Although it's harder to mke black skin look really good in Poser for some reason...

This is a somewhat doctored version of BB's Scatter-Blinn shader where I substituted the Blinn with KS just to see what it would do...

Lovely!

IMO, the eye shape is really manky, same as the eye shape in Judy and, for that matter, Posette.  There's not enough curve and depth to the lower lid, which seems to be a hallmark of several Poser figures.

Mm yea the eye shape could be more .. almond-y. Still I think she's far from ugly. Or for that matter "unusable" :)

I still think she's ugly...but different strokes I guess LOL. Frankly I haven't liked a Poser standard figure since Posette and Dork, tho James and James G2 (including Kelvin and Koji) can look half decent if you work with them. Anastasia and Tyler have obviously gone a long way to make Alyson and Ryan viable (cause they sure weren't before) ;)

Laurie

Whenever I give Poser a break for a few months or more, I come back with a more discriminating eye, and wonder how it was that I ever thought this or that figure or morph or texture looked good.

I think the more time we spend staring at humanoid figures and faces, the more we learn to love them, and the less apparent or meaningful some of their more obvious flaws become.

Seems to work that way. In real life too. For some of us, anyway. :)

I still don't think the native Poser people are attractive, though recent additions do at least look human, and some of bodies are exceptional. But attractive isn't always what's called for. So there's that.

Here's a WIP that I plan to release soon. A casual outfit for G2 Sydney.

 I almost never notice things like the eye shape. Now it's been pointed out, it'll probably ruin any image I see :-) To me, she's neither ugly nor beautiful but more attractive than unattractive. Serene, elegant, dignified come to mind. Of course, it'd pretty difficult to escape the Western European standard of 'beauty' that dominates North America and Western Europe. Even in places like Mexico. Cuba etc, that tends to be the case in terms of social status. It would be interesting to have a 'beauty contest' among people who've had as little exposure to CGI as possible and see what they thought of the various default figures in terms of attractiveness. As in RL, haor and makeup can make a big difference. 

TG really good job on the skin.

I know not too many are using 2014 yet but Roxie is pretty good

Looks great, Nannette!

Nanette, she's very pretty! And - she looks like a real person, not a super model mannequin :)

Hate to have to say it but...all poser characters basically look the same as shop dummies with plasticy skin. I think most folk can easily tell a Poser figure in a picture without too much study!

The "sculpting" of eye shapes and skin colour still leaves one with a yearning for reality which Poser has still to come to terms with.

Quote - Hate to have to say it but...all poser characters basically look the same as shop dummies with plasticy skin. I think most folk can easily tell a Poser figure in a picture without too much study!

The "sculpting" of eye shapes and skin colour still leaves one with a yearning for reality which Poser has still to come to terms with.

Then don't say it.  IMNSHO, all versions of vicky look like Vargas provided the base model from which they were made.  I have roughly the same leg to torso lenght ratios as the daz figures, but I attribute that to being born with scoliosis.   What's their excuse? Doric. 

Quote - Hate to have to say it but...all poser characters basically look the same as shop dummies with plasticy skin. I think most folk can easily tell a Poser figure in a picture without too much study!

The "sculpting" of eye shapes and skin colour still leaves one with a yearning for reality which Poser has still to come to terms with.

Well, as long as we're being open and honest about it, most of the renders of Genesis in Studio look like wax figures. Not much realism there either.

Well, IMHO (and nothing more, really), I don't think that it's any kind of "ugly" factor, but rather the lack of flexibility in the figure.

For instance, Take a peek up there for a moment. I'm able to turn the lanky, scrawny, balloon-tittied, 7' 9" tall tiny-headed supermodel into, well... that. Up there. A short, squat, but still hella-pretty 4' 3" little-thing with real body propotions, that looks nothing like the default V4.

If you can put that same potential for flexibility into the Poser default figures (without undue and excessive work mind you), and still have the result usable with all the common pose/expression/morph sets? Then you'll have something.

It's sorta what I've been harping about all this time, yanno?

Frankly, I've never been too impressed with most of the Poser default figures.  The notable exceptions were the P4 male and female, James and Jessi, Sydney G2 and Simon G2, and now Roxie and Rex.  All of the others just looked too fake, like a kids version of what a humna being looked like.

"A short, squat, but still hella-pretty 4' 3" little-thing with real body propotions …"

Aww, and the H8ers said Snooki was just a slutty little Oompa Loompa.

Ooh, now do Smurfette!  

* *

The plastic-y skin is only if people don't know what they're doing IMO. I'm trying to get away from that and TBH I don't think my Alishiaat the first pic looks like plastic. But it's hard(er) to make dark skin look real, as I've found out.

How about this one then? Better? (it's V4 btw - NOT one of the stock Poser figures)

I dont' think she looks like plastic. She has a sheen which I personally like, but plastic? Nah.

when I work with figures, I use James.

why? I've worked with guys that look exactly like him. yes. in real life. actual human beings. same proportions and looks. so to those that claim he is an "alien" or "does not look human" I say, get of out the fucking house and meet ppl. you'll find they don't lool like vicky. no one actually does.

No argument from me about James.  But Jessi - at least the original one - nobody looks like that in RL.

@ Peng - agreed and beautiful character.  

Quote - when I work with figures, I use James.

 

why? I've worked with guys that look exactly like him. yes. in real life. actual human beings. same proportions and looks. so to those that claim he is an "alien" or "does not look human" I say, get of out the fucking house and meet ppl. you'll find they don't lool like vicky. no one actually does.

The problem is that I have been getting out.

Back when I spent half my waking hours hunched over Poser, the figures started to look quite real and quite attractive to me.

When I finally took a break and spent a lot more time with real, live humans, it became very apparent to me just how far off the mark the available figures really are.

With a lot of work, they can be made to look pretty good. But I can't remember seeing a render of the native Poser figures that comes close to what people have accomplished with various iterations of Daz figures.

I know it's uncool to say it, and that you get way more social points for trying to be rebellious, but I won't lie. Rehashed renders of Anastasia don't convince me. She's a million times better than Alyson. But her eyes still scream "POSER FIGURE" to me.

Characters are just a base, just a chunk of virtual clay in a digital form.

What it looks like is up to you.

I don't really care what the base looks like, and rarely use any character in it's default form.

With the tools in Poser 2014 you can make any character, look like any other one.

Or any mix of as many as you want too.

You can take morphs from just about every character you have and pile them all onto one if you really wanted to.

I posted a mini tutiorial on how to do so on the RuntimeDNA Poser2014 forum, it is sticked at the top. There is far more to it when piling morphs from every character on it, but it can be done. The tutorial just shows how to transfer a single FBM from one character to another. Once you do that, it will look just like the other character.

The advantage of this revolves around the users Runtime Content. If you want to use Roxie in a scene and have tons of V4 textures you would rather use, just wrap V4 around Roxie. Now you have a V4 that looks just like Roxe, yet can still use all the texture sets you have for V4. You can do this with any 2 characters.

The limitations of doing this are rather small from what I can tell. There is an intial time investment in the creation of the conversion, but once those are saved out you just click and load like any other character in your runtimes.

I think it ultimately depends on what you find attractive, what you are trying to achieve through your art and which figure will bring you closest to that. Yes, many figures may not be ideal out of the box but some just need a different coat of paint or a morph (or both) to really shine.

Quote - Characters are just a base, just a chunk of virtual clay in a digital form.

What it looks like is up to you.

I don't really care what the base looks like, and rarely use any character in it's default form.

With the tools in Poser 2014 you can make any character, look like any other one.

Or any mix of as many as you want too.

You can take morphs from just about every character you have and pile them all onto one if you really wanted to.

I posted a mini tutiorial on how to do so on the RuntimeDNA Poser2014 forum, it is sticked at the top. There is far more to it when piling morphs from every character on it, but it can be done. The tutorial just shows how to transfer a single FBM from one character to another. Once you do that, it will look just like the other character.

The advantage of this revolves around the users Runtime Content. If you want to use Roxie in a scene and have tons of V4 textures you would rather use, just wrap V4 around Roxie. Now you have a V4 that looks just like Roxe, yet can still use all the texture sets you have for V4. You can do this with any 2 characters.

The limitations of doing this are rather small from what I can tell. There is an intial time investment in the creation of the conversion, but once those are saved out you just click and load like any other character in your runtimes.

Some bases require more work than others to get to the desired look. I don't enjoy fiddling with figures that need to have 700 morphs adjusted -- or taken to Zbrush -- before they look human to me. Some people do enjoy it. I don't. I also don't have Poser Pro 2014.

Quote - This is Rex with a half-assed texture projection done in ZAppLink. Handsome? Not handsome?

I think it ultimately depends on what you find attractive, what you are trying to achieve through your art and which figure will bring you closest to that. Yes, many figures may not be ideal out of the box but some just need a different coat of paint or a morph (or both) to really shine.

Agreed.  And I say handsome (well, except for those spooky eye sockets :P)

Quote - This is Rex with a half-assed texture projection done in ZAppLink. Handsome? Not handsome?

I think it ultimately depends on what you find attractive, what you are trying to achieve through your art and which figure will bring you closest to that. Yes, many figures may not be ideal out of the box but some just need a different coat of paint or a morph (or both) to really shine.

 

I like the texture..it does make Rex look better ;). I think his mouth is on the small side - is that default? His lips look like they're in a permanent state of "pursed" LOL.

Laurie

Quote - This is Rex with a half-assed texture projection done in ZAppLink. Handsome? Not handsome?

I think it ultimately depends on what you find attractive, what you are trying to achieve through your art and which figure will bring you closest to that. Yes, many figures may not be ideal out of the box but some just need a different coat of paint or a morph (or both) to really shine.

 

As is, I can't give an opinion because there are, among other things, no eyes. Also, you have to see a figure in action before you can really know how good it is. A flat box with an excellent texture (photograph) will look great from some angles and lighting conditions. But how useful is it really?

I'm not always looking to render "attractive people". But when I want to render humans, I do indeed want them to look fairly convincing.

I have some basic, minimum out-of-the-box requirements for figures I use. They don't have to be pretty, but if they are supposed to be human, I want them to look human. Right away. Without a ton of work. If I have to make the morph myself to make a figure look human, then I won't use the figure.

What I think of as "looking human" changed after I took a break from Poser and spent a lot more time in the company of flesh and blood. I'm much pickier now than I was a few months ago.

Thanks Aproctor.

I may have nudged them a little in ZBrush without realizing it but for the most part that's him, Laurie. 

 <--- This is Rex by the way. A morph I'm working on.

I agree, believability is key to me and is what I strive for in my work. If a figure looks resonably believable and appealing in some fashion than I think I've done my job. I do think that the lighting conditions thing is a bit of a trade off you just have to accept. Even in the real world someone who looks great under certain lights will look less so under others and I don't think anyone looks great under florescents - those things are just evil.

I guess what I was getting at and maybe didn't express well is that what we find attractive in a Poser model - and that's what this thread's about at its core - is a very personal thing and can change at any given moment.  Sure the ideal is a figure you don't have to morph but the reality is that it's more likely you're going to than it is that you're not. The core figures have been hit or miss at times but just like any mesh, in the right hands could be made truly great. Sadly, being included in the application seems to downgrade their value to many and so despite everyone having the figures, few develop items for them so they don't get used  (except for James - that guys all over TV).

Sorry mid typing mind ramble. Anyway, you are right, believable figures are important and Trekkiegirl is right that some of the core figures really do get a bad wrap and aren't bad looking.

I think that everyone is forgetting that even the most realistic CG simulacrum is only ever going to look like a simulation of reality... i.e. a photograph or a series of sequential photographs. Maybe instead of the constant fawning over reality that Poser users seem to be afflicted with try accepting it as art and as simulation, painters and sculptors have accepted and played with these limitations for centuries. of course CG as a medium has only been around for, what, decades?

"A short, squat, but still hella-pretty 4' 3" little-thing with real body propotions …"

Aww, and the H8ers said Snooki was just a slutty little Oompa Loompa.

Ooh, now do Smurfette!"

That's f'in hilarious dude...

DeathMetalDesk - you're onto something there. But I think it's more things. Some strive to do photorealism with Poser - I do that sometimes, full knowing that it's a herculean task. But not completely impossible. I HAVE seen renders where I havent' been totally certain whether it was a render or a photo. but it takes skill and a certain degree of "cheating" (as in postwork)

Some, otoh sees Poser as just another medium. Just like a marble statue won't ever look like a real, stuffed human on a plinth, neither will Poser. And neither SHOULD Poser, in their opinion.

What annoys me is that there are those who use Poser as a sort of dirty word. Like "it's only Poser" is something derogative. Of course, if you've just spent.. what? $1000 on Max or Maya and someone with a mere $200 program can do better, I can see why people may feel a little miffed. But then again, Poser is and will enver be and have IMO no intentions to ever be Max or Maya. Poser is a program for *"ordinary" people. A program you can start making your very own p0rn in after 30 minutes ;)

(and that, in the end is probably why Poser has this .. reputation...;))

Well, I wasn't talking per se about Poser's reputation amongst the CG Elite. You'll find that kind of attitude in all facets of art amongst various factions... "well that's not really art, it's merely illustration." or "yes, but that's just craft." etc., etc.

*"Poser is a program for "ordinary" people. A program you can start making your very own p0rn in after 30 minutes ;)"

Yeah, of course. I totally get that (and, I don't), but find that kind of stuff boring after the initial biological appreciation...even if it's excellently crafted, which most isn't. I mean, unless there are some ideas or emotions happening (art)... Porn is only interesting until orgasm, otherwise, Kinda like watching people eat or some other biological function. I guess if some psychological pathology is a factor it would be different, in any case I'd rather viddy the "real thing" than (let's face it) grotesque cg dolls and their awkward mechanical squirmings... But all of this is way OT.

Don't get me wrong, I think Poser users should use this tool in any manner they find satisfying, whether art is even a consideration or not. I guess, in a way, that's the hidden subtext of my original comment. Time for bed. :)

If I wanted to create something that looked exactly like a photo I think I'd be more likely to use a camera than Poser.

Realism - as in body shape rather than wonky eyes or elbow bends - depends a lot on what you're used to. Where I'm from people are generally tall and blonde. And because a lot of the people I know are dancers most of the people I see every day also tend to be slim and have good muscle definition as well. So for me figures like V3/4, M3 and Anastasia are a very good start for me to create what to me seems "normal". And that's also what I want for fantasy and sci-fi renders, so for me the figures I use are very good.

Obviously the same isn't true for everyone and depending on what you're used to, you have a different idea of what's realistic.

When Poser couldn't come within a country mile of realism, people probably concentrated on other aspects of their art. Now many seem hot to cross the Uncanny Valley. The Little Mermaid doesn't look real though, neither did Bambi or Shrek or the Monsters Unc. crew. We won't even get into Picasso's women. If your artistic ambition goes beyond having people say; "Gee, that looks like a photo," there are other aspects of making a character that really engages people.

I did not read the whole thread, but I would just like to say I think the new girl in 10, Roxi, is kind of cute for a CG girl.  Just to be clear I like the real thing.

Apples and Oranges.

Hyper/Photorealism isn't just by far the hardest "craft" in CGI to master, it's also long been accepted as an artform by itself:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperrealism_%28visual_arts%29

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photorealism

So, how much something engages people has nothing to do with how realistic or non-realistic it is.

Anyway, a well made Poser figure can be as realistic or as non-realistic as the user prefers.

The problem is, non-realism is easy, but to achieve realism the figure has to be constructed in a certain way, which most Poser figures aren't.

And even if the figure is capeable of realism, most users aren't.

So you have to give them exact presets they can use and build upon. Like dialing "The Girl" or "Aiko" for toon/manga styles, they need various realistic characters that let them achieve true realism with a single dial spin.

As I said, a modern Poser figure can be anything you want, provided the mesh topology is properly constructed.

But you can't just throw out a semi toon/ semi realistic vaguely humanoid shaped lump of polygons, call it a "blank canvas" and expect your average hobbyist user to turn it into something extraordinary.

Personally, out of all the native poser wmen, Sydney is my favorite. And Jessica

Quote - So you have to give them exact presets they can use and build upon. Like dialing "The Girl" or "Aiko" for toon/manga styles, they need various realistic characters that let them achieve true realism with a single dial spin.

I see this, or something similar,always posted by someone that feels they're "elevated" above the rest and it's nothing but an insult to the average user, that does not fall into that category. 

And those same ones, when they do post a render, it's usually someone else's morph of V4, sometimes not even dialed. 

True realism in a 3d medium is only an illusion that can never be obtained.  Let's quit injecting that into every discussion of the true poser figures.  It has no place in poser or any other 3d approximation of reality.

Doric.

"The problem is, non-realism is easy"

Oranges, meet apples. Anyone can create a stick figure, it takes talent to make a stick figure that truly engages an audience. By the same token, a figure that meets some arbitrary standard of realism may well leave viewers cold. Of course, I'm talking about art as opposed to science or craft. It's ironic that what I presume to be your take on non-realism looks a lot like Barbie. For better or worse body image wise, I doubt that your more realistic figure would net a tiny fraction La Barb's sales.  Simply put, in entertainment (as well as other areas), the appeal of realism in the real world is overrated IMO. Stylized, idealized, parodied, exaggerated, slightly off-kilter takes have a resonance that 'mere' documentary seldom matches.

I don't dismiss the pursuit of realism. Whether it is art, rather than craft, (if it is viewed as an end in itself, rather than as a constituent part of the artistic enterprise), is up to the beholder. Indeed, I find it difficult to even evaluate the value of a figure's realism in isolation, outside the context of a work that has some esthetic intention beyond documentary illustration. That's probably just my lack of imagination though. Like any good hobby, people can approach this on multiple levels and take from it what they will - as in art itself.

Architects have always been confined by technical limitations. You can't build a skyscraper until you have structural steel. No doubt artists have liberated by technology to some degree. I doubt however that we see a lot of 'better' art because of it though. OTOH, there have probably been many creative breakthroughs by artists finding ways to express their vision within the confines of their medium. CGI may well be different, I don't know. I do think it is a lot easier to trompe l'oeil than to trompe l'coeur though.

*"True realism in a 3d medium is only an illusion that can never be obtained."*Arp may have agreed :-)

"Everything is approximate, less than approximate, for when more closely and sharply examined, the most perfect picture is a warty, threadbare approximation, a dry porridge, a dismal mooncrater landscape. What arrogance is concealed in perfection. Why struggle for precision, purity, when they can never be attained. The decay that begins immediately on completion of the work was now welcome to me." - Jean Arp, On My Way. Poetry and Essays , 1912-1947. 

Quote - But you can't just throw out a semi toon/ semi realistic vaguely humanoid shaped lump of polygons, call it a "blank canvas" and expect your average hobbyist user to turn it into something extraordinary.

Two bits: 

1. It is indeed true that a properly made and topo'd mesh can be made into pretty much anything.However, for a hobbyist program, sufficient tools to make that easier is a must. This includes morph dials, a program that does scaling without making conforming clothes into a headache, and a whole host of other little things.

1. The biggest problem with an out-of-the-box mesh that looks like someone or something is that it becomes damned tough to make that mesh look like something else.

To give an example, let's bring up some that I absolutely love to use: Terai Yuki, Neftoon Gal, Kururu, and Anime Doll. Let's also bring up the most wonderful blunder DAZ ever coughed up - the original Aiko. With these characters, there are features that you can never, ever, ever iron out certain aspects of. This is usually parts of the face, but can also be part of the body as well. For instance, Aiko's angular jaw and spindly build was damned near impossible to hammer out (until some kind soul figured out a way to weld SP2 morphs to it). Terai Yuki always looks like Terai Yuki in the face. Good luck hammering Laura 3's oval face into something usable without reaching for a poly-pushing app suite...

Speakin' of which, you can make morphs that will fix up a lot of these shortcomings, but it usually involves breaking out a modelling program and beating the crap out of the mesh - ever so gently, but still... Mind you, such things are well out of the reach of the typical hobbyist; most just barely figured out how to bend body parts. The bad news is, if the body changes, your clothing will need these modifications too. Sure, there's dnamic cloth, but that's Yet Another Layer Of Complexity that most folks don't want to deal with.

For some of us, no big deal. For most of the CG hobbyist market? It is a big deal. This is why you see V4 still holding the crown after how many years now? If Chris Creek does Dawn up right, this may change, but I don;t see that change coming from Smith Micro...

...just food for thought.

First of all, the issue of hyperrealism or photorealism is a red herring. I don't think anyone suggested that the Poser figures are inferior because they don't render looking like photos of real people.

What I did say was that I wanted them to look human. Relatively well proportioned, with bends that appeared reasonable, and bones and muscle structure that matches what you'd expect on the real thing. I ain't asking for the world.

Which brings me to this...

Quote - So you have to give them exact presets they can use and build upon. Like dialing "The Girl" or "Aiko" for toon/manga styles, they need various realistic characters that let them achieve true realism with a single dial spin.

As I said, a modern Poser figure can be anything you want, provided the mesh topology is properly constructed.

But you can't just throw out a semi toon/ semi realistic vaguely humanoid shaped lump of polygons, call it a "blank canvas" and expect your average hobbyist user to turn it into something extraordinary.

 

Yes. This.

I don't expect to be able to get what I want with "a single dial spin" and I doubt most users do either. But I don't want to have to learn to use a modelling program to make morphs either.

I may spend days fiddling with a character and deciding on which of the several thousand morphs I have that I will combine in unique ways with it. What I will not do is spend weeks or months painstakingly morphing that character. I know my limits and they can be measured in hours.

I don't see why I should have to defend this position, especially when my particular brand of incompetence is exactly why this marketplace exists in the first bloody place. :D

Pengy, the two ladies in my example are both V3.

PP-2014 could easily transfer their scaling and their morphs into any V3 clothing with a single click.

And you could go from preschool toddler to sexy chick to bodybuilder to whatever else you want in Poser just as easy as you can do such things with Genesis in Studio.

There are no technical limitations anymore in Poser. As long as a mesh' topology can physically hold a certain shape, you can have a completely different looking figure with a single dial spin.

If you want toon, dial toon. If you want 100% photorealism, dial 100% photorealism.

It actually could be that easy, if people only wanted.

But as long as they are happy with semi-realistic sexy chicks like V4 (or now Dawn), nothing will change and Poser will keep running around in circles chasing it's own tail.

Hobby, remember? A LOT of ppl here do this as a hobby...which means that they do it for their own satisfaction - no one elses. Maybe glarringly realistic isn't really what's required ;) Doesn't make your argument any less or more valid than theirs either. People will do what they want, with what they want, in the time that they wanna take. And they'll do what makes them happy in the end, even if it's not what makes you happy.

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - So you have to give them exact presets they can use and build upon. Like dialing "The Girl" or "Aiko" for toon/manga styles, they need various realistic characters that let them achieve true realism with a single dial spin.

I see this, or something similar,always posted by someone that feels they're "elevated" above the rest and it's nothing but an insult to the average user, that does not fall into that category. 

And those same ones, when they do post a render, it's usually someone else's morph of V4, sometimes not even dialed. 

True realism in a 3d medium is only an illusion that can never be obtained.  Let's quit injecting that into every discussion of the true poser figures.  It has no place in poser or any other 3d approximation of reality.

Doric.

You know you're over the target when they start shooting back. I have never known the writer of the original quote to insult the average user and find these comments defamous.

Klebnor

Klebnor, the first rule many forget is the mythical "average user" DOES NOT EXIST.  Which means trying to pigeonhole people as needing a single dial spin is first, insulting.  Nobody sees mine, I don't post them but I'll spend days fiddling with the dials and morph tool working on Katie, or even Alyson.  The end result is what I want, and as far as what I do, I am the only one that counts.  The worst critic I have on my own work is me, and I've learned over some 44 years of work that I'm never going to satisfy myself, period.  Never. 

However, I'm also not unique, and I prefer to think most people toying with 3d are pretty much the same. 

I"ve been guilty of using the term "realistic character", when what I should have been saying is more "average character", or not to someone's imagined ideal. 

Realism in a 3d mesh is not possible.  A 3d mesh does not move as flesh and bone do, so any talk of realism is just so much bloat and hot air.  To say this figure or that figure is more realistic, no.  It may resemble some reference, but probably that one reference is not what someone else is seeing day to day.  I've become quite addicted to the morph tool, and I'm not the only one, it's too easy to spend a few minutes with it and get something more to my liking than an out of the box figure.  My gut feeling is I'm in the majority, or the average, in this regard.  No single dial spin, I've never found a single dial spin that would do what I want.  When I have as close as I know I'm going to get, I save that as a new figure.

And I'm closer to the "average user" than the single dial spinners.  I'm not a professonal, I have lots of time and little money.  I can't just spend for what I want, I have to work for it.

Doric.

Quote - For some of us, no big deal. For most of the CG hobbyist market? It is a big deal. This is why you see V4 still holding the crown after how many years now? If Chris Creek does Dawn up right, this may change, but I don;t see that change coming from Smith Micro...

...just food for thought.

Pigeon holes again.  And we don't fit.  We never have.  We never will.  For "most of the CG hobbyist market", on what authority?  "For some of us"??? I assume you mean you included.  No, for most of us, whatever tool we have to use, we will.  Dynamic clothes an "added level of complexity"?  Hardly, one more tool that probably most will learn and use to varying degrees of accomplishment with it. Far easier than trying to transfer morphs to conforming clothing, that will now not bend right, which means going to the joint editor and trying to fix it, after which it will not fit the morph again.

I also don't see Dawn doing anything that I will have much interest in, at least not once the WIP's started coming.  Interest level for me dropped with each one, the clothing available is just going to be more V4 rehashed and tie dyed. Nothing to interest me there. 

But the only truth about any blanket statement is they're always totally wrong.  I dropped all the daz characters and figures out of my computer, I have no trouble using the tools provided now with the Poser figures.  It pleases me, and I'm the only one that counts there.  Poser figures are only ugly for those that choose to not learn the tools and use them.

Doric.

Attached Link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BBKRAjSD-Y

++++

"Realism in a 3d mesh is not possible.  A 3d mesh does not move as flesh and bone do, so any talk of realism is just so much bloat and hot air."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BBKRAjSD-Y

That's what a GAME-ENGINE is capeable of IN REALTIME these days.

Pretty much jumps the uncanny valley for me with both feet firmly on the other side.

PP-2014 has SSS, IDL, JCMs, animateable joint centers, single axis scaling and weightmapping, so it could easily render still pictures of comparable quality. (And with a lot of patience, even produce a similar animation)

Provided someone makes photorealistic professionally grade figures that could make full use of all that shiny new tech.

Look, to me Poser or DAZ figures are not little "works of art" with their own loveable, quirky personality.

They are first and foremost tools like a chair prop or a car prop.

And yes, the "Average Poser hobbyist" is either not interrested in or simply can't do all the work necessary to produce his/her own photorealistic figures.

And there is nothing wrong with that, because, after all, not having to do it all by yourself and being able to use pre-made content is what Poser is all about, isn't it ?

So where is the "insult" in wanting better "figure-tools" so that even those who are not gifted with the ability to sculpt or rig from scratch can achieve as much realism as they want with a single dial-spin ?

But I get it.

Criticising a Poser or DAZ figure for it's technical and artistic shortcomings in this forum is pretty much like telling a mother that her baby is ugly and not like simply suggesting a better quality brush to an artist so he can make better paintings.  :-(
Way too much emotions and knee-jerk reactions.

But for better or worse, photorealism is the future of CGI. Once one game or movie fully jumps the Uncanny Valley, others will follow, because they have to.

And Poser can either be a part of that future or be left behind.

Ironically, I'm not really that keen to produce "looks like photographs" kind of renders because I hate long render times.

But I decided years ago that I want my figures to at least look more like real humans, regardless of the time and work it would cost me.

I don't regret the journey as I learned a lot, but I still would have rather used someone else's ready-made figures instead, if only that someone would have made them for me.

Quote - Realism in a 3d mesh is not possible.  A 3d mesh does not move as flesh and bone do, so any talk of realism is just so much bloat and hot air.

Don't tell these people that....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piJ4Zke7EUw

Quote - Danke, Klebnor. :-)

Nichts zu bedanken, du bist ein Mensch bei mir.

Alles gute,

Klebnor

Quote - Pigeon holes again.  And we don't fit.

 Define "we." 

Quote - For "most of the CG hobbyist market", on what authority?

Just from looking through and about the galleries here, at R'otica, at DAZ, at... 

Unless you can point to stats otherwise, you'll notice that the majority of images (and therefore users) are simple affairs, involving a few dial spins, purchased characters/textures, etc. As a percentage, very, very few users (again, jusdging by the results) create their own morphs, their own textures, their own, well ...anything. 

It's not a complex hypothesis and proof-set, after all. Anyone can disprove it at any time, though I do wish you luck in that endeavor.

So - will that suffice for you?

Quote - Dynamic clothes an "added level of complexity"?  Hardly, one more tool that probably most will learn and use to varying degrees of accomplishment with it.

Given the lack of dynamic clothing in both markets and galleries, I'd certainly love to see your evidence for that statement.

 (edited because R'osity's edit box has really crappy font-handling)