DEcimator vs retopo and use of models in game engines.
dark_shneiderit
Posts: 52
Hi all
I've got after long time, back into DAZ, and downloaded the new Studio version. Enough said, it is much better than the software that I remember from few years ago...now it is usable almost like Poser.
Now I have few questions regarding the use of the application:
1) There is a decimator tool sold separately (which few years ago, I remember was in beta; I was on it but never had the chance to even try it, since the program was cancelled I think); is that good enough to reduce the poly count to something more manageable in a game engine? I do not see any trial version, so I have no clue how good it is, and how may fit my workflow, so I can only assume results based on the various videos that I've seen around.
Is that better than doing a retopology of the model (say V4), and use normal maps for the details of the clothes? Just wondering since the 100 dollars for the decimator are steep, considering that I have already 3dCoat and Topogun purchased from few years ago.
2) The decimator does in fact allow you to use the models in 3d engines, like the unreal engine or torque? I remember years ago a big deal about different license for various contents; which kinda turned me off...if I need to buy the DAZ figure, then buy the plugin, and the license to use the content; I am better off buying a model that is designed and rigged for game engines to start with, instead than spend money and time on the DAZ way.
Cost wise, a good model with few cloth variations, rigged and textured, cost between 50 and 100 USD; if I can pay the cost of the decimator and be able to use all my existing DAZ collection, it may be worth in the end, otherwise I can just use DAZ studio for static images and occasional renders, while focusing on other sources for my real time game engine needs.
You may be more updated about what is going on nowadays...I've been gone for years, so I don't really get where we are at nowadays :)
Thanks!
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
Decimator does not give you the rights to use the content in game software. You still need one of the two gamers development licenses for that.
I see, so it is not different from how it was few years ago: you have to buy the game license and the decimator.
What about using the high poly version as normal map? I can make low poly mesh and use the normal maps to add details.
In this way I would not use any geometry from the models, so I would not break the EULA (a normal map is legally like a render, so unless DAZ EULA prohibits to make normal maps from the object sold on the store, it should be totally legit).
Thanks for the clarification!
Link to that particular EULA is no longer on line but it sates "Sprites" and "Animations" or "Movies" are allowed
http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/artzone/pub/gamedev/start
f so using a normal map on your own geometry for any game may be a breach of license, introducing the geometry would be the cause.
"That's why you're the Judge and I'm the law. takin' guy."
- L. Hutz Esq.
Yeah, it seems that the EULA is gone; I remember from the one that was online time ago, that you could do anything you want with the images rendered from the models. I should still have the one from back in the days....I always save EULA because sometimes they change without any warning, and you may not want to agree to the new one.
Now, a normal map is a render of a 3d object; with a representation in B/W for the bump mapping, while the normal map itself has the extra details marked in blue, green and red (geometry and details that you want that the software will create at runtime basically).
Technically, if I render the front and back of a model, and then use the render image to create a normal map, it would not involve any geometry from the original model. Is the same as if I make the render and give them away, and someone finds them and create maps out of them.
We do this every day, without even noticing it....ask any artist if they use their own original photos when they make textures and maps; ask if they request permission and pay a license to take a photo of a person, on top of what they pay to hire a model, for use in interactive or game engines.
That's why I implied that I think that making maps out of the render would not violate the EULA. Not sure if anyone from the DAZ legal team wants to add something...usually the rule of thumb is to not specify too many things, to avoid that people find holes in the EULA (my company does the same, it is a normal thing in the business, nothing dishonest in avoiding to specify).
Also, if nothing on the EULA is specified for normal maps and bump maps created from render, if DAZ wants to change the license, it would not apply retroactively.
Legally you cannot change a license of something that you already accepted, at the moment of purchase and installation, unless you accept it again (that lovely message that appears when you update your software is an example, which you are forced to accept if you want to install the update/upgrade). This means that products sold before the new EULA would kick in, would allow the rightful customers, that purchased and installed the models on their computer, to use the old EULA.
I am asking to be sure that I do not have to hire a lawyer and go in a litigation, which would make me waste even more time than making a complete figure from scratch :)
Since I am not making millions with games, and is not even sure that I would even make one; I do not have any interests in exploiting anything on the EULA; my questions are purely to understand what is the logic behind the actual one.
The cost here is the model + game license + decimator; without even considering the time spent to optimize the models, and I value my time more than the money honestly.
Thanks in advance for any clarification
I have to point out that if you use photos of a (live) model in a game without obtaining a signed release to use the photos, which costs money in the form of professional fees, you are storing up a world of legal trouble. I think you are more than a little optimistic thinking you will get useful normal maps out of a render or tow, but in any event the EULA and rubric always made it clear that the permission to use renders did not apply if the original content could be extracted or if the render was used to create a competing product so I'm afraid that wouldn't be a get-out.
I'm not clear on how you mean to make normal maps out of renders or what geometry you would apply them to. However, consider the situation with textures, which may be similar -- if you buy a texture and apply it to a blank wall, and render that, you aren't allowed to distribute that render.
Thanks for your reply, I appreciate your time, and I am glad that I am learning new things.
Agree, when you set a photo shot, you decide with the model about the details, and one of the fee that I usually pay when I do photo shots, is related to the re-distribution in various media.
If it is just a photo, it has a price; but if I will use it for animations or as template to build a 3d mesh; the price is different (and usually they ask me to not use it in any X-rated product). You always need a signed release or a copy of the contract, that show exactly what you did and which will be the use; altho I see often online, people that gets photos and use them to make 3d models or textures (facegen or the poser face room are just one example); most of the time, these photos are not suitable for that use, but people use them since they can download them from internet...not saying that I am doing that, nor that I approve it.
Now thanks for mentioning the EULA, which points out in fact, how creating normal maps out of renders, would not violate it:
1) "the permission to use renders did not apply if the original content could be extracted"
The original is the geometry and textures; neither of them can be extracted from a 2d image; all that you do is to get the image rendered and alter the color gamma on it, then you load it in a D3D or OGL program, put it in a shader and it render on a 3d object.
As you can see in any case the original material has been used or derived from the rendered image. It is the same as I take a photo of a building and I put it on a cube: in fact you did not derive back the original structure of the building, nor the color pigments used to paint it, you are simply using the picture to increase the detail of a cube.
You may argue that you are using a render as texture, which in this case would prohibit any kind of photo or render, to show up on bilboard, magazines or any other media, where the image/render is layered upon a layer of support, which seems to me that is not the case. A texture (ditigal entity), legally is the same as a photo printed on a shirt or on a mug, or on a billboard; so if you have the permission to put a render on a bilboard, you have the implicit permission to use it on a 3d mesh (unless clearly specified in the EULA, that's why I asked in first place)
2) "the permission to use renders did not apply if the render was used to create a competing product"
Totally true; it would be considered a derived work and infringe the international copyright laws; altho by "competing product" you are referring to any site that may produce a 3d mesh which uses a render from the DAZ products, which is sold as 3d mesh usable in DAZ Studio, Poser or any other similar product (unless specified in the EULA).
Now a video game, or a real time application, where the model is not sold anywhere, nor it can be extracted from the application itself, does not fit in that category.
I believe that this would point out that in fact, a render as normal map, is not considered a violation of the EULA; or did I miss something?
Laws are pretty precise, so to prohibit something, you need to explicitly specify it, and include all the various cases that may pertain. At least that's how it works in the normal field; the digital laws field is still in its infancy, so it is possible that some things may not be totally clear.
fixmypcmike:
The technique to use a high res model for the detail, and apply it on a low res model is pretty common in the game industry; usually you either start modeling in zbrush or similar, the high poly version, then you retopo it, and save the output as low res version, with the normal and bump maps for the details. USually the texture atlas is the same, so you do not need to do new UV maps. Once done you save the high poly model for future reference, and use the low poly model for rigging and do whatever you like.
There are also software that takes a picture, and creates normal and bump maps from it; they are pretty cheap and useful, if you do not have time to sculpt a building; all that you need is a good photo, and the results are pretty good; you get good amount of details, instead than a flat picture slapped on a cube.
In the case that I am exposing, the procedure would be to do a front and back render with DS of...say V4 with an armor on it, then you make a simple <2K mesh, and use the render to make a normal maps for the mesh. The result would be a totally original mesh, which has nothing of the V4 geometry (since the data was taken using a photo, not the geometry itself). Altho the new mesh would show the armor details, and the details of V4 face, hands, feet and whatever else you decide to show.</p>
I could have used a photo from my sister wearing a real armor, and obtain the same results; the advantage is that I don't need a sister, nor an armor, and can make the model any time I want :)
Hope that the explanation about how do you make the maps out of the render, was clear. If not I can point you to some software website, that show the whole procedure in a way better than mine probably :)
BTW I do not believe that the example that you made about the textures is realistic: I buy textures from many sites and I never had the restriction to not being able to use them...it would defy the point to buy textures, don't you think? I cannot redistribute the texture by itself for money or for free), but if I sell a game that uses these textures, I am OK, same if I sell a 3d mesh that uses these textures; since I am selling a product, not the texture itself (altho some sites prohibit you to sell a model, where the textures can be extracted; it vary from site to site). Same if I make renders using the textures...like promo material, videos and such. So far I never encountered an EULA that would limit me to such extent.
I will not touch the subject anymore, but I would invite whoever maintain the site, to put the EULA for the public; there may be someone with a lot of time and money to waste, that could just spend time for the pure fun of finding inconsistencies in the existing EULA.
Anyway, from what I can understand, the quickest way to use DAZ models would be to buy the game license and do a retopo of the original mesh, plus use the texture tool that is in DS to make a texture atlas and reduce the resolution of the textures. I believe that this is the best workflow, compared to use the decimator (fix a decimated mesh takes more than do a whole retopo of a mesh in the end).
I appreciated your time and insight, thanks again!
The Textures SOLD for or with any item at DAZ 3D is under the DAZ 3D ELUA, which is clear that ONLY renders of them can be used without a Gamers license. Altering them in ANY WAY to use in a game IS a derivative work from the texture. Which is not allowed. It's that simple, DAZ 3D owns the Rights to the textures, or the Published Artist one, owns the rights, and that only Allows the FREE use in RENDERD form in the EULA. You are not allowed to alter them in any way and then earn from nor distribute them in any form. Read the EULA.
There is pretty much no way of using a normal map in the manner you describe. While Normal Maps are great at adding 'faked' geometry where none exists it cannot physically add geometry. You cannot simply take a low resolution figure and then paste a normal map to give you a high resolution figure as the flats will still be flat and only lighting effects and shading will be affected. You can get some great effects and fine details, but for large scale geometric differences, normal maps are not the way to go about it.
Sadly, there's only so much you can add using normals.
Agree; t
he license state that you cannot use them.
By law, alteration and derivation refer to the texture itself, getting manipulated and or modified, or used as base for a new object that retain the look of the original. So if I get the texture from the texture folder, open it in PS and modify it, there is a violation. Can't make an example in real world, because copyright and trademarks works differently for physical object, while they don't apply for non tangible objects, like computer code or 3d graphic. a mesh is a sequence of triplets of numeric coordinates; not the same as the shape of an iPhone or a car.
For the records, I've seen people selling modified models (or should I say "very similar" or "inspired"); it is hard to prove that something is derived, if you alter the source material to the point where the original is not recognizable anymore. Same goes for geometry, since some topologic solutions are pretty much standard, and it is hard to trademark a topology. Altho the more complex is the geometry, the more chances are to spot a derived work. I work with patents, I have to deal with this quite often, and you can't imagine what a pain it is, because there are no clear rules for intangible ideas and products.
Again, what you do with the rendered images is not covered by the EULA; you must've missed the whole point: I could create maps without even ever have the model itself, or the textures; I just need a person that makes a 4k by 4K render at max quality of the front and back of an item. I NEVER implied to touch, modify or derive material, starting from the source. We are talking of 2 different things probably.
Sorry if it was not clear; I will do best next time.
This is correct; altho the low poly mesh would not be flat :) I am not making a cube man, and expect that with a normal map I get a perfect detailed mesh; I just simplified the process to make it easy to understand...I am aware that many people uses content without have a full understanding of all the process that imply 3D modeling...as a person that drive a car and knows how to do maintenance, does not necessarily needs to know exactly how the internal part of a car system works; so I tried to keep it as linear as possible.
It is true thou that you can add details enough to change a 1K figure, and make it look as a 5K figure, just with a bump and normal map well done (a good example are the game models on mobile platforms; they are heavily optimized to have as less polys as possible, and at the same time, leverage on normal maps to improve the look
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Normal_map_example.png
BTW Mine was an alternative approach; I left this site where there was a talk about getting DAZ content on the game engines, and how would be possible to reduce the incredible amount of polygons, to a level that was acceptable in a game or real time application. In almost 5 years I've learned other ways to do things; so now that I came back, I was curious to explore what options do I have.
I do not need to get DAZ models, nor the textures; I can live just fine without spend more money, and do either my own mesh, or buy them on specialized 3d game mesh providers; the idea was to put in use the ton of things that I have since the beginning, instead than just keep them there for a render, whenever I may need one (basically never). The idea of the game license is good in some ways; I just figured out that is not fitting my case...especially after reading that it covers only original DAZ material...then you need the other license for everything else; and the price honestly won't justify the use of 5-6 items or characters honestly.
Guess I will play more with the new DS (which is awesome...V2 and V3 were quite bad compared to this honestly), and the stuff that I already have, and then pack all again back on a backup drive, to put it away.
Thanks for your replies. I am grateful that thanks to your comments, I understood the pros and cons, before investing more time and more money.
"You may argue that you are using a render as texture, which in this case would prohibit any kind of photo or render, to show up on bilboard, magazines or any other media, where the image/render is layered upon a layer of support, which seems to me that is not the case. " - any imagery used for billboards or posters needs to be licensed. The license allows certain uses of DAZ 3D content, it doesn't allow it to be used to create 3D content (with the exception of merchant resource packs).
If you made a low-resolution version of, say, v4 then it would be a derivative product -even if you did so by using a render as a guide, with no DAZ mesh in the modeller. If you are trying to mimic something, using that something directly or indirectly, as a guide then you are creating a derivative.
Good point; I was trying to point out that the common use of a render may be interpreted in different way; was not saying that you don't have to pay the fee, to use it in that context.
The derivative definition is simple to grasp but hard to master: consider a PC ibm compatible computer: they all look the same, altho you cannot say that it is a derivative work, due the fact that they have enough differences.
For a 3d model is the same: to be honest and transparent, you may not want to even have the original model and texture, but most of the time, people see something that they like and try to make it "different" (Wasn't Colton that said "imitation is the best form of flattery" ? ). If we think in a certain way, almost everything that surround us is a derived work, for which nobody paid to the original "owner". I don't justify it, but if you think that the same model used as base for any figure, is per se a derivative work of the human body....puts things in a different perspective.
The problem happens when you try to make money, stealing the work of someone else and pass it for yours; or when you make a clone of an item (say an iPhone), which looks exactly the same, but is not. That's not only an ethical violation, but a crime. Putting a model in a game is a sort of free publicity IMO, for the author and for the company that sell it; it should be easier and cheaper to use them, because not all the games end up like GTA5, selling 2 Billions at launch, or like Angry birds...the average game sell not even 40K in a 2 years period :) Indie studios prefer to buy from Chinese or East EU vendors, because they are cheap and their license allows you to modify textures and mesh, altho they are not qualitatively on par for a AAA title; but most indie games cannot afford a AAA game anyway (there are exceptions of course).
Sorry for the dissertation, I went off track
I think that the many rules and regulations that exist, are in place to protect who made something and who sell it; from who may sell the same product, but of inferior quality, or from who may steal ideas. The game usage came way after that, so it is normal that the same rules are used; altho they don't always fit like in other cases, and for that, I blame the international committees that does not standardize computer programs, code, mesh,texture and so on, as they did with paper works, table games and physical objects.