Tue, Nov 26, 7:30 AM CST

Renderosity Forums / Poser - OFFICIAL



Welcome to the Poser - OFFICIAL Forum

Forum Coordinators: RedPhantom

Poser - OFFICIAL F.A.Q (Last Updated: 2024 Nov 26 6:57 am)



Subject: Whats wrong with M3


  • 1
  • 2
JurgenDoe ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 3:33 PM · edited Tue, 26 November 2024 at 7:30 AM

file_76545.jpg

Something looks very weird to me what ya think ?? The traps ... the neck and the hands looking very weird. The body part is way to long :( To mee it seems like DAZ did a very bad work here. They should not use V3 to create M3 and just putting the Genitlia as seperate figure on it :(

Strength Is Life, Weakness Is Death


Fyrene ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 4:01 PM

Another thing that is missing. Injection Pose Builder for M3. The help files say IPB will be updated for M3 shortly after his release, but havent seen any updates for it yet :(

****


Ghostofmacbeth ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 4:03 PM

Turn the Traps Smaller dial ... It is jsut a different body style. I have seen people that had much larger ones and were much smaller. I think you dialed soemthing wierdly with his hand ...



dirk5027 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 4:16 PM

You have done nothing wrong, Mike3 is a joke


DraX ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 4:35 PM

Content Advisory! This message contains nudity

Heh, you forgot the nudity flag.... 1. M3 is by no means a joke... the Unimesh concept allows alot of great possibilities in texturing alone, and as time goes on you'll start to see more of the benefit of this. 2. For the hand it appears you fiddled with one of the Extwhatever dials accidentally. 3. The neck and traps appear very natural to me... it's just a different body style than Mike 2's. 4. They didn't rework V3, they developed both figures from the same Unimesh.


rbtwhiz ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 4:51 PM

IPB was last updated to include support for Michael 3 on August 29, 2003. Brokers used the updated version (1.2) to produce content for the Michael 3 release. Ealier this morning I noticed that the update had not been posted yet, and wondered why myself. I brought it up to our webmaster and was informed that he'd be posting the update installers on the IPB product page by the time he leaves tonight. -Rob


dirk5027 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 5:07 PM

file_76546.jpg

It seems funny to me the only people that defend this model are people that have things for sale at daz, not a poke at you drax, just an observation. If this unimesh is the big new thing, they better stick with the old basics. And if it wasn't made from vicky, seems very odd how the neck, body shape and face is identical (minus the breast). So that said, I have quite a few websites and daz has gotten some very bad press from me. I always liked them sure hope they set things right, but so far this product is a 2 stars out of 5.


cwsatl429 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 5:16 PM

file_76547.jpg

First, I would like to say that I LOVE M3! Second, GothicAngel is right about the hand. I don't think he fiddled or dialed another wrong on his hand because I have experienced the same problem. You can recreate the same effect if you use the dial "ArmsHeavy". I injected M3 with the morph and turned the dial on his body and received the same effect. You will also get another strange effect with his forearms if you use the "Stocky" morph. It creates sunk-in areas on the back of the forearm. Also, this error is not because I turned any other dials funny. Check both yourself and you will see. As for the Traps, I think they look fine. All in all, I believe M3 is a great model, but there are a few problems that could be fixed with a service patch. :)


DraX ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 5:18 PM

dirk, I still fail to see how "they were made independantly from the same mesh" equates to "Mike 3 was made from Vicki 3". Of course, if they were both modeled from a universal mesh, they will look similar. My biggest issue in defense of DAZ is not that I happen to have items for sale there, but because of a few things. Firstly, I noticed the arguments against M3 start along time ago at a time when the arguments were uncalled for and it was prejudgement based on a few small images. This dissention mounted and more and more people jumped on the bandwagon without any cause, until several, though they purchased it, had made up their mind about Mike 3 before it was even released and nothing in the world could change their views. Secondly, Victoria 3 and Michael 3 have completely different joint parameters than their version 2 counterparts. As such, the same poses do not result in the same effect on each figure. they have to be adjusted slightly. A recent comparsion used the same pose on each without taking this into account, so of course Mike 3 appeared to be bent unnaturally in this form. This would of course do Mike 3 no justice and as such would result in more undue bad press. I've got more to say but I need to take a break to do some quick renders that justify what I'm trying to say.


DraX ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 5:27 PM

Heh, gotta love cross-posting. Good to see at least one person in love with Stocky (need to remember to thank the DAZ team again for listening to my big mouthed suggestions ;) )


dirk5027 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 5:35 PM

i do need to say that i do listen to you drax, one person here I actually have respect for, so hope my above post was taken in the debate or "me as a consumer" way it was meant. Maybe they can fix a few things and i'll be a happy camper, still can't get the sissy feminine look out of the face either, it seems very limited. That said off to watch The Simpsons :)


dirk5027 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 5:38 PM

oh that pose in the above pic was made specifically for mike3, purchased here in the marketplace, i turned every dial trying to make the bad spots go away with no luck


FyreSpiryt ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 5:41 PM

file_76549.jpg

There are some problems with the mesh, and there are some problems with the joint parameters, particularly where the arms meet the chest.

However, I have to argue with protests that his anatomy is completely off. Mike 2 is hardly a good metric for that. Here is a picture of Mike 3 side-by-side with the male model from Atlas of teh Human Anatomy for the Artist, by Stephen Rogers Peck (hopefully OK under fair use and de minimus. I'm not wanting to step on anyone's copyright here).


cwsatl429 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 5:43 PM

DraX, I am glad I am not the only person who loves "Stocky". :) I love different shapes and sizes, but the "Stocky" morph is very cool.
M3 is great guys... yes, he has a few problems, but they are minor and should be easily fixed. I know he is not like M2, but we sort of knew he wasn't going to be. He just takes a little time to get use to. I personal love him and the tons of other items that I bought for him from Daz. Daz is a great company and I am sure they will make everything right! :)

Ghostofmacbeth, I bought your "M3 Creatures" and I have to say that they are great! You ROCK!


pdxjims ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 6:05 PM

Yes, there are some problems. Arms to chest is the one I hate most. If anyone has found a way to get around the collapsing pits problem, please post it. It drives me crazy. There's also a problem where the chest meets the abs when you bend the chest right or left. The mesh accordians a bit. More noticable when using the muscle morphs. No, he's not a joke. Just different. Daz corrected a number of problems that came with M1/M2 (arms over the shoulder, thigh to hip warping), and wound up with a couple of new ones. Just because he was based on a unimesh with V3 isn't a problem. Men and women are based on teh same basic structure too, it's how it all fits together that makes the differences. I really think Daz will fix the pits problem. It's too obvious not to. I hope the fix the abs/chest. I would like some more muscle morphs to expand his chest, and all the face morphs that came with V3, but I expect that if Daz doesn't do it, some interprising morph mistress will (can you say "Boris for M3?"). He's just a week old. The poor baby has barely opened his eyes. Daz is VERY good about customer support and following customer suggestions (unlike other major companies who shall go nameless). I like him at least as much as M2, and they look good together in a scene, at least when P5 can handle the load. Nice variation.


PapaBlueMarlin ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 6:23 PM

I'm not trying to be critical, I just need some information. There have been postings here about some problems with the M3 mesh. Is DAZ anticipating on making a service release for M3 and his morph packs soon?



cherokee69 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 6:28 PM

"A recent comparsion used the same pose on each without taking this into account, so of course Mike 3 appeared to be bent unnaturally in this form." That comparison was done by me and I'd like to clarify what other people seem to think is was, in that I said it was the same pose, not that it was an M2 pose. The pose was on I created for M2 and had saved it. When I did the comparison, I used it on M2 and not on M3. I posed M3 by hand in an effort to sort of match the M2 pose. So now, where is the logic that the M2 pose caused the visible problems with M3? For everyone (which includes myself) that actually sees some of the problems areas with M3, the pits, the elbows, the shoulders, stomach, etc., we beating a dead horse talking about it.


DraX ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 6:35 PM

file_76550.jpg

Of course, Dirk, I took it as nothing personal, and I understand your frustration... Granted I also feel it unneccessary for you to jump into a thread with someone asking for help and stating that Mike 3 is a joke, but to each their own. That said, I'd also like to say thank you. It's good to know that there are few level headed people still hanging out here in between all the immaturity that sometimes runs rampant here :) Anyway, how androgenous Mike 3 looks all depends upon the morphs you choose. I've posted this face a dozen times before and it can be seen on the DAZ website as well (apparently they liked the face :)) I just happen to feel it shows a good example of an non-andgrogenous Mike 3.


PapaBlueMarlin ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 6:39 PM

What face dials did you use for your character Drax?



Ghostofmacbeth ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 6:42 PM

Thanks cwsatl429 .. glad you like :) I do agree about the pits crumbling and noticed that weird glitch in the stocky morph but it was a last minute addition (no excuses but there was a lot to look at and it could have slipped through the cracks). As for the lifted arm picture that is a limitation of the mesh. If you try it with Mike 2 it looks a lot worse. There may be a few problems but there are a lot of bashers as well. I think he has a lot of potential and I really like a lot of aspects over M2 but there are a few things I might tweak and which I am tweaking.



cherokee69 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 6:42 PM

Yes, what dial setting did you use as I've not been able to come near anything like that after turning dials for days.


Ghostofmacbeth ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 6:45 PM

file_76551.jpg

I also posted this before and don't really think he looks feminine



cherokee69 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 7:07 PM

I got an IM to a IM I had sent DAZ. Steve said he was going through the M3 posts so I ask if he would be so kind as to let people know they have actually seen the messages. He didn't.


PapaBlueMarlin ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 7:14 PM

file_76552.jpg

I don't think M3 is feminine, just incomplete.



DraX ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 7:17 PM

cherokee, I said a recent comparison, not your comparison. In the one I'm referencing the poster very obviously (just by looking at the images) used the same exact pose on each, and then circled area that had problems because they were bent funny, and noone seemed to argue against it.


cherokee69 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 7:26 PM

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1436348

That's odd, the only comparison between M2 and M3 I remember seeing is the one I posted. Might the above link be the one you mean..if so..that was my comparison..of couse I've since deleted my posts there. The one image of M2 and M3 with areas circled were saved by someone else and reposted with the areas circled.


rbtwhiz ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 7:44 PM

Jeremy,

I've handed the reins of the [content] Production Department over, around March of this year, and began focusing more on the design and development side of things... so I'm not certain as to specific schedules for content production. I've pointed out a few concerns to the appropriate parties in the event that they were not aware of any particular issue and they appear to be on top of it already. I'm sure, much the same as it was when I was calling the shots, that the production folks will want to fix as many issues as possible in one go, and avoid as much confusion as possible. Remember, the problems need to be replicated before they can be repaired, and then a possible solution needs to be tested to prevent further complications... so I'm sure it'll take [at least] a little time.

To make a long story short, if there are actual problems (vice subjective opinions)... will we fix them? Don't we usually try to? Honestly? We put a lot of pride and hard work into the products we create. But despite our best efforts, we are human... Sometimes things slip and only someone who has faced the enormity of some of these projects would truly understand how things actually happen (vice how they theoretically 'should' happen). That said, we are continually trying to improve our processes and procedures and hope that we haven't caused too much discomfort. All I can suggest at the moment is a little patience to allow us to identify the real problems...

-Rob


PapaBlueMarlin ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 7:51 PM

Rob, Thanks for the info. Just wanted to make sure that DAZ knew there was some concerns with the mesh. Other than for a few problems, I'm pretty satisfied. Jeremy



PapaBlueMarlin ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 7:56 PM

BTW Rob, the mildog is looking great. Keep up the great work :)



moochie ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 8:02 PM

Can't say fairer than that! And in terms of his joints alone, M3 is a superb product .. the most realistic 3D humanoid available for Poser users. Daz have not taken a retrograde step yet in their productions, and M3 is no exception.


3ddave44 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 8:03 PM

While I don't mean to slander her, I think most of the Mike3's that I've seen that look male (or are supposed to) look like Vanessa Redgrave. Granted, she can be rather masculine looking but she's still a woman... : )


Arendar ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 8:14 PM

FyreSpiryt: if you bend M3 slightly at the torso and move his forearms out just a bit, he'll match the model in the photograph at post #13; a great side-by-side comparison! About M3's anatomy "being off" I have to say that even from your comparison, M3's head appears too small, his neck is too long and traps seem too high (almost like flaps of skin) in proportion to the rest of his body. Of course, we could dial the traps back (presumably after injecting the requisite morphs from the additional bodymorphs pack) and make the other necessary tweaks, but I thought the whole idea of an "M3 base" was something one could use (for say, a generic male figure) without the need for further morphs/adjustments. IMHO, we don't have to be too concerned about M3 "retiring prematurely" just because of some "bad press". Other than whether the majority of Poser users accept the new figure and employ him in the long run, the success of M3 will be decided by how well his makers respond to that criticism and continuing market support for the product (e.g. by vendors making stuff for M3). These factors will determine whether M3 can truly be the promising successor to M2. We'll see! ;-p


pdxjims ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 8:29 PM

Rob, Daz is always the best. M3's problems will be worked out, and probably pretty quickly the way V3's were. Most are pretty minor or look like an easy fix or work around (wishful thinking). The biggest problem I really see is that he isn't M2. The biggest asset I see is he isn't M2. I don't intend to stop using M2, I'm just going to add M3 to the mix. He's got a LOT of potential. He's not perfect, thank the Goddess. If he was every render would look the same. Quick note on head size and neck too long: Use the scaling dial on the head. It works great. And StretchNeck to a negative value works even better. I agree that his defaults are a tad off, but he's well in the range of normal variation. Work a little with him, folks. He's actually pretty darn good. We've got to learn him, the way we did with M2. Note to 3ddaave44: Vanessa Redgrave???!!!!!??? RONFLMAO! Now I've got to try and make a morph like that. I knew I'd find a use for those V3 female textures I bought!


sandoppe ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 8:57 PM

The Traps dial and the negative value on "stretch neck" make a huge difference/improvement. The only real issue I have is with the arm pits. I'm not much for the "overly muscular" look, but it seems that the more muscualar you make him, the "weirder" he looks......but then I think "overly muscular" "real people" look weird too :) As for the face.....you can create lots of masculine faces that look nothing like V3.


bijouchat ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 9:22 PM

...


Bear ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 9:34 PM

I'm sorry but every picture ive seen of M3 he/she/it looks feminine somehow , I cant put my finger on what it is about him/her/it but it put me right off buying it . Cheers :)


cherokee69 ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 9:39 PM

Bear, Maybe it's the eyes? There is something about them that I can't put my finger on.


Bear ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 9:50 PM

cherokee69 Now you mention it that could be it . Cheers :)


Dave-So ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 10:17 PM

Make your own default Mike 3... turn the dials to achieve the shorter neck, larger head, etc etc...save for future use.

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854



sandoppe ( ) posted Wed, 17 September 2003 at 11:38 PM

You know.....I have to eat my words. You can get masculine looks, but cherokee69, I think you're right about the eyes. I just did a bunch of renders and the eyes always look the same....no matter what you do to them. No two people have the same eyes and maybe it can't be changed, because of the way the mesh is built......that may be why he keeps looking like V3 to a lot of folks.


JurgenDoe ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 1:09 AM

I think you dialed soemthing wierdly with his hand ... @ Ghostofmacbeth I did not dial anything wrong this. it also looks the same on a flat hand and I could go on with all his errors. In my own opinion M3 is just a joke

Strength Is Life, Weakness Is Death


Neo10 ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 2:27 AM

file_76553.jpg

This pic i am posting to me seems as it is not v3 at all. And it doesnt seem girly to me either. There are two morphs at play here that arent from daz one to create the point at the top of the head and the point at the jaw the rest is stock m3. This to me shows how versatile m3 can be


FishNose ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 2:54 AM

M3 has the same problem as ALL the Milfigures so far - every one of them from V1 thru Preteen to V3 and M2, M3..... all of them. Their heads are WAY too small in proportion to the body. Look at Fyre's comparison in post #13, with the real guy and M3. See the difference? M3 looks silly with that tiny pinhead. Set M3/M2/V2/V3/PT/Steph head to Scale 110% at least - often more. Many of my Vicki characters (see my gallery) have their head up to almost 120% !!! and there's never a cry of 'Her head is too big'. Because it isn't. Of course, don't forget to scale up the eyes as well, and the neck some to compensate. If you're up to it, make morphs (using magnets) to do this instead - works fine too. :] Fish


TrekkieGrrrl ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 2:59 AM

file_76554.jpg

I don't think any of these faces are feminine. And I couldn't have made them with V3 either. So M3 have some issues. Guys, if you think he's that bad and a "joke", why don't you ask for a REFUND?! You won't HAVE to use him. Noone is pushing you into buying him either. But bitching takes you nowhere fast. I happen to LIKE Mike 3. And no, I do NOT broker with Daz. I haven't noticed the thing with his hand, and I haven't been using the Stocky morph yet so I haven't seen those bulges either. Yes he looks somewhat like V3 OUT OF THE BOX. guys, that's what MORPHS are for. Personally I think V3 Out of the box is UGLY! That's why I morph her! Same with Mike. It's like clay: YOU do the shaping.

FREEBIES! | My Gallery | My Store | My FB | Tumblr |
You just can't put the words "Poserites" and "happy" in the same sentence - didn't you know that? LaurieA
  Using Poser since 2002. Currently at Version 11.1 - Win 10.



Neo10 ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 3:18 AM

Amen ernyoka1 Amen lol


3ddave44 ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 7:38 AM

I'm not inclined to buy him and as I haven't I don't have to worry about a refund. But I guess as he is advertised as Mike3 the expectation was that he'd be somewhat similar to Mike2 - an extension, if you will. V3 was much more an extension of V2 because the figure looked mostly the same and you could flow with the tighter, nicely posable mesh and cleaner look. If he'd been talked up as a new figure altogether with a different name, even with his problems, the criticisms would be less charged. He, wrongly perhaps, has too much of Mike2's shadow on him. I mean besides being Male, this new figure is not an extension of M2 the way V3 was/is to V2. And I think that's where people's expectation, hit the wall. He'd be much more 'acceptable' as an oddly formed, needs more work, new character. Kim! The morphing Polynesian Man! Perhaps. : ) But DaveSo and others are correct. One can develop him into an 'out of the box' figure that they like and save their own .cr2.


cherokee69 ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 8:13 AM

file_76555.jpg

OK, considering all that has been said about V2 and M3 and who was made from what and meshes aren't the same, I decided to load the obj file for V3 and the obj file for M3. These are the raw obj files directly from the Geometries folder..no morphs, no cr2s, no poses, no textures, etc. Do you see ANY similarities, ANYTHING at all? Are they TOTALLY different, and I mean TOTALLY different? This is just an observation. I'll leave the judgements up to you.


RHaseltine ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 8:33 AM

I'm not sure I understand the question - no one is saying they aren't both modified versions of the same starting mesh, that's the point of the unimesh so OF COURSE if they're the same mesh they're the same mesh. The point is that M3 isn't "made from" V3, both came from a commone starting point. Given what happened when Steph was released I think we can be pretty sure that if M3 had come before V3, both shaped as now, the latter would have been described as "masculine" and "butch". The eyes are pretty much the same shape, which probably means that since we've all seem umpteen V3 images we get odd flashbacks from the M3 eyes, but apart from the long lash-planes they don't look strongly m or f to me on either figure.


Walt Sterdan ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 8:50 AM

"OK, considering all that has been said about V2 and M3 and who was made from what and meshes aren't the same, I decided to load the obj file for V3 and the obj file for M3." From everything's that been said so far: 1. DAZ created a unimesh; not yet Victoria, not yet Micheal (let's call the unimesh something androgynous, like "Pat"), but parent to them both. DAZ was even nice enough to post a sample of the mesh. 2. From the unimesh, they molded Victoria 3. 3. From the unimesh, they then molded Micheal 3. 4. It has been mentioned that the meshes for V3 and M3 are very similar, making texture maps easier to translate between the two. 5. Despite the numerous, simple explanations, some people seem unable to understand that, because they both started from Pat, they will be very similar, and instead fantasize that V3 was molded into M3. Is that what you were trying to clarify with the mesh posts? If so, you're right, both figures, molded from Pat, have very close meshes, as has been explained numerous times.


wolf359 ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 9:52 AM

But was the original generic unimesh decidedly female in its facial appearance or was it a primative cube or something?? Maybe DAZ should post a wire frame of the unaltered "unimesh" before it was molded into Vicky3 or mike3



My website

YouTube Channel



SimonWM ( ) posted Thu, 18 September 2003 at 9:53 AM

From everything's that been said so far: 1. DAZ created a unimesh; not yet Victoria, not yet Micheal (let's call the unimesh something androgynous, like "Pat"), but parent to them both. DAZ was even nice enough to post a sample of the mesh. 2. From the unimesh, they molded Victoria 3. 3. From the unimesh, they then molded Micheal 3. 4. It has been mentioned that the meshes for V3 and M3 are very similar, making texture maps easier to translate between the two. 5. Despite the numerous, simple explanations, some people seem unable to understand that, because they both started from Pat, they will be very similar, and instead fantasize that V3 was molded into M3.>> If this is the case, which I doubt, they should have released both models at the same time. They should have also had a beta program testing both figures so they could add splines/nurbs rows for whatever method they use in the necessary places and make sure the corrected shape would work in both the female and male shape. I'm totally against this unimesh philosophy. This is just good from a business point of view. It makes for crappy, prone to be plagged by errors models. Tell a CGI director of a movie you want to use a unimesh for a series of creatures you need to create for a film and see what they tell you about this "great idea."


  • 1
  • 2

Privacy Notice

This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.