Quote - > Quote -

While we're at it, I noticed that the replaced eye actors no longer have an endpoint, which makes the "point at" function unusable. I'm not sure how easy or hard that is to fix, but I thought I'd let you know.

AHHHH, that explains it. I was wondering why I couldn't get the the point at function to work with the eyes, figured it was just my DS acting up.

Just so we're clear: I was talking about the injected BB eyes, not Antonia's default eyes. Those should work fine, at least in Poser. I don't know about "point at" in DS, but I would assume it works the same way as in Poser, so it would depend on the actor having a proper endpoint.

The default eyes in121 work fine in DS, the 122 eyes no longer work with the "point at" function. I don't have time to try the BBeyes right now, but my assumption is the same as yours, that the point at function in DS likely works the same as in Poser.

I just tried it in Poser as well, and the same issue, 121 default eyes "point at" fine, 122 do not.

I just use dials and was unaware of the 'point at' function, well, in P8 anyway.

CHEERS!

OK, I'll do a new version of the BBEye injection, with separate materials for each eye. Will also check the endpoints. Anything else anyone can think of whilst I'm at it?

There will also be a very slight change in the geometry. The original geometry was not quite left/right symmetric, and requires a slight twist around the z axis to fix it.

Gulp! Could the Point At problem be something related to adding the hidden eyecover actors (at my suggestion)?  

just to say, i've used substitute eyes without all the complicated methods and never had a problem or heard of anyone having a problem.  i have BlackEyes (light) and Awful Eyes.  BlackEyes have been pretty popular, but i've never seen anyone ask how to use them before.  maybe i'm just missing some confusion people have had, but imho, you've got a rather complicated and technical solution to a problem that doesn't exist.  and created a usability problem with really odd and particular features like phantom eye parts people will have to research to understand.  so if it's also creating a problem with basic eye function, i would vote for just eliminating the complexity rather than creating more of a kludge to get around any technical problems it might create.

Quote - Gulp! Could the Point At problem be something related to adding the hidden eyecover actors (at my suggestion)?  

That may very well be it. I was just assuming that point at still worked in 122, but didn't think of testing it.

Thanks for finding this, sazzyazzca!

cobaltdream: I would agree with you, except that I was hoping to make BB's eyes part of the default figure at some point. If that creates a usability problem due to the extra eye cover actors, I'm glad we realized that now, rather than after the fact. Those extra actors will have to be there for the eyes to function properly, so we'll have to solve this one way or other. So I'd say we didn't create a problem, but revealed one.

cobaltdream,

Quote - Maybe i'm just missing some confusion people have had, but imho, you've got a rather complicated and technical solution to a problem that doesn't exist.

OK, so perhaps there is a bug that had not been envisaged, but I don't think clicking one icon to change the eyes can be called a particularly complicated, or over technical. The issues to do with the materials are separate from the method used to load the geometry, and would arise what ever method was use to load the geometry. There may be a fix for the Point at problem, there may not be, but what ever the outcome of that will be, it will apply equally whether the eyes are built into Antonia, or injected as an add-on. If there is not a fix, then an option would be to use smart props. But I will remind you that the whole reason for the BBEye injection was so that the eyes could be tested, before the more drastic step of building them into Antonia was taken. Exactly to see if any problems would arise.

Quote - > Quote - I wondered if the length of the first and ring finger was just a little too long.

the tip of the first finger should finish about the base of the nail bed of the second finger and the ring finger should be just above the base of the nail bed of the second finger

Thanks! I'll check that. I see that's true for Fisty's fingers, but not for mine. It could be a male vs. female thing...

It is indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

Well, I agree with cobaltdream insofar as I would rather not have any extra complexity added to the base figure in order to solve the point at problem. If there's an easy fix by twiddling some parameters, fine, but if making the "point at" work again involves complicated ERC or Inky stuff, it's probably better to make the cover actor a prop in the end.

Here's a crazy idea that just occurred to me: couldn't we just include bagginsbill's eye geometry into the base figure without the cover, but with a cornea as part of the eye actor? Then the covers could be loaded later as smart props parented to the eyes, while making the cornea material invisible.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - I wondered if the length of the first and ring finger was just a little too long.

the tip of the first finger should finish about the base of the nail bed of the second finger and the ring finger should be just above the base of the nail bed of the second finger

Thanks! I'll check that. I see that's true for Fisty's fingers, but not for mine. It could be a male vs. female thing...

It is indeed:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digit_ratio

That article seems to be about the 2nd versus 4th digit ratio. We were talking about the 3rd versus 2nd and/or 4th.

I looked at some references, and there seems to be a rather large variety in relative digit lengths, with Antonia's well within limits.

I'm confident the eye issue will be sorted out. :)

Quote - Here's a crazy idea that just occurred to me: couldn't we just include bagginsbill's eye geometry into the base figure without the cover, but with a cornea as part of the eye actor? Then the covers could be loaded later as smart props parented to the eyes, while making the cornea material invisible.

As long as the invisible cornea would not affect BB's refractions and what ever, it sounds very feasible. But I guess we need BB's input on that one.

I'm still weirded out by the fact that some of you get artifacts and I don't.

I'll have to dig up the file I did that added the eyes as smart props. They had no problem tracking the original eye actors.

I also remember specifying point-at vectors for the eyes and they worked right even when not parented to Antonia's eyes.

I'm still pondering the Creative Commons license issue. I'm not certain I want to give up the ability to sell the eyes as add-ons to other figures (and prevent others from doing so).

Could the artifacts be caused by shadow bias?

I know I could be clear out of the ballpark with this one, but it's the only thing that's occurred to me.

Laurie

Quote -
I'm still pondering the Creative Commons license issue. I'm not certain I want to give up the ability to sell the eyes as add-ons to other figures (and prevent others from doing so).

Fair enough! I'm quite happy to have the eyes as add-on props with a separate licence.

Edit: Bear in mind that the CC licence would only cover the eye geometry, and only the particular mesh version that we'd include into the Antonia figure. We wouldn't make the material settings part of the base figure and could thus easily put them under a separate licence (we could probably licence different parts of the base geometry differently as well, but that doesn't seem very practical). So the main parts of your IP would still be protected.

Quote - Could the artifacts be caused by shadow bias?

I know I could be clear out of the ballpark with this one, but it's the only thing that's occurred to me.

Laurie

Could be. But I thought they showed up for others even when they used my light sets I posted. If they used my light sets, then they used my bias values, too. Right? Did that happen or am I imagining it.

I can't keep track of all that was posted in this thread.

I got lost when we started wondering about "good" friday. I went off and researched that for an hour. Since then I lost my marbles.

Quote - > Quote -

I'm still pondering the Creative Commons license issue. I'm not certain I want to give up the ability to sell the eyes as add-ons to other figures (and prevent others from doing so).

Fair enough! I'm quite happy to have the eyes as add-on props with a separate licence.

Edit: Bear in mind that the CC licence would only cover the eye geometry, and only the particular mesh version that we'd include into the Antonia figure. We wouldn't make the material settings part of the base figure and could thus easily put them under a separate licence (we could probably licence different parts of the base geometry differently as well, but that doesn't seem very practical). So the main parts of your IP would still be protected.

Interesting. Face_off claims the shaders can't be protected.

This is all probably incredibly moot. I've been "threatening" to sell something for years. I never finish anything. I still have sold nothing.

Quote - > Quote - Could the artifacts be caused by shadow bias?

I know I could be clear out of the ballpark with this one, but it's the only thing that's occurred to me.

Laurie

Could be. But I thought they showed up for others even when they used my light sets I posted. If they used my light sets, then they used my bias values, too. Right? Did that happen or am I imagining it.

I can't keep track of all that was posted in this thread.

I got lost when we started wondering about "good" friday. I went off and researched that for an hour. Since then I lost my marbles.

WHY don't I believe you? lol

They may or may not have used your light settings. Do light sets save the shadow bias? I didn't think they did ;o). But then, I frequently lose my marbles...

Laurie

Quote - Interesting. Face_off claims the shaders can't be protected.

Well, that goes to show how much I know. The point is, you only give permission to copy, modify and redistribute whatever is explicitly included in the licence. The CC licence is not viral like the GPL. It doesn't extend to derived products or products sharing the same mesh. And my guess would be that you couldn't protect the mesh, anyway, since there are lots of similarly shaped eye meshes around.

Speaking of brains going to mush, mine is certainly mush!

I've been working on my Toni texture set.
And every time I think I've got the MAT files correct, I find I've, somehow, inserted the wrong bump and spec maps in the main MAT file...sigh.

At this rate I will be another hundred years working on it.  

Some light sets do have the shadow bias settings altered. Blackhearted uses a setting of 0.220 and if I notice anything has issues, they can be cleared up using these settings. Not quite a general rule though, I have had things look worse with these. It's a bit trial and error really.

CHEERS!

To make my life easier for multiple JCMs, I reduced the polygon count of the clothing mesh.  Then I discovered that the way the mesh design is really matter.  It is not obvious if the polygon count of the clothing is higher than the character to be conformed to.  Maybe, many of you are aware of it.  Look at the attached picture, my new lower polygon count mesh for the top will poke through even with a very simple movement just because of the direction of the edges is at opposite to the edges of the Antonia's mesh.

Quote - Just went to the Wiki for Antonia, I wonder if Antonia has "limit" on her bones for the rotations.  It seems that there is no limit when I use her in DAZ Studio.

There are no limits yet. If you read the "Status" section, you'll see that I'm planning to add some eventually.

Hmm, yeah, but, is her lack of limits what makes her so good?

CHEERS!

Eyeliners have been fixed to not cover the lacrimals.

www.4shared.com/account/file/imFpzB2Y/sazzyazzca_antonia_eyeliner_UD.html

Eric

Looks good!

CHEERS!

I like the looks of those already. :)

With proper armor, she might make an excellent Joan of Arc.
Or at least a better prepared woman warrior. lol

Posted at DAZ? I thought this sort of image isn't allowed there.

Careful positioning circumvents the DAZ TOS.

That second one looks great! I haven't really done much with Miki2.

CHEERS!

• I am a bit late but yes, some of the images I've posted where done with the lights you've provided, unaltered and with (Auto) render settings set to maximum in PoserPro 2010.

To save you from browsing for the renders: The one above was done with the TestLights.

And about the relaxed-hand resources: You may want to browse the photos with poses that come with almost any photo set by 3d.sk. Here and there you can find photos where the hands are relaxed - although you have to search a lot to find them.

 The picture-upload on the Antonia-HP is now available.

Quote - ...and this with the IBL+Main+Rim.

Hmmm...still looks like a shadow bias thing to me.

Laurie

Digital-Lion, just in time, I'm putting a few finishing touches on a new Toni render.
Now I can post her on her own site. :)

Seeing that you're rendering the eye by itself, I'm wondering which file that is.

Is that the file that LB posted on the developer site? LB BBeys TEST-03?

No matter if I choose absurd values for shadow min bias, or turn on smoothing, I get a perfect result.

The only way I can see the edge of the eye cover is if I move it out of its correct position.

Did you load the color map into both material zones? You have to load it in both.

Eye shadows will be uploaded by week's end. They are pretty much done, but I'm swamped with work and taxes and school this week and don't have time to finish them off right now.

I finally got my render done and posted a new image on Antonia's free site gallery.

For some reason my Poser was acting up last night.
The render kept hanging halfway through and crashing Poser.
I still have no idea what was causing it but this morning it worked fine.

Now I have to get busy and do a few promo images so when I'm ready to post my retail Toni, they will be ready.
i hate doing promos...ugh.

miss one little e-mail notice n 4 1/2 pages go bye  :)

She looks so sultry, BluEcho. :)

Nice work Blu!

If Poser misbehaves, you have to delete the preference files. These are found in the Application Data folder under your user folder in Documents And Settings. You will lose any custom settings made to the GUI and other things. If you use custom render settings you can save these and they won't be affected. Once you have deleted your preferences, you must restart your computer before launching Poser again.

Hope this helps

CHEERS!

Just downloading the Danika texture, looks great!

CHEERS!

Regular eyeshadow resource has been uploaded in the resources section here:

www.bluecho4u3d.com/Antonia/start.htm

Sparkle versions are too large for the free site. I'll upload those tonight and post the links.