na, dann viel spanoch beim hirnwix'n ;)

"na, dann viel spaß noch beim hirnwix'n ;)"

Solange ich kleine profilsüchtige Trolls aus meinen Threads heraushalten kann, hab ich allen Spaß den Du dir vorstellen kannst. Keine Bange.

Ach ja, falls Du noch was zu sagen hast, dann Bitte per Sitemail.

Dieser thread ist für Leute gedacht die etwas über Poser lernen wollen, nicht um Deine persönlichen Probleme abzuarbeiten.

Stahlratte

bopperthijs, 

You hit it on the head, I got to this tread late. First off, When a person is shorter than average, there is usually slight differences in their perportions, the same holds true with the larger person.

The Vickys and Poser4  and all the charactures that are out there are set as a guide for the most Idealistic person of these times within the artist capablities. Case in point Look at the thighs touching in the Loomis drawing. That was great back then for Idealism. But today listen to the advertizements, One such ad in a weight loss promotion, a woman said, before my thighs touched now after so, and so,  they touch no more. 

I studied on Loomis's art and found it very inspiring. But were in a different era. If you look at the Nude paintings in the 1400-1500s Heavy women are more artistic to draw than a thin person. More things happen with the creases that lend itself to lighing and such. That is great for art, but that same reasoning can be implied to the drawing an old building which is more   interesting than a modern building for those same reasons. But keeping it all in context, You don't put a women out of perportion or overweigh in an beauty contest. They are two different reasoning there. It always comes around to what is happening in the the world at that time which is acceptable.

The example of the round anchent sculpture that bopperthijs showed was right on. Yes that looks cartoony for todays standards, but, if that wasn't Ideal for that artist, he could have made her thin. He migh not have had the great tools of today, but making her thin would have never been that big of a problem.

My biggest grip with M3 and V3 is they are so close to the same hight, which was mentioned and correctly so in these threads. It would be nice if V3 standard hight would have been about 3 inches shorter. Then when she wore her high heels she would be about the same size as M3, as apose to 3 inches taller in heels. I hate to have him lean his head back just to have her kiss him. LOL 

I don't do modeling of figures in 3D, I just don't have enough time. I do animation. but I have a big suspission that some of the problems are with the rigging  nature within Poser and the meshes is why some of the problems exist. Best example is the shoulders and legs. When the leg is lifted to high, the top of the thighs flatten out un-natural, as example. These are more probmatical than the proportions on making the figure look good. Things like that have to be touched up in renders and dealt with with magnets or mophs. 

What we are seeing is an evolution in Poser and all the charactures within and making them  so they function more natural. Remember Poser 2, 3 and 4 Charactures. The P4 charactures weren't that bad, but were way off  in capabilities to the Mike and Vicky upgrades. Todays figrueskeeping there body shapes to hold as they move so you don't have to tweek this and that. And messing with the Magnets. Thats great as an emergency solution. But when you have to use magnets in the middle of an animation that you can't get any other way slows the whole production down.

I think that the Loomis samples are a great thing to be aware of. I'm suprised that more people are not aware of the proportional issues in the body. Of course I'm old school, If you are not in an Art Instution where those are the building blocks and you just go into Poser for the fun of it, That will be the last thing a lot of people will think about.    The reality is, We are in the hands of the Artist who make the models. And overall I am pleased, and They are getting better at getting things the way we want them. Rome wasn't built in a year. If it was that easy there would be 10,000 models out ther, and everyone would have the characture they thought was best. 

Stahlratte said : Sorry to bust your bubble, but the "mystery of beauty" has been nailed down, too.

I'm sorry to say but I went to that website and  there was something to amazed me : They say that there are four qualities of a beautiful face :Color, texture, size and shape, further they say there are three known qualities: Color, texture and size and one unknown : shape. And as far as I see, shape is just the quality we are talking about.

So there goes your bubble.

 And here is another one: Loomis made his artbook for students as a guideline to make proportional "artistic" drawings. Like tekmonk showed in the images of the Loomis artbook, Loomis self  wasn't pleased with the actual, normal proportions of a real man which was 7,5 head.  He even drew a goofy moustache on the figure to make it look more dumpy. So he proposed a more artistic, pleasing 8 foot proportion. Loomis was an artist, not an engineer, he wanted to make drawings that were pleasing not realistic.

Engineers like me, try to grab the world in numbers and formula's to make the world more understandable and predictable, but the scientific discoveries of the last hundred years proved that's impossible. It feels sometimes better to work by intuïtion and emotion than by hard rules and formula's. It makes the world more exceptable.

Attached Link: Vitruvian Man

The Law of the Phi applies here, as it does to all aspects of life.  To ignore it is folly.
DPH

In a perfect cartesian world, phi is a constance, in our real einsteinian world it isn't.

Sigh.

As the saying goes: You can lead a horse to water, but you cannot make it drink.  ;-P

And to be honest, stating the obvious over and over again gets old fast.

1. The 8:1 head ratio is the most universally accepted, that´s why I choose Loomis charts. 7:1 or 7 1/2 :1 is more "average" but
   obviously people are already scared by his "ideal" 8:1 ratio.
    

2. The various head to body ratios are a fact regardless of body type. Any Doctor can tell you that there are limits for head size.

3. The average height of an caucasian US or European woman is around 5' 5".  People way above or below that or not the average.

4. You can render anything you like. But when you make a street scene where all people are beyond 6' 0", don´t claim it to be "real" or "normal".

5. Even if advertisers want to make you believe otherwise, tall people are not "better" than average sized people.
   So don´t buy stuff just because it was advertised by a giantess.

6. Take Vicky as what she is: A pure fantasy.
   Enjoy playing with her.
   But again, all the lightning and shading tricks in the world won´t make her "real" unless you at least scale her friggin´ head up.

7. I´m all for art. But the modelling process is pure mechanic.
   Art has no place in it, not as long as you want to create a realistic 3d representation of a real world item, and that includes the human body.
   The art part happens when you bring the mesh to live with expressions and build a scene to tell a story.
   Before that, it´s all craft.

And finally, let me show you Mrs and Mr Average:

Thanks for looking and I hope some found this thread helpfull.

Stahlratte

I did and don't let the naysayers put you off.

baseline is : V3 is not a good realistic figure. she's out of proportion and to tall. sorry to those that think otherwise, but thats the truth..

now, if we can just get ppl to accept this... and that you need to change your light settings from default.. and you don't need to apply the postwork fad of the week.. and giving your figure an expression is a good idea..

I just know I'm on thin ice here...

It's obvious by some of the replies in this thread that some of you haven't even bothered to pick up an anatomy book. If you had you would see right away the glaring problems that most of the Poser models possess. It's also the reason why Poser art is a such laughing stock in the digital arts community.

I myself have some formal art school training and the first time I saw Victoria I was ROFLMAO. Wonky arms, tiny head and what the he** is going on with her hips? Sure you can go in and correct her with morphs, magnets, etc. but if you don't know your anatomy how are you going to know what needs correcting?

To the folks who are saying, "Well, Loomis was from another era so those standards don't fit today's standards."

Ridiculous.  Do yourself a favor a educate yourself about the human figure by buying some artistic anatomy books and see how much your artwork improves.

I am very new to Poser and purchased this software in order to assist me with my figure drawing. Instead I find myself a very frustrated new user having to scale down, morph constantly correct Poser model anatomy. I am shocked that a company whose original intent was to cater to figure artists cannot create an anatomically correct model!

I apologize if my post sounds confrontational but this is a very sore point for me. I refuse to spend any more money on this program until a decent model comes forward and I am eagerly looking forward to V4,M4. Hopefully the designers bothered to take some anatomy classes this time. For now I shall be happy with my pencils, pad, inks and anatomy books.

Rant over.

Are you saying that law of 1.618 to 1 doesn't apply to the proportions of the human body?  The first joint of your index finger isn't 1.618 times larger than the second joint?  The second joint isn't 1.618 times bigger than the third?  What does Descartes have to do with this anyway?
I think, therefore I am! -Or at least I THINK so.
DPH

Quote -

Here´s what I´d do with Judy/NeJas legs. Six magnets per leg toned them down a bit.
Stahlratte

Dear Stahlratte:
First of all, thank you for the shoulder and Neck magnets.
Second, could you please post an illustration on just how to set those magnets up?  A picture would be very helpfull in fixing Judy's & Neja's legs.
Yours truly,
David P. Hoadley

The golden mean is not an actual scientific rule.

If I was changing the heights of poser figures I would try and make them look like real people and not the idealized loomis way (which was actually invented by the ancient greeks or at least they were the first to be credited with it).

"The golden mean is not an actual scientific rule."

Oh?  Have you actually measured yourself to find out?  It seemed ot hold true for the various proportions of my body.
DPH

dalmatica
***"**It's obvious by some of the replies in this thread that some of you haven't even bothered to pick up an anatomy book. If you had you would see right away the glaring problems that most of the Poser models possess. It's also the reason why Poser art is a such laughing stock in the digital arts community.

I myself have some formal art school training and the first time I saw Victoria I was ROFLMAO. Wonky arms, tiny head and what the he** is going on with her hips? Sure you can go in and correct her with morphs, magnets, etc. but if you don't know your anatomy how are you going to know what needs correcting?

To the folks who are saying, "Well, Loomis was from another era so those standards don't fit today's standards."

Ridiculous.  Do yourself a favor a educate yourself about the human figure by buying some artistic anatomy books and see how much your artwork improves.

I am very new to Poser and purchased this software in order to assist me with my figure drawing. Instead I find myself a very frustrated new user having to scale down, morph constantly correct Poser model anatomy. I am shocked that a company whose original intent was to cater to figure artists cannot create an anatomically correct model!

I apologize if my post sounds confrontational but this is a very sore point for me. I refuse to spend any more money on this program until a decent model comes forward and I am eagerly looking forward to V4,M4. Hopefully the designers bothered to take some anatomy classes this time. For now I shall be happy with my pencils, pad, inks and anatomy books.

Rant over.* "
**

dalmatica** having had some formal art classes myself have to I agree.

By the way anyone who wants to can find real human references by Googling "Female Anatomy Photos by Akira Gomi". There you'll find free images of average off the street every day females in front back and side views for art . They are photographs. Anyone can paste them next to the Loomis chart in a photo image editor, size the images until the heads match and see for themselves. It's fun and very educational to see and learn about body size and proportions.

**
**:biggrin:

Attached Link: Judy and NeJa softer shin magnets

@JOELGLAINE, pjz99, Khai, dalmatica and  mylemonblue : Many thanks for the support !

:-)

Stahlratte

Knowledge helps anyone do whatever they want to do better.  As a professional artist, I studied
physionomy  and anatomy of the human body to get the proportions right.

One of things touched here is soundly based in physical fact.  The human brain, when mature, irrespective of IQ or belief, comes in one basic size.  That size is determined by the genetics of the human species.  The braincase (skull) may have some statistical varience to size, but for the great portion of human-kind, has one size for mature humans.

The size of a figure is determinable by comparison of the skull, versas the long-bone proportion distributions. A dwarf will have a standard head, and shorter long bones.  A basketball player will have the same size skull and longer long bones.

I got this info from school and talking with a Forensic Anthropologist.  She stated that it is impossible to tell height looking at a skull, but is vary probable to within a half inch to determine height from one long bone only, if age and sex are known.

Art is as much inspiration as it knowledge and how to use it..  The more you know, the more you can do with it! ^__^ V,,

also something else to make female figures more real

breasts are not identical.

one is always slightly higher and bigger....

I don't understand, Why do you have to keep tweeking Your models to get them right. If you have already tweeked them correctly, all you have to do is save her or him and you have the perfect model!

Quote - also something else to make female figures more real

breasts are not identical.

one is always slightly higher and bigger....

In actual fact, despite having two of lots of things we humans ain't symmetrical at all! :0/

LOL

Klutz :0)

Dalmatica wrote: *to the folks who are saying, "Well, Loomis was from another era so those standards don't fit today's standards."

*Please read my post again, I didn't say that literally, Loomis made his proportionscale based on a contemporay bias. People size and taste change in time, proportions don't, but Loomis scale was based on a tall,slim woman of that time (on heels) and it was supposed to be a woman with an ideal figure, not an realistic one.

And : *Ridiculous.  Do yourself a favor a educate yourself about the human figure by buying some artistic anatomy books and see how much your artwork improves.

*I actually have several artistic anatomy books, and I'm fully aware of the efforts done by the great artist of the past era. But that's what they were: artists, not scientists.  Their proportionscales were based on a artistic point of view and observation, they wanted to look their work beautiful not common. The only people I make an exception for are Da vinci and Dürer. I know that da Vinci really did some anatomy research.

Mylemonblue wrote: *by the way anyone who wants to can find real human references by Googling "Female Anatomy Photos by Akira Gomi". There you'll find free images of average off the street every day females in front back and side views for art . They are photographs. Anyone can paste them next to the Loomis chart in a photo image editor, size the images until the heads match and see for themselves. It's fun and very educational to see and learn about body size and proportions.

*I actually did that: just by using some transparant layers in Paintshop and to say the truth, the similarities with Loomis chart are stunning, most of the women have (I didn't do them all) his Ideal proportions, but there a few buts:   His arms are too long, his waist is too narrow and his woman is on heels.And: I've scaled all the pictures up to make them fit, so the actual width and heigth proportion are not the same as the original pictures, and there is no reference on those pictures how tall or small the actual woman are.

As matter of fact, I didn't want  to offend Stahlratte, I agree with him that the proportions and the size of DAZ V3 aren't correct, I even think that they originally scanned in a Barby-doll, cause that's what she makes me think of. ( That would also explain why her feet are always in a tip-toe position) I think that V3 is popular because of the same economic principle that made the VHS-tape rule, in spite of the technical better Betamax. It is the most supported product because it is the most supported product. That seems a little cryptic but it is true: people are tended to follow the mainstream. The fact that V3 is given away free and that the old V1 and V2 were more appealing than the  original poser woman Posette (sorry mr. Hoadley) only stimulate this.

Just foolin´ around with the pictures from mylemonblue´s link:

Just a WIP made with the default morphs + scaling.
To get closer, I´d need magnets.

But I think even now it doesn´t look much like V3 any more, does it ?

Stahlratte

No, not really but it isn't my idea of an ideal woman either LOL.

Thijs

Now that is a lot more like a real lady!  :0)

Well, at least she has the right proportions!
:lol::lol::lol::lol:

Thank you stahlratte

A most interesting discussion.

In striving towards realism there has to be more scope for assymetry in the model.

I suppose there has to be a compromise reached though. 

Otherwise we will shoot past realism into ugly, which has a limited market ;0)

LOL

Klutz. :0)

Well, you can laugh about the germans, but they are praised about their "gründlichkeit" or punctuality in plain english, I have two german books I use the most for my work: One is the "Neufert" architects data, which contains every possible data for creating a rabbit-home till an bowlingalley and the other book "Kleine ergonomische datensammlung" or "small book with  ergonomic data". And I have a lot profit of these books

Quote - In striving towards realism there has to be more scope for assymetry in the model.

I suppose there has to be a compromise reached though. 

Otherwise we will shoot past realism into ugly, which has a limited market ;0)

LOL

Klutz. :0)

I guess it's how you look at it. For many realism is ugly. Just as truth can be ugly. I have found this a very wonderful thread. The only problem I see is if we scale V3 down to a realistic type female her clothes don't fit now...LOL!!

^^ PhilC's excellent Wardrobe Wizard for conforming cloth items...

.

Don`t be fooled into thinking that using the loomis proportions will give you more realism.

Dphoadley, I read somewhere that the golden mean is not really a rule for every picture but I dont remember where I read it, the golden mean does work with most pictures that you use it in but you dont have to use it.

So that might not be the absolute optimal standard - imo it's visibly much better base to build from than someone with a miniature head.  If she'd started out with a few extra fingers or an extra buttock would people defend her this vigorously?

Thanks for this Stahlratte, V3 was beginning to irritate me with her apparent pinheadedness, and I sometimes scale her head up 102 - 105% to compensate. It's nice to know that there's some support for this from the worlds of engineering and art. Did you publish the morphs you used in your first post anywhere? I may have missed them - if not, I'd be interested to study them.

*Don`t be fooled into thinking that using the loomis proportions will give you more realism.

*no. alone they won't. but as part of an overall setup scenerio they prove to be a useful tool for making a realistic figure and should be taken into account.

but thats the choice of the artist making the image. no one is going to make you use them or even make a realistic figure... you do what you want to do.*

I should say that I was not arguing about making things like the head bigger,there is nothing wrong with improvements like that.

Quote - ^^ PhilC's excellent Wardrobe Wizard for conforming cloth items...

Yes, I have the program but can't seem to get the hang of it when it comes to the joint parameters. When I bend the figure the clothing rips at the arms and chest : (  When I finally get the shoulders and arm parameters correct so the clothing item doesn't tear there it tears along the chest under the arms.

    This Argument is taking on extreams, First off, V3 will not be perfect for everyone, that will be a fact. Some people like more extreams. Personaly I like V3 much better than the correct examples that you displayed. You did a good job of illustraing them, that is not my reasoning. But what is Ideal with you is not nessasly Ideal to me. techniquely you are right. but for personably I also have the same right to have a preference. All that I here is She is not the way that is correct to all the technitions. But who are you or anyone else to say I can't make a figure in the shape that I like best. Says you, thats fine, but I can make a figure the way I want, It's called freedom of expression! or do you want to challange that.
    That's fine. But why do Todays artist make legs longer on a woman than they realy are. Because that is the more desirable look. Shame on them for having a preference. We are not talking about extreams that the mass people don't reconize here, You show the stock figure of V3 with body texture and hair to a person on the street and they may say she is very sexy, pretty, or To beautful, not your average girl. They are not going to say what is it. 
   This is exactly the point everyone is talking about. No wons arguing that your head hights are not well founded. They are the standard you hold true, and the clients you represent. But other company have different standards, are you going to tell me they are wrong for making a characture the way their client find more appealing. Are you suggesting they tell their clients, you don't know what your talking about!

What I say, and what you say, and what anyone else says will never change that. Why do we have liberals and Conservatives, why do we have different religeions, Because we all see things differently. It's the way we want to see them. It's the way different artist express themselves. You should always be aware of correct proportions of the figure. But where does it say you can't make your charatures the way you like them. Wow, Elmer Fudd would have thought someone was taking a cheap shot at him. Where would we be without Elmer Fudd.  We would never have cartoons. It's called lighten up. The world will go on.

You make it sound like the guy is cutting your gonads off by just making the simple (and obvious, and correct) observation that V3 has a tiny head in proportion to her body.  Absolutely nobody including Stahlratte has suggested that you can't illustrate human beings any way you care to - only that the default V3 scaling is very unrealistic.

Quote - Why do we have liberals and Conservatives, why do we have different religeions

Because we are a self destructive and insecure race that needs these things to hide behind and to use as excuses for what we do to each other. steps down from soap box

Interesting thread, but boy howdy...  I sure hope Daz largely ignores it.  I mean, if they make V4 so that folks who want to can morph her into a "realistically proportioned" female figure, I have no objection in principle; but I am more interested in a V4 mesh which lets me morph her into any shape I want, "realistic" or not.  That means keeping enough polygons in those areas of Vicky's anatomy where significant changes in body proportions don't make the mesh break down or get too blocky.

All I kept thinking as I scrolled through the messages here was "great, now we have the Realism Police."  How long before they bang on Daz' door and pressure them to alter their meshes so far toward the "realism" end of the spectrum that the mesh can't do what I want it to do any more (i.e., Daz shifts too many polys from one body zone to another)?  Oh wait, seems like that's already happening in this thread. 

Though maybe my initial reaction is unfair.  Maybe this is more like a bit of a red state - blue state thing where on the one side we have users who want an out-of-the-box mesh optimized for creating "realistic" female figures and on the other hand we have users who want the mesh optimized to enable certain exagerations of the female form as "art" or fantasy.  And maybe I'm just one of the relatively quiet blue staters who haven't tended to advocate so loudly for our mesh preferences.  But I must say, I do get tired of all the aggressive prosyletizing and denigration which seems to come from the "realism" camp.

Maybe this divide could be resolved by someone creating a new mesh which meets all these insistent claims about realistic proportions.  But I'll bet "Realistic Rhonda" wouldn't sell as well as a Vicky optimized for fantasy, and I'm really hoping Daz has recognized that in their design of V4.  I do know that if V4 comes out looking like some of the figures in this thread, my wallet is staying in my pocket.

Quote - You make it sound like the guy is cutting your gonads off by just making the simple (and obvious, and correct) observation that V3 has a tiny head in proportion to her body.  Absolutely nobody including Stahlratte has suggested that you can't illustrate human beings any way you care to - only that the default V3 scaling is very unrealistic.

I think the issue is more complex than you've characterized here.  The person whose message you are quoting is clearly feeling aggrieved by the rather constant and over-shrill evangelism which goes on here about allegedly problematic disparities between 3D and real world female figures.  I'm guessing he's just tired of the explicit criticism of his desires to create fantastically-proportioned figures.  Plus, as I alluded to in my earlier post, in a polygon-constrainted world, base mesh design decisions can alter the opportunity set for figure construction, and I'm guessing that is what the earlier poster fears.  So while you're disparagement of the other poster's concerns is rather colorfully expressed, he/she is not being unreasonable.

*But I must say, I do get tired of all the aggressive prosyletizing and denigration which seems to come from the "realism" camp.

then don't read the threads .. it's very simple you decide what you read and don't read.*

Quote - You make it sound like the guy is cutting your gonads off by just making the simple (and obvious, and correct) observation that V3 has a tiny head in proportion to her body.  Absolutely nobody including Stahlratte has suggested that you can't illustrate human beings any way you care to - only that the default V3 scaling is very unrealistic.

 
   I never said he was wrong in his proportions, But what I heard was how bad V3 renders. We are talking about a Charature that is given away, A program that is at a price that everyone can afford. And we get how bad she looks when she is rendered, And if you don't render the person the "Ideal way" She is incorrect. Read his comments. 

   But if you render her not using his standards she looks terrible. I'm sorry, I disagree. No she is not perfect. But I can also look at what he has made in his Ideal porportions and say, I like V3 better. (note: I didn't say I was right) That can be my opion, and mine alone, I didn't saying mine is the only way you can make a rendered V3 characture look good. That is the basis of his argument. Which I accept, but that is not the final word.

   The one thing that he says that you can't get around is if you make V3 8 feet tall along a 6 foot man and try and make her look the same hight using different camera lense settings, you can't hide her hight  within a room that is furnished as example, the furniture gives perspective, Her body or his will show a distortion happening trying to get her to be his same hight. 
   
   My complaint with V3 is she should be at least 3 inches shorter that the man. so when she is in High Heels she is the same hight. That has nothing to do with porprotions, that is sizing of the characture Which is the easiest to correct in the stock figure.

Quote - *But I must say, I do get tired of all the aggressive prosyletizing and denigration which seems to come from the "realism" camp.

then don't read the threads .. it's very simple you decide what you read and don't read.*

Well, that's tantamount to saying "if you don't like what your political opponents are saying at the town meeting, then don't go to the meeting."  This is the kind of "shut up and keep your thoughts to yourself while the rest of us say what we think" that is the hallmark of this kind of prosyletizing. 

And let's be clear, this IS a political debate.  Politics is all about competition between interested parties, and in a polygon-constrained 3D world, the allocation of polygons to base meshes is an area of conflicting demands.  If I want to push back against those who insist on base meshes which match their preferences but conflict with mine, that is my right.  I simply want to make sure that Daz and other figure designers see that the "realism evangelizers" aren't the only interest group in the room.

sorr.. but being called 'Realism Police' kinda annoys me.

no it is not a 'political debate' - it was a discussion on making figures realistic until ppl who have no interest in the discussion came in and started to disrupt it. there is no 'politics' involved.

as to "realism evangelizers"... where?

there's been 1 thread in 3 weeks. if thats "realism evangelizers" then ye gods..

please get a grip on reality and calm down. and as I said :
***it's very simple you decide what you read and don't read.

Frankly I doubt DAZ would break their obvious tradition, which was why the very first thing I said in the thread was "you ought to put your results on the market" - I'd likely buy it.  I don't think anyone has suggested people should be dragged off and executed for wanting to render basketball player girls.  Look at it objectively, neither camp has any real moral high ground here.

Tguyus:
Quote - "*But I must say, I do get tired of all the aggressive prosyletizing and denigration which seems to come from the "realism" camp.

*I recall a lot of the direct and personal rudeness coming from the other direction actually, not to name names or anything.

Personal preference" and "Reality" are two very different things.

If you take an average woman and have her body professionally photographed and use these photographs to create an exact cgi-model of her, then, and only then you have an accurate model of an average woman.

If you distort her shape to make her more desireable, your model will be something else.

It may be usefull in the advertising biz or for fantasy renders, but it will be useless to depict reality.

Reality isn´t a matter of preferences. It is not optional.
It simply "is".

@**Tguyus : I kindly ask you to troll another thread with your unfounded drivel.

The charts and information offered here are based on centuries of scientific research.
I will not waste my time  trying to teach the willfully ignorant.
Nor will I give you a platform for self-expression.

I started this thread to educate.

If you feel the need to make DAZ aware of something, feel free to start your own thread.

If the trolling and underhanded personal attacks don´t stop, I´ll alert a mod and complain about you.

Thanks.

Stahlratte

**

Quote -    But if you render her not using his standards she looks terrible. I'm sorry, I disagree.

No one has said V3 is stinky, ugly, fat, stupid, has acne, bad teeth, or anything of the sort - only that she appears to either have a tiny head or she is really, really abnormally tall (which is pretty obviously the case).
Tguyus:

Quote - That means keeping enough polygons in those areas of Vicky's anatomy where significant changes in body proportions don't make the mesh break down or get too blocky.

And by the way no one has asked for polygons to be removed (why would ANYONE want that? wouldn't that would break all the skin UVMaps that are out there?)

Quote - sorr.. but being called 'Realism Police' kinda annoys me.

no it is not a 'political debate' - it was a discussion on making figures realistic until ppl who have no interest in the discussion came in and started to disrupt it. there is no 'politics' involved.

as to "realism evangelizers"... where?

there's been 1 thread in 3 weeks. if thats "realism evangelizers" then ye gods..

please get a grip on reality and calm down. and as I said :
***it's very simple you decide what you read and don't read.

---

Ok, I agree it is not fair for me to use terms like "realism police" and "realism evangelism."  That's the kind of denigration of one's opponents which I was arguing against, so I was being hypocritical and I apologize for that lapse.

But you are wrong in claiming this is not a political debate, in the "small p" sense.  I've been using polygon limits as a convenient shorthand, but one of the other things I dislike about the existing Vicky meshes is the short shins.  That seems to be more a rigging issue more than a polygon count issue.  My problem is that the existing Vickys were apparently given (according to my aesthetic) overly-stubby shins to make them "more realistic."  The only way I've found to lengthen the shins to a more (to me) aesthetic length (about 10 percent longer) is to use the yscale parameter.  That then fouls up all conforming shoes and boots.  So the more I hear people pressuring Daz and other mesh makers to make more realistic base figure meshes, the more of these kinds of limits I believe I have to face in creating the figures I want.  In that way, it is very much a political debate because, again, politics as a process aimed at the resolution of conflicting demands, which I believe is manifest here.  And it is not just one thread in the last three weeks, though this one is a relatively insistent one.  I have seen countless comments in countless threads in my five years here where people express surprisingly truculent disdain for exagerated figures (esp. large breasts). 

And finally, if we're going to have a civil discussion, I will agree to stop using terms like "evangelism"; but I would also ask you to not tell me to get a grip on reality or to shut up.

cheers...