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
Hi Greg,
Good questions... and you’re right, I can only speak for myself, not for DAZ or other PAs.
From my side, my current goal has been to make my products bi-compatible whenever technically possible, meaning offering a new build or an updated version that ensures a single product works both in DAZ Studio 4.x (including 4.24) and in DAZ Studio 2025 / 6. Many parts of the scripts rely on conditional checks such as
if(isDS2025)in order to fulfill specific requirements.In practice, this has been achievable for most of my scripts, but sometimes at a significant cost. In some cases, this required major internal changes, and for a few specific script families, almost complete rewrites.
For example, anything related to shader transfer to geografts had to be fully rewritten internally. From a user perspective, these scripts no longer behave exactly the same as before, but they do work properly and achieve the same results, with an entirely different internal logic to support both architectures. Because of that, I do plan to keep for these specific "transfer tools" older versions available for users who explicitly want to stay on DAZ Studio 4 after an update, rather than forcing a single path, but this applies to those specific geograft-related scripts that required a full rewrite.
Where things become more complex is UI and menu installation.
Menu and toolbar installation has changed significantly in DAZ Studio 2025. I already had to do a first major refactor there. The current solution works "not so badly", but it has limitations:
only one menu-install operation per session,
a practical limit on how many scripts can be installed this way. (this one is super annoying)
This is a case where the limitation is not fully solvable by scripting alone, and where I’m deliberately waiting to see how the DAZ Studio 2025 alpha evolves before locking anything final. The worst‑case scenario would be having to rely on a manual menu creation for DS6 users - important : who can now mass‑create custom actions, making this a 3 clicks operation, and where DS4 is not impacted - and a toolbar creation for everyone. But today I don’t want to hard-freeze a workaround that DAZ may render obsolete or unnecessary a few builds later.
As for your broader question : whether DAZ and PAs are considering separate downloadable versions per DAZ Studio version... I don’t have visibility on that.
That said, if a product is truly bi-compatible, maintaining two separate downloadable versions generally wouldn’t make much sense, except in the case of paid updates or new builds. In that situation, separate packages are justified. Otherwise, for free updates, as it was the case for my Texture Booster, Ultimate Iray Skin Manager, and Ultimate PBRSkin Manager, the goal is precisely to provide a single package that works seamlessly across both DAZ Studio 4.x and DAZ Studio 2025, avoiding redundant downloads and unnecessary confusion.
So in short, for my case of figure:
bi-compatibility is possible and already implemented in many cases,
sometimes it requires deep internal changes,
in a few areas (notably UI integration), things are still evolving and partially constrained by the alpha state,
and some decisions simply can’t be finalized until DAZ Studio 2025 stabilizes.
Hope this helps clarify how things look from one PA’s perspective, and happy new year to you as well !
Thank you very much for taking the time to share such a detailed response. I really appreciate it, and I'm sure others appreciate hearing your thoughts as well. Cheers!
- Greg
V3Digitimes, I've had some time to think.
I apologize for the hasty message I wrote earlier.
I've decided to cancel my request for a refund. Let's just say you helped remind me of your dedication, and the fact that you care for your customers.
We've already discussed the DM.
Once I start using Scene Optimizer I will be sure to sing your praises.
You’re welcome. I’m glad it was useful, and happy to share how updates actually evolve behind the scenes.
Thank you for your message and for following up. I really appreciate it.
I completely understand your initial reaction. This transition period is not easy to read from the outside. I’ve been deep in it for months now, and for each product I don’t always feel it makes sense to report every intermediate step publicly, especially before private beta testers have gone through an update, or before an update can even be submitted to DAZ (which is currently not possible while DS2025 remains in alpha, except in very specific cases).
To give users some visibility, I try to keep a dedicated compatibility-status thread updated. The goal is to provide a clear, global view of where the catalog stands, without going into all the underlying technical states (which would honestly be overwhelming and not very useful for most users).
I also understand the trust issue. Today, people are constantly exposed to very reassuring corporate language, which paradoxically makes it harder to know where to place confidence. That’s why I tend to speak plainly about what is easy to update, what is complex but manageable, and what is currently blocked by limitations of the DS2025 alpha itself.
In that sense, this discussion was actually useful: it helped make visible that some parts of the transition are straightforward (just time-consuming), others are more complex but solvable, and a few are still stuck between imperfect workarounds and “no real solution yet”, pending how the alpha evolves.
And no need to sing my praises once you start using Scene Optimizer ;) even if it does warm the heart, honestly. What matters much more to me is solid, real-world feedback, and when relevant, public feedback as well. That’s what allows me to fix remaining issues, plan future improvements when possible, and communicate honestly about the direction of the product. I much prefer sharing known limitations than pretending a product is perfect.
Thanks again for your kind words, and I’ll get back to you early next week.
One rhing that really struck a cord. You said you worked around 5 months on this product with no compensation.
I believe DAZ gets 50% of a sale price. And these sales also have to take a big chunk out of your income.
Yeah you deserve my support. And I know others feel the same.
Thanks for your message!!! I really appreciate it.
Just to clarify one point: it’s not that this single product took me more than 5 months by itself.
What took that amount of time was the global update of my entire script catalog for DS6 compatibility, dozens of products, some of them containing hundreds of scripts.
That said, Scene Optimizer did take a significant amount of time on its own, because I also added new features instead of just doing a minimal compatibility pass.
Regarding paid updates: because these months were spent updating existing products instead of releasing new ones, I still don’t have full visibility yet on what could or could not reasonably become paid updates across the catalog. I’ll try to be as honest and fair as possible with users, without completely betraying my own sustainability as a PA.
And yes, thank you for your support and your kind words. They genuinely do help, more than you might think.