Free 3D Animation DAZ|Studio 1.0 Released

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?

Comments

A little competition is a good thing.

[Odonian]

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.

free as in beer

[blechx]

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/, an exellent and highly advanced program.

Re:::Sigh: Learn a bit about economics...

[oGMo]

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.