I like the new Mil3 baby, but it renders poorly in Poser6. In the OpenGL preview mode, the texture looks fine. When rendered in Firefly, i get funky seams. Strangely enough, the V3 tex looks "seamy" in the preview, but it renders great. What can I do to fix the baby? -Starkdog P.S. The baby will wear a diaper; I just wanted to illustrate the strange seams.

I wanted to ask you about the new Mil Baby. Other than your current problem does it look like a real baby? The Mil Baby 1 looked like a monster LOL. For your problem try rendering it in the Poser 4 setting. See if that doesn't cure your problem. I wanted to get it now but DAZ3D is handling a security problem and It won't let you log in. Adrian

Try upping the texture resolution to fit the size of whatever texture you're using, in the Render settings. That ought to take care of the seams.

I installed MilBaby 3 just now and tried it in Poser 6 (SR2). I don't get any seam at all. I tried different combinations of texture+bump+tone and still no seam. But in the document window (preview mode - OpenGL) I see a big seam. Just the opposite from what you get. This is weird, isn't it? (Again, sorry for the nudity, but I wanted to show the whole back of the baby)

Try in the Render settings the myx texture size at 2048 at least, this works for me always when the seams appear.

I forgot to check that. Actually, my auto settings in Poser is 2048 for max texture size.

That's too little if the tex is 2000x3000 for instance :)

crank it up to 3000 and my bet is the seams will go away.

[rant]
What's all this "excuse the nudity" btw? Babies are BORN nude for crying out loud. Can't we even show a nude infan t here without tagging it in a way that will make people expect to see something lurid (yes, I'm thinking of the Nudity tag)

Next thing we know, animal pictures should be tagged with nudity as well..

[/rant]

Message edited on: 12/16/2005 04:58

re-read the NEW TOS these posted pics are in violation
of the child nudity restrictions in place here From the TOS: "Child Image Guidelines Dear Renderosity Members: As Renderosity continues to grow and evolve we find that we have to fine-tune our TOS from time to time. With that being said, we will be making some necessary changes around child nudity on the site. These changes are a result of a combination of several factors: feedback from the community, consistency between the marketplace and the community and the legal liability surrounding child nudity and pornography. The following changes will go into effect today, Monday, March 21, 2005. (There will be a few weeks of education before warnings will be issued for violations): No Child Nudity: Images of children or characters resembling children (including teens, pre adolescent, child like fairies and other imaginary figures) under 18 years of age, depicting nudity are no longer permitted. Child Image Guidelines: # No child nudity of any kind which includes exposed chest on females, buttocks or genitals. # No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes. # No use of: transparent clothes, blurring of nude areas, or the use of blots or Censored wording or props to cover areas that are otherwise not clothed. # No depictions of young humanoid characters/children giving the appearance of being under the age of 18 displayed in erotic, seductive, provocative poses or context. # Babies in diapers will be allowed. Toddlers fall under the child nudity section. # Since age is difficult to identify with 3D images, this will be at the discretion of the Renderosity team. # Gender that is questionable on an image with an exposed chest will be removed from the gallery at the discretion of the Renderosity team. We respectfully request all members please review their galleries and make any necessary updates based on these new guidelines. Going forward, as we are made aware of images that were posted prior to the new TOS change...and are now considered violating the new TOS, we will notify the artist of the new TOS change and remove the image/s. Within the next couple of weeks, we will be communicating and educating those artists that are uploading images that reflect the previous TOS guidelines. This education will take place for a period of several weeks and then warnings will be given at the discretion of the Renderosity team. If you find an image that needs to be reviewed, please send the URL to admin@renderosity.com."

Message edited on: 12/16/2005 05:20

Okay, you guys can quit bragging about having the baby already. The rest of us can't access it and it'll be a long while before the Utah people get up and head out for the store to fix it. :-(

This happens sometimes when texture filtering is turned on. Try turning it off and see what happens. 8)

Please don't post pictures of naked babies. I've had to delete these. Thanks Karen Poser Mod

" Please don't post pictures of naked babies. I've had to delete these." LOL ... it's not a naked baby, it's a naked mesh ;-)

It really frosts my cake, watching all you infantophiles use texturing to excuse this attempt to distribute baby porn.

;)

Seriously, it wasn't until I read the second "excuse the nudity" post that it suddenly hit me that the PTB were taking down the pictures. The Victorians made a vain attempt to diaper animals so women and children would not see the naughty bits. This whole attitude is so utterly stupid it leaves me speechless. What's sick is that the people doing the censoring don't know the difference between naked and pornographic, so they take the "Let God sort them out" approach. This is not assuming responsibility, it's avoiding it. What a surprise.

The TOS is a crock. Mind you, "It's their site, and if they say all your pictures must include humping camels, that's their prerogative." Just as it's mine to do nothing to support them. Why I only stroll around here and never spend a dime.

I think the snuggie on Post 14 is very suggestive, by the way. Better take it down. Also, have you noticed how the Capital B looks like boobs? And what is that coming out of the top of a lowercase sans serif 'i'! Is there any chance that we can be restricted to a less depraved font? Please?

M

Let it go mickmca, it is what it is. It's the TOS and the mod's have to do their jobs.

Good grief. I just read the TOS more carefully. Note that we are protected against "the use of 'blots' or 'Censored' wording." In other words, the TOS forbids hiding nudity as well as showing it. Of course, the primary use of "blots" and "Censored" is to call attention to the Victorian obsessions of the site, so it's implicitly forbidding satire of the PTB. Welcome to Totalitaria. Think about this. Michelangelo's nudes defaced with drapes would be banned because they are "really" naked, the drapes are just attempts to prevent us from seeing that. Reminds me of the woman who got nasty with me because I had a Marilyn Monroe calendar above my desk. I chose the calendar for work because it had NO risque pictures. The current picture showed MM in a bed, smiling at the camera, completely covered with a sheet. "You KNOW she's naked under that sheet!" she finally snapped when I asked her what was wrong with the picture. Next month, the picture was MM fully clothed, one of Milton Greene's "gypsy/Santa Fe" outfits, more innocuous than the average '50's Life magazine cover. When the woman came into my office, I took the picture down and put it in my desk. "Oh, that one's OK," she said graciously. "She's naked under the clothes," I said, and left it in my desk. Humans. M

mickmca, If you do not like Renderosity's TOS, feel free to use another community. You don't have to post anything here. If you have problems with the TOS, your best avenue is to contact the Admin of Renderosity. Admin@renderosity.com MorriganShadow Poser Moderator

"Like the TOS"? I love the TOS. Golly, without it, I wouldn't know right from wrong. Or left. M

Well I don't like to go against the TOS. I didn't even think about it when I posted my image as I was so intent on showing the whole back of the baby to show there was no seam. Sorry about that. No need to turn this thread into a war. :o(

Well, the TOS has less to do with R'sity then american society. Seems to me as an american you have to watch where you fart so as to not attract the attention of a lawyer sueing your arse for all it's worth. Funny though, as a R'sity web ring member I had to put up with a previous site to mine showing cocks (ooo, am I aloud to say that here?) and tits Poser renders for a couple of weeks. R'sity seem to be slow enough to exlude those websites when it means advertising for them. I'm not a prude, just making a point that if there is a TOS, then it should be policed equally across the whole spectrum...be it nudity or any other rule that governs this place. Cheers

Francemi.... you didn't start the war, I think it was going on before you ever posted. :) Glad you figured out the problem and shared it now I know how to fix the porblem should it arise in the future. Kudos

Man, this is rich. This discussion has already reached the "if you don't like our rules, maybe you should go somewhere else" stage. It wasn't all that many months ago when the new TOS affecting Gallery images was implemented and the Marketplace thumbnail nudity policy was changed. There was plenty of "open" discussion then...

Like it or not, Renderosity is a place of business. They pretty much owe it to their customers to listen to them. At least if they want to stay in business. One solitary email to "Admin@renderosity.com" isn't going to change anything - sometimes a good communal rant is all that makes sense. Look around - "Forums" are a part of online business life. Companies foster these communities so customers stay logged in to their sites , buy more stuff, and provide each other with customer support so the business doesn't have to bother. For a digital art-based business, "Galleries" are a logical and common extension of this to give people more reason to visit.

I got burned the other day for posting an images with blots - no defense here, the new TOS spells it out clearly, had I read it with this image in mind. The thing is, the image was SO inoffensive to me (apart from obvious rendering aritifacts) that I never though twice about hitting the "Upload" button. I didn't give it a second thought. But the day before I posted an image of a nude woman with enormous breasts drifting underwater. Her skin had a gray cast to it, and there was no evidence of motion, save for the fish swimming about. One might logically conclude that the person depicted in this render could be lifeless - I wanted this to be ambiguous. I pained over posting this render, but in the end I was struck by the strength of the image, and hoped it wouldn't get pulled (who knows, maybe it will get pulled now).

Maybe what is needed here is a review process for images before they appear in the galleries or forums. Given the schizophrenic nature of the TOS, it seems that we should really be protected from ourselves until we are fully assimilated. Of course, the current system DOES seem as though it is a pretty effective selection system, weeding out those whose works may occasionally (or frequently) stray too far from the Top 20 B**b-fest.

" mickmca, If you do not like Renderosity's TOS, feel free to use another community. You don't have to post anything here. If you have problems with the TOS, your best avenue is to contact the Admin of Renderosity. Admin@renderosity.com MorriganShadow Poser Moderator" whoohooo! from calm to Snippy in 3.4 seconds..

Maybe what is needed here is a review process for images before they appear in the galleries or forums. All members are welcome to contact a staff member for an image review prior to posting if you're not sure if it will be okay. We're always happy to work with you on a way to bring the image within TOS if at all possible. Karen Poser Moderator

I think the TOS is a messed up. Its a 3d model .. not a living thing. Who cares if its naked? A little over the top on taking things too literally, huh?

"All members are welcome to contact a staff member for an image review prior to posting if you're not sure if it will be okay. We're always happy to work with you on a way to bring the image within TOS if at all possible."

Yeah, but...

That's the point, isn't it? The TOS are so bizarre, IMO, that people aren't always aware that they could be stepping over the line. Francemi had no intention of posting a violating image, but ...

Now that I think of it, a review process should be mandatory sitewide. Who knows what sort of perversity those Terragen and Fractal people might be poisoning us with. Better safe than sorry...

First of all, let me apologize for being short with Mickma earlier. I shouldn't have been so short with you, and shouldn't have pointed frustrations in your direction.

We know that francemi and Starkdog didn't intend to violate the Child Image Guidelines, and they didn't receive a warning for it. However, we have to do our best to make sure we carry out removal of TOS violating material wherever we can. We're human. Once in a while, we miss something, especially in the Poser gallery. In a one day period, 10 or more pages of Poser galler images alone are uploaded.
Also, having a review process prior to image upload would not only be counter-productive, but, honestly, aren't most of us adults? As such, we expect you to actually read and follow the TOS and Child Image Guidelines. Every time you upload an image, there is a red link on your upload page that is a little reminder of where to find the Child Image Guidelines. In my opinion, as a member here, reviewing images prior to allowing upload would be akin to treating everyone like children.
We've got site rules. From time to time, we have to change them in accordance to laws, regulations, and rulings from the merchant banks that allow this site to also broker products and keep the forums and galleries online.
I've stated in a post in the past few days that we don't like removing images. We really don't. In my time on staff here, I've removed a lot of absolutely remarkable images because they violated the TOS in one way or another. It's heartbreaking. The amount of work and skill that goes into any image in the gallery is enough for me to not want to remove it, however, if it's in violation of the TOS, I wouldn't be doing my job to skip over it.

As Karen stated, if you ever have a question as to whether or not an image you want to upload might violate the TOS, first read through the TOS, and, if you have questions, feel free to email any one of us. That's what we're here for.

In closing, I'm sorry for snipping. I shouldn't have done it, and I'm sorry.

MorriganShadow
(speaking on her own, and without the Mod hat on)

Message edited on: 12/16/2005 10:04

It really strikes me as funny to see the "we're all adults here" logic used in a thread where people are complaining about TOS that treat us all like children... We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming.

So.. let me get this straight.. and honestly, I wasn't trying to start a war here, I thought I was being funny because I didn't in my wildest imagination think that renders of the backside of a nude 3D infant could be in any way offensive - but... Is it correct then that we can't render a pic of the new baby being bathed? Since I've never bathed my kids while they were still in their diapers, I'm used to doing this to gasp NUDE kids...

"Is it correct then that we can't render a pic of the new baby being bathed?" you can... so long as you only see the baby from the waist up. you can't show them from any other angle. I mean god forbid. it's NAKED!!!

As per the guidelines in place since last March, pictures of babies cannot have the genitals or buttocks exposed. Karen

This baby doesn't have any genitals, so you don't have to worry about that.

The old MilBaby did, but not this one. Just like the old MilGirls had nipples, but the news ones don't.

Interesting. That would indicate Daz have given this some thought, too... Anyway. As Wolf kindly pasted the guidelines above, you can all see that it says "No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the appearance of having no clothes." That means babies need to be wearing nappies/diapers at the least, if the body is included in the image. (By which I mean, if you're doing a portrait shot, you don't need to worry!)

It is correct that this seam isue is the result of not testing the seams in Poser6.

It has been seem before by others with various projects. Some seetings require a more liberal margin around the seam than in Poser 4

The textures can be easily fixed to solve the problem, if Daz decides to. they just need to add more of a border around the edge.

regards,
Anton

Ot: I frustrating to see how common lack of respect to other members has become, even by moderators sometimes.

Message edited on: 12/16/2005 14:31

"Is it correct then that we can't render a pic of the new baby being bathed?"

"you can... so long as you only see the baby from the waist up. you can't show them from any other angle. I mean god forbid. it's NAKED!!!"

Not so - see TOS:

No images in which characters under the age of 18 give

the APPEARANCE of having no clothes.

The textures can be easily fixed to solve the problem, if Daz decides to. they just need to add more of a border around the edge.

That's why I assumed they didn't test it in P6. It would be SO easy to fix this, but they didn't. I get the feeling they rushed this one out.

Good grief, I came reading to try and find out if I should even BUY the baby....and found a long thing on the TOS again? sigh... and has anyone see the GORGEOUS 1.99 PC club texture for the mil baby 3 at DAZ? Yes the MESH SHAPE in the Thorne/Sarsa product images looks a little older than a BABY...but that is the mesh, not the texture... I am considering buying the baby because of their texture for one thing...and I am also waiting to see WHO may do MORPHS to shape the baby right...hate those thin lips and chin shoved up...skinny body.... At any rate...I am pretty sure there is a way here at this forum site to get off a post notification list...and if this goes on about the TOS I shall find and learn that feature.... just hoping for some INFORMATION on the product.

Just don't come back when you get the ebot, and you'll never get another one.

Buy the baby. Hey, for $5, how can you go wrong?

" "Is it correct then that we can't render a pic of the new baby being bathed?" "you can... so long as you only see the baby from the waist up. you can't show them from any other angle. I mean god forbid. it's NAKED!!!" Not so - see TOS: # No images in which characters under the age of 18 give the APPEARANCE of having no clothes." not so again. this has been explained. do a search for when the rules were brought in. the kind of image I stated was allowed ;)

Khai is correct. Showing the baby from the waist up is just fine :-)

I don't think I've ever had a problem with seams (except when texture filtering is on), even rendering in draft mode.

Lowering the max texture size is a good way of conserving memory, and can also be used to fix "noisy" textures (as often found on hair). You set the max. texture size to approximately the size of your render.

It would have been so easy to fix this.

Randy, what are you rendering at? Size and Settings.. (Curious)

Randy, my experience with Poser 6 has been that rendering at anything less than Final produced texture anomalies otherwise not there when rendered at Final. For very large textures such as those on the baby, I even need to go to max. Even when I am rendering for my promos (500x650), I have encountered problems if I am not at Final. Just my experience. Your mileage seems to vary more than mine. Cris

Draft slider is just universally moving all the settings. Many tweak individual ones oppose to the universal slider. Texture size, min shade rate, etc contribute. All they have to do in the future is make the boundaries wider, whick is a 5 second fix.

okay mabey a minute.

To the Mods, I was not in any way, trying to post a scandalous picture. I was actually trying to illustrate a problem with a product. I feel that if there is a problem with a paid product, people should be made aware of it, before they spend their precious money on it. I can understand your theory based on the TOS, but the "Child Image Guidelines" is for the GALLERIES. I feel that this was a ridiculous thing to do in this forum. If I could have accessed the DAZ Technical forum, I would have posted it there, as it is permitted in their TOS, but DAZ was/is still down. For future references, please send the "offender" an IM before taking a picture down. I would have been able to explain things out to you before these posts turn into another warzone. -Starkdog

Setting things by hand, I never have a problem with seams (because I never use texture filtering - too much of a memory hog).

Setting the max texture size is a good way of eliminating "noisy" hair textures, like you get with a lot of DAZ's hair, and Koz's, in Firefly. True, you can lower the minimum shading rate instead, but that means the render takes much longer. I don't mind for stills, but for animation, max. texture size is a much better way.

And as Anton says, it's not like this is a huge fix. If they'd tested it in P6, I bet they'd have fixed it.

And who's to say it wasn't tested in P6? "You set the max. texture size to approximately the size of your render." Actually no The firefly renderer has the capability to load texture maps at any given size, regarless of the actual map size. Reducing this value will result in samller versions of the texture being used, which will consume less memory and deliver faster renders." Snip: "as there may be some reduction in detail as a result of the reduced size*, you can raise the Max Texture Size for just the final render" -page 335 of the p6 manual

See this is the problem that is ahead, people testing things with too little experience with Poser6. Or just ignoring Poser6. Was it even tested in Poser6 at all? How many people tested it in Poser6? Did they test different render settings? Obviously not. You do not need to use the highest settings. That is just silly. And I am sorry but a bit irresponsible.