I suppose I shoud probably ask this in the RDNA forum, but I don't have an account there. ;-)

So anyway, is anyone here using that new "My Michelle" figure?

I'm considering buying it, but I need to see a wireframe before I do, so if anyone could take some screenshots or direct me to some I'd appreciate it. :-)

It worries me that there is no wireframe screenshot on the RDNA product page. I guess we're just supposed to assume it's good but I like to do a lot of morphing and I don't want low resolution meshes. I didn't build a beast of a workstation just to act like it's still 2005. ;-)

Thanks if anyone can help!

Not sure there are wire frames in this thread but lots of useful information.

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2853648&page=1

Thank you!

I've been using her for a month or so, and the only downside so far has been lack of extra textures coming into play, but I look for that to change.

Thank you basicwiz!

I have to wonder though why they didn't include wireframe sceeens on their product page.

Maybe everyone has forgotten that whole Jessi fiasco, but I haven't.

Not just that, but as I said, I prefer a figure with a certain amount of geometry.

That looks really good, but I'd still prefer a higher-res version. But I think I'll buy it anyway.

.

soembody check to see if vilters head just exploded

Quote -  

That looks really good, but I'd still prefer a higher-res version. But I think I'll buy it anyway.

 

.

HAHA! That was pretty close to my first thought! I expect the KING of LOW POLY to chime in soon! I too like sufficient polys for good morph creation.

Quote - soembody check to see if vilters head just exploded

 

Quote -  

That looks really good, but I'd still prefer a higher-res version. But I think I'll buy it anyway.

 

.

Thanks for the wireframe Primorge- I'm not a fan of the septum ending where it does-but it would be very easy to morph to taste!

Quote - She has a few Tris here and there, very minor.

I boygth it and it's a pretty good model, IMO.

I don't know why anyone would not want high res, especially with computers as powerful as they are nowadays. Well, unless they have a weak machine. More geometry to work with obviuosly means more detail in the model.

I like this model as it is, but I've already begun working on my own version which will be roughy a quarter million polygons. That's for use in Poser, but XSI and Maya will use this version, since they can use SubD.

.

No, Vilters head did not explode. The topology is OK for a 3.000 poly figure.

This is optimal poly distrubution at its worst possible.

Sorry, no go, in no way.

The Poser1 female has better shins.

If you go hi poly?? Then DO something with the poly's.

And look at the poly distribution, come on.
Not amused.

Quote - No, Vilters head did not explode. The topology is OK for a 3.000 poly figure.

This is optimal poly distrubution at its worst possible.

Sorry, no go, in no way.

The Poser1 female has better shins.

If you go hi poly?? Then DO something with the poly's.

And look at the poly distribution, come on.
Not amused.

I have to say I really don't understand at all what you mean here.

It may not be perfect, but the poly distribution and topology is pretty good for morphing, and for me, being able to alter a figure is the most important thing, being that I'm never satisfied with any of the stock figures. The more radically I can change a figure, the happier I am with it and a low poly figure doesn't make that possible without far more work than I care to put into it.

And of course it helps to have good software. I use Softimage and Maya for creating morph targets for use in Poser and I often use it simply for creating a better poly flow or distribution in areas, without changing the shape noticeably. I like a good challenge and I'm not happy using any figure until I've totally customized it for my own use. And that includes subdividing it, adding and removing topology, remapping it and re-rigging it... pretty much just using the OBJ as a starting point since I don't have the time or patience to make my own realistic human models from scratch. This one has great potential, IMO. And my opinion is all that matters when I'm buying something. :p

And really, unless you're using a weak PC I don't see how high polygon counts can be anything but a good thing. Poser doesn't do SubD, so low poly figures = limited morphability.

So all those 'unnecessary' polygons are at least there if you want to make use of them. Better than having too little resolution and wanting to be able to make a morph that's simply not possible with said low resolution.

But you know, to each his own and all that.

EDIT:

I will add though that I think all higher resolution figues should come with a low resolution version, for those who want or need it, but I personally would never use it.

.

Quote - But you know, to each his own and all that.

Yep, pretty much agree there :)  Obviously I'm biased being on the design team for Michelle but I haven't issues creating any kind of morph that I've wanted to see for the figure, regardless of the polygon distribution.  Even saying that, I don't agree that the contouring is in the realm of poor at all.

Want a shocker from a professional company if the ultimate concern is contouring and poly distribution?  Take a peek at a Aiko 3 in wireframe mode. :)  I don't think I could even physically count all the tri's in that figure.  However, it was a very popular figure and very morphable.

I think Michelle is an outstanding, solid effort by Tate and pretty amazing for a first generation figure.  The next Service Release will bring some really great scaling features that will make her extremely flexible in terms of creating different "ages" and "proportions".  I authored the new scaling and all the (private) feedback has been completely positive. ;)

Joe

If you go hi poly?? Then DO something with the poly's.

It's possible that the included morphs actually do something with the polys*.* I don't know. I'm not sure why there is such a high poly concentration at the center of the mesh below the breasts to above the navel or in the center of the throat between the collar bones. The head is good, but they might have extended the high poly up the forehead for potential wrinkling. Oh well. It's an appealing figure and these aren't particularly important critiques. *

Agree with Netherworks about A3 Geom and Tris... Think A3 is a great fig, by the way. My comment about michelle wasn't really a slam... I think it's a lovely model. I'm probably just used to looking at V4 all the time. The misconception regarding triangles in a model is kind of like the misconception about poser files running on a Mac, or needing to be converted in some way... Bullshit.

Quote - If you go hi poly?? Then DO something with the poly's.

It's possible that the included morphs actually do something with the polys*.* I don't know. I'm not sure why there is such a high poly concentration at the center of the mesh below the breasts to above the navel or in the center of the throat between the collar bones. The head is good, but they might have extended the high poly up the forehead for potential wrinkling. Oh well. It's an appealing figure and these aren't particularly important critiques. *

Rib cage and old age wrinkles/ skin stretching/throat veins. - at least, that's what I'd use those polys for if pressed to do so. I think she's a great figure with lots of potential and totally could use more polys in the forhead and between the brow.

As for the poly distribution thing:

 Sometimes, you have to add polys for what may POTENTIALLY be done to a figure. It's not like modeling for film or games, where you have a character that will be doing very specific things and won't be required to turn into something other than what it started out as. We don't know what the heck you people are going to be doing with the thing, so we have to plan for everything. This means that you're going to get some extra polys here and there to allow for morphs that someone somewhere will need to make. In an ideal world, every polygon would serve a very specific purpose and every person who used the figure would use them within the range of their set limits as was intended. We don't live in a perfect world though and people can't be relied on to be reasonable about what they expect a figure to do. So yeah, you get a few extra polys to compensate for the unknown. It's not like those polys are going to snuff your children in their sleep or anything. They're there for folks who need them. If you don't need them, don't use 'em.

Oh yeah, and for smoother bending at areas that do a lot of bending...you need more polys. Just pointing that out for any non-modelers out there questioning the reasons. I had nothing to do with this figure - I think she's pretty...not a fan of her body shape but that's my personal taste - her mesh though, her mesh is good. Better than many that came with Poser.

This hi poly vs lo poly debate has been going on since poly's were invented. Snarly wrote a script that increases polys. Can't someone do the opposite and reduce polys? That way everybody would be happy. Of course then the universe might explode because we are getting along but it might be worth the risk.

Quote - Oh yeah, and for smoother bending at areas that do a lot of bending...you need more polys. Just pointing that out for any non-modelers out there questioning the reasons. I had nothing to do with this figure - I think she's pretty...not a fan of her body shape but that's my personal taste - her mesh though, her mesh is good. Better than many that came with Poser.

Yeah, personally I think it's a little quibbly (is that a word?) for someone to disagree with an extra ring of polys around the neck or whatnot.  I have no issue with someone not liking proportions or the "shape" of this or that.  People come in a lot of different flavors and I doubt you will find many humans that fit ideal proportions, eye placement, width, etc.  You'll always find that regular folks are exceptions to the (perceived) rule.

But even with the shaping aspect, that's why we have morphs and a morph brush and deformers, scales (wait for SR2) and lots of other things too.  That shouldn't make anyone feel that they need to do hours of shaping work to make Michelle appealing to them though but for a tweak of this or that area, I think it's acceptable.  Surely if the figure is way out of what someone is looking for then passing on the figure is a better idea that fitting a square peg in a round hole :)

Low versus high poly.  This kind of thing becomes a "beating a dead horse" debate after a while.  I personally want the polycount to be "reasonable".  That in itself is debatable too.  I think any model past 100,000 polys is way too much for me.  You add clothes and background elements and you start really running into a heavy scene.  Though much less of a problem now than it was we were all running around on 32-bit single core computers.

For me, I don't want to go the other way either.  12k human? I'll pass.  I just don't feel low polygon figures are suitable for anything other than crowd figures.  There is not enough detail to morphs that aren't very general in nature.  Sure, you can use displacement, bump and go with other tricks to get the job done but I think those should be auxillary options, not required ones.

Just my 2 cents or whatnot :)

... Got to remember that these objects are sculptures made by humans (despite what some non-CG conversant artists might think). It's only the medium itself that allows such infintesimal scrutiny of the "objects" created. I for one would rather have a few too many polys rather than too little.

The only issue I have thus far with My Michelle is purely aesthetic... but I can't think of a figure thus far where that wasn't the case.

...Still running around with a single core, 32-bit machine by the way. Hell, I Like lag.

 my 2cents worth on poly's...which may be all its worth...i think its better to have them and not need them than to need them and not have them... i have never found it problematic having extra poly's unless they are concentrated in knots such as a chin cleft or provisions for dimples ...flow is very important , having flow interrupted by ever decreasing concentric circles causes major headaches when smoothing is needed, of course if you are building specific characters this does not apply but building a general purpose adaptable model these details should be avoided ...most small details such as these can be handled with bump or depth mapping....

 i dont have the 'Michelle' charactor , but at a glance at the mesh presented here i would give this mesh a 'pretty damn good overall ' rating  for remoddeling, leaving (in my mind) the question of rigging as the major concern for purchasing considerations, i know i dont need another figure cluttering up my hard drive that looks good in the default pose but virtually useless for other purposes .... perhaps when time permits Wiz or others would give this a rating ...

:O)

Oh, gawd, Teyon.

"So yeah, you get a few extra polys to compensate for the unknown. It's not like those polys are going to snuff your children in their sleep or anything. They're there for folks who need them. If you don't need them, don't use 'em."

You almost made rootbeer come out of my nose!

Netherworks brings up a VERY good point, too.  Poser comes with sculpting tools these days that lets you change the shape however you want it, without even spending a dime on another piece of software.  As long as the mesh is dense enough to support it, there's absolutely no reason why a shape can't be adjusted to suit whatever purpose or project you're working on.

Speaking as someone who has modeled her share of low-poly figures and worked steadily with high-poly figures:  I love Michelle's topology.  She saves fast, she runs fast, I can load several of her in a scene to one V4 (especially when clothing comes into play), yet she's got enough polys and loops so that I can adjust her shape to suit whatever I need, and she's already got one major morph expansion on top of the already generous out-of-the-box morph selection.  In time, we'll see only more fantastic expansions.  Would that -more- figures were like her!  She's so much more useful and versatile than anything I could've made, that's for sure!

I will say this in my defense. For one, I want to say thank you to those who have been very supportive. Those who have worked close with me know I can be self conscious about my work.  I never would claim to be awesome or think I am better than anyone else. I actually look at other figure creator’s work with an inspired awe. I am often humbled by the talent I see around me in the Poserverse.  So, thank you! I can not tell you how scared I was that on the day of Michelle’s release. All the positive feedback has really helped me to relax. Second, I try very hard to give the end user my all. What I mean by that is I do not look at this as a profit thing. I look at this as a pleasing thing. I want to share my work and, I want the end user to be pleased with what they get for their money. Trust me when I say that I kept the price really low for something I have worked years on. I want to be proud of my work but, I can’t do that if the end user is not happy with what they get. I started playing with Poser back in 2000. I was blown away and worked very hard to hone my skills to the point where I could create a human figure. Michelle was originally created in 2007. I did not want to release her then because I did not have the skills to get her to a point I felt was good enough. For years I would re-work, re-build her mesh until finally in the fall of 2011 I felt I had something good enough to work with. So, know that I put in the best effort I could and, I had the end users in mind the whole time. Lastly, I have yet to see a one hundred percent perfect mesh on any Poser figure. There are some that I think are better than Michelle and, others I think are not as good. (Just my opinion) I will say this, I have made many, many, morphs with Michelle and, I have always been able to get the morphs I wanted. I tried to walk a fine line between low poly and having enough polygons to create good morphs. I think I did a decent job at it. The loops on the rib cage are for making her look emaciated. You can morph the ribs to poke out. At least that is what my intentions where when I added the loops. I know I did not make the best mesh in the world for a Poser figure but, I never claimed to. What I do think I accomplished was to make a decent figure with a ton of versatility. For that I am proud of what I have done and, I stand by it.

Netherworks and I are still working at improving her as well. We want to add more versatility. Push her as far as we can. We never make any decisions about her without considering how it affects the end user. We work hard and, we really honestly care about this project. Know that we have done, and continue to do our best. We know we can not please everyone but, we are happy to hear that 95% of the feedback we get is positive. Sorry for the rant. I just thought I would give my thoughts on this subject.

   Just for giggles, here is Michelle in January 2008, two months after I first started working on her.

http://www.runtimedna.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=47&pos=99

This is Michelle now with my upcoming "Raven" FBM

http://www.runtimedna.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=47&pos=7

 tate/netherworks this figure appears to be a very well built /thought out project , i wouldnt want you to think my comments /questions critical in any way, quite the contrary actually, you guys should be very proud of what you have accomplished with this figure....thanks for all your hard work... im leaning heavily toward giving this figure a try ...

:O)

Tate,

First linked image is not there... Or at least that's what I'm getting.

I think she's really pretty. You guys did a great job with her.

i think she is an excellent figure.  :)). i grabbed her as soon as she was launched.

Tate...

She is a beauty and a joy to work with. For my money, on the par with Anastasia (who I also adore!)

Thank you for a fine piece of work. Now... if you would just finish that little add-on we talked about a long time ago... 

Thanks guys!  Yeah, I tend to look at what we can do to improve things and balance that against the effect it has on add-on support.  It's very, very important.

You can't just change "this" or "that" without really taking a careful look at how it affects existing content - that includes products, freebies and things end users might be doing like their own custom morphs, textures, dynamic bits and so on.

So it's not me disagreeing always or just deflecting other points of view or concerns.  It's realizing how the whole puzzle fits together.  Particularly looking at what we presented at launch, and going from that point.  I really have to be backed strongly into a wall to be willing to adjust joint centers :D

I want folks to feel that a SR isn't going to break their content, make posing funny, destroy morphs, affect their current projects, etc.

I can say that Michelle bends very well, both Standard and WM.  WM performs superior in a LOT of ways but that doesn't mean the regular version is half-baked (but it does have spherical zone-based limitations).  I will also say that WM might not be suitable for every single gymnastic or double-jointed pose you might want to try to create and I'm talking pretty exteme things here :)

SR-2 is going to come out for Michelle this week, very soon.  It will bring some really great things to the figure that I think will be a very pleasant surprise.  If you are on the fence, wait for the promos we have set up for this and think about it in a couple of days. :)

We are going to have true scaling and correct application of smooth scaling zones across all body parts.  These are all going to be wired into an easy-to-use collection of body dials and they will be specific enough to do picky things with Michelle's proportions but not give you so much that it's overwhelming.  You'll be able to dial Midgets, Shorties, Tallies, Dwarfs, Elfs, Teens, Amazons and all kinds of different shapes for the figure.  This works best on Poser 9+ SR-3 or DS 3+.

Utilities are included to transfer the scaling to clothing (though you can also use the Properties features in Poser for this) and to smart props (including prop hair, shoes and so on).  Oh and if your Michelle clothing is pre-SR2, there is a pose to transfer the smooth scale "rigging" to the clothes.  It's very "click and done".  Yes, that easy.  No tricks!

That's what I mean about making improvements.  If I can find a way to keep it without breaking everything that is already out there, it's something I will try and run with :)

Quote - This is Michelle now with my upcoming "Raven" FBM

http://www.runtimedna.com/gallery/displayimage.php?album=47&pos=7

Wow! Beautiful work!

Thanks for making this character. I also find her great to work with. Looking forward ot SR-2. Tate, you did very well. Now, another weight mapped male would be nice also. If you are so inclined.

Quote - Thanks guys!  Yeah, I tend to look at what we can do to improve things and balance that against the effect it has on add-on support.  It's very, very important.

You can't just change "this" or "that" without really taking a careful look at how it affects existing content - that includes products, freebies and things end users might be doing like their own custom morphs, textures, dynamic bits and so on.

...

I would like to make a very strong case for redoing the UV mapping, and doing it soon, before there are a lot of textures made for the figure.

I already wrote about it in another thread as I know you're aware, so I won't repeat it all here again.

But the UVs really need to be put into better proportion to one another, evened out to minimize texture distortion, and scaled up to take advantage of maximum tile space. I can think of only one reason NOT to do it and that would be to salvage the few textures that already exist for the figure, but I can think of a whole lot of reasons why you should at least consider it seriously.

Yeah it would take a little while, and yeah it might hurt some existing products - textures, specifically - but in the long run it would result in a much better and more professional figure.

Am I right in thinking if the UV Maps were able to be updated in the figure (e.g. for SR-3), that would only affect existing skin textures?

I was hoping to see some support from the "Oxygen" guys for Michelle, in due course. Just wishfull thinking...

...don't know if this is on the cards or not...

...but I think that would give her a real boost...

...and certainly, if there is an issue with quality of UV maps (which Tate - more power to him - admitted weren't his strongest point in that other thread) then it seems to make sense there would be merit in these being looked at before too much more work goes into creating skin textures for Michelle?

Do you think it would be totally arduous for the makers of the existing textures to-date to adjust these to a new map and issue updated versions? Would adjustment-level fixes to the current mapping be adequate... or would it be liable to go a radically different layout route, if it were being looked at?

[This is not a message from a moderator. I am still recouperating, and am not attempting to moderate via this message. In this meaage, I am simply a forum member seeking information.]

Re: Remapping...

Someone tell me if I am in error here.

1. I believe that remapping the figure will break all existing textures... right ot wrong?

2. I believe that the merchants who were early adopters will get screwed by this. Right or Wrong?

3. I believe that early adopters will find their investments worthless. Right or wrong?

4. I believe the advantages offered by the remap are unnoticable by most users in most applications of the character. Right or wrong?

If I'm right, I think the remap is a bad idea. If I am wrong, I would appreciate polite, very clear answers as to why I am wrong. I'm not understanding why Tate and Co. are taking all this flack over a figure that behaves very well in my runtime.

^Yeah, go with what BasicWiz said... more succinctly than I managed, I think!

1. Right
2. Right
3. I wouldn't say worthless but it has the potential to create a confusion factor.
4. Right

I'm not sure of the reason of the flack either but I intend to roll with it. Hindsight is 20/20 and so on. And sure, you have to weigh-in what might be extremely important to one fellow might not be a big deal to 98% of other users.

I think the ONLY realistic way to offer a remap is to offer it as optional by some means. The problem to wrestle with is that currently all the ways to provide a remap are confusing and/or require 3rd party solutions. This is, of course, if it were to be provided externally.

The easiest method to implement is an alternate obj of some sort (RTEncoding) or a .uvs file (UVMapper). Both require the user to correctly use 3rd party software. Not a terribly good option here because of user error or some reason RTEncoder/UVMapper won't work for one or more folks.

The other option is to provide 2 more cr2s, pointed to OBJs with different mapping. Ball of confusion here for end users and for vendors. Which Michelle do I use? Which Michelle do I support? And it basically leads to "I just won't bother".

I'm not prone to allow Michelle to be remapped to nullify existing texture sets.

I'd say, if there's no way to keep track of who bought the figure to provide them with an updated version with updated textures at a later date, then just forget it. You'll piss off the early adopters and some won't buy fom you again.  Also, some less than understanding content creators may grow upset from having to redo work. I think just take it as a lesson learned and strive to avoid similar concerns in your next release. That's what I would do.

Many thanks Netherworks

Sounds to me like your best option is more than likely to not attempt to address the question of updating the UV mapping for now then.

To clarify, I'm not worried about it... I was just asking the question as to whether it was something you were considering addressing...

Assuming you don't have a better UV mapping available just to roll out just now anyway, it seems like it would represent quite a diversion!

My guess is, in another 12 months, or what have you, there may be some new, cleverer ways of providing dynamic UV switching established, anyway... because of demand elsewhere for this.... but who knows.

But either way, I'd be inclined to agree with Teyon... you should just wait for Michelle 2.0 (or whatever / whoever you do next) before you even think about looking at reviewing UV maps

So..... Oxygen for Michelle? :biggrin:

Ah, wait, we're still waiting for the stuff Blackhearted had started first, eh?

Quote - > Quote - Thanks guys!  Yeah, I tend to look at what we can do to improve things and balance that against the effect it has on add-on support.  It's very, very important.

You can't just change "this" or "that" without really taking a careful look at how it affects existing content - that includes products, freebies and things end users might be doing like their own custom morphs, textures, dynamic bits and so on.

...

 

I would like to make a very strong case for redoing the UV mapping, and doing it soon, before there are a lot of textures made for the figure.

I already wrote about it in another thread as I know you're aware, so I won't repeat it all here again.

But the UVs really need to be put into better proportion to one another, evened out to minimize texture distortion, and scaled up to take advantage of maximum tile space. I can think of only one reason NOT to do it and that would be to salvage the few textures that already exist for the figure, but I can think of a whole lot of reasons why you should at least consider it seriously.

Yeah it would take a little while, and yeah it might hurt some existing products - textures, specifically - but in the long run it would result in a much better and more professional figure.

@Another3DGuy;

I've been requested by certain parties to remap MyMichelle in order to make her V4 texture compatable.  Within a few more months, I will embark on that project.

Yours truly,

David P. Hoadley

Michelle had the sweetest face and best out of the box appearance that she could not be resisted, at least by me, I liked her right away. :-)

She also answered the call to some Poser users that felt left out in the cold by somewhere else, as did Blackhearted's figure.

Those are the figures I am going to personally support whenever I can, and those figures that come after if I personally like them.

It was a very very minor little twinge of annoyance that I had  when Tate mentioned on another forum that he made new eyes. Only because I was in the process of making eyes... for myself but still I stopped so I could wait and see what these new eyes were bringing to the figure. Again no biggie, just eyes, but I believe that would change the mapping?  I am not going to put a lot or any work into something that may change tomorrow.

I personally think you should make your intentions about the UV mapping very clear for those that may want to support the figure

Just my 2 cents. I also want to say that no marketed figure, that I am aware of, has ever gotten the support and bonus free or low cost items that Tate and Co. bring to Michelle. You are doing an excellent job with a darling figure and as with everything we do, learning from the experience for your future projects. :-)

I think Antonia got remapped somewhere halfway in the process.

While here I would like to make a sugestion.

Why do we (Poser users) not go a step further???
Poser is not limiited in texture size as DS is.

I prefer by far single texture mapped figures, and Poser can use 8192x8192 textures.

If, and I say IF a remapping would be required => go single map texture.

Far better quality is possible.
Far more user friendly.
Far better lay out possible.

Take a look at the PoserPro figures uvmap.
That is a user friendly masterpiece. (THANK you Darrel.)

That layout, (or something alike) and on a 8192x8192 pixel map.
Mmmmmm.............

Antonia was a rather different situation though.  It was (is) a community project and open source under an attribution license.  And it was (is) confusing to have multiple versions floating around.  Part of my involvement in that project was to help get it into a presentable unified state.  I stepped out of the project long ago (prior to Antonia WM) so I'm not sure where it is at now.

Quote - Michelle had the sweetest face and best out of the box appearance that she could not be resisted, at least by me, I liked her right away. :-)

She also answered the call to some Poser users that felt left out in the cold by somewhere else, as did Blackhearted's figure.

Those are the figures I am going to personally support whenever I can, and those figures that come after if I personally like them.

It was a very very minor little twinge of annoyance that I had  when Tate mentioned on another forum that he made new eyes. Only because I was in the process of making eyes... for myself but still I stopped so I could wait and see what these new eyes were bringing to the figure. Again no biggie, just eyes, but I believe that would change the mapping?  I am not going to put a lot or any work into something that may change tomorrow.

I personally think you should make your intentions about the UV mapping very clear for those that may want to support the figure

Just my 2 cents. I also want to say that no marketed figure, that I am aware of, has ever gotten the support and bonus free or low cost items that Tate and Co. bring to Michelle. You are doing an excellent job with a darling figure and as with everything we do, learning from the experience for your future projects. :-)

Are you talking to me, or somebody else?  

I myself have absolutely ZERO interest in MyMichelle, as I consider her to way too high poly to be a any real practicle use! -my figures of choice are still my V3 remap of Posette and Judy, and my M3 remap of Dork.

However, I have been requested by certain parties to remap Michelle to V4 so as to make use of the large supply of V4 texture now available, both as Freestuff, and Comercial.  Whatever disadvantage this may put on certain merchants and consumers is of really no concern for me!  Caveat Emptor!

dph

dph,

It wouldn't be any disadvantage at all.  You would be providing an option that outside of the confines of the core Michelle package, regardless.  I think folks would understand that "assembly" is required or whatnot. ;)

Lilwolff,

AFAIK, the "new eyes" are prop or conformer eyes.  It wouldn't affect the core mesh at all.  Michelle would be "wearing" the new eyes.  I also believe that they are an add-on type product.

dph, heavens no, I was not addressing you. I already knew you were asked to remap the figure to V4 UV's. I believe it was esther? that asked you over at another forum. Very kind of you to do, I am looking forward to purchasing it in the future.

It was to the creators of Michelle that someone suggested a remapping of the original figure in this thread that I was addressing.

Netherworks, new eyes will need their own texture map wouldn't they? 

As I mentioned, the eyes are no big deal. But if I had a whole body texture map done and had to change it all, I would not be happy.  Whether it was for myself , free, or for the market shouldn't matter.

I was agreeing with what Teyon said, but I guess I did not say it as well as he did. Apologies for any misconceptions.

Yes, they would need their own map but they don't replace the eyes, they would fit over them or the original eyes would be hidden.  I'm not sure how they are designed.

Thank you Netherworks. I hate doing the same thing twice and will wait to see which eyes I personally like more to map.

I imagined, not saying I am right, that the eyes would work like those long ago eyes from Traveler & I think also judith for some of the Daz figures.