Usefulness of Bryce for a Daz Studio user in 2021

ToBoldlyGoToBoldlyGo Posts: 21
edited June 3 in Bryce Discussion

Could someone explain to me what Bryce can do currently with DS. I understand that items can be imported in and out of Bryce, but I'm not sure exactly how extensive this is. Can a gigantic landscape be exported into DS, can it be reshaded (hopefully easily) for iRay, or otherwise improved/updated, etc. Can one produce HDRI images for use as backgrounds? How many questions don't I know enough to even ask about? Is the quality up to today's standards. Is it useful for animators in DS? I have a sense that the answer to a lot of these questions is yes, but it would be nice to have one place for a current set of answes. Is there an FAQ  on this topic I've missed or can someone give me a general idea of its usefulness, perhaps with a few comments on other available programs. I've had Bryce for ages, but its been ages since I've even had it installed. Apologies for my ignorance, I'm pretty sure in the distant past I had figured out some of these answers.

Post edited by ToBoldlyGo on

Comments

  • akmerlowakmerlow Posts: 1,037

    I'm sure more experienced users will give you more correct and thorough replies, but here are my thoughts.

    Can a gigantic landscape be exported into DS, can it be reshaded (hopefully easily) for iRay, or otherwise improved/updated, etc.

    Terrain or other objects can be converted to mesh and exported into DS, but there is no easy way with materials/textures. In Bryce it's often viable to use procedural materials instead of just image maps, and DS doesn't really understand them (i heard that DS3 supported it, but that was years ago). I know that some artists tried exporting the whole scene into other application/renderer, but it might be tricky. Here some experiments of David Brinnen with Bryce to Octane workflow, don't know if can give some ideas. https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL790l24c49DQpAyjII0vItDKeHSVkDV_M

     Can one produce HDRI images for use as backgrounds?

    You can "capture" your Bryce scene into HDRI for use into DS, i think. Both as background and lighting.

    Perhaps check this set of tutorials and examples https://www.daz3d.com/bryce-7-pro-spherical-mapper and/or https://www.daz3d.com/bryce-7-pro-scene-converter (i don't remember if there are free tutorials available on this subject as well).

    Is the quality up to today's standards

    This question is more or less rhetorics unless there are specified subquestions/details, i think. However, Bryce software hasn't been updated since 2011, so it might be not as fast or streamlined as modern solutions. Also, it might be very hard and demanding  if you aim at photo-realistic results, general opinion is that Bryce suits more stylized / picturesque approach.

    Is it useful for animators in DS?

    I don't know much about Bryce animation, but i'm not sure if movement data can be exported with scene objects to DS and be readable there. Now, if you separetely animate in Bryce and Daz Studio, and then combine in video editing software like Adobe Premier, i know of  such example. See https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/29277/lost-planet-2-2016/p1 /  https://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/271941/lost-planet-3-the-celestial-pendulum ;

     

    That is what comes to my mind, hope it answer some of questions.

  • HansmarHansmar Posts: 2,213

    I do not know what you can do with Bryce landscapes in DAZ Studio, I usually work the other way around: posing people and animals in DAZ Studio and transferring to Bryce. There I build landscapes, add props, set the scene, use skies, clouds, various options for lights, etc. Partly this is because I started with Bryce and never learned rendering in DAZ Studio. But I love the way Bryce works.

    I disagree with akmerlow that photorealism is not possible in Bryce. It may be more difficult than in DAZ Studio, partly because of the lack of subsurface scattering and also because of limit to the memory usage, but if you look at the works by people like Estevez, Horo, Dan Whiteside and Slepalex, you see that very realistc results can be reached.

  • akmerlowakmerlow Posts: 1,037

    Sorry, you misread me - i didn't say that it was not possible, but indeed could more difficult nowodays (good point about using workarounds, e.g. economy of resources to fit scene into ram limits).

    I agree about DAZ to Bryce workflow, i use it often as well. Though i understand that some would prefer to do a portrait in DAZ due to iRay skin rendering etc.

  • HansmarHansmar Posts: 2,213

    Akmerlow, OK, sorry for misunderstanding. I fully agree that portraits with good skin rendering are very, very difficult in Bryce, though some Brycers get nice results on portraits too.

  • ToBoldlyGoToBoldlyGo Posts: 21

    Thank you both for the comments. From the lack of supporting or opposing viewpoints I would guess that exporting to Daz is not useful or common enough for people to want to add other points, or you have them covered sufficiently.

    I think Daz 4.x supports procedural shaders (there are a few), but *not* those procedural shaders used by Bryce (which I believe Daz 3.x did do). I guess one would have to start with creating material zones (I'm not sure that's not the right term, but I'm short on time, and apparently brain power) and add shaders and/or textures to them (full UV mapping would be the ultimate version of this, but you're pretty much back in the content creator zone at that point). Does Bryce export with material zones established for different parts of a mesh?

    Its disappointing. A little money spent on adding iRay shaders and export to Daz Studio and Bryce would be revitalized, and Daz could be eating some of Vue's lunch. Food for thought, if the sales department is hungry.

    As for rendering separately (Bryce/DS) and merging images for animation, I'm not sure you could match camera moves, etc (or do those export to Bryce from DS?). Secondly, I'm not sure if Bryce renders and iRay renders would typically look equivalent (i.e., not bone-jarringly different). Space scenes might work but terrestrial environments are what I would worry about. I would guess back in the 3Delight ecosphere this might have been more clearly a match. If anyone has any comments either way I would appreciate it. I would guess iRay content rendered in Bryce would not closely resemble renderings in DS, as Bryce knows nothing of iRay and obviously wouldn't have a tailored solution for conversion. My philosophy is that disconcerting changes in rendering are likely to break the flow of the experience of watching the footage. And, yes, most likely I'm looking at photorealistic rendering, whatever one judges that to be.

    After checking, I do own Bryce 7 Pro Scene Converter (once I buy something I don't see it on searches, but with the recent changes to search on Daz3d perhaps that's changed), so I'll have to try to play around with it. There is never enough time. At least we don't have to worry much about a new version of Bryce breaking a utility.

    I think I probably own all the Octane products here at Daz (it had its horse in the race, so when they were on sale it was likely something I bought). Someday I might even own or (gasp) *use* Octane, but I would need to know a lot more about its usefulness before a purchase. I understand what it is and what it does (I believe), but how much effort is required with current Daz iRay-centric products, what issues/complications there are, or how equivalent or better the results would be than iRay is a whole project on its own. Purchasing it *just* to make Bryce renders look better for compositing with iRay seems like a tough choice. I'll have to look at the David Brinnen videos suggested, but I'm short on time this week.

    Years ago when I got into this mess of hoping to do 3D animation I considered using Vue, but from what I have read they have tightened up what you can do with the lesser versions even more than when I first looked at it, created a walled-garden content model, and a high end version would be needed to export to DS, and I have no idea how useable that would be (# polygons exported, etc.). I guess Bryce is still in the running, but probably not for "off the shelf" solutions to landcaping problems in DS. I've looked at almost everything under the sun over the years, studied it for usefulness, and forgotten it all.

    Again, I greatly appreciate everyone's suggestions, and I've downloaded the videos and pages to look at offline.

  • GeorgehazeGeorgehaze Posts: 104

    Speaking only for myself, I use Bryce primarily for its ability to create and manipulate primitives for use in exporting obj files into DAZ Studio. Although Studio has a few similar primitives, the things that Bryce can do with them far outshines what Studio can.

    For instance, last year I built this through Bryce and exported the parts out to create a figure model/set in DS.

     

    IRAY0002.png
    1312 x 881 - 607K
    IRay00005.png
    1312 x 881 - 483K
  • GeorgehazeGeorgehaze Posts: 104

    And this (which is still a work in progress)....

    Full (1).png
    1860 x 910 - 1M
  • HoroHoro Posts: 8,170

    Georgehaze - interesting models. What tools you prefer to create models depends also how your brain works. Some prefer to work with subdivisions (like Wings 3D, or Hexagon) or nurbs (non-uniform rational B-spline, like xNURBS, Nurbana), and then there are those like you (and me, though you are better) preferring boolean modeler.

  • mdk1960mdk1960 Posts: 32

    Georgehaze said:

    And this (which is still a work in progress)....

     Sorry, but Damn! that's a nice model! Keep up the good work, bro!

  • HansmarHansmar Posts: 2,213

    Georgehaze, very nice modelling!

  • GeorgehazeGeorgehaze Posts: 104

    Thank you all for the kind comments (currently working on a spacepod to go with it).

    I do think that I help make the point that there is more to Bryce than most believe. And considering that it's free, it's a shame that more aren't using it.

    G

  • akmerlowakmerlow Posts: 1,037

    Georgehaze said:

    Thank you all for the kind comments (currently working on a spacepod to go with it).

    I do think that I help make the point that there is more to Bryce than most believe. And considering that it's free, it's a shame that more aren't using it.

    G

    It's not currently free, but it was for a long time. Also price is very good during sale events.  

  • bjorn.lovollbjorn.lovoll Posts: 29

    I'd say it is no longer relevant.  I own every version of Bryce.  I still occasionally recommend it.  But, it is 11 years since the last update and that update did not bring it to parity with other options.  It stil can't do volumeterics, for example.  It doesn't SUCK.  But if you abandon software long enough at some point it isn't going to be terribly relevant.

Sign In or Register to comment.