Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Graphics Software

Free 3D Animation DAZ|Studio 1.0 Released 222

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the another-in-a-long-list-of-tools-i-need-to-play-with dept.
Thyme3333 writes "DAZ Productions, Inc. has officially released DAZ|Studio 1.0, a free 3D figure posing and animation software package. DAZ has a made a commitment to keep the DAZ|Studio core application free to the public for as long as possible by relying on the revenues generated by the purchase of content available in the DAZ online store. To obtain a free copy of DAZ|Studio, users must register for a free account on the DAZ website and agree to participate in the company's aptly-named "Tell-Ware" program, which asks that each DAZ|Studio user share information about DAZ|Studio and/or the DAZ website with at least two friends." Good to see that more companies are trying to keep their software free, but perhaps the Slashdot crowd could offer advice on a better business model than spam and merchandising?
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Free 3D Animation DAZ|Studio 1.0 Released

Comments Filter:
  • by PoprocksCk (756380) <poprocks@gmail.org> on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:26PM (#13560408) Homepage Journal
    No, it is not available for Linux. Windows and Macintosh only.
  • by XorNand (517466) * on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:27PM (#13560418)
    Good to see that more companies are trying to keep their software free, but perhaps the Slashdot crowd could offer advice on a better business model than spam and merchandising?
    Yeah, a pretty accepted software business model is:
    1) Create software that people want
    2) Trade that software for money.

    An alternative buisness model is:
    1) Help foster a community of developers to create software that people want
    2) Connect potential buyers to that product and help them use it
    3)Ask said people for money in return.

    Maybe it's because I run my own business or maybe it's because I studied economics in school, but I tend to look at things a bit different than most other Slashdotters. You've all be spoiled by the easy access to pirated software, music and movies. In the real world, things cost producers both time and money to make. The reason why we all don't have to grow our own food, knit our own sweaters, or write our own code is because we've worked out a neat little system of exchange called "currency". It's just like the barter system, but a lot easier because currency is universally accepted. You don't have to worry about trying to locate someone who's willing to give you potatoes in exchange for your ability to configure sendmail. I only have a finite number of hours in my day, and a finite amount of resources. If I want to be able to eat, drive a car, and buy other people's software, I need to get someone in exchange for my skills. Elsewise I can't afford to give others something in return for their product/service.

    It's really not a difficult concept to understand, but if you want the Cliff's Notes version of my point: "Nothing in life is free." If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).

    • Seems to me you offered a bit of economics and travel advice AND a business model---all for free.

      I guess it turns out that sometimes things in life can be free, because people decide that they can share some resources when, for example, they have excess and others can use them. You had excess wisdom and saw that others could use your insight---so you shared it.

      Sharing isn't really a difficult concept to understand either. . . .
    • Very well said. I think Slashdot has for too long confused freedom software with no-cost software.
    • by oGMo (379) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:54PM (#13560685)
      Maybe it's because I run my own business or maybe it's because I studied economics in school, but I tend to look at things a bit different than most other Slashdotters. You've all be spoiled by the easy access to pirated software, music and movies. In the real world, things cost producers both time and money to make. The reason why we all don't have to grow our own food, knit our own sweaters, or write our own code is because we've worked out a neat little system of exchange called "currency".

      And it's probably because you run your own business and studied economics that you're blinded to other nonstandard possibilities.

      This doesn't even appear to be "Free Software" in the way most of us mean. I don't see the ability to download the source, no less under any sort of nonrestrictive license. However, that aside, because you seem to be talking about "real" Free Software, you're overlooking the two most obvious and tangible returns that we get from developing it: recognition, and the time of other developers.

      The first is obvious. The second is more valuable than money; you have the possibility of possibly hundreds or thousands of developers looking at your code, offering patches and extensions to it. Use your economics to translate that into dollars; how much would a staff of 100 developers cost to employ and keep happy? More than most people would ever make selling their code to anyone.

      People usually write stuff and release it because it was useful to them, and it might be useful to others, so they can benefit from the above returns. Once that happens, it becomes even more personally useful.

      Yes, if you're doing business, this might not work; then again, if your business isn't selling software, it very well might.

      It's just like the barter system, but a lot easier because currency is universally accepted. You don't have to worry about trying to locate someone who's willing to give you potatoes in exchange for your ability to configure sendmail. I only have a finite number of hours in my day, and a finite amount of resources. If I want to be able to eat, drive a car, and buy other people's software, I need to get someone in exchange for my skills. Elsewise I can't afford to give others something in return for their product/service.

      Ah, this is what many economists can't wrap their head around. Information is not a limited resource. It's artificially limited by various laws, but it's not a diminishing resource. It is not "used up". Thus the barter analogy fails: if two people exchange information, they end up with twice as much as they had to begin with.

      Time, however, is our most precious and limited resource; sometimes getting someone's time is more than you could afford if you were charged for it.

      It's really not a difficult concept to understand, but if you want the Cliff's Notes version of my point: "Nothing in life is free."

      Your point is wrong because you misunderstand. Some things are not free because they are limited and thus acquire value based on rarity. Other things are not limited. Information isn't something that is suitable for building an economy on.

      If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).

      Ah, the old "those damn commies!" standby. "Basic laws of economics" apply in a standard economy. It is conceivable that there is something nonstandard---possibly even something that is sustainable. However, one example of failure in this regard shouldn't be enough to dismiss everything (or you need a class in logic).

      Also, the idea of "basic laws" should be examined under the same light Shoenberg does with the "basic laws of music": there aren't any. Yes, we can listen to some terrible music by someone who has no concept of sound. This doesn't mean there is one set of rules we must follow for making music, however.

      • These business models may work fine for large companies that sell consulting services (IBM comes to mind), but I haven't seen any example of how this would a apply to a company in the 5-30 employee range whose focus is producing software.
        • That's why you wouldn't use them. There is no one-rule-that-applies-everywhere-in-all-situations . Some things work sometimes; other things work other times.

          Perhaps it would be more prudent to start a company that sells service as opposed to one that sells software, though. Might be cheaper to start and run, not to mention more profitable, but again it would depend on the situation.

        • Basic service model. Most businesses in the world are service businesses. They earn their money by providing a service, helping people do something. It's only recently that the "intellectual property" invention has led people to believe that they can "invent" something and then sit back and charge monopoly rents and not do any real work.
      • The laws of business aren't muddied with subjectiveness. Whether or not you will be better off giving something away for free will ultimately be determined by if you increased your well-being or lost the time and money (aka opportunity) invested. There is nothing subjective about the end-game.

        That's not to say that it is always stupid to give something away. People have been giving things away in exchange for an opportunity since the beginning of economic time.

        So, still within the framework of the laws of b
      • "Ah, this is what many economists can't wrap their head around. Information is not a limited resource. It's artificially limited by various laws, but it's not a diminishing resource. It is not "used up". Thus the barter analogy fails: if two people exchange information, they end up with twice as much as they had to begin with."

        Except, the barter anology does work here, because the true units being exchanged are time*(intellectual productivity). He bartered the time it took to come up with A for his tradi
        • The values of A and B are decreased as they are shared with other people (scarcity)

          Huh? If I write a program that does something Very Interesting(tm), does it get less Interesting if 10 people run it? 100 people? 1,000,000? The value of a creation is related directly to its perceived utility. Unless the program competes with itself it's utility and value is very unlikely to be related to it's distribution. (Consider a lotto-number program that always gets the jackpot. After you're splitting a $10M jackp
      • The second is more valuable than money; you have the possibility of possibly hundreds or thousands of developers looking at your code, offering patches and extensions to it.

        This statement pretty much illustrates the fairy-taleish nature of the rest your post. Most projects are small and specific in function (compared to an OS or browser) that they don't generate such an large active development community. These projects mainly depend on a small group of dedicated coders, and good luck if you have an opinion
      • If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).

        Ah, the old "those damn commies!" standby. "Basic laws of economics" apply in a standard economy. It is conceivable that there is something nonstandard---possibly even something that is sustainable. However, one example of failure in this regard shouldn't be enough to dismiss everything (or you need a class in logic).

        Also, the idea of "basic laws" should be exam
      • And it's probably because you run your own business and studied economics that you're blinded to other nonstandard possibilities.

        That and the economics a person learns in high school is just that, high school economics. The whole "I'll give you this service in exchange for that service" is a very basic model. Real economics is a lot more complicated, and current models are constantly being debated and revised (kind of like science, because it is a social science) as more is learned about what motivates peop
      • Your point is wrong because you misunderstand. Some things are not free because they are limited and thus acquire value based on rarity. Other things are not limited. Information isn't something that is suitable for building an economy on.

        Why not? Just because it's easy to copy doesn't mean it's easy to create. And until it's created, it's a rare as can be -- zero copies exist!

    • Yeah, a pretty accepted software business model is:
      1) Create software that people want
      2) Trade that software for money.

      That's perfectly reasonable, and I make my living from a company that does just that. The problem is when companies add some additional steps that they might not tell you about:
      3) Leave hidden flaws in your code.
      4) Make customers pay for updates that fix those flaws (but perhaps add new flaws)
      5) Purposely make your product incompatible with similar ones, so your customers are locked in.

    • by dominion (3153) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:04PM (#13560781) Homepage
      If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).

      You want to see what happens with a society that follows the basic laws of economics to the letter, look at Argentina. In fact, the over 800 factories that are being run by the employees after the owners and top management fled the country when the economy took a nose dive is about the only thing keeping the Argentine economy alive.

      One of the problems with people who pull out "economics" is that they assume that there is this one, monolithic concept of the economy that is etched in stone, and that success or failure depends on adherence to those set rules. Anybody who pays attention outside of their economics 101 class and looks at the rest of the world, and history itself, can see that there is no set definition of economics. There are only ideologies, and economies are formed around those ideologies, and success or failure can not be boiled down to one or two strawman arguments.

      A new ideology is spreading through the first world, and that ideology is based on the concept that anything that can be readily copied and distributed so cheaply it's almost free belongs to everybody. People trade movies, music, games, software, anything they want, and nobody ever feels a single bit guilty about it.

      And that lack of guilt is exactly why a new ideology is being formed around freely available digital content. The fact of the matter is that most people don't break into people's houses, not because they're afraid of getting caught, but because they know it's not right. Somebody who won't break into someone elses house and steal all their shit wouldn't do it whether there was 1 law against it or 100 laws, or none at all.

      But nobody ever looks at a link to an mp3 of their favorite artist and thinks "Oh, I don't know, this just doesn't feel right...". They think "Whoah, new song! *click*".

      Ideology comes first, and economics are formed around those ideologies. That is why the music industry is failing at stopping piracy: They have an economy based on an old ideology that they are trying to force the consumer who has adopted the new ideology to change back to the old ideology.

      The reality is that the only way to move forward is to adjust the economy to fit the new ideology. Everything else is like trying to push back a tidal wave with a tennis racket.
      • So if the cost to reproduce a work is near zero, and therefore software should be free since it can be copied, I guess the first customer should have to pay the full cost of development for their copy.

        The point of charging for software is to distribute the cost among all interested parties. Once the cost is recovered, it generates profit, but that first sold copyable copy of the software will definitely not recover the cost of creating the work in the first place!

        And generating the profit is not necessaril
        • Everyone knows what the point of selling software or digital media is, but the problem/issue is that consumers don't have a moral problem stealing it.

          The reason they don't is because a large number of people that grab a copy of software are only taking it because it's free. They wouldn't bother buying it because it doesn't interest them that much. So they rationalize that they're not hurting the producer of the software because they're not really costing the producer any lost revenue.

          Really the concept of m
    • You've all be spoiled by the easy access to pirated software, music and movies.

      And your post is spoiled by generalizations, fallacies, and misunderstandings.

      You said "all" and I am one of "all". I use nothing but FOSS, and I don't violate copyright, and therefore you are wrong.

    • It's really not a difficult concept to understand, but if you want the Cliff's Notes version of my point: "Nothing in life is free." If you want to see what happens with a society tries to avoid the basic laws of economics go vacation in North Korea (or to a lesser extent, Cuba).

      So can I assume then that you're a Slashdot subscriber?

      Or perhaps you think that Slashdot should be paying you for posting here?

      Software is different than most commodities since
      with software, it's possible to make somthing once and
      • Assume that it would cost your customers $1.50 worth of their time to order the item, and would cost you $1 to sell it. So if you priced the item at $1.50, giving yourself a 50 cent profit per item sold, your customers would, theoretically, say to themselves "I'd have to pay $1.50 plus $1.50 worth of my time to buy a $2 item. It's not worth it." Of course, most people aren't so rational.

  • by Kjuib (584451) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:28PM (#13560426) Homepage Journal
    Does posting a link to their website on Slashdot count as 1 or more of the friends that Thyme3333 was suppose to send their way?
  • perhaps the Slashdot crowd could offer advice on a better business model than spam and merchandising?

    Or... how about we don't bitch about something we can get for free?

    How many people are holding a gun to your head demanding you send emails to TWO WHOLE PEOPLE you know?
    Better yet... have you ever emailed someone to say "Hey, check out this game" or "Yo, here's a sweet perl module you should check out" or anything of the ilk? The true thought behind this "tell-ware" is the hopes that you enjoy the sof
    • How many people are holding a gun to your head demanding you send emails to TWO WHOLE PEOPLE you know?

      Plus, that can only happen up to 33 times before everyone telling two new people about it reaches the entire world population... and then who do the people at the bottom of the pyramid tell? These chain letters always shaft the last ones in!
       
      • [QUOTE]Plus, that can only happen up to 33 times before everyone telling two new people about it reaches the entire world population... and then who do the people at the bottom of the pyramid tell? These chain letters always shaft the last ones in![/QUOTE]

        Ah ha - that ignores the possibility of just emailing the person that emailed you!

        Indeed the requirements could be met with a total of three people,

        LetterRip
        • Ah ha - that ignores the possibility of just emailing the person that emailed you!

          Indeed the requirements could be met with a total of three people,

          Actually, since you presumably know yourself, you could just send one email to yourself. That way you could satisfy the requirements with a total of just two people.

          If you happen to own a company, you could send one email to yourself and one to your company (which counts as a legal person), so you could satisfy th requirements by yourself.

          See how easy i

    • For how much real 3D software can cost, I'm truely surprised someone is bitching about emailing two friends about it...

      I agree. 3D design is very complicated, making it work and work well is expensive, especially work well enough and doesn't waste a professional designer's time with bad user interface practices.

      Also, the number of people that benefit from being able to do 3D design is much smaller than the number of people that can benefit from an operating system or office software.

      I really haven't paid a
      • [QUOTE]I agree. 3D design is very complicated, making it work and work well is expensive, especially work well enough and doesn't waste a professional designer's time with bad user interface practices.[/QUOTE]

        Well Blenders interface is difficult, but it is also considered one of the fastest 3D DCC (Digital Content Creation) tools.

        [QUOTE]Also, the number of people that benefit from being able to do 3D design is much smaller than the number of people that can benefit from an operating system or office softwar
        • Modeling, texturing, animating, rendering, also has a game engine, softbody dynamics (cloth, jello) hard body dynamics (physics collisions), and fluid simulation (a branch project but will be in CVS soon). The whole shebang.

          In other words, it has the same problem as every other 3D program: it tries to cram everything and the kitchen sink into the same program, leading to an interface with n+1 different functions, making it near impossible to learn on your own.

          Why is it that as soon as words "graphics"

          • Make a single program for modeling - that is, generating geometry. Make another program for texturing - adding all the pretty colors, bumb maps, displacement maps, and whatever other kind of maps exist. Make a third program for skinning - creating the controls that let you animate the 3D actor easily. Make a fourth program for animating - building the scene from actors and scenery and deciding who does what when (these could arguably be separate steps). And make a fifth program for rendering - turning it al

          • Well, to be fair, you mostly do that today. There are quite a few standalone modellers (Silo being the first that pops to mind), there are apps for texturing (deep paint), there's also zbrush that can model, but its strenght lies in creating highly realistic bump/displacement maps easily, there are programs that work for rigging and animating (it's not really practical to separate them into different programs, the animation's workflow depends too much on the rigging) like Sega's Animanium, Alias's Motionbui
    • For how much real 3D software can cost
      Do you consider Wings 3D to be "real 3D software?"
  • I read an article once about a company that was based on Ayn Rand's Objectivist teachings. The owner was such a fan that he made up a bunch of rules for the company and its employees to follow.

    One of the tenets was that anything of value must be paid for. This meant that they didn't have any "free demos". They did have volume pricing, as well as negotiable prices for large customers, if I recall correctly.

    There is nothing wrong with charging for your product, especially if you think that it is a good one
    • That's kind of retarded, if you ask me. If your goal, as a capitalist, is to make as much money as possible (and its an admirable goal, as far as I'm concerned), then why the hell would you diminish your profit by not offering free demos? Companies don't just do that out of the goodness of their hearts, you know. They do it because they make more money that way than they could without the demo.
    • One of the tenets was that anything of value must be paid for.

      I think he missed a basic point in Objectivist Philosophy. Nothing is free. "Free" demos are just payment for a potential buyer's time and attention while considering a purchase from the demo provider. If you consider your time more valuable than the receipt of a free demo, then the demo is over priced and you won't "buy" it by downloading or participating in it.

      Rand was making the very important point, that to compel someone to provide goods

  • I don't find it wrong in any way. By registering, they know roughly how many people have downloaded it, which helps them remotely see the popularity of it. By telling two friends, it helps spread the word, which I don't see really being spam.

    Since when has word of mouth been considered spam?
    • That is actually an excellent point. Reminds me of the old days of shareware when you could copy it a million times and put it anywhere for download. People soon learned which program worked and which didn't. There were always those who would just reinstall it once the trial ran out, but for your typical honest software user, it was a great way to find the best software tool for the job.

      For DAZ, their best chance for success lies in how good their product is. Word of mouth spreads good and bad. This is a c
    • Spam is spam, it doesn't matter where it comes from.

      I've gotten this sort of thing before. I'm never happy about it. When a so-called "friend" gives someone my email address, it's a good time to have a nice little "chat" with that friend.

      I've got an IBM type M and I'm not afraid of beating someone about the head with it if needs be.
  • 3D will be free (Score:3, Insightful)

    by L. VeGas (580015) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:37PM (#13560517) Homepage Journal
    There are quite a few low-end, inexpensive 3D animation packages. Ulead makes one for example. Aside from Blender [nedwolf.com], there are no truly free 3D packages at all. Truth is, no professional actually uses Blender. You'll see the occasional one-off logo or something like that, but even a serious hobbiest uses something like Lightwave or Max.

    There's been kind of a trickle-down in free software. First we got things everybody needs, like an email client. Then we got software that a lot of people need, like a word processor. Then we got the Gimp, which some people need. Eventually, we'll get the specialty applications, like 3D software. It's just a matter of time.
  • Boobs... (Score:5, Informative)

    by warmgun (669556) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:39PM (#13560536)
    All but one of the renders on the company's online gallery page features gratuitous cleavage. Just thought I'd throw that out there...
    • All but one of the renders on the company's online gallery page features gratuitous cleavage.

      Don't listen to him, here's the page
      http://www.daz3d.com.nyud.net:8090/program/studio/ 1_0gallery.php [nyud.net]
      and the graphics don't look very stunning... (from a male perspective i mean)
      • Ahem:

        1) Girl wearing very small, tight shirt thing with HUGE boobs, low cut short shorts with a thong showing, and a big ass sword.

        2) Woman wearing tight chain mail top, with smaller boobs than #1, a VERY revealing chainmail underwear, no pants, and a big ass axe.

        3) Woman wearing nothing in a field of flowers, positioned in a "tasteful" way (i.e. you can't see her nipples or hoo-ha), but no big ass weapon (boo!).

        4) Woman dressed as goth with tight black latex/leather pants and tight black latex/leat

        • I see:

          1) Chick with big boobs and a huge sword-axe-whatever.
          2) Catwoman, or someone that's supposed to look like catwoman. Sure, she's toned, but her body isn't out of proportion. I see people with similar body types every day.
          3) A skeleton.
          4) A woman in a field. Sure, she's naked, but you can't see anything, and while attractive she's far from OMFGTEHSEXAY!
          5) I think I dated that chick in college.
          6) I never blew that one up because I didn't realize it had a chick body in it. You're right, but I don't see a
    • Re:Boobs... (Score:3, Funny)

      by gardyloo (512791)
      All but one of the renders on the company's online gallery page features gratuitous cleavage

          Hey, it's really hard to render in personality and sense of humour. Spheres are easy.

    • That's the sound of 30 million heterosexual adolescent males who suddenly started paying attention.
  • by Odonian (730378) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:39PM (#13560539)
    DAZ started life as a content provider for MetaCreations' Poser software (now owned by Curious Labs); DAZ made (and still makes) human figures with superior morph capability and texture detail vs. what comes with Poser, along with other content from various independent modelers who use their site to sell their models.

    Lately they've been delving into selling actual applications; they bought the Mimic software for lip synching for instance which complements Poser by providing automated .wav to pose conversion to synchronize models' lips and facial expressions to a sound clip in an automated way.

    This latest offering will put them squarely in competition with Curious Labs, which I would say is a good thing. Poser is simultaneously one of the most amazing applications, and most annoying applications I've used. The program produces fantastic human figure graphics and animation, but is also incredibly buggy, slow, and memory/resource intensive. Still, it's much cheaper than the higher end competition which is priced out of the hobbyist market, so it is currently the only game in town. Having another choice in the low end would be very good, providing it's halfway useable.

    • by stew77 (412272)
      In the opposite direction, Zygote, Sixus 1 and e Frontier have released "open source" 3d figures under the name of "project: human", which is more or less competition for DAZ' core business.

      Project human figures can be found here:
      female [contentparadise.com]
      male [contentparadise.com]
      and here:
      http://www.project-human.com/ [project-human.com]

      Feel free to have a flamewar about whether or not the license is GPL compatible...
    • DAZ started life...

      Pretty good history, but you left out a rather critical phrase to conveying the greatness of DAZ to our fellow SlashDotters; namely, the phrase:

      "and 99% of its users do nothing but make 3d rendered porn with it".


      Not that I mean that as a complaint, not at all... But really, let's convey the true greatness of DAZ here, rather than glossing it over with the pseudo-professionalism of "DAZ made human figures with superior morph capability and texture detail".
  • SPAM?!? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by midnighttoadstool (703941) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:41PM (#13560559)
    ...but perhaps the Slashdot crowd could offer advice on a better business model than spam and merchandising?

    It seems to me that this company is actually asking for a concious effort at the email equivalent of 'word of mouth'. I think that its an admirable idea and doesn't truly constitute SPAM except by a looser definition than I, personally, would accept.

    • I second this; what they're doing (as far as I can see) isn't spamming at all, by any of the definitions I have seen used. If they are spamming, that's not supported by what's been posted so far.

      Given that real spammers are being sued and arrested, the article writeup here borders on libelous. Why on earth did that tag have to get appended to an otherwise useful and interesting article intro???

      • The implementation is a bit flawed though. Much as I hate popups, perhaps having an "email-a-friend" that pops up on the first X executions every Y runs would be more useful (one you actually use the program and see if it is good or not).
  • by StacyWebb (780561) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:41PM (#13560563) Homepage
    With iTunes the application is free to download and use. But is there money to be made? Yes. By users purchasing the music they want online.. This same model is being used here, the core of the application is free, but content costs. This is where they will make money, not in the application itself but in the content individuals puchase. The "tell-ware" model is mainly to get the word out on the product, for those who perhaps do not read Slashdot.
  • free as in beer (Score:5, Insightful)

    by blechx (767202) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:43PM (#13560592)
    Note that this program is only free as in beer and is not Free Software. If you are looking for free as in speech 3d-modellers and renderers, look at http://blender3d.org/ [blender3d.org], an exellent and highly advanced program.
    • Re:free as in beer (Score:4, Informative)

      by RLiegh (247921) * on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @03:49PM (#13560649) Homepage Journal
      Both are in the same general field, but having used both I can tell you that daz3d is light-years away from blender when it comes to good UI design and usability; also daz3d comes from an established (5+ years, iirc) content provider so there is a variety of pre-made materials and content that is ready to use with daz3d right now.

      I'm not a graphics professional (and maybe blender is more useful to someone who is), but from an ameteur's point of view, there's really no comparison to be made. daz3d is easier to use, and therefore more powerful, and there is a lot of ready-to-use content out there for it (with blender3d you pretty much have to roll your own everything as far as I know).
    • Blender is free as in speech, but the language is ancient suomi.
  • by sleighb0y (141660)
    "by relying on the revenues generated by the purchase of content available in the DAZ online store"

    Is that code for "virtual-girl porn site" ?

    I think ANY 3d-modeler app can be used for more productive tasks than rendering breasts that are two times too big.

  • Perhaps if they opened their code they could begin to compete with the free and open-source offerings.

    Compare DAZ [daz3d.com] to Blender/Yafray [yafray.org]

    Blender was free, closed-source software for some years. No doubt DAZ will also make the decision to emancipate themselves in order to grow in time with their users.
    • They can't open source the renderer because they don't own the source to it. Their interface is pretty weak and has very little functionality, they have nothing to really offer that could compete with Blender as far as '3d'.

      LetterRip
  • I was checking out their store and found a plug-in [daz3d.com] thats on sale (for FREE).
  • by Sundroid (777083) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @04:37PM (#13561059) Homepage
    Blender (http://www.blender.org/cms/Home.2.0.html [blender.org]) is totally free, as in open-source, no-strings-attached free.

    3D Canvas (http://www.amabilis.com/products.htm [amabilis.com]) is a fun introductory 3d software for beginners.
  • Blender 3D is a good alternative for the Linux users: http://www.blender3d.org/ [blender3d.org]
  • Even though no money changes hands, the geometric nature by which it spreads makes it smell kind of Ponzi-like to me. The more it spreads, the more the difficulty of benefitting approaches infinity.

    Not a classic Ponzi, and probably won't spread prohibitively, but... just sayin'.

    • I've been beta testing the program for, gosh, at least a year now and I can assure you that it's not a Ponzi scheme, but rather the old Kodak business model. It used to be that Kodak gave you the camera, but sold you the film. Well, for as long as DAZ has been in existence, the main source of their income has been the sale of 3D models. They're just releasing the program because it means more people will be potential customers. Oh, this also frees them from being solely dependent on the existence of Cur
  • by cruachan (113813) on Wednesday September 14, 2005 @06:33PM (#13561948)
    Well, at least DAZ is giving it away up-front. Came across this the other day - http://www.daylongraphics.com/products/leveller/op ensrc.htm [daylongraphics.com] - the company appears to be offering to make the 'next' version of their product open source if people will donate $200,000 to the company 'Open Source' fund beforehand.

    Please someone correct me if I've misunderstood this, but it seems totally outragous.
  • First off, I have to dig out my Win-duhs bolt-bucket and connect it. Then the site wants a login. Now I'm downloading it, and the first of the three files is 50 MBs. Blender fits on a floppy disk, so I'm going to hope this means DAZstudio is 50 times as good...

    If I can produce any kind of image with it, I can post it to my graphics blog and comment that it was done with such 'n' such; that should meet the "two-friends" requirement. (Yes, funny people, more than two people have visited it...something like

What the world *really* needs is a good Automatic Bicycle Sharpener.

Working...