can somebody do a step guide for what to do now that we are using Postgres 12? it would help if we could get a central Guide for keeping it running. thanks and have a good day!

A couple of other things that I only remembered after the fact...

The beauty of CG was it is able to locate all files used in a DAZ Studio project file; the auto adapted data files, custom textures, imported models, and 3rd party models.

When you create a ZIP archive of the used files, CG will recreate the directory structure, even if it spans multiple install locations / drives. This way when you unzip the archive, all the files will be in the right place and DS will see 99% of them automatically. So no "unable to find file, locate?" messages.

If you unzip to a place that is recognized in the Content Manager then this is even more foul proof as all the Data and Runtime files unzip to where DS expects to see them.

The problem is that CG was designed for 2013 era DS save files; so it doesn't know how to handle DAZ Connect or (most likely) DAZ Central files. There is also the potential that future DS versions will change the way Save files are written, which would most likely break CG. With the developer deceased, it's unlikely to be updated.

The product description really should be updated to reflect the lack of DAZ Connect compatibility, but it is what it is.

Keep in mind that Content Gatherer does not work with DAZ Connect items and may not work with DAZ Central.

If you are going to buy it, try it out immediately after purchase to make sure it works. It was released in 2013 and may not keep pace with current DS releases.

JStryder said:

You are certainly right about the economics of immutable records! Ethereum technology does allow for storing any data or code you please, though. I haven't tried to store a GIF on the blockchain myself, so I'll have to take your word that it would be too expensive for images or short video clips. My point was more about possession: if you control the token but not the asset identified by the token, what do you really have? It all depends on the rights associated with the token; which if not clearly defined in a contract that will likely be respected and could be enforced if necessary, mean nothing.

The value of an immutable record of an identifier (which is what a hash is: an identfier, like a fingerprint) is to prove that the thing identified existed at the time the record was made. Proof of original creation can have actual value in an IP context, but rarely; and usually other records and witness testimony suffice to prove who created what and when if needed. Immutable records are great for financial and ownership ledgers; everybody understands that. The immutability of its ledger coupled with the transparency of its protocols is why Bitcoin has become so valuable -- it is perceived as more trustworthy than the Central Banks of the world. More Bitcoin cannot be created than the protocol allows, and banks are not needed to keep the records.

This is a bit off topic, but NFTs could have real value as transferable tokens redeemable by presentation to the issuer. Essentially we could each issue our own money, in the form of tokens to perform some service, e.g., mow the lawn, etc. The value of our tokens would depend on the demand for the services we offer, our reputations as trustworthy providers of those services, and the number of tokens we have issued. This would be a truly beneficial use of NFTs that would free a lot of people from debt slavery and allow all people to keep the fruit of their own labor. All the hullaboo about speculating in NFTs for digital art feels like noise to me, and a distraction from the true social benefit of blockchain ...as explained more fully in my book. If we are going to tokenize anything, we should tokenize and keep our promises. Better to just keep our promises without tokens...but memories and mores being what they are, we need records of those promises that can't be back-dated, hence, blockchain and tokens.

NFTs at DAZ will fade away, just as their foray into 3D-printable models did. They should stick to their knitting.

I am just generally mistrustful of solutions that boil down to, "If we can only accomplish total social upheaval and are totally correct about this technology encouraging the better angels of humanity's nature, the benefits will be incalculable!" In my experience it's a really hip way for people to justify total self-interest. Problems in the now are boring and hard and solving them is thankless. The world doesn't crown you King Genius for doing it--you get condescended to and told to shut up and even hurt. You may have to help people that don't like you and won't be grateful. When you bring up issues and offer solutions you have to fight to get anyone to take you seriously instead of being applauded and praised. You don't get to give the keynote speech and there's a good chance it hurts your livelihood instead of supercharging it. 

But if you just believe in a technology so transcendent that it changes everything, you don't need to worry about the now. Shouldn't the priority be doing the thing that will solve hundreds of problems at once, and isn't it more ethically sound to push it forward as quickly as possible? 

This is a very seductive mindset because it lets people envision themselves as powerful protagonist visionaries, solving the world's problems by (coincidentally) doing things they think are exciting and making a lot of money. It's a morally unimpeachable position, because when someone points out that they're not doing anything to help, this protagonist figure gets to say that they are in fact Superhelping™ by taking the long view and it's actually everyone else delaying progress by getting bogged down in the now. 

It's a mindset that ruins businesses constantly in addition to scrambling social movements. My former boss was head of a mid-tier studio and he was so dead sure that we were going to build the metaverse that he tried to sunset the product that was keeping our lights on for basically no other reason than that he was bored of it and wanted to revolutionize our industry instead. This was an older guy with a decent career record who had held power at a company you've probably heard of and founded another one successfully. He was considered smart and given tons of leeway even as the projects got restructured and rescoped and everyone was panicking because only he knew what he wanted out of them, and he hadn't seen it yet. He oversaw the very first round of layoffs in over a decade of operations. If we hadn't been a subsidiary of a company that finally, eventually pulled the reins, he would have moonshot us straight into the ground. All because the core product needed some serious investment and problem solving, and it was much more in line with his personal narrative to start over Better and New. 

He wasn't fired and he was allowed to stay on long enough to flounce away, still feeling like a misunderstood prophet. The core product is only now being treated as the breadwinner it is and developed accordingly, because it's all there is. 

It would rule if someone with decision-making power read and thought about this. 

JStryder said:

Mark_e593e0a5 You are certainly right about the economics of immutable records! Ethereum technology does allow for storing any data or code you please, though. I haven't tried to store a GIF on the blockchain myself, so I'll have to take your word that it would be too expensive for images or short video clips. My point was more about possession: if you control the token but not the asset identified by the token, what do you really have? It all depends on the rights associated with the token; which if not clearly defined in a contract that will likely be respected and could be enforced if necessary, mean nothing.

The value of an immutable record of an identifier (which is what a hash is: an identfier, like a fingerprint) is to prove that the thing identified existed at the time the record was made. Proof of original creation can have actual value in an IP context, but rarely; and usually other records and witness testimony suffice to prove who created what and when if needed. Immutable records are great for financial and ownership ledgers; everybody understands that. The immutability of its ledger coupled with the transparency of its protocols is why Bitcoin has become so valuable -- it is perceived as more trustworthy than the Central Banks of the world. More Bitcoin cannot be created than the protocol allows, and banks are not needed to keep the records.

This is a bit off topic, but NFTs could have real value as transferable tokens redeemable by presentation to the issuer. Essentially we could each issue our own money, in the form of tokens to perform some service, e.g., mow the lawn, etc. The value of our tokens would depend on the demand for the services we offer, our reputations as trustworthy providers of those services, and the number of tokens we have issued. This would be a truly beneficial use of NFTs that would free a lot of people from debt slavery and allow all people to keep the fruit of their own labor. All the hullaboo about speculating in NFTs for digital art feels like noise to me, and a distraction from the true social benefit of blockchain ...as explained more fully in my book. If we are going to tokenize anything, we should tokenize and keep our promises. Better to just keep our promises without tokens...but memories and mores being what they are, we need records of those promises that can't be back-dated, hence, blockchain and tokens.

NFTs at DAZ will fade away, just as their foray into 3D-printable models did. They should stick to their knitting.

 

May I ask you as a person familliar with law (I am not): how do you enforce your rights? On an NFT? For tangible items, all the law systems in the world have some - more or less - efficient ways that the ownership of such an item can be ensured. That is even valid for intangible assets like IP, because there is an international agreeent an that (the international agreement of Paris from March 1883, IIRC). There is no international agreement that I am aware of regarding NFT's. So, do you really "own" such an NFT if there is no way to legally enforce youre ownership? 

Mark_e593e0a5 You are certainly right about the economics of immutable records! Ethereum technology does allow for storing any data or code you please, though. I haven't tried to store a GIF on the blockchain myself, so I'll have to take your word that it would be too expensive for images or short video clips. My point was more about possession: if you control the token but not the asset identified by the token, what do you really have? It all depends on the rights associated with the token; which if not clearly defined in a contract that will likely be respected and could be enforced if necessary, mean nothing.

The value of an immutable record of an identifier (which is what a hash is: an identfier, like a fingerprint) is to prove that the thing identified existed at the time the record was made. Proof of original creation can have actual value in an IP context, but rarely; and usually other records and witness testimony suffice to prove who created what and when if needed. Immutable records are great for financial and ownership ledgers; everybody understands that. The immutability of its ledger coupled with the transparency of its protocols is why Bitcoin has become so valuable -- it is perceived as more trustworthy than the Central Banks of the world. More Bitcoin cannot be created than the protocol allows, and banks are not needed to keep the records.

This is a bit off topic, but NFTs could have real value as transferable tokens redeemable by presentation to the issuer. Essentially we could each issue our own money, in the form of tokens to perform some service, e.g., mow the lawn, etc. The value of our tokens would depend on the demand for the services we offer, our reputations as trustworthy providers of those services, and the number of tokens we have issued. This would be a truly beneficial use of NFTs that would free a lot of people from debt slavery and allow all people to keep the fruit of their own labor. All the hullaboo about speculating in NFTs for digital art feels like noise to me, and a distraction from the true social benefit of blockchain ...as explained more fully in my book. If we are going to tokenize anything, we should tokenize and keep our promises. Better to just keep our promises without tokens...but memories and mores being what they are, we need records of those promises that can't be back-dated, hence, blockchain and tokens.

NFTs at DAZ will fade away, just as their foray into 3D-printable models did. They should stick to their knitting.

Hello...Error question...When loading the DAZCENTRAL I answer all(not many) requests and wait for it to load and run I get the error THIS APPLICATION UNABLE TO START.Error( 0xc000007b)..Something on my end needing correction?...

Yeah, I still install through DIM, maybe out of habit I don't know, but then when I'm working on stuff I keep Daz Central open because usually the stuff I need to use I bought more recently and it's a heck of a lot easier to find and or jog my memory of what I have when I tab over to it and scroll through everything. I think it's a wonderful addition as well. 

I resisted using DIM for a while, installing content manually. In the end, it was just simpler and easier to use DIM. Then I resisted using Daz Central for a while, installing content using DIM. I recently tried Daz Central and found it to be user friendly and not at all that difficult to use. Some advantages I noticed of using Daz Central on my old hardware rig:

1) Loading Daz Studio Pro is faster from inside Daz Central. I don't know why. Never mind.

2) Visual display of Daz3D assets in my library (compared to text-only listing in DIM and a few additional steps to get to a product page to see what the item is).

3) Loading of assets into Daz Studio via visual display (convenient).

DIM and DC compliment each other.  I still prefer controlling installations using DIM. But loading content and checking assets is so much easier using DC.

Bummer... It's Daz Central only...

It doesn't matter which method you use to install, you will get the same Smart Content (which is a function of the metadata) so you won't be missing out on anything.

I am a little confused, though. You say "the separate DAZ Connect software". Connect is built-in to Studio, not separate, and is used to install from within Studio when you login to your DAZ account. That is the one with the thumbnail problem right now. Note: the Product thumbnail is the one that would show the left side of the tree you show in the attachment, and not the thumbnails for the individual assets shown on the right.

External installation can be done with DIM or DAZ Central, but installs to a different location than Connect.

Just to make it clear, could you show a screenshot of where you install your products from?

Anyone know why DAZ central can take over two hours to install a single prop? I've been trying to install the Fantasy IBL Sandy Beach for over two hours now, and it downloads a little bit, the install cancels, I restart. Rinse and repeat. In fact, since starting to write this post it's cancelled once again. Up to 76% downloaded.

Not just this one, it happens all the time. I actually manually downloaded the above prop in about 7 minutes while DC was running, trying to do see if it was my pipe. It's fine.

The first time ever I use the DAZ method, (I always manually installed before 4.14) and it seems my unwillingness to trust DAZ to do omething right is still justified.

..Joe

GiGi_7 said:

Jason Galterio said:

GhostofMacbeth said:

Jason Galterio said:There is also the tendancy for DAZ to abandon initiatives...  Example: going from DIM, to Connect, to Central. With very little notice or documentation. Instead of improving on a base, a new base is devised and that gets the attention. And usually just inherits the flaws of the previous bases.

DIM hasn't gone anywhere. That is all I use. Each of the others was an attempt to make something that was easier and more approachable for new users. But DIM has always been there.

I know it hasn't gone anywhere, but it certainly hasn't progressed either. There's been no major updates to its functionality, no real user manual. And, instead, the resources were tossed to Central and Connect.

If they really wanted to introduce DRM, why wasn't it just included into DIM? Instead of creating a brand new method for distribtution? That's what I mean about being abandoned; supported but not improved.

DIM is updated in parallel with central, they share code. I wouldn't call progress to Central anyways, it was a beauty "mutilated" DIM the last time that I try it.

About DIM versus Connect, believe me, some times is better build a new thing than try to modify and old thing. I hate each time my boss want  a new unplanned changes of paradigm on codes because the result is a complete mess of unnecessary workarounds, being better begin from zero.

I can understand that...  However, sometimes its a good idea to try and get the foundation correct. Instead of endlessly taking new shots at the pitch that go no where.

If DAZ really wants to attract new customers they need to work on the user interfaces and the learning curves.

That DIM can't do something simple like "show me G8 Characters" is embarassing. Of course a new user can't make heads or tails out of things. I mean it should be common sense; show me what hair I can use, show me what wardrobe I can use. That that functionality seems alien and worthless to DAZ means that they just don't understand their customers.

That product organization standards have never been enforced in 20 years...  that's just criminal if you expect new users to become regular users.

Jason Galterio said:

GhostofMacbeth said:

Jason Galterio said:There is also the tendancy for DAZ to abandon initiatives...  Example: going from DIM, to Connect, to Central. With very little notice or documentation. Instead of improving on a base, a new base is devised and that gets the attention. And usually just inherits the flaws of the previous bases.

DIM hasn't gone anywhere. That is all I use. Each of the others was an attempt to make something that was easier and more approachable for new users. But DIM has always been there.

I know it hasn't gone anywhere, but it certainly hasn't progressed either. There's been no major updates to its functionality, no real user manual. And, instead, the resources were tossed to Central and Connect.

If they really wanted to introduce DRM, why wasn't it just included into DIM? Instead of creating a brand new method for distribtution? That's what I mean about being abandoned; supported but not improved.

DIM is updated in parallel with central, they share code. I wouldn't call progress to Central anyways, it was a beauty "mutilated" DIM the last time that I try it.

About DIM versus Connect, believe me, some times is better build a new thing than try to modify and old thing. I hate each time my boss want  a new unplanned changes of paradigm on codes because the result is a complete mess of unnecessary workarounds, being better begin from zero.

GhostofMacbeth said:

Jason Galterio said:

GhostofMacbeth said:

Jason Galterio said:There is also the tendancy for DAZ to abandon initiatives...  Example: going from DIM, to Connect, to Central. With very little notice or documentation. Instead of improving on a base, a new base is devised and that gets the attention. And usually just inherits the flaws of the previous bases.

DIM hasn't gone anywhere. That is all I use. Each of the others was an attempt to make something that was easier and more approachable for new users. But DIM has always been there.

I know it hasn't gone anywhere, but it certainly hasn't progressed either. There's been no major updates to its functionality, no real user manual. And, instead, the resources were tossed to Central and Connect.

If they really wanted to introduce DRM, why wasn't it just included into DIM? Instead of creating a brand new method for distribtution? That's what I mean about being abandoned; supported but not improved.

Improved can be a double-edged sword in the land of Daz. Not saying it can't use some improvements (I would like the ability to see a thumbnail, for example) but, from past experience, if they were to improve it there would be a huge uproar and the sky would be falling for certain users. Daz has never really be strong on user manuals, that is just a "Install, done" kind of thing so maybe they didn't think there needed to be one.

Sadly, you are quite correct here. I would love to one day be able to have meaningful search and filtering functions, but I know thats just a pipe dream.

Jason Galterio said:

GhostofMacbeth said:

Jason Galterio said:There is also the tendancy for DAZ to abandon initiatives...  Example: going from DIM, to Connect, to Central. With very little notice or documentation. Instead of improving on a base, a new base is devised and that gets the attention. And usually just inherits the flaws of the previous bases.

DIM hasn't gone anywhere. That is all I use. Each of the others was an attempt to make something that was easier and more approachable for new users. But DIM has always been there.

I know it hasn't gone anywhere, but it certainly hasn't progressed either. There's been no major updates to its functionality, no real user manual. And, instead, the resources were tossed to Central and Connect.

If they really wanted to introduce DRM, why wasn't it just included into DIM? Instead of creating a brand new method for distribtution? That's what I mean about being abandoned; supported but not improved.

Improved can be a double-edged sword in the land of Daz. Not saying it can't use some improvements (I would like the ability to see a thumbnail, for example) but, from past experience, if they were to improve it there would be a huge uproar and the sky would be falling for certain users. Daz has never really be strong on user manuals, that is just a "Install, done" kind of thing so maybe they didn't think there needed to be one.

GhostofMacbeth said:

Jason Galterio said:There is also the tendancy for DAZ to abandon initiatives...  Example: going from DIM, to Connect, to Central. With very little notice or documentation. Instead of improving on a base, a new base is devised and that gets the attention. And usually just inherits the flaws of the previous bases.

DIM hasn't gone anywhere. That is all I use. Each of the others was an attempt to make something that was easier and more approachable for new users. But DIM has always been there.

I know it hasn't gone anywhere, but it certainly hasn't progressed either. There's been no major updates to its functionality, no real user manual. And, instead, the resources were tossed to Central and Connect.

If they really wanted to introduce DRM, why wasn't it just included into DIM? Instead of creating a brand new method for distribtution? That's what I mean about being abandoned; supported but not improved.

Jason Galterio said:There is also the tendancy for DAZ to abandon initiatives...  Example: going from DIM, to Connect, to Central. With very little notice or documentation. Instead of improving on a base, a new base is devised and that gets the attention. And usually just inherits the flaws of the previous bases.

DIM hasn't gone anywhere. That is all I use. Each of the others was an attempt to make something that was easier and more approachable for new users. But DIM has always been there.

Crescent said:

Side note - when people are comparing the old DRM scheme DAZ tried to implement to this new NFT scheme, they're referring to how well the DRM went over in the forums (a.k.a. it went over as well as a lead balloon near a black hole.) People were angry, refused to buy anything with DRM, and eventually DAZ relented after several months of trying to promote how great an idea it was. Us old timers are saying, "Yeah, this NFT thing is about as popular as the DRM was and will probably end up discarded by DAZ after months of being telling us how we'd learn to appreciate it any day now." Although the technologies have nothing to do with each other, the basic principles of "What does this accomplish?" and "How does this help me with my art?" have the same answer - neither does a thing for what we care about. NFT doesn't solve anything for us. It's a weird, new shiny that is taking away resources from DS - catching up on customer tickets, fixing filament transparency issues, improving render times, etc.

plasma_ring said:

While I've liked a lot of their moves in the past year, Daz has made very little effort to organically build a community outside the forums. Big flashy promotions that don't make sense to existing users are like trying to catch a comet's tail--you wave your arms real big and try to get the attention of people who are outside your usual audience and don't know they need your product yet. 

But Daz really likes that kind of marketing, and I have very rarely seen them do advertising that actually describes what their product does for a user in a straightforward way. They don't meet existing customers where they are and they don't seem interested in growing communities around common uses for the assets they sell. 

Clip Studio Paint built an enormous, loyal audience that basically advertises for them, and they did it by finding Artist Problems and explaining how their software solves them. You do comics? Look how easy it is to set up panels on pages. You do digital painting? Check out all the free brushes you can download. Then they go into specific use cases, showing practical applications for different features. On social they're always giving away graphics tablets and spinning up art contests, which spread like wildfire. They reach out to people at the entry level and encourage them to join the community. 

Maybe Daz could catch on with influencers who want their own digital avatars and blow up that way, but they could also go a little more down to earth and find a wider variety of people using their stuff who would then be willing to tell their friends, and so on. 

Yes!

There is also the tendancy for DAZ to abandon initiatives...  Example: going from DIM, to Connect, to Central. With very little notice or documentation. Instead of improving on a base, a new base is devised and that gets the attention. And usually just inherits the flaws of the previous bases.

As someone who remembers the days of hundreds of individual install packages that had to be clicked through, at least I can say there was progress at first.

BradCarsten said:

marble said:

I'm one of those old-timers who don't understand what's happening with digital trading so I have a simple question: how does this NFT thing affect me, as a mere hobbyist who never displays any of my "artwork"? I just make pictures for fun and, apart from a personal project where I'm recreating scenes from my own family life, I delete most of the stuff I create. 

So, to be more precise, is this going to end up costing me when I want to buy store content to make my hobby pictures? Will I have to use tokens to buy from the store? Will the prices start to go up and down depending on the trading of these tokens? Or is it all limited to selling the completed images? I mean, even the promo pictures for store products might be considered completed artwork and any subsequent artwork created using that product might be considered derivative. Oh, so confusing and, to me at least, quite senseless: tulips indeed.

This won't affect you in the least. It doesn't change anything. the Blockchain is simply a massive online register that can record transactions, that no one can alter. that's all it is. So if I sell something to you, using the blockchain, that record will be there forever. If that person sells the same item, that record will also be recorded. Now, a future owner can retrace all the sales to find the original owner.

Not exactly: they can trace it back to the account which provided the material. But the link between account and actual person will not be part of the blockchain itself, so in the end it relies on trust. And that is also the archilles heel because you won't have any guarantees that the account actually belongs to the person. You'll only have hearsay to go on. This is fully implied because of the de-centralized setup of a blockchain, it means that anyone can add to it thus there won't be a central account registration. Anyone can make any kind of account, and it'll be up to them to make it publically known which account(s) they own.

Which is also information which can be easily forged. Good luck proving me wrong that $artist didn't have 2 accounts and that my NFT isn't even worth more because they seldomly use that other account. Unless you can contact the artist themselves to verify (good luck when it's someone like Rowling) then....  you're open for a good scam.

(edit)

melissastjames said:

This totally reminds me of an episode of Star Trek Voyager when the crew visits a planet that has a very hush hush black market all built upon selling the memory of a person's illicit experiences (mostly violent if I remember correctly) so others can essentially get off on them. Or was it Star Trek Enterprise? Now I can't remember which one. 

That was Voyager, the original series.