Quote - the kids were designed to be aged 4-8 and can push up to 12. they were designed to be morphed. which means they were built to have a neutral look about them which is why they look like they do in the promo images. if they were perfect then there would be no need for 3rd party artists to generate morphs or keep the market going. people here need to look a little deeper into whats goin on. i for one think that maddie was a horrible looking child. not at all realistic and it seems that no matter what was done to make her look more realistic... never quite cut it. with the new kids 4 after using it for 3 days (not judging it from promo images) i can see that with the morphs++ that were made available gives the user greater control of the model more so than the maddie morphs. also they didnt over do it with the body morphs which means people who are planning to create characters for this model for free or for sale they have room to be creative.

plazmaks, your argument seems to be self contradictory. On the one hand you claim that the high number of head morphs gives the user greater control but a low number of body morphs means people have room to be creative. Think about reversing the situation. Would a lower number of head morphs allow more creativity?
I have no idea why DAZ decided to put so few body morphs into the Kids4 Morph++ pakage, but it seriously limits the flexibility of the K4 figure for the normal user. I accept that professional morphers would make their own morphs anyway (for copyright reasons, if nothing else), but the K4 figure was not marketed as a figure for developers only.
Personally I feel very disappointed that DAZ has not provided the flexibility found in V4 and M4 in the K4 figure.

Quote - > Quote - the kids were designed to be aged 4-8 and can push up to 12. they were designed to be morphed. which means they were built to have a neutral look about them which is why they look like they do in the promo images. if they were perfect then there would be no need for 3rd party artists to generate morphs or keep the market going. people here need to look a little deeper into whats goin on. i for one think that maddie was a horrible looking child. not at all realistic and it seems that no matter what was done to make her look more realistic... never quite cut it. with the new kids 4 after using it for 3 days (not judging it from promo images) i can see that with the morphs++ that were made available gives the user greater control of the model more so than the maddie morphs. also they didnt over do it with the body morphs which means people who are planning to create characters for this model for free or for sale they have room to be creative.

plazmaks, your argument seems to be self contradictory. On the one hand you claim that the high number of head morphs gives the user greater control but a low number of body morphs means people have room to be creative. Think about reversing the situation. Would a lower number of head morphs allow more creativity?
I have no idea why DAZ decided to put so few body morphs into the Kids4 Morph++ pakage, but it seriously limits the flexibility of the K4 figure for the normal user. I accept that professional morphers would make their own morphs anyway (for copyright reasons, if nothing else), but the K4 figure was not marketed as a figure for developers only.
Personally I feel very disappointed that DAZ has not provided the flexibility found in V4 and M4 in the K4 figure.

issac first off let me say that i personally am a big fan of your work. and i agree with your statements about the average user. however we all begin somewhere with this. most as hobbyists etc. i for one began doin this as an alternative to sketching for murals and other large works. i found poser by accident back when poser 3 was still around. its taken me a long time to learn how to do most things and understand exactly what it was i was doin. i still consider myself a novice mainly because ive relied upon tutorials and the hardwork of other more professional character makers and modeling artists. all i meant by my post was that with the k3 head morphs being the same as v4 u do have the flexability to dial in head morphs for most personal renders. these days ive seen a growing trend in 3rd party head morphs being created in programs such as zbrush and hexagon. which i believe some of our normal users will pick this up too in time. the low number of body morphs is disappointing to the normal users... but that again leaves room for others like yourself who have made wonderful body morphs for users( particular your preteen morphs for v4) i think that there will be a great assortment for body morphs for the k4.  ok my add is kicking in i apologize lol.... starting to stray here.  so im goin to wrap this up and agree about the scaling issues and seam breaks are a big disappointment for the k4 because i agree at this point in time after such along history in modeling daz should have been able to release this package without those issues. But were talking about a company that exists to provide content to users whos ultimate goal is money. a quick buck. kinda like AE games when they ruin good games to get them out for sales before they are ready. anyway someone asked me to post a picture of a 12yr old version of the kids.  have seen some over on the daz forums but ill give it a shot here in a minute and see if i can have some success. but again respect!

give it some time. the ball is in Daz's court. they can provide updates to correct some of the issues. which i think might be possible such as they did with v4 only later to produce v4.2. give it some time i think everyone who uses the kid4 will be satisfied down the road.

Ah plazmaks you ol' smoothie, flattery will get you everywhere!
Thanks for your comments on V4PT, but I must say that I consider myself to be very much an amateur.
It is true that I'm already playing around with some body morphs for K4, but whether they will ever come to anything, I don't know.

I would be impressed if anyone can make K4 look like a real 12 year old, as I suspect that the rigging does not leand itself to those body proportions; but I look forward to being disproved :)

I hope you're right that in the not too distant fuyure either DAZ or a good modeller will release some body morphs for K4; the default is far too stocky and dwarf-like.

I would like to refer this post to anyone interested in applying V4 morphs to a hybrid K4.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2799616

I've yet to see a child figure from any Poser supplier that hasn't suffered from seriously distorted anatomical proportions. Ben's head and hands are far, far too large. All Daz juvenile releases also appear to be cursed with some sort of hydrocephaly and ridiculously hunched macaroni syndrome shoulders with a side order of flaccid  noodle neck. Except for the poor Milbaby, who seems to have been born with only one cervical vertebra.
And to be brutally honest, they're all butt ugly as well.

 aren't all babies born with one cervical vertebra look?

 Actually, we're all born with more bones than get used later on in life. They then fuse together. With the mil baby, that seems to have already happened. :laugh: Actually all Poser figures have only ONE bone in their necks.

Except for M2 and V2 which had TWO. Some other ones might have two, but I do not remember them.

:lol:

 "Actually, we're all born with more bones than get used later on in life." if u count cartilage.

Quote -  The kids don't work worth a diddly in poser and are not made to.

Like I said, post some pics as proof, rather then going by distorted hear-say.

 Love to. However since the morphs they came with DO NOT WORK, I got nothing to show. "Realistic, Male and Female" do nothing. They do not function. They are installed, updated and initilized, but don't work. If I had paid for them, I'd be demanding my money back.

If they had actually worked, I would not have complained.

I wish everybody would post pictures to justify their various arguments. It's hard to know what to think without being able to see what you are all talking about :)

BTW, the Realistic, Male and Female morphs work in my P7? They don't do very much, but they do work...

Quote -  Love to. However since the morphs they came with DO NOT WORK, I got nothing to show. "Realistic, Male and Female" do nothing. They do not function. They are installed, updated and initilized, but don't work. If I had paid for them, I'd be demanding my money back.

If they had actually worked, I would not have complained.

We were talking about joint bending after single axis scaling, when I asked you to post pics. That has nothing to do wioth morphs. Let's stick to one claim at the time.  I gave you instructions on how to test bending, and link to proof pictures.
Now it's your turn to prove it wrong by posting your pictures, of the same thing, with figures that you are bringing up. Scroll up, look at the link, see how the pics were done, and do the same thing, I want to see how you're going to get different results (ones to substantiate your claims) doing the same thing.

Easy peasy, no rendering needed, no morphs needed, all figures we're talking about are free. Simple thing to post pics that substantiate your claims.
Here's that link again: http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=137495&start=200
Someone else made the pics, so I can't copy them over here, but I tried it for myself, and get the same result.

This is a screenshot of Antonia in Poser Pro 2010.
neck and head nodding forward, Y scale at around 150%

:: sigh ::

Well, FWIW, it looks like we're caught in that classic DAZ situation. They put something up, and it's up to the community to make something of it. How many times have we seen that, guys? Seriously, I've never found the DAZ original versions, when it comes to facial morphs or body borphs, to be all that worthhwile (with the exception of H3 and M4, who have their own distinct issues). Then someone will tear it apart and do what DAZ should have done before release, rather than giving us... well, to be blunt, the skanky looking variants on V4 and now the Children of the Corn.

And I find it bewildering that we're willing to invest that kind of time and energy into this one company when we have all these other models at our disposal, all very free, long before DAZ jumped on the "BASE FIGURES FOR FREE!" bandwagon. We'll ignore them, but we'll lavish attention on the horror story that is the basic Aiko4 (and let's be frank: she is a horror -- that's not a matter of taste; she just is, period).

And we've doing this for years, with it being very unlikely to stop.

I mean, really, why is this? Do the users really consider Barbie Showgirl "pretty" out of the box? Or are we just so used to "business as usual" that it's impossible to think otherwise? Do you just shrug your collective shoulders and say, "Well, okay, not much to look at, but someone will come along and fix it!" with all the optimism of Pippi Longstocking? Laurie mentioned earlier that, should DAZ minimize its Poser support, someone else might step in and fill the gap... but honestly, would there be any point? The community has blindly supported DAZ for years, despite all the headaches, the gross release errors, and the (to me anyway) mounting evidence that they need to give this stuff away to keep their market share. They are more and more dependent on their outside content providers to keep the money coming in, rather than generating content of worth themselves.

What's going on? Can anyone explain this? I just dont understand the business model at work here.

It could be that they are too busy with the software end of the business than the modeling end. I'm not saying that to be ignorant, I'm just saying that could be the reason. I don't know...lol. The brokerage pulls in money without them having to make an effort other than the original figure. I'm not saying that's a bad business model. I'm just saying that could very well be the reason. They have their fingers in a lot more pies now than they used to ;o). Things change and so does Daz too, just like everything else...

Change isn't always better, but that's what happens sometimes ;o). And 'better' is totally subjective depending on the side you favor ;o).

Laurie

Just for the sake of balance and fairness, I have to back up Connie here - there clearly is an issue with joint bending after applying single axis scaling in Poser. As far as I 'm  aware this is a fairly well known Poser issue as well.
Whether or not there are other factors at play with the scaling on the Kids I don't know (I've not really looked at them). It seems this is going to be an issue with future figures though.
As for who's responsibility it is to fix what...it's a kinda six-of-one etc - If Daz are knowingly creating figures that arn't really compatible with Poser then IMO it's arguable that they should make that clear at point of sale (perhaps they are).  On the oher hand, it seems like it'd be useful for SM to take a look at the scaling/bending issues in Poser regardless of anything Daz is producing.

I think another factor gradually coming into play over the last 3 or 4 years is related to improvements of the features in the various apps we use. We're really starting to expect a new level of realism in figures now that we have the ability to do stuff like global lighting etc. Meshes, rigging, morphs and textures are starting to require some rethinks and a new level of refinement to meet these demands. I get the feeling there are a few content creators out there who may start to struggle unless they re-evaluate their practices (that goes for the big boys and Girls at Daz and SM too).

adn one more question.

how many ppl can pull that head position anyway? I know I can't!... (my chin ends up on my chest every time. I can't extend out like that)

Quote - adn one more question.

how many ppl can pull that head position anyway? I know I can't!... (my chin ends up on my chest every time. I can't extend out like that)

Man, you really disappoint me now, I really was under the impression that you could do that. But I agree with you, it's kind of silly to judge any figure on this criteria.

BadKittehCo's photo clearly demonstrates-at least to me-the validity of the criticism that most Poser compatible figures are incorrectly proportioned and crudely rigged. While physical invariance in the real world is certainly a fact, I've never seen a human being with a neck that long and elastic. On the other hand, I freely admit that the people who labor so hard to create these figures for us and offer them at such low prices deserve our thanks and admiration for their wonderful creative skills. For that reason, I'm going to stick out my relatively short, stubby neck and venture the opinion that part of the problem under discussion here is the Poser using communities responsibility, and not the fault of those evil money grubbing merchants. Before you kick my bum across the room, allow me to clarify that assertion as best I can.

Poser compatible figures are offered at extremely low clearance sale prices, and Daz's base units are given away free. Now do a bit of research and compare those costs to what users of other 3D programs pay for models.....and be prepared for a case of terminal sticker shock. We're often talking several hundred dollars. Like it or not, you get what you pay for.

If you have ever attempted to create a 3D figure of a human being, you know what a frustrating, hideously laborious and tedious project it can be. I've tried more than once, and have yet to come close to producing anything that wouldn't cause you to do anything besides bust a gut laughing. I've always found rigging to be so daunting that I've just about decided to relegate it the black arts, along with global economics and a thorough understanding of female psychology.

My point is that we get what we pay for. How much would you be willing to spend for a vastly improved model that didn't suffer from the faults we're debating here? Two hundred dollars? I'm in the same financial situation as most of you in these forums, struggling from month to month to keep my head above water and put a little money in savings, but I'd be willing to purchase a realistic, properly rigged and jointed figure for that price, or even a bit more. When I think of how much use I've gotten out of Victoria 3 compared to what she cost me, it almost makes me feel guilty. True, she has some serious faults, but a lot of those are due to the technical limitations of computer hardware in use at the time of her release. Perhaps professional designers and distributors should now seriously up the standards for their products, and for us to to open our wallets a little wider. Sure, the hit to our disposable incomes will mean fewer dinners at Buca di Beppo*, but maybe it's worth the sacrifice.

*Actually, I prefer White Castle, but I'm an uncultured heathen.

....

erm. thats not a normal pose for ANY figure made by any person for poser or Daz and therefore not fair to judge any figure - SM, Daz, etc - by it.

how about using realistic poses? ones a human can achieve instead of ones that not even a doublejoined yoga master could do?

Yes, the base figures are free, but start adding in the costs required for the addons. It adds up quickly.

Connie's image set out to demonstrate only that bending with single axis scaling applied is problematic in Poser - nothing else. It's fairly irrelevant that the pose is unrealistic for a normal human.

So why is it even an issue...
Figure creation and rigging is such a  time-consuming and expensive process. That's why the concept of creating unimesh and versatile morphing and bending base figures makes sense (particularly for a marketplace such as this where many folk don't have huge budgets). Others will equally argue the case for creating hundreds of individually rigged figures for different characters, and in all fairness you can't expect one figure to be every possible character you might imagine. But I'd still argue that you need the versatile bases to cover a majority of character options.

If you go down this route (which Daz has done with Victoria and Michael), those base figures have to be exceptional in their mesh, morphs and rigging to be usable for multiple characters, whether realistic or fantasy.  Scaling becomes an important feature when seen in this context of versatility - say I need an alien character with a very long neck for example - which is why problems such as single axis scaling are an issue at all.

Given that it is a problem in Poser, it makes sense to me that SM could try and fix it - unless they have something else up their sleeves for future releases that will move the whole game forward.

Single axis scaling not working with bends in Poser isn't a huge problem at present from my perspective - I rarely make those alien characters with very long necks, and I don't plan on buying the Kids - but Daz is clearly using this feature more and more (which apparently works great in Studio) for some of its newer figures so I guess it's a potential problem (and one for the future) for Poser users that want them.

erm no, the pose is NOT irrelevant at all.

if you move the figure into a pose that would break a human anyway, of course the rigging's going to break...!

but what do I know ....

Not for this demonstration ... It is just showing it will break because of the scaling.

look what I'm saying is,

if you show me the problem using a pose that would break it anyway, your not showing me anything other than you can break a figure anyway.

show me the problem with a normal pose, so I can see the problem as you would normally see it.

that make sense?

Quote - Really, guys - DAZ sells content, that's where their money is.

Wrongo! DAZ Sells SOFTWARE & CONTENT! DS/3 has a paid version, Cararra, Bryce, Hexagon are ALL Paid software programs. If you don't think they're working towards the day they don't need Poser you're sadly mistaken. With 4 different software programs and the coding involved for each under one roof, just how long do you think it'll be before they walk away from Poser? Sooner than you may think.

So what really is going on with that neck there? Here is a pic  See no broken seams.  Poser scaling is difficult to set up especially once you get to fingers, toes and shoulders. It is not something you want to do twice, takes alot of time. I never set up scaling until I am absolutely sure I am done tweeking JP's, since if you move them you must do it again. Setting up the scaling for Poser takes hundreds of man hours to do it properly. D/S scaling is not so touchy and is much easier to set up. So setting up scaling for Poser is going to add a great deal of time to the figure development, you can understand why Daz may not want to do this when their own scaling is fine.

Rather than throwing Daz Poser back and forth I am much more interested in the why something is not working and the how to resolve it. In the above example the neck is pretty easy to set up so you dont get the problems Connie demonstrated, I am sure odf knows these things and the final version of Antonia will scale properly. But like I said scaling is not something you want to do twice and likely odf will set it all up once he is sastisfied with tweeking the joints.

If any of you are actually interested in why the neck was scaling that way and how to set up the scaling so that does not happen.  I have made a short video (maybe 2-3 minutes) showing how to set up scaling for the neck so you dont get this problem.

Video:  www.youtube.com/watch

Thats not to say Poser has no bugs LOL, quite the contrary, flipping falloff zones and shifting joint centers to name two. But the scale thing with the neck shown by Connie is not one of them if it is set up right.

oops I guess the vid is 5 minutes.  :)

thanks Phantom. that helps a lot.

"......if it is set up right."

Exactly ! Thank you, Phantom3D.

Allow me to quote myself from from this thread over at DAZ:
http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=137495&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

People are mixing up several things:

1. DEFAULT (UNSCALED) Kids-4 bend in all versions of Poser without breaking.
   NOONE said otherwise, and that is NOT the problem..
   (Their strange "Mini-Me" default body shape is whole different can of worms)

2. "Single axis scaling" DOES work in Poser IF the figure is properly rigged according to Poser standards.
   It DOES not matter WHAT RIGGING TOOLS are used for the rigging.
   What matters is the RIGGING METHOD that was used.
   Was it rigged ADHERING to POSER'S STANDARDS or not, NOT was it rigged using POSER'S or STUDIO'S rigging tools.

3. CONFORMING a "single axis scaled" CLOTHING ITEM does ONLY work in PoserPro 2010.
   (In older versions the clothing reverts to default 100% scale when conformed)
   BUT ONLY if the "single axis scaling" in BOTH the figure AS WELL as the CLOTHING was set up using POSER'S STANDARDS for "single axis scaling".

If it isn't, the mesh and clothing will still break. <<

And just to be clear:
I'm definitly NOT in favor of single axis scaling.

Didn't like Apollo's ADS, don't like DAZ "morphforms".

A dedicated rig is a much better solution than a "one size fits all" setup, because a rig is more than just joint centers.
Even if you just morph a mesh from "emacicated" to "heavy", the falloff zones and JCM's will cause problems unless you re-adjust them.
Scaling also distorts limbs in a way that isn't realistic, even if the scaling is propery set up.

But the point is, IF one insists to make a figure highly "scaleable", doing it in Poser is NOT a problem.

Awesome video.

So, is that all this single axis scaling issue thing is - just not setting it up in the rigging?

That's crazy. I stand corrected - not a Poser scaling problem it seems.

Thanks for sharing that video Phantom.

What is it in Poser that makes it trickier to set up than D/S?

Quote -
Didn't like Apollo's ADS, don't like DAZ "morphforms".

A dedicated rig is a much better solution than a "one size fits all" setup, because a rig is more than just joint centers.
Even if you just morph a mesh from "emacicated" to "heavy", the falloff zones and JCM's will cause problems unless you re-adjust them.
Scaling also distorts limbs in a way that isn't realistic, even if the scaling is propery set up.

But the point is, IF one insists to make a figure highly "scaleable", doing it in Poser is NOT a problem.

I agree that dedicated rigs are ideally much better solutions, but surely a very costly one potentially to the end user with a wide variety of character needs.
And what are we talking about here, a seperate figure for every different variation or a seperate rig to cover ranges of body-types (e.g. thin, average, obese, muscular)?
Is there any conceivable way to switch rigs in a figure in a user friendly way?

Carrodan:  D/S scaling is alot less touchy, and it will look better even if it is not set the best it could be. Some things that just explode a mesh in Poser with the scaling, you will barely notice in D/S. This must have something to do with the internal code and how D/S scales.   Poser scaling is old and very, very touchy but it does work quite well, just hard and  annoying to set up. Especially things like fingers and add on top of thad if a figure starts out with a bend to the joint, lining up the axis for the scale to be smooth between the two connected parts, makes it even harder, but it can be done.

Also, and I dont know if this is true for D/S, you get your best scaling if the rows of polygons in your mesh are 90 degrees to your scale axis.

Phantom, I just tried your technique with my modified Ichiro1 mesh, and it worked beautifully.

THANKS!

Cheers mike - it sounds like Poser's rigging could benefit an overhaul of some kind.

Video bookmarked :o).

Thanks much Mr. Mike ;o).

Laurie

"And what are we talking about here, a seperate figure for every different variation or a seperate rig to cover ranges of body-types (e.g. thin, average, obese, muscular)?
Is there any conceivable way to switch rigs in a figure in a user friendly way?"

You can inject joints (and falloff-zones) into a figure's cr2 just like you can inject morphs.

So ideally, if you incejt an "obese" morph or an "emacicated" morph, you could also inject modified joints and falloff zones at the same time.
Same for clothing, of course.

But I usually re-rig all my morphed figures and turn them into standalone characters as I want the joints to be as perfect as possible.

Quote -
You can inject joints (and falloff-zones) into a figure's cr2 just like you can inject morphs.

So ideally, if you incejt an "obese" morph or an "emacicated" morph, you could also inject modified joints and falloff zones at the same time.
Same for clothing, of course.

But I usually re-rig all my morphed figures and turn them into standalone characters as I want the joints to be as perfect as possible.

I just wondered why no-one has attempted this as a commercial option for a base figure (perhaps it has been done?).
Would a rig/shape injection system be workable for the versatile figure concept?

Thing is, for the end user who doesn't know rigging at all, but wants a solution to character design via dial spinning that moves beyond V4/M4, it seems like a good idea.
I'd always prefer to use a good base in this way. I did like Apollo for this design potential, for all his shortcomings.
Could be I'm just dreaming.

The thing is that it is something that most users would not even attempt, changing the joints is not for the feint of heart. It is also something that you would have to to do for every piece of clothing, etc. And it is not a one size fits all solution. So what you end up with for one thing, doesn't work in another, etc. That is always what the poser scale bug was. It has always been the joints.

Quote - The thing is that it is something that most users would not even attempt, changing the joints is not for the feint of heart. It is also something that you would have to to do for every piece of clothing, etc. And it is not a one size fits all solution. So what you end up with for one thing, doesn't work in another, etc. That is always what the poser scale bug was. It has always been the joints.

Well if you use Wardrobe Wizard to transfer the clothing to the newly rigged figure you'll save a lot of time.

Quote - The thing is that it is something that most users would not even attempt, changing the joints is not for the feint of heart. It is also something that you would have to to do for every piece of clothing, etc. And it is not a one size fits all solution. So what you end up with for one thing, doesn't work in another, etc. That is always what the poser scale bug was. It has always been the joints.

So the Daz Studio scaling will work sorta like universal for clothes too? Now thats interesting, I have not worked with clothes much yet in Poser, a bit, and they do have to be adjusted for scaling differently than the figure to get a perfect fit. That would be a plus if you did not have to do that.

I am looking at adopting some of the Daz style scaling especially for  the chest-collars.  In Brad the collars are just a thin line befor the shoulder, not much to work with for scaling. But if I tie them together with the chest (morph forms) they work great. I'll likely end up with a hybrid Daz-Poser scaling.

The example I used in the video is over simplified as well, cause you have to remember that you also have other body parts and x and z scale to account for as well. So it gets more complicated than just setting up the y scale, they all have to play nice together.

cheers.

Quote - Using a figure that is in alpha is hardly fair, although I can understand why Connie would considering some of the statements made in this thread. :)

So what really is going on with that neck there? Here is a pic  See no broken seams.

Actually, you have stretched seams on the uderside of the neck, and also, you didn't use any of the head nod rotation.  Try compaing apples and apples.

I'm going to re-download your latest, and show you what it looks like when you compare apples and apples.

lie? nice. you know sometime we may actually have a civil conversation round here.

you know one with out snide comments and trying to score points.
 I'm outta here. it's just not worth the time.

Won't the the mesh always stretch when a body part is bent? I mean, I know that's why extra density is added in those parts, but they're still gonna stretch some ;o).

Laurie

Quote -
To make it work with current rigging system, one would have to anticipate Z Scaling and make a whole array of ERC'd JP adjustments and JCM's for each joint. That would be a humongous undertaking. Not to mention very cost prohibitive to make a figure like that, and especially clothing for it.

And ahem allow me to channel Joe public and quote myself(LOL)  from the previous page of this thread (See above).
The joint smoothing parameters that phantom showed in his video are just a part of JP's that have been a part of the rigging all the time.

A figure will bend different ways, depending on how those JP's are set. Also those may needs a different setting depending on whether a bone is bending forward, back or sideways, and whether the neighboring bones are bent and/or rotated or not.

One would have to be a real entry level rigger to not be aware of those.

Quote - > Quote - The thing is that it is something that most users would not even attempt, changing the joints is not for the feint of heart. It is also something that you would have to to do for every piece of clothing, etc. And it is not a one size fits all solution. So what you end up with for one thing, doesn't work in another, etc. That is always what the poser scale bug was. It has always been the joints.

Well if you use Wardrobe Wizard to transfer the clothing to the newly rigged figure you'll save a lot of time.

I just love it when people who never actually do things act like they know how it's done.
Can you show us some examples of your work, pelase?

Quote - erm no, the pose is NOT irrelevant at all.

if you move the figure into a pose that would break a human anyway, of course the rigging's going to break...!

but what do I know ....

Well, if we're going to use that logic, on real humans, biones are not scalable, so then why are people biatching that kids bones not scaling well? Can't have it both ways.

Quote - if you show me the problem using a pose that would break it anyway, your not showing me anything other than you can break a figure anyway.

Good point. See, it all started with people showing those kings of poses using the kids, as proof that 'they're poorly rigged'. I'm trying to stick to comparing apples and apples.

Quote - Won't the the mesh always stretch when a body part is bent? I mean, I know that's why extra density is added in those parts, but they're still gonna stretch some ;o).
Laurie

Of course it will, on any figure, that's exactly what I was trying to show. That's how poser rigging works. This is not something isolated to Kids or DAZ figures.
However, I'm seeing it used as 'proof' that DAZ figures have more issues then 'other properly rigged figures', and that's just not true.  It's just how poser rigging works. All figures are susceptible to it's limitations.

Now, when it comes to whether one wants to adjust aspecific JP's more in one direction or another, it boils down to a difference of opinions between riggers, and what their ultimate goals are for the figure. This doesn't mean that one=bad and improper, and the other = proper, and good.