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
I'm sorry to tell you that you are still failing to grasp the basic error of your argument. You accused people that didn't agree with you as arguing on "perception". Yet you are doing the exact same thing. The best you can say is that you have your sales data to back up your assumption. But it's an assumption nonetheless. Your sales data alone provides very little statistical validity. And you are assuming other PAs will support your assertion. Maybe some will but whether or not it is true, you do not know until all the data is all collected. Thus an assumption. I'm not arguing one way or the other. I'm arguing that your stance right now is merely your perception, which you, rather callously, accused all the people who didn't agree with you. That's all I will say on this. Don't want to beat a dead horse. If you don't get it, then you don't get it.
So again, what are you basing your argument upon? You never answered. Again, PAs (myself included) have sales that show trends of what sells and what doesn't. I've had sales to for years to decide whether to support what generation of figure and what shaders to include in a product. I'm looking at numbers and solidt trends, yet you're arguing with just emotions like that will pay a PAs bills. You're using perception, sorry. Also your argument also ignores those PAs that have already chimined in and said they can only support it when their rate of return supports it.. which is based on sales.
I think we are getting off topic here: Male-M3dia doesn't have all of the sales data of all of the users but does have experience talking to many of the creators and has be a vendor here for years. The people who are requesting an enhanced 3delight support don't have all of the sales data of all of the users either and may be requesting something that Daz3d (who does have all of the sales data of all of the users and the ability and motivation to talk to vendors about what is substainable technically and artistically). Your task is to convince the company that they should continue and enhance their support and diregard what their sale data says. At this point, someone is going to say we don't know what the sale data says; Daz3d does and it is their business decision. The reality is that there are fewer store for us hobbyists and the seem to be heading towards making more iRay only products. As a company, they will make software that works on today's and tomorrow's computers. It will be difficult for most of their new artists to support two renderers in the long run. I suggest that is best to focus your efforts to either show how they can economically support 3delight as an alternate renderer with a limited subset with the knowledge that it will be ultimately either a rival or deprecated. i can't imagine that the full store can support artists who are required to make products that are of equal quality using such radically different render engines over a long period without introducing ecodomic instability. No one quite figured out to do this with Poser and Daz Studio so history doesn't seem to be optimstic. That being said, is there a compromise to be had where Daz3d allows for an orderly deprecation where they attempt to to have what artists who make products for both systems have that more boldly advertised and that at least a few products support both systems when they can for some defined time (let's say three years).
How con anyone at DAZ decide if I bought something for IRAY or despite IRAY?
I render with 3Delight. So, if I buy something IRAY only, I do it, because I like the item and will try to get it to work in IRAY. BUT...
That doesn't say I support IRAY.
...AMD supports it for both their Radeon and FirePro GPUs. I don't see them moving to CUDA as that is proprietary to Nvidia.
...so why can't we just get a Daz default "Uber" utility that helps with optimising Iray shaders for 3DL? It would be "one and done" and this way, individual PAs who don't want to deal with including 3DL shaders would be "off the hook" so to say.
No ...such a purchase proves nothing about your intented
use for the product.
But for us content merchants it is a bit of a Zero sum game
it is selling ...or it is not selling.
If a PA is getting good sales from IRay only products
That is all of the Data He needs to make a sound business decision
to keep producing such products.
The argument that he/she is "losing money" By abandoning 3Delight is no more provable or even relevant than that of the poser users
who insist Daz is "losing money" by not supporting poser.
Well, as I understand it, the bulk of what is done in Renderman is GPU-Neutral as it always has been, and as is the case in 3Delight. Only certain features have been modified to take advantage of CUDA if it's available.
I agree here, a simple converter plugin. Reality does this 'in house' so to speak so materials are convertered for luxrender. I don't see why this couldn't be done for iray to 3DL. Heck even octane converts the materials for use in its plugin. This would be an amazing fix that should please everyone.
Also, as far as iClone 7 goes - you have to have a Nvidia GTX 970 or higher to utilize there PBR. It was in the 'fine print' for the ad I got to preorder. I have a 960, so that knocked that off my list for now.
Why don't we start a 'Show us your 3Dlight renders' thread much like the iray one? I think that would be awesome - let folks see what you guys can do with it witout having to sift through all this technical mumbo jumbo.
There are other groups trying to make a standard in place of OpenCL, however CUDA has much more performance and stability than OpenCL and business is all about getting busines done. It doesn't matter if one standard works on mutliple cards if it's not stable or doesn't work as well as CUDA.
Would be good to see a show us your 3Delight renders thread whether it would happen who knows..
Showing a pattern of behavior doesn't show you WHY, or how easy the situation is to change.
My theory is that it's primarily caused by Daz failing to keep 3DL up to snuff, so Iray naturally outcompetes it by doing some things better and then just by being new/good.
For a PA, though, it doesn't matter. The situation is what it is, for whatever reason.
What are you looking for? Daz hasn't, as I recall, written any 3Delight hadrs since the Default Daz Shader - the application does support most of the newer features, we lack shaders that use them.
The problem is, or at least a problem is, that the iray uber shader has a lot of (potentially mapped) properties that the 3delight shaders lack - going from a subset to a superset (3delight to Iray) is one thing, going from a superset to a subset (Iray to 3delight) another. It's the difference between putting a pint in a quart pot and putting a quart in a pint pot. And of course the Iray uberShader has different modes to account for.
Richard: UE2 that works efficiently with new versions of Daz Studio would be a huge one, easier access/control over ray tracing for new users, and maybe a conversion from Iray to Daz that doesn't miss really obvious stuff like opacity maps.
And yeah, Daz really ought to make or commission a better core shader to make use of newer features in some central way. Again, that's part of making a render option viable.
I mean, they've done improvements on Iray Uber, like the overlay stuff.
Just off the top of my head, the 3DL wonks, I'm sure, have more incisive ones to point out.
Oy.
Just picked up Wowie's lumina shaders!
Aaaaand none of the glass seems to work properly (IE: allow light to pass through).
Sigh.
Ok, one of the things that stinks about 3DL and helps drive people toward Iray is that it's incredibly quirky and unpredictable. Lots of stuff just doesn't work as you'd expect, so you end up with this long list of notes and workarounds for hazy ambiguous stuff you don't understand.
Iray, when it doesn't work right, it's usually a lot more straight forward about it.
In 2016 in most other software "learning a render engine" means learning to create your own materials in a node based editing environment.
For new users it is great that they can buy shader products from artists and then simply click on a preset.
But for advanced users the current system of buying shaders in order to use "features" of render engines is a dead end from a creative and financial perspective.
What finally needs to happen is an update for the "Shader Mixer"
- > In order not to go to far offtopic here I create a separate thread if anyone is interested to share some thoughts on that:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/130626/any-plans-to-update-the-shader-mixer
I mean, right now?
If I want to make a photorealistic image in 3DL, with a few basic purposes, I need to use UE2. If I use UE2, my render times are longer than doing the equivalent in Iray.
That's not going to compete well.
I mean, I'm literally trying to do just that and watching my render absolutely come to a stop at 50% because of UE2. And it's not that complicated a scene. And I'm thinking 'if I did this in Iray, I'd have a decent image by now'.
What is your Raytrace depth (in Render Settings)? It may be that the shader needs more bounce calculations to get trhough the glass and affect the surfaces on the other side than you have.
If I was a vendor of products that required different shaders for each render engine supported and it wasn't a requirement to provide them (like may be the case for DAZ Original buyouts) I would want to see an increase compared to a product i release with only one set of shaders to make it worth the time to provide them.
Richard: I set it up to 8, which is usually WAY more than enough. And bupkis. Also shutting 'cast shadow: off' didn't work, for some reason.
Notably, when I use SOME glass shaders, it works fine. Just not that one. It might be an interaction between AoA spotlight and the code of the glass shader.
I threw my hands up and went back to Iray, which took almost no time to set the scene up.
Now, if I used my normal Distant light + Ambient light, this would probably work out, but at that point I'm loosing ground to trying to make realism.
...I'm with you on that. In response to the Realistic Renders thread there was the Realistic Renders....NOT thread.
...well it sort of does if it allows for competition and a less costly option.
well i7 is nice, and I have, but i am looking for a lot more cores/threads
...subscribed.
..it doesn't have to be totally complete conversion, just do most of the drudge work and give us our specular channel back.
...I really don't find 3DL that "unpredictable" at all. Maybe with the Uber Area Lights as you have to set falloff and sampling rate. However the standard as well as AOA advanced lights are very simple to work with.
On the other hand to save time rendering a scene in Iray with lots of light soruces, it is better to place photometric lights where they are needed (just like in 3DL) rather than use the emissive shader. I remember Totte rendering Jack's Library with the new Iray textures that were released, which also used the emissive sshader for all the lights, and it took something like 36 hours.
...if the shader mixer worked more like Carrara's Shader tab, I'd use it, but to my eyes it looks like an overturned bowl of spaghetti.
...I can get good high quality results with AoA's advanced lights and rarely use UE.
Also again, "photo realism" is not my bag, creating a high quality image in which all the elements have a strong sense of visual continuity with each other is.