The difference is that I could send this scene to anyone owning Poser, and he/she would be able to replicate my result with the push of a button. No talent required at all.

That's not possible in traditional media.

But that sort of tangible work isn't worth anything in the physical world, and only goes to prove my point further.  115 DSLR's and a whole lot of talent (which that guy has), still doesn't get you an original, it gets you a scanned copy, it's not art, it's technology.

Prints have no real value because they're just prints, even limited edition print is still a print even though you can demand a little more for it.  If you produce something in real media you have the best of both worlds because you can scan and sell prints, limited editions and whatever else, just as the CG artists do.

What the CG artists cannot do, though, is make much higher amounts of money off' the original work.  No one (including the artist) will ever posses the original because it never existed other than in data form.

There will be no tangible difference - ever.

CLICK FOR DROOL TIME

Such work has substance and real monetary value, a scan has neither.

Sorry, but as a "work of art" I find that quite unimpressive.

I see talent and technique, but no difference between that and a CGI render or one of the millions of erotic/pornographic spreads floating around the internet.

Unlike the original hyperrealism of the 60's which transgressed boundaries between traditional art and photography, what is the artistic point of yet another "sexy" female in a world swamped with such imagery ?

I mean, who still pays for "artistic nudes" these days ?

Only those too prudish to admit they like porn, I guess. Lol.

I don't mind looking at naked people, not at all.

But to be "art", there has to be something else that catches my interrest. A certain style or technique that CGI can't easily replicate.

The  simple "realistic nude" is pretty much dead now. Too many of them out there, too easy to do.You can't tell where "art" begins and where "porn" ends these days.

CGI killed the realists, I guess.

;-)

BTW, I don't consider 99% of CGI to be art.

Neither 99% of photography.

I'm a virtual scale modeller, trying to build a virtual world I can play with.

As a boy I built houses from Lego blocks, had Matchbox cars and built Airfix kits.

Now I build everything from polygons and instead of decals and enamel paint I use texture maps and shader nodes.

It had nothing to do with "art" back then, it has nothing to do with "art" now.

Problem is, most people feel better if they can call themselves "artists" so they dismiss the value craft has.

The nice thing about CGI is that you can acually share your craft.

I can use someone else's craft to add it to my own, like I could buy the craft that was condensed in an Airfix kit to achieve things I couldn't have done of my own.

@ pumeco

I use Poser form Poser1. (Yeah, I am an old timer, put the accent on old)

Many-many moons ago, I wanted to "change, craft, adapt", call it whatever you want, Poser figures.

Lacking the tools at that time, some 10-15 years ago, I accidently found a little free proggie called Anim8or => www.anim8or.com

It was so basic, that I was moving each and every vertex, one, by one, into a new position in 3D often breaking groups, vertex orders, uv-mapping, name it, I broke it. I broke all what could be broken in a Poser figure during years and years learning the stuff.
Even then, it was fun and frustrating at the same time.

But ? ? I althrough I became known as Tony, the Lo Poly Guy, I did what I did. And became an expert in Lo Polygon figures.

Over all those years, I bought 3, yes one, a second one, and a third item.

All where so badly done, that all ended under the Delete button and I swore to myself. => Sooner or later. . . . . . .

Then came Hexagon, and I started working in Hexagon.

And now I have been using Blender for some months, and still learning, growing, and honing my skills.
When I see something? I think in polygons.

Take the last example : "Roxie the Forestwalker", that is now available in freestuff, was made in 2 days "quality spare" time.

What is my point here?

Every end user wants something different out of his/her 3D experience. Be is in DS or Poser, with figure X or figure Y.

Do you have a goal? => Do it. => Make it. => Build it.

it is not the tool. It is not the figure. It is not the 3D application. => it is in the mind and the fingertips.

Some use Zbrush, some stick with Wings or Hexagon, some go to Milo, Silo, or Blender.

Whatever. => Do it.

To a chicken I would say: STOP rattling, start laying eggs.

@ Eclark 1894

You asked the question. So this answer is for you.

Build what YOU like to build.
The first and only person that has to be satisfied and proud of the product is the person you see in the mirror in the morning.

After all,
If you build something that is NOT completely to your lking? It will never be good, and where do you go with your personal satisfaction?
You can not deliver 100% quality if you are not building what YOU want to build.

@ Myself as an example

I asked what clothing pleople wanted for Roxie. => What did I choose?

Option one would have been the pomeco undies. => Too easy as Poser provides a Roxie dev suit.
Every end user can cut that up in about 5 minutes in any available free 3D app, throw it throught the fitting room, and put a procedural shader on it.
All is over in 10 - 15 minutes max. => that is no chalenge.

Option 2 would have been one of the old style dresses, and I might just do one next someday.

Option 3 was the bathing suit with leggings. => Again, Poser Roxie comes with a dev suit. => No chalenge.

Then comes a guy with a request and comment; "No that would be asking too much for a free stuff item".
=> DING-DONG.
=> Roxie Forestwalker was in free stuff within 2 days of quality spare free time. And I had fun doing this chalenge.

Hobby 3D has to be fun. Has to be about personal satisfaction.

It is of NO, and I repeat, of NO importance AT ALL what others think.

3D is about what the guy in the mirror thinks. You and only YOU. (and is is extra nice to get a compliment)

Some like paintings.
Some like oil on canvas.
Some like pensil on paper.
Some like clay sculpts, others are into bronz, or copper works.

ART, is . . . . . personal.

saw this & thought of you all.

http://www.zbrushcentral.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=214013

Guess those other girls just don't look that skinny now ,huh ?
Think she'd accuse the other "skinny" girls of being fat ,:rolleyes:

Quote -
But that sort of tangible work isn't worth anything in the physical world, and only goes to prove my point further.  115 DSLR's and a whole lot of talent (which that guy has), still doesn't get you an original, it gets you a scanned copy, it's not art, it's technology.

Prints have no real value because they're just prints, even limited edition print is still a print even though you can demand a little more for it.  If you produce something in real media you have the best of both worlds because you can scan and sell prints, limited editions and whatever else, just as the CG artists do.

What the CG artists cannot do, though, is make much higher amounts of money off' the original work.  No one (including the artist) will ever posses the original because it never existed other than in data form.

There will be no tangible difference - ever.

Quote -  

So are we looking at the 'value' just based on monetary terms.  It is a genuine question as I am interested in your viewpoint.  I do understand that a physical painting or drawing will have a value dependant on talent and demand, although even here I cannot fathom vast amounts placed on piles of bricks and unmade beds, but, in general, I accept what you are saying.

For me the monetary value has does not really enter the equation, if it did I would not spend the vast amounts I do at Rendo every month.  The value comes from the pleasure I get from turning some on my thoughts into something others can see.  It might be my vision of a scene from a book I have read or an illustration of a book I hope to write.

The area of the value of data as opposed to a physical mediem is difficult.  Photographs taken with a DSLR, mainly digital these days, can earn a fair amount in a stock library even though they can be printed and copied at will. The actual value being determined by the subject matter and the demand, much like a painting in fact. 

Our viewpoints clearly differ but, like I said I am interested in what you have to say. I have no intention to sell anything and I doubt any of my renders would be worth anything anyway.  To me CG is one of the ways to enjoy my retirement.

 

Six days and counting...

...and never again must I endure the pungent smell of "dead horse" wafting through the air.

@vilters
Well yeah, what you said makes sense, and that's what I intend to do.  I see CG as a way to hopefully earn a little if I get good at vending.  That's all I see it as though.  Like I said, the only program that has the features to pull off what I'd want for creating actual "art" is ZBrush - but the interface drives me nuts!

I'll always put the effort into learning ZBrush because despite this, it has all the features I need, well, everything apart from a dedicated cloth modeling system I mean.  But even then, I'm hopefull Pixoligic will come up with something as kick-ass genius for doing cloth as they have for topology, painting, and pretty much everything else really.

For creating actual art there are only two options for me: ZBrush or real media.  The infortunate thing is I can't even dreram of working on art right now, I have to earn something before I can relax and do stuff like that.

@RorrKonn
Those ultra-skinny girls do have some benefits though, they make incredibly good reference material for bone placement and learning anatomy.  For example, if I'd sculpted a rounded figure and wanted to give her some bone structure, refering to a pic of a living skeleton is the way to do it.  It teaches you how much to make a bone visible under the skin depending on the BMI of the figure you modeled.  For example, an avarage woman would still have hip bones showing, but probably not ribs.

BTW, just saw you getting your self-portrait done, very cool, I think he ruined it towards the end though :biggrin:
CLICK TO WATCH THE RORRKONN SELF-PORTRAIT SESSION

@hornet3D
I'm flattered you want my opinion but I'm no expert so I don't really know what to say to that one.  I just feel like I've personally come to the point where I have to seperate art and business whether I like it or not.

I'm very passionate about CG, and even though I'm a big believer in doing things traditionally, I would still choose CG if only it were good enough to let me get hands on with it.  Unfortunately though, it isn't, all it does is hold me back because I've not produced a single gallery image since I started out with it all those years ago.

That's sort of my own proof to myself that it's not doing me any favours.

I tend to tinker around with 3D rather than produce anything artistic with it, but hopefully there's some good will come of tinkering around, I think I'd make a good vendor but even that remains to be seen.  I'll probably produce something, then discover no one wants it and I'd drop the whole thing and move on - who knows.

But that's the only monetary value I see in CG (for me personally).  The only other way I could earn money from CG is to master ZBrush and produce "art" with it, but like I said, I'm not in the financial position to do stuff like that, I wish I was.  I think I have a good idea of what sort of art imagery would sell, but producing it is another matter.

@Wiz
You say that, but I think you'd miss it all if it weren't here :biggrin:

I don't agree with you on that one.  That pencil work was very fine indeed, truly outstanding the way he got that skin texture on the face, back and shoulders etc, wish I could do that.

Funny enough that's one of the things that fascinates me about pencil and charcoal; the fact that no matter what surface finish you want to achievce it can be done if you have the skill to do it.

It wouldn't matter to that guy whether he needed SSS, frosted class, or plastic, he simply draws it using the techniques he has to achieve the look of those finishes.  Think about that, imagine the power you posses when you can pick up a pencil and effectively render whatever you want, without limit, and no lack of technology will stand in your way!

Amazing, and here's another mind-blower:
MAJOR TALENT AT WORK

I don't know what he's saying, but it probably goes something like ...
*'I have total control over my pencil, and therefore, my art'.

Regards whether something that has been copied is art, well, that question is true of CG or traditional art.  My take on it is this, if I had the skill with a pencil that these guys have, I'd be able to create absolutely anything in my imagination and it would look as real (or unreal) as I wanted.

Technology can't limit you, only your own skill and imagination.

Even if they smash or thrash a RorrKonn self portrait. I always appreciate the effort.

masking goes well with air brush .or just holding a thick mask a certain distance from the paper.

U Might like Mudbox UI .

Quote - With CGI and the right tools, it only takes a few minutes. and no artistic talent at all.

This is only true if you're using pre-built content.

Quote -My art doesn't have purpose because I don't have any art.  The reason I don't have any art is because CG attracted me away from real media a long time ago.  One thing I do know is that if CG didn't exist, I would still be drawing and I'd be a heck of a lot better now than I was then.

When I went to school for cg, my drawing skills actually improved many times over. Part of school was a requirement to keep a sketchbook. One assignment was to fill an entire book in a 2-month period. That's 200 pages. And little doodles on half of them didn't count. had to be complete pages. 

There are many CG artists that can't draw very well traditionally but will blow your mind with what they can do in digital format. Just like there are amazing traditional artists that would have no clue how to operate any of the software a CG artist uses. 

And art supplies can get just as expensive as software, the cost is just more spread out over time. One of the reasons I don't draw as much as I would like to is always running out of supplies. I also love working in clay, but at $16 a pound it gets expensive quick. 

~Shane

**
@RorrKonn**
Haha, yeah, Grim Reapers look cool no matter what!
BTW, why did you mention MudBox, does it have cloth modeling?

@Shane
OMG, you're a moderator!

You're one of them now, the moderator clan.  And Wiz needn't think I hadn't seen this coming, either.  I knew I wouldn't get the job, I just knew it.  I think it was posting that fat woman what did it!

Congrats mate, I'll have to suck-up a bit now so that I can get stickies and stuff if I vend something :biggrin:

"This is only true if you're using pre-built content."

Yeah, but that's the whole point of Poser, isn't it ?

Being able to borrow someone else's talent to create something you wouldn't be able to do otherwise ?

**
@RorrKonn**
Doesn't matter regards MudBox, just saw the price, I'm not paying out $795 for a software package.

Cloths app ,never used it so can't say .
http://marvelousdesigner.com/community/gallery/view.aspx?messageseq=1859 .
Hey ALL !!! What other cloths app's like marvelous designer are there ?

zBrush & Mudbox both are to put 
Vector Maps on SubD meshes.
Normal maps on game meshes.
on ya retopologize mesh.
That's is what they are for .
If your using zBrush & Mudbox for anything else your just playing.
You can make $800+ from one mesh.

Pumeco I might have a clue why you have not gotten any where with your CGI.
What CGI App's do you have ?

The bar bone minium to get any where with CGI you need.
C4D Prime,zBrush ,wacom intuos pro medium ,photoshop.
$2000.00.
So if you don't at least have this ,no your not getting any where.

A decent Studio would have Max, + Plugs ,Mudbox ,wacom cintiq ,photoshop + Plugs.
$20,000.00.

You can replace any main app with any other.C4D with Max with Maya etc etc .
or better yet just get them all.

AmbientShade is a Forum Moderator. That's a RIOT.
The lunatics have taken over the asylum :tt2::woot::lol::unsure::tt2::woot::lol::sneaky:
Bang your Head
God save the Queen.
I'd let them argue for a 1000 pages till there blue in the face and the apocalypse is the past.
No I never applied for the job.

OK AmbientShade ya first priority as a new moderator is a SPELL CHECKER !!!

Quote - AmbientShade is a Forum Moderator. That's a RIOT.The lunatics have taken over the asylum :tt2::woot::lol::unsure::tt2::woot::lol::sneaky:
Bang your Head
God save the Queen.
I'd let them argue for a 1000 pages till there blue in the face and the apocalypse is the past.
No I never applied for the job.

OK AmbientShade ya first priority as a new moderator is a SPELL CHECKER !!!

I'd have paid DAMN GOOD MONEY to see the faces of the usual suspects when they got this news.

I feel good leaving, now!

Quote -@Shane
OMG, you're a moderator!

crap, how'd that happen?!?!

Quote -OK AmbientShade ya first priority as a new moderator is a SPELL CHECKER !!!

lol, your posts alone would keep me busy all day. ;)

~Shane

@RorrKonn
I only wish I knew of an alternative to Marvelous Designer.  I think the price is outrageous, but even so, I started putting cash away for it because cloth is the only thing my setup lacks and Marvelous Designer is pretty damn awesome.   But then, when I got pretty close to buying it I found out (just in time) that even that licence would not allow me to use it commercially.

Screw that, they can hang on to it, and I'm not dumb enough to buy into monthly Adobe-style subscriptions for a licence I'll never own.

The cloth in Poser is way too slow, the cloth in DAZ won't let you use your own geometry (despite early indication that it would), and Marvelous Designer are pretty much taking the piss with the pricing because they have no competition.  I'd like to see it sell for those prices when a competitor enters the market - lol

I have a nice set of tools, the only thing missing is cloth unless I want to spend a long time doing it the hard way.  I mentioned only a few weeks back that I hope Pixologic will add some sort of kick-ass cloth tool to ZBrush.  If you look at some of those mesh insert tools that drag objects across a surface, it's not hard to imagine a cloth tool that lets you drag sheet-like cloth over the top of your objects.

All they'd need is parameters for suction so that it would 'cling' , gravity so that it would drape, and the usual parameters you have for cloth so that when you drag the sheet over your object in real time, it will stretch, bend and sag depending on the parameters you set.

That's what I'm hoping for, but whether they'll do so is another thing.  If anyone can do something like that, it's Pixologic.

@Shane
Haha, I don't know, but I hope the forum doesn't have an initiation process in mind for you :woot:

I don't really have a problem with Marvelous Designer except for the price  and the fact that I don't quite understand how their license works. But it's an excellent program for making clothing easily.

That said, and were I skillful enough,  I could probably build similar clothes by hand in Blender. There is one thing I'd like to know though. How versatile is MD? Suppose I wanted to build a pirate costume for Rex? or a Victorian gown for V4? Could MD do the job?

Shane is a moderator? We're all doomed! Doomed, I tell you! Dooommed!

**
@EClark**
Yeah, you can do whatever you like in Marvelous Designer as far as clothes go.  You can even create a soft sofa if you wanted, a pillow, a duvet, curtains, whatever.  You can even trap air under a jacket and blow it out if you wanted, it's neat stuff.

I'd have it myself by now if it wasn't for the pricing.  I'd want to use it for commercial purposes, but to get the advanced edition with a commercial licence costs serious money.  I'd rather do it the hard way than pay that, no matter how good it is.

I think it's way over-priced for what is essentially just a cloth simulator.  They have a demo if you're curious, but I advise you to read the differences between the licences very carefully if you plan to use it commercially.

It's awesome, but be careful ;-)

Yeah. You can do pretty much anything in MD. Provided you can work out how to do it! I'm seriously stumped by some things because I have the sewing abililty of a grapefruit and have no idea how real clothes are put together, so creating patterns is a total headache and usually involves a lot of shouting for me. There's a pirate outfit for sale in the MD store so that one is definitely doable for someone with clothes-making skills.

I have MD2 though on the old licence system, I didn't bother even looking at MD3.

Hey Toastie, you know where to send that licence if you get fed up of it :biggrin:

When I say I don't know how their license works what I mean is the annual thing. Do they make you pay annually to use MD or once you buy it, you can use that version of MD forever?Fo0r some reason that's just not clear to me.

**
@EClark**
You can only use it forever if you buy the "perpetual" licence, but that licence comes in different categories and it's extremely expensive for the one that will allow you to use it commercially.

Basically, they've adopted the greed-machine system Adobe use, but you don't have to use that option.  You can pay mothly or you can buy a permanent (perpetual) licence so basically it's like this:

• Different versions of the software to choose
• Different licences to choose
• Different payment options to choose

To buy a permanent licence that would last forever and allow you to use it commercially is the expensive up-front option (no doubt to force people onto the Adobe-style subscription greed-machine they've implemented), and if you do that, you're no wiser than all those Adobe users out there who are paying a constant fee for a licence they will never own.  For software like Photoshop there are much cheaper pay-once alternatives out there and people should support those instead, but for software like Marvelous Designer, there is no alternative yet.

It's expensive for the only licence they have that's actually worth having.

MD licensing comes with two distinctions - Personal and Enterprise. Personal is for a named individual, Enterprise is for a legal entity. Check the License Agreement, section 3 Uses & Restrictions - para 1 applies to Personal Licenses and clearly states that a licensee can sell their original work made with MD.

Then you can decide if you want to buy a license for the Basic or Advanced versions, and then whether you want that on a monthly, annual or permanent basis.

I see nothing to stop anyone a buying license for the basic version for a month, making an original dynamic item for Poser, and selling it. "Licensee may sell or distribute its original works and their derivatives in any file formats and Licensor acknowledges that it has no right, title, or interest in and to any such original works and their derivatives."

Seems pretty flexible to me.

MD is a very good but specialised tool, and as such has it's own limitations.

But then, IMO limitations are good ;)

**
@caisson**
Did you see this part?*

*"There is no difference between Personal(Advanced) and Enterprise License other than it is for personal use or use in companies. Like other software, we frequently check the use of Personal License in companies, which will be in breach of the License Agreement. If you are a freelancer, you are eligable for the use of Personal License, however if you are to continue the use of Marvelous Designer in Enterprise conditions, you will have to purchase an Enterprise License"

*Sounds like they check up on you, make sure you're not using it commercially, that's what put me off buying it.  When I spend that much cash I expect to do what I want with it.

Like I said, I saw that just in time to save a very expensive licencing mistake!

Yup, I saw that. Do you work for a company then?

If you want to use it for yourself, and make stuff you can sell, you can do that with a Personal License. Read the terms - http://www.marvelousdesigner.com/footer/license.aspx

Actually, that puts me off as well. I don't like the idea of paying monthly or annually for using software. It's not just for MD. I wouldn't pay to use Poser that way or my browser either.

I don't work for anyone or any company, but the point is, if you had visions of buying the Personal Advanced licence and then using it to generate an income selling the clothes you made with it, they'd probably see you as a company using it to create and sell clothes - and that means an Enterprise licence.

The software requires internet and "calls home", no doubt they can cut your licence just like that (but I'm not saying they would).  All the same, I don't think I'd want to find myself in a situation where my tool is suddenly taken from me unless I buy an Enterprise licence.

Such a licence agreement technically shouldn't even be legal.  They're selling you a licence based on terms which effectively, they have the freedom to decide at will even after you've agreed to the licence.  They get to decide whether what you're using it for is good enough for them to allow you to stick with a Personal licence or not, after you've agreed to and purchased the licence.

Very cool program, but for me personally, they can stick both the licence agreement and the prices where the sun doesn't shine.  I'd rather wait it out for ZBrush to get a cloth tool, which hopefully, it will.

Quote - Actually, that puts me off as well. I don't like the idea of paying monthly or annually for using software. It's not just for MD. I wouldn't pay to use Poser that way or my browser either.

I am of the same view but unfortunately this is the way some companies are going.  Not an issue with MD though as I could not get it to run on my machine and tech support was neither technical or supportive so a ruled out MD at any cost.

I don't get it.

Buy it permanently.

Or annually.

Or monthly.

It's your choice.

If you are using it yourself, get the Personal License and sell what you make. If you work for a company, get them to buy the Enterprise License.

What's complicated about it?

It's got to be the most flexible way to buy into an app I've seen. I mean, anyone could buy a month's license for $40 - about £25 in proper money ;) - make some dynamic cloth item for Poser and then sell it. Even if you don't keep up the license to keep using MD, you'd still hold the rights to whatever original stuff you've used MD to make.

Yeah, I agree it's flexible.  But can a person realistically master it and create sellable products in that time?

By the time you've learnt it properly and created something, I'm guessing it would have cost at least £100 in proper money.  Your 100 Sterling gets you exactly no licence once you stop paying for it - poof - all gone!

Even then, you'd have to sell a fair few garments before you made that 100 quid back mate :biggrin:

ah , Adobe PhotoShop does not have any competition.
You can lease Adobe Photoshop for one month.

I actually want Max, Maya, Mudbox to have a leases option.
Last I looked it was just Autodesk CADs for lease.

Adobe has plenty of competition, I use it myself.

I wouldn't worry about seeing other packages jump on the leasing bandwagon.  You'll get your wish, It'll spread like the plague and it's equally as deadly.  I won't be joining in the stupidity, I'll simply stick to open source if/when any of the programs I use move over to it.

I will not rent software.

Adobe's products are easy to replace.  Take "HitFilm Ultimate" for example, way better than Adobe's After Effects and at a fraction of the price (you only pay once as well).

CLICK HERE TO SAY BYE BYE TO ENDLESS ADOBE SUBSCRIPTION COSTS

All part of the service :biggrin:

Can we drop the software debates and get this back on topic please?

Thanks

~Shane

Well, I can't speak for the others but I hate Adobe and the bloated, over-priced crap they produce.
Believe me, nothing would please me more than to not talk about it.

No worries.

No.matter, what characters I used (my own only Masha for v4)

I just use some voluptous and a4 morphs. Also, better way to get perfectly looking bottom shape, it's simple. Just try to set xscale for hip = 105-108. :-)

But this parameter need to be unhided. Cr2 editor will help.

Quote -
To be honest, I only mentioned the thigh gap for selfish reasons, I love women with wide hips and a thigh gap.

She has to have wide hips, though, or it doesn't look right.  Women with narrow hips should forget about thigh gaps because they have to destroy their thighs to get one.  Only a mature woman with wide hips can have the ultimate thigh gap.

The only guy on here who's pulled it off successfully is Hameleon.  When he poses his figure, the ass and hips look fantastic no matter how he poses her.  It's one of only two figures on here I'd pay money for.  Trouble is I think she's strictly for demoing his stuff (and can't say I blame him).

But yup, I wanted you to make Roxie have that versatility, like Hameleon has done on his demo babe.  An ass that looks right no matter how she's posed, with the added benefit of wide hips and a thigh gap.

Free or paid, I think she'd be popular :-)

Regards your observation, you probably nailed it right there.  In England we never stop hearing that "Americans are too fat", we get a lot of that.  I think it's a bit hypocritical of them to make comments like that though, because we have our fair share of overweight people here in England as well.

Believe me, America has no more a problem there than we do, not in my opinion, anyway.

Also, I think that by using Poser 7 morphing tool you can create a beautiful shapes for any body parts.

Hey, thanks for posting that, Hameleon!

Ah, so that explains a lot, the official DAZ morphs are really nice.  I have both the official DAZ morph sets for V4 (Morphs+++ and the Muscle Morphs), but I don't have Aiko morphs, never bothered with Aiko.

I'll have to try what you did (without the Aiko bit), you made I nice job of it, great ass and hips :-P

Cheers mate!