This subject came up again in the Hobby thread, so I just decided to give it it's own thread.

Apparently there seem to be two camps when it comes to Poser. Poser should concentrate more on Content vs. Poser should concentrate on Software. I happen to be that Poser should concentrate on what it does best... software. but here's the question I pose to you:

 Assuming that one side or the other would suffer because of the choice, do you think Poser should concentrate more on content development or software development? The only rules of debate I really have to offer is that you're free to agree or disagree, but

1. don't make it personal (Unless you're heavily invested in SM stock there's no reason to), and:

2. Give a reason why you believe what you do, or disagree with ssomeone's opinion.

3. All the other rules of Rendo's TOS apply.

I think they should concentrate on software development. There is only so much a company can do. I’d rather have it be for the program itself as there are many content developers out there but only one developer of the poser program.  If they focus on content the advancements in the software will lag.

 I do appreciate the new figures that come out with each version as it gives us a chance to have someone that takes advantage of the new technology but with all the converters available, old content can be upgraded and converted to the new figures so having a ton of new things isn’t needed. I would like to see texture transformer or an equivalent integrated into poser and include many more figures.  

Seems fairly simple.  Except for Posette, none of the figures provided with the program have gained any popularity among the more artistic user base.  

I understand the business reason for providing figures; it makes a "single-box purchase" attractive for companies that will be doing only a quick basic setup to create a poster or presentation. 

If the latter is SmithMicro's main profit source, they should (and probably will) keep providing figures.  If not, they should give up on a fruitless area of effort.  I don't know which of these is true, but SM certainly knows.

Well I would be firmly in the 'concentrate on software' camp.  My reasons, easy,  I purchased the last couple of upgrades for the features, such as Sub Surface Scattering, lighting improvements, a better morph tool, the fitting room and so many more. I never use the Poser figures and, other than primiatives, I rarely use any of the supplied content.  It does not bother me as there are so many other places I can buy content. 

I am not bothered that I am still using V4 and that it comes from Daz, although I now longer shop there.  I do use the V4WM version as it does give me something that the non weightmapped version does not. 

If you are into nudes and/or Photo Realistic renders I can understand why you might want a better figure but whether SM should spend time building it is another question.  Unless it was a major step forward I would not pay for the next upgrade if that was the main thrust. 

I often see Poser compared with other 3D programs where you pay a vast amount more which seems so unfair. If I use a car as a runabout that is good on petrol, passes it yearly check, rarely breaksdown and is easy to run why would I change.  Why would I expect my runabout to out accelerate a sports car when I did not pay a sports car price.  Why would I complain that Foda of Skord should build a faster car when what I have suits me and I know the latest and greatest engine would just take their product out of the price range of many.

Many people have a different view and I respect that but why do so many berate SM because they have a veiw also and stick to it.  Why do so many say SM have to do this or they are lost, I would think keeping your present users while making your product within financial reach of many is a fair business stratagy.  There are others that may be equally valid but to predict the doom of a product or company because they do not have the business model you prefer seems a little unfair.

SM should definitely focus on software development as far as I am concerned. Without the proper tools, an artist is at a disadvantage and must work doubly hard to get the desired results. I've pretty much stopped using Poser because I have never been really satisfied with the results of my renders. Do I blame this all on Poser? Of course not - my skills using the program are not as advanced as many of the folks here on the forum. I've tried very hard to learn how to use Poser correctly, and I have had a lot of encouragement and great advice here on the forum. I am still dissatisfied with my results. I do not expect Poser to "do it all" for me, but i also think I shouldn't need a degree in software applications to produce a decent render. To be very honest, I achieve much better results with DAZ Studio because lighting, materials and just about everything I can think of works much better for me and is more intuitive in DAZ vs Poser. My concentration in the past couple of years has been on modeling and texturing because of my poor results using Poser. I have had Poser since Poser 7, and even though I now own Poser Pro 2010 and could easily afford to upgrade to Poser 2014, I will not do so because of these issues. I strongly believe that content should be created by the artist and the many great content developers I see here on Rendo and other sites. it is amazing to me what some of these people can accomplish, and my desire is to emulate them. I work towards that end results. With the many free applications available today, such as Wings 3D and Blender, there is a great deal that can be accomplished in content creation. It is the niche I have fallen into, and work towards good results every day. I use Poser/Daz to test my creations, and I have mixed results over the two apps. Is it just me and my inability to create proper mesh? Maybe, but I have to think that if Poser was a bit easier to work with and you didn't have to spend all your time messing with lighting and materials to get decent results, then everyone would be a bit better off. Let SM stick to improving their software. It is where they do the best work.

My 2 cents...

C~

The SM team should concentrate on whatever avenues their own market research suggests would be most profitable.

What SM needs to do is concentrate on the software itself, and contract out new figure development to another 'Zygote' like content maker. Then have the new figures beta'd in the community under NDA, with permission to create content to be allowed live at release.....and give the vendors about 6 months to play and create and have items for the program release and items for sale as their own. The markets would explode literally overnight, and =that= kind of advertisement is what a new figure needs. And frankly, I'd have 2-4 faces and leak them to the community, see how they react, before I decided on a 'look' for the new kids.

Also, I would basically forget about backwards compatibility....as in use animateable joint centers, weight maps, and scaling. Maybe even softbody. Build for the new program features, make the figure appealing and compelling, and you would get a lot more upgrades. Those who complain that the new goodies don't work in their perfectly good P4.....well too bad. Time marches on, and it makes no sense to hobble content to a decade old program whose only distribution channels now are the binaries groups on usenet and warez sites. Its gone, its dead, time to move on. Or else deal with the limitations.  Oh and please make the figures anatomically correct. With sufficient polygons to allow any needed work from morphing instead of the barbie look. Place a toggle to hide the naughty bits if you must, but have them there.

Quote - I think they should concentrate on software development. There is only so much a company can do. I’d rather have it be for the program itself as there are many content developers out there but only one developer of the poser program.  If they focus on content the advancements in the software will lag.

This. 100%

Software all the way.

With advances in software, even old DAZ figures (V4,V3 etc) can have SSS/subdivision because of the software.

Concentrating on Figures would divert the attention from the things we have received in previous updates like IDL,SSS, Faster Renders and so on.

Bill

Content is too subjective, what one likes someone else will hate.  Which means I think that Smith Micro should work on the program.  However they should still include new figures to show off the new features.  I also think they should be working on updating Rex and Roxie.  I like they way the newest figures look.  They have very nice details in the skins, little details such as the wrinkles in the joints of the fingers. 

The problem with having vendors create content for a big launch would be who will you get?  No one seems to want to make anything for new figures.  The other problem with most vendors is they are grounded in the way of building from years past.  That is clothing is conforming instead of dynamic, which limits items too mostly skin close and looking very much like the character.  And the reason given is 100% of the people can use old tech and only 1% can use anything new.  Even if you had 10,000 clothing items and 500 characters of every possible ethnic group, they would still be panned because they do not work with older versions or the other software whom shall not be named. 

"Software" means absolutely nothing without great figures to use it on.

90% of Poser users couldn't care less about IDL, IBL, weightmapping, SubD or SSS. Just look at the products currently made and bought. Not a single one that could be used for PP-2014 right out of the box. I spend more times reworking and fixing things to make them PP-2014 compatible than rendering.

Poser's "Do it yourself" mantra is a buisiness failure. How many people are really talented enough to use those fancy tools properly ?

How many people really have a full grasp of what the material room can do ?

How many people can weightmap a figure to a professional level ?

Sorry, Poser is not a "Poor man's MAX". It's first and foremost a hobbyist tool for those who want to render pretty pictures without too much fuzz.

DAZ understood that, that's why Genesis is so easy to use and easy to cater for. There is hardly any tech in Studio that isn't meant to improve Genesis.

Poser OTOH has lots of tech glued to it because it was cheap, easy to implement and looked cool in the advertising blurb. And then it still took several iterations before that "cool" tech actually worked like it was supposed to be.

Sorry, but I'd rather have a figure like Genesis without IDL, IBL, SSS, SubD and whatever else than all those things but be stuck with something like Roxy.

To put it bluntly: SSS and SubD and IBL and IDL don't sell Poser.

Vicky does.

That's why Poser is hemorrhaging users and Studio is top dog now.

DAZ says:

Here's Vicky 6 ! And once you're finshed admiring her, look at all the tech we implemented into Studio to make her look even better but still easy to use. And btw, it's FREE.

Poser on the other hand:

Here's some cool tech we picked up for free. If you work really, really hard and are really talented, you might be able to make Posette look almost as good as Vicky 4 some day. Sorta.

And it's all yours for just $499.

I have put 14 years of work into Poser, so I'm not eager to switch.

And thankfully, with just a few mouseclicks, I can have Poser AND a great figure like Genesis.

But if I were a new user just starting with CGI, choosing between Poser and Studio would be a no brainer.

You can buy lots of V6 content for $499.

Content or Software? Content & Software ... Both.
Software upgrades yearly.
Rox's n Rex's morph packs now.

The fact is that they've been doing both for years now. The team itself concentrates on the software and they hire others for the content. The problem with that is they since they broke with Zygote/DAZ they've been hiring obscure artists for their figures.

Some of the figures have been OK, but most of them have been too outspoken in the way they look. There lies the whole problem..... while DAZ has more generic figures over the years, Poser comes with figures that are so stylized that it's very hard to break free from. Due to that, the figures aren't really usable. Above that it's clear that the poser team has an odd taste and quite a good number of their figures are outright ugly or weird.

The general users wants a generic figure they can use over and over again. On top of that the poser owners (not only SM) have failed to gain interest for their figures from vendors. The figures always have been looking like an after thought. With DAZ going their own way now with DS & Genesis, SM should have changed their view on content years ago. Why you would even release a figure you know hardly anybody will use and has no extra content at all year after year is still after all these years a mystery to me.

Knowing that figures for Poser aren't a after thought anymore at all, SM should have changed policy on this. Instead of using obsure figure creators that have a too strong outspoken style, they should have teamed up with a good one instead. After all these years we should have seen a figure that is on at least version 3 or 4 by now. There are some very talented figure developers in the community, but SM again and again seems to hire the unlikely ones. As for extra content for the figures, it doesn't need to be included with Poser, just be available at the time of Poser's release. Well, some should obviously be included with Poser, but most can be released seperately.

But.... the major issue most likely is time. Is a year enough time to develop some good figures, get vendors to create a good selection of items for them? No, most likely not.

If figures continue to be an after thought, then perhaps SM is better of focussing on the software instead and stop annoying us with meiocre figures. But obviously SM feels and knowns there's a need for figures to be included, so why not do it right instead?

We can all have an opinion about this, but in the end it doesn't matter. It's obvious that the majority of Poser users doesn't use the included figures, vendors refuse to support them and that SM after all these years still have no clue what their users want or like when it comes to figures.

Having said all this, the question is does SM still need to develop their own figures? I don't think so and here's my simple suggestion. Since Dawn is free, imo SM should include her with Poser, with some base content for her, beyond a bikini. Next, SM should support Hivewire3D financially in releasing a male figure and working on Dawn V2. This way they at least support and include figures a lot more users do like and that have a lot more support then whatever they release. Why not make use of the stengths that are in the poser world already, instead of continually trying to invent the wheel yourself? This would seriously be my suggestion. If SM can spent money on hiring a developer, they may as well spent the money on working together with Hivewire3D and their further developments.

Dawn's mesh geometry is just as amateurish as Roxy's, so hiring Hivewire would simply mean "Out of the frying pan and into the fire".

The only figures with acceptable mesh geometry currently are the DAZ meshes.

Unless SM finds a modeller able to create a similar versatile mesh topopology as Genesis has, all attempts to "improve" Roxy or Dawn or whatever other mesh out there are simply a waste of time and will just prolong the sufferring.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2878970

I seem but that still doesn't make Genesis work natively in Poser, no matter how smart her mesh is ;)

Quote - I seem but that still doesn't make Genesis work natively in Poser, no matter how smart her mesh is ;)

Smart topology has nothing to do with the software or platform you're making it for. It is just as valid in Poser as it is in DS, or Max, or Maya, or C4D or any game engine, or any other program. 

It's about understanding edgeflow, how geometry works in rigging/animation and how to properly represent human (or whatever other creature) anatomy. 

~Shane

Don't know why but I have a strange feeling of Déjà vu.

Quote - Poser OTOH has lots of tech glued to it because it was cheap, easy to implement and looked cool in the advertising blurb. And then it still took several iterations before that "cool" tech actually worked like it was supposed to be.

To be fair, isn't that how most software evolves?

SubD first appeared in DS3, as just another menu item, 5 or 6 years ago.

Another example, SSS has been in DS for many years but we only got an 'easy to use' shader a few months ago. (pure coincidence that it was when SSS arrived in Poser!) :rolleyes:

Quote - I seem but that still doesn't make Genesis work natively in Poser, no matter how smart her mesh is ;)

JP does use V6 natively in Poser; see his Hacking Vicky threads.

As far as new features go, There shoudl be models included that utilise the new features, but they should be good quality, which has been a problem in the past.  The G2 figures looked good, and E-Frontier supported the figures well with clothes and worked wuth RDNA to brovide morph packages..  Unfortunately, there were serious problems with the meshes included with Poser 7 that should have been caught in testing, and which could not be rectified without breaking much existing content...

Quote - Dawn's mesh geometry is just as amateurish as Roxy's, so hiring Hivewire would simply mean "Out of the frying pan and into the fire".

The only figures with acceptable mesh geometry currently are the DAZ meshes.

Unless SM finds a modeller able to create a similar versatile mesh topopology as Genesis has, all attempts to "improve" Roxy or Dawn or whatever other mesh out there are simply a waste of time and will just prolong the sufferring.

Didn't Chris Creek model Vicky as well as Dawn? Why would you call it amatuerish?

"Didn't Chris Creek model Vicky as well as Dawn? Why would you call it amatuerish?"

Because of Dawn's "dumb" topology that doesn't allow detailed morphing. That doesn't have a proper, anatomically correct muscle layout.

BTW, AFAIK Chris Creek did Michael 1/2. Which has an excellent topology.

That's why I'm more surprised than anyone that Dawn's mesh is such a mess.

She has 10.000 polygons more than Vicky/Mike-6. One should be able to literally "morph circles" around Genesis-2. She could have been THE GREATEST POSER FIGURE EVER with a mesh topology like Genesis.

Either he forgot everything he knew about mesh topology, or all he did was the sculpting of Michael 1/2 but not the actual mesh layout back then.

I don't know. I don't actually care. Hivewire had their chance, they blew it.

Unless something better comes along, I concentrate on Genesis-2 and my own figures.

@ the OP, Ask yourself a simple question, if there was no DSON importer and the CR2 exporter in DS couldn't handle WM, what figure(s) would most of the user base be using now?

Quote - @ the OP, Ask yourself a simple question, if there was no DSON importer and the CR2 exporter in DS couldn't handle WM, what figure(s) would most of the user base be using now?

The same they are using now M4/V4 :)

Topology is a dying art.  Used to be, a modeller would have to think about edge flow, and add edge loops logically and strategically, to create surface profiles that closely represented the underlying musculature of the organism they were modeling.  Deformations would then be realistic, and smooth.  It took a lot of SKILL, and some effort, for someone to master this kind of edge control.  It was always easy to spot an amateur modeller vs. a pro, just by looking at how they laid out the edge flow on human models.

Nowadays, Zbrush and other mesh sculpting software, have caused modellers to forget about that kind of attention to topology.  Now you can simply sculpt your model with as much detail as you wish, and Zbrush can automatically retopologize the dense, triangle mesh with a more simple quad surfaces (Zremesher), giving you a model that can be rigged and animated (posed) much easier.  The problem with automated retopology is that it's not always perfect, and if you don't know about edge flow, and can't manually correct the results in a traditional modelling app, then your character is not going to have the edge loops and topology necessary for great deformations and morphing.  Unfortunately, most of today's organic models are created this way, and people are just remeshing them in one simple automated process, instead of by hand.  SO you get models that have less than great edge flow, and can't morph or deform as well as you might exepect.

It's critical to remember that no matter how advanced some applications become, a human touch often provides the best end product.  Retopology, by hand, is still far more reliable than a one-click solution.  People need to realize, edge flow is still important in 3D, and not just for animation, but morphing too.  It seems fewer people these days care about mesh craftsmanship.  Just because someone is great at sculpting an object in Zbrush doesn't necessarily mean they understand how to create good topology.  There's more to modelling than just creating an object that looks great in a few still renders.

Quote - > Quote -

@ the OP, Ask yourself a simple question, if there was no DSON importer and the CR2 exporter in DS couldn't handle WM, what figure(s) would most of the user base be using now?

The same they are using now M4/V4 :)

Exactly, old figures that use old tech, it makes you wonder why SM waste money on new tech that only a small percentage of the user base will ever use. If SM isn't going to support TriAx WM and the DSON codebase, then they need to "bite the bullet" and concentrate on both software & content, they need to create figures that not only use all of the bells & whistles available in Poser, but that are also nice enough to work with right out of the box rather than being fugly as hell. They then need to hire content makers to churn out clothing, hair and character sets for them, basically flood the marketplace, which is basically what DAZ does.

Well stated maxxmodelz.

I equate building topology with putting together a 20,000+ piece puzzle. 

I pretty much never use zremesher, except when I'm building a base shape for sculpting, never for a final mesh. There's just no way to control topology when it's automated, even with the guide tools that zb provides for it. 

~Shane

Exactly, old figures that use old tech, it makes you wonder why SM waste money on new tech that only a small percentage of the user base will ever use.

If SM isn't going to support TriAx WM and the DSON codebase, then they need to "bite the bullet" and concentrate on both software & content, they need to create figures that not only use all of the bells & whistles available in Poser, but that are also nice enough to work with right out of the box rather than being fugly as hell. They then need to hire content makers to churn out clothing, hair and character sets for them, basically flood the marketplace, which is basically what DAZ does.

Weight mapping works with V4 as does subdivision,IDL,SSS, the fitting room and so on.  I keep hearing that V4 is a 'old' figure but I do not see any evidence that the newer figures provide anything exceptionally more than the older figures.  What is more, all these new features work in Poser, with my exisiting content, without any strange bolt on afterthought reworks.  Despite what others say there are some of us who are happy with Poser and the new features and do not see any reason for SM to change thier business model.  Sure there are prophets of doom but like all such prophets the future shown is based in fiction rather than fact along with a healthy amount of personal bias.

You guys have made some great points, especially those of you who seem, in theory, at least, to know about topology and edge flow. Here's where I diverge from you though. Poser has made the software, and given you the tools and the features to use. However, Poser has always depended on third party principles to create the content. That hasn't changed. What you want, however, is for Poser, SM to go the whole distance and make the figure for you as well. So what i don't understand is why don't one of you step forward and create this great and perfect 3d figure yourself? I swear, if I knew how, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Talk is cheap. Let's see some action.

There's only one perfect Quad SubD mesh. A RING.
All other shapes have flaws even a Quad SubD cube is flawed.
SubD meshes have been around since the start of CGI Max 1,LW 1.early 1990's .long before pro 14.
Some app's would turn tri's to quads but some didn't but now about all turn tri's to quads.
Have I ever modeled a Quad SubD mesh that I was 100% happy with the topology ? ah no.
Do I personally agree with V6 ,Dawn ,Rox's Quad SubD topology 100% ? ah no.
But there still all killer meshes.
Chris Creek is a CGI God.

Early 1990's Poser started out as a 2d reference app .a virtual models for Artist.
over time it's morphed in to what it is today.

A major flaw in Poser & DAZ Studio is.
They can not create anything so user are dependent on stores.
If it's not in the store ,What use is Poser & DAZ Studio ?

Another major flaw in Poser & DAZ Studio is.
If the software is out dated ,What use is Poser & DAZ Studio ?

Specking of out dated software ,you really would have thought buy 2014 .
There would be a lot better texturing software.
Texturing software is the definition of out dated.

"So what i don't understand is why don't one of you step forward and create this great and perfect 3d figure yourself?"

Well, I could do the basic rigging for $15.000. (Animated joint centers for morphs are extra)

Perhaps Shane could do the topology fo a similar sum ?

(I suggest to start with one of Infinite Realities photometric scans to get the basic sculpt and proportions right. Or use those as character morphs and keep the base shape 100% generic like Genesis.)

Then we need morphs. A full set of expression morphs, hmm, maybe $10.000 + $5000 per additional bodymorph ? Does that sound good to you, maxxxmodelz ?

Need a good texturer and UV-mapper, too.

I guess $5000 for the UV-layout, $5000 for the base texture and $2000 per "Add on" texture.

Oh wait, you thought someone would do a professional level Poser figure that could rival Genesis out of the goodliness of his heart ?

Well, good luck then.

:-)

Quote - You guys have made some great points, especially those of you who seem, in theory, at least, to know about topology and edge flow. Here's where I diverge from you though. Poser has made the software, and given you the tools and the features to use. However, Poser has always depended on third party principles to create the content. That hasn't changed. What you want, however, is for Poser, SM to go the whole distance and make the figure for you as well. So what i don't understand is why don't one of you step forward and create this great and perfect 3d figure yourself? I swear, if I knew how, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Talk is cheap. Let's see some action.

EClark1894 :Max & Mudbox will solve any and all your probleams for any mesh.

Software please.

     I would want SM to concentrate on the software, with the proviso that they do supply rigged dolls.  Rigged people are beyond the capabilities of all but a few end users, plus we need common base dolls if we are to make content for each other.

     Instead of completely new dolls with each release, I would prefer SM to develop, refine, and perfect a set of dolls incrementally.  That is, each Poser release would see an updated/improved edition of a standard Poser doll chassis set. 

     That being said, I think they are wise to supply all that content -including the legacy dolls- with a purchase of Poser.  It gives the newbie a good start on building a library.

lol @ joe. 

I actually wouldn't charge nearly that much, but would jump on it if someone made a serious offer.

Question though, for those in the know: how much of Poser's features are original coding? It's my understanding that the majority of it is open source plug-ins that have been customized for use in Poser. Is that correct or am I completely wrong on that assumption?

~Shane

Quote - You guys have made some great points, especially those of you who seem, in theory, at least, to know about topology and edge flow. Here's where I diverge from you though. Poser has made the software, and given you the tools and the features to use. However, Poser has always depended on third party principles to create the content. That hasn't changed. What you want, however, is for Poser, SM to go the whole distance and make the figure for you as well. So what i don't understand is why don't one of you step forward and create this great and perfect 3d figure yourself? I swear, if I knew how, I'd do it in a heartbeat. Talk is cheap. Let's see some action.

Well, in my case, I don't play video games anymore, so I actually use Poser as more of a "pass-time".  It's just a fun, easy way to play around with some 3D stuff.  I've modelled my own character in 3dsMax years ago, and continue to improve and expand on it with my own morphs, clothing, etc., which I model myself.  I use that as the basis for most of my commercial, commissioned renders or animation needs, and all my serious work.  I don't have time to model yet another character to offer for Poser, because I'm only using Poser at at this point in my spare time, as a way to relax and have some fun.  I took down all my Poser renders (except for one) because I use most of my own models now.  I couldn't keep up with all the copyright and EULA crap that is tied up with stock models these days.  You can use this one for commercial renders, but not that one, etc.  I might use Poser now as a way to screw around with some concepts or ideas, if I feel like playing with different human characters, like some might use a video game, to unwind and clear their head.  It also helps when you are lacking inspiration or get burned out.  Then when I'm ready to seriously create something again, i don't use Poser.

Quote - lol @ joe. 

I actually wouldn't charge nearly that much, but would jump on it if someone made a serious offer.

 

Question though, for those in the know: how much of Poser's features are original coding? It's my understanding that the majority of it is open source plug-ins that have been customized for use in Poser. Is that correct or am I completely wrong on that assumption?

 

~Shane

A large majority of Poser functionality comes from our team. There are a few obvious external components, such as Pixar Subdivision and Bullet Physics (implementation is a bear by the way - real work, and the Bullet guys think we did one of the best implementations they've seen). Conversely, the technology for the Fitting Room is revolutionary. Bootomline, there's a long list of features that emanate from within. There's a much smaller number of features that we rely on via third party components. The attribution in the front of Poser manual provides more detail.

FWIW, I've tried to reach out to JP about project work or feedback as a part of the beta team but he doesn't seem to want to repsond to my inquiries. Unless he's using another name, I can't find any responses to my messages. My apologies in advance JP if I did miss a response from you.

Great thread BTW.

Cooper

Awesome. Thanks for the quick response on that Steve. 

I need to remember not to get my info from angry jaded forum posters. lol. But that's why I asked. 

~Shane

So in the never ending bashing of all things new (and it was better before! ;), today is it fabulous zRemesher tool turn to stand in the Straffstock. And as always, it is 100% here or 100% there. Either you do all by hand or you let ZBrush do all with a simple click. LOL

But in reality, for practical people, in real life there is never 100% here or there but somewhere in between. You can control the topology of ZRemesher by the simple expedient of making holes in the mesh (boolean cuts). The edge flow will be forced the way you want by pure brutality, so to speak. Then you have to fill the holes manually -true, but still a great time saver.

Not bashing zremesher vintorix. Stating the shortcomings of a tool is not bashing the tool. 

Zremesher does not give you precise control over topology and its tooltips even state this. Using curves only enfluences where the mesh will be drawn, it's no guarantee that all curves will be adhered to, and zbrush itself warns against setting the curve slider too high as you risk creating "topology restrictions that are impossible to resolve".

It's a fine tool for certain functions. Large areas that don't need a lot of directional changes is what I use it for. But trying to use it to create things like facial topology is futile. There's no way you can accurately define topology in ears or nostrils, or proper folds around eyelids, and for me it always creates unwanted triangles in random places that I'll have to go back and sort out all the geometry in the area by hand just to get rid of. I prefer having complete control over my mesh, down to every single polygon. I hate having unnecessary geometry. If I want a mesh that has exactly 21,384 polys or just 756 polys, I can do that much easier in topogun or by hand in another app like maya or blender. I can't determine exact polycount with zremesher, i just have to work with what it gives me.

Plus, I actually enjoy laying out topology a lot of the time. Like I said earlier, for me it's like working a giant puzzle, with no road map, just a general guide based on how I know the mesh should be. It can be extremely frustrating at times, but I tend to enjoy the mental challenge of it.

~Shane

Quote -Instead of completely new dolls with each release, I would prefer SM to develop, refine, and perfect a set of dolls incrementally.  That is, each Poser release would see an updated/improved edition of a standard Poser doll chassis set. 

I've been saying this for years. It's much more cost-effective as well, than building entirely new meshes each time. Just refine the best ones of the bunch. It would go a long way in furthering the Poser brand as well, imo, if it had figures that stood out and really exemplified what Poser is actually capable of. No reason why the content can't be as good as the software. 

~Shane

you can place loops where you want them in mudbox retopology

For the record, there is no anger here involved nor was there anything personal. (But I don't want to publicly discuss who sent what emails when to whom.)

I just tell things like I see them, and I don't see Poser currently being as attractive as Studio without either a high end mesh of its own or full native Genesis compatibility.

(Although personally I can't understand the reluctance of installing and using the DSON-importer many users have. It's easier than using some Python scripts. I even think "poserizing" Genesis like I did is less work than "poserizing" a lot of other "non-Poser" stuff. Ever tried making a SketchUp object look good in Poser ?)

Yes, Poser has a lot of neat features, some free, some quite expensive, but I stay with my assertion that quite a few of them are not really important to the average user, thus adding nothing to Poser's general desireability.

Yes, there are nerds out there who want to do their own thing, (Like me.), but the vast majority wants to load-pose-render pretty wimmenfolk.

(Actually I only started the endless sculpting, tweaking, rigging rigmarole because 14 years ago there wasn't a figure like Genesis around)

If people are happy with the figures they use, so be it.

I just think the "Poserverse" as a whole is too small to be split up into a gazillion fractions. I just think we all could be much more productive if we all could gather around a single figure. I just think this part of the CGI universe is too fragile to survive without that kind of stability. Merchants need high volume sales and they can't get them if everyone uses a different figure.

I posted this before, but I think I should post this again:

If both a high end native Poser mesh as well as full TriAx compatibility are "out of the question", why not ship Poser with the DSON-importer pre-installed ?

And persuade DAZ to ship "Poser friendly" .zip files that install without the dreaded "content" folder. Or let them make a python installer that auto-deletes the content folder, installing Genesis files directly into a Poser runtime.

I think this would significantly lower the threshold for many users to "Go Genesis".

When Genesis first came out, I asked why didn't DAZ just "Poserize" a version for Poser users. You've demonstrated that it can be done, Joe. I could do it myself. But screw that. If DAZ won't go thru the trouble to just make a cr2 version of Genesis for Poser, why do I need to jump through any hoops to do it myself?

I'm not a mesh perfectionist like you, and until I learn more, wouldn't know good topology from bad anyway. I'd say about 95% of Poser users fall into that category as well.

The native Poser users have a bad reputation, and most people when they're first starting out hear about Vicky or Genesis and they decide that's what they want to use. On their own, they're like me and wouldn't know good topology from bad.

I myself like Roxie. Dawn's not bad except for that "man chin" she has, but even so, both she and Roxie can be morphed, just like Genesis and V5/6 are going to be. It's no more trouble to morph one than it is the other.

Quote - When Genesis first came out, I asked why didn't DAZ just "Poserize" a version for Poser users. You've demonstrated that it can be done, Joe. I could do it myself. But screw that. If DAZ won't go thru the trouble to just make a cr2 version of Genesis for Poser, why do I need to jump through any hoops to do it myself?

Support; there would need to be Python scripts written to add morphs.  Also, Genesis 1 wouldn't have been compatible; Conforming of clothing to figures with animated joint centres didn't work until Poser 9 SR2, IIRC.  Both DAZ and SM rushed Studio 4.0 and Poser 9 out due to business deadlines, not because the technology was ready.

However, I will say I was expecting a Poser version of Genesis 2 when DAZ released seperate male and female figures, but that has obviously not been the case thus far...

Quote - So in the never ending bashing of all things new (and it was better before! ;), today is it fabulous zRemesher tool turn to stand in the Straffstock. And as always, it is 100% here or 100% there. Either you do all by hand or you let ZBrush do all with a simple click. LOL But in reality, for practical people, in real life there is never 100% here or there but somewhere in between. You can control the topology of ZRemesher by the simple expedient of making holes in the mesh (boolean cuts). The edge flow will be forced the way you want by pure brutality, so to speak. Then you have to fill the holes manually -true, but still a great time saver.

I'm in disbelief that anyone would think Zbrush was getting bashed here. No wonder activity in the forums has declined.

Zremesher IS wonderful, and a great time saver.  No one said it wasn't.  Still, anyone modelling human figures intended for any kind of deformation or rigging would stand to benefit from learning how good topology works, and why.  There's still more to it than pressing a button, even with Zremesher.  Even when Zbrush allows you to define edge loops in the remesher, you'd still benefit as an artist/modeller to know where to actually place the edge loops, how to optimize, and where to terminate them.  Sadly, many of today's artists do not want to educate themselves about  topology, and why it's important.  NO ONE is saying it's one way or another.  Quite the opposite of that actually.

Where would i go to learn more about mesh topology?

When Joe says 'poserizing Genesis' does that actually mean retaining everything it can do in DS?

Quote - Where would i go to learn more about mesh topology?

This might be a good starting point, it's for Blender, but topology is pretty much software independent.

http://cgcookie.com/blender/cgc-courses/learning-mesh-topology-collection/

(Editied to add the link - DUH!)

Can I join in with a recently returning Poser users opinion?

I noticed Steve has joined in so I'm hoping he'll get to read what I have to say on the matter of Poser, and which direction I think he should push it.

For the most part I think the Poser developers are doing a good job, however, I hope they never loose sight of what it is, and why it is they can compete with DAZ Studio even though DS is free, and Poser has a price tag.

The reasons I think Poser is doing well:
First of all they never give it away, and therefore, never alienate paying customers by doing so (I literally cringed when DAZ announced they were giving away DS Pro).

Second, they've had the good sense to retain the 'meat' of what I remember as Metacreations Poser, and that's a good thing (vital even).  There's a reason the Poser and Bryce interfaces have such a fan club; it's because they're not vanilla os-based interfaces, they're task-specific designs developed and created by very talanted people.  If they ever go to a 'vanilla' interface, Poser will go downhill quicker than a teflon-coated ball of lead.  Usability is what attracts people over to Poser even if they don't think so, remove that and Poser would be just another infuriating vanilla-based interface to struggle with.

Things that I think need desperate improvement:
In a word, animation.  After coming back to Poser I'm totally bewildered at how antiquated the walk designer still is.  We're still looking at a tiny undockable screen, non-fluid movement, limited abilities and all those issues are unacceptable for a "figure animation" program in current times.  It would be cool to see some love shown to animaton, some real love, such as adding power to the Walk Designer and giving it it's own room, just like Materials and Cloth do.

I look at the way Reallusion have given the ability to design walks, puppet body movement, and blend them at will.  I feels hard to take when I compare this power to Poser and realise how far behind it's fallen in this area.

Steve, you get to implement stuff from the high-end apps and I think you do it very well, I absolutely agree with you on that.  I only hope that you'll put that expertise into the animation area as well, because seriously, Poser desperately needs some form of up-to-date 'motion-building' system.  DAZ with their 'Puppeteer' and 'AniMate' system, and Reallusion with their 'Motion Editing' are simply light-years ahead of Poser.  For stills work I would use Poser any day (because you got that aspect of the program pretty much perfect).  But for animation, nope, that's a different story.

One final thing; I really must compliment the Poser team on the Firefly Renderer.  I'm one of those obsessed with messing around with such things and I like Firefly so much I might not even bother with an Octane plugin.

That's praise indeed considering I own an Octane licence!

"Sadly, many of today's artists do not want to educate themselves about topology, and why it's important"

That is what we hear, day after day, week after week, year after year in this forum. You are preaching for the choir.
However none of all these people has ever shown that they can do better and neither have anyone from Poser.

 (Better than Daz that is)