This will actually create the folder _post in the root of the current drive and not as a sub-directory of the current directory. To create _post as a sub-directory of the current directory you must omit the “\” or use “.\_post”
The “\” means start from the root of the drive.
I have a standard folder structure where my photos are grouped by Year then Photos then Camera then Date as shown in the screenshot. I also have a few other folders under Photos of which one is Developed where I develop most of my photos.
To get all my developed photos into the Developed directory I use “. .\. .\Developed” to make DxO go up two directories and then select the Developed directory for output. Now as long as I stick to my directory standards I can simply export without worrying about where my photos will go as they will always go into the Developed directory for that Year. For a new year I simply create a new directory structure from a “Template” directory I have.
Erweiterung in English on my machine is Suffix. You are trying to specify a folder in the Suffix field. You need to put your folder destination in the Pfad field which in English is Path.
Hope this solves your issue 
This one gives me the folder jpg as a subfolder of the custumfolder. If not present a new folder will be created. The tiff file I can direct to /tiff. Both forward and backslash gives me the same result.
The dot means 1 directory back in the path, 2 dots mean 2 directories back in the path.
George
Of this is the case then DxO is not respecting the standard that / “means root of the current drive”
I’m not in favour of this proposal, unless it also comes with a user preference option for DOP files to be stored, as now, in the original image folder.
Here’s some background about the use of slashes https://www.howtogeek.com/181774/why-windows-uses-backslashes-and-everything-else-uses-forward-slashes/
In cd \ windows is going back to the root.
cd …\ is going back 1 directory in the path
cd .\ is staying in the same directory. I wrote something else.
Anyway, one can select a directory relative from the actual directory in pl, even one for the tiff and one for he jpg and one…etc.
George
Says who exactly? I know a couple of Windows users creating one folder for one single file. Never understood that. It makes renaming wrong filenames a nightmare.
And that’s the reason why Silkypix has so many times more users than Lightroom, right? You didn’t want to write “it”, the sentence was meant to be “I would appreciate…” There are many people in this thread who would not appreciate a folder mess, and if you need to deal with a dozen different apps which all (?) create a separate folder to host their minions, have fun with a bundle of folders.
Btw. if you decide to delete a RAW, for what would you want to give an extra OK? For not storing files which are no longer needed? To founder an orphanage of abandoned sidecar files?
Never ask others to do testing for you unless you’re in need of help. If you’re so convinced about the massive HD space consumption, how about deliver the proof to that statement by yourself?
One (45MP) RAW file: 70 MB, the DOP of that: 12 kB. One XMP file between 2 and 4 kB. Let’s be generous and put them together at 20 kB, then one RAW file equals 3500 pairs of XMP and DOP files, give or take. So, your fear about wasted disk space is a bit on the ridiculous side, I’d say.
I agree 100%. Keep dop files in same folder as image files.
One reason I never touch nx studio is due to the way they keep image files.
I completely disagree with this proposal. After reading through the OP’s first couple comments in defense of it, it seems like he’s got a niche scenario where there is either conflict or potential conflict between different image editing software. I’ve used Lr w/ sidecar files, DxO, C1, and Exposure with Windows 10 and I’ve never experienced any conflict, including with my Fuji RAF files. I’m not saying a conflict isn’t possible, but the downsides of this proposal are pretty clear and well outlined in the other responses. The status quo is the best approach for the majority of users. That said, if DxO wanted to make this configurable, the only downside I see is the diversion of resources that could be used elsewhere—like integrating Nik Effects directly into the PL interface. 
If you dont use the xmp or dop or other files that are kept by other applications then why not just write a script to delete them periodically.
I am DEFINITELY not in favour of this request!
I’m not sure why there are so many defensive, negative comments about something as innocuous as “improve management of sidecar files”.
I have no doubt that the requested improvement would not eliminate the current approach. Indeed, it would be astonishing if the current approach was not retained as the default. I don’t think anyone would count eliminating the current practice as an improvement.
Adding the option of changing the location of the sidecar files (the most obvious improvement) would be just that: an option. But it is an option that some of us would welcome.
I’ve rarely seen such unity on the DxO forums rejecting a feature request.
No. It would just complicate the software and diminish users’ trust in the application as it would be too easy to misplace .dop files. Plus the PhotoLab would suddenly have to start hunting the sidecars. And managing multiple routines for image migration or deletion would suddenly get a lot more complicated. Inevitably that would lead to accidental data deletion.
Many profane think “one more feature” doesn’t have a high cost. Yes some feature requests do bear such a cost and this is just this kind of request.
Accommodating destructive feature requests is how to good software is ruined.
