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
Well I can only speculate based on my own experiances with Octane and Bryce. If you can let in outside light, in either case, through a nice large area of transparency, that will contribute towards noise reduction by providing a good chance of the more hidden away corners of the scene "seeing" the light. If you have sunlight striking though the windows, even better, since then the surface on which this strong light arrives also then acts, as far as other surfaces are concerned, as a light source itself. Bryce sun is direct, in other words, its intensity is determined on the geomtry surface, but after that in TA rendering, it is that surface which acts as emitter. If the sun itself was an "emitter" occuping only a fraction of a degree in the sky, it would be impractical for it to light the scene. I don't know if the Octane sun works this way - though it might since there is a fiddle with transparent materials to let them either pass the direct sunlight or not. Octane has the advantage of being GPU accelerated so it might be able to get away with being a bit more "honest".
In a totally enclosed interior without much in the way of windows, if you are going for phsically based rendering, things get challenging. In Octane you can light a space with a single bulb, but even the mighty Octane will struggle under these conditions. Most surfaces will scatter the rays in such a way that they fail to encouter the light. Those that do, will return a "hot spot" which to begin with results in a lot of noise. Stick with it and eventually the noise will go. But it is a laborious route. So if there is some way to put in some additional, if "dishonest", light sources this can help alot. In Bryce direct light sources can be employed. These are not visible in themselves, like an emmission surface would be, but they light geometry, which in turn can then be considered an emitter by the TA render engine. In Octane, as stated, putting in large area emitters out of the eye of the camera is a good bet. But this is more limited and is of course meddling with the "reality" of the scene.
For all I know though it might be a materials issue rather than a lighting one. For example, at one point the Octane bridge from DS was doing something with the materials that resulted in diffuse materials having also reflection. This is bad news for the brute force render approach used by Octane, since the combination of scattering and reflection on every surface prolongs the life of the traced rays to the limit. This slows things down spectacularly. There are doubtles other possibilies. In Bryce, which I am most familiar with, I can usually find a few tweaks that will reduce render times by anything from a factor of 2 to 10. But that is only because of knowing what is likely to be causeing the trouble first. So all this starts with a process of elimination.
The light corner issue, as I understand it, which is not very well, is something to do with the way AO is calculated. So maybe this would be OK if the walls were continuous geometry - but in this case I've found that you can end up with smoothing artefacts in some renders - as a result I've tended to keep the walls as individual 2D surfaces. What the AO may see differently as it may not be as sensitive to intersecting geometries - purely as a matter of sampling. I'm guessing here. The only AO I've used is in Modo and that appears to work by sampling the geometry space.
Hello David,
Just an aside to your discussion here, but in DAZ Studio / Iray, area light-emitting surfaces can be excluded from the render. Their effect remains, but they are invisible themselves. This is tremendously useful, and a main reason for my delving *slowly* into Studio. My only excuse now for poorly lit scenes is my incompetence. Iray in Studio has been a culture shock for this Brycer. It is so good, and so fast, it is boggling. Staggering potential. The UI, of course, has been a different kind of culture shock...
I'm not abandoning Bryce, I'll just be using it for different purposes and shall no longer bother struggling with human figure closeups, etc.
Thanks Peter,
Yes, I think this option is also available in Octane. I didn't know it existed in Iray too. I updated Octane for a commission and as with anything where you are moving from one job to another, I can't say I really delved into it beyond trying to solve any immediate problems. It wasn't until you mentioned it that I remembered what you can do is set the emitting geometry to cast illumination while at the same time setting its opacity to 0. I don't think this combination was available in the previous version - though I may be wrong.
My experiance with Iray was that it was considerably slower than Octane, at least for what I was doing, and besides I do not get on with the Studio interface. So I was a bit disincentivised. If Iray had come out before Octane, it might have been a different matter. My main contact with Octane though is through Modo, looking for mesh problems in models.
And as good as Octane is, I do feel that from an artistic perspective these physical simulation render engines are a bit constraining. Great if photorealism is the aim, which it often is, but if otherwise it can be a lot of hard work to get the effect you want. Don't see that as a criticism of the software just an observation that there is a risk that the technology might result in a certain uniformity of output.
To be honest, David, I'm having so many issues with Reality at the moment that I'm trying to find a way to gather the funds to but that new PC and move into IRay. At least there is a larger community with more experience now.
I feel you are correct in this path. It is a shame the Apple boxes are often almost "closed" systems, where upgrades are either impossible or limited. I have a mac mini myself, but I only need it to build my IOS apps, I use my PC for any 3D work. I doubt very much I could upgrade my mini with an nVidia card in any case.
Like it or not, iRay, at least for now, is the de-facto renderer for DS, and is likely to strengthen its position in time, which means, as you correctly said, that the majority of users will be using it. This alone is a huge advantage, being able to come to the forums and draw on the pool of expertise from the many users here. That, coupled with the ever growing number of products that work out of the box with iRay, I can not see Reality or Octane seriously challenging the iRay dominance amoungst DS users.
Aye, well I did look at Mac's because I don't like the direction Microsoft are going with their OS, but to build a Mac of the same spec as the PC I was looking at would have cost me £7000! More than three times what the PC cost. My pockets are not that deep. In the end I went to http://www.pcspecialist.co.uk/ probably not the cheapest option but everything they did was to a high standard and I could get a Windows 7 OS which was to some extent pre-installed but I still had to endure a week of watching it update itself and fail to boot and then repair itself and go on line (another means of surfing the web is essential if you have a comptuter that doesn't want to load its OS) and find out that some of the updates don't work properly found the answer on Microsofts website "fix it". So yes not a smooth start - thank you Microsoft - but you know, saving £5000 is worth a bit of hassle to me.
Things to consider... Look for the sweet spot between performance and price for GPU's that's fine, but also consider memory. I found that 3gb was not enough memory to load many scenes with full resolution on the graphics. There is some provision for using memory off card, but it slows things down a lot. I also found that 8gb of computer RAM was not enough either - but PC memory is dirt cheap by comparison to GPU's so that's an easy upgrade. And since the translation process from scene to GPU eats memory worth doing. Or once you hit that memory limit wall the PC grinds to a halt.
Also be aware, if you plan to go down the multiple graphic card route, the processing cabability adds up but the onboard memory does not. So two 4gb GPU's will not give you 8gb of memory, because each card must hold and image of your scene. So that's still just 4gb. Sorry if you already know this and I am bending your ear unnecessarily but given how expensive GPU's are it is an expensive mistake to not get what you need. After much contemplation I went for 6gb memory. Probably I could of got away with 4gb but for the sake of future proofing. OK by that argument I should have gone for a 12gb TITAN. But... my bank account suggested otherwise. Instead I looked for a motherboard that could house up to 3 GPU's to give me an option on upgrading later. The memory available to your renderer will be limited by your smallest GPU you have engaged for rendering. Also note, if you pile all your GPU's into the rendering you might find screen response a bit sluggish. And and and... things will get hot. That's based on my experiance with Octane, but I suspect it is much the same for Iray. But ask around the community you have found since I am certain you will find someone wiser than I in these matters. Just giving you a heads up.
@Havos, I suspect you are right about iRay, Octane is a bit of a handful by comparison and probably overkill for the majority of hobbiests. I don't count myself as anything more than a hobbiest, but the fact that I got my hands on Octane long before iRay was a twinkle in DAZ's eye I am naturally baised.
My budget is also restricted. I am trying to manage a GTX970 along with an i7 Skylake and 16GB RAM. I can have Novatech (UK) build that for about 1,000 GBP but I then need a decent monitor and I fear that I've been spoilt with the gorgeous 27" iMac and anything else will be a disappointment. I don't really car for these long, narrow aspect screens.
I know how it feels to be on a budget! OK, just a thought, it might be worth looking at the Intel Core i5-660K, it is a quad core CPU, it lacks the HyperThreading of the more expensive i7 range, but unless you have a specific need for hyperthreading you could save yourself £100 right there. Intel price the i5-6600k @ £189 cf the i7-6700K @ £287 - the thing to weigh up there is future proofing if you are looking at doing anything with Direct X 12 - but I doubt that will be a concern with this application.
I'm not into gaming if that's the main reason for Direct-X 12. I did think it might be worhwhile waiting for NVidia Pascal but the latest news pushed the consumer release back until next year. I don't think there's any such thing as future proofing - the moment I take delivery some new feature will have hit the market. But I do know what you mean - I have to make it last a few years. I'm emigrating to New Zealand later in the year to spend my retirement closer to my son. Unfortunately prices are much higher there so I'll have to upgrade at UK prices before I leave. Pity I can't get US prices.
As for i5 vs i7 - there's differing opinions - even in the posts here. I'm not sure what applications need hyperthreading but I don't have many CPU intensive programs apart from this hobby.
because i am sitting in the same boat... i see currently two "shoestring budget options which make sense ...
1. look around for a second hand gamer PC... i7 2600 or better with 8 - 16GB ram and two or more PCI slots run currently between 300 - 500usd (without monitor). add a gtx 960 or 970 and use the older GTX 4xx - 5xx or AMD for your monitor....
2. Invest in a X99 board and a cheaper XEON and do your own build - the advantage is having full 40 PCI lanes and 3 - 4 PCI slots to add cuda cards... the idea is that latest with Pascal we can get 980 & titans cheap/secondhand!
Here my current component list with the focus on future and upscale abilities.. http://pcpartpicker.com/p/Gh3r23 ... comments/critics are appreciated
In know what you mean about the Studio interface, but there are enough video guides out there to help me cope *slowly*. As to the render speed difference between Iray and Octane, that's a bit academic coming from Bryce (+ complex scene / transparency / lights, etc). With Iray, the scene is entirely ledgible in seconds, and pretty darned good in minutes. Better in minutes than Bryce overnight. And that's just the work window. The fact that Iray is integrated into Studio is key to me. I don't want to faff with a third-party converter and "setting up materials", etc. Octane is clearly more advanced, but I don't want to jump through hoops to get there.
As a PA, you ought to drag yourself across the broken glass and get to lernin' Studio. It is where we, your customers, live. :mrgreen:
Aye, you are not wrong. Instead though I am getting more entrenched in Modo. I am lucky that ForbiddenWhispers has embraced Iray and is willing to contend with DS. As you say the difference between Octane is and Iray is not as great as that between Iray and Bryce, and since FW is perpared to do Iray I am willing to fiddle with converters and Octane. It seems like a small price to pay not to have to overcome my "horror" of the Studio interface. Maybe when I've learned the modelling to my satisfaction I will explore a bit more, but as things stand I have enough to cause me premeture hair loss in .obj land.
I did, but only because that was my computer upgrade. It was a slot in on my Sandybridge Hex core (3930K? I forget) self-build. The Seasonic power supply was more than enough for the Titan X and a little GTX750Ti to run the monitor. The CPU is open-loop watercooled but the Titan remains in its standard clothes. It doesn't seem to bat an eyelid and is very quiet. Under load it goes from virtually silent to a quiet whir. I don't feel the need to watercool it. Two or more would be a different matter.
At 12GB Vram, the card will still be relevant for Studio even if it plays second fiddle to a 16GB Pascal thing in the future. Running out of Vram seems more of an ongoing impact than CUDA core grunt, so I looked at the upfront cost of the Titan X as very speadable.
It seems a fine partnership, but of course you have to share the lucre. Knowing the whole workflow (I think that's what they call it) would maximise revenue for D. Brinnen Enterpises Ltd, and prevent you from having to maintain Mablethorpe.
Mablethorpe? A few miles down the road from my birthplace of Cleethorpes.
This is true, and I don't object to learning more, but it is all a matter of balancing immedate income against ongoing income and future income. As things stand I am always in the position of learning as I go along. Workflow... yes, getting it as linear as possible is the challenge. If any issues crop up and you have to loop back to fix something it can be very costly in terms of time. And then there is using DS, which, as things stand, is just impenitrable to me. There's no piece of software I've ever used that I find less suited to me. Even Poser seems to make more sense to me.
I went for the 6gb 980, though I did have the Titan in my trolly - briefly, that was as close as I got. I stuck water cooling on the processor and overspeced the PSU, just beacuse I've had heat problems in the past and exploded a PSU - which was a scary moment, bright flash, bang, smoke and fragments of silver foil spat out. A largish electrolitic capacter had died spectacularly messily. Luckily the motherboard survied.
Aye, Marble, just down the road from Cleethorpes, a windy road, but then again, Linconshire doesn't have much but windy roads.
I could mention Market Rasen and make it a "threesome", but that was Bernie Taupin and not that other chap we're not supposed to mention, LOL.
I seem to remember there used to be a really nice Chippy in Mablethorpe.
I showed my elderly mother Poser and Studio. She's almost entirely computer illiterate, but understood the very basics of Poser pretty quickly. Didn't stand a chance with getting started in Studio. It's a coal mine.
But - observation shows that it is extremely powerful for creatives, and that people who can barely string a sentence together are able to use it. I shall persist.
I'm baffled now. I know where Market Rasen is, indeed it was the epicentre of our "earthquake", and also there's some horse racing goes on there. But I don't know Bernie Taupin (Wikipedia does) but that still offers no clue to who the other chap may be.
@Pam, aye, well there's a few to goto, but I favour The Clock, as it is within walking distance.
I fear though we are not really helping out folks with the orginal topic, unless they are fancing a visit to the seaside and want to know which chippies to visit.
Oops, naughty me.
Adam Smith showed us the benefits of division of labour. So, if you and Forbidden Whispers, with your individual specialisations, can produce more than twice as much with the two of you combined than as two working alone, then you will be more productive and wealthy. I think you are on the right track, and withdraw my earlier suggestion.
It offers a clue, but (amazingly) it is against the (UK) law for me tell you. Any Americans who know can freely tell you, on these US based servers. But not me. Or Pam. :mrgreen:
Well, I did run an Iray/CPU experiment. I set up a 1500x1500 scene with a room, two people (naked) and 3 items of furniture. I hid any glass or very reflective surfaces. I left the ceiling and two walls invisble so that I could use the dome environment (Dome and Scene, no ground) and I added a photometric spotlight at 1500 lumens. ISO 200 was too high (over exposed) so I dropped back to 100. F-Stop of 4. Architectual On, Caustic Off. I set the spot to photometric and selected sphere geometry of 10cm. I then let it render for 1h10m.
I already had the identical scene rendered in Luxrender CPU, also left to render for 1h10m and that was pretty much clean and sharp by then. I'd consider it finished. The Iray version, however, was showing 2% on the progress bar at 1h10m and was very grainy.
On the other hand, even through the grain, I could see that the Iray version was handling the materials better than the Reality/Lux conversion. Reality is pretty poor with displacement and bump conversions too. Most of the content of the scene did not have custom IRay material versions so I had to use the default DAZ IRay Uber Base but, apart from a couple of small objects that looked like metal when they shouldn't, the conversions looked pretty good.
So I really do want to get IRay working for me but can't work with such long render times.
So far I've got Market Rasen, Bernie Taupin, and threesome. I know who Bernie Taupin is (I'm old, ok?). I Googled "Market Rasen Threesome".... now I'm completely confused and won't rest today unless I learn who you're talking about. Illegal to mention someone's name online in the UK? Yeah, I know... Iray and 3delight... that's the topic... Sorry, but someone please derail again long enough to answer this please! :)
Chuck ;)
Look, it was late and wine had been consumed. Market Rasen (after the mention of Cleethorpes and Mablethorpe) was merely an opportunity to introduce "threesome" to the discussion, given some of Bernie's professional associations. It's the name of the person in connection with allegations of threesomes that is under injunction. You can mention celebrities attending Billy Elliot the Musical all you like.
Apparently, you can talk about this if you're Scottish. It's only England and Wales under, er, moderation.
@Marble
The architectural sampler comes into play when cleaning up the render (>1000 iterations)... without a GPU card and if you render only 1 hour.. then it will slow down the process.
OK - got that, thanks.
I'm still wondering if it is at all possible to render a scene like that in an hour using IRay in CPU mode. Or would it be difficult even in GPU mode with a half-decent GPU (7XX series, perhaps)?
based on my numbers about 30-40 cudas give you the same speed as the CPU (older quad core) .. so even a cheap GTX 740 should be 10 -12 times faster. But there will be always scenes which take longer then 1 hour...
How many iterations did you get after 1 hour 14 minutes?
Marble, a reason you need a CPU that can do hyperthreading - if you use 3Delight at all, the render engine version in DAZ Studio uses every thread it can - it is unlimited cores/threads on a single PC. You can do some nice things rendering with Iray and also rendering elements of a scene in 3Delight and compositing, especially if you have issues with noise in a low light scene - those can be rendered quickly in 3Delight (for example a background).
So, since you can choose get an i7, not an i5, get 32 GB of Ram (you will eventually, maybe sooner than later, need it all), get the best Nvidia card you can afford. Me, I use an 8-core AMD 8350 CPU which does pretty well (and was all I could afford when I put my computer together but I would have opted for an i7 with hyperthreading if I could have afforded it) and makes for a great heater on a cool day when rendering. I have 32 GB of RAM and noticed an improvement in many things when I upgraded from 16 GB. I have an ASUS GTX780ti with 3 GB which works well enough for now for rendering. I have an older EVGA GTX 470 for the monitor. Since a wide screen monitor works better for video these days, I would suggest one of those. You can always keep your iMac to enjoy viewing your larger renders on it. You are fortunate it works well for you because my younger brother and his wife have had several iMacs over the years (because she has to have one), and all but their current one had fatal issues. I can't recommend that product at all.