So which basic shape do you like best ? and why ?

1 and 4... because they come from the DeathStar?

But... I have to say that I like the default A3 shape best (which is a toon derivative of SP3). Problem with A3 is she's too poly heavy, which I find makes morphing more difficult... contrary to the general opinion of most. Especially her mouth, it's basically an unmanageable mush of polys. Makes edge loop manipulations a headache. Genesis (which I've never used) is looking more and more interesting to me because of the topology. Unfortunately DS won't run on my current machine.

Posette is still cool, like Ty2 also. They need a lot of polishing though. With those figures it's both the tradition and the marginalization that I find appealing.

3 and 4, in that order.

I like 4 most. Can't decide about 1 and 3. Good old Jessi kind of look cool, but she's a toon. So that doesn't realy count. Did you make it, to "untoon" her? Nr.2 looks like Posette. As I don't like any Poser nostalgic attitudes, I don't like Posette either. Posette is far behind in my ranking.

So: 4,1,3 and 2 is my choice. :)

**Death :
**There's Gen 3 Iconic Shapes for Genesis & Gen 4 Iconic Shapes for Genesis.
DSON is free results may very.the Editor is $38.00

For a 20,000 polycount character any box modeler would do for morphs.
but for a 60,000 polycount character box modelers are worthless.ya need MudBox.

I like Anime & A3 has a rocken body But I never do Anime ,not dark enough.
I never had Ty2.
I'm not messing with 60,000 polycount characters cause there to dense to have SubD's.
I'm not real app to model SubD characters either .Don't know why they took Tri's out of SubD's.
and made the 100% quad rule .but they can rot in hell.
My hi polycount meshes are a astronomical 8000 if that ;)

-Timberwolf-

I get what ya saying about Jessi not looking 100% realistic.
Maybe Jessi was mint to be realistic .modeling characters is a lot of hit n miss.
the character in ya mind and they one on ya PC is not always the same.
I haven't done anything to her it's the .obj out of the Poser folder.
what Poser version did Jessi appear ?
What's Jessi's male counter part name ?

**
**

Out of those, I'd have to go with 4, because she looks closest to what I'd call a normal, attractively shaped woman.

That said, 3 would be a lot better if her details weren't so hard-edged and defined.
3 looks more like a hard-body, but overdone, like she has no subcutaneous fat whatsoever, nothing a smoothing brush wouldn't cure though!

From the front I like 1 from the back I like 2.

Jessi came out with p5 along with James. You know like Jesse James.

RorrKonn, I've been using Zbrush for about 6 years now (not the best for edgeloop manipulations), for box modeling I'm a long time user of Wings3D. You would probably be surprised how good of a 3d modeler and sculptor (real world and virtual, but sculpting is what I'm trained in) I actually am. ;)

He "doesn't like nostalgic attitudes". I.e. he doesn't like my attitude. Sigh. What I get for being friendly, conversational. Duly noted.

There's 2 versions of Jessi, IIRC. Jessi 1 and Jessi G2... Jessi G2 wasn't included with Poser that I remember but I recall getting her as a free download from CP.

RorrKonn, thought you hated Tris in meshes? Bout 2 years ago you went off on Fabiana (the vendor) for wanting to triangulate something for dynamics. You stated that Tris never belonged in a mesh. There was a big back and forth between you and LaurieA over it. Times change I guess, memories are short (the advantage of nostalgic attitudes). Lol.

nah it's my bad English SubD's alt to be 100% quads.cause every one uses the SubD's that turns a tri in to a quad.
back in the LW 7 days LW and Softimage would SubD Tri's in to Tri's.don't know why every one couldn't use the tri SubD's system

but ya model ya character at 5000 polycount with a few tri's as posable n SubD ones.100% quad polycount 20,000.

if we still had the Tri SubD's we could have SubD meshes with 10,000 polycount. 

if I remember correctly ya tried LW7's dynamic cloths I think and poser 5 is last time i messed with there dynamics so not sure about that one .

 no i don't mess with edge loops in zBrush I only sculpt but mudbox is more talenteless proof ;)

the low res jessi and james didn't seem to go together maybe ya can see it in the hi res.

ya i'm a George Lucas fan :)

"I like Anime & A3 has a rocken body But I never do Anime ,not dark enough."

Mmmm. Here's a quickie portrait of A3 I did for an A3 nostalgia thread "everything Aiko"

The textures, creature type morphs, and props are from scratch. Crappy poser 8, lol. Yeah it's toony, but I think it's dark too. I don't really do too much "let's make a picture with pre made content" style renders, looky here's V4's ass ain't I clever? I mean I get the whole pin up thing, especially if you've built the model, or painted the painting, or taken the photograph. But pose V4 bent over and render? Shrugs. Real internet photos of women, which are a dime a thousand, do that so much better. (But I lie, also working on a pin up of A4 atm, but I built the bed model she's laying on) I Mostly use Poser to test models and ideas that I've made to function with Poser. Don't know if that makes sense. Anyway, to each their own. I do like to collect the figures though, must be a hold over from my childhood fascination with action figures or something. I think toon style stuff can be just as dark as any other style, and I don't mean bad lighting. ;)

I don't think I've ever seen a Poser render from you RorrKonn, might be mistaken though.

 "no i don't mess with edge loops in zBrush I only sculpt but mudbox is more talenteless proof ;)" 

Lol. Never tried MudBox, always felt that was more a Maya pipeline tool. Nice that sculpting tools have become a standard feature in most modelers.

Sorry for the OT, but being that this is a RorrKonn thread it's likely to veer into a music video thread at any moment :)

I got Jessi n James low res from pro 14.
they don't look like they where modeled buy the same person .
but do they look like a couple to you all ? Do they match each other ?

ScareCrow : I get what ya saying about Jessi she is very defined.
I guess James hi res is also.There's parts of jessi I like a lot and some parts not so much.

Death : actually back in the poser 4 days I had some Poser renders.

they where 500x500 pixels in the windows 95 days when thr screen resolution was something like 480 x 620
and ya PC crashed every 30 minutes. ahhh the good old days.
so I took them down sometime along the way.

I never really got in to rendering a picture. I can't render well in any app.
I'd rather make stuff and play with all the app's.

CG app's are magic to me.
For straight out sculpting MudBox works the smoothest,fastest for me.I just really click with MudBox.

Hottest A3 I've ever seen ;)

I don't care if we wonder off subject 90% of the time as long as I get what I need.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ysSxxIqKNN0
 Can't do Art with out music no more the I can make Art with out app's
there = important to Art :)

 how tall do you like her ?

3 or 4, although 2 is probably more realistic. Never held much stock in the proportional rules, generally just eyeball it for whatever looks right for a particular style. Photorealism leaves me cold, although I can see the preoccupation in cg, having such a strong developmental basis in the emulation of real world visual phenomena.

For a 20,000 polycount character any box modeler would do for morphs.
but for a 60,000 polycount character box modelers are worthless.ya need MudBox.

Uh.. No.

Many polygon modeling apps have perfectly serviceable mesh sculpting tools. One does not need a specialized sculpting application primarily designed around micropolygons for producing very high res models for normal and LOD instances...

Hexagon, for instance, is buggy, old as heck, based on obsolete code, but still has very powerful and extremely handy sculpting tools.

The key is always, of course, a modeller's skill with a particular application, not the application itself. Though, for modeling morphs for high-poly figures, like V4, an application with mesh sculpting tools is highly desirable.

 first rules of fight club ,ah, wait wrong movie
first rule of RorrKonn thread are before you fight with with RorrKonn you half to answer RorrKonn questions first and then fight :)

question 1 So which basic shape do you like best ? and why ?
question 2 how tall do you like her ?

but for a 60,000 polycount character box modelers are worthless.ya need MudBox.
mudbox is a sculpter
so it's implying any sculpers mudbox,zbrush,blender etc etc.

mudbox,zbrush,blender. definition of sculpting is the same.
hexagon slang of sculpting is not the same as mudbox,zbrush,blender etc etc
what hexagon is calling sculpting tools .most call box modeling tools with fall off values.
I like what hexagon is calling sculpting tools .there very useful for morphs and all.

you can see the difference in youtube video's.

3 most, 2 and then 4.

So what do you all think of this meshes ratio's n proportions ?

@RorrKonn

The proportions are far away from realistic.Where is her hip? She has a sixpack, giant breats, no hip. Incredible tiny arms. **
**

@RorrKonn

The proportions are far away from realistic.Where is her hip? She has a sixpack, giant breats, no hip. Incredible tiny arms. **
**

@RorrKonn
If you intended to do a toon, semi-toon character, she is great. But yes, I have to aggree. She's far away from realistic.

You all said SHE :) so atleast she looks like a female :)

Atuallly at this point I'm just making a base mesh that resembles a descent looking female
that has every thing where it belongs.

when we say cartoon I think of Amy ,Kimberly. I'm not making  Amy's
when we say realistic I think of Vicky. I'm not making Vicky's

I've always called my self a Fantasy Artist
So lets say I'm making Fantasy Characters.
Seriously doubt I ever make any Amy's or Vicky's.

After I get the base mesh made it would be easy enough to morph her in to any character's.

the base mesh will be a very petite female.it's easier for me to morph small to larger then large to smaller.

Fat Bottom Girls

Number 3 seems to have the right Waist to Hip ratio, but isn't this a subjective thing ?  Some folks like 'em skinny and some like 'em well fed.

Number 3 seems to have the right Waist to Hip ratio, but isn't this a subjective thing ?  Some folks like 'em skinny and some like 'em well fed.

I'm testing theories.

I'm not saying I agree with any of this but

they say a female with certain hip to stomach n % of body fat is the best baby making machine.so boys chase them most
they say the female closest to Phi the boys will chase the most
they say the female with measurements 36-24-36 the boys will chase the most.

all I know for sure Is the few that voted ,V6 got the most votes .

Not possible for me to say what type I like best, and like Xartis said, some like 'em thin and some like 'em well fed.

Personally, I like both, but it depends on whether she looks right (well balanced).  Some face types look better on a shapely babe-type body and some look better on a more slender type figure, but I honestly couldn't say say which is best or which I like best just lately.  What I don't like are figures where they have a fuller figure but the breasts aren't big enough to match the figure, or where the figure is lean but the breasts are too large and look out of place on a more slender figure.

One thing I hate is when the hips are narrow and the shoulders are wide, that just looks unbalanced to me (but again, everyone is different).

 All of the above, each for her own purpose.  I have not read all of the posts; I was thinking of how I would use each figure.

While I have purchased other base figures and some products for them, I only use Posette and spin the dials to get what I want, then position and parent hair made for other dolls.  I only poly paint with the Grouping Tool to simulate clothing so a higher poly count is no guarantee the grid lines are where I need them.

I also cannot give you measurements, since I prefer "visually correct" proportions:  36-24-36 "looks" wrong on a five foot tall woman and on a seven foot tall woman but "looks" better on a five-foot-eight.  Would I use a five or a seven foot tall?  Yes, depending on context.  Would either have 36-24-36 to intentionally look wrong?  Yes, again depending on context.

So, I am back to my first comment about your figures:  All of the above, each for her own purpose. 

I think the 36-24-36 came from Hollywood. Marilynn Monroe and all
http://www.glamamor.com/2013/08/sizing-up-old-hollywood-heights-weights.html 
of coarse I have no way to make those kind of measurement on my CG character.
any one know of a way to measure your CG characters like the 36-24-36  ? in any app ?

have a fuller figure but the breasts aren't big enough to match the figure,
pair shapes are very common easpeacaily now that most are on the plump side.

*or where the figure is lean but the breasts are too large and look out of place on a more slender figure.
*I actually like how petite females with a natural C cup look.there very rear ,hard to find these girls.
well unless there man made implants.

One thing I hate is when the hips are narrow and the shoulders are wide.
nah ya don't see that here where most have a plump back side ;)

Actually since I'm always looking at plump females probably why I like petite female characters best.
get tiered of looking at the same thing all the time.

biggest reason why I don't want to make another Vicky also.

Sounds like you're lucky then RorrKonn, to be honest I get sick of seeing those Praying Mantis style women, that's one of the reasons I prefer the women from the 60's and 70's porno magazines, they just look way sexier to me.  It's the hair and makeup as well, obviously, but today, it all looks and feels too cold and blatant rather than warm and erotic.

Anyway, regards your female mesh, here's a suggestion for you, and if you try it, I promise you'll be glad you did :

• Make a backup copy of your mesh.
• Working on the backup, take a brush that is nearly the same size as her upper arm.
• Everywhere there is a muscle or bone, just brush it in very roughly, don't worry about how good it looks, just do it like you're in a hurry.
• Your woman should have lots of horrible bulges all over her body by now.
• Now, set the brush to around the size of her head, and set it to smoothing mode.
• Set so that it only smooths slightly on each stroke.
• Use this smoothing brush all over the figure until the bulges you created have blended softly into the bulges next to them.

Basically, if you see a sharp edge on your figure, you failed, and your woman is full of sharp edges right now.  Remember that skin is covering the muscles beneath it, and skin doesn't suck into the voids between muscles enough to give it such a sharp edge.  The same could be said for that male mesh you made, your male mesh is one of the best male meshes I've seen, he actually looks like a male and doesn't look gay like the DAZ males do.  If you were to go over him with the smoothing brush using the same technique described for the female, it would look pretty damn impressive.

You're very detail orientated and seem to be afraid of the smoothing brush, which is just crazy, cause it's essential.
Relax and smooth things off a bit ;-)

Damn forum and edit timeouts ...

Anyway, I meant to say for the second step:

• Take a brush that is nearly the same size as the thickness of her upper arm (I forgot to add the thickness part).

I think the 36-24-36 came from Hollywood. Marilynn Monroe and all
http://www.glamamor.com/2013/08/sizing-up-old-hollywood-heights-weights.html 
of coarse I have no way to make those kind of measurement on my CG character.
any one know of a way to measure your CG characters like the 36-24-36  ? in any app ?

DAZ Studio: Measure Metrics

For measurements;

Tape Measure, part of Poser Tool Box:

http://www.philc.net/PTB_page3.htm USA for Women

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/universal-sizing-apparatus-woman/100084

 Thanks bhoins and WandW :)

Scare Crow : Diamonds not a sculpt she's a box model.
it's just easier for me to make ratio guild lines and all in a box modeler.
this old C4D 9 I like to model in won't measure circumference.
but it will x,y,z that helps a lot.

anyways when I'm trying to put every thing In it's right place it's easier to see every thing if I model in detail and sharp edges.
So in a way Diamond and Chrome are learning meshes for me.
but it's easy enough to soften the edges.C4D has a tool called IRON
and it would be a waist of time to bump it all n smooth it all in mudbox/zbrush just smooth the hard edges.
if ya wanted but ya I like hard edges.

but anyways the mesh ya looking at won't be the final mesh. she's just a guild line more or less.

That's what I meant, for finishing it off, I'm not sure what your plans are for the meshes, but I don't think they'll go down well unless you soften them a bit first.
Like I said, that male mesh would look especially good if you smoothed it over with a soft brush.

Anyway, cool meshes :-)

Does pro 14,daz studio,blender,zBrush support P-Tex ?

plans ? what I'm suppose to have plans for the meshes , ah ,now ya tell me ;)

I got most of her base mesh right I'd say I'm at 80% done.

pro 14,daz studio,blender are the only 3 app's I have that has rigs with weight mapping.
but I don't know these 3 app's all I know how to do is import a obj. that's it more or less.
I've map one mesh in blender and got it to 1/2 way work in pro 14.
it's the candle in my gallery.

can't I rig her in daz studio and with DSON it will work with pro 14 ?
I've never used DSON either.

so all I know for sure at the moment is to make a base mesh with normals n all.
not even sure what kinda of map it will have yet.
and then save as a .obj

at this time I have no idea what will become of the .obj

good thing I've only ever clamed to be a Artist.
Maybe I should hier a business person ,they have plans.

Sorry mate, can't help cause I don't use DSON and I've never heard of P-Tex.

Any one know if pro 14,daz studio,blender,zBrush support P-Tex ?

Scare Crow scroll to bottom 

http://wwwx.cs.unc.edu/~sujeong/Ptex/

 zbrush has something like ptex also don't know what ya call zbrushes but ptex is a disney auto map thing.

ptex maps makes no since to human eyes ,you can only make textures with ptex with a 3D texturer.

a 2D app would be useless. 

mudbox auto mapper is ptex.it's a one click automaps speed thing.

the topology's a wreck n she needs tweaked a lot but does every thing look like it's in the right place ?

think it would be best to make a plain mesh n not model all the detail in to the mesh and add detail using normals.

it's a lot faster to make normals then meshes. 

The most obvious thing that stands out to me is how tall the top half of her torso is, so I would shorten the part I've marked out, see how it looks.

That area of the body looks way too tall, it's so tall it's even stretching her breasts, so basically grab everything between the lines and make it shorter, I think she'll look more natural if you do.  Her general proportions will look much better, and so will her breasts.

She definitely looks better with those hard edges gone as well.

jessi,dawn,diamond,v5sm,posetta 

think maybe Diamonds torso looks so tall cause she's so much thinner then the rest.
and the breast are wrong i need to fix them.
I can't see the forest for the tree's .
That's why I need you all's eyes. 

but she's 8 heads tall just like every other mesh.

if we morph her wider think it would seem shorter .

dawn and posetta torso seem tall ?

I like the one who has the most content support

Seriously, don't mess around with the breasts, the breasts look like they do because of the top half of the torso being far too tall, so try what I said, see how it comes out and post it even if you don't like the result.  You mentioned, ah, that's because she's so thin.  But that's largely where your problem lies when you think about this stuff.  Fact is, she might not be as thin as you think she is, because is if you shorten the top half of the torso, it will do more than you think :

• It will make her shorter (shortening something without scaling the rest will make it look fatter).
• It will change the plane on which her breasts lie, from being vertical to being partly horizontal, which is how they should be (see second from right).
• It will make her ass look better in side profile (even though it didn't involve editing her ass at all).

You're too preoccupied with all that perfect face stuff, and trying to do everything the perfect number of heads high etc, and this is what happens if you do things like that, like you said, about not seeing the forest for the trees.  It's ok to use that stuff as a guide I suppose, but personally I don't, cause at the end of the day, I wouldn't want to create something that isn't what I had in my head, and humans and their proportions are so varied that you could completely throw that drawing guide stuff out of the window if you wanted - you've seen enough nudes to know what a nicely shaped woman looks like, and it's those real women are the best guides.

Try what I said, and post it even if you don't like how it came out - consider that an order from ScareCrow :-D

in my tomes I've done multiple ratios,heads etc etc .

the base mesh has to stay at 8 heads tall.

we can always morph her latter.

Pumeco, your eyes are playing tricks on you.

The top torso has the right dimensions for such a slim girl.

But, and here comes the but.

The breasts are completely out of proportion.

• they are way oversized for such a slim girl.

• they too high in y. They start too high up, and they go too deep down. That's what is fooling your eyes.

So, reduce breast size, and make them shorter in Y.

A slim girl has smaller breasts, certainly in Y.

@Viters
I agree to an extent, the breasts are certainly effecting judgement, but that top half is still too tall IMHO.  I've never seen a real woman proportioned like that and I can't imagine how many naked women I've seen thanks to the web.  His figure looks almost the proportions she would be if she were in high heels, I think she looks way to tall, and I'm trying to make him realise that it's not the overall height that is making her look tall, it's the proportions inbetween, from the top of her head to the base of her feet.

He needs an arse kicking for being idle if he doesn't try what I said (even if he doesn't like the result).

Basically, he should prioritise 'eyeballing' the proportions over any guidelines.  If he's obsessed with this height thing, then all he has to do, after reducing the height of the top half of the torso, is elongate another part/parts.  He has the head, neck, top and bottom part of the torso, the thighs, and the shins to play around with and balance-up if he's really that obsessed with keeping the height the same as it is now.

And height is relative anyway.

But yup, I think the top half of that torso is definitely too tall for a girl of that build, I've never seen a real woman with those proportions, I don't care what the recognised drawing guides say.  I've seen women who aren't too far off that, but they're very rare and aren't what I'd call blueprint material for a nice female form.  I suppose if I could sum it up as basically as possible; she looks ok but she's a bit too extreme to look natural.

Here's a girl in high-heels, she looks natural, but the thing to note here is that Diamond gives-off the same proportional look even without high heels :

Scare Crow I really like the girl in ya render.which mesh is she & what app was she rendered in ?

and how would hi heals make her torso look longer ? 

Diamonds not a real girl she will not have real world ratio's n proportions. 

can always make any morph ya want for her she will be very user friendly n built for speed.

so she will be the easiest mesh ya ever worked with. 

Vilters I can't believe you said the breast was to low ;) 

RorrKonn Wrote:
"Scare Crow I really like the girl in ya render.which mesh is she & what app was she rendered in ?"

WTF ... tell ya what mate, you tell me why you assumed it's a render (I never said so), and I'll tell you what mesh she is, and what was used to render her!
I wanna see that shortened torso as well ;-)

Regards Diamond (and why high heels would make her torso look longer), it's just down to the overal impression we get of things when we see humans in various states and poses etc.  A classic example would be women who think they're too fat.  A lot of them know the trick of wearing stuff with vertical stripes or patterns.  Wearing, say, a dress with horizontal stripes or patterns will make them look fatter, but vertical designs make them look thinner.  If you're fat, the last thing you should wear is something with horizontal stripes or patterns.

So basically, high-heels are classed as vertically enhancing thingummies, they make the woman taller and make it look as if she has longer legs.  Women aren't content with being goddesses, they'll do everything in their power to make themselves even more irreisistable!  Short skirts do the same thing, it's not just there to make you want to look up it, it's there to make her legs look longer as well.  And yup, you guessed it, giving a girl high-heels and a short skirt is an ideal way to maximise the length of her legs without her even being nude.

When totally nude, glamour photographers will have them tiptoe, this is for the same reason, to make her legs look longer than they actually are.

Scare Crow : cause the girl in your .jpg could be Vivi

and angles of the camera can make legs look longer also

but a polycount of 210,293 in a max format LOL.

does the mesh look familiar ? LOL

Nope, can't say the mesh looks familiar, looks like a nice mesh though!
Anyway, still waiting to see a shortened torso if you want to know what mesh the girl uses and what renderer was used to render her.

Roxie was just about to open her big mouth and tell you, but I stopped her just in time (she's dying to tell you) :-D