Her feet are too thick and too wide at the toes -- reduce the y scale and increase the taper of the foot. Decrease the x scale of the toes.

Jessi's toes need to be bent individually, just like the fingers. Don't try to bend the collective body part called "ltoe or rtoe" unless you want to give her broken feet. Bend each toe at its first or second joint.

This render illustrates what I am saying. Adjustments are:

Foot (both) -- Y Scale=90%, Taper=10%
Toes (both, collective part) -- X Scale=90%
RFoot -- Bend=35 degrees
Joint 1, all toes on Right Foot -- Bend=-35 degrees

Looks like quite an improvement. Just in case you hadn't heard, Curious Labs has put forth an announcement the feet will be fixed in the first P6 patch.

Will they fix her hands too?

I don't recall them mentioning the hands, but feet and ankles. I need to find that thread...

Arrgh! I can't find it. But it mentioned the eyes would be fixed, and that people creating clothing content would need to consider that ankles and feet changes would be in the patch. Anybody able to point us to that thread/link? I have to sign off for now. Tim

Message edited on: 03/22/2005 23:31

nakamuram, Thanks for both the temporary work around and for being part of an awareness that will lead to a true fix, for goodness sake. I agree her hands need emergency care, as well. ::::: Opera :::::

Great news about the fix for Jessi's feet!! Thanks Carcinogen!! Her hands need the fix more than her feet. If you scale the hands the fingers become dis-jointed when bent.

Did you notice that with the foot "Bend" parameter set to "Zero", her feet actually bend "up" at about a 15 degree angle?

From Steve at Curious Labs, just a few threads down from here: "A note to content developers: There will be differences in the hands and feet of James and Jessi that may cause any clothing made from the current CR2s to not conform correctly to the updated versions." I guess that answers the "hands" question.

Is is just going to be an exercise in reshaping? Will the polycount and vertex order of those affected parts be the same? Developing minds would like to know.

netherworks, while your attention is here....I have asked three times in various threads, no one answering.... What is the poly count for hi/low res Jessie and James? ::::: Opera :::::

I've just tried to find out for Hires Jessie using Wings, and get an answer of 111,550 polys, but the Wings obj import has problems with the complex poser figures and tends to split them into lots of tiny objects creating loads of extra polys. Having said that, the uncompress JesssHiRes.obj file is 17 meg, compared to 8 for V3, so maybe that figure is correct and an examination of the figure suggests that it has imported corrected. 24,000 polys in the feet, 40,000 in the head, 11,000 in each hand.

Deep Exploration says the following: Jessi.obj: 34461 Vertices, 32418 Faces JessiHiRes.obj: 115560 Vertices, 111327 Faces JameLoRes.obj: 30030 Vertices, 29783 Faces JamesHiRes.obj:112525 Vertices, 109097 Faces

So much to keep track of opera :D smallspace has it right - kawecki's prop viewer and UVMapper Pro have it at around those values.

zowie, thats a dense count on the hi-res. I saw a mediums-shot render in another thread yesterday that showed a shaeded image of the two Jessies, and with polygon smoothing turned on, Low-Res Jessie looked pretty much the same as hi. ::::: Opera :::::

That's much higher than V3 or the MilDragon2. No wonder CL went with external compressed morphs.

But she doesn't really look higher-res than, say, V3. Are all those extra polys in the feet and toes?

Until I can see the entire mesh for myself, I couldn't really say. The toes are individually posable, so they probably uppped the mesh density there slightly. The wireframe promo pic of hi-res Jessi at Curious Labs suggests a comparable density around the face region, but unlike Victoria the rest of Jessi's head looks fairly dense also. I wouldn't be surprised if they upped the polycount for the breasts, given a certain popularity with magnets and morph targets for that region. It's only about 50% more, though ... perhaps the over-all increase is simply well-distributed throughout the entire mesh.

Sounds interesting and will give a lot of possibilities, when you want to reshape the head. You will certainly get a lot of options for morphing all kinds of regions...

So the feet are articulated too? Yay! The standard 'shovel foot' drives me batty when I'm trying to do a dance sequence...or anything else unshod...

It might be handy to have individually posable toes for some renders, but I don't know if it's worth the extra load for most images, where the feet are shod or out of view. Though I suppose you could turn them off in the hierarchy editor.

anybody feel like posting a couple of views of complete body/head wire mesh hi and low, for us BoxWaiters? Still have not seen that. ::::: Opera :::::

here's a naive question for someone never having made a morph in his life.... Is the low-res a perfect subset of the hi? In otherwords, is the low the same excpet with many subdivisions dropped? Could there be a program that would let you make a double-function morph? Here's what I mean... It would load Hi-Res Jessi and you would group as per normal, but SOMEHOW it would also be aware of the low-res cage and assist you in making a morph that would work on BOTH? As I'm writing this my common sense is saying...what's the point...just make the morph on the low-res cage and it should/could/would be upwardly compatible with the hi. But the whole point of HAVING the hi-res is to make morphs across interesting and subtle groups not available to the low. Anyway...just the rambling of an animator already knowing 110,327 Jessi is useless to him ::::: Opera :::::

"Is is just going to be an exercise in reshaping? Will the polycount and vertex order of those affected parts be the same?" No geometry changes, anything we do will be in the cr2's. After this update we'll really try to stay away from anything that will bust any conforming clothing that you guys come up with. "Is the low-res a perfect subset of the hi? In otherwords, is the low the same excpet with many subdivisions dropped?" They were based on the same mesh but the order and count is different. Sze and Les both did a lot of work on these over many months during development. We also added an option to the target import to reorder the verts, BUT that can be a very complicated best guess since there are a lot of obj exporters out there. There are two progrmas I know of that can be set up to make a morph work on both characters, Z-brush(all software should aspire to be this good) and Maya( dsame thing), details on that would have to come from some others, maybe we can get them to do a tutorial. btw imho just because a Mesh is Hires doesn't make it better. In some cases it makes things worse. How the cage is laid out and efficient use of the polys for a particular situation is much more critical. In the case of Poser, the face is obviously one place where you want to see a lot of polys. Combine that with smoothing at render time and the need for an extremely HiRes mesh becomes less and less. You can open the python win >Print Info> scene inventory with multiple characters loaded and get a count for all figures loaded in the scene. thanks for the feedback

Steve, while we have you here (still here?): why are the P6 family sliced like the P4 people? I hope you didn't do this out of fear that DAZ has any kind of trademark/patent/copyright on the "millenium" slicing style. It was developed by an independent user, quite a while before DAZ started using it. I'm fairly certain that there will be resliced versions of the P6 folk done as more people run into the inherent limitations of the archaic bending problems, so might it be possible to head that off at the pass and have the content developers in charge of that portion of content rework them in house?

I will not get into the pros and cons of slicing anything. Smells of Mac vs. PC :) I do want to say however that Dan Farr and DAZ have been very supportive of the Poser 6 release and of Curious Labs, as we are of DAZ and their contributions to the Poser community. Everyone involved would like to see these types of suggestions and assumptions a thing of the past. Steve Yatson Curious Labs

Glad to see you guys are getting on well with DAZ. I'm still curious as to why the old-style slicing was used, but I'll reserve final judgement until I've had a chance to play with the new figures (ordered the boxed version). I'm also happy to see you guys participating in threads more actively :)

Hi Steve,

Just wanted to jump in and echo your comments. I hope that people don't feel that the have to choose between DAZ and CL. There is no reason they need to do that since we are both here for (and because of) this community. Poser 6 looks like a really great product and the community seems to be loving it. Nice job on a very successful release. Keep up the great work. We look forward to a long and positive relationship with CL and this community.

Dan Farr
President DAZ Productions

Just a note on the lack of buttocks on the P6 figures: there are upgraded attributes of P6 that have allowed for the bending on figures to be dealt with a bit differently than on previous versions. I see the removal of the buttocks from these rigs as taking one step back to achieve two steps forward. Losing the buttock pieces creates a number of advantages: 1. IK tends to work far more predictably in figures with this rig method, 2. if the joint parameters are setup correctly, posing of the legs, with or without IK can be a much simpler process, and 3. when developing clothing that extends below the hip, by omitting the buttock bones, it allows the developer to group the polys that cover the thigh region entirely into the hip group, thus allowing the length of the thighs and thier joint parameters to effect this part of the garment without the need for extensive morphing and "ghost" bones (developers may still incorporate ghost rigs into thier rig for added control, but leaving out the buttocks makes it more of an option than a necessity). On a slightly different note, I would totally agree with Dan's comment above. There is no reason for people to feel they need to choose because both are there to provide towards one end: the benefit of the users. -Les

randym77; The place having the foot articulation that really matters is in animation. The stills have uses for it, but if you're animating, anything exposed needs to be at least skeletally articulated. The human eye will catch errors, even if the person doesn't actually think about it. Just about every CG character you see is always wearing shoes or boots for that reason; doing the adjustments of individual phalanges is time consuming, and hands already eat up a lot of time. It isn't neccesary, but having the option is wonderful. While I'm thinking about it; Dan, is there any chance of a more limber vertebral stucture in future DAZ models? More and more people are starting to actually animate with Poser, and the hipbellychestneck system is starting to be too inflexible, particularly in the belly area. At least one more joint there would add to the realism of motion. I realize that there may be construction issues that prevent it, but if possible, it would definitely add to the quality of animation a mesh could produce.

LOL Smallspace: "Did you notice that with the foot "Bend" parameter set to "Zero", her feet actually bend "up" at about a 15 degree angle?" Does anyone remember Earth Shoes? The ones with the "Negative Heel" and wide toes -- the exact opposite of high heels. Maybe that's what Jessi needs for her feet!! I think CL needs to do more work on their character's JPs, but that's true for DAZ and everyone else as well. I'm glad CL is addressing some of the problems.

"...there are upgraded attributes of P6 that have allowed for the bending on figures to be dealt with a bit differently than on previous versions." Ooh, details? Please :) All we poor boxers can do for now is ask questions...

Why does James have a divided chest, while Jessi's is solid?

Have to get my hands on the boxed version. I'm really curious on Jessie and James. I think V3 and Mike3 brought in new techniques for the benefit of Poser models. Maybe Jessie and James show new aspects. I think DAZ will come up with new characters and unlike with P5, they maybe care about P6 and bring new characters especially for P6. Just a personal opinion. If they do so, they should try to incorporate all the best we learned in the last years and I agree with Dale_B there are still jobs to do regarding the body sections and joint parameters. The whole region from shoulders to thighs could be improved. Just looking forward to what will come up...