Actuallly, that Schmoo looks exactly like my wife's!  Maybe that explains how we ended up having 5 children, and now 8 grandchildren!

I think that's what happens after you have 5 children.

Laurie

Quote - I think that's what happens after you have 5 children.

Laurie

Could be!  Over the years it has changed a bit, but after 40 years of marriage, she still manages to RING MY BELL!!!!

@ Laurie - if you want to learn some more Brit slang, there's always "Chuff".  As in, 

The miracle of childbirth... 16 hours of labour and a chuff like a wizard's sleeve.

:) 

I got 3 kids.   I must have stopped prior to THAT occurring.  Thank the gods!  We could probably eliminate all of the '16 and pregnant' if we simply put this out as a warning image.  

Anyhow I am forcing myself to believe that it is just a misinterpretation of how DPs wife appears.  I've never seen anything like that, in all of my 'referencing'.

Back to the point of this thread.  I was actually pleasantly suprized by the image in the first post DP.  They do look really nice, and actually useable.  I'd pay my $10 too.

Actually, my wife doesn't look like that at all, I just said that to deflect the critisizm in the other thread about Cynthia.  I don't know why Ken1 made her framis to look so distended, but I do love Liliana's face and physique so, and she is my favorate of all the Judies I've encountered so far, that I'm more than willing to live with it!

As for girls getting pregnant at 16, I most certainly don't believe that they have no idea about where babies come from!  And I'm sure that they must have heard about condoms!  So, if they are having babies at that young an age, there must be a serious psychological reason for it!  Maybe they feel that motherhood somehow empowers them.

dph

Quote - Actually, my wife doesn't look like that at all, I just said that to deflect the critisizm in the other thread about Cynthia.  I don't know why Ken1 made her framis to look so distended, but I do love Liliana's face and physique so, and she is my favorate of all the Judies I've encountered so far, that I'm more than willing to live with it!

As for girls getting pregnant at 16, I most certainly don't believe that they have no idea about where babies come from!  And I'm sure that they must have heard about condoms!  So, if they are having babies at that young an age, there must be a serious psychological reason for it!  Maybe they feel that motherhood somehow empowers them.

dph

I doubt there's any intentionality among most pregnant teenagers. Most probably believe "it won't happen to them" or any other number of myths, such as "you can't get pregnant while menstruating" or "you can't get pregnant the first time." Some get pregnant when they're drunk or high and their judgment is severely impaired. And many get pregnant because birth control is not infallible. The failure rate for condom use among teenagers is quite high. After all, it requires the cooperation and experience of the young male as well.

From the movie "Grease:"

[Rizzo and Kenickie are making out in Kenickie's car, crawling into the backseat together]

Kenickie: Oooh, Riz... Riz...

Rizzo: Would you call me by my first name?

Kenickie: Ooohh, uhhh... ooohh... uhh...

Rizzo: Betty.

Kenickie: Betty, Betty... [says her name several times, in increasing passion]

Rizzo: Hey... ya got something?

Kenickie: Are you kidding? [Sits up and gets a condom out of his wallet]

Kenickie: My 25-cent insurance policy.

Rizzo: Big spender! [Kenickie opens the condom packet, is shocked as he finds it broken]

Rizzo: What?

Kenickie: It broke!

Rizzo: How could it break?

Kenickie: I bought it when I was in the seventh grade. [the two spend a long nervous moment considering the situation, but look to each other with growing lust]

Rizzo: What the Hell... [Rizzo grabs Kenickie, and they resume making out]

Kenickie: [muffled] Oh Betty...

Here's number 1: JudyV3, with Sally texture for V3, EZSkin sub-surface shading. No further morphs. Rest later.

I meant that if they thought it would look like that afterwards it would be a further deterrant.

Quote - I meant that if they thought it would look like that afterwards it would be a further deterrant.

What, stretch marks on their bellies isn't deterrant enough?!  Obviously there is something more at stake here!  I understand that a lot of them simply want to hold in their arms a 'Living Doll'!  

Perhaps also there is an unconscious biological imperitive here: Historically, girls became women and were married by age 13!  Look at Julliet in the Shakespeare play, she was 14 and considered very marriagable.

Quote - > Quote - I meant that if they thought it would look like that afterwards it would be a further deterrant.

What, stretch marks on their bellies isn't deterrant enough?!  Obviously there is something more at stake here!  I understand that a lot of them simply want to hold in their arms a 'Living Doll'!  

Perhaps also there is an unconscious biological imperitive here: Historically, girls became women and were married by age 13!  Look at Julliet in the Shakespeare play, she was 14 and considered very marriagable.

I don't think biology had much to do with it. The biology of girls has changed since then. If you look at the diaries of 17th century Puritan girls, you find that the average age of the onset of menses was around 17. Compare that to today...

The young girls getting married were mostly of among the aristocracy for whom marriage was largely a political consideration. At much of the time that 13 year old girls were commonly married, men of this class often did not marry until after age 30. Again, I doubt this was due to biology. Among the lower classes, marriage occurred quite a bit later, keeping in mind also that, given the later menses, teens could happily engage in all sorts of hanky panky without babies appearing until a bit later than they would today.

ETA: The possibility of a future death from smoking does not deter many teens (and many adults). The possibility of death from from drunk driving does not deter some of them (and many adults either). If death is not a deterrent, stretch marks and mutilated genitals surely won't be. Besides, as I said earlier, you have to really believe that sex leads to babies. Despite the fact that we've known this for quite some time, it seems to require actual personal experience to convince some people.

ETA2: It's my understanding that menses among Roman girls was more like it has been in the 20th century (though I'm very weak on classical history). Nutritional status has varied widely from one time period to another, and that no doubt has an effect. I think Roman youths may have married quite young. To me, in many ways late Roman culture seems closer to our own than the Renaissance culture of Shakespeare.

Quote - Ok, Let me keep me to my promise and show some pictures. 

Here's number 1: JudyV3, with Sally texture for V3, EZSkin sub-surface shading. No further morphs. Rest later.

@bagoas, that is one really beautiful render you made!  I love the figure, the pose, the texture!  She looks like one very delectible MILF, or Cougar!

DO GIVE US MORE!!!!

Strange, the older I get, the more sexy older women look!!!!!!  Some even more so than the younger ones!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I second that - a lovely render Bagoas! But I don't think she looks more than 40 - to me that is young!

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - I meant that if they thought it would look like that afterwards it would be a further deterrant.

What, stretch marks on their bellies isn't deterrant enough?!  Obviously there is something more at stake here!  I understand that a lot of them simply want to hold in their arms a 'Living Doll'!  

Perhaps also there is an unconscious biological imperitive here: Historically, girls became women and were married by age 13!  Look at Julliet in the Shakespeare play, she was 14 and considered very marriagable.

I don't think biology had much to do with it. The biology of girls has changed since then. If you look at the diaries of 17th century Puritan girls, you find that the average age of the onset of menses was around 17. Compare that to today...

The young girls getting married were mostly of among the aristocracy for whom marriage was largely a political consideration. At much of the time that 13 year old girls were commonly married, men of this class often did not marry until after age 30. Again, I doubt this was due to biology. Among the lower classes, marriage occurred quite a bit later, keeping in mind also that, given the later menses, teens could happily engage in all sorts of hanky panky without babies appearing until a bit later than they would today.

ETA: The possibility of a future death from smoking does not deter many teens (and many adults). The possibility of death from from drunk driving does not deter some of them (and many adults either). If death is not a deterrent, stretch marks and mutilated genitals surely won't be. Besides, as I said earlier, you have to really believe that sex leads to babies. Despite the fact that we've known this for quite some time, it seems to require actual personal experience to convince some people.

ETA2: It's my understanding that menses among Roman girls was more like it has been in the 20th century (though I'm very weak on classical history). Nutritional status has varied widely from one time period to another, and that no doubt has an effect. I think Roman youths may have married quite young. To me, in many ways late Roman culture seems closer to our own than the Renaissance culture of Shakespeare.

I think it's a combination of biology and society. Today teens are just little kids for the most part - not all but the majority - have little to no comprehension of responsibility or consequence, they live for the now. Centuries ago teens were much more mature, and seen as young adults. They had a lot more responsibility on them at very young ages. The further back in history you go the more young teens there were running farms and plantations/estates, or entire armies and kingdoms/empires. Think about it, Alexander the great was only in his 20s when he conquered pretty much all of the eastern world. Joan of Arc was 16 or 17 when she defeated the brits.  

Plus people lived much shorter lives - the average life expectancy was late 30s to mid 40s. Today it's pushing 80. So if we're living longer, and "letting kids be kids" longer, maybe the psychological impact of that has an effect on biology. Even in the US, in the early to mid 1900s girls were getting married and having kids in their early teens and it wasn't a big deal. My great grandfather's first wife died when she was 15 from being kicked by a horse, and she was 6 months pregnant with twins. 

It's only pretty recent that we, as a society, insist on treating teenagers like children for absolutely no logical reason. 

~Shane

I agree, Shane. We do infantalize our youth. What does it take to be a relatively successful self-sufficient adult these days? 20 years of education plus the time it takes to pay off student loans?

Add to that the helicopter parent (which isn't all that of a new phenomena: I remember babysitting an 8 year old who claimed that he didn't know where the glasses were in the kitchen, so he couldn't get his own drink of water, and I think he was likely telling the truth) -- it's hardly their fault. But given that many (though certainly not all) have grown up under these influences, how do you go about restoring both responsibility and empowerment? Well, may be a subject that risks becoming political.

Quote - I agree, Shane. We do infantalize our youth. What does it take to be a relatively successful self-sufficient adult these days? 20 years of education plus the time it takes to pay off student loans?

Add to that the helicopter parent (which isn't all that of a new phenomena: I remember babysitting an 8 year old who claimed that he didn't know where the glasses were in the kitchen, so he couldn't get his own drink of water, and I think he was likely telling the truth) -- it's hardly their fault. But given that many (though certainly not all) have grown up under these influences, how do you go about restoring both responsibility and empowerment? Well, may be a subject that risks becoming political.

Exactly, it's not their fault. It is how they are raised. Children are a reflection of society. That's why there's really nothing that can be done about it. It took centuries to get to this point and it will likely take just as long to go back. Kind of like a tree, the roots can be just as deep, if not deeper, as the tree is tall. The only way it can be restored is when they're forced to deal with things most young people today have no comprehension of ever having to deal with. But yeah, it all ties back ultimately to politics. 

~Shane

Here you are:

Trouble in the Runtime. Sydney for reasons women may understand better having words with Judy. But: We all know Judy can be a bitch when the Master of the Runtime has cast her to dwarf-form.

*Judy: Sally! skin for V3; EZSkin SSS shader and Koz's short bob. Sydney with native skin, EZSkin Judy's dwarf shape from some dusty box in my Runtime. *

lol

Sydney looks rather angry and intense but Judy just doesn't care.

In my copy I have moved the 'iris' polygons to the left and right respective materials in the eyes (load the .obj in poser and re-assign the polys), then save the .obj (different name), throw away the .mtl.)

Then to fix the .cr2 open it in a CR2 editor (PhilC has one) or in a text edtor, remove all material definitions and fix the reference to the new .obj. Save the .cr2 with a new name and load it in Poser. If you then load it in Poser your figure will just have (a subset of) the V3 materials.

Loading an existing V3 MAT file will let you end up with all V3's body zones (SkinLeg, SkinFeet, and so on) in your figure. There is little you can do about that. In JudyV3 these are not assigned to polygons. All 'skin' is SkinTorso, or BodySkin for the alternate hip. The Genital material is specific for JudyV3. A template is attached.  

Judy always had an error in her original materials. Judy featured both a ToeNails material  actually assigned to Polygons and a Toenails material, an orphan in the .cr2. Case is important, in naming, so these are 2 different materials. This doublure of course disappears if you cut the materials from the .cr2.

For an EZSkin defintion for your new figure you can of course copy the V3 definition and select a shader for the genital material. In this elect forum I need not expand on the potential the special effects (wet, soapy) of EZSkin2 provide in this respect.

I've been requested to remap MyMichelle to V4.  As a prelude for this project, I'll 1st be remapping Posette to PosetteV4 as practice.  Therefore, no subscriptions will be necessary for whomever wishes a V4 version of Posette.

dph

Quote - I've been requested to remap MyMichelle to V4.  As a prelude for this project, I'll 1st be remapping Posette to PosetteV4 as practice.  Therefore, no subscriptions will be necessary for whomever wishes a V4 version of Posette.

dph

That's great news on both fronts

Wow. That would increase MyMichelle's usability dramatically. It's great news, indeed.

What kept me away from using Judy, was that all her expression morphs are so buttugly and her mesh issues. Actually her buttcheeks are stitched together. :-D  If it just were the base shape or her joint issues, this could be fixed quite easily in PP2012.

The proper word is buttocks, and after my remap, they are no longer just stitched together!  As for joint issues, I've never discovered any in all my years of using her!

Quote - Actually her buttcheeks are stitched together. :-D

Where? Buttocks are welded to hip and to nothing else.

I wish you were right. It would be a breaktrough if Poser could handle body parts welded to more than one parent. 

Quote - It would be a breaktrough if Poser could handle body parts welded to more than one parent.

It can. I've had success with Bloodsong's method 2 on this page, for what it's worth. I used the technique in my ancient Della Skirt, where the hip and both thighs are welded through a CR2 hack.

Oh you've fixed it , great :-) . But all those prebuilt morphs that came with stock judy won't work.

Actually, they do! -or at least the ones on my FarraV3 do!  The problem that you point out was probably with the uvs, and NOT with the mesh itself.

dph

It is not the UVs. It is the mesh itself. If the default Judy-morphs still work, you won't have changed the verticies itself. That means that this little "meshbug" is still there in P5JudyV3.

Whatever!  But I don't see it as a problem since it's completely invisable.