So, the cage acts like a lattice then.

Laurie

Quote - doubt creating a Dinosaur on Genesis would be a good idea, however creating a dinosaur using Tri-ax rigging/weight mapping and Sub-D is entirely possible. (And, aside from clothing, would have most of the advantages of Genesis.) In fact if you did it right you could builld 2-4 base figures and morph the rest from those. Things like horns, spikes and tail clubs could be geografted on, etc. Very cool idea, make sure you pass that along to Dinoraul. :)

I was wondering if it was possible for someone to make a quadruped base figure and morph it into anything from a mouse to an elephant. 

And if not, it seems like the basic idea of Genesis would still be well-suited to a group of related animals like dinosaurs, where the "shared gene pool" is very visible.  And where there's a lot of debate about how they really looked, so it would be good to able to easily change/add things.

Quote - Just a few general facts about sub-d.  The Catmull-Clark sub-d subdivides the entire mesh, not just parts of it.  There are specialized sub-d types used by major CGI studio that can selectively subdivide a mesh but I don't see us getting them any time soon.  Sub-d adds polygons but it does not add detail, if anything it actually smooths out some details.  Take a cube for instance, add 1 level of sub-d and it clearly isn't a cube anymore, add enough levels of sub-d and begins to look more like a sphere.

Interesting.  Is that why Genesis figures have that super smooth look?  Someone described it as looking like a blow-up doll.  Unnecessarily rude, for sure, but I kind of see what he meant.

I'd love to see a quadroped Genesis, I reckon...

...there must be a lot of possibilities there.

But, just initially having a successor to the MilCat, MilDog, MilHorse, would be pretty good, I think...

Quote - Interesting.  Is that why Genesis figures have that super smooth look?  Someone described it as looking like a blow-up doll.  Unnecessarily rude, for sure, but I kind of see what he meant.

Not really. Most of what you've probably seen is people using GenX to copy over morphs from Gen4 characters without modifying them so they lose detail... copying high details to a lower poly character. You won't see the benefits until you leave the Gen4 morphs behind and start from genesis for creating your characters.

I would say that a pro of Genesis is it's easy adaptability... You can make a huge variety of creatures/characters without having to clutter up your runtimes with a multitude of standalone figures and morphs packs...

The downside is poly-count... much like the Gen 4 Figures, Genesis is higher poly meaning you can't use as many in a scene as you could with older figures, so it really depends on what you intend to use it for... for one or two people in a scene I'd say Genesis and the older Gen 4 figures work well... but if you want that crowd scene you'll probably still want to use the older figures as they aren't quite as resource intensive comparatively...

From my point of view Genesis is better for somethings and not for others.... but that's just my opinion... take it for what you will... :)

My best attempt at a unemotional response.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subdivision_surface.
You could look for subdividing mesh on you tube also.

Poser & D/S Pro supports Displacement maps but I've only seen a few venders use them.
No regular mesh can touch a displacement map.

Visit zBrush gallery and your see for your self ,what I am talking about.
Don't know how high the displacement map could go in Poser or D/S Pro.
If Poser or D/S Pro both could only go 1 million then they would be = for detail.

A lot of Artist that could be venders are not for deferent reasons.
Me personally I would not mess with any mesh that did not have SubD's.
V3 ,V4 are not considered standard meshes.
They have a polycount 4 times higher then a standard mesh.
Made them 4 times harder to deal with.

Since V5 ,Genesis is a standard mesh makes it 4 times easier to deal with.

If your a vender what mesh are you going to work with.
The old V4 that's a nightmare.
or
The new V5 that's a dream ?

Quote - I don't understand why no one talks about the huge advantages for the content providers. Over the years the Gen4 system has grown more and more convoluted with a lot of essential and useful information hidden away in obscure threads. That makes it very hard for new talent the "old timers" (I don't mean in years) have all the advantage. You can spend hours rigging a figure but if you run it through a pose collection a bunch of errors show up. And that is valid for ALL bought content.

This very morning I rigged a figure for Genesis in 5 min and ran it through 50 poses without a single poke through. I know that everyone is first and foremost thinking of themselves but still. That it becomes so much better and easier to create content is bound to reflect in the prices (eventually.) And allow us to concentrate on more important things like details..

 

I have been thinking about this, and wanted to follow up on this discussion a bit. Overall, yes, I admit the thought of not having to create FBMs for clothing are greatly appealing. But let me ask this ...

The most difficult body shapes to create morphs for are the drastic ones, like Pregnant or Heavy, or Emaciated, etc.  Now, I can see that for the most part the "Autofit" (or whatever it's called) doesn't do that bad of a job. However, let's take something like Pregnant or Heavy for example.

When you model, say, a skirt or a dress for the base figure, there is a natural flow from waist to hem in the way that the skirt or dress flows. It will follow the shape from the top to (say) the belly button, and then gravity straightens the flow out from that point to the hem.  (I hope this is making sense).

NOW ... if you "autofit" that skirt to a pregnant or heavy figure, "automatic" morphing methods don't account for the gravity. Instead, you'll get a bump from the waist to the crotch area (exactly the way that the morph for the figure was created). So the lines of the skirt no longer look "natural" ...

My question is, is there a way to compensate for those types of things in either DAZ Studio or Poser?  It would seem to me that the only way you could make those shapes look more natural is to provide a dialable morph (it couldn't be automatic, because it wouldn't apply in all conditions).

SECOND QUESTION ...  having the ability to model one set of clothing that fits all is rather cool; however, the main thing that I "see" right off the bat is, if you model clothing around a "flat chested" figure and then dial in those large breast dials that the community loves so much (LOL), then you have stretching big time in those areas. Polka dot and striped tops make this most noticeable. So it would seem to me that when clothing is primarily designed for women you'll want to UV map it in a state where the breasts are set to those of a woman, rather than when it's in its default "flat" shape.  I haven't looked at the Content Creation tools in DS4.5, but I'm assuming it allows for exporting a morphed version of the figure so that you could UV map it in that state?

If the clothing IS suitable for both male and female (such as shirts, tank tops, jeans, etc etc etc), then it would probably be best to make two sets of UVs and corresponding textures.

Those are some questions that I have off the bat, I'm sure most content creators will have these as well. 8-)

Quote - > Quote - I don't understand why no one talks about the huge advantages for the content providers. Over the years the Gen4 system has grown more and more convoluted with a lot of essential and useful information hidden away in obscure threads. That makes it very hard for new talent the "old timers" (I don't mean in years) have all the advantage. You can spend hours rigging a figure but if you run it through a pose collection a bunch of errors show up. And that is valid for ALL bought content.

This very morning I rigged a figure for Genesis in 5 min and ran it through 50 poses without a single poke through. I know that everyone is first and foremost thinking of themselves but still. That it becomes so much better and easier to create content is bound to reflect in the prices (eventually.) And allow us to concentrate on more important things like details..

 

 

I have been thinking about this, and wanted to follow up on this discussion a bit. Overall, yes, I admit the thought of not having to create FBMs for clothing are greatly appealing. But let me ask this ...

The most difficult body shapes to create morphs for are the drastic ones, like Pregnant or Heavy, or Emaciated, etc.  Now, I can see that for the most part the "Autofit" (or whatever it's called) doesn't do that bad of a job. However, let's take something like Pregnant or Heavy for example.

When you model, say, a skirt or a dress for the base figure, there is a natural flow from waist to hem in the way that the skirt or dress flows. It will follow the shape from the top to (say) the belly button, and then gravity straightens the flow out from that point to the hem.  (I hope this is making sense).

NOW ... if you "autofit" that skirt to a pregnant or heavy figure, "automatic" morphing methods don't account for the gravity. Instead, you'll get a bump from the waist to the crotch area (exactly the way that the morph for the figure was created). So the lines of the skirt no longer look "natural" ...

My question is, is there a way to compensate for those types of things in either DAZ Studio or Poser?  It would seem to me that the only way you could make those shapes look more natural is to provide a dialable morph (it couldn't be automatic, because it wouldn't apply in all conditions).

SECOND QUESTION ...  having the ability to model one set of clothing that fits all is rather cool; however, the main thing that I "see" right off the bat is, if you model clothing around a "flat chested" figure and then dial in those large breast dials that the community loves so much (LOL), then you have stretching big time in those areas. Polka dot and striped tops make this most noticeable. So it would seem to me that when clothing is primarily designed for women you'll want to UV map it in a state where the breasts are set to those of a woman, rather than when it's in its default "flat" shape.  I haven't looked at the Content Creation tools in DS4.5, but I'm assuming it allows for exporting a morphed version of the figure so that you could UV map it in that state?

If the clothing IS suitable for both male and female (such as shirts, tank tops, jeans, etc etc etc), then it would probably be best to make two sets of UVs and corresponding textures.

Those are some questions that I have off the bat, I'm sure most content creators will have these as well. 8-)

The truly extreme shape, at this point, is the Troll. Just because followers can read morphs from the base shape does not mean they have to. You can build any morphs into the clothing you wish if you don't like the appearance of the generated morphs and if the included morphs are set up as super confomring then the Genesis system uses the included morph instead of generating it.

Also note that for clothing, to date, nobody has set up seperate UV sets for those. Mostly because the UV set for the clothing is optimized for the individual items of clothing, not the Genesis shape. There is no reason you couldn't, but to date nobody making Genesis clothing has seen a need for it.

Understood. This is what I'm trying to assess ...

UV distortion when applied to heavily morphed figures is not an issue that is unique to Genesis. However, there IS a solution in being able to provide alternate UVs IF it is felt that they are needed.

To illustrate the point I'm trying to make, here's a screen shot.

--- On the left, you have a default "generic" figure. The UV mapping looks nice and clean.

--- In the middle, you see what happens to the UVs when it is applied to a female figure with medium/large breasts. You see stretching around the breasts, which is the type of thing that alternate UVs could help with.

--- On the right, the same model, with some relaxing that addresses the curvier shape of a female.

So what I'm trying to ask is ... is there a way to export the base mesh from DS after it is "autofitted" to a female so that one can provide default UVs that are more like the one on the right?

(Hope this better illustrates the question)

Hi Deecey,

There are different ways of making cloth for Genesis figures depending on skill and ambition.

1. The first level is the autofit. It is somewhat similar to Wardrobe Wizard. What shall we say? It is good that it exist so the the beginners are with us from start!

2. A somewhat better way is to use a modeling program to create a piece of cloth to fit the Genesis base figure where after you use the Transfer Utility to rig the cloth. Then this model can be used both for both Genesis base and V5/M5 and others. But it is not always 100 %.

3. The Content Providers way is that if you want a dress for V5 you must create a dress for V5! But you need also to make a companion Genesis piece with the same mesh. So proceed as 2) rig this Genesis figure, and then use Morph Loader pro to replace the generated V5 morph with your own customized V5 version.

Actually there is still one more method for extreme figures (Reverse Source Shape From Target). Take that another time.

The answer to your concerns about UVs is that you are not supposed to use two different figures with the same UV. The one that should be used is the one that it supported. The Genesis figure in the above example is only used as a tool during the creation process. For highest quality one figure is taylored to one and only one outfit. (the other way around of course ;)

Quote - Hi Deecey,

There are different ways of making cloth for Genesis figures depending on skill and ambition.

1. The first level is the autofit. It is somewhat similar to Wardrobe Wizard. What shall we say? It is good that it exist so the the beginners are with us from start!

2. A somewhat better way is to use a modeling program to create a piece of cloth to fit the Genesis base figure where after you use the Transfer Utility to rig the cloth. Then this model can be used both for both Genesis base and V5/M5 and others. But it is not always 100 %.

3. The Content Providers way is that if you want a dress for V5 you must create a dress for V5! But you need also to make a companion Genesis piece with the same mesh. So proceed as 2) rig this Genesis figure, and then use Morph Loader pro to replace the generated V5 morph with your own customized V5 version.

Actually there is still one more method for extreme figures (Reverse Source Shape From Target). Take that another time.

The answer to your concerns about UVs is that you are not supposed to use two different figures with the same UV. The one that should be used is the one that it supported. The Genesis figure in the above example is only used as a tool during the creation process. For highest quality one figure is taylored to one and only one outfit.

 

Thanks ... this partially answers my question and is sort of what I was driving at!!

Well to smooth out the Uv's you have shown, there is a clothing smoother for the breasts. I just cant get to what it is called. It solves that exact issue by making the area between the breasts "unshrinkwrapped".. Have to purchase it though.

Quote - >>> Also note that for clothing, to date, nobody has set up seperate UV sets for those. Mostly because the UV set for the clothing is optimized for the individual items of clothing, not the Genesis shape. There is no reason you couldn't, but to date nobody making Genesis clothing has seen a need for it.

Understood. This is what I'm trying to assess ...

UV distortion when applied to heavily morphed figures is not an issue that is unique to Genesis. However, there IS a solution in being able to provide alternate UVs IF it is felt that they are needed.

To illustrate the point I'm trying to make, here's a screen shot.

--- On the left, you have a default "generic" figure. The UV mapping looks nice and clean.

--- In the middle, you see what happens to the UVs when it is applied to a female figure with medium/large breasts. You see stretching around the breasts, which is the type of thing that alternate UVs could help with.

--- On the right, the same model, with some relaxing that addresses the curvier shape of a female.

So what I'm trying to ask is ... is there a way to export the base mesh from DS after it is "autofitted" to a female so that one can provide default UVs that are more like the one on the right?

(Hope this better illustrates the question)

You aren't able to dynamically generate the UV set based on the morph. (An interesting concept perhaps you should suggest it to DAZ.) However you can create a Morph for the clothing that covers the morph for Genesis, which will give you a different distribution of the polys and give you less UV distortion that what you get from the automatic morph projection. A thing to keep in mind though is it will only work for those morphs that you have decided to include. Someone who later comes out with a new morph, if you are concerned, will cause your clothing to need to be updated though. :)

You aren't able to dynamically generate the UV set based on the morph. (An interesting concept perhaps you should suggest it to DAZ.) However you can create a Morph for the clothing that covers the morph for Genesis, which will give you a different distribution of the polys and give you less UV distortion that what you get from the automatic morph projection.

No, that isn't what I'm trying to accomplish. My concerns were more or less addressed in vintorix's answer. I was thinking in terms of modeling around the generic base shape, but instead of making a default set of UVs that is optimized for the generic body shape, create a default set of UV's that are optimized for a curvier female.

But vintorix's response basically gave me my answer .. you don't model the female clothing around the default body shape, but instead model it around the female shape. That would address the concerns I raised here.

Deecey,  ..but instead model it around the female shape"

Exactly so. The workflow starts by modeling the cloth around V5 which may take many hours and even days (unless you have Marvelous Designer.. ;). Making the necessary Genesis version for rigging is only a matter of fitting - takes a few minutes no more.

Quote - Deecey,  ..but instead model it around the female shape"

Exactly so. The workflow starts by modeling the cloth around V5 which may take many hours and even days (unless you have Marvelous Designer.. ;). Making the necessary Genesis version for rigging is only a matter of fitting - takes a few minutes no more.

And therein lies my main problem. Time. It's been a long time since I've used DAZ Studio  ... so in addition to the Genesis intricacies I'd also have to refamiliarize myself with DS. Sadly, it's not often that I have the time to dig into it (or into content creation in general). I'm trying to force myself to do a little bit each weekend to keep up with things, though, so that I can retain and perfect the things that I do know how to do.

However, I am really happy that having Genesis in Poser opens up more opportunities for content developers in general!

Quote - > Quote - I don't understand why no one talks about the huge advantages for the content providers. Over the years the Gen4 system has grown more and more convoluted with a lot of essential and useful information hidden away in obscure threads. That makes it very hard for new talent the "old timers" (I don't mean in years) have all the advantage. You can spend hours rigging a figure but if you run it through a pose collection a bunch of errors show up. And that is valid for ALL bought content.

This very morning I rigged a figure for Genesis in 5 min and ran it through 50 poses without a single poke through. I know that everyone is first and foremost thinking of themselves but still. That it becomes so much better and easier to create content is bound to reflect in the prices (eventually.) And allow us to concentrate on more important things like details..

 

 

I have been thinking about this, and wanted to follow up on this discussion a bit. Overall, yes, I admit the thought of not having to create FBMs for clothing are greatly appealing. But let me ask this ...

The most difficult body shapes to create morphs for are the drastic ones, like Pregnant or Heavy, or Emaciated, etc.  Now, I can see that for the most part the "Autofit" (or whatever it's called) doesn't do that bad of a job. However, let's take something like Pregnant or Heavy for example.

When you model, say, a skirt or a dress for the base figure, there is a natural flow from waist to hem in the way that the skirt or dress flows. It will follow the shape from the top to (say) the belly button, and then gravity straightens the flow out from that point to the hem.  (I hope this is making sense).

NOW ... if you "autofit" that skirt to a pregnant or heavy figure, "automatic" morphing methods don't account for the gravity. Instead, you'll get a bump from the waist to the crotch area (exactly the way that the morph for the figure was created). So the lines of the skirt no longer look "natural" ...

My question is, is there a way to compensate for those types of things in either DAZ Studio or Poser?  It would seem to me that the only way you could make those shapes look more natural is to provide a dialable morph (it couldn't be automatic, because it wouldn't apply in all conditions).

SECOND QUESTION ...  having the ability to model one set of clothing that fits all is rather cool; however, the main thing that I "see" right off the bat is, if you model clothing around a "flat chested" figure and then dial in those large breast dials that the community loves so much (LOL), then you have stretching big time in those areas. Polka dot and striped tops make this most noticeable. So it would seem to me that when clothing is primarily designed for women you'll want to UV map it in a state where the breasts are set to those of a woman, rather than when it's in its default "flat" shape.  I haven't looked at the Content Creation tools in DS4.5, but I'm assuming it allows for exporting a morphed version of the figure so that you could UV map it in that state?

If the clothing IS suitable for both male and female (such as shirts, tank tops, jeans, etc etc etc), then it would probably be best to make two sets of UVs and corresponding textures.

Those are some questions that I have off the bat, I'm sure most content creators will have these as well. 8-)

http://www.youtube.com/user/WWWDAZ3DCOM?feature=watch
Some solo you tube tutorials also.

Since Genesis is new to Poser.
The ones that know Genesis best are on the DAZ forums.
Might want to wear sun glasses when your on the DAZ.Com forums.

You can model horns and wings,tails ,any thing and Geo-Grafting them in to Genesis.

Actually I have spend some time at the Daz forum (without sun glasses) and find that the Daz people are very untechnical. There are some good administrators but they are tired and over-worked it seem wrong to bother the same guys time and again. No, if we want something to happen we have to do it ourselves. That is the hard lessen in the world! To find out is how to transfer material to Poser is the next thing. Lets put our back to it.

No, if we want something to happen we have to do it ourselves. That is the hard lessen in the world!

And there ya go! That's how we old timers got here in the first place. 8-)

Quote - Actually I have spend some time at the Daz forum (without sun glasses) and find that the Daz people are very untechnical. There are some good administrators but they are tired and over-worked it seem wrong to bother the same guys time and again. No, if we want something to happen we have to do it ourselves. That is the hard lessen in the world! To find out is how to transfer material to Poser is the next thing. Lets put our back to it.

 

Any CGI company's responsibility is to provide us with.
A good CGI app.
Good documentation of how there CGI app works.
Good videos of how there CGI App works.
Good Forums.
Anything & everything we need.

To one degree to another all the CGI App's attempt this.
Learning materials you buy tend to be better.
Any CGI App I've learned there where struggles.
Never herd anyone say CGI is easy.

Never herd anyone say CGI is easy.

It isn't.  Takes discipline and study.

By day I'm a CGI app documentation person ... by nights and weekends I'm a software user just like anyone else and I tinker and pick things apart to learn.  The things I'm asking here are my tinkering at play, because I love to figure new stuff out.

;-)

Quote - Actually I have spend some time at the Daz forum (without sun glasses) and find that the Daz people are very untechnical. There are some good administrators but they are tired and over-worked it seem wrong to bother the same guys time and again. No, if we want something to happen we have to do it ourselves. That is the hard lessen in the world! To find out is how to transfer material to Poser is the next thing. Lets put our back to it.

 

Vintorix,

From your posts, you've spent the majority of your time in the "New Members" area.  Those who can help with this type of thing don't normally hang out there.  The "technical" people are in "Nuts and Bolts" and "Daz Studio Discussion" more than likely.

There are as many "untechnical" folks here as there.  You just need to ask your questions in the areas where those with the knowledge are.  I think you'll find many are willing to help, if they are asked.

Kendall

The beginning to all these problems with Daz, the original canonical mistake, come from the installation process. The user don't know what that is installed or where it was installed. And now, when they finally are on their way to remedy this (why took it so long?), then they make the same mistake again, by not documenting the Dson installation process.

You are basically asked to transfer something you don't know what it is or where it is, convert it and place a new bunch of undocumented files somewhere you don't know.

Check this out.Very handy.

http://www.mec4d.com/store/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=86

Quote - The beginning to all these problems with Daz, the original canonical mistake, come from the installation process. The user don't know what that is installed or where it was installed. And now, when they finally are on their way to remedy this (why took it so long?), then they make the same mistake again, by not documenting the Dson installation process.

You are basically asked to transfer something you don't know what it is or where it is, convert it and place a new bunch of undocumented files somewhere you don't know.

I agree that DAZ is guilty of assuming that computer users have at least basic knowledge of how their system operates.  Unfortunately, many who use Poser and D|S are the "bread goes in/Toast comes out" type of users.

Let's face it, 3D art/modeling/animation is not a field for those unwilling to learn.  However, there are a large contingent of Poser/DS users that are exactly that way.  They have little knowledge of how Poser/DS operates, and less motivation to find out.

It is easy to make the presumption that people, at the least know how to keep their systems up to date.  Sheesh, people are told that this process requires Poser9 or PoserPro2012 and there are still Poser users trying to install it on Poser 7/8 or PP2010.  Never mind the fact that, evidently, a large portion of Poser users haven't bothered to update to SR3... or update their Windows installs.

Again, DAZ gives the users too much credit.  Then they get flamed when the users screw up.  Maybe one day DAZ will presume that users are idiots and ... well, they'll probably get flamed for that as well.

Kendall

Quote - The beginning to all these problems with Daz, the original canonical mistake, come from the installation process. The user don't know what that is installed or where it was installed. And now, when they finally are on their way to remedy this (why took it so long?), then they make the same mistake again, by not documenting the Dson installation process.

You are basically asked to transfer something you don't know what it is or where it is, convert it and place a new bunch of undocumented files somewhere you don't know.

 

Oh, god, this is so true. My reply may seem a bit off topic, but this also seems to cover the majority of newbie Poser problems as well.  (I don't think it's unique to DAZ). I sometimes think that actually installing the software -- and then the content -- is the hardest part.

Quote - Again, DAZ gives the users too much credit.  Then they get flamed when the users screw up.  Maybe one day DAZ will presume that users are idiots and ... well, they'll probably get flamed for that as well.

Kendall

This is also true. It seems to me that DS 4 attempts to simplify the interface, and it has been derided as being too "crayola" -- like a kids' toy. I dislike it myself, but for completely other reasons. I like to count how many clicks it takes me to accomplish a series of commons tasks; too many, and I get impatient. But there is definitely an element of damned if you do/if you don't to people's responses to any kind of change.

"I agree that DAZ is guilty of assuming that computer users have at least basic knowledge of how their system operates."

I have 20 years of experience of software engineering and successful made and sold my own company. Sometimes we had to learn a new programming language over the week-end. Since that I learned Cinema 4D, Bodypaint, ZBrush, in depth Photoshop, Poser, Vue and a bunch of other programs in a little over a year without problem.  But the Daz installation and the relationship between the different files is the most difficult task I ever encountered.

When I finally understand this I will write a documentation that in less than one page describe exactly how it works and what references what. Just to show how simple it is to spare people so much grief.

Quote - > Quote - The beginning to all these problems with Daz, the original canonical mistake, come from the installation process. The user don't know what that is installed or where it was installed. And now, when they finally are on their way to remedy this (why took it so long?), then they make the same mistake again, by not documenting the Dson installation process.

You are basically asked to transfer something you don't know what it is or where it is, convert it and place a new bunch of undocumented files somewhere you don't know.

 

Oh, god, this is so true. My reply may seem a bit off topic, but this also seems to cover the majority of newbie Poser problems as well.  (I don't think it's unique to DAZ). I sometimes think that actually installing the software -- and then the content -- is the hardest part.

Is it really that hard, if one sticks to the default install options, from day one?

A lot of the issues I have read, on these lines, seem to stem from people opting to customise their Poser program and separate content file installation paths?

There are some good reasons for doing this, I'm sure. But if you're not at least an intermediate level operating system user (e.g. on Windows, are you reasonably confident using regedit) its perhaps not such a great idea?

Regedit shouldn't be required of course! He he. Probably not a good benchmark of user advancement here...

But I guess, all Poser users must have run through setup (perhaps not the actual install, these days) for Windows or OS X. But how many can describe the file system layout of core operating system files?

Sorry don't want to get more OT here.

I guess the point you guys are making is that there should just be more detail in the readme about exactly what files install where, by default, for each part of the install... so that more advanced users can check this? (assuming there isn't more info tucked away in Daz's online readmes, that we all just glossed over)

Quote - Check this out.Very handy.

http://www.mec4d.com/store/index.php?_a=viewProd&productId=86

Awesome, thanks for the link Zev0

Quote - I have 20 years of experience of software engineering and successful made and sold my own company. Sometimes we had to learn a new programming language over the week-end. Since that I learned Cinema 4D, Bodypaint, ZBrush, in depth Photoshop, Poser, Vue and a bunch of other programs in a little over a year without problem.  But the Daz installation and the relationship between the different files is the most difficult task I ever encountered.

What plugins did you make for C4D ,zBrush ?

"What plugins did you make for C4D ,zBrush ?"

And what plugins did you make yourself? My ambitions now is elsewhere I want to paint like the old masters and create content. Life is short art is long. No activity is more unthankful than that of a programmer.

The basic file layout of the "Genesis + Poser" DSON Importer and Genesis Essentials installation seems to be fairly straight forward... to me at least?

The DSON Importer program and python scripts, which plug it in to Poser, I guess, should be installed into your Poser Program Files location (the default). I'm not sure it'll work otherwise. I imagine the advanced option (to customize the install path) there is in case the user has installed their Poser Program files somewhere more exotic?

The two Genesis Essentials packages should be installed into a runtime, it would seem.

The default will be your main runtime. Go with that, you'll get a "Daz People" folder etc. appearing in the "Characters" section of your Poser Library... and a few other folders of runtime stuff. Extra dependencies are added though, far as I recall now, within the folder enclosing the runtime folder.

I just created a new runtime (or a new runtime enclosing folder, rather), and installed them into that, then added that new runtime via the usual method in the Poser Library. I'll just now keep that separate, isolated, runtime for Genesis content.

I have to say that I found the documentation that was linked to from the installer (as far as I recall) pretty reasonable...

http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dson_importer/start

It didn't take me long after installing... after curiously opening up the CR2s in textedit, then the referenced python scripts, which call the DSON Loader... to get a rough handle on the way in which it was all hanging together. I do develop software for a living, fair enough. But most folk don't really need to get into all that side of it. I just find it interesting...

In terms of dealling with the .duf data / content etc, certainly, some more "starter" documentation on that seems to be needed, perhaps?

Not sure if there is anything more yet, than the following?

http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/dson_spec/start

[quote

Is it really that hard, if one sticks to the default install options, from day one?

A lot of the issues I have read, on these lines, seem to stem from people opting to customise their Poser program and separate content file installation paths?

After having read thread after thread after thread in this forum from newbies with installation problems, I'm convinced that a huge proportion of their issues come from them making the mistake of reading old and outdated forum posts instead of the current manual. Or taking advice from people who don't know what they're talking about, advice that all too often suggests NOT following the default installation instructions.

Just a single example:

How many posts have we seen in the last few months alone in which people state categorically that you must not, under any circumstances, install the Poser executable into Program Files under Win Vista or Win 7?

I'm convinced that half the problems come from the continued dissemination of misinformation in forums, and the other half from people refusing to read the current manual for themselves.

Of course, Daz Studio users are exempted from the latter group, since AFAIK there is no current and updated manual for their software, and searching the available documentation does tend to lead one on a wild goose chase after a string of 404's. However, Poser users have no such excuse. Yet we still see the same problems.

^Yup... I think you're onto something, on all points there, Moriador...

monkeycloud, moriador

The issue here is not how to install but how to move the materials to Poser from Daz.

That said the install seem to work for most people. Sometime people says, "I know how to install MS Sql Server or MySQL". What they mean is that if they click on ok through the whole installation process it will install. But that is not knowing how to install.

For example I have two computers, the new and the old which I always keep as a backup. The installation on the new computer worked out of the box. But on the old computer I get an error message. The same error message I've seen other has reported here. Both boxes have Windows 7 and SR3. That is not important I can live without having DSON Poser on the old computer it is just to illustrate a point, "Knowing how to install" means knowing how to fix problems if something goes wrong.

Quote - monkeycloud, moriador

The issue here is not how to install but how to move the materials to Poser from Daz.

That said the install seem to work for most people. Sometime people says, "I know how to install MS Sql Server or MySQL". What they mean is that if they click on ok through the whole installation process it will install. But that is not knowing how to install.

For example I have two computers, the new and the old which I always keep as a backup. The installation on the new computer worked out of the box. But on the old computer I get an error message. The same error message I've seen other has reported here. Both boxes have Windows 7 and SR3. That is not important I can live without having DSON Poser on the old computer it is just to illustrate a point, "Knowing how to install" means knowing how to fix problems if something goes wrong.

^Yup, fair enough Vintorix... some more, formal, documentation to help with migrating / manipulating the data / content, after install, would certainly be useful now I suspect...

...all I've found so far (beyond heresay on the forums) is that fairly abstract DSON spec I linked to a couple of posts back.

Vintorix, I had no problem installing the DSON importer or getting Genesis to work in Poser via that importer. I simply followed the instructions and voilà. But I do understand that things don't always work perfectly well, particularly with older systems. You should have heard me swearing when I tried to use a simple headset with my laptop. But that pretty much goes with the territory. If you install enough random crap into your machines, you get better at troubleshooting.

So, yes. I totally agree that knowing how to install means knowing how to fix problems.

All I'm saying is that very often the first step that people use in fixing problems is to post them on a forum, instead of reading the instructions that came with whatever they're installing. At that point, they are then at the mercy of fate. They might get a response that answers their questions clearly and helps fix the issues. Or they might get someone telling them to fix problems they don't have and/or offering suggestions that were a decent work-around ten years ago.

The staying power of some of the myths amazes me. I mean, there are people who actually think they need to turn off UAC in order to run Poser, and other people who are uninstalling their antivirus protection in order to install Daz exe's.

ETA: And this is pertinent to this discussion in at least so much as I've read more than one post over at Daz telling people that the DSON importer won't work if you have Poser installed into Program Files, and at least post telling people that it won't work if you don't have Poser installed into Program Files. Both of these statements are false. If people can't get proper information about the basic installation of this plugin, I hold little hope that actually converting items themselves will become a seamless and simple operation for the typical user.

"The staying power of some of the myths amazes me."

true ;)

I actually managed to open V5 in Poser with d3d's script and thereafter the material by first creating a duf file and then generating the poser companion files. But as I not really know what I am doing bear with me..I have to tackle how to transfer all the other presets.

So now I don't have to reinitialize and download several gigabytes of data after waiting for them to be updated..

Quote - "What plugins did you make for C4D ,zBrush ?"

And what plugins did you make yourself? My ambitions now is elsewhere I want to paint like the old masters and create content. Life is short art is long. No activity is more unthankful than that of a programmer.

 

My Plugs ? LOL ,Hello world.Coding is not one of my skills.
All I've ever been or ever will be is a Artist.

One thing that has puzzled me for years is.
Some app's can't subdivide a tri there convert it to a quad and it will pinch.
some app's can subdivide a tri.

Why wont all the app's subdivide tri's ?

RorrKonn, "Why wont all the app's subdivide tri's ?"

Why should you care? There are no better thing to be in this world than an artist. My favorite quotation is,

"Dreyfus? who's that? I haven't opened a newspaper since I went out from the academy!"

I've been a Windows user since 3.1 (coming from a Macintosh). I hated 3.1 so much I never used an IBM pc until Windows 95 came out. In the beginning I screwed it up more than I used it. However, I learned really fast in order to have a consistent experience and today I'm more than capable of taking care of ANY problem, be it an OS issue, a virus, whatever. I'm rather surprised that someone who's been using a computer as long as I have can't even maintain it. I also almost never seem to have the problems that other Poser users have and installing the DS plugin for me went pretty much like clockwork. Of course, like I said, I did read everything there was on the subject beforehand. All I can say is that it's a darn good thing computers really aren't rocket science. LOL.

BTW, like others, I don't have Poser installed to the default location. I never have since Poser 6, and still didn't have any problems intalling the plugin. There definitely was additional information in the Daz forum thread on the importer, and it was advantageous for me to read that as well, in additon to the installation instructions beforehand. Perhaps they could have thought it out a little more before they wrote the instructions, but even so, they were easy to follow. At least, I thought so ;).

Laurie

It does seem unfair to me too, that some ppl are flaming Daz for making a bad plugin when at least some of us had no problems installing. And the Daz mods and coordinators are doing the ultra-fast twostep in order to repeat the same things over and over again and to keep up answering questions to people who didn't read the instructions before they tried to install ;). And they've been very patient too. They've even been over here fielding questions. It's not a bad plugin. So far I've found it works much like the information stated. At least they made the attempt, even tho some find it too little, too late. That's fine - everyone is entitled to their opinion ;).

Laurie

Quote - It does seem unfair to me too, that some ppl are flaming Daz for making a bad plugin when at least some of us had no problems installing. And the Daz mods and coordinators are doing the ultra-fast twostep in order to repeat the same things over and over again and to keep up answering questions to people who didn't read the instructions before they tried to install ;).

Laurie

Yup... I'd agree there. I found install straight forward and I am really very impressed with the actual functioning... and indeed the technical aspects and overall the ingenuity with which they have actually realised the solution too.

Moreover they seem pretty focused / committed to taking onboard feedback and working to improve any little glitches, far as I can tell. I'd have to say, I now have a pretty positive outlook on Daz's software, ongoing, as a result of this release.

The installation steps documentation is fine in my opinion. I had no bother installing... and I have to say, whilst I read the install how-to, I read it pretty fast and blurred.

They maybe just need to consider an installation troubleshooting section, that'd be all? Again, not that I'd have had any need of that myself... thankfully!

(More user-level docs about DSON generally would also be good, in due course)

However, if they're just taking the view that no-one would read an installation troubleshooting guide anyway, and they're better channelling resources into direct assistance... as it sounds like they're doing... that seems fair enough to me too!

And you even use a Mac and still had no problems? Heh.

And yes, the mods over there have seemed to be on top of everything...which is rather like running the gauntlet for as fast as the post count grew in at least the one thread over there. LOL. Everytime I refreshed there were 10 new posts. LOL As of now, it's become a genuine monster thread ;). And yes, I'm sure they anticipated problems like they're having as we Poser users aren't yet used to real plugins, only scripts. It's all so new. Heh.

Laurie

I did make it easy for myself I guess.

Poser Pro 2012 installed to the default: Applications folder (where else on a mac?).

"Poser Pro 2012 Content" folder installed to the default: /users/shared/

All my runtimes are "internal" at present... by which I mean, they're inside that "Poser Pro 2012 Content" folder.

I have one big terrabyte disk and only been accruing content since this time last year... so its not totally full yet

Nobody is complaining about the installation what I can see, so what's the fuss?

What I am complaining over is lack of documentation for the advanced user. I am not against Genesis I have been one of its starkest advocates right from the beginning when most Poser people were bashing the whole project.

Anyway I am glad that LaurieA is coming in. Welcome aboard! Better late than never.