The position shown in the picture seems to be almost a universal default outside of Poser/DAZStudio (Max, Maya, etc)...legs spread, arms down around 45 degrees.

The question I have is why do we do it different than everyone else?...why do we use the "T pose"? What makes it better (or worse) than the way everyone else does it?

There are a few who still use the more classic T pose but one of the main reasons we use it is for compatability with walk designer. There's also the ease of clothing creation to factor in.  If you're ok with running a figure through walk designer and having the arms cross through the body and don't mind making things a tiny bit harder for content creators to build off of, there's nothing that says you can't have a model in a 45 degree T pose instead of a 90 degree one.

To me it looks like there would be a lot less problems with the shoulders if the chatacters were modeled and rigged in this position. Also, I would think that it would be easier to create pants with the legs spread like this.

Quite fankly, I didn't even remember the walk desinger when this difference between Poser and everyone elase caught my attention. It's probably because in the almost 2 decades I've been using Poser I've never used it...but then again, I've never been "into" animation. 

Well, the new figure coming up (Dawn) has legs like your illustration. As a clothing/content maker I can attest to my gratitude for this...it's right pain in the arse to model a pair of pants/shorts/panties if you can't really get up in the crotch of the figure's mesh.

The arms - I like the arms straight out. It makes making sleeves easier and more access to the armpits, tho bent down slightly wouldn't really hinder that too much.

Laurie

I will go with what others have said as far as Poser.  T Pose is also the default for motion capture, as it lets the computer scan the points in a fixed positon - most that I have seen do not use inner thigh points but do need the arms raised and just extrapolate the rest of the legs.

Personally, the pose in your drawing looks awkward, whereas T Pose reminds me of a few calesthenic (spelling?) starting positions.

"The four count windmill.  Ready . . . begin!"

I do my own posing, and a true T-Pose figure makes that much easier because you know if the bending is "0", the joints are perfectly straight.

With pre-posed figures, I'm never really sure what the true default shape of the joint is.

I guess it's not that important with stylized figures that see a lot of "action" because movement hides a lot of anatomical flaws, but for the precise sculpting and static poses I use, the true T-Pose allows much more accuracy.

Apart from Joe's statement's - which I completely agree with - you have to consider how the figure will look with arms raised.  Given that almost all figures have problems in that area, it follows the lower the starting point, the worse it's going to get.

Dosch, Rocketbox and AXYZ all use this position, so there's got to be something to it.

http://www.doschdesign.com/products/3d/3D_People_T-Pose.html

https://secure.axyz-design.com/

http://www.rocketbox-libraries.com/index.php/characters.html

I agree that rasing arms would be more difficult in a lower starting position. Of course, most characters spend most of their time with their arms lowered, and we all know the hoops every Poser figure creator has to go through to fix the "shoulder bulges" when the arms are lowered that are the standard result of the T-Pose.

Quote - Apart from Joe's statement's - which I completely agree with - you have to consider how the figure will look with arms raised.  Given that almost all figures have problems in that area, it follows the lower the starting point, the worse it's going to get.

 

Don't have 3DS Max, I'm just speculating here, but I wonder if the 45 dregree arms and spread legs have anything to do with Max's "Bi-Ped" rigging system?

It's not a result of anything Max related. Modelers who use other programs also use that pose - and actually, many tutorials on modeling humanoids in Max have you modeling the classic T.  Most of the figures I make are modeled in the 45 degree pose (which is why if you Zero Rex and Roxie the legs are shoulder width apart for both) but because of the reasons mentioned above, their arms get placed in the classic T pose.  Then, because IK is just a fun little experience, we have to find an ideal default leg pose that will work with IK without causing the legs to buckle in a painful way. Sometimes, despite having the legs in a position that would appear to be ideal, we need to adjust the default pose in less than natural looking ways to get the IK working.  There's a lot to consider when modeling and rigging for Poser. People don't really get that because many of you don't do it but believe me, everything has a purpose.

That said, as I mentioned, there's nothing stopping someone from setting up a figure in the 45 degree pose. There will be downsides to this but that's the case with any default pose. Just the nature of the beast really.

The ideal default pose would be like floating in a tank of water.

The reason is the "skin" would closest to a neutral position, and therefore every pose would be more natuaral and no pose would stretch it unnaturally.

Poser was created as an art tool and Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man was the inspiration for the default pose.

Too bad “The Maestro” never had to UV map peoples shoulder tattoos. :-D

Pretty much. :)

Chothing in its natural position is almost always cut with arms down 45 degrees. If I would have say a jacket cur with arms in T-pose, I would be unable to lower my arms for the ball of fabric under my armpits. also, the fabric on my shoulders would be stretched to breakage.

Marvelous Desiger uses Arms lowered pose as a default, and all goes brilliant. If I want to fit my generated clothing with perfect flat and undistorted UV's to a T-Posed poser figure, disaster strikes. The sides of my jacket spread like wings.

I absolutely hate the default T-pose for this reason. 

I fully understand modeling arms and hands of base models is much easier in the T-pose. Textures however are much easier to make for the poses in which the skin is relaxed.

We need a tool to freeze a pose with all rotations etc applied as a new zero.  

And I "love" the default "T" pose.

Multiple reasons, most are already mentioned.

And now with W-mapping, most bending issues are solved also.

Only problem I have is: All modelers build in the "T" pose, but forget to lower the breasts afterwards.

Breasts should be modeled in an relaxed arms down position. Skin relaxes and "natural gravity " breasts should be the default. 

99% of all poses and renders are with "arms down". Building and texturing breasts should be done in a arms down, skin relaxed position..

Using ColorCurvator's PML it shouldn't be a problem to extract a "pre-bend" object file, UV-map that, and then return it into the standard T-pose.

I hear what you say about jackets, bagoas.

But (sadly) most clothing used in Poser is skin tight and even those that aren't, are not constructed/cut like real clothing.

I sooo wish for a 100% realistic looking suit with fully sculpted folds and stuff.

Or a proper coat. Or a classic biker's leather jacket.

Think I have to take up Marvelous Designer to get that.

Quote - Dosch, Rocketbox and AXYZ all use this position, so there's got to be something to it.

http://www.doschdesign.com/products/3d/3D_People_T-Pose.html

https://secure.axyz-design.com/

http://www.rocketbox-libraries.com/index.php/characters.html

those are game meshes.

C4D,Max etc etc do not have a default pose like Poser or DAZ Studio.

T-Pose is fine but only matters to Poser or DAZ Studio cause of default pose.

Ya can't model under the arm if it's bent down.

ya can bend the limbs as you model.

be nice if Poser DAZ meshes default pose had there eyes closed and mouth opened.

Quote - C4D,Max etc etc do not have a default pose like Poser or DAZ Studio.

T-Pose is fine but only matters to Poser or DAZ Studio cause of default pose.

Ya can't model under the arm if it's bent down.

ya can bend the limbs as you model.

be nice if Poser DAZ meshes default pose had there eyes closed and mouth opened.

Some do. The default of Rex and Roxie and the toons are thus. Miki 4 also if I recall.

Edit, we may have opened them back up after the UV maps were generated for Miki Rex and Roxie but that's how they were modeled, with eyes mostly closed and lips parted. 

Not sure what being game meshes has to do with whether their zero pose is better or worse than what we do.

Quote - > Quote - Dosch, Rocketbox and AXYZ all use this position, so there's got to be something to it.

http://www.doschdesign.com/products/3d/3D_People_T-Pose.html

https://secure.axyz-design.com/

http://www.rocketbox-libraries.com/index.php/characters.html

those are game meshes.

Quote - Not sure what being game meshes has to do with whether their zero pose is better or worse than what we do.

 

Quote - > Quote - Dosch, Rocketbox and AXYZ all use this position, so there's got to be something to it.

http://www.doschdesign.com/products/3d/3D_People_T-Pose.html

https://secure.axyz-design.com/

http://www.rocketbox-libraries.com/index.php/characters.html

those are game meshes.

my bad ,games meshes will just have a certain moviement that they copy all the time over and over again.

for the ones playing the game on sony etc etc there not posable like Poser DAZ meshes.

the game meshes you posted there real low polycount meshes, mostly for back gound characters that just get shoot or blown up.there bairly have what Poser DAZ thinks of as rigs.they wount bend as well as Rox's not even close.

ya just can't really compare 300 to 4000 polycount games meshes
that serves only one certain purpose to multi purpose Poser DAZ meshes.

Quote - > Quote - C4D,Max etc etc do not have a default pose like Poser or DAZ Studio.

T-Pose is fine but only matters to Poser or DAZ Studio cause of default pose.

Ya can't model under the arm if it's bent down.

ya can bend the limbs as you model.

be nice if Poser DAZ meshes default pose had there eyes closed and mouth opened.

 

Some do. The default of Rex and Roxie and the toons are thus. Miki 4 also if I recall.

 

Edit, we may have opened them back up after the UV maps were generated for Miki Rex and Roxie but that's how they were modeled, with eyes mostly closed and lips parted. 

Figure/Zero Figure Rox's n Rex's mouth is open a bit there eyes are open but none of the vertices are overlapping so where good.

over lapping vertices that ya can not get to cause you griff If ya makeing a displacement,vector map.

".OBZ" I can't open with C4D or zBrush Is .OBZ something like DAZ genesis format ?

on the Dawn thread we where talking about displacement maps.

I'm not so sure that displacement maps mean the same to everyone.
Can we make zBrush displacement maps
that you sculpt right on Rox's n Rex in zBrush ?
& vector maps when Poser gets them ?

I will not make displacement,vector maps on others meshes with out the owners permision.

It was my understanding that the same rules for genesis applys to Poser meshes.
Ya can't touch the mesh .No sweep, re topolagy,shrink wrap etc etc. ?

".OBZ" I can't open with C4D or zBrush Is .OBZ something like DAZ genesis format ?"

It's a compressed obj file used in Poser when you want to save space on your hard drive or to make files smaller for downloading. For several versions now the Stock Poser figures have been compressed like that. Poser gives you a python script to de-compress all geometry and library files. Use that then you'll have standard obj's to work with.

Quote - ".OBZ" I can't open with C4D or zBrush Is .OBZ something like DAZ genesis format ?"

 

It's a compressed obj file used in Poser when you want to save space on your hard drive or to make files smaller for downloading. For several versions now the Stock Poser figures have been compressed like that. Poser gives you a python script to de-compress all geometry and library files. Use that then you'll have standard obj's to work with.

Found Scripts/Utilities/uncompressposerfiles. Thanks.

Ya I've waited for 15 years for Poser to get SubD meshes.

Using ColorCurvator's PML it shouldn't be a problem to extract a "pre-bend" object file, UV-map that, and then return it into the standard T-pose.

This might actually present some difficulties. Though PML is a goodsend for morph loading, exports have a different vertex order than the obj. in the geometry folder. I've attempted to transfer uvs between the posed obj. and the original obj. and failed with UV Mapper due to the diffrerences. You could export a pre-bend object and a standard T pose obj. but if this were to become the primary obj. reference for the figure, you would run into a problem with exploding morphs if any were loaded previously. Also, as of yet, PML doesn't retain the obj. parts and so you would need to recreate them. If you know of any workarounds that would simplify things, please let me know.

I pretty sure you can just rename and .OBZ to .zip, then unzip it like a normal zip file to get to the OBJ.

I find the exact opposite with Marvelous Designer. The default "V" pose is horrible for draping and fitting sleeves properly. The "T" pose is much better. Especially when you're working on very tight fitting and layered sleeves, eg. Medieval dresses.

What problem do you have there draping sleeves then? Inclined arms works great for me. 

In fact my problem is not the draping in MD, but the application to Poser figures. 

Workflow:

• export .obj with lowered arms shape from MD (I do not want wrinkled shoulders and normal proportions of textureson the shoulder)

• load .obj in Poser, in setuproom inject the rigging rig made to suit the MD avatar (or lowered arm version of Poser figure if I used that in MD. Carrier figures are just body and main limbs,hand.feet. No fingers, toes, head features.

• in Pose room pose the cloth-figure in a pose to suit my target figure (T-pose, arms bend, legs position), tweak joints when necessary for good shape. Texture on shoulders of clothing look horrible of course, but UV's are preserved

•  in fitting room convert clothing to target figure.

• when posed to natural 'arms down' position the texture on the shoulders returns to more or less original proportions. 

So with T-posed figures I need to do an extra setup room session and can only hope the deformations induced in the bending to T-pose are reversed well when the clothing is bend to a pose in which the fabric should be neither stretched or wrinkled. 

If the 'arms low' pose would be the default, the .obj could go tot he fitting room directly.

"If you know of any workarounds that would simplify things, please let me know."

1. Zero figure and export via PML.

2. Move arms down and export via PML.

3. Zero Figure again. Load "arms straight" as base and "arms up" as morph

4. Arms down is now a FBM

5. Export object with arms morphed down and remap.

6. Import to Poser and turn into figure. (No need to care about rigging)

7. Load "arms down" as base and "arms straight" as morph.

8. Export figure as object with arms set straight via the new morph.

9. Once again import and turn into a figure.

DO NOT let Poser "transfer" the morphs as it will only do a rough "projection". You have to re-load them via morph manager or edit the original cr2 to point to the newly UV-mapped object.

Just tested and it worked.

I've never used the Poser fitting room or cloth room. I was talking about MD, I make and drape the clothes in MD and export as an object to Poser or Vue to render. I find it very much easier to work with the T pose in MD as it's much easier to work with the sleeves when you can get at them from all directions without the body being in the way - plus the cloth lands on the arms much better.

Ah, that explains. I was talking about making conforming clothing. 

Well of course in MD you can pose the avatar in T-pose if that is easier for you to work with. Then, depending on the type of clothing, after swing you can change the sleeves to make fit. If there is a 'bellow' at the shoulder as in some medieval dresses of course that takes care of the lengthening.   

"If you know of any workarounds that would simplify things, please let me know."

1. Zero figure and export via PML.

2. Move arms down and export via PML.

3. Zero Figure again. Load "arms straight" as base and "arms up" as morph

4. Arms down is now a FBM

5. Export object with arms morphed down and remap.

6. Import to Poser and turn into figure. (No need to care about rigging)

7. Load "arms down" as base and "arms straight" as morph.

8. Export figure as object with arms set straight via the new morph.

9. Once again import and turn into a figure.

DO NOT let Poser "transfer" the morphs as it will only do a rough "projection". You have to re-load them via morph manager or edit the original cr2 to point to the newly UV-mapped object.

Thanks for that explanation. If rigging isn't a problem, I guess Poser automatically recreates the parts from the donor cr2 when you turn the obj. into a figure...?

"Thanks for that explanation. If rigging isn't a problem, I guess Poser automatically recreates the parts from the donor cr2 when you turn the obj. into a figure...?"

If it can find the grouping info in the object file, yes it does.

Up to PP-2014 you could export the object file from a figure, morph or otherwise change it, re-import it, enter the SetUp room, click on the original cr2 and you'd have a fully working figure again, morphs and all in a few seconds.

Now the morphs are merely projected to allow morph transfer between different meshes. Works for clothing, but the quality of the projection isn't good enough to copy a figure's own morphs back into its cr2. (Most noticeable with headmorphs)

So you have to manually copy them.

As for groups: You can use auto-group in the SetUp room, which works quite well, but if the object already was a Poser figure, Poser should have no problem re-using the original groups.