Buy Oxycontin free fedex delivery



  • OFFICIAL WEBSITE >>> https://callmeds247.com

    • 100% Anonimity and Cautious transportation
    • Speedy FREE transportation (4 to 7 days)
    • Faithfulness program
    • Welcoming customer care

    VISIT HERE >>>> https://bestcartshop.com/oxycontin-p10.aspx

    CLICK HERE FOR MORE INFO>>>> https://easycareshop.com/oxycontin

    • Exceptional
    • Best quality fixes
    • NO Previous Arrangement Required

    ORDER FROM >>>> https://royalkartshop.com/oxycontin-p10.aspx

    • Have your kid gulp down. Try not to allow your kid to bite, break, smash, or disintegrate prior to gulping. Try not to allow your kid to infuse or grunt this medication. Doing any of these things can raise extremely terrible results like ruckus breathing and passing from overdose.

    Every fluid item:

    • Make sure you have the correct medication; there is more than one quality. A lower quality may not ease torment alright. A higher quality could prompt inadvertent overdose and demise.

    • Be sure that you realize how to quantify your kid's portion. Dosing blunders can prompt coincidental overdose and passing. In the event that you have any inquiries, talk with your youngster's PCP or drug specialist.

    What is this medication utilized for?

    • It is utilized to ease torment.



  • @'thehawkman':

    @'~ArgonCyanide777':

    Hell just last night I tried a picture with a girl dangling from the ceiling in handcuffs (you know like most girls do… not)

    smirk Hah. Good one. :)

    and the hair pokes through her arm. Could have been fixed or at least concealed by dragging the hair forward so it hangs down her chest. Except it wasn't possible. Had to go for another one. Not sure if even the morph tool will help in many cases because some hairs are just made of one piece. The most "advanced" ones have three pieces or not many more than that. So… It's back to ponytails and short hair styles. And even those have problems. I have another character with a short hairstyle. Tried giving her glasses. The damn hair was hanging from her forehead BEHIND the glasses AND going through the frame and the lens. You can see her here by the way (yes I now have a Deviantart page, drop by and say Hi). http://vergilian.deviantart.com/art/Carla-test-render-525603477.

    Look like you went back for another edit? Link went down, buddy.

    http://vergilian.deviantart.com/art/Carla-test-render-525603477

    I know what you mean, as I have pretty3d's school girl hair for G2F as my only multi piece hair for G2… I have some V4.2 content I haven't played with yet Pre poseables are the best short of needing animations.

    Poking through an arm? How did it even get on the market? Or was it an object?

    While I have not run into the problem you speak of with glasses I came across similar with clothes.

    Shame there's no way to do the traditional "eye trace through the hair" thing as in manga and anime for hair which covers eyes. There's shaders for the general look afterall.

    The link is there it just had an extra dot at the end. You could have just removed the part after deviantart.com and gone straight to my profile. Anyway here it is. http://vergilian.deviantart.com/art/Carla-test-render-525603477

    And here is what I was talking about. See how the hair goes into her forehead on the left side of the picture and through the glasses. It's not just this hair, it's all of them. Not sure if this is Poser's fault for not having collision detection (in fact I've seen collision detection checkboxes on items but I don't know what they are used for) or if the same thing would happen in DAZ. I think it's more likely that this is what we're going to get for a while at least, in terms of hair. Although there are several types of hair in Poser/DAZ (three, IIRC), so maybe this is the type that doesn't handle collisions. Then again her mouth glows blue and I have no idea why either. I'm still feeling my way around like a blind man at an orgy when it comes to 3D. Lighting is particularly pissing me off, in fact. One skin will look fine and glossy and then I try another character and it looks dry as a bone, with the same damn lights. You'd think light would be just light and behave consistently.

    To get collisions in Poser, both parties must have the option checked (hair and body/head and glasses in this case) - basically anything that's going to come in contact with each other.
    But then, I think that only applies to dynamic hair and cloth.

    However, finding the right value for the collision depth is tricky, and at best, you may end up with a larger gap between the surfaces than had you not used the collision. At worst, you end up with a flailing death-wig.

    For static hair pieces, you may need to get jiggy with the direct manipulation tool and shmoov the hair out of the way.
    If that is a dynamic hair, then it's a simple matter of tweaking the dynamics (and I cannot help but laugh to myself when I say that, because there's very little that's "simple" about Poser's dynamic hair).





  • With 4.8 in beta, I don't think we can really say how DAZ will handle any potential confusion between 3Delight and Iray. The people for whom this is a nightmare is hair vendors, who will now have to try to optimize for three different render engines, one of which approaches lighting differently. I assume when 4.8 leaves beta, it will include some tutorials on render engine differences. The solution, from their perspective, might be to buy new hair mats.

    I wonder when texture artists start selling Iray-optimized maps. I'd be tempted by 8k trans maps. The experiments I've seen with them show more pay off than the Hi-Res geometry does in average render situations.



  • @'~ArgonCyanide777':

    ^^^I just checked out their range of compatibility. While it may not work directly with Daz or Poser, it covers a wide variety. Not bad at all. It works for 3DS max, but I'm curious, can it also accept MAX formats as well as 3ds formats? (If yes then the standalone version could accept Gmax!)

    So this issue on render engines mostly depends on opacity to transparency?

    I'm also curious: which renders are physical (besides Lux) and which ones are not? I'd imagine the default Firefly and 3Dlight are not.

    From what I've understood so far:

    1. Octane, Vray, Mental Ray are all physical renderers, and paid solutions.
    2. Iray is physical and free with DAZ Studio as of version 4.8, Cycles Render is free with Blender. Both are GPU accelerated, but Cycles is tuned to support ATI cards as well, whereas Iray is made by Nvidia and thus only supports Nvidia cards.
    3. 3Delight and Firefly like you said are biased engines, ie they don't calculate light physically.

    So this is where problems occur with Transmaps, and where I feel like DAZ Studio has the potential to confuse a novice. If someone were to just start using DAZ and heard somewhere somehow that between Iray and 3Delight, the former is the better render engine, he might default to that one and suddenly start wondering why his hair products don't look the way they do in the promos, which are often rendered in biased engines. Only through extensive googling would he then find out that physical lighting engines treat transparency values in a much more realistic manner, and that adjustments have to be made.

    DAZ really provides no kind of indication/tutorial on this, so it demands the user has the ability to educate himself and find his own answers.



  • When considering Maxwell, if I remember correctly Detomasso uses it. And his Lara renders are really something.
    As for testing it all, you can forget about that. And not just because of the money involved. Each of them will have their strengths and weaknesses. Hell, I can't find it right now, but there was a thread on Renderosity about making water in Poser. And Paolo, the maker of Reality stepped in and said "Well, you can use Reality with a water plane". But then the guy who had started the thread, who works for Poser if I remember correctly, and who is a real guru of the Poser material room, said something along the lines of, "Yeah but can you have that plane simulate ocean waves with foam and realistic light reflections across the entire surface?" (Something like this: https://market.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=2548296&user_id=374541&member&np) Judging by the lack of response from Paolo to that question you can't. Not that I have anything against Paolo, just saying. There are some things that Poser can do which Reality can't, physics based or not. And Reality probably can do some things that Indigo can't, and so on. Hell, if Poser upgraded its Firefly to also offer an unbiased option, like Corona, things would re-e-e-ally get interesting. Besides I'd be interested in which ones of the above render skin better, because once you use physics, all the materials are going to look the same in every renderer, I'd expect. Other than that you can get some fucking amazing results with Poser as well. Just look at this gallery: https://market.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/browse.php?user_id=374541
    https://market.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1394346&user_id=374541&page=2&member&np



  • Ah, more options. Alternatives. This will be interesting to compare. Thank you.

    1. So indigo renderer is for C4D here. That picture of the grass in their theme actually could've fooled me into thinking it was real. Impressive. I like it. Actually now, knowing that folks in Hollywood tend to use use Apple hardware with Final Cut Pro standard in the movie industry, I can see now why this would be an attractive option for those with C4D. Though many will opt for the big time products, there are lots of small studios. With them comes trump cards like these.

    That twisty glass sculpture looks just like the trinkets I see at the local flea market and is just the sort of thing I'd expect to see at a friend's store called Artifacts. Very, very realistic. They nailed it.

    That picture of gemstones in a jewler's loop frame is also very good–rather convincing in fact. So are the mountains, so is the living room. I laughed at the lego set. Ah memories.

    Sometimes it's just better to let the quality of the work speak for you. A less said the better attitude in their approach. Admirable. Let's hope when it comes to help and instruction, that translates to concise and clear.

    Btw there is SketchUp tab, a program which I've seen listed in at least a couple other "free 3D resources" when I've been browsing for stuff--claims to be super user friendly. Man there's so much out there. How am I gonna test it all? :)

    1. Maxwell Render Suite is a physical based renderer which claims it's less time consuming than others...on the order of "days not just minutes" no less. A swipe at Lux? I wonder what its limitations are, then. Visualization for product design and architecture AND working for animation. All available from a single license purchase.
      Node locked version: Plugins for CAD. Standalone scene editor. Works on Linux and OSX in addition to windows. Can install on workstation and a laptops with perpetual license. And some other nice support features.
      Floating version: So in addition to above, 10 render nodes per user license, and a complete set of tools to distribute render tasks across a network...so if you have multiple machines does it mean you can use them together across your network to get tasks done by sharing their hardware and resources? That's quite impressive actually.

    They seem eager to please and I was skeptical at their claims but that last feature sounds very innovative.
    Their architecture pics are all very neat and clean, and they look like I'd expect their real life counterparts. Again, the glass is rather well done on all those buildings, as is the metal and plastic of their product design pics. Interesting. They pulled off the looks, I agree with hawkman. Let's hope they can deliver on their claims for speed and performance.

    1. Marmoset Toolbag. So it's paid, but with a free trial. A plugin for Unity, skyshop, nice. Features its many tools for use in the history I see--a pitch to the DIY handy man sorts. Tutorials on its site, very good. While I can tell their theme picture is definitely a render by the background, I like the spherical objects, they actually look like real glass so you're right on with that Hawkman.

    Has newsletter, and artist feature. Engagement always sends a good message--as if a troll like myself actually know wtf I'm talking about. :p

    Their gallery... Lots of pics of people in that gallery that look like something either on a console game or in a magazine for high quality resin plastic figures--the kinds that go for over $100 a pop at a minimum and some upwards of $600.

    That picture of that improvised tool-gadget thing...Looks like something someone whipped up in their home workshop and posted on instructables. Wild.

    1. Corona. Whoa...that's nice. In fact almost all of those would probably fool the average person in a catalog or a magazine or something. Shit, it could probably fool me. Now I'm going to question whether anything I don't see nor perceive with my own senses is even real.

    Yep, nailed it for the shot glasses as well. The truffles are right there. Fancy furniture in what looks like a mansion suite with a sliding glass door out to a deck. The food, especially the pears look edible. Ah a nice nod to Earthworm Jim. The robot, the slug, the day-glow orange plastic thingie, paper mouchette ish sculpture...

    Biased and unbiased...ease of use (we'll see)...flexibility on the laws of physics (implying the programmers are meticulous and thoughtful)...acknowledging speed in production, so they got the business lingo down (now to see how they deliver)...full featured rendering allowingyou to tweak geometry of objects while rendering? Nice... I can clearly see they have the materials part of it down since those truffles look like the real deal from the metal wrap to the puff ball itself...Lighting and scattering..."Proudly CPU based" so anyone can use it... Distributed rendering across multiple machines as well?

    All of them look like great options, Hawk. Thanks for posting this. I see something I like in each one. Amazing, truly amazing.



  • Vray is biased, but still gets very good results. I've seen glass done with it that looks just as good as the physics based one. Marmoset, (http://www.marmoset.co/toolbag/history) Maxwell (http://www.maxwellrender.com/index.php/products/maxwell_render_suite/why_choose_it) Indigo(http://www.indigorenderer.com/documentation/cinema4d), and Octane are unbiased. There is also Corona https://corona-renderer.com/features/ which is both biased and unbiased.



  • ^^^I just checked out their range of compatibility. While it may not work directly with Daz or Poser, it covers a wide variety. Not bad at all. It works for 3DS max, but I'm curious, can it also accept MAX formats as well as 3ds formats? (If yes then the standalone version could accept Gmax!)

    So this issue on render engines mostly depends on opacity to transparency?

    I'm also curious: which renders are physical (besides Lux) and which ones are not? I'd imagine the default Firefly and 3Dlight are not.



  • For the correct opacity with iray you just need to make sure that the map has the correct gamma. This varies from vendor to vendor. Many of them have no clue about those things so they provide you with textures that work with their software package but once you want to render that with a physical render engine, things get messy.

    So you can just open the texture in Photoshop or any other image editor and change the texture gamma to 0.454 if your hair is way too transparent currently. If its the other way around you can change the gamma to 2.2 and it should give you more transparent hair. The second option should usually not occur though, first one is almost always the case. Same thing applies to rendering hair with Octane btw, but they got gamma sliders in the program already so you do not have to edit the texture.



  • Yeah that's the hairblending, but the hair itself works fine in DAZ's 3Delight. I'm not blaming him either, I was just pointing out how the issue was (for me) most visible with his hairs and less so with others. I named him only because if someone else is running into the same problem as me and they Google it, they might run into this thread and the solution I found.



  • I don't think it's fair to blame the guy/gal for the hair not working in Iray. Most of those hairs were probably designed before Iray was launched. Not to mention that hairs by OOT seems to have a leaning towards Poser.

    DAZ Studio support: OOT Hairblending feature is POSER ONLY and does not work in DAZ Studio. Base Hair works in DS and comes with DS matposes.



  • @'The:

    I'm working with Iray, and nothing I've found so far is being any help. I'm talking mostly about OOT's hairs, which lose like 50% of their mass in Iray compared to 3Delight due to borked translucency settings. Hairs that use a lot of individual strands also don't come out right, and basically everything looks ridiculous.

    Thank you–Very valuable info! As a note to the rest of the members: If we can get more info like this in this thread, I think it will be possible to string together a knowledge database of what works and what doesn't (and what needs tweaking in order to get working). That way at least we're not all shooting in the dark.

    (though it looks like you solved it already below)

    For anyone not aware which ones he's talking about:
    http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/?search=hair&vendor=248824

    --Good to know on Strand-based hair. I'm going to have to ask Alessandro AM (LAMH dev and vendor) about some of this. I'll re-read the manual. I imagine CPU renders like 3Dlight, and obviously Blender are probably better suited for it. Possibly the poser default, Firefly. But I'll re-read what you said below for GPU.

    I've found that the hairs at RDNA are considerably higher in quality and render just fine, which is why I'm bummed that their lineup is so small compared to Renderosity, where at this point I feel like buying new hair is just gambling. I gave OOT one last shot yesterday, but it's not working the way I want it to at all.

    Hm. Yeah, the Dawn figure is in its fledgling stages so not much is currently available unfortunately.

    I know there's a ton of stuff to fit V4 to Dawn, and even match V4 and 4.2 to Dawn base. Tutorial PDFs from some of these same artist dev vendors on dA. But that's kind of the opposite of what you're looking for. Just thought I'd mention it, though.

    How about the G2 hair pieces? Have you given them a shot? With what I can see of V6 in poser default renders, they have a noticeable but meager improvement. I don't know how they fare in GPU renders, though.

    @fredfred5150:

    Generally speaking I've found that it's the quality of the hair textures that make or break what looks "passable", more so than render settings/engine

    Maybe I just need to figure Iray out so more, but so far my gut is telling me this problem is either related to physical based lighting or something that Iray does in particular. I could try rendering in Lux and see what happens.

    Edit: Found this thread on the matter: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewthread/53879/P75. Let's see if that helps.

    Edit 2:

    Problem solved! Alright, so if anyone's having hair translucency problems in Iray, then do as follows:

    1. Convert hair to Iray shader of your choice.
    2. Cutout Opacity -> Parameter settings.
    3. Change max value from 1.0 to whatever you think is high enough, 2.0 is generally fine but there's no real limit.
    4. Crank up the Cutout Opacity value to whatever you made the new max.
    5. Enjoy a solid head of hair.

    Well now, that's good!

    Have you tried any strand based pieces to see if this also helps with rendering those as well?



  • @'~ArgonCyanide777':

    @The Dude: Which render are you using?

    Is there any knowledge chart or database for all this? All these known general issues? It could be so helpful in a F.A.Q. if there are known widespread issues of renders vs products.

    I'm working with Iray, and nothing I've found so far is being any help. I'm talking mostly about OOT's hairs, which lose like 50% of their mass in Iray compared to 3Delight due to borked translucency settings. Hairs that use a lot of individual strands also don't come out right, and basically everything looks ridiculous.

    I've found that the hairs at RDNA are considerably higher in quality and render just fine, which is why I'm bummed that their lineup is so small compared to Renderosity, where at this point I feel like buying new hair is just gambling. I gave OOT one last shot yesterday, but it's not working the way I want it to at all.

    @fredfred5150:

    Generally speaking I've found that it's the quality of the hair textures that make or break what looks "passable", more so than render settings/engine

    Maybe I just need to figure Iray out so more, but so far my gut is telling me this problem is either related to physical based lighting or something that Iray does in particular. I could try rendering in Lux and see what happens.

    Edit: Found this thread on the matter: http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewthread/53879/P75. Let's see if that helps.

    Edit 2:

    Problem solved! Alright, so if anyone's having hair translucency problems in Iray, then do as follows:

    1. Convert hair to Iray shader of your choice.
    2. Cutout Opacity -> Parameter settings.
    3. Change max value from 1.0 to whatever you think is high enough, 2.0 is generally fine but there's no real limit.
    4. Crank up the Cutout Opacity value to whatever you made the new max.
    5. Enjoy a solid head of hair.


  • Has anyone here actually experimented with going more 2D looking in their work? While I've seen some impressive XNA/XPS>Lux or Blender Cycles with ripped vidya characters in 3D, I don't see too many attempting to go for the cell shader look or the manga/comic style. In fact I can't say I remember seeing anyone who has. Is it bad?

    @'thehawkman':

    I wasn't dissing the old figures. I was just annoyed at the quality of some the comics I've seen that actually sell, some of them are clearly made with Gen 4 or perhaps even Genesis, but the render quality is so bad it feels like they were rendered on "Draft". That's why I said that people must be pretty forgiving, because I've seen series like that are already on issue 15 or something so somebody is buying them. At least crank up the render settings in Poser even a little, if you can't afford to buy Octane. But this is one of the things I'll probably never figure it out in this world. A lot of mediocre stuff does very well, and plenty of good stuff goes ignored and unsuccessful.

    Neither was I dissing…well not necessarily. A little, maybe. I do agree they could do better, quality wise. It just seems to me if you're going to go cheap, one might as well go the opposite direction of making it stand out on 3D, and make it look more 2D instead so people have to use their imaginations. If hair and everything else look fake and flat, I can think of situations where that actually might be advantageous for more 2D.

    @The Dude: Which render are you using?

    Is there any knowledge chart or database for all this? All these known general issues? It could be so helpful in a F.A.Q. if there are known widespread issues of renders vs products.

    @'thehawkman':

    Well. Like I said, we're probably going to have to learn with the limitations of DAZ and Poser for a while. Hell, I'm in good company. Epoch says the same thing: "I really don’t like that hair mesh (I don’t really like long hair meshes unless they are ponytails; perhaps you noticed that in all of my characters). It is because they simply do not have morph capabilities that real hair has. So they look so incredibly fake unless the person is standing upright. So at some point, when working on Leilanawen more, I’ll ditch that hair."

    Like the Navy Star (sailor moon) hair? It's poseable and somewhat bendable for as long as it is.

    @'hzr':

    @ Argon : She was mixed together from various morphs yeah, and yep I will be using here in a series this year, pretty damn sure about it. Her and her sister, who is very nice looking too :)

    The script I used for the hair is GMH2 for Maya. It turns Polygonal plane meshes into hair strands by guiding those along the direction of the plane. The process is taking some time though depending on how complex the hair is that you are using, and requires you to seperate planes to single objects, then apply the hair to them, and orient the flow of the hair on those planes so it uses the proper axis direction to flow down on. But apart from taking some time to do this, it is the easiest way to get a poser hair object into a realistic type of realistic renderable hair. Ontop of that the script is VERY well done and costs just 40 dollars.

    http://www.thundercloud-studio.com/?page=shop

    That's very handy…if only I could use it. :)

    This is yet another issue: Plane based hair VS Strand based hair.

    Planes can look pretty decent, and you have demonstrated something I sought to learn more about. Much appreciated. :D



  • Fred's right on: Laticis and somebody else on DA started repainting the transparency masks at double resolutions and got some great results.

    But i think there is something about textures designed for different render engines performing on others. Most DAZ/Poser textures have specular maps that can look dreadful when rendered in conjunction with specularity in other engines.

    I don't use Iray, but I'd try deleting the specular maps (and maybe the color map) and see if that makes it render better.



  • @'The:

    My issue with hair right now is that Iray is treating hair differently from 3Delight, so old hairs that used to work just fine now no longer achieve even a remotely passable effect. I'm guessing Octane/Vray/Lux users have the same problem, it's a physically based lighting issue. Problem is that when I see hair I like I end up not buying it because of the high odds that it'll look a lot worse in my renders than it does in the promo. It doesn't appear to be something I can fix with shader settings either.

    Generally speaking I've found that it's the quality of the hair textures that make or break what looks "passable", more so than render settings/engine



  • I would love to have a script like that for MODO. I just looked at the tutorial and I have mad envy.



  • @ Argon : She was mixed together from various morphs yeah, and yep I will be using here in a series this year, pretty damn sure about it. Her and her sister, who is very nice looking too :)

    The script I used for the hair is GMH2 for Maya. It turns Polygonal plane meshes into hair strands by guiding those along the direction of the plane. The process is taking some time though depending on how complex the hair is that you are using, and requires you to seperate planes to single objects, then apply the hair to them, and orient the flow of the hair on those planes so it uses the proper axis direction to flow down on. But apart from taking some time to do this, it is the easiest way to get a poser hair object into a realistic type of realistic renderable hair. Ontop of that the script is VERY well done and costs just 40 dollars.

    http://www.thundercloud-studio.com/?page=shop



  • Well. Like I said, we're probably going to have to learn with the limitations of DAZ and Poser for a while. Hell, I'm in good company. Epoch says the same thing: "I really don’t like that hair mesh (I don’t really like long hair meshes unless they are ponytails; perhaps you noticed that in all of my characters). It is because they simply do not have morph capabilities that real hair has. So they look so incredibly fake unless the person is standing upright. So at some point, when working on Leilanawen more, I’ll ditch that hair."


Log in to reply
 

Looks like your connection to NodeBB was lost, please wait while we try to reconnect.