• Sign up or login, and you'll have full access to opportunities of forum.

Crux scenes from Daz Studio

Go to CruxDreams.com
I find it interesting that most experienced users use daz. Personally I've been using Poser for over 20 years, since way back in the Poser 3 era. I do all of my stuff on an ancient 11 year old Dell XPS Studio 9100 (i7 930, 18GB ram, AMD Radeon 5750. My renders never take more than 10-15 minutes at the highest render settings that Poser Pro 2012 offers. I find that daz's rendering capabilities don't even come close to Poser's. I have a new XPS 8940 (i9 11900k, 64 GB ram, nvidia Gforce 3070) on the way. Can't wait to see how it will breeze through renders...There are several rendering programs out there that only work with nvidia cards (I can't think of their names right now) that I want to try. I've even read somewhere that Poser works better with nvidia cards as well. It should be interesting.

Both Poser and DAZ Studio will render in legacy mode (i.e. Firefly in Poser, 3Delight in DS). Most people render in PBR (physical-based) modes, which model real-world surfaces and lighting. Poser's PBR engine is Superfly, based on Blender Cycles. DAZ Studio uses NVIDIA Iray.

You probably render in the legacy Firefly mode without indirect lighting. That's why your old computer can crank out a result in 10 minutes.

In terms of "rendering capabilities," most of the onus is on the end user. Both Superfly and Iray can produce photorealistic images. There are pros and cons to each, but I think time has declared DAZ Studio the better application for most artists, and I say that as a former Poser diehard.

Congrats on the new system. That 3070 should serve you well. :)

Yesterday i installed dazed. This is my first scene)View attachment 1112795

You're off to a nice start.
 
Both Poser and DAZ Studio will render in legacy mode (i.e. Firefly in Poser, 3Delight in DS). Most people render in PBR (physical-based) modes, which model real-world surfaces and lighting. Poser's PBR engine is Superfly, based on Blender Cycles. DAZ Studio uses NVIDIA Iray.

You probably render in the legacy Firefly mode without indirect lighting. That's why your old computer can crank out a result in 10 minutes.

In terms of "rendering capabilities," most of the onus is on the end user. Both Superfly and Iray can produce photorealistic images. There are pros and cons to each, but I think time has declared DAZ Studio the better application for most artists, and I say that as a former Poser diehard.

Congrats on the new system. That 3070 should serve you well. :)



You're off to a nice start.
Sorry you'll never convince me that daz studio is superior. I gave it another try the other day...no way will I ever think it's better. Clunky interface, steep learning curve, unable to find files etc. So let's agree to disagree. I'll stick to Poser. The results I get speak for themselves.
 
Sorry you'll never convince me that daz studio is superior. I gave it another try the other day...no way will I ever think it's better. Clunky interface, steep learning curve, unable to find files etc. So let's agree to disagree. I'll stick to Poser. The results I get speak for themselves.

You have to learn DS, just like you had to learn Poser. Different systems, upsides to both. Not sure I'd call interface or learning curve among Poser's upsides, but then you have the perspective of someone who's used it for 20 years. ;)

It's not so much that I disagree with you, just the state of the market. Good luck with your future work.
 
Poser is pretty good, but my preference is DAZ Studio.
At the time when I started I used both.. Used an older version of poser at that time, Daz being free had more options
Guess newer version of Poser compared to DAZ are quite even.
Just preferences.. would like to try Poser again but it's price is a fierce deterrent for me :(
 
Сontinuation
 

Attachments

  • 46.png
    46.png
    2.5 MB · Views: 703
  • 47.png
    47.png
    2.3 MB · Views: 690
  • 48.png
    48.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 716
  • 51.png
    51.png
    2.2 MB · Views: 686
  • 52.png
    52.png
    2.9 MB · Views: 695
  • 53.png
    53.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 688
  • 56.png
    56.png
    2.5 MB · Views: 708
  • 58.png
    58.png
    2.4 MB · Views: 713
  • 59.png
    59.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 780
  • 64.png
    64.png
    2.7 MB · Views: 812
Back
Top Bottom