I think she is coming along great. A good looking woman, too.

what  do  you  think?

She looks great. Her face looks nice.

Arms look too short, otherwise coming along fine!!

She is looking good.

here she is today

here she is today

Looks really good. So you make progress? 

The bends are looking good so far.

Very nice!

Whatever turns your crank, have fun.  I'd rather work with Alyson in her default.  As far as the twin blimps on her chest, if I'm working with a V4 clone, which is rare, the first dial I look for is breast size, at least -50%. To each his own, and I'm damned glad of that.

Doric

Long time no see, santicor! 

Nice work. :)

"Whatever turns your crank, have fun.  I'd rather work with Alyson in her default.  As far as the twin blimps on her chest, if I'm working with a V4 clone, which is rare, the first dial I look for is breast size, at least -50%. To each his own, and I'm damned glad of that."

Wow, what a useful critique that was.

Strange, coming from a moniker with triple X's... consider the common association's implied e.g. strong pornography, plus sized clothing, or a chromosomal disorder in women characterized by developmental disorders. Lol.

Santicor, nice work. Some opinions of my own.

"well, it is better to perfect the boob polys at a large size  and then  shrink  with nmorph  instead of starting with  finite boob polys  arranged at a small  breast size and then  needed to  blow them  up  bigger if you  wanted a huge  size.  try it - its  hard to  stay  smooth."

You might want to consider, at the completion stage, to offer your figure at a smaller breast size default as this will make your figure more appealing to a wider audience and avoid any potential marginalization into certain niche categories of use. I understand your functional intent building this way but uv distortion can be corrected with a morph that slides edges to correct the stretching, particularly in the nipple region where the distortions would be most noticeable. Also, consider the reverse... morphing to a smaller size will result in a contraction of the uv's and mesh, consequently very tiny nipples. This would also need to be corrected.

I think the one advantage to modeling initially at an exaggerated size is that you will have a realistic undercut beneath the breast as it joins the chest region, something that is difficult to achieve with morphing and is lacking in many figures large breast size morphs... hence the torpedo/balloon/gravity defying breasts that you so commonly see in cheesey Poser imagery. I think that the NGM series of morphs by Posermatic did a good job of adding a more realistic undercut, Unfortunately those morphs don't provide as much realism for more petite sizes.

Anyway, congrats on your progress... I'm interested in seeing where this goes.

Have to say, the more I look at her, the more I like her, I don't think I've ever seen one as voluptuous and cury as this woman is by default.  Makes a nice change to have it as part of the mesh by default.  Looking at that render on the first page, she has a epic mons, so it's only natural she's gotta have more up top to balance out the epicness.  Personally I really like her, very much so, and that render where she's wearing the black dress is good at indicating what a nice, rounded figure she has.

Anyway, congrats, wouldn't mind playing with her myself, I think she'd make a great base for a Druuna-like figure and for drawing fantasy babes from!
I hope you keep it up!

UPDATE:
I just realised that your recent post in the High-Heels shows the same figure as you have her now.
She still looks ok, but I much prefered her on page 2.

It's a shame you've pulled things back like that, she's looking too close to a Vickie now, I thought she looked much better as a puprose-made babe :-)

Wow, what a useful critique that was.

Strange, coming from a moniker with triple X's... consider the common association's implied e.g. strong pornography, plus sized clothing, or a chromosomal disorder in women characterized by developmental disorders. Lol.

Or maybe try gage tolerance classes.  As in Z being the most tolerance and the least precise, then X, XX, XXX, each denoting which tolerance to apply to the gage.  the more X's, the less tolerance.  I retired as a gage technician, and the highest paid hourly employee in the plant, something I can be proud of.  Something not many people reach.  And as I said, to each his own, and blimps on a chest definitely isn't mine.
Doric.

Nor mine, doric. But, seeing how things have been on the forum lately, maybe another form of tolerance is in order? Wouldn't want to scare anymore people off from contributing I guess I'm trying to say.

On that note_

"For example, you are producing ball point pens with a ball outer diameter of 0.35 mm. Acceptable balls range from 0.34 to 0.36 mm. Subtracting the maximum and minimum diameters, the process tolerance is 0.02. In order to accurately measure these balls, you must use a gage capable of detecting several differences in this range. Using the Rule of Tens, calculate 10% of the process tolerance. This means your gage must be able to detect a difference of at least 0.002 mm between balls."

So in other words you used to be really good at measuring balls. Lol... sorry couldn't resist. :D

(Runs out the door)

"For example, you are producing ball point pens with a ball outer diameter of 0.35 mm. Acceptable balls range from 0.34 to 0.36 mm. Subtracting the maximum and minimum diameters, the process tolerance is 0.02. In order to accurately measure these balls, you must use a gage capable of detecting several differences in this range. Using the Rule of Tens, calculate 10% of the process tolerance. This means your gage must be able to detect a difference of at least 0.002 mm between balls."

So in other words you used to be really good at measuring balls. Lol... sorry couldn't resist. :D

(Runs out the door)

.002mm or 2 microns is a part tolerance.  The gage tolerances we had were far less than that.  Our standard were considerably tighter.  As 2 microns is two millionths of a meter, maybe suitable to some products, we kept our gaging, at least the calibration standards, usually around 20 millionths of an inch, taking in the instrument we used as having a known error,( not a problem, it's known) and an uncertainty that was sometimes greater than the gage tolerance, in which case we used monochromatic light compared to standards that were held to grade .5, or half a millionth of an inch,  With part tolerances getting tighter and tighter, the fun of the job disappeared fast, I wasn't unhappy to retire at 55 with 30 years of service.  Some of the guys I worked with are over seventy now, still working, with 50 or more years.  They'll have nice pensions if they don't die the day they retire.  Seen that too. Almost forgot, in the case of a ball that goes in something, a proper tolerance would be noted as .36 mm to ,34 mm, not as a plus or minus .01.  Gaging would follow,the larger size, the error would have to be toward the smaller, and the smaller would have to be toward the bigger.  It keeps the known error within the part tolerance.

Doric