Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
..+1. Particularly on the second paragraph.
Well, this thread was started by customers who just wanted to tell the vendors that not all Customers are using Iray.
I think the message is clear.
Some don't want and some simply can't use Iray.
If a vendor supports Iray only, she/he is loosing sales from me.
Vendors who try to tell me that Iray is much, much better are getting a simple shrug from me. Yes, I am rendering in Iray too. But I prefer not to be told that this is the great and only way to do renders from now on.
Shaders are on a different level, I am willing to buy Poser materials/3delight shaders/Iray shaders, but not props/hair/environments. I am not even convinced to buy DazStudio only content, even when I really do like DazStudio. It has to be unique and exceptional to be bought by me.
Firstly, Texture Mapping is a perfectly valid tool and should be used where it is appropriate. However, in this market it has been used for EVERYTHING... appropriate or not. My point is that we've removed much of the power of the engine by only using a small piece and it was this lack of percieved power that led to the cries for "something better." It is perfectly possible to do knuckle wrinkles (and other joints) procedurally, just as it is possible to procedurally do musculature. IN THIS MARKET it is not financially advantageous to do so. EDIT: As an example, Alessandro and I put *a lot* of work into writing real shaders using real mathematics for LAMH hair. We could have created strips of color and applied them to each strand (similar to geometry hair) but decided that the proper ways were best -- even if it cost us more in development time.
Secondly, I said that if one is going to operate outside of the "popular methods" then one has to do the work. This is the same whether one uses Linux for their OS, a vehicle that is old,rare, or exotic, a cooktop that uses alternative heating methods, or whatever. If the popular method is 3DL and you want to use Octane, then you have to work to get it. If the popular method is Iray and you want to use 3DL then you have to work to get it. Simple fact of life! If the users have forgotten (or never learned) how to do the work then they are incapable of working around the popular methods. So there is EVERY reason that the user needs to experience the non-easy way.
Kendall
Kendall, those are good points, but I'd note that if vendors aren't actually willing to use methods beyond 'wallpapering,' then it's not a defense for not doing the same in 3DL.
Also, it then behooves creators to consider ease of re-texturing into their products. Like KA, I believe, recently mentioned that most of their scenes were done as one big object with bones because it made it a lot easier to manage materials. Similarly, use of instances or ensuring that different objects have the same material zones (so it's easy to copy/paste rather than having to go into each object/surface).
Personally I don't find it a big issue to change materials from Iray to 3DL, but there are a few things that would make the process much easier. A simple script to translate cutout opacity -> opacity, for example.
I mean, one issue in 3DL is that there are a SLEW of specialty shaders that, if you own, you probably want to add in, anyway. Like I have the grass procedural shader. If I'm doing a 3DL scene with ground, chances are I'd like to use that appropriately. There's no way a content creator can handle the wide variety of shaders someone might have access to.
...If Iray had a working hybrid mode like Octane that didn't require boatloads of video memory to render a scene on the GPU, it would not be such an issue. I could get by with a 115$ 4 GB GTX 740 instead of a 650$ 980TI or 1,000$ Titan-X (both which I'd have to build a new system to support) and still enjoy improved render performance compared to pure CPU rendering. But that is not the case with Iray as even running in combined GPU and CPU mode, it does little to improve render speed at all and once the GPU memory is exceeded Everything, Geometry and textures are dumped to the CPU.
On the flip side, I have worked with Reality. Yes you have to translate materials, but again there are tools provided in the Reality UI that make it a fairly simple process rather than having to mess with individual sliders for each texture/material zone and run multiple test renders to see if you got it right.
I agree with William, scripts or a conversion plugin that would assist with the process of adapting Iray materials to 3DL would be extremely useful and again I, and I'm sure others who wish to continue working with 3DL, would have no issue with purchasing them if they were offered in the store.
Procedural materials would probably use less RAM than texture-based materials, particularly looking at unmodified store content with textures files that are at least 4,000 pixels square.
Yep, although procedural shaders are slower, at least in the cases we're likely to see here.
I've found my procedural shaders using Shader Mixer are a bit slower (looking to optimize some of the presets). A better shader mixer design might help; a big thing I keep running into is that Iray uber shader can optimize itself and get rid of stuff it isn't using, whereas I'm not sure if that can be done in mixer, so shaders tend to have a lot of unused segments (again, unless you specialize specific shaders a lot).
So you get this weird case where the procedural shader is slower until you reach a point where the RAM savings means you keep running on GPU vs. dumping to CPU.
I appreciate those vendors who continue to supply 3Delight materials, and will not purchase from those who do not. Life is to short to wait for iRay to render.
Has anyone tried out the new Old Garden set in 3DL, since I don't see 3DL support on the page?
Depending on your settings and the amount of lights you have in teh scene, iray is much faster than 3DL or Poser. A scene that takes me 6 hours in 3DL only takes me 2 hours in Iray with a lot better quality.
I prefer DS4.7. Not likely to upgrade until I'm forced to. Just need to know if anyone has tried the Old Garden rendered in 3DL. Some iray-only things look fine in 3DL while others don't.
...one that took over two hours in Iray took 14 min in 3DL (with the AoA lights) and the textures looked much better.
you have to work with the settings. I have really good setting and the proper amount of lighting. You need good lighting to decrease render time. Just 1 or 2 lights in the scene isn't going to have the same the effects as several lights. Even if something takes longer you are going to have a lot better quality
...the scene in question was an outdoor scene where Iray renders faster.
Just to lend a different perspective. I get why some vendors may not support both. The time it takes to do two sets of materials is ... well, very long. I took ages to hop on the iray train, because I resented the fact Id have to do 2 material sets again (among other issues I had) You know, on big sets, that can be a really lengthy process... and to put the time in for maybe only part of your customers that are using it... well, it makes u throw up your hands and go why bother? For us that do this professionally as a job, time is money.... we are constantly considering ROI. If you put that much more time in on something specific like extra materials, and don't see it reflect in your sales, you sort of stop wanting to do that. Because saving time, is making money.
The other reason some may not support both, is abject disappointment. Yeah, one of the reasons I didnt jump on board iray --- broken displacement, Im not keen on normal maps as they don't displace nearly enuff to be a proper workaround, and I couldn't make the emission work the same way as it did with the 3delight materials using ambient contrib and so forth (til I figured out bloom, that is) Dont even get me started on what it does to hair planes. So maybe they feel their set is best represented with one or the other... and don't feel right giving customers something that is lackluster at best when compared to the other. Also, it goes back to the whole waste of time thing.... ROI and all that, when u cant even get behind it as far as liking that material set goes.
At the same time, I understand how frustrating it is to want a set, and it only be supported in the render engine you don't use. Im not sure there is a good solution to that... but Im sure programmers may be able to figure out how to do a conversion script (or at least, maybe they could. I bet it would sell well)
I'm not trying to regurgitate the debate. I just want to know if the set renders ok in 3DL and if anyone had tried it.
Depends on the hardware ...
...indeed. My four year old i7 system renders pretty quick with 3DL in ver 4.8. Even though I only have 12 GB (well really 11 after Windows), it is tri channel configured and renders prettty fast as long as I'm not using UE with GI. Iray a lot slower for an average type of scene I would do, and far slower if it is an indoor scene, especially with emisive lights.
this morning kinda feel like iray being shoved down my throat. particularly cuz i want to render the stuff in carrara
gag, cough
...I know the feeling. A lot tougher than converting for 3DL.
Well if they do update Carrara to handle Genesis 3 characters given the lack of 3DL texture sets and Carrara's lack of iRay rendering maybe they are working an a preset to convert a selected surface to 3DL that works.
I tried changing a render that had exclusively iRay texture sets to 3DL by just choosing 3DL Rendering but all that cave me was a black and white image with the models being completely black and what was left showing of the HRDI sky white.
Just curious, can iray render this with comparable times?
Used a single 980TI. 3Delight CPU only with an i7 4770K was around 10 minutes with GI (proper ones cause its inside Maya, not DS). Haven't got iray for Maya, since it's not integrated anymore.
Proper is relevant to the algorithm used, the level of animation still detail desired, and the HW used; not to whether or not in your opinion is that it's fast enough to suit you.
If you try to recreate the same realistic lighting environment in 3DL and iRay, iRay will finish faster. Most people ain't got the skill or time to do such setups; I certainly have neither. If you go with the hueristics algorithms that are supposed to mimic human attention (and I use that phrase because i'm too ignorant to know the proper technical phrasing for what they are doing) that 3DL uses then 3DL is much faster than iRay.
It sort of like the difference between a 128 bit MP3 and a 320 bit CDA file in music only with light rendering of course. A 3 minute music track is a 3 minute music track in both cases but one of those tracks is much more accurate and contains much more information. That is what iRay is doing compared to these 'fast' 3DL renders.
Since you are doing animations the choice really should be simple - super simplified 3DL shaders with higher contrast and fewer colors so you can render FHD still faster - that's going to cause you to need to render in a cartoon style of your choice that pleases you, but that should be OK by you since it is your choice.
If you do not want a cartoon style, then you need to consider adding a lot of lighting and shading information to 3DL or use iRay instead and render the animation stills at old fashion VGA say 640x480 or 320x200 to hopefully get render times you will tolerate.
https://3delight.atlassian.net/wiki/display/3DFM/3Delight+Material
So yes. Proper physically plausible shading with parameters based of physical properties. Proper.
Then the question is would those render as quickly or more quickly than Iray? And would any of the people who have regularly said they use 3DL because it is not realistic be intrested? I am quessiong that is why Daz has not implimnented the PBR stuff for 3DL, because the 3dl people have been very strongly against PBR.
People mistake a few perception cheats to create reflections for realistic details everywhere in a render like they mistake boosted bass and tweeters for musical fidelity in MP3s. Also the example scene by the OP is a carefully constructed scene by professionals with materials carefully chosen to make you go 'wow, shiny' and think 'complicated' with the paper with all the numbers underneath the render to make it render faster rather than the real lighting and sort of materials you'd see walking into a typical chemistry class room in a large school house with styled windows (at least in the old style schools when they had windows).
If 3DL in DAZ Studio was supporting PBR then it'd be slow and that's what alot of people don't like but the other thing is they have developed an artistic style with those 3DL shaders in DAZ Studio that many people like and for good reason.
It would be nice if there was a preset that would reliable convert PBR Surfaces to 3DL surfaces and look good. Or is there? I haven't looked to hard yet.
I don't know, 3DL gets awfully close if you sweet talk it right.
The big problem is that somebody needs to code a faster bounce light thing.
Although I've had some luck making every surface a little reflective...
The 3DL for DS is the same as the 3DL for Maya. The difference is whether DAZ exposes the extras or is going to rely on the PAs to do it.
I don't have the time to take it on right now.
Kendall
I personaly think the question is would anyone really be excited about it? PBR by its very nature uses more calculations than a 3dl render with faked lighting etc. The later is what most of the 3dl people are using because they want the speed. They are not even using Uber enviroment because that takes renders into and past most Iray times. The only people who might be pleased by the addition are non nvida users if (and it is a big if) the pbr for 3dl would be faster for them. In other words, would Daz get more flack or more back pats by exposing the PBR option?
Probably.
https://3delight.atlassian.net/wiki/display/3DSP/Ray+Tracing+Stress+Test
Here's a page on their wiki comparing 3delight, Renderman and Arnold. Maybe it's biased
, but there's really nothing stopping anyone to download a trial of Maya or Houdini and compare it themselves for their purposes.
I sincerely doubt DAZ is going to update 3delight to use the OSL path though. Since they've never bothered 'catching up' to the modernized 3delight even with RSL.
What 3delight 'people' have been strongly against PBR? I'll be the first one to welcome anything new in 3delight for DAZ Studio. The shaders and shader bricks are so woefully outdated in DAZ Studio, people just assume 3delight in DAZ Studio can not do PBR rendering. Hell, DAZ developers never implemented 3Delight's physical sun and sky, raytraced subsurface scattering or properly implement GI with ray caching.
I mean who wouldn't want a renderer that can do both non-PBR and PBR rendering? That's creative freedom for the users.
Technically yes. DAZ just never implemented the 'extra' things that are implemented in Maya (3Delight's physical sun and sky, raytraced subsurface scattering or properly implement GI with ray caching). Hell, they even still ship Oren Nayar shader brick as a specular BSDF rather than a diffuse one.
And we all know Lambert diffuse aren't remotely close to physically correct diffuse.
Use kettu's script to force 3delight in DAZ Studio to pass the proper ray caching parameter to the renderer. I've seen something like 5 to 20x speedup with UE2's IDL and bounceGI mode with it. The only reason I can think of why DAZ didn't use it is memory consumption, which is a valid point if you are still using 32 bit and memory constrained below 3 GB of RAM. GI without ray caching is like doing photon mapping without irradiance caching.