Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.Daz 3D is part of
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Ok so I couldn't find an aweSurface 1.2 DL, only 1.2 readme, so tried installing the 1.1, but can't see any difference when rendering the opacity island. Did I get the wrong version? Kind of lost in there, there is an aweSurface 1.0, aweSurface 1.1 and aweSurface. '
Edit: When looking at the date it has to be the aweSurface 1.1, right? Modified today? I just deleted the aweSurface.sdl and aweSurface___displacement.sdl from the DAZ app folder/shaders/wowie and replaced them with the downloaded ones. Correct?
@wowie Just a random question: If I insert a roughness map in to specular roughness with, say, a mid gray (0.5) and set the slider to 100% (1). Is roughness calculated as 0.5x1=0.5, or is there more to it?
You should replace them with the one in the root Google Drive folder (named DAZ). The ones placed inside sub folders are older ones (build 1.0 and 1.1).
Yes. Mid point in the texture will be half the selected roughness. So 0.5 in the map should be 50% if you have 100% roughness.
Ok good, I'll have a new look at it:)
@wowie So I followed your direct link and installed the update. Unfortunately there is still no possibility to render a smooth gradient using opacity. But I noticed it's now impossible to make things invisible even with optimization and both filters at 100%, so that's an improvement:) Made a testscene with a primitive plane with an opacity map attached to it.
Viewport:
...and a number of testrenders:
The update also made it impossible to render 100% transparent areas with a pure black map, it seems. Black renders semitransparent. So I will have to re install the 1.1 build for now;)
Hmm correction: Forgot to enable "multiply spec&reflections with opacity" for the plane. Tried with a plant and it works, so it's only the gradient aspect that won't work properly. So it's indeed possible to make an object totally transparent if setting optimization and filters to 100%. Sorry for my mistake!
Edit: and after some more testing I found that setting opacity filter 2 to 100% makes the plane invisible, even if the other are zeroed.
The whole idea of using filtered opacity values is to cull less than optimal values (any value less than 1), so you will not have any gradient when they're used. The opacity filter values are there to control the ramp between values that gets treated as transparent and opaque.
If you do want a gradient, you'll have to use the original values (meaning no optimization), which will render slowly with any kind of raytracing.
I've uploaded a new build to my Google drive. It should render what the original values in the texture, though ray tracing performance will suffer.
Ok, now I finally get the idea of optimization
, took a while=)
I understand, but that will be of great help for many things, not only that scene I was struggeling with;)
I'm rendering another large environment now, with only normal maps, no bump or displacement, and can see no problems thus far. No need to enable use face forward, no black spots etc, looks very promising:)
I really really hate to bother you with this, but with the new build I can't get an opaque surface other than removing limits for opacity strength. I followed your advice and left the optimization and both filters at 0. 3 examples with the island transmap applied to a primitive plane: (Note that it's gradient now, but semitransparent)
What would be a great help is for people (user and vendor alike) to stop using purely non-sensical things like opacity masks for stuff that should be modelled properly. I can somewhat understand using opacity for hair, since DAZ Studio don't have strand based solutions before Garibaldi and LAMH. But that island is just top-notch asinine.
Just like metalness, it's either going to be metal or non metal. Same goes for opacity, it's either fully transparent or opaque. If you can see through it, then use transmission or translucency but it still have to be fully opaque.
I can think of a million reasons why an end user would use a gradient transmap. But ok fine, thanks anyway for trying!
Send me the texture via email.
The Lost World, testrender 1, no bump/displacement for the cliffs surfaces, only normalmaps, as usual have to adjust a few things..mainly plant surfaces...
OK. As I suspected, I know the problem has to do with the map. It's a single channel/greyscale JPG. Already fixed and will upload the build soon.
Edit: Uploaded the new build with the quick fix.
Direct Link : https://drive.google.com/open?id=12Te_9WCHsBXhtUQxdUb7uo5kl5diojXA
OMFG wowie you are the best
Cannot thank you enough
I'm sorry for being such a pain in the butt, but I can't say I regret it
*doing a happy dance*
Well here's a quick progressive render of my "top notch asinine" island scene
. Still some specular highlights and other things to be fixed, but very happy that things are working now! Every plant has opacity maps, still renders pretty fast...superb! And I just love the camera based exposure controls!
...and The Lost World, an update...
That's one of the advantages of using a physical camera. Proper exposure controls and white balance is what's missing from 3delight in DAZ Studio all these years. Combined with linear workflow and physically plausible shaders/PBR, we finally have something close to 3delight for Maya/Max/Katana.
Just finished writing a new build which adaptively optimize performance when you have DoF and/or motion blur. Haven't had the time to test it yet though, so don't know how will it affect render times. Veru likely going to be dependent on how heavy you use DOF / motion blur. I'm hoping macro type shots could render in half the time.
Edit:
Yes. It works. Slight changes in brightness, but it renders in 1 min 40 sec compared to 3 min. 8x8 pixel samples, 2048 irradiance samples.
I can effectively use higher pixel samples 16x16 and render times is just slightly longer than before (3 min 40 sec). Still need to test motion blur though.
Well that's simply amazing, you literally cut rendertimes by half one more time
On a side note, I've found that I don't necessarily like the way things look with 16x16 pixelsamples compared to, say, 10x10 or 12x12. Don't know why, something happens with saturation or whitebalance or... can't really explain...
And with the newest build it seems like even 10x10 is somewhat overkill, 8x8 and increased Irradiance samples seems to work pretty darn well for most things.
Anyway, this looks very promising, eagerly waiting for more renders;)
Too agressive though. There shouldn't be a difference in brightness. Needs more testing.
Brightness decreases the more pixel samples you use.
8x8 pixel samples helps gets rid of specular/reflection noise, while 2048 irradiance samples handle diffuse noise.
Yup that's what happens. I've noticed this a number of times, but don't fully understand why ...some sort of energy loss due to more bounces or what?
I like to use 10x10 if not a very slow rendering scene, seems to be pretty optimal for what I do.
...so are these changes goingto become new updates available via the DIM for those who purchased the original AweShader?
No. Not due to more bounces or the shader. I'm inclined to think it's just the renderer's behaviour at this point.
Mustakettu also liked 10x10. I've preferred 16x16 because it better handles rough specular/reflection noise.
If by that, you mean that latest DOF optimization or the opacity quick fix then the answer is not right now.
The opacity fix means performance will be horrendous with hair props and optimization set to 0 (the new default). If you use the freebie build with the updated code, you will need to use 90 to 100% optimization and fiddle with the opacity filters.
The DOF/motion blur optimization needs more tinkering. It shouldn't take effect when you're rendering without the camera or DOF/motion blur. Mainly because its main purpose is to be used with even higher pixel samples (ie from 8x8 withouth them to 12x12 or 16x16 with them enabled). But of course, you can use it with lower pixel samples if you want.
After some tweaking to retain brightness/energy levels, I'm seeing about 1/3 less render time and not 1/2 from previous results.
Played around with my crappy 2012 Macbook yesterday (DS 4.7), it's kinda funny that it handles aweSurface/pathtracing pretty well as long as you keep the scenes fairly simple:) Granted the fan is going full speed while rendering=) Had to replace it some while ago, along with the powersupply, as it started shutting down when trying to render LOL, but still working (fingers crossed).
I have only a small part of my library installed on this machine, so I browsed the runtime and saw this again, actually never did a render so thought it was time,*drum roll* meet the Stinger!
...and I've been trying to convert the Dry Mud Desert to awe. Not very easy, as the ground is a custom shader with obviously some sort of diffuse overlay to break the repeativeness of the main layer (450x450 tiles) Here's one version using the coat layer with 6x6 tiling. But I figure more DoF is the only thing that masks that problem.
Also rendered on the laptop, the screen is pretty crappy, been trying to calibrate it, but no idea if it's even close
https://www.daz3d.com/dry-mud-desert
Oh, now looking at the promos again, I understand why the displacement max- min-values were inverted in the original settings, I imagined they were supposed to be cracks but no, hmm will have to try inverting my settings back to the original values...
Edit: LOL and after having a new look at the promos it seems some of them have the max/min values switched, some not.
nice ones !
Thank you
...another take on DM desert on my main DS comp. HDRI by @agentunawares, greatful as always;) Progressive render, 45 min Skin SS samples 1024, shadowsamples for pretty much everything 2048...hmm need to adjust temperature a bit
...some dry lakebeds here in the states look like that as they originally were salt water lakes.
Yea it looks kinda cool but not really as intended
Been working on the scene a bit more... update coming up;)