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. Luminance should stay constant, but shadows will be different (sharper/softer).
Got a response from DAZ Support about the ray cache parameter today. It's being pushed as a feature request.
https://helpdaz.zendesk.com/requests/192012
Thanks! And that's awesome they're hopefully doing something. The request link does not let me through, though. The old system had an edge over the current one in that we could see the bug/feature threads.
DS Default brick is a black box filled with oldschool code... These days we don't need it at all, I think. The Sum brick does the job.
DS Default brick is a black box filled with oldschool code... These days we don't need it at all, I think. The Sum brick does the job.
That's probably correct...which should make it even easier.
There's a turbulence node in the network, this is your noise. There is no exact same brick in the Shader Mixer, but there is a fractal sum one, and turbulence is based on that algorithm IIRC. Either way, granite or voronoi could also be used. Just give it a try =)
I'd use the same noise for both the bump and spec strength, though, not two different calls like the Poser network you posted. Fractal noises aren't exactly free to compute.
----------
.
LOL! I think I'll leave that to you. Besides, when yours comes out I'll probably use that more than anything else.
CHEERS!
Nah. Still the same old thing. :) Where's that shader you guys have been playing with?
Oh yeah. Lights. 1 Distant light from outside and 1 UE2 light no HDRI. In the second one, I added four linear point lights placed where the lamps are with around 250 cm falloff end.
For the renders below, I added two more distant lights to somewhat mimic more 'wider' sunlight, but ditch the linear point lights.
AO: 1 minutes 43.68 seconds
IDL: 3 minutes 29.93 seconds
Those renders are amazing and your render times are ridiculously fast.
I haven't been able to get Photoreal results like that from UE2, no matter what I do.
My ex is a commercial product photographer and your renders look as real as the shots from her catalogs. I'm not being hyperbolic either.
I saw your renders and I thought of this photo below.
I don't see why we can't get results like that with 3Delight, we just need the know-how, which is why we're here!
CHEERS!
Disregarding all the Pixar cartoons, if you didn't know would you, looking at the effects in various movies, be able to tell 3Delight from Renderman (whichever incarnation of it), Arnold or any of the other ones?
Probably not.
And with the right shaders/settings 3DL is plenty fast and plenty realistic...even 'oldschool'.
In case nobody tried, compiling any shader within Shader Builder seems to work again in the latest beta
Haven't had a chance to download the latest update...but it was one of the listed fixes on the change log.
If Kettu's new shader works in 4.8 I think we'll all be happy.
CHEERS!
You have to be aware, though, that I will not include procedural noise in any of my shaders until I am good enough at antialiasing, which won't happen overnight. The Shader Mixer bricks should be antialiased already (hopefully).
Exactly. The issue has never been about "not being able to get 'photoreal' looks" - the issue is artist skill and artist time, where "artist" includes a TD (technical director - who would generally author the shaders) and actual lighting and shading artists (who would be different persons in a CG studio).
When machines were less powerful, it took a lot of time and very skilled artists to set up a "fake" but realistic-looking render - so that this "fake" one would render in an acceptable timeframe.
Now we have powerful machines that can handle physically based calculations in a comparable timeframe, so the need for that particular type of artist skill and dedicating that much artist time to "faking realism" has decreased. A CG artist can be busy with pure aesthetics now.
The biggest issue actually (in the hobbyist community, at least) have always been impatient people who believe in the existence of the "Make Art" button and keep looking for it as if it were a Holy Grail. We all have witnessed by now that switching renderers will not magically transform an artist into someone else. The methodology is more important.
Given that I am something of a half-baked Hermione Granger, I don't get it why people don't want to truly invest their time into actually understanding what makes CG work. Studying is fun, dammit.
Yes!
Disregarding all the Pixar cartoons, if you didn't know would you, looking at the effects in various movies, be able to tell 3Delight from Renderman (whichever incarnation of it), Arnold or any of the other ones?
Probably not.
Never.
The whole 3delight v. Iray thing is kind of silly really, and truthfully I like them both and don't see myself using just one exclusively.
I know it's an overused analogy, but it's like saying I'm only going to use a hammer from now on, when I have a perfectly good screwdriver available as well.
My only real frustration is a lack of a direct and reliable IBL in Daz, when 3delight is able to handle it.
I really can't wrap my head around why that isn't available to us.
UE2 is unpredictable. Every time I think I've figured out a work around for one of it's many bugs, I swap in a new HDRI, and I have to figure everything out again. It's insane, really. Whether it's one of my work arounds or the script floating around out there, it's always glitchy and requires a new work around.
The biggest issue actually (in the hobbyist community, at least) have always been impatient people who believe in the existence of the "Make Art" button and keep looking for it as if it were a Holy Grail. We all have witnessed by now that switching renderers will not magically transform an artist into someone else. The methodology is more important.
Given that I am something of a half-baked Hermione Granger, I don't get it why people don't want to truly invest their time into actually understanding what makes CG work. Studying is fun, dammit.
I'm not sure if that was directed at me, but I didnt mean to imply I wanted a make-art button. I was just saying after all my experimentation with UE2, I can't get the Photoreal results Wowie is getting.
I was just paying him a compliment while reminding myself I need to work harder.
I actually have no self restraint and have to push every button and change every slider or value, like at least 100 times, just to see what happens. It's like OCD or something, and it's a good thing really.
You know all those shows and vids that start out..."Don't try this at home." Well, 3D rendering doesn't have any of those warnings...and yes, that's what you are SUPPOSED to do.
You have to be aware, though, that I will not include procedural noise in any of my shaders until I am good enough at antialiasing, which won't happen overnight. The Shader Mixer bricks should be antialiased already (hopefully).
Yes, well, that doesn't bother me. I'm sure that whatever you implement will be good enough, till version 2 comes out, which I'm sure it will.
CHEERS!
The trouble with Iray that I can see is that it takes time to learn it, just like 3Delight does, but, the people, like Mec4D, that are getting the best out of it, have been working with those types of renderers for years and outside of DS. Folk think they can get results like theirs overnight and they will quickly find that they can't. They won't get near it till PA's include presets in their products in the same way they do 3Delight. However, as I've found from this thread, those presets are merely jumping off points and aren't the be all and by all for every type of situation.
I'm at the point where I'm getting comfortable with 3Delight and want to see how far I can take it. I have zero experience with PBR's and don't feel like starting from scratch again when I've got as far as I have with what's been there since day one of DS.
CHEERS!
I'm probably one of the real odd-balls. I'm comfortable in both.
A PBR like Iray, is easy to transition to, if you have some photographic experience. If not, it is very much starting over.
But, there are a lot of commonalities...especially when you transition to modern, physically plausible shaders in 3DL. And the gap is shrinking.
I'm point and shoot with a camera. I think that's how most are, that's why they expect instant results and are frustrated when they don't get them. Instant gratification is only gratifying for that instant. It's more gratifying when you graft and get a result that everyone is satisfied with. That's what we all should aim for.
CHEERS!
I'm uncomfortable in both, lol.
The photography background helps in 3dl as much as iray, or any render engine really.
In some ways 3DL is like lighting an indoor Film Set in a studio, where Iray is like shooting still photography outdoors.
I see, well, we're in the right place to learn anyway.
CHEERS!
I have updated my version to 4.8.0.51 (RC2) and it is still give me the error.
What version are you using?
Well, I think I've wrote the steps needed in Parris's thread. But here are some hints.
You need:
* Linear workflow (gamma corrected textures, everything in linear space, output to gamma space). Output gamma should be 2.2.
* Plausible materials (never, EVER, use pure white - 255,255,255 for the diffuse) and lights. The Disney's Principled BDRF paper says albedo (total reflectivity) stays generally around 40% in linear space (works out to around an RGB value of 168,168,168 at 100% levels).
Example values in gamma and its linear counterpart:
RGB 24,24,24 = 1% Linear
RGB 90,90,90 = 10% Linear
RGB 124,124,124 = 20% Linear
RGB 160,160,160 = 35% Linear
RGB 192,192,192 = 53% Linear
RGB 230,230,230 = 80% Linear
I generally use 192,192,192 for lights since that allows me to raise or lower temperatures easily than if I set it to 255,255,255. At that value, i need to work out the offset for strength. It also has the advantage of being more granular and can be extended in range more easily. 2 x 192,192,192 works out to 106% strength.
* Establish a white point based on the above material. You should get plausible looking lights and light setups that way. In simpler terms, your pure diffuse white material with an RGB value of 160, 160, 160 will look almost pure white (255,255,255) when there's light casting on it. That light intensity you use to get to that point is your maximum intensity.
* if you use several types of lights in your scene, you need to divide that max intensity between direct light and indirect (ambient light). You can use less than max of course, but should never go above. Think of it as doing energy conservation the manual way.
* At grazing angles, specular can go up to 255,255,255 at 50% if you use diffuse, 100% if there's no diffuse (reflection can go up to 75%). When viewed perpendicular to the camera, they drop to something like 3 to 5%. You need fresnel in your shader for that. Outside of US2 and Kettu's shader, I haven't seen any shader in DAZ Studio with fresnel attenuation for specular and reflection.
* Same as white, black is not an RGB value of 0,0,0 but should be around 16,16,16 to 24,24,24 (best stick to this value). Why 16,16,16 then? That value works out to 0.2% in linear space. I use that value to see if how that blends with very dark areas/shadows. If its the same, then you need to raise ambient light a bit.
* Total reflectivity is diffuse + specular + reflection. The more diffuse you have, the less the specular/reflection. The more roughness the diffuse, the less glossy the specular and the higher the fresnel strength. The same applies to reflection - rough means blurry reflections. It's not enough to have energy conservation in lights, but you need to use that in materials as well.
* Smooth metals are generally Lambert (low roughness diffuse). Even when its rough, it's still a very Lambert diffuse. Vice versa, rough materials generally are still rough even when they're smoother. And there is such a thing as a smooth coat over diffuse.
* Build your scene without textures or HDRI first. They should generally look plausible even without them. Add textures later, since they generally need to be converted to linear space. Most of the time, they will either need to be corrected in an image editor or be compensated in some way (raising strength levels or rougness for diffuse/color maps).
* Even on an empty scene, it's best to use an environment sphere to get reflection looking correctly (and to see if your reflecting materials doesn't reflect more than it should).
* The layered approach works pretty well. As noted in the Disney's Principled BRDF paper, most BRDF falls short of real world materials. Even the more advanced like Ashikmin Shirley or GGX fails since they do not have a long enough tail (wide specular) at very high glossiness. You need to use a wide and narrow specular with fresnel enabled on both to get close to plausible.
* The layered model isn't just limited to specular and reflections, but can also be used with diffuse as well.
* Never, EVER use ambient unless you're doing emissive materials.
* Don't use velvet. Use a low glossiness, high fresnel specular instead.
Actually, it a lot like lighting a set or stage....partly because it was designed that way (at least the 'original' was...so the 'competition' followed).
Well, I think I've wrote the steps needed in Parris's thread. But here are some hints.
You need:
* Linear workflow (gamma corrected textures, everything in linear space, output to gamma space). Output gamma should be 2.2.
* Plausible materials (never, EVER, use pure white - 255,255,255 for the diffuse) and lights. The Disney's Principled BDRF paper says albedo (total reflectivity) stays generally around 40% in linear space (works out to around an RGB value of 168,168,168 at 100% levels).
Example values in gamma and its linear counterpart:
RGB 24,24,24 = 1% Linear
RGB 90,90,90 = 10% Linear
RGB 124,124,124 = 20% Linear
RGB 160,160,160 = 35% Linear
RGB 192,192,192 = 53% Linear
RGB 230,230,230 = 80% Linear
I generally use 192,192,192 for lights since that allows me to raise or lower temperatures easily than if I set it to 255,255,255. At that value, i need to work out the offset for strength. It also has the advantage of being more granular and can be extended in range more easily. 2 x 192,192,192 works out to 106% strength.
* Establish a white point based on the above material. You should get plausible looking lights and light setups that way. In simpler terms, your pure diffuse white material with an RGB value of 160, 160, 160 will look almost pure white (255,255,255) when there's light casting on it. That light intensity you use to get to that point is your maximum intensity.
* if you use several types of lights in your scene, you need to divide that max intensity between direct light and indirect (ambient light). You can use less than max of course, but should never go above. Think of it as doing energy conservation the manual way.
* At grazing angles, specular can go up to 255,255,255 at 50% if you use diffuse, 100% if there's no diffuse (reflection can go up to 75%). When viewed perpendicular to the camera, they drop to something like 3 to 5%. You need fresnel in your shader for that. Outside of US2 and Kettu's shader, I haven't seen any shader in DAZ Studio with fresnel attenuation for specular and reflection.
* Same as white, black is not an RGB value of 0,0,0 but should be around 16,16,16 to 24,24,24 (best stick to this value). Why 16,16,16 then? That value works out to 0.2% in linear space. I use that value to see if how that blends with very dark areas/shadows. If its the same, then you need to raise ambient light a bit.
* Total reflectivity is diffuse + specular + reflection. The more diffuse you have, the less the specular/reflection. The more roughness the diffuse, the less glossy the specular and the higher the fresnel strength. The same applies to reflection - rough means blurry reflections. It's not enough to have energy conservation in lights, but you need to use that in materials as well.
* Smooth metals are generally Lambert (low roughness diffuse). Even when its rough, it's still a very Lambert diffuse. Vice versa, rough materials generally are still rough even when they're smoother. And there is such a thing as a smooth coat over diffuse.
* Build your scene without textures or HDRI first. They should generally look plausible even without them. Add textures later, since they generally need to be converted to linear space. Most of the time, they will either need to be corrected in an image editor or be compensated in some way (raising strength levels or rougness for diffuse/color maps).
* Even on an empty scene, it's best to use an environment sphere to get reflection looking correctly (and to see if your reflecting materials doesn't reflect more than it should).
* The layered approach works pretty well. As noted in the Disney's Principled BRDF paper, most BRDF falls short of real world materials. Even the more advanced like Ashikmin Shirley or GGX fails since they do not have a long enough tail (wide specular) at very high glossiness. You need to use a wide and narrow specular with fresnel enabled on both to get close to plausible.
* The layered model isn't just limited to specular and reflections, but can also be used with diffuse as well.
* Never, EVER use ambient unless you're doing emissive materials.
* Don't use velvet. Use a low glossiness, high fresnel specular instead.
All very interesting. Glancing is a better term than grazing. For most of us, grazing is something cows do!
CHEERS!
Both terms can be used - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angle_of_incidence
Maybe, it just depends on what you most associate the term with.
CHEERS!
I have updated my version to 4.8.0.51 (RC2) and it is still give me the error.
What version are you using?
Same build as yours. I checked again to be sure and I got no error either in light, displacement, volume or imager shader
I just tried to recompile some shaders I made some time ago and that wouldn't compile with the preceding beta buiild and now all is going fine
Nah. Still the same old thing. :) Where's that shader you guys have been playing with?
Oh yeah. Lights. 1 Distant light from outside and 1 UE2 light no HDRI. In the second one, I added four linear point lights placed where the lamps are with around 250 cm falloff end.
For the renders below, I added two more distant lights to somewhat mimic more 'wider' sunlight, but ditch the linear point lights.
AO: 1 minutes 43.68 seconds
IDL: 3 minutes 29.93 seconds
Nice work Wowie. Thats comparible to what Stonemason does with UE and his structures.
Looking at the renders I see lots of grain in certain areas. This tells me the settings are not all that high. Since this is not an animation, you cannot get away with rending it with settings that suit animations. Afterall, your eye has time to focus on all the details. Architectural renders are always easier to do then organics. Once you toss people in the scene, things slow down a lot.
What were your adanced render settings and UE settings?
Add Genesis 2 Female with End of Summer Hair sitting in the chair using an SSS skin shader. What are your render times?
How long would it take to render that same scene with G2F in it at 1920x1080 ???