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
Richard: that's a little bit of a cop out, isn't it? There are FAR more varied 3dl shaders than Iray shaders, yet we have a 3dl to Iray shader. Why is THAT more doable than the reverse? Heck, if the darn thing just converted Opacity maps right, that'd solve loads of problems.
Will, does the method Charlene shows in her video not work? I haven't tried it yet.
Would people invest in something that "sort of" works? If you bought something, you expect to work and work well; this is no different. It isn't competiton if you buy something comparable and it isn't if it doesn't work.
Businesses want stable solutions for stuff, whereas hobbyists are more tolerant of such things. This is why Pixar is using CUDA instead of OpenCL.
Well Ill be......gonna have to try this! Thanks for shareing
Naturally we do not know the details of the agreement DAZ signed with nVidia in order to bundle iRay into a free app. They may, for example, have agreed not to add a renderer with support for Open CL, in which case they could not add that even if a later version of 3DL supported it.
I don't believe it even comes down to any agreements. It is really the graphics standard that is used. Most of the GPU rendering engines use CUDA because it is stable. There are some that also use OpenCL, but the ones that are in our section of the community aren't fully implemented or are in beta mode, such as cycles. If a business or a hobbiest for that matter wanted to render with a gpu, they could buy an AMD card then wait for more work on OpenCL rendering engine or use one that is currently available that uses CUDA. People can buy one of the cards that support OpenCL, but they aren't saving much money if they can't fully use the card.
Vendors are the ones choosing to support Iray over 3DL.
That may be true for people with some photography, cinematography, or stage lighting experience, but it is exactly the opposite for me. 3DL makes much more sense to me; when Iray doesn't do what I expect it to do, I end up banging my head against it until I give up and go back to 3DL.
No, it means that when Iray was introduced they had (1) a store full of 3DL-optimized products, and (2) a user base for which Iray was new and which they therefore did not have experience in adapting shaders for, so the undoubtedly significant effort that went into the 3DL to Iray conversion was necessary so that products would remain usable. That's not the situation for the reverse. I would love for DS to convert Iray shaders to 3DL on the fly, but it's undoubtedly not an easy task.
There's a lot of putting the cart before the horse here: I don't think it's Daz 3D pushing customers to Iray, it's customers' preference for Iray pushing Daz 3D and the vendors to Iray.
I just tried it. (Note I happen to not agree with UberSurface being the "best" one for 3DL, as I generally prefer the look of the AoA subsurface for skin. And it doesn't slow my machine down apreciably. But I used it for this experiment.) Any opacity maps do not transfer over from Cutout. You can kinda see it in the video with the sample figure's hair.
That said, UberSurface probably contains the most elements that are similar to Iray, and I didn't sit down and track what, exactly transfered where. So using UberSurface as the "between" when you want to use the AoA subsurface or some other 3DL specific shader may well be a good route to take. I know that when I go from UberSurface to AoA subsurface, I don't have to re-allocate too many maps, if any.
I don't think it's fair to talk down that way to those that prefer iray. I remember a lot threads where users were trying strive for more realism in their renders and that's where these and other users found it. I think it's fair to say that iray addressed the needs of a lot of users, hence it's appeal and popularity, just like a other items such as genesis when it was first release. I'm sure people thought that was new and shiny until they found it bent much better and people didn't have to fight with clothes fits that they did in previous generations.
Is there a link for this post? I've seen people say it's not as popular and PAs saying they'll support it when it's feasible to do so.
Yeah, Charlene's 'method' isn't substantially different from selecting everything and double clicking 'UberSurface.' Which is nice and all that, but it does absolutely nothing for the specific thing I mentioned, which is opacity.
Which is the hardest thing about converting, say, a forest into 3DL. Or a city. Or whatever.
ARGH
So I have a fog camera, set up a cool system. Did a render, looks beautiful, finally.
Added a figure.
Now the fog isn't working at all, no matter how I try.
KK, I have no idea how your experiences with 3DL are that good, because to me it's a constant gamble.
Exactly this. If I use Iray its because I want a certain look. If I use 3Delight, its because I want a different look than I get from Iray or else, why bother? I don't even WANT things to look exactly the same in each renderer becaue I use them for far different things.
And mine....
Finally got the whole thread read lol.
So I use both render engines as I said above so its not make or break for me to have support for both on any given product. But I will say this. I am sure the sales data supports the fact that Iray sells better than 3Delight. But I also believe that its not really a fair comparison because honestly, if I had found Daz a couple months later and didn't visit the forums, I doubt that I would even have noticed that there was another option availalbe. The switch over happened rather quickly, when I first came here I started learning 3Delight because that is what was available and everything for sale was for that. Then Iray came out and all of a sudden, (relatively speaking probably in less than 6 months) all you saw and heard about is Iray. I doubt that anyone new coming into this hobby even notices that 3Delight is much of an option because Iray is shoved in their face wherever they look. And why would they look for a second option if its not obvious? So to say that Iray sells better than 3Delight now is probably true. But someone, somewhere was working pretty hard to make sure that that is what would happen.
...sort of my feeling as well. They may as well just "round file" (a polite term for what I really intend to say) 3DL and be done with it if they don't care to take any steps, not even providing an optimisation tool, to keep it a viable option any more.
One thing I can take from this, I now have a deeper appreciation for how the Poser community feels.
That's not exactly what the sales data says; what it says is that having both sets of shaders available does not guarantee that sales will be higher enough for a given product to justify including both. Hell, I remember a time when some products being sold here had only Poser mats because that's what the vendor of the product used to create it. Other folks made DAZ Studio mats for those products, though today the vendor in question has long abandoned Poser and Victoria 4 for DAZ Studio and G3F. Their personal image renders are done in Octane, for what it's worth, though product renders are done in either 3DL or Iray and I think they do provide both.