I bought Victoria 2 looking for a more realistic model. Once I loaded it up, I found out that the stock model has no gens in the lower region. I feel kind of cheated, since there are so many free models out there that contain realistic genitals using the P4 Nude Woman as a base. I called DAZ and they told me they don't make one with lower gens and they won't start in the near future. Am I stuck with a no gen model or is there a modified model that contains the realistic gens? I'm looking for a fix whether it's free or retail, or else I may have to further assert my dissatisfaction directly to DAZ.

Attached Link: http://209.92.41.204/Poser/

That's a great site. Thanks alot.

Forgive me for asking, but when you say Genitals, are you saying that this means that Vicky will have a cavity down near her privates?

I'm glad that there are no lower genitals on Vicky. You can achieve sufficient realism in artwork with texture maps and pubic hair props. I don't see why you need POSEABLE female genitalia unless you are depicting scenes of sexual intercourse. Try Renderotica.

Just wondered why you think a stock model should have genitals. Marque

Just because YOU "don't see why you need POSEABLE female genitalia" does not not mean that it should not exist. There probably is much "more under the sun, than you have dreamed of.." W.S. Let's squash this PC bug right now. Renderotica = for the time being at least: ain't narry.

My Natalia figure has full genitalia, with morphs. In my opinion, if real women have them, then models should, too. She is available here in the Marketplace.

How mature, Jaager, implying that because I dont see why you need posable genitalia on a model that I am somehow lacking or inexperienced. But when you quote me, quote the entire sentence. "I DONT SEE WHY YOU NEED POSEABLE FEMALE GENITALIA UNLESS YOU ARE DEPICTING SCENES OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE." As to meaning that it should not exist -- I didn't say that it shouldn't exist, only that scenes which require posable genitalia have no place here. Read the terms of service. "There probably is much "more under the sun, than you have dreamed of.." W.S." Perhaps you should heed your own advice and stop obsessing over body cavities and poseable labia on 3D models and get out a little more, no? dcort: name one instance where, in art, we require poseable genitalia on female models. And no, I don't consider pornography an art form.

Nither does Madonna, But what did you expect?

If you do not consider porn an art form, that is your choice, but only your choice. You are the one with restrictive views. I am making an emphatic rejection of your implied values. What I do or do not obsess about is my own affair. It is not your place to even comment on it. As far as the TOS of R-osity, they do not define all of the uses for graphics programs. I was not aware that our discussions were resricted to only those aspects related to posting images here.

Well, I didn't mean to start an argument. I simply made a point that in the type of art that is posted here at Renderosity there I cannot concieve a use for anatomically correct genitalia. Save the polys and use texture/bump maps and perhaps a pubic hair prop. I responded because I took Jaagers post as a personal attack on me. As for porn, thats the only use that I can see for poseable genitalia and a 'cavity'. If someone can prove otherwise then I will gladly admit that I was wrong. I haven't purchased Natalia, but I do own Vicky, Vicky 2 and Eve/Azura. I think Eve is an outstanding model, but I dont see why the poseable genitalia is necessary for ART. But sex sells -- it has always been the largest market by far. I just hope that Victoria (by way of Daz3D) doesn't jump on the bandwagon. So I knew when I posted that I'm one of the tiny minority that think this has no place in art.

I am not making any kind of statement as to why you do or do not need genitalia. Nor do I want to debate about it. I am a modeler who strives for realism. I would not feel like I'd done my job if I'd left out the genitalia. I am just pointing out that if you want a very high-quality, hi-res model with genitals, Natalia is available.

Jaager you made it my affair when you posted a quote which, in my opinion, is an open insult. I merely stated my opinion. In your own words I am entitled to do so. "I am glad...." "I don't see..." -- Those are opinions. So before you try and quash someone else's opinions and ridicule them for posting them, be prepared to take some flak yourself.

As to Pornography not being art, well to begin with some people call the kind of stuff they see in women's fashion magazines Pornography, what with all those Supermodel breasts and bums and even genitalia showing! It really depends on where you are coming from (no pun intended). One man's or woman's porn is another's art. However, if you go back to the origins of Art in the historical Period (i.e. from when man first began keep records) Erotic and Pornographic (hate that word) Art has always been among the most highly prized art until the church reformers began to have their way. Mind you the Vatican and other church collections contain some amazing pieces. In classical Greek and Roman art the nude in 2 and 3 dimensions was the favourite and most fashionable subject. The whole thrust of their art was the achievement of realism (like many of us today are trying for photo-realism with Poser). Many of the most luxurious Roman Villas were filled with copious amounts of erotic and explicit murals, mosaics and statuary (go to Pompeii sometime and look). Also look at some of the finest Attic Black and Red Figure painted vases from classical Greece (circa 5th/4th Century BC), displayed in the world's top museums. Some of the things that are realistically depicted on them are illegal even in America and at Renderotica. And if you say those classical societies, from which so much of our culture and artistic heritage descends were decadent, look at some of the earliest cave paintings from 30,000 BC depicting orgies and ritual copulation. There are thousands of examples not to mention the finest masters of Renaissance Painting and Sculpture who drew heavily on the decadent classical art. So I want my Poser models to have realistic geometry, textures hair and yes, genitalia. Others do not, that is one of the reasons for the Genitalia switch. But I would like the choice. There, said my piece. STORM

I can take the flak. You stated a moral opinion. You are entitled to it. It is not germane to technical discussion to hand. If you were looking for affirmation, I am offering anything but that. You came in on a crusade. If Carrie Nation had been told to "Go away! You don't like bars, then stay out of them." at the beginning a lot of grief could have been avoided. I am not trying to make you do something that you do not wish to. You are trying to stop me from having an option, or at least offering solice to those who would. I do not see this as two sides of the same coin. Censors do.

Children be quiet, Now run along and play....

Since way back, male figures in Poser had all their parts which could be turned on and off at will. It's just curious why no female Zygote / DAZ models have had them, when the (adult) male models have (since Poser 2, anyway, maybe even Poser 1, I don't recall). Just makes you wonder why. I think Zygote's response once was, "The work it would require would mean we'd have to charge more, and you can simulate it well enough with texture maps." Hmm, their original Vickie texture maps didn't even have that. Curious...

Look, kids.... (coming from somewhat of a kid), From what I notice in these forums is a lot of people are quick to attack people who are simply posing question. Who cares what the poster wants to do with the realistic gens. The point of having the forum is to answer the question: Where can they find realistic gens. I think that has been answered. If you all want to debate Porn, or what is Porn, then find a chat room. I personally do not really want to peddle any porn, and I believe that most of my work is very tasteful. Yes the term "Porn" is relative. But seriously... having a realistic genetailia for your character is kind of cool. The male figures have it... why not the women figures? It beats a hard coded fig leaf, right?

Whoa, all this from a request for female genitals? Answer for Magnet: no cavity, more like a v-shaped or w-shaped depression. Just cuz I gotta put my 2 cents in 1. for all you know there maybe people out there doing stuff for medical purposes (pamplets, reports, whatever). 2. yes, mikey has his parts built in, but they don't "function" 3. the most likely reason for males having genitals and females not, is that males are externel and females are internal (example, none of the models I've seen have colons) 4. if a person wants to create pornographic images, that's their business, and if they want a vicky with genitals (or a natalia for that matter) that is up to them. there are alot worse things out there for people to be doing than playing around with digital nudity.

Natalia has a colon, too. Believe it or not, many people asked me for this, so the version 2 update now has one.

Ewww, more info than I really needed dcort. ::She says while smiling::

WHAT?,SHE CAN FART NOW? EEEEWWWWWWW

GUESS NO MORE SAFE SEX FOR HER NOW THAT SHE GOT HER ANUS UNPLUGGED....LOL

I SAY LET THE PERSON DO WHAT THEY WANT WITH THIER COPY OF POSER 4, Porn or no Porn, Who are we to judge a person for what they consider artisticly expressive to them. In fact Michael Angelo,Picasso,Raphial,Vangoe,Rodon and a few other great skulptors and painters dabbled in expressive nudity in thier works.

Much as in classical paintings and sculptures, Daz simply didn't put it there. As they said, to paraphrase, "The male organs are something that no texture can achieve, the females can be done with a good texture map." And from what I saw the Vicki2 character did have some bits more clearly deliniated. No you can't spread them with for shots that would require that but they are there.

I wasn't attacking the use of genitalia, I was stating that to get ticked off at Daz because they choose not to put it on their female models is not the way to go about it. You make your choice they make theirs. If you don't like the model don't buy it. I believe we are ALL entitled to our opinions, and I am sick to death of having people say I'm wrong because I don't believe these models need to have working genetalia to create art. Get a life people, give everyone the benefit of having their own opinion without attacking them and calling them prudes just because we don't happen to think the open vagina is an art form. sheeesh. Marque

You guys are much nicer and more accomodating than I am. I see no need to explain or justify our tastes. They require neither. I spot the blue noses no points whatsoever. The burden of proof is on them. Keep 'em below the lowtide line.

If the people at DAZ can model nipples, they can certainly at least give the female models the suggestion of labia! I am a woman artist, I don't do porn, but I do think our bodies are pretty neat... and nothing to be ashamed of. A non-descript blank wedge is an insult. (It is the equivalent of a plain brown wrapper.) The guys in Utah may be embarassed; I'm not. Nipples can be faked with a texture map, but they built the geometry for nipples. The argument saying "why build it if it can be textured" won't hold up. Carolly

Attached Link: http://www.3-d-models.com/images/can.htm

Dcort made a valid point earlier, implying that these models are representations of real objects (please withhold any oversensity to concepts expressed in objective terms). That likeness should be sufficient enough to manufacture the impression of the quintessential form.

Secondly, is the female hand an artistic and valid element in producing aesthetic quality? How about the tose, the feet the ankle, or the buttocks, or the breasts, or the neck, eyes, hair, nose, ears, or any other part. Has the female genital been any less historically necessary for the life of humanity, than say the mouth? Are physics and life any more significant? Nothing is significant in relation to the vast and the void. Everything is significant in that it is all related.

Thirdly, the male characters come stock with a genital. If nothing else, for the purpose of equality.

Unrelated, but pragmatically worded: I had none of the DAZ figures until I bought Vicky 2. Since DAZ does some of the best work in the industry, I expected to see much more a mastery of what they are trying to replicate, meaning a realistic set of gens. It doesn't sound like DAZ is going to do it though, so I may be forced red line my finances to get a the best Vicki gen figure I can find, but there seems to be compromises in switching to a different character base, because I bought Vicki 2 to use Vicki 2, not so I would have to downgrade to Vicki 1 in order to use a gen pack.

They could at least have a MOUND suggesting a healthy young nymphette? A morphable mound wherein which it too can have switchable genitalia. The P4 man has a mound, at least on the thumbnails, and thats with his orchestra stalls in the off position.

Lets just chop off the millenium mans genitals and call it even. Ok just kidding.(Never made sense to me to complete one figure but not the other though) How about Fig leaves for every one?! :) Actually bothe need to be equally complete. Anything else seems odd.

DAZ would be unlikely to release a model without ears. Are labia less integral to the female human form? In my opinion, there is no part of the female body that needs to be covered up or "faked with texture maps." I have never posed a pornographic picture in my life, nor do I intend to. (And that despite my almost exclusive reliance on Eve 4.0 even though I have V1 and V2.) It is just STRANGE to release a female model who has been "neutered." It is also in some way frankly disrespectful to our gender as a whole. I would never have felt the need to speak out in a public forum on this subject, but accuracy in modeling is a far-cry from prurience. (Of course, I live in Europe, and here sex is considered far less offensive than violence anyway.) Vicky has always struck me somewhat as a Barbie doll. I applaud people like Traveler, DCort and Jaager, who have had to work hard to bring REAL WOMEN to Poser.

Not just strange, but extremely prudish. I expect a high-res model to be anatomically correct, and saying that one can use texture maps or bump maps is just dodging the issue. Using that line of argument you might just as well say that genitalia (or any other body part) can be added in postwork. With a completely smooth frontal hip, Vicky can't be used to imitiate classic sculpture that no-one would dream of calling pornography. Such prudery just strikes me as unprofessional.

goldvice here is an interim solution. One of the first things I did when I got Vicky2 was to create a "Vicky2 Millie" character. Millie is the child of Jaager's modelling and texturing genius, the same geometry as Vicky 1 and 2 but with morphs and textures to simulate fairly realistic genitals. As far as I know Millie and her morphs and textures are still available at Traveller's site, Morph World 2. You will need to download these and follow instructions to end up with a "Millie.obj" parked next to your Vicky 1 & 2 "blMilWom.obj". The next thing is to open up your Vicky 2 Cr2 file in a fast text editor like EditPad Lite (freebee) and change your Vicky 2 Cr2 to point at the "Millie.obj" Do not use Wordpad, it will take you 10 minutes or more to load the Vicky 2 Cr2 file. You can get EditPad Lite at http://www.jgsoft.com/ Open up your Vicky 2 Cr2 file and near the top of the first page you will see the following line: figureResFile :Runtime:Geometries:ZygotePeople:blMilWom.obj There is a second instance of this line some 3-4 pages down. Both of these need to be changed to point at the Millie object as follows: figureResFile :Runtime:Geometries:ZygotePeople:Millie.obj It is important to use the upper and lower case values and spaces exactly as above. One you have done that save your Vicky 2 Millie Cr2 file to the Character library as say Vicky2Millie. Load up your morphs and textures in Poser and you will have a fairly realistic Vicky 2 with genitals. Hope this helps. STORM

Nothing like this to get a conversation going. Not to be left out here's my 2 bobs worth: "no use for genitalia in art" Wow, what a simplification of the word 'art'. Anyway this is also about modeling not just what some people call art. Never the less I guess it's a valid opinion, among an infinate number of different opinions. "Mike has em, Vicky don't" Now that's a cruel trick to play on Mike, also sounds like sexual discrimination to me. I personally don't have a problem with genitalia and the human body. It all seems kinda natural to me. But beware, let us not forget those that would disagree with ALL depictions of nudity and would have models provided ONLY fully clothed. Aarrghh!

Hi Folks! To a great extent, the genital morphs or props created by Jaeger, Tastiger, Traveler, and others are far better than I think DAZ would have probably supplied anyway. And they have done us all a service by building into their models the kind of possibilities for variety that is just as much a reality for female genitalia as it is for female breasts. If I need to have one, I also have a custom built vulva in .obj form that I use for my private modeling projects. Maybe I'll make it available one day. But here's another perspective. By not providing genitals on its signature female models, perhaps DAZ avoids a potentially risky situation. For the past two academic years I have used Poser as one of the core applications for a 3D Design course I teach. I have to be careful though, because displaying a nude figure in class could be construed as a form of sexual harrassment. I'm wondering whether I should even use Poser in the 3D class I may be teaching to high school students at a camp this summer. I would have preferred a Posette and Vicki with built in and morphable genitals. But since there are no age restrictions on purchasing Poser, DAZ may have decided that it's better not to tread into such murky legal waters. Imagine the bad P.R.--and maybe even lawsuits-- generated from irate parents coming into little Johnny's room while he's building one of his anatomically correct dream girls. Peter (Dr Zik)

I think a lot of people here, as usual, are diverting attention from the real topic to one as genrealized as "should vicky have genitals". I see nothing wrong with labia or more detailed genitals. The problem is this: I have Eve. I think its a great model, with some amazing morphs. But has anyone else noticed that she has almost as many morphs for her genitals as she does for her face? Do we really need dozens of open vagina morphs for poser models? I dont think so. Im sure that open vagina/anus morphs are a hot seller at Renderotica, but I dont think they have a place in art. If you are using these models for realistic images or artwork, I understand why you would want more realistic looking genitals but why do you need an actual morphable cavity other than for erotic images/porn? Judging by the galleried most-viewed images (yes Im generalizing, there are exceptions) the majority of people come here to view naked women with large breasts in suggestive poses. While I have nothing against nudity or the trend in the galleries (to each his own), I do have something against people trying to justify having fully morphable and poseable vaginal/anal cavities on their poser models by saying that its necessary for 'art'. And yes, Michael does have genitals. But they arent morphable or poseable. They are there because there would be no way to create realistic nude images of him with just a texture/bump map. You dont need body cavities to create realistic nude images of Vicky, just a pubic hair texture/bump map or a transparency prop, with perhaps a morph to suggest detail.

In response to Dr Zik, As a parent I would be upset if I found my child with poser creating explicit sexual scenes. If you do use poser with high school students I would advize the use of the clothed models and maybe the animals. Teenagers would diffinately use poser for porn (espesially the boys) and you never know how the parents of said teenagers will react (even if the idea originated with their precious little angel)

Ok. Looks like I got a few good suggestions. I will mess around with it to create a new figure. If anyone personally makes a model that includes a realistic gen map, please send me a message via the Renderosity message system, so we can discuss the product, and talk about pricing, if it is a retail product. I downloaded Randy West's Vicki Gen model, but I want to make sure I am working with the absolute best.

Hi Folks! Your advice is right on, shadowcat. One of the problems with teaching Poser is that you can't do a demo of Conforming Clothing--one of P4's most powerful features-- without using the nude figures. I'm sure DAZ has hunkered down with its legal people and considered all of the implications of distributing female models with built-in genitals. I'll bet they decided it's not worth the risk. And, as I noted, digital artists in these forums are are already way ahead of them anyway. Peter (Dr Zik)

well for conforming clothing demos, you could use the stick figure or the manikin. (sucks, but there'd be no lawsuit)

I appreciate the endosement of my efforts, but perhaps an update on the status of all of it is in order. The files are no longer at Morph World. (Just why had nothing to do with me.) The files at the time consituted some 20 meg of geometry, props, morphs and textures. I now have my own web space, but the potential for a bandwidth use disaster is great. My ISP will not cut off on an overrun, just bill. No way. There are essentially no independents anymore. Access to the material will be included as a perk to my store customers. I just sent out a message re: the Millie geometry, and textures - L/N over 60, gen over 40. I added in a Millie P4 (V2P4 with Millie's version of lips and nipples - gen no, the figure is not about nudity). My morphs are going up in a day or so. I have redone them in carrier CR2 files.

Well, I can understand the lawsuit thing. But I find it utterly incredible that we as a so called intelligent society should create such a problem about something, without which, we would have no society. We are victims of our own prudery

Sorry, but Victims of our prudery? Or protective of minors and others who might use the software and not be "of age" for anatomical realism? There are always two sides to everything and to overrule one because of another is just plain wrong. Whether or not a model has vaginal geometry or an erectible penis is immaterial. The general market cannot be guaranteed to be 100% adult, nor can it be guaranteed to be put to artistry uses. A lot of people seem to forget that Poser was originally intended as an artist's companion. For budding artists who could not afford a real life model. Strange though it may seem, while models are anatomically correct, most art, including that which people so often bring into arguments like this, is not about "the naughty bits". It is about ART. Now, since it's inception Poser has found a wider audience, a wider user base and a greater variety of uses. For those who want anatomically correct, functioning and complete models. Fine, no problem. Ask DAZ. I'm sure they'll make one for you - at a price. The models on their website, as far as I am aware are for general release. As such they need to be "humanoid", as in representations of the human form. Not anatomically correct might mesh figures for finicky people who have to have everything perfect. I have seen, on the net models that are correct. They are very expensive. There are medical models available, these also are very expensive (by how I judge pricing). For the organisations using such models, they are priced according to what the market will bear. So. In general, please don't consistently and verbosely attack people because they object to full frontal nudity. These people are a part of our society as much as any human being. And in reverse, can we stop attacking or berating people because they do want full nudity. All art, is art. The artistry is in the artist, the art is in the eye of the beholder. Nothing is art until it is viewed by people and recognised as such. Please. Be nice to each other. Isn't there enough accusation, finger pointing and conflict already in this world? I do not believe that DAZ should release anatomically, functioning, correct in every detail models in their web store, primarily not because I am a prude, but because I have no desire to see them get into trouble with the "overly righteous", the law or because unknowing to them some young person using their parent's credit card unwittingly purchased a model that could be considered pornographic. Also, try to remember that there are different laws in different countries governing such things. Somewhere in this world such a model might be downloaded/purchased from a "general store" like DAZ's main store only to be found to be breaking basic laws in that country. However, I have every confidence that if they were asked, they would be more than happy to make exactly such a model. While I think of it. I seem to recall reading on their site that Vickie/Vickie2 did not contain genitalia. Perhaps my eyes blurred and I thought I saw that but it wasn't really there. In all, this entire argument is a moot point. Porn/Art Nudity/Porn Art/Art is subjective. It is interpreted to be whatever the viewer interprets it to be. Once upon a time, the sight of a bare ankle was considered erotica. Now the naked form is accepted as normal in all forms of art. The genitalia however are still listed as pornography in many countries, but only if shown in a state of "arousal". Meaning open or erect. It probably won't be long, maybe even in the lifetimes of the people in this community when "erotica" per se will cease to exist and even sexual arousal or depictions of arousal, or perhaps even intercourse itself (within certain limits) will be considered art not pornography. Until then, perhaps we could all learn a little tolerance and patience with "the other side". ??? We are humans. People. Individuals. Allegedly we have our own outlooks on life and our own minds and opinions. Not everyone will agree with everyone. That would be so unbelievably boring and tedious the human race may as well cease to exist at that point. But. Hurling names, pointing fingers and vociferous applications of the words "You're wrong" will not achieve anything except further conflict. Some people want anatomically correct genitalia and models. Great, then let those people have them. Other people don't want anything like that in their models. Fine, then let them have models accordingly. Don't ram nudity down the throats of those who don't like it. And don't ram "cleanliness" down the throats of people who like nudity. The naked form, in and of itself is an amazingly beautiful piece of art. The human body is one of the most fascinating, amazing and graceful forms I am aware of. Is it wrong to admire that form? That grace? Is it equally as wrong to want to admire the form and grace, yet clothed? Would a gymnast be any better naked than they are in a form fitting leotard? Everyone has their own tastes, yes? Well, how's about we share those tastes, discuss them like adults, and perhaps achieve something other than name calling, accusation and conflict. I personally am so FUCKING SICK of fighting and arguing. Rational conversation can achieve anything. Conflict achieves nothing. Now, before you all leap on me. I am not pointing the finger at individuals here. This and similar arguments have raged around this community for quite a while, in various forums. Enough is enough, please.

Questor I agree with almost everything you said. If you read both of my comments, neither said anyone was wrong. My last comment was not judgemental, simply an observation. Anyway, I'll resist the urge to throw other 'observations' in here, cos I agree with your last para. nuff said. respect (and no need to swear I think)

Alright, you have a point Gary, but as I said, I was not pointing a finger at anyone, so you don't need to explain your comments. :) I apologise to all about the swearing. But, after bombs, riots, localised violence, a close friend being attacked and hospitalised because he's gay, not even raving, just a normal guy, and all the other crap going on, I think perhaps my language got more colourful than necessary.

I purchased Poser to create visualizations of hazards in industrial settings. Women working while wearing apparrel that are tight through the crotch can suffer "camel toe burns" which are uncomfortable for the worker and devastating to include in the DOL required OSHA 200 Log. One instance of "camel toe" induced labial skin disorders on a companies OSHA 200 log can lead to in-depth and costly OSHA investigations. Without genitals and genital action in the poseable clothing, how can you model important women's health issues in the workplace. Starting January 1st OSHA's new 300 log rules go into effect where special handling has to be given to incidents involving sexual organs. Is no one here familiar with "camel toe".

Give me a break about the "kids" scenario--I'd wager that half the spam mail inviting me to porn sites are letters written by kids under the age of 18 in the hopes of grabbing a few pennies from the sites they promote. We'll see how "damaging" this trend is in the next few years (my guess--not very damaging at all. It may lose some of the mystery, but never the appeal). As far as Zik's dilemma--it's too bad that the parents can't be a little more empathetic. If I were 18, and had virtually dozens of naked people at my disposal, to do my bidding, you can bet I'd be playing "Freakachu: God of the Orgy" for several weeks before actually doing any real "art" work. Ditto for age 20, 30, whatever... However--If DAZ doesn't want to put genitals on Vicki, that's their call. They shouldn't need to justify their decision (its not like they're hiding the fact that Vicki doesn't have them from their customers) You know what you're paying for when you get there, so if it really bothers you, don't buy it. If someone told me to alter my artwork in a way that I didn't feel like altering it, I'd tell em to go to hell--take it or leave it. And no, they don't need to include genetalia for historical or cultural reasons, or because sex has contributed to our civilization and society. DAZ is DAZ, and they can do whatever they want, as long as they're straight with the customers (which they have been).

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/softgood.ez?ViewSoftgood=423