IRay mainly for realism?
ColemanRugh
Posts: 511
Does IRAY render faster than 3Delight or is IRAY being used mainly for realistic rendering?
I have no interest in photo-realism rendering... but if IRay renders faster/more economically it might interest me.
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
I think 3delight is faster. But depends on what your rendering. I tend to view Iray as for more photorealism. But depends I guess on the subject matter.
Iray CAN be faster...but a lot depends on proper material and lighting setup...AND having a video card with enough memory to hold the entire scene. GPU acceleration WILL trump CPU, for the same set up (materials, lights...GI, etc). In straight CPU renders, with properly set, equivalent materials and lights, they are about the same.
1- iRay renders FASTER, absolutely
2- number 1 only possible with a EXPENSIVE NVIDIA CARD
3-buy an expensive card for realize number 2 and thus number 1
4-due to prerequisites of number 3, economically is certainly NO.
btw, doing photorealism is a master skill, you can't do that just for accident. and iRay is only a part of the Photorealism ecuation. :smirk:
The graphics card needs to be a Nvidia card to get the GPU speed. If you don't have a Nvidia you can be looking at real long render times.
In my experience 3Delight is faster on the majority of occasions.
Have zero interest in IRAY then - thanks all for the answers!
Do Toon Renders look much different in IRay?
Has anybody tried yet? Got examples?
It would be interesting to see!
Interesting render there, zilvergrafix! Thanks.
I was referring to Toon Render Styles using things like PWToon or whatever the current equivalent is - but that's nice to see regardless.
Thanks for the post :)
your welcome!
Oh, toon shaders you say?, on iRay?, it's like putting bicycle tires to a lamborghini, imo.
of course can be doable if you know how iray shaders work, me, for now, nope.
PWToon or Visual Style don't work in Iray.
No problems. It just seemed to me to be what the thread was about!
I remember there was a dropdown menu for render style with "Toon" and "Photoreal" or words meaning the same thing.
I haven't opened DS in years except as a bridge to Bryce once in a while - but with all this stuff that no longer works in Cowrarra coming out I am thinking about maybe considering contemplating the possibility of debating whether or not to entertain the option of hesitatingly opening the new version of Studio and ...
maybe ...
using it?
DAZ ran into a problem with DS4.7 like Poser ran into a problem with Poser Pro 2010...no new editions are really needed. They released the kickass versions of their products.... why buy into the next?
IRAY is for photo-realism... but DAZ people are symmetrical. The lights and shadows cannot create the asymmetry needed... even then..,you can always tell digital lighting from real lights in movies. Digital lights are crisp and clean... the shadows perfect and... dare I say... symmetrical
I had the same tought with Corel Products,
I prefer Corel Draw Suite 9 over the newer ones, but the reason is..because I know/master the 9 version, and the newest would involve learning new tools that I don´t need.
I was very reluctant changing from Daz 3 over Daz 4 too, for example.
DAZ4 is s step up from DAZ3 because DAZ 4.7 is 64 bit. Poser Pro 2010 was the first fully 64 bit version. It has an actual use real world. You can now have a very complicated scene in both apps without them just dying on you. THIS is very useful. IRAY has use for those who have a specific need. If you don't share that need... it's okay because what you have fulfills your need.
I think this is a new phenomena in our life time. things are changing so fast that you find what really works for you is out of date and ... how do you deal with that?
It's a weird realization... and I'm old. I don't know how young folks would confront this,... the thing you love is out of date and will no longer be supported. It's an odd feeling.
IRAY offers nothing I can't do in Photoshop 10 times better... I guess is the answer :)
Prove it.
Everything IS changing faster but change and leaving old loves behind is not new. I'm old too and in the past thirty years I have 'lost' or had to move on from much I was deeply involved in and loved. Creating my own sounds and arranging classical music using waveforms and the envelope on the (OMG) C64 consumed me totally with a passion I never wanted to end, then with computer graphics and animation on my several Amigas. Commodore died so I moved on to Bryce on the PC with Poser as a supplier of content.
Bryce is closed to me now (tiny gadgets and bad eyes and a 24" screen are mainly to blame). DAZ is moving forward almost too quickly to manage but so far I'm hanging in there. Photorealism isn't my thing, but lighting indoor scenes in iRay is extremely appealing compared to trying the same in 3delight. But a lack of patience and old video card are holding me back...
...and it doesn't really bother me.
Just a a note, people are not obliged to use the latest version of an application, or the newest features of the latest version. That said, DS 4.8 does have an updated version of 3Delight with noticeable speed improvements over the one in 4.7, though I don't know how significant they would be using toon shaders.
I remember when cars didn't have power steering or brakes. I remember when cars didn't have air-conditioning. None of that stuff was necessary. People survived. I remember when cars didn't have cup holders even. I remember when cars didn't have TVs, cameras or navigation systems. We got along just fine with radios, mirrors and paper maps. I remember when cars didn't have fuel injectors or computers. Yeah, they sucked gas like vacuum cleaners and spewed black clouds but we ignored that.
Point being, yes we can continue to survive with the old DAZ software. And I will probably be one of the people who do, but DAZ has made it clear that they are moving forward. I just hope they don't race too far ahead of their low/middle class customer base or expect too much from high end users.
However, I do have to admit that despite being very familiar with DAZ tools for 15 years that I am getting a little tired of all the new gadgetry with ever steeper learning curves and price tags. I'd be happy to just settle. (one does more and more of that when one gets older) :smirk:
I have an 8 GB 980M video card. Yes, I know, mobile... but it is still a super solid card and one of the best you can get even comparing to desktops.
I have the highest-end video card that was available in March when I purchased my laptop. Yes, I know it's a laptop, but it is a high end gaming and desktop replacement laptop. Only the MSI Titan gets higher performance ratings (and was near double the price so... yeah).
So... I don't agree that Iray's renders are 'absolutely' faster. I would say they are highly variable for the same scene, depending on how you have the lights set up, and rarely as fast as 3DeLight. Where Iray excels is that, if you use natural lighting and the sorts of f/ratios and shutter speeds you would use in natural lighting in the real world, you will get a good render pretty much out of the box, no fiddling required. In that sense it saves time. But in raw render times? Iray is definitely slower than 3DeLight in all but the most restrictive of cases.
steven...that sounds like you are CPU rendering, not rendering with GPU acceleration.
Even a mobile 980 should flatten a CPU only GI 3Delight render...and mesh lights should not slow it down that much.
Even my 1 GB 440 is faster (with scenes that fit on it) than 3DL...
I have the highest-end video card that was available in March when I purchased my laptop. Yes, I know it's a laptop, but it is a high end gaming and desktop replacement laptop. Only the MSI Titan gets higher performance ratings (and was near double the price so... yeah).
So... I don't agree that Iray's renders are 'absolutely' faster. I would say they are highly variable for the same scene, depending on how you have the lights set up, and rarely as fast as 3DeLight. Where Iray excels is that, if you use natural lighting and the sorts of f/ratios and shutter speeds you would use in natural lighting in the real world, you will get a good render pretty much out of the box, no fiddling required. In that sense it saves time. But in raw render times? Iray is definitely slower than 3DeLight in all but the most restrictive of cases.
I'm not sure why your Iray renders are so slow - it may be a materials and lighting issue. I did this render on my laptop with a GTX 970M and it only took around 6 min. (rendered at 1600X2000) Using UE2 and 3Delight, the render would have taken hours with the hair I used
__________
To respond to the OP, it's been my experience that using Iray in GPU mode is much faster than 3Delight. But I tend to do more true GI/Raytraced type renders (think UberEnvironment), without a lot of the "tricks" that can speed 3Delight up. So for me, Iray is a big improvement in both speed and quality. But as with anything in 3D, your results might be different depending on what you want to get out of DS. 3delight would probably be more suitable for toon/comic type renders, as the output style is much more flexible than with Iray (but you could use an image editing program to get more of a 2D look). If your looking to do Pixar toon style renders, either one could work well - but even Pixar is going to a workflow with increasing reliance on ray-tracing (using physically based lighting and materials) due to the the improved speed in setting up the lighting and materials/shaders.
did not real all posts. But I must say this.
Do you like 3Delight? Then use it.
Hate it? Like iray? Can't figure out how to do stylized renders? Practice! Don't care about "realism" use what you want! (realism is a joke frankly...its more about which engine gives casual users a quick decent looking rendering with no skill. So all Daz casuals will plateau at the same point whether its' 3DL or iRay.)
Use the tools you like the most. Make the tools "your" tools.
I use Octane render. Mostly render stylized artwork. Vast majority of Octane users are more around "photo-realism". Yet Warner Bros and a few others came out eventually that they use Octane for toons and stylized works......
Important piece of the puzzle. Do you depend on store sold shaders and presets? If so you need to follow their tools and systems. If you want to manipulate shaders and lights, you can use whatever rendering solution you like most, and make what you like out of it.
Take some time and study the iRay materials and how they work. See if its something you like or not.
Nope. GPU only. I monitor CPU and GPU usage. If I am only rendering and not doing other stuff on the PC, the GPU use is in the upper 90-100% range, CPU use is usually in the 20s or teens. If I were CPU rendering, the CPU would be pegged (I had it set that way originally until I figured out to turn it off).
Did you use HDRI for it?
I ask because, as I've said, my tests indicate much (MUCH) faster renders under Iray if you use either Sun and Sky or HDRI. I probably could equal or beat 6 minutes on that render, if I used an HDRI map. But probably not if I used a mesh light.
There is CLEARLY a difference between them when rendering. I have done numerous benchmark tests where everything is exactly the same except swapping out one mesh light for sun and sky or HDRI, or several mesh lights. It's always, always, massively faster with HDRI or sun/sky lighting. Again, by at least an order of magnitude.
I'm getting ready to go out of town (in about half an hour) but when I come back I will post some timing results if people care to see them. (If not we can move on...)
While fiddling around I think I've got a good example of a very non-photorealistic Iray render
It took 11 minutes CPU only which is pretty comparable to how quickly a similar light setup using AoA's lights would render on my computer. (of course a truly similar light setup with mesh lights would take hours in 3delight)
Did you use HDRI for it?
I ask because, as I've said, my tests indicate much (MUCH) faster renders under Iray if you use either Sun and Sky or HDRI. I probably could equal or beat 6 minutes on that render, if I used an HDRI map. But probably not if I used a mesh light.
There is CLEARLY a difference between them when rendering. I have done numerous benchmark tests where everything is exactly the same except swapping out one mesh light for sun and sky or HDRI, or several mesh lights. It's always, always, massively faster with HDRI or sun/sky lighting. Again, by at least an order of magnitude.
I'm getting ready to go out of town (in about half an hour) but when I come back I will post some timing results if people care to see them. (If not we can move on...)
Yes, I used an HDR.
I thought I'd run a quick test. The attached images both took a little over 23 min. (mainly due to the more complex shader on the Kimono to get the silk sheen and getting SSS to clear up in the shadows). The first image was lit with the Pixar Campus HDRI. The second image had 2 mesh lights and one photometric spot. The times were vrtually the same (the HRDI lit image was about 15 seconds faster).
My contribution to toon renders - 2 min and 4 sec.@ 1600x2000
Physically based rendering don't mean you can render just Realistic photo looking scenes, Disney used PBR in own productions like Tangled and others .
I rendered my Cory character for test without textures just skin color
I'm thinking it must be possible to develop a toon style or cell shaded type of shader for Iray, and on my list to try to figure out. It still feels slightly "nuts" to want to use Iray to render toons, but that makes me one of the biggest "nuts" then, because I've already done a whole set of Iray toon eyes.
Outside of 3Delight and Iray you have other options for rendering engines including
LuxRender via Reality or Luxus (CPU or GPU or Hybrid)
Octane, GPU Dependent, not a CPU rendering engine.
POV RAY
and Blender Cycles via Casual's free exporter plug-in in the freebies section