Trusky Nights - by Riversoft Arts -- ???
daveso
Posts: 8,305
https://www.daz3d.com/trusky-nights This product seems like it would be just simple to use, but there are a lot of nuances. FIRST: I have not fully read the PDF.
When I'm out, even here in the suburbs, the number of stars in the sky are reduced from the light pollution. The stars that are there seem pretty sharp to look at? How to achieve this in the product? They always look blurry. I've ben trying but no luck so far.
I like the potential, but if I'm out away from lights, as in a rural area, I usually see a very clear sky with crispy looking stars. Black sky. Maybe we're lucky up here in the north. Things are much clearer in the winter than summer though, which accounts for the haze, mist, etc on hand during the summer.
WHAT OTHER HINTS CAN SOMEONE PROVIDE TO CHANGE UP AND DO THINGS IN THIS PRODUCT?
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
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
an example of what is happening. I have sky to dark. tried to adjust stars. turned off the haze. I'm only working with the stars now. I realize the horizon requires some haze. Scene lighting could be improved just a bit.
Link doesn't work. That example - the stars looks terrible. Maybe the product has been pulled?
https://www.daz3d.com/trusky-nights <-- working link
Light pollution, haze, clouds, atmosphere and other 'spheres do impact the brightness/visibility of the starfield as seen from-the-ground; so I wonder if the add-on has taken account of any of those effects?
It would be possible to mimic them (post or maybe in Daz, with environment settings, camera trickery etc) but - from the promos provided with the product - it does look as though it doesn't provide any of that natively
sure enough... it was working when I posted, and a bit later. Yeah, terrible stars, but then I was thinking perhaps as more of a background, but the stars need to be smaller and sharper, in my opinion.
thanks on link. Mine is adding a semi-colon for some strange reason.
The blurry images was why I didn't pick it up. I live in the north of New Zealand, a long way from light pollution and the stars are crispy clear and not at all blurry. The Southern Cross would be just awful in blur.
yeah... I am from northern Michigan. Its dark. But even here , near a population area of 600,000, the stars still look pretty sharp. Not as many to be seen for sure. Not at all like what I'm rendering. Its too bad. For the price its not too much to worry about.
True. But soon it's going to be at full price and not even worth being in the outlet store.
Yeah, way too blurry. The promos look horrible and the moon is pixelated in every promo. This product may show the stars in the correct positions, but thats a far cry from actually showing what stars actually look like. None of the promo images look realistic to me at all, even ignoring the blurriness, its just seems off. Probably because you cant just put pins of light on a render, we're also talking about different distances, different sizes stars, and different light colors from different stars. So the whole thing is interesting as a proof of concept, but not practical in any artistic sense, unless somehow you're gonna build all those nuances into it, and then thats probably a huge impossible endeavor. You're bascially talking about building a real planetarium within Daz Studio.
There are many settings that can be modified, such as reducing the number of stars, which is quite interesting, but it's not aesthetically pleasing as an artwork. Perhaps further adjustments could improve it, but so far it's rather rough.
Yes, the promo images are a bit off-putting, BUT...
After some fiddling with settings and options, I'm very happy with the results - see attached a) AKL_08.jpg and b) AKL_08_features.jpg:
b) Is just a copy of a) with Scorpio and the Southern Cross plus its Pointers marked.
The Location was set to Auckland, New Zealand, local time 22:00 on 2026-Sep-25 (so as to show the Southern Cross for Lorraine ).
These settings were changed from the defaults, and made a huge difference:
The Scene Camera Focal Length was set to 28mm.
There are many more available tweaks I've not yet tested.
I think this product is excellent value. Thank you RiverSoft!
Updated 2026-Sep-26 to correct Scorpio constellation
Can't say I'm impressed by the blurry result. Pity, the idea is excellent.
..@Praxis, Thank you for the information on adjusing the settings. Looks much better than the promos. Was able to nab it just before Daz "Zero Hour".
Was not very interested in the other GT as I already have a plethora of Sci-FI corridors (incuding modular ones).
ok, i take back what I said, that looks a lot better than the promos led me to beleive. thanks @praxis
@praxis ... thank you. That looks so much better. Yeah. I did change up most of those settings before with not that result, but I have no idea if I moved the values that much, more than likely not. I'll give it another try. I figured when I posted this thread that someone would find a way
well, I tried the setup by praxis. The generation was at 10 minutes. Too long for me, so I tried to stop it. Ended up having to close program as it locked up. Went to the next resolution and it took 7 minutes to generate. The result was still kinda bad, nothing like praxis was able to get. I'm attempting the high resolution again, just to see if it eventually loads. Will be back when it does , hopefully with a favorable result.
EDIT: second attempt at 16384 x 8192 resolution. Took 25 minutes to generate. That's not going to happen every time for sure.
@praxis --- what is the size of your render? it appears to me it has to be a specifc size to come out looking right. Larger the more the stars look terrible in the render. the image size below is 1600x900. its fine. The generation though, that is a real road block to me. Pushing half an hour. Wow... Even at the next resolution down it was 10 minutes, and that is barely tolerable.
Perhaps there is a setting that will improve the generation time.
well, i tried to reduce generation size and it for sure directly affects the blur of the stars. I guess I could set it going and come back after half an our or something. That's about all I can do I guess. My system is 3 years old, but still viable, i think.
Processor: 13th Gen Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-13700KF
Storage: 4.6 TB
Installed ram: 32 GB (31.7 GB usable)
Nvidia RTX 4080 16gig VRAM
@daveso sounds nightmarish to me. I is able have to return it. I'd have been a lot happier with a set of pre-rendered night sky hdri pics to us see as environments. I see Orestes has a series of night sky hdri sets that may be what I actually need.
The 2 renders in my earlier post, and the 3 attached to this post, are 1708x949 being the size of the active viewport.
It seems that the HDR quality, and subsequent render quality, is a function of the combination of these 4 factors:
Since most of the real-world stars are effectively at an infinite distance, I guess the challenge is to juggle the combination of the above to show them in the render as single pixels of appropriate brightness. Probably requires lots of tests...
As a start, the HDRs for the 3 renders attached here were all generated in DS v4.24.0.3 Beta with these settings:
Only the HDR Size was changed:
The differences in the renders are noticeable, but not huge: The 8k HDR seems sufficient for most uses?
Immediately after the above, I did the same in DS v6.25.2026.19821 Beta, and the times were roughly halved: 0m22a, 1m30s, 7m23s. I think Totte (Code66) said in a recent post that scripts are significantly faster in v6.
I believe that scripts in DS are single-threaded, and they can't use the GPU directly, so the main hardware performance factor seems to be CPU speed: My PC has a 20-core i7-14700K CPU with base speed 3.40 GHz that Task Manager says actually runs at 5.57 GHz. GPU is a RTX 4070 Ti Super 16 GB, and RAM is 64 GB. During the above renders Task Manager says CPU utilization is 6%, GPU is 0%, and when generating a 16k HDR, RAM in use is steady at 16.2 GB.
Hope this helps :)
...so I asked te following question about this in another thread.
Will this work in Daz 4.21 as on the product page it mentions only 4.24 and 6.
It does not load in DS v4.15.0.30, but does not say what the minimum supported. version is. I don't have v4.21 installed - hopefully RiverSoft will reply here.
Does the moon look better with your adjusted setting?
@praxis. Wow. thanks a lot for all that info. I guess my system is a bit doggy to run this script. I'll play around with it though as the concept is great. In reality, I really dont need real world star formations and all that but it would make a scene much more interesting if you could see a real night sky.
while I don't own it, maybe doing what I do with HDRis with lighting and reference versions will work
render just the dome first from your canera angle
then put it in the background
render the lower settings for the scene with dome not visible but background enabled
or add it in post with a png render with alpha
@praxis thanks for all that info and testing, I don't think I have the patience to deal with that, not to mention i prefer artistic so I'll just stick with TerraLUNA 3, its old but still makes a nice sky and moon thanks to a real 3D moon prop combined with HDRIs.
@praxis thanks from me, too, your findings help a lot! Maybe if Riversoftart read this, they could put in an update containing some of your settings.
I'm also thinking now that even though the scripts work in DS 4.24 perhaps it was more in tune with DS6. It is proven they work at least twice as fast in 6 but I am not running 6. I'm holding out to see if any of the numerous scripts I already own work in it. I dont plan on buying them all again, even as a lower cost upgrade. I'm tapped out as far as rebuying things for this hobby.
@FrankTheTank I have TerraLuna3 and will have to dig it out again.
Brilliant idea, but my modest 12600k ain't up to it. So I wishlisted the Orestes hdris and did the return dance on the script. Disappointed, but nothing else I can do!
Maybe tag or message Riversoft? He is very responsive
I'm surprised we haven't seen a Commercial thread about the product. Maybe a $2.99 Golden Ticket product doesn't warrant such a thing.