Yes, it looks pretty, but does it do anything.
MeneerWolfman
Posts: 429
This is something I've noticed for awhile and it's really putting the pause on me buying sets unless they hit the $1.99 bin. Sets with no moving parts.
The Dekagon sets of late have it, but it's the same with all the Tesla3d, ImagineX, etc. sets. They're just a bunch of static parts that have very limited use. Saigon Office looks great, but if I'm building a story with it, it can't do anything. People can't walk into the office. No one can open the file cabinet to pull out a case file. No one can answer the phone, etc.
My initial reaction of "oooh this looks great!" turns into me going "Oh, I can't use this for anything because it's all static." If it falls into the $1.99 bin I might pick it up for a random piece or two of the set, but even then I've passed on so many Tesla3D sets that I can't even begin to fathom.
The final thing that confuses me greatly with this is with Daz's wish to expand more into game content for developers. Game sets and props have tons of moving parts to build the sense of realism. A giant static piece is pointless in games.
Does anyone else feel this way?
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
Yes.
I usually plan ahead and remove the unrigged item and replace it with a rigged prop.
Sometimes the only remedy is to make the item invisible in the surfaces pane- if the vendor did a full static set.
I do that a lot with vehicles since so many do have full interiors.
-----------
As far as games go, it depends on the game design. Some games do not let you interact with every single thing.
Some items only get those temporary bullet holes- no matter the item. Sometimes they just swap models - from the new version to the damaged version.
-------
Those glued-together sets come in handy when you have low resources or just need a quick backdrop.
I am way more careful now than I used to be in reading those product descriptions and what's included and what morphs, dials, props, etc......
I have felt your pain.
Oh they have value for a bit here or a bit there for use kitbashing, which is why I pick up some when the inevitably hit the $1.99 PC+ for a day bin. I think my overall point is that I would never spend $10 on these or more.
They've also become more the standard set type being made. I miss the extra "attention to detail" that the older sets used to have. Like doors would open, drawers would open, sometimes even the buttons would move, etc. That used to be the standard. A lot of sets these days could be posted on Turbosquid, it's the same set of low poly, pbr, objs strung together in one grouping.
I would much rather use the older items for the very reasons you state. There is nothing wrong with the older sets other then maybe update the textures and shaders can take care of that quickly enough, or make new textures yourself if you don't want to use shaders.
When they hit the $1.99 price I check the promo images on the free-standing props; if there's enough uniqueness I'll grab them for scene clutter but I've pretty well given up on using the scenes.
That's what I find myself doing a lot these days too. Using Iray shaders and filter forge to make new textures and breathe new life into the older props.
..also a bit in this camp. There are some older sets that are rather nice which I still use, particularly those by Jack Tomalin and Stonemason (Jack also has Iray shader kits for most of his sets).
If a part like a door or window doesn't open, I can usually use the geometry editor to remove it and replace it with an appropriate one from collective 3D's Create A Room X Packs. (provided it is a late 19th to current century set (wouldn't work for sets from say the 17th century or medieval era). Also I have no issue with kitbashing other props into a set that have rigged features to replace ones that don't.
for what it is worth, exporting them they usually end up importing as separate meshes in other programs.
not always broken down how one likes though such as all the doors one mesh.
iClone 3DXchange is notorious for combining some things weirdly, Unreal usually imports stuff originally game assets OK but not always as expected either, Blender is probably your best option as it all can be easily separated in edit mode if any combined.
Otherwise the Geometry editor is your friend.
But yes it has to be cheap enough to bother.
Since the newer an item is, the more resource intensive it is, due to lots of poligons and very large texture images, plus with iray there are even more textures then in the past. Since I don't do realism all that much, older is just fine for me and there are ways around faking emissions with 3DL, which is the only thing I truly really like about iray.
Lots of newer models are overbuilt in terms of poly or textures. Everything in the set is built like a hero asset which is quite weird on unrigged models as those are good only as backgrounds. Lots of resources required to render something that can be replaced with much lighter models.
Nowadays I look after older sets or even Poser models as upscaling textures and converting materials is not very hard, always ends cheaper, and the results are good enough.
Newer models for my library usually come from the sale bins.
No!
Static sets are nothing but backgrounds - there are several million free photographs on Creative Commons that are royalty-free. It's very easy to just import a brilliant photo into a DAZ scene or Photoshop viewport to act as a background. If a 3D model has doors that don't open, I don't buy it.
A photograph is just as good as an environment of static props?
Very much disagree with that.
Me too. It will just look like some 3D characters pasted on top of a photo, they will not fit in at all.
I use photographs all the time. They look fabulous as backgrounds.
Develope the skills to integrate the photographs.
I don't bother buying some from certain PAs anymore
even at 1.99 I skipped them
glad some people find them useful
but
if I can grab a set by Slosh or Rougey and Strangefate chocablockfull of props and drawers that open, why would I want a prop with static everything in one piece for a similar price
just an opening door can sell me on a set sometimes, separate brickabrack a bonus or at least the cup, vase, book on the coffee table hideable
as for photographs, there is AI that can create a 3D mesh of sorts from those or one can use shadowcatching
I do the latter with primitives in Carrara and did one recently in DAZ with a HDR in the environment dome using the matt function on some primitives too, just cannot move the camera
I've been working with more and more photogrammetry, the best of both worlds. But sets I usually re-design myself based on artists who are also architects. A lot of Daz PA's just eyeball stuff and in the end it looks off. There are standards, cabinet heights, door widths, socket locations, all kinds of things we take for granted seeing every day and when those standards are not applied it can look uncanny.
I buy static sets AND sets with working drawers and doors and windows. So to me, it's whatever I need it for at the time.
Laurie
For a hundred years, Hollywood used 2D painted backdrops ( that were ENORMOUS ) in thousands of movies and TV shows. A painted backdrop isn't a whole lot different than a 2D photograph. If you're lucky enough to get a tour of the old MGM studio in Culver City (which I think is now owned by Sony) they'll show you these landscapes and cityscapes and interiors of castles that audiences rarely realized were just flat paintings.
yes matt painting, composition etc is good enough for the pros
watch the Weta Workshop videos with all the greenscreens
I don't complain anymore. I get what looks good. I geometry edit whatever I need to. I use what I can use, or I return it.
Apparently now background photos who force their own lighting onto the scene are just as good as foreground props. Why are we using 3D at all and not do collages in a photo editor?
Maybe I should add "My doors open (and my levers flip and my swivels swivel)" to my sig
It takes much more work to make an opening door (having to texture round those corners, model the doorway, etc) but I'm weird and enjoy making things that move.
well depending entirely on the foreground prop and the background photos,
you could easily have a series of background photos and HDRi lighting images showing different conditions and camera angles to use
otherwise known as a montage
...and foreground props that are as said one mesh and considerably more resource heavy.
its all relativel
as I said some are obviously happy with those sets, they can buy them, I like to know that's what I am only getting though so I can weigh up it they are worth the effort
we are AFAIK using 3D people because real people need to be paid a working wage and you need to hire costumes if photographing dressed ones, if you can get the ones with the body and faces you want rather than slide a morph parameter etc.
Well... I dunno....
I am working on a scene where two people are in a car talking...
I got the car (Upper Class SUV), stuck my dudes in it, and then changed the surface of a plane primitive to be a google maps street view, for the background. I think the results were pretty good... and I don't know my way around Daz.
The only time I have seen alright renders that used photo backgrounds is when depth of field has been used to significantly blur the background. That is what Dreamlight does in the promos of his products that are basically just a horizontal and vertical plane plus a couple of photos.
The catch with the matte paintings used in old movies is that they're painted with very neutral light direction, heavy atmospheric perspective and used for things far away from the camera whilst the foreground is built with physical props.
Daz equivalent would be an outdoor scene with the foreground made of 3d props and the distant vista being HDRI/static image background.
HDRI with shadow catchers is much better option for a "fake" no-geometry vignette.
I've been wanting to make a post exactly about this!
I've wasted so much money on environments that are static only to be frustrated by them with the limitations they have. I can't get a refund because i have the bad habit of buying, installing right away but I check them easly months after the purchase. Some of them won't bother doing proper material zones either. I can't make some of the static furniture invisible.
I agree with Wendy... Roguey is one of the bests creating environments because most of the props are rigged and work beautifully. Get some nice shaders and you can convert the cabinets and drawers to almost any style contemporary or fantasy.
I think some PAs should put more effort in describing their products as well and explicitly mention whether the props shown are rigged or not. Same with clothing, please mention/show the material zones.
I like to support artists that do this kind of things.
This.