Okay... I've looked thru the Daz site.. and the pictures thus far rendered here... but.. nothing as of yet to show the M3 Genitalia... I read somewhere that it's a prop? Hate to ask.. but would someone humor me, and do a full nude render of M3? Thanks... Lee (the perve)

Not great, but you get the idea. Mike 3's genitalia are a conforming figure. It has a seperatly mapped foreskin. Very few morphs, no length morphs. Pretty simple, but better than M2's equipment. The title of this one "A new Master in town"

WOW... That's a lot better than I was expecting... Could I ask you to do a render with no textures? To me, that is the sure-fire way to tell if Im gonna like the figure enough to buy it... Again, Thanks for the trouble! (Render is great!)

Give me a few....

Appreciate it... Thanks!

Of course, if you like the M3 figure but want more... um... options, you could always pick up the Adrian V3 male package at RDNA. You get a nice set of textures that work fine with M3 and a truly astounding, mighty morphin', fully-posable meat-and-two-veg. (I'm still scared of that thing.)

Nude, untextured, and the two looks to the equipment. Frankly, the only thing this set of equipment has going for it is the seperatly mapped foreskin and that it actually conforms to the figure. No morphs worth a you-know-what and it's not as easy to use as any of the others. The best is still Ulf's Penis Prop, really a character) over at GayPoserArt. It's free and has the most morphs. Then there are the two Digiport figures over BBay. Nice, but $20 a piece. And not as many morphs as Ulf's. It does have more segments for posing though. Adrian is a great texture set, and the equipment that comes with it isn't bad. No morphs to speak of, but it is easily posable. The UTC plugin for M3 will convert M2 genitalia to M3 genitalia. It's not working right now since Daz changed the mapping of M3's equipment just before the release, but they're going to fix it. All of these props use disimular (sp?) mapping. You can't use the same texture for any of them. They al lhave their pro's and con's. Just pick one and go with it.

Thanks for all the info... I really do appreciate it! Lee

Here's M3 with just Muscle Morph 3 set to 1. He's got 4 of them, but Musclular 4 is a little too extreme for me. He's wearing the Paco texture by Quim that I converted with the UTC. His shorts are something I'm working on for an M3 clothing pack.

Pdxjims, that's the best-looking M3 character I've seen yet. Wotta dish! :-)

To me....to me....I can see the 'edges' of the prop - in post #2 (looks like scar tissue to me around his pubic bone) - does anyone else see that?

Lucy, that was my fault. I used a different texture for the genitals since the UTC doesn't convert correctly on genitals yet. The difference is in the colors. I also misspoke myself earlier. There are 3 Muscle morphs, and I used Muscular 2 in the earlier picture. Here's 3, with Tone set to 1 also. The pouch is from one of my Stud Mike packs with no changes. It doesn't quite work, but close enough for a quicky.

That line you see if because of the texture. He was using a dif text on the penis than the text he used on the body. I dont know what text is on the body but the text on the penis is daz's

The textures in post 2 were Marius for Mike 2 converted to M3 with the UTC, with the Adam head that comes with, all by Catherina. She does the absolute best textures. The UTC converts the genitals too, but Daz changed the mapping on those at the last minute and UTC needs an update (in the works). Since I couldn't use the correct texture, I used the High Red genital texture that I got from Daz yesterday. The coloring is a close match, except at the pubes. I didn't want to post work it for a showing here, so I let it stand.

Marius is amazing, Jim, but Paco rules!!! Thank you for showing us the hidden assets. This is quite honestly the first time M3 has truly looked masculine to me. Am I just a pervert or-- compared to M2-- is M3 kinda. . . on the small side? Strike that, I do know I'm just a pervert :) and he's, like, normal, right? Emily

It does morph! OK, so perhaps I am a pervert trying but I gave Mike a very impressive stiffy within seconds - I just wish I had that effect on all guys!!!

to make it umm longer just use the i think x scaling it is to make it longer thats what i have been doing

AND SHE'S ALL BOTTOM........LOL

Does Mike *really* need to "be hung like a bear"? I'd heard that phrase used about M2, but didn't understand until this dropped into my mailbox last week. Note, I don't think that this violates TOS since, in the first instance we all know that stuffed animals have no genitals, and in the second instance the stuffed animal isn't touching himself, and, besides, the entire thing is parody. ;^) I'll flag a nudity warning... in case anybody falls over with a heart attack at the thought of a teddy bear hanging to his knees. However, if anybody thinks that their Michael figure is "too small", there are ways to fix the perceived problem. Carolly

LOLs, ROTFL Why, pray tell...does that vaccuum cleaner have a FROWN on it's face ??? (Sorry..couldn't resist that..put it down to perverted Aussie sense of humour)

Can someone here be so helpful and explain to me how can M3 'equipment' change between the two forms illustrated at pdxjims image on post #7 ? Thanks in advance. Jon

jonfe, Mike 3's foreskin is seperatly mapped, so you can turn it on and off with transparancy. It's a pretty good idea actually since it allows for variations via transmaps. Ulf's version over at GPA uses morphs to accomplish the same thing. Emily, I thought he was pretty small too. He can be sized up, but the lowest segment distorts some. I posted the default version so you could see exactly what comes with him, and to completly avoid any TOS violation. Carolly, I got up, got my coffee, checked my email, saw your teddy, and sprayed my coffee over the monitor and keyboard. Is it good to laugh that hard so early in the morning? Now I'm wondering if I can do a texture to match the Sweet Bear that Daz had a few months ago. Thank you, it got my heart going. freyfaxi, I think the expression on the vacume is intense concentration. Sometimes it pays to concentrate on the task at hand (grin). Lee, See what you started! You've corrupted us yet further! I'm proud of you. Off to do another M3 pic and work on his clothing.

pdxjims, Thanks for your response. I must confess that, while I was checking out M3 last night, I did not think of transparency as an option... I kept looking for a morph - silly me... Jon

Hehehe...bad taste bears... admits to collecting those and goes red in the face

I'm glad that it provoked a smile. To judge from the ads in my email, penis length is the number 1 obsession... and even the ads are stretching more than the imagination. From "adds up to 3 inches" they went to "adds 2-5 inches" and now it's "24 inch cocks!" :roll eyes: Now do you see why I wanted to know if a knot could be tied in it... how else are the Michaels of the future going to keep their penises off the floor? Well, wait... there's always little wheeled trolleys. There's an Celtic God named Ludh who dragged on the ground while walking and created deep-rutted valleys, but it hasn't been until recently that mortal men have tried to emulate this feat. I'd rather see interesting people of both sexes artistically posed, and not so much emphasis upon the extremely and grotesquely exaggerated sexual characteristics. Or, if exaggeration is necessary, done with a sense of humor. Carolly

Carolly, It's not so much the size as the variation. There is more variation in male genitalia than in women's breasts, but look how many morphs there are in V3 for that. Likewise there's a lot of variation caused by infant genital mutilation (circumcison). No two are alike. And since it's plyable in it's non aroused state, it's very much affected by gravity. It's probably the most changeable and varied part of the human body. For those of us who do male nudes, these variations become important. How genitalia lays varies with the pose of the hips and buttocks, add gravity, add variation so they don't all look like something out of a cardboard box from an adult novelty store, and you finally get realism. Male genitals posed at rest should have a draping effect, or in action scenes reflect the motion of the figure. Genitals can fly up, flop, or lie over the thighs falling in almost any direction. Female breasts are the same way, but male genitals hang more freely than breasts and should be able to reflect that. Of course size does come into play, no matter what anyone says. Sometimes larger (but not grossly large) genitalia help with emphisis and balance in a scene. Now, I will admit there are some (many) to whome size is important. But the more real in a nude, the better. The more possible variation the better. I do agree with the artistic posing. The best of the male nudes, at least to me, are posed so they combine all the pieces into a wonderful whole. Of course, if I could tie it in a knot, I'd do it. But I'd never post it here! It'd have to be a TOS violation, and I'm VERY careful about that (grin). Now I want to do a Ludh picture! See what you started! And there's no place where I'd feel comfortable posting it! And I will not tell the pretzil joke, no matter who asks. Jim

Now. As a woman, if his, um, "Snoopy" (for real, I have a kid on my caseload that call it that) was much larger flaccid, I think I'd shiver. Doesn't anyone else worry when you see a giant flaccid penis of the damage it would cause..um..aroused. shudders Believe me. Extremes in size either way is not a good thing. ;)

Actually, it's always been my understanding that the size while flaccid isn't really particularly related to the size of the erection. I've got plenty of experience with male genitals, and while I haven't done a serious study or anything, my experience is that this is the case. You know, every time I think of this subject, that Seinfeld episode where George goes on about "shrinkage" just leaps to mind and I can't get rid of it... ;-P bonni

pdxjims, I mistyped... and some God is gonna get me. Dagda is the one with the extra-large equipment. (There is some confusion between Lugh and Dagda in other ways, too... those myths can get so messy with pieces scattered across many tales.) I'm IMing you with a link that you might find amusing. It is to some extremely phallic stones and carvings in Ireland. (I think of it as art, not pornography, but try to keep within the TOS, too.) Anyway, if a penis falls to the side naturally as a guy lays there, it doesn't jar the eye, and I agree about variability (although I haven't paid that close of attention). Hair or clothing or jewelry which doesn't droop when a model changes position can also be disconcerting. Breasts should fall to the side or flatten when a woman is lying down, but we see a lot of "perky breasts" which could be encased in solid brass for all the flexibility in their pose. Carolly

Carolly, Now I know where I get it from, my celt and pict genetics (grin). Wonderful site! Thank you! I knew that there were stones like this, but I've never seen the actual images. Pretty neat! It's sort of like prehistoric Poser on a LARGE scale. A lot of those old stones were recarved when the Christians came, and turned to other uses. I love the way the phallus in one image was used as a gatepost. Something once an object of worship is now put to use holding up a rickity fence. Thanks for the heads up on Dagda vs Lugh. The whole thing has gotten me interested again in Celtic mythology and art. And you're dead on about the jewelery and breasts. That's one of the reasons I seldom do female figures, I'm never sure how they should fall (the breasts). It's also gotten me wondering if I can do a simple set of jewelery that contains gravity/falling morphs. Earrings that have a head segment for conforming, but dangles that are seperate for posing. And a necklace with posable segments that would allow for that kind of posing. Interesting problem... Thanks again for the link! I'm bookmarking it. Jim

Jim, I'm glad that you like the site. :) He has hundreds of photos, and they are good ones, to back up his assertions. (I differ with him on small points such as whether the swirly carvings on the phallic stones indicate semen... it might, but the celts put swirls on EVERYTHING.) The phallic stones are just a small part of the site. I'm more interested in the archeoastronomical alignments of the various circles, but he has a decent selection of all sorts of arrangements. Did you know that there are people building stone circles now? One of my colleagues built a small one on his property in the mountains and another friend loaned me a book showcasing some truly nice modern accomplishments in rock-raising I also like the way he balances art and archeology... yes this is pretty, but it must also be authentic... Newgrange being a case in point. On one hand, I'm glad that restoration and preservation is being done, because then folks treasure their heritage instead of letting it be turned into fences and bits of other buildings. (Maybe they just treasure the tourist dollars, but the fact that someone will come from the far side of the planet ought to indicate that there is worth in the old stones.) OTOH, I have seen too many instances where the restorers make things too clean and too modern and too unlikely just to fit their preconceived notions of how a place was built and used. while sharing sources of inspiration... An artist named Jim Fitzpatrick does an interesting job with his Irish heritage. (I'm thinking of a line from a song "...the blood of the druids that never will rest.") He is retelling and piecing together the legends. There are bits of Art Nouveau, Japonisserie, and Comicart permeating his work, but the Celtic spirit behind the stories shines clear. You might want to take a peek if you aren't already familiar with him. I think the first one was The Book of Conquests. (The first battle of Moy Tura.) Jewelry has weight and slipperiness against the skin. When looking at some incredible bronze statues from India(? - a museum exhibit years ago) I was amused that the waist-long necklaces draped very artistically, but they drooped both front and back without being balanced to do so. I don't think those old gods had superglue or moustache adhesive, so don't know how they'd have kept their jewelry in place... spirit gum? The various chains and easypose technology probably offer the best hints as to how to go about modeling something like that. If you were to go to the effort to learn to model that fluidity in a piece of jewelry, I'd suggest not doing the opera strand of pearls (since they exist in Poser) but something ethnic or original. You might even start with a drinking/hunting horn or some other piece which isn't really classified as jewelry but was decorated and worn proudly. Carolly