Show us your 3Delight renders
This discussion has been closed.
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 managed to create pretty good refractive water (though it took quite a bit of doing) using a water surface shader by TJohn in my Old Swimmin Hole pic (the one with the blue skin alien kids which I think I posted here several pages back). Will be nice to be able to do so with less guesswork.
Took long as well to render even with the AoA lights.
Abducting Aliens:
...nice.
Tks, kk:)
...love the appearance as well as the theme. (who knows what's really going on over at Groom Lake?).
...agh so many nice new items and all Iray only. Wanted to get the Bubble Suit for G3/G8 but having to convert that type of liquid translucent reflective shader is a real pain.
Exactly my thoughts
Found these in fast grabs, grabbed them really fast=)
https://www.daz3d.com/metalized-glass-shaders-for-daz-studio
https://www.daz3d.com/subsurface-gummy-plastic-shaders
..I have both, very useful. I used the partials from the Metallised Glass Shaders to create the glass surfaces in the bus stop scene.
Finally picked up Reflective Radiance for 3DL. Every seemed to keep missing it when it was on sale
I see, I'm off to do some testing...
Aah, have fun! Took a while to get the hang of it for me, but a very useful set indeed. And it comes with an IRay to 3DL converter (which I haven't tested yet).
..didn't know that. Thanks for the heads up on that.
The filter is not what I was talking about. If you want reasons why, I'd wager it's just efficient use of resources: the devs never intended progressive to be used for final production rendering, just for previews. Filtering is not some "lazy" postproduction operation; it's reconstruction filtering, taking place at the very time of rendering (basically the law of how you combine pixel samples - which are rays). This is why box 1x1 aka basically no filter is the most computationally efficient (aka fast); this is most likely why it's hardwired into progressive.
I was talking about one of the defining features of, well, most production renderers actually - ability to finetune the extent to which a given surface contributes to this or that subset of tracing computations. Vanilla DS gives you just one "trace depth" slider - that sets three limits at once that don't have to be the same, and often it doesn't even make sense for them to be the same at all. Moreover, bounce depth can actually be set per-surface. So not only could your AO-based diffuse rays remain safely depth-capped at 1, all the other surfaces but water could have their specular depth capped at 1 as well. It's especially important when you have surfaces that trace reflections but do not require extra bounces and if you use indirect light.
Didn't know progressive was ment for previews, but it makes sense since that's how I use it when setting up lightning and shaders for a scene. And if I don't run into trouble with jaggies or other artifacts I do the final render in progressive mode because it's (generally) 2-3 times faster than REYES, and I do understand that box 1x1 renders faster than sinc 7x7;)
Hmm, all I can say is that there are many people around here waiting for the Awe-Shader. And I agree things would have been better had the options to finetune ray tracing been included. However, things being what they are, we can use REYES, progressive mode, scripted 3Delight or IRay, if we want to render inside DS. Or we can learn scripting and coding and whatnot if we have the time and patience needed. I learn something new for every stupid render I do, and I enjoy it, but if I had to make a living doing 3D art I'd probably look at other applications/renderers that have the options you mentioned. This is supposed to be fun,right? The moment it starts to feel like work I'm ot of here
The filter is not what I was talking about. If you want reasons why, I'd wager it's just efficient use of resources: the devs never intended progressive to be used for final production rendering, just for previews. Filtering is not some "lazy" postproduction operation; it's reconstruction filtering, taking place at the very time of rendering (basically the law of how you combine pixel samples - which are rays). This is why box 1x1 aka basically no filter is the most computationally efficient (aka fast); this is most likely why it's hardwired into progressive.
I was talking about one of the defining features of, well, most production renderers actually - ability to finetune the extent to which a given surface contributes to this or that subset of tracing computations. Vanilla DS gives you just one "trace depth" slider - that sets three limits at once that don't have to be the same, and often it doesn't even make sense for them to be the same at all. Moreover, bounce depth can actually be set per-surface. So not only could your AO-based diffuse rays remain safely depth-capped at 1, all the other surfaces but water could have their specular depth capped at 1 as well. It's especially important when you have surfaces that trace reflections but do not require extra bounces and if you use indirect light.
..indeed progressive mode is so efficient for test rendering. I can often see what's wrong within the first 45 seconds or so instead of waiting for the process to complete (or with Iray, for enough noise to clear so I can see some details)
So how much of a difference do you expect this will make in a scene with some reflective/refractive surfaces and maybe a couple of Area lights?
Also, if one was to write a script to be able to utilize the filters in progressive mode, would that mean rendertimes would be equal to REYES-rendering? When comparing REYES to progressive in testrenders I've noticed there are also differences in how shadows and reflections look. So there must be something else in progressive mode that speeds up the tracing process?
Close Encounter
Rendered overnight in REYES, no idea about rendering times, made a nice skin using a V4 mat and the https://www.daz3d.com/metalized-glass-shaders-for-daz-studio, very versatile product;)
..that is impressive.
TY! One nice feature of the metalized glass shader is that it has individual control of ray trace depth for refraction and reflection. (What Mustakettu is talking about). I just hope those settings override the render settings, have to look into that;)
Hi.
I put this together a while ago and never got to finish it. It was rendered in 3Delight.
Just thought I'd share it with you all :)
Cheers,
Dean
https://vimeo.com/115727444
Hi! Wow I'm really impressed:) Outstanding use of light and camera! Also the animation worked really well. Thanks for sharing!! You say you never finished it, what happened? You must have put a fair amount of hours on that project. I mean just the rendering part must have taken weeks and months? Well that was inspiring, I have a number of unfinished animation projects, and this made me want to continue working on them;) Thanks again=)
...very well done. Yes, why was it never finished?
Yes Inquirey minds would like to know why this amazing anamation was never finished?
Of course there is.
There are a few hiders (separate modules) in 3Delight. The one DS uses by default is the old one, based on the REYES architecture.
It has no progressive mode because REYES cannot do it.
The one that DS invokes for progressive mode is actually the newer raytrace hider. This is what makes raytracing faster.
You can use filters with the raytrace hider when it's not in progressive mode. This is what DS scripting can help with.
You cannot use filters with progressive mode in 3Delight.
Why can't we use the non-progressive raytrace mode via the vanilla DS render settings? You'll have to ask DAZ 3D.
Depends on the specific shaders, as I said.
For instance, I did 3Delight mats for Chanteur's Elevator kit. Lots of glass. They use UberSurface because it comes with DS. UberSurface uses some ancient way of rendering refraction. It renders a) slower; b) with artefacts - as compared to the GGX model built into trace() these days. And GGX is considered inherently slow.
But an AO-only light should render faster than a generic brute-force GI. It will look like AO, obviously.
The lights we have in DS, both UberEnvironment and UberArea, are very... peculiar. Technically, AO should not invoke any further diffuse bounces. But somehow UE gets slowed down with an extra bounce allowed, doesn't it? Similarly, UA lights: they are firefly-prone with actual GI, though a "classic" area light coded from scratch is not. Why? Is the variable falloff code to blame? Unless DAZ/omnifreaker decide to publish the sources, we will never know.
So what you could do is run a test yourself... you have my stuff. If you just set up a vanilla-shaded scene, with UberSurface, UE and UA, refraction etc, but use my "raytracer general" preset instead of progressive, then see what changes with diffuse bounces set to 2 or 1 (my default specular bounce of 3 is barely enough for refraction) - you may have your answer. Tuned to your computer performance, to boot.
Per-surface adjustment, again, will matter the most when all surfaces use expensive tracing (glossy reflections, like in a fully contemporary shaded scenario). You don't want dry skin to have three reflection bounces, but glasses on the table and a polished sword may necessitate six+ if they reflect each other and are in focus.
This is great. The final sequence with the door is especially cool.
That was very well done. The sound editing is amazing. Do you have any plans to revisit it?
@Mustakettu85
Thanks for clarifying things again=) Very interesting pieces of information indeed! These things are not easy to grasp for a musician making obscure non-art on his spare time. I'm going to try what you suggest, we'll see what happens...
...well running some tests with Reflective Radiance on the bus stop scene and crikey it is slow even with occlusion turned off for plants and hair. Discovered the reason, it uses UE2. May return it as I don't need utilities that slog the render process down to Iray CPU speeds.
I'd be better off faking bounce with a low intensity neutral distant light below the ground plane at a 90° angle to the one used for the "Sun" with shadows turned off.
How about that.
...yeah didn't realise it used such a resource hog. I thought it was simply a set of lights to fake bounce light similar to how some of Dreamlight's old light sets worked. If I wanted to use UE2, I would have just loaded that in.
Also after I deleted it and turned the distant light I was using for the sun back on then ran another test, I only got the indirect lighting component from IBL Master so I closed the scene without saving and reopened it. Not sure why that happened.
Fortunately I am in the 30 day refund period.