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
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I don't waste my money on it, it's really badly done in Poser! I've still regret that upgraded my version to latest.
Then Blender is a power freak in this.
Think poser came to the end of it's software path, without a rebuild from the ground up this soft future is over and only used for painters reference where it all starts.
If we don't see great dynamics & workable animation engine in studio this year, 'm probably done here to, waiting to long for it.
For people who were waiting for an OPENCL GPU pathtracer alternative in Blender, AMD Prorender blender plugin was released
http://pro.radeon.com/en-us/radeon-prorender-for-blender-and-solidworks-now-available/
It is not quite feature complete compared to cycles but it is in the right track.
Yeah! Thanks for the information.
Someone asked about working with figures with UDIMs and I thought I"d link my answer here for anyone who might need the information.
https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/2588616/#Comment_2588616
and there also this:
http://www.vertigostudio.es/blog/?p=94
Wow, tyvm Chris! I wasn't aware of this and am glad to know about it. :)
For if interested, Blender 2.8
by Pablo Vazquez, part of the Blender UI team (Amsterdam) .
note: this time the sound track is in Spanish.
Some time ago I asked whether Blender had the equivalent of the Topological Move brush in ZBrush (very useful, as I recall). There wasn't a Blender equivalent but someone has decided that it would be a useful addition. I don't understand the process of what gets included in upcoming releases and, specifically, in which release this one will appear. Perhaps someone can confirm for me - will this be 2.79 or 2.8?
https://blenderartists.org/forum/showthread.php?432839-GSoC-2017-Sculpting-Tools
https://wiki.blender.org/index.php/User:Miyagix/GSoC'17/Proposal#Topological_Grab.2FMove_Brush:
Demo: https://github.com/rajakedia1/mine/blob/master/img3/scuplt_topo.gif
Here's the ZBrush version:
There is no process. Blender is an open source software project. So basically you have "Stuff I want to work on" and "stuff we really ought to do to stay current with market." Then, "Hey, anyone wanna work on this?" and "Well, that seems both stable and useful enough. Let's add it to the trunk."
Some things, like Eevee, become commited priorities before they reach "stable enough" because, again, if Blender drifts too far from the market direction, it will stop being relevant. So there's a semi democratic process of prognostication and development milestones, but what actually happens is still down to, largely, "who is willing to code this stuff?" Who can we get interested in doing a coding grant to give us baseline tech that we can incorporate is another thing. (Several GSoC project eventually ended up in Blender. But it's still volunteer stuff. Mostly.)
Take Freestyle. One day a dude just said, "That was cool paper. And they did a tech demo. I will make this work in Blender." Several years and a whole change of dude later, Freestyle was added to trunk because it was mostly stable and seemed useful.
So, do I take it from your explanation that the "design by committee" aproach means that we will be lucky to ever see this useful tool appear in a general release? If so, that's a bummer. No wonder those who can afford it fork out for ZBrush. I'd go for ZBrush Core - which does have that particular brush - but the Core version is missing so many other goodies, not least GoZ.
No. It means there's no saying what will catch the fancy of enough coders to become a thing quickly.. Freestayle was an excellent example. Big following (for a niche product), Two coders over the integration lifecycle. Most of that time, it was just one.
I think even Eevee, which is a core roadmap item, has basically one guy on it. Very few demo level items I'm aware of don't eventually reach Stable plugin or Stable and in the trunk. A lot of proposals just die unstarted. It's just hard to say how long it will be from "Hey, I think I can integrate the thing!" to, "The thing is integrated." Blender dev is not fast. It is steady, and over all, Blender compares well with the market. There has to be some cost for "free" because nothing is free.
Not trying to be booster here, though I do think blender is fine. Just saying there's no secret to understand how stuff ends up in the blender trunk. While there are few items that are priority adds, most of Blender can do is stuff where some dude said "hey," and the made it happen, on their own, with basically no material support and bunch of people wishing he'd hurry up already. Most FOSS is like that.
From what I have seen in business, similar happens a lot their; the difference there is that whoever's pet project it is (they are almost always senior managers or directors) have the 'clout' to push the agenda.
But anyone who thinks that works better just needs to look at what happened when Walmart decided to redesign their isles.
... How well it works depends on the competence of someone. :) And of their ability to admit that sometimes doing nothing, dropping a feature/plan/redesign or changing how it works is the right thing to do. (Rarely can folks justify doing nothing, even when the evidence suggests it is the right thing to do. /shrug As long as that doing nothing is backed up by what one did to prove nothing was best, you're fine.)
Personally, I like Open Source software; it is intended to work (not that it always does); software produce by business is meant to do one thing only - make a profit. Nothing wrong with that, we all need it.
Realtime Volumetrics! Check out Martin Lindelöf's video on Volumetrics in Eevee. Who wants to see a "Send to Blender" in the next version of DAZ?
You know, with v3 of Blender, it will make it easier to build custom interfaces on top of Blender. DAZ could build an interface that ties their content right into an interface for Blender that would bring all of Blender's functionality to DAZ, just sayin. ;)
(and no, before anyone else brings it up, they wouldn't have to make their stuff open source if they were code separate, just linked.)
For anyone who is wondering about the quality of Blender's sculpting tools, check out some speed sculpts like this one Sculpting 101 on YanSculpts, and of course, it's free (Blender sculpt tools.) If you are into sculpting, check out the other videos on Yan's channel as he has some good tips. Also, if looking for a good 3d reference to have next to your sculpt, think of taking a character from DAZ, import it into Blender. With being able to quickly put together custom characters, expressions, etc... in DAZ, realistic, fantasy... it makes a great tool for putting together a custom reference for whatever style you personally would like to practice.
Thanks for those
Looking for a great background for any of the spaceships in the DAZ marketplace? Check out this Space Nebula Tutorial by Mark Kingsnorth.
Evee is being developed by someone who works for the Blender Foundation. They receive donations and regular support for the express purpose of developing and improving Blender, It's real, funded development, not a pet project supported by one guy's enthusiasm.
I did not mean to imply Eevee wasn't funded. I meant to underscore that Blender Dev overall is limited resource wise. Eevee is a core feature in the 2.8 map, and is basically one guy.
Other software would have an org chart around it.
Deep down, the one guy is probablly being supported. But outside him, you are more and relying on enthusiasm. This isn't some sort of sick burn. Blender is A) Free, B) highly competitive with market software, C) done on a shoe string budget and charity. Blender is AMAZING when you consider that. I feel that people who look at it as "why doesn't it do this?" are being kinda glass half empty about it.
I think it's more reasonable to look at it as, not glass half full but, glass of quality clean water. It could fit more but it's free, and of same quality or better than any bottled water you could buy. Oh, and it was purfied and quality tested on donations, grants and the free time of people with an interest in water infrastructure. So why complain it didn't come with a lemon wedge?
Sounded like to me in a video about Eevee I saw that 10Cent / UE4 is at least giving some major funding and technological help to Blender. They are getting such major sustained technical help and sustained financial now because of the game making, 3D art, animation hobbies have grown by leaps and bounds in the past years and Blender is the best positioned SW to help grow those markets for UE4, Unity, and others. Really cool.
There are actually 3 move brushes in ZBrush that work very well. "Move" moves everything in it's scope so if your working on a face without masking out the eyeballs or inner mouth stuff like teeth then all that gets deformed, which can lead to some nasty and unwanted effects. "Move Topological" is really a great Move tool as it only moves the topology directly in it's scope. "Move Elastic" moves and deforms the mesh like it was made of liquid clay. Sometimes effects can be interesting or really out of control. Used in minute amounts it can be a very useful brush.
That's where I was spoiled by their functionality when I had access to ZBrush some time ago. The Move-Topo brush was the one I missed most which is why I asked about a possible Blender equivalent. I went back to the Blender Artists forum and asked the guy who's been writing the code for the TopoGrab brush and he says it is nearly ready and, if I understand him correctly, it will be included in the official release (but I can't get any certainty about which release).
In the meantime, he has a branch which contains the brush and if anyone has the smarts to install/compile a branch version, it is available. I read the process for doing that and I just smiled to myself and thought, I'll wait a little longer for the official release.
Interesting - I've never used Zbrush so I'm having a hard time understanding the difference between those three move brushes. The first one sounds like Blender's grab brush, the second one sounds like grab brush used with masking and the third one sounds like the snake hook brush. I'm not saying there isn't actually a difference - since you have used both programs I'll take your word for it that there is one, I just don't understand what it is based on your description. Any chance of elaborating on what a topograb brush does that can't be done now?
It does what the Topological Move brush in ZBrush does so if you take a look at the video clip I posted (a few posts back) you will probably get the idea.
OK - guess I'll have to watch when I get home. I can't watch it with audio from work and just from the visuals I don't see anything different from using the grab brush with a mask. Or is that the difference? That it only affects connected geometry so there's no need for the mask? Did I just answer my own question?
I'm looking for a tutorial on how to make V4 clothing from Blender models to DS, yes my characters are that old. I don't know if one was here because I have missed the greater portion of this thread and since I have been gone for a long time it appears the search engine is just the same as when I left.
If anyone can help thank you in advance.
I dunno that this is the right place to answer that.
I mean, making clothing in blender is figure agnostic. It's all the same, not matter what your external use is.
The trick is making V4 compatible figures out of the clothing in Studio. Which is really a Daz Studio support question. One I don't know the answer to, because the main content tools in Studio are aimed at Genesis and beyond. I think there are legacy functions that will allow you to make, or save, things in the right format for V4, but I don't know how to use them. Just that, as far as Blender goes, it's irrelevant.
Clothing in Blender? Absolutely. Make a simple OBJ in the shape of the clothing, use the GoBlender plugin to pull it into D|S, and use the real-time cloth simulation feature that moves and drapes naturally and instantly as you pose the character. In real time, like real clothing would. Doesn't matter whether it's on a V2 or V4 or G3 or G20.
You move the character's leg in the 3D viewport and the clothing responds instantly under gravity and drapes naturally. Click a button and scroll the mouse wheel and the clothing instantly shrinks to better fit the character, Or move it the other way and it inflates. In real time. Less than a second and the cloth has draped naturally. Even faster than Marvelous Designer's super fast cloth.
Yeah. That's my dream.
No bones. No morphs. Sweet.
And I heard the developer of VWD is working on GPU support. So maybe that dream is closer to a reality. Heck, I'll buy 4 powerhouse GPU's if I need to.
Awesome.
Clothing is basically imported obj files that have been rigged in DS. There are a number of tutorials on how to do that both free on YouTube (search rigging clothing for daz) and paid in the marketplace (search "Content Creation".) As is usually the case, the free ones will get you started but paid ones will usually be more inclusive, step-by-step and vendors will often help you out if you get stuck. As a quick overview, to create clothing, you usually would export the character (V4 in this case) in obj or fbx format and import into 3D modeling program (Blender...) use character as manaquin for modeling clothing, export clothing as obj and import into DAZ, rig using tools in DAZ, put materials together using shaders in DAZ and save as asset. That is a very broad overview and the devil is in the details as they say. The details are extensive though and that's where the tutorials come in.
As to V4 vs Genesis, the process is basically the same iirc other then chosing different character to pull bones from, someone correct me/clarify if I'm wrong as I haven't played with it in a while. Point is, there should be some V4 specific tutorials on YouTube, I probably have some links archived and will post if I find some, but DAZ itself has changed since then (quite a bit) so there aren't going to be any tutorials on doing this for V4 using current DS most likely. Newer tutorials re: Genesis probably apply pretty much straight up with simple substitution. I would send a message to some of the vendors here to see if their tutorials would work with V4 also if you are considering them.
Clothing is a perfect example of the need for the topological move brush. If there is a piece of cloth overlaying another - such as two coat flaps overlapping - the topo brush can move one layer without affecting the other. That is a frequent need for me when I create morphs for clothes.
The only way I could find to do this effectively was to come out of Sculpt mode and use proportional editing. A good lesson for a Blender novice like me but I'd still like to do it with sculpt tools.
https://github.com/rajakedia1/GSoC-17-Files/blob/master/Sculpt_test.gif
V4 doesn't seem to use weight mapping. It seems to be parametric joint parameters, which is why you have to convert V4 clothing to weight mapping if you don't use Transfer Utility or autofit to directly fit them to Genesis and beyond (which you would do to preserve any added bones on the item, like pony tails and stuff). I'm not familar with how well the authoring toolset in Studio supports creating parametric joint parameters. I know it can do it, but a surprizing number of tools balk at PJP and tell you, "Nope. Only weight mapping, bub."