the same map used, on the same figure generation. Base is 255 white (100% rough), which, if set to a roughness value of 0.50, will become 186 grey (50 % rough). All what's needed is to convert the glossy parts' greys to the right proportions I'm aiming for (a standard roughness of around 0.66 for the not-so-glossy parts of a face seems to look nice)..
And then drawing that damn thing (again) in the godfors... ProtoShop...
Nope, if it neither scans nor sends anything, all is okay and everyting fine. I rarely use DIM for installation, I prefer executables, and, if not available, I simply DL via DIM or Product Library, extract the zip and distribute the content to the places it belongs to. Manually, because I tend to strip the things out which I woudn't use in a hundred years anyways, like old Poser-specific stuff, which won't work in DS, like mc6 (some work, some don't... most don't) or which I wouldn't need since there's already a native DS format at hand, pz2's along dsa/dsb. And, if there's a seperate 3Delight shader along an Iray one, recently that get stripped out also.
@I discarded PBR Specular/Glossiness for now, for the reason that "Glossiness" should be the inverse of "Glossy Roughness", due to the documentation, but a greyscale in a value inverse to a decent roughness value doesn't produce the expected result. Like I wrote some time ago above.
it is just the amount of glossy (i noted that too - it is not the inverse of roughness!) .I am simulating sebum and sweat = more glossy.. has nothing to do with rougness. For roughness i use bump. that's why i need also to fiddle with bump/normal...
In theory and with a correct modelled surface you wont need roughness in PBR for a organic object. .But well you can use a roughness map to do what i do right now in bump. but this changes just the highlights (shaprness) but not the glossy amount.
Example: forehead.. a LOT of rougness but MORE glossy (only specular beause of the bump) then on the lower cheeks.
Another example - powdered cheeks - well.. here the bump must be flattened too and replaced with a powder grain 1 pixel bump.. this gives the smooth shine but is still to grainy.. so here the geometry resolution is simple not there (powder nanometer) -> plus a roughness map to finetune those areas....Maybe i need to switch to PBR Metal too.. when i start to play with makeup because of this...
Most examples i see in the Gallery use makeup skins - they must set the bump very LOW because of this missing differences and bring glossiness down (to not get highlights) - then eyemakup and cheeks looking good (close to no bump.. just shine(specular) and no highlights)... while it looks great after adjusting it wont work under different lights that way...
Your idea using PBR Metal with roughness is better for porting over standard Gen2 textures.. mine should result in a standard (for myself) how to create new skins which are better then any old skins ported over to iray..
Fieldman ? says what? i had a photographer as partner which is 60% colorblind (he cant see green as example) - he is very successfull.. because he learned to trust other "measurement" methods then just his eyes. i had to swear that i never tell somebody about his handycap
something else:
)
i decided to go back to basic and start from scratch (well not really
Hier some examples which might help others too... i made them to see very clear what different Layers actually change - and what works and what not..(what is mapable and what not).,,,
image 1 : A Ball using a black and white stripe texture...white 100%, grey 50% black 100%... two hard spots.
Image 2: Translucency and SSS added - using skin values
Image 3: Glossiness weight 1... NO other parameter in use.. no glossiness nothing - NOTE how the colors change!
Image 4: plus thin film 2000 IOR 1.41.... i cant see a change (no environement to reflect - but aslo in hdri - later examples - NOTHING)...
Image 5: Plus Top Coat weight 1 - Fresnel..... colors more close to the texture...
All examples just with 100 Iterations...
Still the same Ball.. nothing changed...
I only added a skin color to base color RGB... to have a better contrast to glossy highlights...
image 1... using Base Glossiness..... Nothing else
Image 2 using Top Coat Glossiness Fresnel Nothing else.. the black is back.
Iamge 3 using Base Glossiness AND Top Coat Glossiness... minimal difference in colors - not really to see..
Image 4: added a noise (powder).. to base bump... the highlights reacting great... as smaller the noise is (resolution) - so faster highlights change to shine.. needed only bump strenght 1 for this...
Image 5: Normal Skin Bump... no powder noise.. the highlighs well .. look like on a skin whitout makeup.. like they should.
Also just 100 iterations ... will look way better rendering longer.
This examples show also what i try to bring into my iray skins since a while - the black and details disapear in most textures because they are simple not strong enough in contrast (in the BASE texture)... just devibrance is not enough - details which are painted in dark red.. must be shifted to black.. then they pop out in renders again.
Why top coat with fresnel has this strong effect on DARK GREY and BLACK i dont understand.. but it is obviously to see
Next i take my ball outside and play there
Image one: The same ball from above, using full glossines in base (weight and glossiness) - topcoat with fresnel without glossiness - and powder base bump
Image 2: Now i map glossy layered weight - using my grey base color texture.... so black = zero.. white = 100%.
Image 3... shows the same map but in glossiness....
Actually 2 and 3 should look the same but they differ EXTREM... it looks like something in the lights reflection does TURN around the ball... to see what i mean... open all balls in your browser and step fast from browser tab to tab...
And also here - affected are dark tones - zero - 50%.... something wrong here?.. i mean.. zero weight from glossiness, should be also zero glossines with full weight and not change diffuse light in darker tones or whatever it does....
To my eyes mapping weight does look correct - while mapping glossiness messing up.
image one: shows top coat weighted 1 - with fresnel - No glossy
image two: same with top coat - reflective.... black is gone.
The set up in Octane is so much simpler than in Iray. Top coat for instance isnt even a parameter in Octane yet Octane users have no problems making glossy surfaces. Why iray even needs the top coat parameter is unknown to me. At this point I have no idea how to even use it so please keep studying and taking notes.
Base thin film does Zero to Nothing....
I never could see a change also not now... does this really work?
image one glossy weight full set.. No glossiness.. but thin film with 2000 and IOR 1.41... nothing
Image two: same... maybe to thin.. set to 200000 IOR 1.41 Nothing...
Now i could upload some other balls with other variables for thin film.. all look the same...
DOES THIN FILM IN BASE REALLY WORK ?
EDIT: Yes it does.... but subtle to see and not on a bump... see later postings from Tobor and our soap bubble examples.
Well .. what is confusing to me is that some things do not work as expected and affect color massiv without actually having any glossy effect turned on .. The next thing is that some slots seems not to work as expected..... (what is mappable and what not)....
)... as we know now DAZ also changed something in base color/transmitt in the upcoming 4.9.. which means there are maybe other things which are not working correct or even DONT WORK...
I try now to bring more clarification to the Ubershader (i dont trust this shader
Thin film is a myst to me - see above... Thin FILM should be ANOTHER glossy layer on top of base n my example above - > but has zero effect...
THE IDEA BEHIND TOP COAT is a great one.. BUT just switching on the layer (different layering modes) affect as demonstrated colors and saturation in black .
The use of top coat: just a example
I can use base with a skin bump map (see the different glossy roughness bump examples) and top coat with a powder normal map .. weigthed in only on parts in the face with powder.. aka powdered cheeks and nose)...
Such examples will follow later today.
Diffuse Roughness
Image 1: ball without texture, translucency, SSS, and full glossiness plus bump, NO Diffuse roughness
Image 2: ball without texture, translucency, SSS, and full glossiness plus bump, 100 Diffuse roughness
The difference is good to see but very subtle for 100% - should this parameter not have a way stronger effect? .... well it should simulate sandstone and clay surfaces and darkens tone and hardening contrast....and it does that - working- but 100% is to less for my taste
Translucency Weight
Image 1: ball with o.5 translucency and full base glossy
Image 2:zero translucency
Image 3: 100% translucency.. we cant see the texture anymore but dont have opacity... well that's kind of a alien material now.. but seems to me logic - ok.
Image 4 mapped translucency weight....looks ok .. seems to work.
Image 5 mapped translucency - removed texture from base, just RGB there... looks close to the same as image 3.. hmmm something is not clear to me right now ...i should see an effect from the map
Edit: While this paramter IS mapable... the scale seems to be wrong...?
100 % white should be full weight... the brigthest stripe... but it does look like 50% weight
while 50% grey (the brown stripe) looks more like about 75% weight...
IS THE MAP -SCALE to PARAMATER WEIGHT SLIDER WRONG? SHOULD THIS SLIDER GO TO 2 instead just to 1 ?
What I read was that Thin Film on meant that the object was looked on as hollow or thin, like a glass window or light bulb. Thin film to off means the object is treated as solid so that light passing through it gets distorted and the parameters that open up when set allows different settings, like light passing through a crystal ball or similar.
@Fishtales .. ok... that could make sense.... but well.. i should see it (something) in my examples.... thin film has a IOR... it is not like thin walled on.. it has volume.. but even with extrem values i see nothing...
IS there a working thin film shader example out there somewhere? where turning on and off base thin film clearly has different results ?
--------------------------------------------------------------------- 3 open questions yet
DOES THIN FILM IN BASE REALLY WORK ? - solved
IS THE MAP -SCALE to PARAMATER - Translucency Weight SLIDER WRONG? SHOULD THIS SLIDER GO TO 2 instead just to 1 ?
Why does Mapping Glossines change diffuse light direction(s) ?
An example of Thin Film (on the base):
http://blog.irayrender.com/post/27326930291/thin-film-soap-bubbles
Unfortunately, there are no settings shown, as this isn't a Daz blog. The writer does say the material is "basically water" with the thin film coating added. I'd assume fairly close to the default settings. Extreme values may be outside the assumed use case, and may not have much, if any, effect.
The MDL specs has a short description, simply "Add reflective thin-film interference color to an elemental or compound BSDF." Do note that the thickness is in nanometers, but it's unclear if that's the film, or the light. I'd assume film in this case, which means the effect is more for simulating dichroic materials. If this is correct, the direction of the light and camera eye matters.
@Tobor ... thanks... this example DOES exactly what i except thin film to do.. Great..
i used IOR in the normal range from water till oil... between.. 1.32 - 1.52... should be not to extrem... thickness i used 2000 -200000. this should be real range where something is to see somewhere on a ball.
Edit: Well 2000Nm is to thick allready... a soap film works from 90 - 600nm.. this has to do with the wavelenght of the light... 96-100 works best with lightcolor 4.8 - 5.3k (sunlight day no overcast around 12am) .
So the challenege to test if DAZ Iray uber does work correctly - would now be to build such water bubbles with soap film... we have thin film in base AND top coat.. which one to use this is also a open question....
thinking loud ... a top coat has always a thickness.. i dont see a parameter for this - hmm.. the only thickness we can set is thin film.. is this the idea? let's use TOP COAT as thin film.. instead just a default pseudo thickness..hmm
So it is NOT top coat AND top coat thin film... it is ether..
use a default top coat
or use a thin film..
hmmm...