Loading...
> >

Scene Optimizer information wrong?

leo04leo04 Posts: 341
in The Commons

I may be missing something here but I don't think so.

I have want I believe is the most up-to-date version of DAZ Studio, 4.20

I purchased Scene Optimizer back in 2017 but hadn't really used it much at all so when I went to use it today I went back to the "Read Me First" file.

To my surprise it says it requires Daz Studio 4.9.033 or higher.  The Product page says this too.

I have searched for a download of 4.9+ but cannot find it.

Am I missing something or is the product page and readme file incorrect?

I have included an image that may help explain what I am seeing.

It includes the product page. The DAZ Studio splash page, and a screen shot of the Read Me First text.

Thanks for any clearification anyone can provide.

 

 

scene opt.png
1581 x 2569 - 3M

Comments

  • LeanaLeana Posts: 11,814

    You have missed that DS4.20 (minor version 20 of major version 4) is much newer than DS4.9 (minor version 9 of major version 4), so the version you have meets the requirements.

    Version numbers are not decimals.

     

  • HavosHavos Posts: 5,392

    I have used Scene Optimizer in 4.20 without problems, you do not need 4.9.

  • leo04leo04 Posts: 341

    To be honest, I suspected as much but then again was obviously not sure, so I wanted to ask to be sure.

    Is or was there a 4.9.033 version?  I guess I am not sure I understand the version designation system.

    Thanks for the replies, I appreciate it.

  • AscaniaAscania Posts: 1,855

    leo04 said:

    To be honest, I suspected as much but then again was obviously not sure, so I wanted to ask to be sure.

    Is or was there a 4.9.033 version?  I guess I am not sure I understand the version designation system.

    What is there not to understand? That was major version 4, minor version 9, revision 0, build 33, which as you can see in the change log clearly existed.

    http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log_4_9_0_63

    9 is a smaller number than 20 and we are on major version 4, minor version 20, revision 0, build 17.

  • LeanaLeana Posts: 11,814
    edited October 2022

    leo04 said:

    Is or was there a 4.9.033 version? 
     

    There was, years ago. There have been many versions since.

    I guess I am not sure I understand the version designation system.

    Version number is a set of different numbers separated by dots.

    The two most commonly used are major version (DS4 as opposed to DS3) and minor version (which typically changes when there are new features introduced for that major version).

    When you want more details there are usually 2 more numbers used : third number is "patch" number, it typically changes when you have a set of bug fixes or small changes for that minor version that you send for testing (internal testing or testing by users). Last one is "build" number, it changes   every time the code is updated and built.

    So for example during the beta of DS4.20 the first one released would likely be a 4.20.0.xxx, and if there are fixes or minor changes on new features Daz would then release for example a 4.20.1.xxx or 4.20.2.xxx beta (depending on how many internal test rounds were needed).

     

    Post edited by Leana on
  • jag11jag11 Posts: 885

    I don't have a problem with the current versioning, I use it all the time in software made by me, but using a versioning like Daz Studio YEAR/MONTH might help to avoid confusion.

    Ex:

    Daz Studio 2022/10

    Daz Studio 2022/11

    Daz Studio 2023/1

  • PrefoXPrefoX Posts: 252

    4.09 would have been better ya

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 9,971

    PrefoX said:

    4.09 would have been better ya

    That format is being used in most other contexts like date (like the recommended ISO format 2022-01-02 01:02:03) and currency, which seems to be why the other format is confusing many.

    We need more standardization, a lot of resources are currently being used for converting between different formats (date conversion libraries in software for example are very complex to both write and use).

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024

    Taoz said:

    PrefoX said:

    4.09 would have been better ya

    That format is being used in most other contexts like date (like the recommended ISO format 2022-01-02 01:02:03) and currency, which seems to be why the other format is confusing many.

    We need more standardization, a lot of resources are currently being used for converting between different formats (date conversion libraries in software for example are very complex to both write and use).

    If the US would start using units and formats that the rest of the world is using, everything would be so much easier wink

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 9,971

    PerttiA said:

    Taoz said:

    PrefoX said:

    4.09 would have been better ya

    That format is being used in most other contexts like date (like the recommended ISO format 2022-01-02 01:02:03) and currency, which seems to be why the other format is confusing many.

    We need more standardization, a lot of resources are currently being used for converting between different formats (date conversion libraries in software for example are very complex to both write and use).

    If the US would start using units and formats that the rest of the world is using, everything would be so much easier wink

    Yes.  We also used inches, feet, ounces, pints and other odd formats here in DK once, but it's over 100 years ago we shifted to the metric system. 

Sign In or Register to comment.