Loading...
> >

Future of Daz Studio

124»

Comments

  • drafter69_696b99e42bdrafter69_696b99e42b Posts: 348

     I suspect this remark ws made by someone who is promoting another company and their 3d product.    The characters offered for Daz Studio are fantastic.  Graphic and realistic

     

    unknownmystery445 said:
    divamakeup said:

    Wow, what? Since when are Daz Studio's product not "accepted" by the CG community? o.O

    I don't know just read it somewhere here in the forums and also noticed that in the major sellers of 3D models Daz format Isn't really being used that much. I'm just curious on the future of Daz, I don't know if it's really "accepted" or not.

     

  • ScarletX1969ScarletX1969 Posts: 587
    kyoto kid said:
    DrNewcenstein said:

    And this is where a lot of the "cork sniffers" fall flat: they can't tell a good story.

    Ready-made assets are no different than a typewriter and paper, or pencils, or ink and canvas. They are merely the tools. How many of the physical media snobs made their own media? Not many, I assure you. And yes, that is the exact comparison. Michelangelo bought blocks of marble from a quarry that were mostly pre-shaped into blocks. He did not carve them out of the earth himself, and it certainly doesn't come out in large obelisks ready for chiseling. 

    Storytellers use ready-made tools to tell their story, because the story is what matters, not the tools.

    "It's not the arrow, it's the hunter".

    ...yesyes

    The points I have been trying to make.

    It's not the tool, it's the artist.  I agree completely.

     

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    wolf359 said:
     

     "People can't just show their hand-keyed animated figures,
     no, they have to show multiple figures, in multiple places, all talking,"

    People can show whatever they wish Mate

    But when they make universal statements like:

     "All auto lipsynch is rubbish and should be hand keyed".

    then yes I will ask to see their lovingly hand keyed work
    in a REAL WORLD scenario ..not a theoretcial one
    perhaps a paid client  job were the client decides the length
    and environments  ..not just short controled  test demo renders of theirs.

    when they say "Cinema4D has excellent character animation tools
     and does not need  mocap retargeting"

    Yes.. I will ask to see some of their hand keyed work where Characters are being struck 
    and being knocked down with ragdoll physics.

    I'm not going to argue with you, I'm just telling you why people don't engage with these demands. You can take it or leave it.

    wolf359 said:

    "People can't just show dForce working properly to animate clothing, no, they have to show dForce working properly to animate clothing
     specifically during a walk cycle,"

    Not an unreasonable request IMHO
    https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/223316/dear-pas-with-products-dforce-labeled#latest

    Insisting that a video of a character dancing for ten seconds in a dForce dress would only be a proper demonstration if the character had been walking is pretty unreasonable. No one is going to bother to take it upon themselves to render these very specific things just to prove something they already know.

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    agent unawares said:
    wolf359 said:
     
    wolf359 said:

    "People can't just show dForce working properly to animate clothing, no, they have to show dForce working properly to animate clothing
     specifically during a walk cycle,"

    Not an unreasonable request IMHO
    https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/223316/dear-pas-with-products-dforce-labeled#latest

    Insisting that a video of a character dancing for ten seconds in a dForce dress would only be a proper demonstration if the character had been walking is pretty unreasonable. No one is going to bother to take it upon themselves to render these very specific things just to prove something they already know.

    I think a request for an example of their hand keyed animation is reasonable, personally.

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited January 2018
    Daywalker Designs said:
    agent unawares said:
    wolf359 said:
     
    wolf359 said:

    "People can't just show dForce working properly to animate clothing, no, they have to show dForce working properly to animate clothing
     specifically during a walk cycle,"

    Not an unreasonable request IMHO
    https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/223316/dear-pas-with-products-dforce-labeled#latest

    Insisting that a video of a character dancing for ten seconds in a dForce dress would only be a proper demonstration if the character had been walking is pretty unreasonable. No one is going to bother to take it upon themselves to render these very specific things just to prove something they already know.

    I think a request for an example of their hand keyed animation is reasonable, personally.

    So do I! But insisting that it has to be multiple characters, in multiple locations, all talking, at least ten minutes long (and now also apparently with ragdoll physics) is too restrictive for people to readily have examples on hand, because they do not sit around mimicking wolf's videos. And no one is going to create a new video just to prove they can do something (they could spend that time actually working on their own projects).

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • PetercatPetercat Posts: 2,321
    agent unawares said:

    So do I! But insisting that it has to be multiple characters, in multiple locations, all talking, at least ten minutes long (and now also apparently with ragdoll physics) is too restrictive for people to readily have examples on hand, because they do not sit around mimicking wolf's videos. And no one is going to create a new video just to prove they can do something (they could spend that time actually working on their own projects).

    I don't think Wolf was asking anyone to create anything new specifically for a demonstration.
    I think we was himself demonstrating the foolishness of anyone wishing to create a long animation
    consisting of several characters doing many things, without the assistance of mocap software.
    He was asking to be shown, because he knows that it hasn't been done, and would be too
    time-consuming to do in the manner approved by the purists.

    In other words, if you insist that it should be done in a certain way, show me where it's been done that way!

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,795
    Petercat said:
    agent unawares said:

    So do I! But insisting that it has to be multiple characters, in multiple locations, all talking, at least ten minutes long (and now also apparently with ragdoll physics) is too restrictive for people to readily have examples on hand, because they do not sit around mimicking wolf's videos. And no one is going to create a new video just to prove they can do something (they could spend that time actually working on their own projects).

    I don't think Wolf was asking anyone to create anything new specifically for a demonstration.
    I think we was himself demonstrating the foolishness of anyone wishing to create a long animation
    consisting of several characters doing many things, without the assistance of mocap software.
    He was asking to be shown, because he knows that it hasn't been done, and would be too
    time-consuming to do in the manner approved by the purists.

    In other words, if you insist that it should be done in a certain way, show me where it's been done that way!

    It has been done that way of course but to expect to find the single individual that has done that to both of read his request in the DAZ forums and respond to it is even more unlikely.

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited January 2018
    Petercat said:
    agent unawares said:

    So do I! But insisting that it has to be multiple characters, in multiple locations, all talking, at least ten minutes long (and now also apparently with ragdoll physics) is too restrictive for people to readily have examples on hand, because they do not sit around mimicking wolf's videos. And no one is going to create a new video just to prove they can do something (they could spend that time actually working on their own projects).

    I don't think Wolf was asking anyone to create anything new specifically for a demonstration.
    I think we was himself demonstrating the foolishness of anyone wishing to create a long animation
    consisting of several characters doing many things, without the assistance of mocap software.
    He was asking to be shown, because he knows that it hasn't been done, and would be too
    time-consuming to do in the manner approved by the purists.

    In other words, if you insist that it should be done in a certain way, show me where it's been done that way!

    Sure, if you ask people "show me hand-keyed animation" they'll usually respond with examples. If you ask people for "their pure hand keyed animated works with multiple talking humans in multiple environments of ten minute length or more (coincidentally matching the length and content of other videos)" they're not going to bother.

    Just like when asked to show dForce working for animation I linked someone's video of a dance. And when it was insisted that obviously that didn't count to show dForce could be used in animation and I needed to make an animation with a walk cycle (coincidentally matching the length and content of another video)...I didn't bother. Why would I? Why would anyone? We don't actually care so much that a person thinks they can't do something we know we can do, that's okay, all it means is that person won't use the tool we are finding useful to ourselves, we don't need to prove things to them.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • ScarletX1969ScarletX1969 Posts: 587
    agent unawares said:
    wolf359 said:
    But when I ask to see their pure hand keyed animated

    works with multiple 
    talking humans in multiple environments 
    of ten minute length or more,
    again they dont have anything subsantial to show.

    The lack of demonstration could be because you put these bizarre restrictions on all your requests. People can't just show their hand-keyed animated figures, no, they have to show multiple figures, in multiple places, all talking, and the video has to be at least ten minutes long. People can't just show dForce working properly to animate clothing, no, they have to show dForce working properly to animate clothing, specifically during a walk cycle, and the video has to be at least ten seconds long. Etcetera.

    Nobody needs to match the exact content of your videos to prove they can do something.

    Hmmmm, nah...I see exactly what wolf was saying...people who complain just do that...complain.  Complaints should almost always come with suggestions and examples.  Artist use references and cheats all the time.  There is no limitation when it comes to making art.

    It's sort of like how film "purists" don't consider a film made with a video camera a "film" because it doesn't have the "look"...however, while look and style are important to a degree...you should never loose sight of the story you are trying to tell.  I've seen people use the same techiniques in filmmaking to tell a story just using a video camera (I myself has done this) and the only thing that someone could knock against them is that they used a video camera.  Are you kidding me?

  • agent unawaresagent unawares Posts: 3,513
    edited January 2018
    Derry's Work said:
    agent unawares said:
    wolf359 said:
    But when I ask to see their pure hand keyed animated

    works with multiple 
    talking humans in multiple environments 
    of ten minute length or more,
    again they dont have anything subsantial to show.

    The lack of demonstration could be because you put these bizarre restrictions on all your requests. People can't just show their hand-keyed animated figures, no, they have to show multiple figures, in multiple places, all talking, and the video has to be at least ten minutes long. People can't just show dForce working properly to animate clothing, no, they have to show dForce working properly to animate clothing, specifically during a walk cycle, and the video has to be at least ten seconds long. Etcetera.

    Nobody needs to match the exact content of your videos to prove they can do something.

    Hmmmm, nah...I see exactly what wolf was saying...people who complain just do that...complain.  Complaints should almost always come with suggestions and examples.  Artist use references and cheats all the time.  There is no limitation when it comes to making art.

    Sure. And I'm explaining why nobody is ever going to replicate wolf's videos to demonstrate that they can do something when they are working on other things, regardless of how good they are, making this sort of overly specific callout meaningless.

    Post edited by agent unawares on
  • Serene NightSerene Night Posts: 17,704

    I'm not sure it really matters in the end. In the end the only person who can ever change a person's mind is that one person. No amount of gyrations, or proof, or exhibits will really work, until that other person chooses to change or have an open mind.

    I think there is something to be said, anyway for not conforming to the status quo. It is a bit boring to be like everyone else. So if somone brands your hobby as 'not art' enjoy the notoriety.

    There was a time when photoshop was considered not art. And now photo manipulation is a staple of many artistisc endeavors and you can't make an advertisement almost without using it.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,065
    th3Digit said:

    a decent FBX import would go a long way

    Poser has one now

    ...hm I wonder if one could go through Poser then to Daz?

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,065
    edited January 2018
    wolf359 said:

    ".my one thought with Daz 5.x would be if they implemented
     an expanded import capability to include .3ds and .lwo as
     transferrable formats. 
    Hopefully this happens in a future 4.x update."

    Why??
    Lightwave will import Daz exported object files just fine.
    and will export Lightwave meshes to Daz compatible .obj files

    ...I'm talking about importing .lwo and .3ds files into Daz (don't have Lightwave or I'd be using that almost exclusively)

    I'll go onto freebie sites like ShareCG find a really nice model only to discover it is in one of the above formats. Yeah, I can import into Hexagon, convert to a .obj. and then send to Daz, however, doing so strips the model of all the mapping information and I get a long laundry list of individual meshes, which is particularly troublesome if they are in a different language (I had to re-texture a transit a bus model once where everything was labelled in German, fortunately I have a reasonable understanding of that language, not so much when I converted a model of a Citroen D sedan which was all labelled in French). 

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,795
    edited January 2018
    kyoto kid said:
    th3Digit said:

    a decent FBX import would go a long way

    Poser has one now

    ...hm I wonder if one could go through Poser then to Daz?

    No, I tried Unity to DAZ, DAZ to Unity, Unity to Poser, Poser to Unity, Unity to Poser to DAZ, Unity to DAZ to Poser and FBX import and export between Poser and Unity always worked best with anything going to or from DAZ worst. Of course with only 3 apps in this list that's not saying alot.

    Also the naming conventions from Poser FBX export is so much cleaner than DAZ's naming conventions to say nothing of the ease of picking the morphs & configuration how the FBX was going to be exported from Poser compared to the confoundedly obscure, odd, and difficult to remember process that one must use to export morphs in FBXes from DAZ Studio, 

    I did that with Poser Pro 2014 Game Dev and DAZ Studio 4.9.x about 1 year ago.

    So well then, OK I did that a year ago, and there have certainly been upgrades to both Poser and DAZ Studio since then so give it a try.

    Unity itself has an FBX export asset given as a freebie product in their Asset Store by Unity Technologies under the Unity Essentials menu entry; give it a try. Be a good opportunity for you to test Unity's freebie Octane Render plugin.

    Post edited by nonesuch00 on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,065

    ...I only have Pro 2012 and rarely use that.  I am mainly looking to import .3ds/.lwo vehicles, spaceships, aircraft and the like not characters.

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 40,471

    Poser imports lwo so does Carrara.

    a pp2 from Poser of it or obj from Carrara should work in DAZ studio.

    And yes my Unity, Mixamo, iClone charater creator and other FBX files loaded with morphs and rigging in Poser 11.1 Pro.

    Animated

    saved as a cr2 and loaded in DAZ studio converting to weightpainting one could pose them there too with rotate parameters.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,065

    ...again not looking to do this with characters so I don't think weight mapping will pose any issues.

    The only issue with conversion to .obj in another programme is like I mentioned, all the mapping data is lost and I get these long lists of individual mesh components that are a pain to group into actual surfaces.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Richard Haseltine said:
    Trake118 said:
    Finlaena said:

    In all seriousness, the whole "3D asset-made art isn't real art" from 3D artists reminds me so much of the pointless "digital art isn't true art" from traditional artists (who use analog mediums, like paint, charcoal, etc) and the entire arguments about digital vs. traditional art. It does nothing to help anyone and there's pros and cons to using both. 

    Anyhow, the fact that DS has apparently sprung far ahead of Poser in terms of marketplace share (especially since other sites have just recently implemented 'Daz Only' sections after much knuckle-and-heel dragging) is pretty huge, tbh. Not to mention RuntimeDNA merging with Daz3D... given that used to be one of the big Poser-focused sites and all. There are things that they could improve upon in the hardware (namely, working on better dynamic clothing and hair instead of continually pumping out Genesis figures every couple of years and fracturing the market into smaller and smaller fragments), but I'd say they're doing pretty well for themselves right now. Nothing to worry about, IMHO.

    I do think 2017 will probably bring about Daz Studio 5 at some point. We'll see, though...

     

    I predict that 2017 won't see the release of Daz Studio 5. *looks at watch* Hey, I was right! jk I think the downside Daz's model of giving away the software and selling the art assets likely makes big investments in software features a hard sell. I hope they focus on either physics or animation moving forward with their software.

    Why this fixation on version 5? The addition of the IPR for 3delight, Iray, Daz Connect, and dForce would all seem likely to have been headline features with a full version number change in an application that sold its updates, so we'd be up to something like version 8 or more by now.

    Wish I knew.

    This nirvana that is Studio 5; I've asked what will 5 allow that 4.5plus cannot?

    So far, I've had no response.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    edited January 2018

    Daz Studio 4.x is remarkably stable; version 5.x  (with a new SDK) would have a selection of new bugs to stamp on, plus all those plugins that ceased to work.

    There is a cost involved in what Daz do, they need to justify it commercially; sooner or later I would expect it to make an appearance, but to me, the next version is likely to be 4.11...

    My guess, and I'm as likely to be wrong as anyone else who tried to predict the future.

    But I really would love to know what folks are hoping for that a new itteration is required (other than font-scaling for 4K displays).

    Post edited by nicstt on
  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,795
    kyoto kid said:

    ...again not looking to do this with characters so I don't think weight mapping will pose any issues.

    The only issue with conversion to .obj in another programme is like I mentioned, all the mapping data is lost and I get these long lists of individual mesh components that are a pain to group into actual surfaces.

    When I do that the 'Groups' as some other programs call them are treated as Surfaces in DAZ Studio on a 1 to 1 basis.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    kyoto kid said:

     

    You missed the post where the PA said that the DAZ Studio developers have stated that DAZ Studio 5 will use an upgraded SDK. And as far as scheduling plenty of folk guess the next DAZ character that will be released and get that wrong over in the Platinum Club section of the forums because DAZ doesn't publicize product releases until they are ready. Same with DAZ Studio 5.

    Personally, I'm not excited about a DAZ Studio 5 but it's not reason to dread either. Speculation about future DAZ products is common in the forums but doesn't speed up or slow down DAZ's own plans one bit.

    Not at all; I'm trying to point out that they've already had a number of opportunities to develop and release a completely new software version with the accompanying plugin sdk and have instead elected to extend the existing one with new features.

    Extend beyond what?

    You term extend suggests that they had different plans that were changed due to some unknown reason.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715

    I'm a Software Engineer.

    I use (amongst others) C#, MVC, CSS and ASP.net; I also use a number of plugins.

    I presume by the previous discussions, that I'm not actually a Software Engineer as I don't code in Assembler, or at least C and C++.

    I use the best tools for the current job; the tools are constantly changing and upgrading (well it's usually an upgade wink).

    As ever, folks get fixated on the tool, and not the objective.

  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 3,943

    "In other words, if you insist that it should be done in a certain way,
    show me where it's been done that way!"

    THIS ^
    I am being specific based on a reasonable sample  based on my expected usage.
    My expected usage is the only thing that matters to me when choosing a tool
    or Digital or physical

    When a keyframe purist  tries to impose his standard of tool 
    usage on  me I simply impose my own standards
    on his methods to see if his way manual is rational for a single operator like myself
    or for time sensitive $$client guided$$ animation sequences.

    I do alot of  manual keyframing BTW depending on the situation

    I also impose my expected usage standard on new software features 
    when considering  implementing them into my pipeline

    People do it all the time with render engines.

    If  Someone Claims a render engine is really fast but is only showing stills
    of matte finish opaque objects rendering  in seconds.
    it is not unreasonble to ask :
    "Before in invest in this, show me some  blurry reflective materials and glass with caustics and skin with SSS
    and animation with  camera movement  so when get a realistic assesment of its true speed/quality etc    ."

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,065
    nonesuch00 said:
    kyoto kid said:

    ...again not looking to do this with characters so I don't think weight mapping will pose any issues.

    The only issue with conversion to .obj in another programme is like I mentioned, all the mapping data is lost and I get these long lists of individual mesh components that are a pain to group into actual surfaces.

    When I do that the 'Groups' as some other programs call them are treated as Surfaces in DAZ Studio on a 1 to 1 basis.

    ...on a number of occasions I've ended up with a long list in the scene tab that reads "model (or object) 001, 002, 003, [...] 253...", and so on.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 42,065
    edited January 2018
    wolf359 said:
    If  Someone Claims a render engine is really fast but is only showing stills

    of matte finish opaque objects rendering  in seconds.
    it is not unreasonble to ask :
    "Before in invest in this, show me some  blurry reflective materials and glass with caustics and skin with SSS
    and animation with  camera movement  so when get a realistic assesment of its true speed/quality etc    ."

    ...not all of us are animators or have the desire to create animations. Rendering speed is just as important to us "single framers" particularly if you are into creating a graphic novel or series series of illustrations for a story.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • namffuaknamffuak Posts: 4,459
    nicstt said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    kyoto kid said:

     

    You missed the post where the PA said that the DAZ Studio developers have stated that DAZ Studio 5 will use an upgraded SDK. And as far as scheduling plenty of folk guess the next DAZ character that will be released and get that wrong over in the Platinum Club section of the forums because DAZ doesn't publicize product releases until they are ready. Same with DAZ Studio 5.

    Personally, I'm not excited about a DAZ Studio 5 but it's not reason to dread either. Speculation about future DAZ products is common in the forums but doesn't speed up or slow down DAZ's own plans one bit.

    Not at all; I'm trying to point out that they've already had a number of opportunities to develop and release a completely new software version with the accompanying plugin sdk and have instead elected to extend the existing one with new features.

    Extend beyond what?

    You term extend suggests that they had different plans that were changed due to some unknown reason.

    Not an unknown reason as such. Just about every update to Studio 3 included an update to the SDK and required a recompile of all the plugins - including the 3rd part plugins. This was untenable and drew a great deal of negative comment.

    Now, if you look at the release notes/change log, you'll see comments about updating the SDK to 4.x.y.z, SDK minimum is 4.5.0.100 - this means that any plugin compiled with the 4.5.0.100 SDK will still work - and note that there was a break between 4.0 and 4.5. From assorted comments in many other threads Daz has indicated they do not want to break this compatibiliity if they can avoid it, but the QT upgrade will definitely break compatibility.

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    namffuak said:
    nicstt said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    Daywalker Designs said:
    nonesuch00 said:
    kyoto kid said:

     

    You missed the post where the PA said that the DAZ Studio developers have stated that DAZ Studio 5 will use an upgraded SDK. And as far as scheduling plenty of folk guess the next DAZ character that will be released and get that wrong over in the Platinum Club section of the forums because DAZ doesn't publicize product releases until they are ready. Same with DAZ Studio 5.

    Personally, I'm not excited about a DAZ Studio 5 but it's not reason to dread either. Speculation about future DAZ products is common in the forums but doesn't speed up or slow down DAZ's own plans one bit.

    Not at all; I'm trying to point out that they've already had a number of opportunities to develop and release a completely new software version with the accompanying plugin sdk and have instead elected to extend the existing one with new features.

    Extend beyond what?

    You term extend suggests that they had different plans that were changed due to some unknown reason.

    Not an unknown reason as such. Just about every update to Studio 3 included an update to the SDK and required a recompile of all the plugins - including the 3rd part plugins. This was untenable and drew a great deal of negative comment.

    Now, if you look at the release notes/change log, you'll see comments about updating the SDK to 4.x.y.z, SDK minimum is 4.5.0.100 - this means that any plugin compiled with the 4.5.0.100 SDK will still work - and note that there was a break between 4.0 and 4.5. From assorted comments in many other threads Daz has indicated they do not want to break this compatibiliity if they can avoid it, but the QT upgrade will definitely break compatibility.

    And that update to QT is really the only reason to update the SDK, since they've done so much without resorting to doing so.
  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,795

    Where do you go to download latest version of SDK?

  • srieschsriesch Posts: 4,243
    nonesuch00 said:

    Where do you go to download latest version of SDK?

    Unsure if there's something more recent, but I think here:  https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/5855/daz-studio-4-5-sdk-production-release-4-5-0-114#latest

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,795
    sriesch said:
    nonesuch00 said:

    Where do you go to download latest version of SDK?

    Unsure if there's something more recent, but I think here:  https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/5855/daz-studio-4-5-sdk-production-release-4-5-0-114#latest

    Thanks. I thought it was quite old relative to the current DS version but then that's correct.

Sign In or Register to comment.