iray -- Basically, what is it? And why would I want it?
LeatherGryphon
Posts: 11,674
Let's be basic here folks.
"iray" Totally new word I haven't seen before. Have read nothing about it, haven't got a clue as to what the big deal is.
What is it?
How is it different than what is already in Studio?
How is it different than other plug-ins available for Studio?
Why would I want it?
Post edited by LeatherGryphon on
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
It's not a plugin, it's a different render engine, like Octane or Luxrender. It's physically based and unbiased, so it can produce much more real-looking results. It's faster than other available PBRs as well. The downside is it's kind of demanding of hardware, preferring lots and lots of CUDA cores.
http://sickleyield.deviantart.com/journal/Tutorial-Getting-Started-With-Iray-519725115
...though one can also perform pure CPU or hybrid CPU/GPU rendering(the latter as long as you have an Nvidia GPU) and get the same high quality results, just not as fast. I've been running render tests in CPU mode (as my old Nvidia GPU only has1 GB of VRAM) with a fairly complex scene and the render speed much better than Lux in CPU mode.
Still learning about adjusting lights and materials but so far I have been pretty impressed with the results.
These are my computer specs :
Processor: 2.4 GHz Intel Core i5
Memory: 16 GB 1333 MHz DDR3
Graphics: Intel HD Graphics 3000 512 MB
Should I care about Iray or is it completely out of my league?
You won't be able to use that graphics card. If that's a quad core it can probably render faster than for e.g. Luxrender, but it'll be much slower than 3Delight. If it's a duo I wouldn't even try it.
I would stick with 3delight with those specs. Heck, I stuck with them with my 1.5 GB nVidia card. I just upgraded (though it's a laptop, it still has a very high end vid card), so I will try it now... but I wouldn't have with the 1.5 G machine.
I say give it a shot. :)
My laptop is an I7 2.2GHz 4 core and I'm managing just fine. Maybe not quick (most renders are taking about an hour or hour and 1/2) but even with 3DL some renders take that long.
As long as its a quad core give it a shot! You won't know until you try. :)
Super different. For one thing, Iray is fully integrated into Daz Studio. No Plug-ins or external software to purchase and learn. No time lost in redefining materials in other applications and no need to purchase any external software.
Iray is FREE! FREE! FREE!
All of the various plug-ins will cost you in some way or other, only iray is totally free.
When rendering with Iray, it will use both CPU and GPU combined if you have a proper Nvidia card, if not then it will run on CPU only.
Iray isnt limited by Vram in the way Octane might be.
Octane is probably still the fastest, but it is hard to compare just now because Iray also uses CPU so in theory it should be faster than Octane. Iray is hundreds of times faster than LuxRender no doubt.
Because in many ways 3Delight was a joke. It was not designed for realism. In today;s market, most people want the ability to create images that viewers assume might be real photographs. Years spent studying "lighting" in applications like 3Delight teach us a lot of "tricks" and experience are needed to get good results. With unbiased rendering however, there are lot fewer tricks to learn, materials are so much easier to set up. And overall rendering is faster.
Pros
1. Iray is Unbiased and Physically Based from what I've read. This is a high quality render engine appropriate for a high end application made available to Daz Studio users for FREE. It's like getting Octane for free.
2. Iray outputs a much better quality than 3Delight, and even with minimal hardware, is as fast or faster than 3Delight. But again, it is in many ways wrong to even compare the output of the two applications since unbiased rendering is so much more accurate than biased rendering no matter how well implemented.
3. Iray is scalable based on your hardware, so in theory render speeds could become exceptionally fast with enough video cards or if networked over a cloud.
4. Iray is the future, 3Delight and other old school means of doing things are the past. No longer will people wait three days for a biased artsy looking render that looks better in two hours if rendered in Iray instead of 3delight.
5. True photorealism is now possible to anyone, regardless of skill level in little Daz Studio!!! With 3Delight, true photorealism was more or less impossible.
No longer can the guys in the LightWave, Maya, 3Ds max crowds look down on our galleries and render offerings as sub par, because the playing field has been leveled significantly. DS users can go head to head with the best of them thanks to Iray.
Here are my specs:
Processor: 2.4 GHz Intel Core i5
Memory: 8 GB 1.600 MHz DDR3
Graphics: Intel Iris Pro Graphics
...And it works like a charm. Probably slower than the rest of people here lol. But works pretty fine. I say, give it a try.
I think it's short for "Iradium."
.Iray is NVIDIA's name for their Professional CUDA/CPU Render engine. Up until now the province of high end expensive software like 3DS MAX and Maya. Used professionally by Auto companies, Architects, Advertising firms, etc.
Iradium is our name for this version of DS because we didn't want to just call it 4.8. LOL.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/nvidia-iray.html
http://www.nvidia-arc.com/Iray
http://www.wkrg.com/story/28346485/daz-3d-first-company-to-make-nvidia-iray-2015-available-to-public
Oh yeah, I almost forgot. If you are a Max or Maya user.If you are a big company like GM that has been using it to render cars for years and want to see how the brand new Iray 2015 works? This is where you can see what is coming in the next version of Max and Maya.
Because in many ways 3Delight was a joke. It was not designed for realism. In today;s market, most people want the ability to create images that viewers assume might be real photographs. Years spent studying "lighting" in applications like 3Delight teach us a lot of "tricks" and experience are needed to get good results. With unbiased rendering however, there are lot fewer tricks to learn, materials are so much easier to set up. And overall rendering is faster.
Pros
1. Iray is Unbiased and Physically Based from what I've read. This is a high quality render engine appropriate for a high end application made available to Daz Studio users for FREE. It's like getting Octane for free.
2. Iray outputs a much better quality than 3Delight, and even with minimal hardware, is as fast or faster than 3Delight. But again, it is in many ways wrong to even compare the output of the two applications since unbiased rendering is so much more accurate than biased rendering no matter how well implemented.
3. Iray is scalable based on your hardware, so in theory render speeds could become exceptionally fast with enough video cards or if networked over a cloud.
4. Iray is the future, 3Delight and other old school means of doing things are the past. No longer will people wait three days for a biased artsy looking render that looks better in two hours if rendered in Iray instead of 3delight.
5. True photorealism is now possible to anyone, regardless of skill level in little Daz Studio!!! With 3Delight, true photorealism was more or less impossible.
No longer can the guys in the LightWave, Maya, 3Ds max crowds look down on our galleries and render offerings as sub par, because the playing field has been leveled significantly. DS users can go head to head with the best of them thanks to Iray.
Super great answer! 8-) 8-) 8-) Thank you.
eye rays are for frying your foes into crispy charcoal !!!!
I see your bet and I rays you $500.
It's a little unfair to say that 3Delight's is trading off the Pixar associations of "Renderman compliant" - it has been used itself in feature film work, it is a full strength, industry standard engine.
...I prefer to use MIND BULLETS to crispy fry their brains!
It didn't carry as much weight as people here at Daz3d tend to think it did. None of the forum members are making movies for Pixar so it really was a matter of association, it didn't make any actual difference to he average user.
Unbiased rendering however is real world compliant. It has its own standard, is my point.
What sold me:
'Hey, that person has one light source but put a screen out of shot on the other side so there's back scatter illumination, like real photographers do.'
That very simple way the system accurately handles how light fills a space, in a renderer that doesn't take days to complete?
Sold.
Unless you are only interested in doing "photo real" renders.... I don't see unbiased engines (like Iradium) as a replacement for biased engines (like 3delight). They are different tools, each with distinct advantages, disadvantages & ideal situations for use. If you are into stylized art, you might want to bend the rules of reality (light, shadows & surfaces) to better convey a feeling or emotion... this sort of thing would be easier to pull off in a biased engine like 3delight. On the other hand Unbiased / Photo real renders are great for things like prototyping products, imitating reality or maybe making something unreal look like it could be real... It all depends on the look you are after.
I don't know if it's just me but one issue I see with many "photo real" renders containing figures is that because the lighting & surfaces are more realistic, it tends to highlight all the other little flaws & unrealistic parts of the render, making them stick out like a sore thumb. If hair is not fiber mesh it looks really fake, like a photos of hair pasted onto sheets of paper... If you don't use physics to emulate cloth, it won't look natural... when it comes to the human body, there are hundreds of muscles & so much complexity with anatomy that things just look off. Sure all of these things might be present in a biased render but they don't stick out as much & are easier to fix in post... I don't think you can even do much post with an unbiased render or it defeats the purpose & may no longer be unbiased? I think it's related to the "uncanny valley" theory, where the closer things get to looking real, the more creepy they are... I have still seen some amazing work done with unbiased engines so I think it's cool to have another tool to pick from.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncanny_valley
EDIT: One more thing I wanted to add... if you are into photography, unbiased engines are great because you will feel right at home since it works more like photography...
Swawa3D's observation that “photo-realistic highlights the unrealistic” (to put it a bit simply) is a fair point. It reminds me of the problem I had with watching Jackson's 48-frame-per-second ‘Hobbit’ films. A friend said, “But it's so real! It's like you're right there!” and I realized that was the problem: it was indeed like being right there … on a soundstage with actors in makeup, a spotlight with a red gel off camera right to simulate firelight, and so on. The techniques that fool us into thinking we are looking at Middle-earth instead of a production set have not caught up with the 48fps tech.
On the other hand, I think renders from programs like Studio have their own aesthetic, and it's one to which most people are kind of attuned nowadays. We recognize CG people and sets, and as Shakespeare said, we piece out our imperfections with our thoughts. In any case, all these techniques have their place, and everyone's taste, whether as artist or audience, will differ as to what is needed.