Why 3Delight is considered inferior then IRay?

handel_035c4ce6

Why 3Delight is considered inferior then IRay? Just the fact it renders in tiles shows it should be much faster then Iray. And if Iray is really better then why 3Delight remains the default render? I mean not only some stuff I bought and most (if not all) freebies but the imported OBJ items are start with 3Delight too.

WendyLuvsCatz

well it's Renderman compliant so don't think it's inferior 

Pixar uses Renderman

just not a physically based renderer

that said it can do a lot of things a physically based renderer cannot

Sven Dullah

Because there is no documentation and people really don't know how to use it properly, thus rendering images with flat lighting and shading. And the current DS implementation of 3DL is dated and relies on old tech and old shaders that can't fully unlock the full potential of 3DL. Vendors don't bother to learn how to properly make mat presets, because it's cost ineffective, well you get the pic. The truth is 3DL have had pathtracing for many years, just not inside DS until last fall when aweSurface hit the market. And of course the pact between DAZ3D and nVidia won't make things easier for 3DL users. Fact is 3DL with scripted pathtracing on CPU is roughly 4 times faster than IRay on CPU with same level of realism, and the developer of aweSurface is positive that with the new build it will be able to compete with Iray on GPU. There's a development going on, sadly DAZ3D has no or very little part in this.

handel_035c4ce6

Sven Dullah said:

 ...and the developer of aweSurface is positive that with the new build it will be able to compete with Iray on GPU.

LOL... It is very hard to find a recent render which is not faster then Iray. Not to mention such relatively old render as Blender cycles gives for ~500 pases the same quality which Iray gives for ~1000 paces.

Richard Haseltine

This is a classic example of question begging - first you should ask if "people" do think 3Delight is inferior. Iray certainly seems more popular, but there are a number of people who still use 3Delight.

Sven Dullah

Wendy_Carrara said:

well it's Renderman compliant so don't think it's inferior 

Pixar uses Renderman

just not a physically based renderer

that said it can do a lot of things a physically based renderer cannot

kenshaw011267

3Delight in its best implementation isn't inferior to iRay. As it stands in DS? There are far fewer new products in the shop with 3Delight materials. The 3Delight version that is delivered with Daz is old and seriously out of date.

Simply put there is less hassle to using iRay in Daz. If you wantto put the time and effort into using 3Delight more power to you. I however already had a gaming rig. For me there is simply no conceivable reason to bother with 3Delight.

handel_035c4ce6

Richard Haseltine said:

This is a classic example of question begging - first you should ask if "people" do think 3Delight is inferior. Iray certainly seems more popular, but there are a number of people who still use 3Delight.

The actual reason is I import/export a lot of OBJ files and it is very annoyng to remember to change the shaders every time for every surface, so I wondered why Daz 4.10 setups by default the 3delight shaders.

Sven Dullah

handel_035c4ce6 said:

Richard Haseltine said:

This is a classic example of question begging - first you should ask if "people" do think 3Delight is inferior. Iray certainly seems more popular, but there are a number of people who still use 3Delight.

The actual reason is I import/export a lot of OBJ files and it is very annoyng to remember to change the shaders every time for every surface, so I wondered why Daz 4.10 setups by default the 3delight shaders.

That will probably change with the next build.

Oso3D

The Daz implementation of 3DL is incredibly hard to use effectively compared to Iray. There are many 'oh, you can't mix X with Y' and countless undocumented weird behavior.

Once you get over the initial hurdle with Iray, it's fairly easy and consistent to use.

As for speed... it reeeeeally varies. You can render very fast with Iray if you aren't worried about photorealism, but it takes a bit more effort. 3DL can be super fast but there are so many hoops and experimentation to get the results you want the practical speed ends up much slower.

 

But overall, the big reason 3DL is considered inferior is because with relatively 'default' settings 3dl creates rather basic, dated looking renders while Iray (by default) creates fairly realistic more cutting edge looking renders.

This impression isn't necessarily meaningful or important, but out of the box, that's what an average user is going to see.

 

Richard Haseltine

handel_035c4ce6 said:

Richard Haseltine said:

This is a classic example of question begging - first you should ask if "people" do think 3Delight is inferior. Iray certainly seems more popular, but there are a number of people who still use 3Delight.

The actual reason is I import/export a lot of OBJ files and it is very annoyng to remember to change the shaders every time for every surface, so I wondered why Daz 4.10 setups by default the 3delight shaders.

The OBJ importer now causes surfaces of the imported node to automatically use the default material type for the active renderer; e.g., Iray Uber material is applied if the active renderer is NVIDIA Iray

http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log#4_11_0_254

The Create > New Primitive… action now causes surfaces of the created nodes to automatically use the default material type for the active renderer; e.g., Iray Uber material is applied if the active renderer is NVIDIA Iray

http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log#4_11_0_191

So the Public beta should already be giving you the approrpiate default sahder fro created primitives, and the next beta/release should do it for imported OBJs too.