I have been told that Genesis is now usable in Poser Pro 2012.  I have seen a few threads on this and it seems like there's a lot of converting necessary from DS4.  I am so bewilderingly confused by everything I've read and have gotten to the point where I don't even know where to start.

Could anyone be kind enough to explain, step by step, how it's done?  Any way to get Genesis Only/DS4 Only clothes into Poser Pro 2012?

Thanks...

Daz3D posted a youtube tutorial showing how to export Genesis from DS4 into P9/2012. However, once inside Poser, it no longer has the functionality of DS4 Genesis. Whether the weight mapping works, or would have to be redone in Poser, I'm not sure about, (weight mapping works differently between the two programs), but all the morphing and extreme figure shaping, texture conversion, etc,  that Genesis is capable of in DS4 goes away in Poser. You can still morph it, but you'll get a very stretched mesh if you do anything too extreme, so I really don't see the point in going to all the trouble of getting Genesis into Poser. 

I managed to export it using this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XDYEvSb7jQs

I don't know about clothes, the one time I used genesis in poser I used dynamic clothes and tweeked them abit to fit.

hope this helps

Quote - Daz3D posted a youtube tutorial showing how to export Genesis from DS4 into P9/2012. However, once inside Poser, it no longer has the functionality of DS4 Genesis. Whether the weight mapping works, or would have to be redone in Poser, I'm not sure about, (weight mapping works differently between the two programs), but all the morphing and extreme figure shaping, texture conversion, etc,  that Genesis is capable of in DS4 goes away in Poser. You can still morph it, but you'll get a very stretched mesh if you do anything too extreme, so I really don't see the point in going to all the trouble of getting Genesis into Poser. 

Not true at all as you can go between different shapes pretty easily and some say smoothing helps. However it only works as low poly and there's issues with clothing and hair. At this point, I do agree it's probably not worth the effort if you're expecting it to look the same as DS. I mainly use the genesis in Poser 2012 to run dynamic clothing simulations against the base then export the obj to rig in DS4. Got a few nice freebies for my figures that way.

Quote - Not true at all as you can go between different shapes pretty easily and some say smoothing helps. However it only works as low poly and there's issues with clothing and hair. At this point, I do agree it's probably not worth the effort if you're expecting it to look the same as DS. I mainly use the genesis in Poser 2012 to run dynamic clothing simulations against the base then export the obj to rig in DS4. Got a few nice freebies for my figures that way.

Why don't you answer the OP's questions and explain how to do what he wants to do? 

That would be productive, I think.

I can see how if you morph genesis into whatever character you're wanting in DS and then export it out and bring it into poser, but not morphing inside poser, due to the low poly mesh. DS has some way of increasing the mesh density as the character is being shaped, poser doesn't do that. 

It would be nice if poser did do that. I don't see why it would be so difficult to incorporate, but I'm not a programmer. My knowledge of python is rather limited, but I have books on it. 

it is  low poly but not that you would notice that much, my one attempt in poser with genesis

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/full.php?member&image_id=2264149

Check out the video i posted earlier, it's a step by step method and you only have to do it the once on a particular form and skin type.

You can get a morphed genesis figure into poser with the cr2 exporter and you can use it as a normal figure, morphs and all

However - you cannot use any conforming clothing on a morphed genesis figure. There are incompabilities between poser and ds4 which have not been solved and most likely will not be solved in the near future

So a NGIATWAS is possible, making her decent is not

Quote - Why don't you answer the OP's questions and explain how to do what he wants to do? 

That would be productive, I think.

You actually could have been productive and did the very thing I'm about to do instead of try to pick an unnecessary fight:

http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=175224

There's all the info you need to know. My response just saved you more time, so it was actually more productive.

That information is incorrect. The exporter has been changed

Nice render Lully. 

I've already seen the video a while back. 

Quote - That information is incorrect. The exporter has been changed

 

That thread gives all the info you need on the exporter and all the issues; which is why I gave the short answer.

That thread does not contain the step by step instructions which was asked for and is confusing with the different versions of the exporter which have been released.

The documentation in the link is even more off as the video. It has not been updated since sept/oct last year.

To the OP: To get genesis clothing into poser for use with V4 or other figures you can use Wardrobe wizard with the genesis addon.

Quote - That thread does not contain the step by step instructions which was asked for and is confusing with the different versions of the exporter which have been released.

The documentation in the link is even more off as the video. It has not been updated since sept/oct last year.

This pretty much explains why I said not to bother. Until there something that easy to export, the steps are clear and the results are worth the effort (resolution, clothing), you're better off not going through the trouble. And it's not even finished and probably won't be for the forseeable future.

However, if you're willing to ask for more current steps on how to export it then see how you can work through some the issues with the exporter, that link is where you start to ask.

Wow... thanks for all the responses.  Even with the variety of perspectives, this gave me the answer I was looking for.  I think I'm going with the not worth the time angle.  It seems like it really isn't worth the time..

I appreciate everyone's responses because you just saved me a mountain of time and trouble worrying about how to implement Genesis in Poser Pro 2012.

Ah if only I could get used to working with DS4...

Time to cancel my DAZ subscription...

Quote - > Quote - Why don't you answer the OP's questions and explain how to do what he wants to do? 

That would be productive, I think.

You actually could have been productive and did the very thing I'm about to do instead of try to pick an unnecessary fight:

http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=175224

There's all the info you need to know. My response just saved you more time, so it was actually more productive.

I wasn't trying to start a fight.  I was just asking you to SHARE the knowledge you bragged about having.

I don't use DS4

I have never touched Genesis in Poser or anything else

I have no desire to use Genesis.

You bragged about doing so.  I would have been far more productive to SHARE that skill than what you have done in this thread.

No fight involved.

@ the OP, if your the kind of person that likes jumping through hoops to get a halfassed item to work then go a head, if not then it really isn't worth the hassle especially as there are far better figures available for P9's WM system, ie the Gen 4 figures are getting a WM makeover (V4's already available).

Quote - I wasn't trying to start a fight.  I was just asking you to SHARE the knowledge you bragged about having.

I don't use DS4

I have never touched Genesis in Poser or anything else

I have no desire to use Genesis.

You bragged about doing so.  I would have been far more productive to SHARE that skill than what you have done in this thread.

No fight involved.

It's amusing how a post says "no fighting" yet the choice of words, "bragging", implies otherwise. ;)

Regardless, bragging has nothing to do with recommending not using something that simply isn't ready to be used by the masses and isn't finished. I guess it would have been better to say nothing and have the OP just fight with the exporter and believe that he/she would get the same results and buy stuff that they couldn't use in Poser at this time? Frankly, I'm surprised I'm the one that actually said anything about not using it, and people that are so against genesis said nothing. Surprised indeed.

Quote - > Quote - I wasn't trying to start a fight.  I was just asking you to SHARE the knowledge you bragged about having.

I don't use DS4

I have never touched Genesis in Poser or anything else

I have no desire to use Genesis.

You bragged about doing so.  I would have been far more productive to SHARE that skill than what you have done in this thread.

No fight involved.

It's amusing how a post says "no fighting" yet the choice of words, "bragging", implies otherwise. ;)

Regardless, bragging has nothing to do with recommending not using something that simply isn't ready to be used by the masses and isn't finished. I guess it would have been better to say nothing and have the OP just fight with the exporter and believe that he/she would get the same results and buy stuff that they couldn't use in Poser at this time? Frankly, I'm surprised I'm the one that actually said anything about not using it, and people that are so against genesis said nothing. Surprised indeed.

No one here recommended using genesis in its current state in poser.

To the contrary - the only one who said he was using it in poser for something real was you - and of course with the usual commercial for DS4

Quote - No one here recommended using genesis in its current state in poser.

To the contrary - the only one who said he was using it in poser for something real was you - and of course with the usual commercial for DS4

That's a sad commercial if I'm only using it as a template to pull out dynamic clothes and export the obj and recommending not using a DS4 utility. Honestly, you need a better choice of word and view if you think that.

And these attacks over a unfinished utility is really silly.

DAZ started with the tool proclaiming that it was a solution for poser users. Then they suddenly abandoned it with a message telling their customers to complain to their competitor and to push them to do the work.

Who is silly?

Quote - DAZ started with the tool proclaiming that it was a solution for poser users. Then they suddenly abandoned it with a message telling their customers to complain to their competitor and to push them to do the work.

Who is silly?

This is why I've cancelled by subscription to their site for the first time in eight years.  They have lost me as a customer and I've spent a fortune on their site.  I probably would have continued to do so too...

Quote - DAZ started with the tool proclaiming that it was a solution for poser users. Then they suddenly abandoned it with a message telling their customers to complain to their competitor and to push them to do the work.

Who is silly?

That's SOP with DAZ.  Everything they do is unfinished.

See DS3 & DS4

See Hexagon

See Carrara

See Bryce

Need I say more?

Glitterati3D & Male_M3dia - Please take your bickering to site mail. Please leave it out of the forum. Thank you.

Quote - [I mainly use the genesis in Poser 2012 to run dynamic clothing simulations against the base then export the obj to rig in DS4.

How?

If the information you linked to is incorrect, which method do you use? Care to share?

Quote - > Quote - [I mainly use the genesis in Poser 2012 to run dynamic clothing simulations against the base then export the obj to rig in DS4.

How?

If the information you linked to is incorrect, which method do you use? Care to share?

You don't need a cr2 to run cloth sims on in poser, just an object with the proper shape. I suspect he or she is fitting the cloth to the genesis obj, that's what I gathered from it at least. 

Nice way of making quick body suits actually. Then you can cut them up as needed.  

I am of the opinion that half measures cobbled together for P/R damage control can do more harm  ,in the long run ,than bluntly stating:

"Tough cookie folks if you want this then use our program"

This is what I somewhat admire about companies like Autodesk when it comes to their windows only product line.

They never tried to Fob off some horribly dysfunctional or "windows Emulation" dependent version of 3DMAX on us Mac users,

DAZ should have said this to the poser supplicants from the beginning and dealt with the fallout.

Not to start a DAZ bashing session mind you, but they seem to be desperately trying to expand beyond their usual&captive  market of Forum dwelling ,Digital Content hoarders &internet gallery populators, based soley on their imagined "magical qualities" of genesis.

Winning 3D world Mag's "innovation of the year"
seems to have horribly distorted their view of reality with regard to the professional CG market

For example they recently posted a sticky Calling to all "game developers".
 
They proudly announced that they have created an experimental , proof of concept, Apple IOS app that will import a Low poly game res version of Genesis onto the Ipad and proceeded to show
the "Girl" morph of genesis on the Ipad doing what I can only describe as an utterly embarrassing "Booty slap" Dance.

Wearing her color changing "supersuit".

NO actual Game Idea (FPS,RPG etc)

Just, "hey look!!  its the mighty genesis hacked onto the ipad ,You game dev guys take it from here!!"

They did the same with their experimental genesis to Maya plugin as if just showing people that its possible to have a genesis mesh in their program will make them come running with a team of $$programmers$$ and figure out "some use" for the amazing genesis in their established pipelines.

Now the free premium software Free give away.

The same delusional mentality that makes it very obvious
 ( to me) that they refuse to acknowledge that very few people outside of the Myopic little DAZ/poser internet communities actually care about their Precious genesis Figure.

Cheers

Thank you Male_M3dia

Wonderful to meet at least one professional person amongst all the nay sayers. For me it is quite obvious that you have to work with both programs for a time. That doesn't mean that you have to learn ALL Daz. In fact the little you need to know (as a user not vendor) can be learned over the week-end.

Smith-Micro didn't have to buy the whole package. If they only had done subdivision it would had been tremendous useful and not only for Genesis. Well to have to subdivide in another program isn't too much trouble I guess no problem. It will only be my umpteen work around in my 20 years with computers. Or perhaps that was bragging?

?

 "most people are dragged kicking and screaming into the future"

Subdivision would not have brought genesis to poser.

And for the workarounds you don't need the cr2 exporter - it just costs a lot of time and frustration

Point is that for the average user it is not really an option

20 years hmmmmm, I give you 40 years...

After getting perspective on things I discern that V4-WM and the upcoming M4-WM is a end-user tool and not for the cloth-creator.

Because for the user is it only a question of a few seconds and in most cases it works out of the box. But for the vendor to check everything TO BE SURE is a lengthy process that takes more time then modeling itself. Especially vexing as you already have done that once. You can be pretty sure most vendors will not take or should I say risk the trouble.

Quote - Smith-Micro didn't have to buy the whole package. If they only had done subdivision it would had been tremendous useful and not only for Genesis.

Genesis looks fine in Poser when rendered with smoothing. I think some issues will also be solved by Poser's SR-2. 

Unfortunately, the development cycle of both Genesis and P9/PP2012 happened to coincide; if they had been a year out of step, it wouldn't have been a critical issue; it's hard to build in support for a product that's not yet finalized (and this goes both ways).

I think V4WM seems to bend better than Genesiswith the Female morph at 100% in Poser, particulary the thigh/hip joint, but I'll see if V5 is an improvement when I get my copy of 3D World.

As far as creating clothing for weightmapped figures goes, there are fewer JCMs, so it should be easier.  In my experience with V4WM, adding the weight maps to standard V4 clothing with Poser Place Outfitter and tweaking any artifacts (there usually aren't any) with the Morph Brush has worked well.  YMMV......

Phil Cooke sells a WW2 plugin for Genesis; has anyone tried it?

After getting perspective on things I discern that V4-WM and the upcoming M4-WM is a end-user tool and not for the cloth-creator.

That is just your opinion, perhaps you need to see M4WM in action once the project team release it.

As M4WM has not been released, then how can you say it is not for cloth-creators?

All the best.

LROG

Pardon my ignorance, but I fail to understand the fuzz about the subdivision. The Catmul-Clark subdivision does not use the normals, it does not care for curvature more than just one facet away. It does not perserve volume. It does not obey the laws of Physics of membranes. It is just an easy math process that can help to accomodate gross geometry variations. It is popular in graphical applications, but it is a cheapy method that has no physical background. 

Geometry definition is made trough vertices.  Additional facets generated from the available vertices do not add any detail. They just interpolate and blur existing definition.

With smoothing turned on for the existing compatible figures (V4 or Antonia) I do do not see vertex edges in my Poser Renders, even when they are in close detail. Yet, I hear morph developers complain the resolution is marginal if you want to add that level of detail that is visible in close-up shots.

A drawback of weight mapping is that you need to give information on the amount of bending for every vertex in the bend area. Consequently, if you reduce the number of vertices in a model, you need to store less weightmap information and preview generation could be faster. This is an advantage if the graphics card in the system is low-spec, or if the system has low memory. At render time, the additional work for the subdivision has to be done, and in the end the number of facets for rendering need not be different.

My conclusion is that I do not need subdivision for the modern figures. If I need anything on geometry it is simplification. If an image shows 10 figures none of them will be close enough to see any detail. Facets will be on pixel level. Geometry definition on a level suitable for close-up for all of them is a waste.  We had V3-RR, and the Poser 5 and 6 figures had low-res versions. Can I have them also for the new figures, pleez? 

Quote - If they only had done subdivision it would had been tremendous useful and not only for Genesis.

I have to disagree with this.

On a CPU, smoothing is slower than using subdivision.

On a GPU, smoothing blows the doors off of the subdivision route. Even down to low levels like .1 pixel sampling. Smoothing can be done in parallel on a GPU now. My workstation has plenty of CPU pipelines (24), and 3200 GPU pipelines.... No comparison there. The GPUs stomp the processors if the program can use them. A cheap video card has hundreds of piplines as well. There are memory issues with GPU stuff, but most modern video cards have more than enough memory now.

Subdivision is a wasted step if you plan on using the GPU in the future with a render engine. GPUs handle tessilation/smoothing very well, and both are user (developer) programable for joints, distance mapping, etc. The future if 3D and rendering is in the GPU, not the CPU. When the truly parallel video cards hit the market, subdivision will hit the back burner again for a while. I doubt it will go away, but it will see less use for a while.

Smoothing is supported in tons of render engines, newer video cards are optimized for it as well. It is supported in 3Delight Pro as well, but not in the Daz Studio version of the render engine. (as far as I can tell anyway) Not sure why, might be a licensing thing.

Genesis is a neat idea and has potential. But it is unsupported in just about everything outside of Daz Studio. If you want to use Genesis, use it in DS. Thats what it was designed to be used in, and you loose to much to really warrant porting it to Poser for much. There are acceptions, such as the fore mentioned use of the Poser cloth room, etc.

You cant beat the price of DS either, considering they gave it away.

The main problem with smoothing as implemented in Poser is that it is not geometry based, so any other processes that rely on geometry don't work properly or look right. CC subd creates the geometry "on the fly" - it will have the same advantages in GPU rendering as it does in CPU rendering. It's also not just simple tesselation, conceptually for mental visualization, think of it more as a tension spline interpolation of the mesh surface in multiple directions (yes, I know this isn't mathmatically how it is handled, but the visual results are similar - though tension splining would result in less defined details).

Anyone who has done modeling using a lowres base mesh with "smoothing" turned on will understand the advantages of dynamic subdivision for modeling. Without CC subd, all of the 3D cgi block busters we have all seen would have taken much much longer to produce. Increased verticies means increased production time, not only the time to render, but more importantly in the time invested in rigging, creating morphs, and animating the figures.

CC subd has been as standard in the 3D industry for many many years. In fact, people on this forum began requesting that it be integrated into Poser back at P4. Posers curent method for smothing figures needs to be improved, nothing new or different there. CC subd is a proven method used in many applications already. SM doesn't have to use it, there are other algorithms that work well also, but if they want to move forward and provide us with better tools that are used in the "pro" apps, it does need to happen.

Just my 2 cents, worth about .002 cents with inflation.

Quote - > Quote - If they only had done subdivision it would had been tremendous useful and not only for Genesis.

I have to disagree with this.

On a CPU, smoothing is slower than using subdivision.

On a GPU, smoothing blows the doors off of the subdivision route. Even down to low levels like .1 pixel sampling. Smoothing can be done in parallel on a GPU now. ...

Sounds interesting. Do you have any references for this?

Quote - ...Smoothing is supported in tons of render engines, newer video cards are optimized for it as well. It is supported in 3Delight Pro as well, but not in the Daz Studio version of the render engine. (as far as I can tell anyway) Not sure why, might be a licensing thing.

How do you enable it in 3delight?

And how do you enable it in Vue?

?

Many production companies use smoothing engines instead of subD'ing it to death.

Sud D requires far more calculations than smoothing does, making it slower. It is slower on a CPU and GPU. More information and calculations equals slower, there is no way around that.

Sud D changes all the morphs, the UV's etc. All of that has to be calculated and inflates the sizes of the information sent to the render engine. Smoothing does not modify the morphs, UVs etc, and is all handled by the render engine on a per pixel basis.

I also fail to see how the smoothing is not based off of the geometry. How do you think in determines the curve of the smooth?

Smoothing is a spatial index that is determined from the wireframe information. Different engines use different methods to do this, but all of them are based off of the geometry.

Renderman Pro Server is based of Reyes smoothing, guess they need to scrap that and switch to SubD so movies take a few more years to render, instead of 3 months....

Maybe Houdini should scrap Mantra as well, it is Reyes based as well.

Seems odd that the top of the line packages used in production everyday would use smoothing instead of SubD, if SubD was better....

I go to bed. I will be interesting tomorrow to read all the good reasons why Poser don't have any of the features of "the software of the year".

In Swedish we call it "Högt hänger dom och sura är dom" be free to use translation of the proverb on Wikipage,
http://sv.wikipedia.org/wiki/R%C3%A4ven_och_druvorna

nighty night

Quote - Sounds interesting. Do you have any references for this?

Yes, I have some info on it, on various hardware. Some of it is addressed in one of the Open CL programming guides. There is some info on it on AMDs site as well.

AMD has tons of info here: http://developer.amd.com/documentation/articles/Pages/default.aspx#opt
 

Quote - How do you enable it in 3delight?

If you have the full version of 3Delight Pro, you can not really turn it off. Thats how the default engine works. It is a Reyes based, Renderman compliant render engine.

Actually, Catmull-Clark subdivision surfaces have been supported in Pixar Renderman since 1998. See the link below for the specific reference, and if you browse down the page , there is quite a bit of information on the specific advantages and instances where it can be advantageous to use.

Keep in mind, there are several variants of Renderman out in the wild. The one used by Pixar, Wetta, and several others is the Pixar variant - Pixar Renderman or "PRman"

http://graphics.stanford.edu/lab/soft/purgatory/prman/Toolkit/rnotes-3.8.html

"I also fail to see how the smoothing is not based off of the geometry. How do you think in determines the curve of the smooth?"

I didn't say smooting in Poser wasn't based on geometry, of course it's "based" on geometry. But it doesn't create geometry, it is a shader effect that gives the appearance of additional geometry. It can work well in many cases, but often this phantom geometry does not show up in shadows, and can cause undesired visual results when other objects intereract with the surface of the phantom geometry.

I find it hard to understand why people would not welcome CC subd, or a similar technology in Poser? Making morphs is actually easier with fewer polys to push and pull (note the discussion in the link above). Why do Maya, 3DS, Cinema 4D, Lightwave, Modo, Zbrush, Blender, etc., etc. all have a big investment in subd if it's not valuable? But, maybe I'm just lazy.

If you don't like cc subd, don't want cc subd in Poser, thats fine with me. I just thought I'd point out that it is an industry standard, and is a very valuable tool to have in your tool box. I'd like to have it, but maybe I'm just not as well versed in 3D as others here who don't want it in Poser.

Quote - This pretty much explains why I said not to bother. Until there something that easy to export, the steps are clear and the results are worth the effort (resolution, clothing), you're better off not going through the trouble. And it's not even finished and probably won't be for the forseeable future.

Sound advice regarding Genesis, and pretty much my understanding of the situation. Kudos to those who are getting some fun or practical use out of the thing, but for me... why bother.

How hard is it to understand that Catmull Clark SubD does NOT add detail to a mesh.

Picture shows two times M2. Left is the HiRes version with 34.000 polys. Right is the LoRes version with 21.000 polys.

Which would you rather use ?

Stop worrying about "Industry Standards"

We don't make feature films in Poser or need a minimum frame rate for a game.

We render detailed stills on low end computers so why should we adhere to "Industry Standards" ?

As much as I like the Genesis concept, but basing it on a SubD'd LoRes mesh that requires a smoothing algorithm was not the right decision.

BTW, Genesis has 19.000 polys.

2000 less than M2 LoRes.

The same as the P4 "Dork".

You really want to go back to the Poser 4 days ?

And this is the smoothness and mesh detail you get from a 75.000 poly mesh, which, for the last couple of years, is the "Poser Standard".

Quote - I find it hard to understand why people would not welcome CC subd, or a similar technology in Poser?

It is not that I would not be welcome it, LOL! Any tool is welcome. If Poser were a geometry building tool this, or something like it, would be indispensible, and Maya, 3DS and the others have rightfully invested. When developing you start rough, and then need a method increase the grid density where you need it for definition or to add more detail. Poser however is not a geometry building tool and it does not pretend to be. For the function it does perform: combine, bend and display geometry definitions built elsewhere, other priorities prevail. A mesh densification method may come in handy in some cases for doing touch-up, but if there is a serious issue to be solved, you better call in the real stuff right away. 

Quote - Making morphs is actually easier with fewer polys to push and pull.

For morphs affecting a large area there are magnets, that work irrespective of the number of vertices. More vertices give more control. > Quote - (note the discussion in the link above).

If you refer to the discussion under 'Subdivision Surfaces': As far as I can see that  refers to the grid of attraction points of a splined surface, not to vertices actually defining the surface as we use them in Poser.

What is your point?
I see your render examples.
But I like to render humans. Normal human figures that is.
Not 1 in a 10.000 looks like what you show.
To build "humans" you need around 6000 to 8000 Poly's.

Take a look at this example at 6.400 poly's.
Look at the multiple promo pictures.

They clearly show that:

• Poly distribution is important; NOT Poly count, but Poly distribution.
• Show what Smoothing does
• Show that texture is far more important then number of Poly's to get a result.

http://www.turbosquid.com/FullPreview/Index.cfm/ID/536626

i add a screengrab from the above.

Perhaps not But some people Do use poser for animation So using a Low res mesh that can be SuBdivided  to look better at render time has advantages.( see attached pic of actual,functional poser model with CCsubD modifier in C4D)

"We render detailed stills on low end computers so why should we adhere to "Industry Standards" ?"

Funny "we" seem to care about "industry standards"
When it comes to indirect lighting practices and the node based
approach to building shaders.. or do you still render everything in an older poser version using the P4 engine
with 800x800 jpeg texture maps??

"As much as I like the Genesis concept, but basing it on a SubD'd LoRes mesh that requires a smoothing algorithm was not the right decision."

Explain how the implementation CC SubD has Hindered the actual functionality of genesis within Daz Studio??.

Cheers

Quote - Thank you Male_M3dia

Wonderful to meet at least one professional person amongst all the nay sayers. For me it is quite obvious that you have to work with both programs for a time. That doesn't mean that you have to learn ALL Daz. In fact the little you need to know (as a user not vendor) can be learned over the week-end.

Smith-Micro didn't have to buy the whole package. If they only had done subdivision it would had been tremendous useful and not only for Genesis. Well to have to subdivide in another program isn't too much trouble I guess no problem. It will only be my umpteen work around in my 20 years with computers. Or perhaps that was bragging?

?

 "most people are dragged kicking and screaming into the future"

No one needs to work with both programs for any period of time.  That's like saying you have to drink Coke & Pepsi until they unite their flavors.  For whatever reason, Daz chose to make Genesis Daz Studio ONLY.  That doesn't mean that the Poser community has to jump through hoops to get her to work in Poser.

If it's weight mapping people are after, the Poser community has V4WM and in a while M4WM. Poser users have the choice of using the majority of their legacy V4 content with V4WM in Poser. Other legacy WM figures will be added in the future.

By the community.

This is something content makers should consider.

You can see from the posts above that the likelihood of Genesis being a viable figure for Poser in the near future are slim to none and, quite frankly, I don't think the Poser community cares.  In general, I don't think people like it when someone says 'you have to use this' or 'you have to do that' and saying 'nay' to that doesn't make you a 'nay sayer' ;)

Plus, the only reason people have to use Genesis in Poser is to be able to buy (and convert) all new morph packages, character mats and clothing whereas the reason for using V4WM and the Outfitter is to be able to use all your legacy content with weight mapping with no extra cost. This could also be reason why new V4 content is still in great majority over Genesis content.

You can't dictate to people what they should buy or use. You have to offer them something they are interested in and right now the majority of the Poser community doesn't seem to be interested in Genesis.

Quote - "We don't make feature films in Poser or need a minimum frame rate for a game."

Perhaps not But some people Do use poser for animation So using a Low res mesh that can be SuBdivided  to look better at render time has advantages.( see attached pic of actual,functional poser model with CCsubD modifier in C4D)

"We render detailed stills on low end computers so why should we adhere to "Industry Standards" ?"

Funny "we" seem to care about "industry standards"
When it comes to indirect lighting practices and the node based
approach to building shaders.. or do you still render everything in an older poser version using the P4 engine
with 800x800 jpeg texture maps??

"As much as I like the Genesis concept, but basing it on a SubD'd LoRes mesh that requires a smoothing algorithm was not the right decision."

Explain how the implementation CC SubD has Hindered the actual functionality of genesis within Daz Studio??.

Cheers

+1

For the "we" that want ultra high res meshes (that aren't resource friendly on our low end computers) for their work with Poser, then Poser is perfect as is. For this portion of the user base I would guess that no furter improvement in geometry handling in Poser is wanted or needed, correct?

For others that might like to use Poser for animating, or would prefer a lower poly figure that would be easy on our system resources during set up, then use subd augmented by displacement/normal maps at render time, better geometry handling and subd capability would be very nice.

My personal preference with regard to Genesis in Poser is I would rather have the ability to use the native resolution Genesis figure, with CC subd in Poser. I already have extremely high res figures that work well in Poser (V4, M4), I really have no desire to have an even higher resolution figure. But that's just me, your milage may vary significanly.

Correct vestmanm

First Daz pushed us all into the DS4/Genething.
And when that did not happen?

They put DS4 out for free.

I will wait till next month.

From April 1st, DAZ will start paying us, if we please want to use the DS4/Genething.

hA_HA_HA_? Now THAT would be Game Changing :-)

Quote - Renderman Pro Server is based of Reyes smoothing, guess they need to scrap that and switch to SubD so movies take a few more years to render, instead of 3 months....

Maybe Houdini should scrap Mantra as well, it is Reyes based as well.

Seems odd that the top of the line packages used in production everyday would use smoothing instead of SubD, if SubD was better....

Gee, Poser Firefly happens to Reyes based too...