64-bit Bryce with full Daz figure/element support?
DrNewcenstein
Posts: 816
Are there any plans to move Bryce into the 64-bit realm to get over the limitations of 32-bits?
Will it ever get complete compatability with Daz Studio, in the sense of finally being able to bring in a rigged, poseable, textured humanoid figure?
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
it would be nice! .....but not likely!
DrNewcenstein - 64-bit is not likely though I would greatly welcome it.
Complete compatibility with Daz Studio is even more unlikely because the materials/shader are so different. Compatibility is very difficult between any two 3D applications because how the render engine treats materials. Even Studio/3Delight and Studio/Iray give different results and shaders have to be adapted.
Bryce's rendering engine could be upgraded to iray. Just a suggestion.
Iray is an unbiased render engine, much like Octane and several others are. The big advantage of such unbiased renderers is that they are very good at photorealistic scenes. And this is also their limitation. They are not well suited for other artworks than photorealism. I like Bryce and its two built-in different renderers because of the versatility that does not restrict the artist to any particular type of art.
I agree with Horo... I wouldn't see iRay as an upgrade in that it would mean Bryce could actually do less. :)
I too agree
Bryce has two built-in different renderers? How do you find them / choose which to use?
find it here
Options here
Superfine Antialiasing is not a recommended option, Premium (Effect AntiAliasing) unlocks all the options shown, and is infinitely customisable. Default render when Bryce boots up is Regular.(normal AntiAliasing
MelanieL - In the Render Options. Regular is one and good for "everyday" renders, Premium is the other that has several additional options, like True Ambience (TA), which is Bryce's implementation of GI (global illumination), it can also render pencil sketches, for exmple.
Thank you both - I had actually been using this feature but I didn't realise that "Regular" and "Premium" were different engines, I just guessed they were some sort of speed thing.
Is "Default" different again, or just "Regular" without the anti-aliasing pass? And is "Super" just a souped-up "Regular"?
Yes, Default, Regular and Super use the same engine, Premium the other. Never use Super, because it is terribly slow and you are better off Premium with a Rys per pixel (rpp) at 16. You may also have discovered that the estimated render time for Regular excludes the anti-aliasing pass, which can take as much as 10 times as long as the 4 render passes. Premium has anti-aliasing inclduded and the estimated render time after the fist pass is in most cases quite accurate.
The Super one is by far the slowest render setting Bryce can do and I think may be mostly responsible for people who report days of render time for what look like quite simple scenes... I think the "Fine Art" part is leading people to think it's the one they need to use but in all my tests, I've never found a way to optimise a scene to get short render times out of it.
I find Premium to be the fastest in the vast majority of cases for the renders I do (remember that there is no EXTRA AA pass so the time Bryce estimates is more accurate. On Regular the AA pass is additional to the Bryce estimated render time and depending on what materials you have, the AA pass can add about a third again on to the total render time), even adding soft shadows in premium doesn't cost much in render time and it's versatility is extra useful.
Thank you, Horo and Dave, for that information. I'd noticed that "Super" seemed to take ages yet didn't really look that much better than "Regular" - yes I guess I was misled by the "Fine Art" claim. And that the estimated times seemed to be almost random compared to the actual render times I experienced using "Regular". But I haven't had time to work all this out as I'm still trying to get to grips with Bryce basics really. I've followed some fairly advanced tutorials (thank you Horo and David B) early on because they really got me interested in the kind of amazing things Bryce can do. I'm a DAZ Studio person really, but sometimes get frustrated at wanting to make sweeping landscapes that weren't just out of a box, so that's why I'm trying to get into Bryce. I wish it was 64-bit (although to be fair I've only crashed a couple of times by over-populating scenes) and I keep hitting the wrong buttons because the interface is so different from DS, but seeing some of the results in the various Bryce Forum threads is a real spur to keep on trying.
HERESY! Kill the unbeliever! Bring forth the comfy chair!
Send for the Bryster
I'd like to see Bryce with the option of using Iray, much like DS has. Mainly 'cos Iray is 64-bit only ... ;)
I personally have no use for a Photo real renderer. If I want a photo I will use a camera.
In our family, when we were younger it was my elder brother who used a camera, when he wasn't busy designing things like the Vox Continental MK1. On his website he has photos of some of the first vox organs he designed, he took the photos himself and explains almost as much about the photos as he does about teh vox continentals. I used pencils, pastels, water colours and sometimes oils and a sketch book or artists pad. OK I no longer have any of the images I produced back then, but I enjoyed doing them.
Bryce was the first 3d program I ever used, and I still use it today, happily to produce better images than I could with phsysical mediums, I was hooked from the first day I saw Bryce in action, and had to wait patiently till they released a version for the PC.
My best friend also took to photography, and now runs a local photographic club where she lives, but both her and my brother love seeing what I do with Bryce, as it is a different medium to theirs. They wouldn't be so impressed if what they saw was photo realistic.
Options, YES!
And 64bit, PLEASE!
I like the possibilities Bryce offers ...
Because Iray is really, really amazing to behold in action, I initially agreed with you. But two hundred milliseconds later (I'm tired) I realised that what it is that is amazing isn't Iray in particular - it is GPU (graphics card) accelerated rendering.
If we could have, from the end user point of view, the exact same Bryce render engine (the advanced "premium effects" one) as we have now (same creative input control, same output quality) but as fast as Iray (or Octane, or Thea, etc) then loud but entirely rational shouts of joy would emanate from somewhere romantically named "the East Midlands".
Bryce 8 could consist of just this, plus 64bit tech, and I'd be content.
Iray speed in action:
https://youtu.be/5yGKy4hTZKU
At least your romantically named "the East Midlands".area is at least somewhat accurate. We live in an area known as "The South Wales Valleys" and our village is almost1200 ft above sea level.
Everything is relative - even valleys
True THe Romantic definition for our area is "Nestled in the foot hills of the Brecon Beacon range"
@Kerya: Very nice abstracts.
I too, like Chohole, come from more traditional art (I show some work on DeviantArt). I also do some photography (also on DA). Many years ago, when I was still making mostly realistic watercolours, the teacher of our painting club suggested I'd go into hyperrealism. That made me move all the other way into more rough and abstract and imprecise. Why make precise paintings if photography can do precise so well? Similar for Bryce, although I do like to come to more or less realistic results sometimes, just because I want to get to grips with all the options.
Necromancy!
I guess if I actually had the luxury of a fine camera and assortment of lenses and of course the time and bank roll to jaunt around the world taking lovely photos of lovely landscapes at all the hours of the day from dawn to dusk to midnight and bearing first-hand witness to the majesty of nature and the incalculable variations of atmospheric influence over any given vista, I'd ask "Why would you want a 3D program to be able to replicate reality that you can go and witness for yourself?"
Since I was not so blessed at birth to have a silver/gold/Texas-Oil/Tech-Giant spoon in my mouth, I don't have the camera, lenses, time, or money.
It doesn't have to be iRay. It can be any GPU-based renderer, so long as the rendering engine understands that a still image is like a photograph in that it captures a moment in time, and as such light in said image stops bouncing as the image is captured (unlike Luxrender which thinks you're doing motion pictures).
I'd settle for just the 64-bit upgrade to break out of the 3GB RAM limit.