Maxx -- you are right. It is more proven. That's one of the reasons it became an industry standard. Still doesn't establish that it is better, merely different. Nothing in the world wrong with different. " I don't know about Maya's rigging methods, but in 3dsmax, rigging a character with Character Studio and "physique" is MUCH easier than Poser's traditional boning system, and the paramentric nature of the skeletons makes it very easy to resize bones, and fit the rig to any biped mesh, or make any variety of changes to the rig at any time AFTER it's been completed. If ease-of-use is the priority, then I don't see how it's current setup room is easier to use than this." Create conforming clothing with CS. Standard methodology is to create a separate item and then manually duplicate the motions across both. While retaining that capability doesn't seem to be of paramount importance to the designers of poser, it is to the larger number of users and content creators -- who really do more to make poser the widely used program that it is now than CL itself does. Take a basic bipedal structure and add four more limbs to it. CS has the inherent weakness, as a paramteric system, of only being capable of doing what it is created for -- and that was really the most basic srigging for the most speedy use. Interestingly enough, CS was developed to make wm rigging easier, and does exactly the same thing that most poser folks do -- it creates a "generic" rigging that is simple -- and has flaws of its own just as the predominant rigging systems currently in use by poser content creators have -- just different flaws. CS is a less flexible system than the poser one. Not worse, not better. And oh, yeah, I'll give ya the Setup Room sucks right off the bat. Royally. I know you aren't bashing poser. You love it as much as I do. Is there a better method? Doubtless. Are any of them as flexible and simple to use? not really. Additional enhancements to the rigging include not only some cr2 quirks from P4/5, but also greater scripting freedom and connections, combined with mateial room, creasing angle, and displacment capabilites, as well as the goal and Mass elements and the pmd format (which is not compatible with the hack version that inspired it). So yes, there were some enhancements. Not knowing what they are doesn't make them absent. And not thinking they are earth shattering changes doesn't reduce them in importance. I do agree that IK needs to be improved considerably in Poser -- so much has been advanced within it, that greater control and freedom over IK would stunning. Have to admit I'm impressed with what D|S did in that department. And improvements to the walk designer (a parametric system)would be welcome as well.

Setup room sucks? WRONG! Er, um, at least IMHO :) What do you dislike about the setup room? Aside from a few issues that aren't the setup room's fault (camera navigation issues), I find the setup room to be the fastest and most enjoyable way to create a new character rig. I still do a lot of tweaking back in the Pose Room with the Joint Editor, but for getting the basic rig in place, the Setup Room is the place to be. Some tips for using the Setup Room: * Make sure that you ALREADY HAVE YOUR OBJECT GROUPED THE WAY YOU WANT IT. Name the bones accordingly, and keep in mind that this is CASE SENSITIVE. If you try to go back to the Pose Room, and it tells you that you have some polygons not belonging to a bone, then you do. This is the one thing that could be improved in the Setup Room, since 9 times out of 10, the "NO_BONE" group shows no polygons. * Don't bother trying to finish rigging both sides of the figure in the Setup Room. Get one side the way you want it, and then just quickly approximate the other side, making sure that the hierarchy and naming are correct. Use symmetry to finish up the other side. * Use the Front Camera when placing bones initially. Use the Zoom tool when needed, restoring the Front Camera afterward. Use the Left or Right Cameras to move the eyes/feet/toes into position. Use the Top Camera when moving the fingers into position.

I think in the end, the only way to judge weightmapping and our community, it to see it implimented and then judge if without any JCM, if it is much better.

And then see if clothing makers can catch on with it. Typically, radically new Poser features take a couple years to really catch on within the Poser community.

It seems Daz managed a weight conversion from Poser joints so I see no reason why it can't spit them back to Poser.

Even if they don't, I am sure we will see some sort of legacy conversion before any chance of current poser jointing being abandoned. Perhaps as a utility.

Message edited on: 09/26/2005 01:37

"It seems Daz managed a weight conversion from Poser joints so
I see no reason why it can't spit them back to Poser."

for the same reason we cant "spit" A rigged figure from lightwave back to poser
you will have to somehow to give poser the ability to read them.

and if it just a full conversion back to an old style poser tri-axis rig then
what is the point???

IMHO a direct conversion of poser rigging to tradtional
industry standard weight maps is not likely to happen
the reasons for this are well documented by those who have tried to thus far

As you Already know, Poser uses axis-dependent weighting for "Joint Parameters".
THREE axis's for each bone
It bases its "bone" deformations on each axis, averaging them together.

even if these averaged weights are fed into a standard weight map Like those used in
MAX, MAYA ,Lightwave, Cinema4DXL. Softimage et al
properly, these high end apps bones will not take note of them
(Real bones seem to ignore these dynamic changes and stick to the initial maps)

this is why FBX export of posable figures from poser is a Non Starter.

This is why the expensive "CR2 to Bones" plugins from Greenbriar studios
will only give you a rigged poser figure in the target apps(Lightwave&Cinema)
standing in the default "T" arms out position needing to be properly re-weighted
if you plan on bending any joints.

Now to be perfectly Frank ,i have not looked closely at "MarkDC's"
expensive plugins that claim to convert poser rigs Directly to MAX & Softimage XSI rigs
and cant comment on wether those conversion are "perfect" or need
weight map adjustments afterwards.

that said i still believe it is more likely that DAZ will simply release version
of the vicky/Mike meshes etc already rigged and weighted to work in some future releases of D/S
that supports such "traditional" rigs

I personaly would see such a development a a Good thing as DAZ figure would then be
availabe in a format that could be used directly in nearly every major 3D character
Application Except HASH which is a Xenophobic closed application any way. Message edited on: 09/26/2005 05:22

++ bookmarked +++