Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
Re: Content & Content Model
And so what happens when all the G8 and previous assets are pulled from the store, and only G9(+) is left, and noncompliant non-G9 PAs are gradually shed and/or exodus from the DAZ store and forums? What happens to the "content-based revenue stream" that is supposedly (only partially?) funding development on -never gonna happen- DS5?
The whole model is silly. (Edit: Or at least how it's been so poorly handled.) And it's telling that the only places to discuss it all are far from the DAZ forums. DS days have been numbered for years. Where the actual money comes from to keep it all afloat is baffling. And what they've done to themselves in the painting-into-a-corner approach of G9 is bankrupting beyond it.
Will the Zone be the only archive left for all the lost assets? It's already happening. Only time will tell.The irony of pirated content being preserved in the end by pirating is palpable.
Was going to suggest
...as being closer.
But hairline and tail are different/not exact. And tail does look dForce.
Possibly a new or custom item. Could also be a mashup.
Possibly contact PA of dress to query.If you find, post back here. Would be interested in finding.
Black-haired side part char from second link is Joan 9 HD with High Elf Add-On
h**ps://www.daz3d.com/joan-9-hd-high-elf-add-onOther MATs (blonde char, etc) seems same texture. Brunette in first link (first model/image) could very well be standard Joan 9 HD MAT.
There seems no evidence of much other postwork in renders, just original MATs with DS lighting - opinion.@sandeep My sentiments exactly. If G9 doesn't work or sell they will make it work or sell. It's DAZ/Tafi's mo for years now, and with G9 such an overcommitment this time they've really screwed themselves. G8 assets are not only suppressed on the site, they're disappearing. Whether behind the scenes deleted, or behind the scenes politicized argued about and defended with PAs pulling or leaving from exhaustion and frustration, it all has the same effect: "G9 great, buy G9". DAZ happy, customer stuck. Grunt grunt.
Only recourse for G8 contributing PAs is third party or self-promotional sites and sales.
And with the DS model entirely content-dependent, what that means for DAZ/Tafi Studio in the end looks about as pretty as a G9 bend morph.Was just reading that thread last week, too, after a search on the subject.
Haven't tried it yet but might soon. Wish there wasn't such a drastic workaround. (Not a fan of restarting the entire graphics subsystem just to clear VRAM for DAZ-only problems.)
Current beta is what now? With Iray version what? Can't understand how memory allocation and lockup is still a problem with DS. (Or maybe I can.) Meanwhile, latest Blender release just exponentially increased Cycles capabilities and decreased render times to a fraction of previous versions. Just dumb where DAZ sits. Nothing new.Have never not used GeForce Experience for updating. Never thought of the bloat factor, but would probably be happy exchanging it for the convenience and frequency of notifications and updates to the Studio drivers.
EDIT:Going to have to try your methods for the rest, for sure.Thanks for that advice.
Actually, not knowing specifically what you were referring to, I had already done this. (And actually have all versions of DS and Blender utilizing High Performance from Advanced Graphics dialog, individually.)(You can confirm that the settings have actually taken place from within the NVIDIA Control Panel, btw. Sometimes they have not, in my experience, and require a manual add or alteration.)
What I don't have is any actual evidence that it's helping DS at all. With Blender there was a marked improvement in rendering times and memory usage after the OS graphics settings change, even with older Blender versions. With the latest blender version and the new Cycles engine, the GPU utilization is incomparable; with nearly 100% at all times when rendering - and no VRAM release issues to speak of when not. (Keep dreaming DAZ users.)I'm just interested in seeing if this is a universal problem. Something having to do with spotlights and DS and Iray versions.
I find it very interesting, and possibly telling, that older versions of DS/Iray do well with light (spots) conversions to Blender, but newer ones do not. And that seemingly the exact amount of decrease required for old scenes with spots to match up in new versions of DS is what is then needed to be increased in newer DS scenes converted to Blender.
But I'm only one end user, so the test group is too small to determine.
It does seem to be a spot-specific problem. (Obviously more consistency is going to be gained from HDRI-only lighting regardless.)
It may or may not also be associated with Spectral Rendering. At least, that's what a couple of problematic scenes seem to share in common. (However, turning Spectral Rendering off, or even saving out older 4.15.X scenes without it seems to make no difference.)Noticing as well that converting scenes to Blender (via Diffeomorphic) is still handled fine from 4.15.X, but try the same past a certain point with other DS versions (and subsequently Iray versions) and there is a significant drop in light volumes within Blender when converting from 4.2X.X. Seemingly the same amount required to tone down older scenes in newer DS versions. I've experimented with the exact same scene between DS versions, and the only difference in conversions is lighting volume compensation (manually) in 4.2X+ releases. Same, converse, issue in Blender as in later DS versions: Pumping up or down the light volume, per spot, to match what is not necessary from 4.15.X.
...So, if Blender likes Diffeomorphic conversions from 4.15.X, but not later versions, then what changed?Really seeming more and more like an Iray version or implementation problem within newer DS releases.
(I, myself, am only recently discovering any discrepancies because I had purposely relegated myself to 4.15.X versions to avoid bugs and asset incompatibilities in newer releases. Now that I'm dabbling with more recent versions, the complaints make more sense.)(Maybe just converting and rendering using 4.15.X is still the better pathway.)Scene is the same used across both scenarios. No changes. Only difference is DS version and Iray version (which is the higher suspect of the two for the difference in output).
Example: Spot 1 (of 3) is isolated (all other lighting disabled). Comparison renders between DS 4.15.X.XX and 4.2X.X.XX is made at identical resolutions and sample sizes. Result: Massive overlighting of 4.2X output (whether Iray preview or render), requiring individual light (Spot 1) to be reduced considerably in lumens to match 4.15.X output.
Consistent overlighting across all lights and conditions between DS (and Iray) versions.
(Or "underlighting" within 4.15.XX, if the 4.2X results are to be considered a "fix" or "upgrade" of Iray. The problem with that definition, of course, is that assets made or intended for DS 4.15.X or earlier will have a different look than later DS versions, and vice versa - as some have complained of in the D-forums.)PA states P3D Imogen in asset commercial thread.
h**ps://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/295621/gothic-rebel-outfit-for-genesis-8-female-commercial
I'd be interested in how one would (test it).
Within (linked thread), it seems a valid point about a side-by-side test.
Is there any way to either side-by-side a scenario across identical versions of Iray? Or for that part force (somehow?) current ver in-DS or code to newer/newest? Or force other platforms to older?Changelog states "current" in DS is 2022.0.1 (-http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log_4_22_0_16)
With other sources saying upwards of 2022.1.7 (-https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/656976/daz-4-22-can-t-find-info-on-iray-version)
...and seemingly backed up by the DAZ NVIDIA thread page (-https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/600281)EDIT: Correction - Latest in the latest public beta (4.22.1.110) is 2023.1.4. (According to DAZ NVIDIA thread.)
Flatly disagree on most counts.
G9: Horrible and unacceptable bend morphs and geometry at joints. (Some of us do not "cover up" such deficiencies with clothing - a majority of the time.) Only difference in skin is (unnecessary) 8k textures. With good 4k maps the exact same effect can be achieved with G8.1, and even G8, under any closeup scenario. I see no appreciable difference in "eyes", nor do I, personally, find "shapes" or "proportions" to be of any improvement. To the contrary, I find the default G9 body proportions and shape to be lumpy, abruptly square, and unattractive, with female breast geometry to be drastically underdeveloped and unnatural, and nearly impossible to correct without additional morph packages. Most PAs effectively tune out these problems with their offerings. Leg and feet shaping can be dialed differently and specifically to be more desirable (with default feet shape being the only potential improvement), but that shouldn't be the first thing required out of the box of an "upgrade", IMHO.
Summary: G9 = Geometric downgrade with unnecessary bloat.And no DAZ render engine is to blame for that but...
DAZ also happens to have an insufficient, un-updated* Iray render engine, it's a known issue. The DAZ version of Iray can be manipulated into producing somewhat acceptable results, but comparing it to Arnold, or even Cycles, is farcical. And that has absolutely nothing to do with the end user or their abilities or understandings, nor is it the fault of PAs or the quality of their products to scapegoat (you can take any PA asset into Blender to test and prove that fact if in doubt); it truly is a limitation of the platform's utilization of Iray - that's not an opinion, it's objective, demonstrable truth; the best and most capable DAZ artists cop to it, frequently, and turn to real engines for better results without the "DAZ effect" if and when more realism is required. DAZ Iray is badly in need of an update or upgrade (with the latter stoking fears of a newly required shader system if it ever happened, so some balk).
Octane requires a completely different set of shader conversions to work with DS native scenes and materials, and octane renders do not mirror Iray render results for that reason. It is not a viable or practical option for the native structure of the platform because of that heavy conversion factor, with inconsistent and unfaithful results (shared opinion). Octane works great when starting with Octane, but not when converting Iray materials (the typically desired workflow for DAZ users).G9 (and DAZ Iray) get thumbs downs on this side.
*EDIT: The latest public beta (4.22.1.110 as of this note) has Iray ver 2023.1.4. While "updated" feverishly over the past couple of years in fits and spurts, we're still not using recent Iray versions in DAZ Iray renders. (Also have not seen much any difference in comparative test results between current beta and DS versions as far back as 4.15.X.X. And no render time improvement at that, either. So whatever updates are taking place from version to version, they are having little to no effect on how Iray is utilized in DS.)
Nice stuff @frank22
Creates a mood indeed
