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
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Read Daz_Rob's post a little further up, the new iray version is not included, so it should be fine.
...so I guess for those on W7 no GPU rendering (driver 471.41 and up is W10 only) so looks like 4.15.0.30 is end of the line.
472.12 is still W7
...NM. read the driver number wrong (tired old eyes).
472.12 is still newer than 471.42 and there has never been studio drivers for W7
Redacted
...do you have a copy of the installer?
...so what's the advantage of the "Studio" Drivers?
I used the advanced driver search on the Nvidia driver page, selected the 10 series cards, 1080 ti, and windows 7 64-bit; 472.12 was released September 30. I'm using 471.68 on my W7 pro system. I've also mapped out my upgrade to W10 pro process, currently scheduled for sometime around new years day or immediately after.
...as I mentioned I read the driver number wrong, apologies for the panic. Due to my dyslexia I sometimes see words and numbers slightly different from what is presented. Was just one of those days.
Already have plans myself to make a hardware upgrade for moving directly to W11 (one less OS learning curve to deal with) but it will take a bit of time to get the funds saved up for that (10 also has never been my "cup of tea" so to say). Currently looking at about 1,200$ (which includes W11 Pro .Retail Version).
They claim the 'studio' drivers have been more rigorously tested for those that are not looking for the latest tweaks for the newest games, but as the game drivers and studio drivers are released about the same time, when do they do this 'extensive' testing...
I have always chosen a driver that's one or two versions newer that the oldest supported, which doesn't manifest problems in programs that I use.
...ah so no real performance difference then.
___________________________________________
ETA
OK downloaded installed loaded in a single character test rendered and Leela went for being fair skinned and freckled to looking much darker than expected. Test rendered another character with albino skin and the same exact result. Both had skins created in Skin Builder 2 but that should not be the issue. Checking the render settings All the environmental and Tone Mapping ones are correct..
Checking through the logfile I saw this:
2021-11-22 23:20:48.326 WARNING: QColor::setRgb: RGB parameters out of range
However clothing end everything else seems fine just the skin and the hair seems much darker. My displays are calibrated so it has to be something somewhere in the render settings.
Iray view mode gives the same result.
There is also a noticeable lag manipulating parameter sliders even in texture shaded mode..
Using Nvidia Driver 472.12
Attached is are images of the albino character first in the 4.16 beta and then 4.15 general release.
Well, I don't see any new menu extries for this new content type so I guess I'll have to see if their is a DAZ 3D Store product with this mystery new content type or a new "DAZ New Mystery Content Type Examples Essentials" package later this week.
...so when I checked back to see if there was a 4.16 essentials package I found this in the Install Manager, I clicked on the Information icon and it pulled up the Daz Documentation page that I also included in the SS attachment below.
So there's already a 4.16 General release? Not going to overwrite the 4.15 one if the shader bug is still there.
One of the issues I had on 4.16 Beta last night was my pane for Power Pose was not up and when I tried to open it and attach it to the side of the screen where I like it, nope not happening. I am not sure why that happened, so I need to see if it is my issue or the Beta's. I have not had this issue before.
The other is the Perspective View is default and the Default Camera is from 'Waaaay' up in elevation. Again, not sure what is going on.
But for the past number of months I have been working on projects that have had me out of D|S except to work on re-installing content slowly. So actual rendering has been a rare treat.
On Nvidia drivers, my flatmate and I have different ones in three computers and we both had updates barely a week or two after a recent one for both game ready and studio recently.
But does this update fix the mess in Smart Content caused by the store update last year?
Great, the same molasses-slow viewport bug rears its ugly head AGAIN! I'm only getting 1 fps while orbiting around one character, one prop scene...
Downloaded the Beta and loaded up a scene that I have rendered a few times in 4.15. Took a while to load and I hit the render button...35 minutes and still nothing in the render window.
Nvidia GeForce RTX 2060 video card and 472.47 Studio driver Windows 10.
You don't unless you already made a backup, you can fill out a ticket but that is not guaranteed, so it looks as though you may be stuck with it until the next update.
I let it run for 50 minutes and still nothing so I cancelled the render. it wouldn't cancel so I had to kill Studio to get rid of it :) I will go and try again.
Started it again, loaded the scene and pressed Render. I have cancelled it again after 15 minutes with nothing in the render window and have had to kill Studio again as the render wouldn't finish.
Started up 4.15 with the same scene and it loaded faster and started rendering after a few minutes.
Checked my ocean project scenes ( made in v.4.12) against this latest beta and discovered that, in uber shader at least, even the slightest amount of top coat weight strengh, regardless of the layering mode used, darkens and dulls the overall glossy effect instead of brightening it. Can anyone else confirm this weird behavior? This might explain the obvious color change in similar surfaces.(As seen in the example kyoto kid posted above)
Similarly, using SSS Mono mode effect, found that by comparison with version 4.12,in order to get equivalent effects, the transmitted measurement distance needs to be about 40% higher in the latest beta.
Simple tweaks and geometry manipulations such as translations or resizeing or camera movements during interactive Iray rendering causes it to switch from GPU to CPU, regardless of the available GPU memory. (my card has 8 Gb of dedicated GDDR6 video memory)
Since I am about to finalize my project and prepare it for release, I would be very grateful to get some confirmation from the developers or anyone in the know if the shader will remain as is in the current version of Studio or is it still in the process of debugging and subject to further modifications. Thank you in advance for your reply.
Was the 4.16 general release sent out the same time as the 4.16 beta release? i.e. there was no beta test of the 4.16 build before general release?
The only change in the general release from 4.15.0.30 is in the PowerPose pane, which was also in the previous beta(s).
See the last entry in the change log, currently (the only one under the Private Build header) http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log
also see the thread on Iray versions https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/529616). The change in Iray is deliberate, and will presumably remain, as the old behavior was not physically correct.
Okay, just a miinor question, but where could I read more about the "Spectral Conversion Color Space" options?
Timeline: Broken
Puppeteer: Broken
Autofit: Broken
G3/8's IKs: Broken
D-Formers: Broken
Undo Stack: Broken
Frame Selected: Broken
Add Level of details: Broken
3Delight: Broken
IRay: Broken
Filament: Broken
And there's more... Most of these are years old bugs, reported to the helpdesk many times.
Perhaps DAZ Studio itself it's free but I paid for the assets, I would like at least to be able to use them...
I guess I'll go 4.12.0.86 Public Build in secula seculorum...
Broken in what way?
How can a person draw that conclusion from the Change Log? Where should I look to see the derivation of the released 4.16.0.3 in the change log? I see a statement about "Extracted From Public Beta (4.15.1.84)", which is not 4.15.0.30.
Could you pleae be more specific?