With all this IRay hype... How difficult is it?
Testing6790
Posts: 1,091
I've never used a rendering engine that wasn't 3Delight and my material settings knowledge boils down to diffuse maps, bump maps and opacity maps. Is it like Octane, with a brand-new learning curve and a wall of settings, or is it a plugin that's easy to use like 3Delight?
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
Download and find out.
There is no other way to find out really for youself. THough I can tell you that its all integrated in to the DAZ Studio user interface
Some thoughts after playing for a day.
Studio automatically translates materials for iRay rendering with varying degrees of success. Overall it seems to do a good job but in some instances you may not like the results. This is especially true for procedural 3Delight specific shaders that you applied which may not translate at all to iRay (i.e. you'll get a blank white surface) If you do need to tweak materials, the settings are very different than the good 'ol standard DAZ shaders so learning curve there. I have no idea what most of the settings really mean and to complicate it, they change depending on what you set them to (for example, selecting a particular setting might cause additional sliders to pop up and it's not obvious how to get them to pop up if you want them, like for example translucence). Sickleyield posted a primer on them (link not handy, I'm afraid) and DAZ put some documentation up yesterday I think so there is that. On the other hand, several amazing iRay specific shaders are provided, mostly metallic and glass and they all look incredible out of the box.
Lighting is more "real world" and I have found that there is also a learning curve there. It's intuitive in the sense that you turn on a sun and tell it where to be in the sky and you can get good renders out of the box. But if you do this shadows can be harsh and the brightness a bit too much for my taste. And there is a light mounted to the camera that you may have to turn off in the camera settings or even a dark scene will render like its fully lit up. There are also some specific iRay provided lights (the regular DAZ ones don't work) and they are a bit different, specified in terms of their luminosity rather than intensity. Some getting used to the units and how much is needed to produce a desired level of brightness as the defaults are extremly dim. You really have to crank them up from like default of 5,000 to 50,000 or more. But once you get it dialed in right, it's simple. Shadows all are automatic, for example.
Renders look great depending on if you want photo real or not. Overall I like the option and will use it but I'm not getting rid of 3Delight from my workflow yet. Hope that helps a bit.
It's hard to say how difficult it is to learn. I'm fumbling about in it and some of my results have been pretty amazing - others not so good.
Rendering an outdoor scene with sun almsot always looks fantastic. Other things - like trying to get a monitor screen to cast light (with a texture) took me a while to figure out.
The best thing is that everyone's learning it together, so if you download it, you can join the crowd asking questions and not feel alone.
mac
If you were in the habit of using plenty of shaders to keep down the heavy texture maps, then project irate-ium is going to be a small nightmare...
I'll bump this up, since my post nearly got removed despite the valid point... In case anyone missed it.
As far as I understand it, shaders will not be working the same as they were in DS4.7, since the Iray shaders seem to differ and resemble the setup from vray. The downside of that is a brand new learning curve and possibly having to rebuild or replace the shaders we've been collecting thus far, which means having to fork out more cash to vendors until the community has come to grips with the new stuff.
I hope I am wrong, because the result would be anything but funny.
These same issues and questions crop up any time someone opens a new program or finds a feature they are not familiar with. :) It isn't unique to DS with Iray.
Shader issues are not new. Users have not been able to use Poser shaders in DS or vise versa. The user's shader catalog is still valuable and in tact, as they still have the option of 3Delight. Any tweaks or new shaders saved or aquired for Iray are just that, extra. They in no way de-value what is already owned. Just like Genesis didn't mean users had to immediately throw away V4. :)
The learning curve itself is based on how fast you pick things up. Some people are faster than others. Similarly, some people adjust to change faster than others and will try Iray sooner than later. Others will just watch and see what happens and still others are comfortable with what they have and may never try it. It is totally up to the individual as 3Delight is still there and ready to use. in fact, it was also updated. People who are using it are reporting faster render times.
The only real answer is for users to try it themselves because only they can judge for themselves if it's something worth adding to their workflow. We do have several people in the threads helping and answering questions. There is documentation, with more being added. Some people are already writing tutorials and doing videos. Right now, everyone is learning and those catching on sooner are helping those with questions. :) I'd suggest reading through them and checking it out. :)
Kat
A lot of basic shaders seem to work in Iray, presuming they don't do funny stuff (like PW Effects, not so much)
Also, the cool maps a lot of shaders incorporate can be used, with some work, to enhance Iray materials -- having a rust effect might be used as a top coat.
While there is a learning curve with cameras and lights, I'm frankly finding it generally easier to light scenes without all sorts of sleight of hand I need in 3Delight.
drive yourself nuts and try it !
I have not seen a super render yet !
Here's what really matters
1. Generally speaking, Unbiased Rendering is much easier than Biased rendering such as with 3Delight. Why?
Because you don't need a million tricks, you don't need specular maps and you don't need glow maps and a million other things just aren't essential anymore. So once you get the hang of it, you will notice there are a lot fewer parameters to edit to get the result you want.
2. Light Sources need to be set as Emitters. Similar to the way you used to assign Glow in 3Delight, you can use Emission to turn any surface into a light source for the scene. You may need to increase the Lumens to several thousand to hundred thousand, but it can and will work.
3. No need for eye reflection maps and other silly tricks
4. No more guessing between Uber/ AoA Ambience, all of that questioning and surface editing back and forth is over.
5. Render output from Iray is equivalent to that of high end software packages. You can make scenes as good as any frame from Transformers!
6. Not only is Iray real world accurate, it is also faster than 3Delight for renders that are hundreds of times better in quality.
7. After a couple of days with Iray, you will probably hardly look back at 3Delight. You will realize the job is harder in 3Delight than it is in Iray, so when using Iray you can focus much more on the work itself and not worrying about render time and quality.
8. For the first time ever, what's in your mind's eye and what actually on the screen will match up. Most of us don't realize after so much hard work how fake an image rendered in biased settings might look until we train our eyes to appreciate a new level of realism. It's a whole new day for Daz3d. Sweeeeeeeet!!!
It's a brand new learning curve, at least as far as lighting, materials, and render settings are concerned. The good news is that it doesn't seem very hard to get decent results. The bad news is that a lot of your 3Delight-related knowledge is not very applicable (you'll have to "forget" stuff that you thought you knew).
drive yourself nuts and try it !
I have not seen a super render yet !
I've seen a few. But it takes a more talented artist than I am to produce a super render within just a few days of trying a brand new render engine... :) A decent render? I can do that. A really good one? Hopefully by the end of the day. ;-)
are you for real - we are doing dolls ( Genesis ) and others
and you want them to be more real .
are you for real - we are doing dolls ( Genesis ) and others
and you want them to be more real .
Maybe you haven't noticed but for the FIRST time EVER, I actually see DS users doing scenes that DON"T feature humans as the focus. I actually see some interiors, landscapes, still lifes (items on tables for example) with no dolls at all. DS users are finally becoming real artists instead of doll makers.
Iray makes us feel good about anything we render, human or otherwise so it frees creativity.
drive yourself nuts and try it !
I have not seen a super render yet !
bigh I offer you a challenge, I double dog dare you in fact. Download the 4.8 beta and try it yourself, see if you think it produces better renders for you or not after you have tried it a time or two. Then come back and join in the discussion.
Maybe you haven't noticed but for the FIRST time EVER, I actually see DS users doing scenes that DON"T feature humans as the focus. I actually see some interiors, landscapes, still lifes (items on tables for example) with no dolls at all. DS users are finally becoming real artists instead of doll makers.
Iray makes us feel good about anything we render, human or otherwise so it frees creativity.
We have to agree to disagree
While I'm frustrated by shaders, there are reasons many people will want to use 3delight. I mean, I'm really enjoying Iray, but I still plan on using 3Delight for a bunch of stuff.
A lot of shaders still work tolerably well in Iray, and can serve as a launching point. I've done a bunch of renders with no shader changes, and they still look cool. The only shaders that just don't work are funky things like PW Effect.
As technology improves, a lot of stuff we've bought has a good chance of becoming outmoded. It's... inherent to technology. I mean, there are old models I have that have to be extensively retextured and subdivided and whatnot, because the textures they came with look really low quality now.
I mean, at least with Daz, we don't have to keep sinking money into updates to the base renderer, like used to be the case with most software. I remember getting out of CGI ~10 years ago simply because every year or two it seemed I was being asked to spend several hundred dollars on software updates.
I applaud your enthusiasm for iray, but that's quite a bold statement, and a heavily implied accusation.
Art is highly subjective. I say that as someone who is also excited about iray and has been chasing the Photoreal brass ring since discovering Daz.
Maybe you haven't noticed but for the FIRST time EVER, I actually see DS users doing scenes that DON"T feature humans as the focus. I actually see some interiors, landscapes, still lifes (items on tables for example) with no dolls at all. DS users are finally becoming real artists instead of doll makers.
Iray makes us feel good about anything we render, human or otherwise so it frees creativity.
Thanks for the insult - 'DS users are finally becoming real artists instead of doll makers.'
No render engine frees creativity the artist themselves do that.
I'll refrain from saying anything more.
My initial reaction to Iray was pretty negative and my first 12 hours or so playing with it were extremely frustrating. I still (after all of 24 hours!) have not produced any renders I'm really happy with but I'm starting to really like it.
For me the biggest hurdle has just been the new terminology. I have no background in photography, have no idea what a lumen is and the new materials include a lot of new channels that I haven't spent years learning how to precisely adjust like I have with the regular DS materials. I wouldn't know an f/stop if it fell on me. So as far as that goes it's been a little bit like learning a brand new program.
But I was always a minimalist lighter and reserved most of my "tricks" for post-work so I'm actually finding that the majority of my skills still apply perfectly well - it's not really, as many people have said, a totally new way of thinking about lighting. It's more a matter or leaning what the settings in the new lighting tools and materials do. I'm having to do a lot more test renders than I've done in years because I have no idea what changing any given setting will do until I render it and it takes a long time to see how they are coming out, but that's the price of learning.
Once I get past that I think scenes will actually be a bit faster to set up and the results will be a bit better (definition of "a bit" will vary by skill level I imagine.).
I'm going to say that on an arbitrary difficulty-to-learn scale of coloring with crayons (1) to juggling five balls (10) it's about a 5 so far.
Mark
Maybe you haven't noticed but for the FIRST time EVER, I actually see DS users doing scenes that DON"T feature humans as the focus. I actually see some interiors, landscapes, still lifes (items on tables for example) with no dolls at all. DS users are finally becoming real artists instead of doll makers.
Iray makes us feel good about anything we render, human or otherwise so it frees creativity.
Thanks for the insult - 'DS users are finally becoming real artists instead of doll makers.'
No render engine frees creativity the artist themselves do that.
I'll refrain from saying anything more.
Everything I say upsets most everyone. I can understand why you might take offense to my statement. I suspect that when the average DS user decides to make a render the first thing he/she asks themselves is "Who do I want to render today, Victoria, Michael?" DS being an app designed for rendering humans, it makes sense. But there is more to art than figures. In my own case my first question is "Where do I want to render, ocean, mountaintop, valley?" and if I end up adding a character or not it is usually a last minute add on, not the focus of the scene itself.
DS was always good for rendering humans, but maybe not so good for rendering architecture or still lifes. But iray changes that, or at least it seems to have changed it so far in the iray renders thread. I see tons of renders of situations not involving people. I rarely see DS renders in the galleries that don't focus entirely on people. I see this as something of a good thing. No offense intended.
Interesting. So both your hypothetical DAZ user and you are just rendering pretty pictures of things. I would have thought that most people start with "what story am I telling?" or "what is happening in this image" or "what mood do I want to convey?"
I'm kidding you, since it was probably not obvious. ;)
Mark
It is a brand new day, so embrace the new tech and let your creativity flourish.
Interesting. So both your hypothetical DAZ user and you are just rendering pretty pictures of things. I would have thought that most people start with "what story am I telling?" or "what is happening in this image" or "what mood do I want to convey?"
I'm kidding you, since it was probably not obvious. ;)
Mark
What story we mean to tell is usually the question we ask before we even open an application. DS being excellent for humans, lends itself to that. Bryce on the other hand is about creating all sort of places. My own creativity with Bryce is definitely driven by location location location. But that's just me I'm sure.
Yes I took offence you sound as if you think you are above DS, your attitude is condescending and patronising and yet you seem to have very little scope to your so called creativity, unable to focus beyond what you consider art.
And the reason you are seeing so many buildings etc from Iray renders is because people figures etc are a lot harder to make realistic the hair and the eyes are always a give away, the skin is hard to get right as well in some ways a renderer like Iray could stiffly creativity if the only thing that is considered worthy is realism.
Please keep the discussion to the topic of the thread, not to people or posts.
It's always good to learn new things to keep the grey cells working. Rendering with iray is definitely going to be a challenge for me, however I look at it as more options for me to choose when it comes to how I want my render to look.
Yes, I agree. I'm devoting all my rendering energy into Iray right now because it's new, exciting, and a fun challenge. But down the road I'll probably be using 3Delight just as often as Iray. While Iray has the big advantage when it comes to photorealism, 3Delight has its advantages too, as others have said. The fact that the latest DS offers both options (and for free!) is just amazing.
I should try to restate my viewpoint since the "real artists" thing is being taken too literally.
Bigh made a comment that DS users don't need iray because they only render dolls anyhow. I argued that DS users were being potentially limited to the areas where 3delight excelled which tended to be dolls as such, but that Iray makes it easier to venture outside of that and express much more of their full artistic potential. My wording like usual leaves much to be desired.
Here's a fuller version of what I should have said
I watched a video recently about a guy who has proposed a redesigned interface for Blender. One of the principles he talked about was how the design of an application can and will facilitate certain types of artistic choices by its users. The basic theory was that the more readily available you make a certain tool the more likely it is to be utilized often. Deciding which tools to include and which to omit already greatly influences the purposes people will employ a given application for, as well as the way those chosen tools are laid out and displayed.
For years many people searching Bryce on the internet thought that all Bryce could do was to render reflective spheres over water planes. Seriously. This is simply because the layout of the tools made those choices the most readily available. Three clicks and you get a water plane and a floating shiny sphere. Bryce is a modeler, a texturer, and more than that, but it is an example of the reality of this principle.
People have been looking to DS as a solution for rendering humans for ages, as DS does that quite well. DS also provides free human figures to get you going right away. But there are many things DS is not designed for. For instance, DS isnt a dedicated modeler, it isnt a texturer, it isnt a landscape generator, so people don't usually look to it for these purposes. This is not a fault it is simply the way DS has been purposefully streamlined for its real purpose which is figures. That's why I propose that most often DS users are deciding "whom" they want to render as a first choice instead of what or where. It is the application's design and toolset that encourages such thought processes.
But that's not the usual case in CG. I'd say that most often when using most other applications, what you end up rendering as a final result is what you've been working on in modeling. If one models a bedroom scene with a clever frame and some windows and doors and cool furniture and small items in Maya they will usually render it with options available in Maya. No wonder there are so many arch vis and product vis shots made with modeling apps like Maya and rendered in mental ray. The DS workflow is very unusual by comparison because DS really is a target renderer for human figures primarily, it isnt a place ideal for building scenarios from scratch.
Before Iray, I doubt very many people would have considered DS as the favorable rendering solution for Product Visualizations since no one is modeling such things natively in DS. But I also suspect that if the 3Delight engine had been producing images superior in accuracy and quality to those of mental ray, that Maya users would long ago have begun to import their cars models and buildings into DS for final rendering. But that was not what I observed over the years, quite the opposite, they seemed to completely disregard 3Delight for such types of work, and by association, DS itself. But with the advent of Iray, the quality output playing field is leveled with apps like Maya, so that is a good thing to my mind. Now DS really can compete head to head with the v-ray guys, perhaps even winning professional paid commissions that previously DS users would have been shut out of. That's what I mean by "real artists."
I'm talking about how software influences people and the art they make with it. I know that people are always more creative than their given software can usually represent.
I do apologize. I have since tried to better explain my position. It really is about the rendering, not the people as such.
It's a basic principle of artistic expression, that different mediums (and even smaller differences, in venue or whatever) will create 'avenues' of easy vs. hard effort.
I'm working on a web comic, and I've done some writing and other stuff in the past. A comic exerts 'pressure' toward framing stories in certain ways. A simple example is a pressure toward less text, since you simply have less room and a visual medium can convey messages in different ways.
So, yeah, it's hard to do landscapes in Daz because there are no decent landscape modelers without importing stuff. I've struggled in creating scenes for artwork because I can't easily just 'generate a forest' or whatever. Daz isn't designed that way.
I CAN. And I have, using creative camera angles to minimize things or patches of grass, hill tops, a little natural terrain up against a hill or wall, etc. But it's annoying, and my choice of shots and pictures accommodates these difficulties.
I think that's all Rashad was saying.
With Iray, a number of options are easier than they were before.