DustRider posted at 1:30PM Thu, 08 August 2019 - #4358861

EClark1894 posted at 1:37PM Tue, 06 August 2019 - #4358761

cobalt posted at 4:46AM Mon, 05 August 2019 - #4358742

OK, I knew I shouldn't look at the Poser forum, especially this thread, but curiosity got the better of me, and now I just have to say something. Sorry in advance for interrupting everyone's bliss.

"It became one of the most toxic groups I've ever encountered"

The exact reason I quit the SM Poser forum, and why I quit visiting this forum until Rendo bought Poser. Unfortunately their buying Poser didn't remove the toxic environment. If you really want to know how to improve Poser, and make it attractive for people again, you need to be better than the competition (assuming it remains a "paid for" product). You can't know what the competition does better by sticking your heads in the sand, plugging your ears, and going continually "nanananananana".

OK, now the Poser faithful can flame at will .... like they always do. I'll check back sometime to see if anyone really want's to have a real conversation about what I think Poser needs to become successful again. But my guess is like on the Lightwave forums, the Poser faithful really don't want my opinion, unless it's to say how great Poser is.

Peace out!

Don't leave yet. Let's hear more. Btw Dust Rider...Excellent Gallery.

Why do people keep saying get rid of,,, just because they don't use a feature. EClark said get rid of the face room. Well I use it, so why do you want to remove a feature that some people find useful just because you don't. I've never understood this. It's not as if these features get in the way. What is the logic for removing them?

I won't speak for Earl but I can agree with that. We all have our favorite parts of the program, I'd hate to lose the hair room before I could master it.

Nails60 posted at 5:45PM Thu, 08 August 2019 - #4358977

Why do people keep saying get rid of,,, just because they don't use a feature. EClark said get rid of the face room. Well I use it, so why do you want to remove a feature that some people find useful just because you don't. I've never understood this. It's not as if these features get in the way. What is the logic for removing them?

Actually, I have used it. Created a morph of Roxie I named Gwen and sold it at CP. I don't use it much now, though because most figures out today can't use it. Genesis can't, neither can Dawn, Victoria 1, 2, 3, or 4, or PE. I'm assuming Paul and Paline can use it, but I honestly don't know about La Femme. But you're right, I just don't think it's a very useful feature. You want to keep "Figure Height", too?

And the hair Room can be improved. Again, just take a gander at Blender.

I should add that since Poser already has a hair room, I am NOT asking Renderosity to copy Blender's Hair tool, but it can be made more responsive and with better styling. Give us ability to comb and brush the hair particles.

Whether I want to keep figure height is irrelevant, the point is I don't have a wish to get rid of it. What harm does it do? How would getting rid of it improve poser? If it was causing bugs, taking up space in the workspace or having other negative effects I could understand. But as I said, why do people have "wish" to get rid of things which don't cause a problem? It's a strange attitude I just don't comprehend at all.

Nails60 posted at 8:20PM Thu, 08 August 2019 - #4358987

Whether I want to keep figure height is irrelevant, the point is I don't have a wish to get rid of it. What harm does it do? How would getting rid of it improve poser? If it was causing bugs, taking up space in the workspace or having other negative effects I could understand. But as I said, why do people have "wish" to get rid of things which don't cause a problem? It's a strange attitude I just don't comprehend at all.

Well, for one thing it takes up space in the Menu Drop down list. Why not get rid of it and put something else there that people do use? Plus, it shortens the drop down list, making it less confusing to look at, particularly for newbies.

Any chance of adding support for Cycles Toonkit within Poser? Or more support for NPR similar to PSOFT Pencil for 3DS Max?

Also, would having a Poser surface for the reversed normal side be possible? For instance, with Dynamic cloth, a long coat could have an outside texture for the polygons facing the camera and another for the lining (those facing away from the camera) but it would be only one layer of polygons for the dynamic cloth to resolve. Displacement between the two material surfaces would render the cloth as having thickness.

Oh, and support for GPU rendering on OSX -- even across the Render Queue.

redspark posted at 12:35PM Fri, 09 August 2019 - #4359011

Any chance of adding support for Cycles Toonkit within Poser? Or more support for NPR similar to PSOFT Pencil for 3DS Max?

Also, would having a Poser surface for the reversed normal side be possible? For instance, with Dynamic cloth, a long coat could have an outside texture for the polygons facing the camera and another for the lining (those facing away from the camera) but it would be only one layer of polygons for the dynamic cloth to resolve. Displacement between the two material surfaces would render the cloth as having thickness.

Oh, and support for GPU rendering on OSX -- even across the Render Queue.

With Superfly, you can do a 2 sided texture with a single mesh.

(please excuse the rigging, I just threw it on her to show you)

phd has a great MR over at Hivewire that makes setting it up very simple: phd Photoreal Superfly

That can be done in Firefly too! Use a Blender node and plug what you want inside on Input_1, what you want outside on Input_2. Set Blending to 1, and connect it to a Math Functions node set to Step argument with value 1 as 0 and value 2 as one, and connect value 2 to an N node with x 0, y 0 and z 1.

I believe it was Bagginsbill who posted that trick here years ago - back then, I had the bad habit of saving the material room screenshots without the proper credit.

Thanks. That helps with the texture switching based on the normals. But there should be a way to make the single layer of polygons appear to be thicker -- almost extruded. Displacement really doesn't do it. Dynamic cloth never looks realistic at the edges because real cloth has a thickness but polygons don't.

May be someone has already suggested this but: Could we also have some way to group objects in a scene such that the materials can be added to the parent group and all children in the scene inherit the materials of the parent? Children that have materials set in a group override the parent. I think this would be useful for multi-prop scenes that are made up of modular architecture such as PICK. For instance, you could make a group called LivingRoom and add in several floor and wall props that tile together to make the room shape you're looking for. As soon as those props are grouped, the group parent has the same materials as all of the unique geometry in the group. Then when you set the material for the floor geometry in the parent, all of the floor props in that group have the same materials set.

redspark posted at 1:10PM Sat, 10 August 2019 - #4359075

Thanks. That helps with the texture switching based on the normals. But there should be a way to make the single layer of polygons appear to be thicker -- almost extruded. Displacement really doesn't do it. Dynamic cloth never looks realistic at the edges because real cloth has a thickness but polygons don't.

That's one request that's up above too - when we started talking about improvements to dynamic clothing. So you're not alone in wanting that :)

One quick note. Granted real cloth has thickness, but if you ever look at it, closely, depending, of course, on what type of cloth it is, most cloth really isn't THAT thick. And really thin cloth does usually have a hem, which actually gives the edge strength. And finally, almost any fabric that has thickness is going to really mess with the Cloth Simulator, and it will probably fail as the two sides of the fabric try to pass through each other and explode or something to that effect.

EClark1894 posted at 1:51PM Sat, 10 August 2019 - #4359088

One quick note. Granted real cloth has thickness, but if you ever look at it, closely, depending, of course, on what type of cloth it is, most cloth really isn't THAT thick. And really thin cloth does usually have a hem, which actually gives the edge strength. And finally, almost any fabric that has thickness is going to really mess with the Cloth Simulator, and it will probably fail as the two sides of the fabric try to pass through each other and explode or something to that effect.

What we'd like is some sort of modifier to add thickness AFTER the dynamic simulation is calculated.

What we'd like is some sort of modifier to add thickness AFTER the dynamic simulation is calculated.

Exactly. Something similar to displacement. It isn't really part of the geometry but is based on it and applied at render time. Just a setting that can be used to vary the thickness from anything from silk to suit wool.

redspark posted at 8:57PM Mon, 12 August 2019 - #4359075

Dynamic cloth never looks realistic at the edges because real cloth has a thickness but polygons don't.

Totally agree with that, and I also agree that having a modifier that could be applied when rendering that would thicken a mesh would be really useful.

It is possible to add details like hems now though at the modelling stage which seem to sim well. This is a recent experiment, single piece of dynamic cloth on La Femme, no post, some smoothing with the morph brush on the shoulder of the raised arm. Very loose cloth is really prone to intersections though, I'm building and testing different versions when I can.

"Figure height" => Worked for the Poser 4 people and older, and was never adapted to the newer figures. ( as was the internal code for hands grasp and spread")

"Face room" is from Poser 5 as are the "hair and cloth room". All driven by obsolete technology that was never updated.

Most can not be updated till issue 31615 is fixed. (Poser splitting obj files into individual vertex groups)

The alternate for Figure height is to take the original obj into Blender using my YouTube totorial and use the Poser scaling feature from Poser 11.

The alternate for the face room is to use my Video 1 and Video2.

My tutorial Video's can be found under : YouTube, Tony Vilters, Poser2Blender2Poser.

The alternate for grasp and spread is to make new morphs.

Nails60 posted at 6:37PM Tue, 13 August 2019 - #4358977

Why do people keep saying get rid of,,, just because they don't use a feature. EClark said get rid of the face room. Well I use it, so why do you want to remove a feature that some people find useful just because you don't. I've never understood this. It's not as if these features get in the way. What is the logic for removing them?

While I'm generally against removing features, there sometimes actually is a logic to it. Certain features only work with certain figures, but are often listed as "features" of the program. A user buys the program and finds the feature is useless because the figure, whether too old, too new, or too obscure, isn't supported. It makes the program look bad and can lead to arguments over whether the feature should be included or updated and if so at the expense of whatever features might be planned in the future. For example, new users are still instructed to download a large content archive. And Poser's advertising has frequently touted the number and variety of supplied figures. But these figures range in age from relatively recent to, in some cases, pre-dating Poser 4. These figures could be updated with weight maps and proper skin shaders, and many users have indeed done this countless times, but instead are included in their original form with little warning to a new user (who doesn't know which features were introduced in which versions) that they'd be better off to just leave them alone. There's hardly any reason for anyone to use a stock Posette figure except as a start to a time-consuming updating. That figure's clothing can be converted to newer figures and there no one thing about that particular figure that's superior to numerous figures offered since. In my mind not only are these figures a waste of time and bandwidth to download (aside from curiosity) but that more time is wasted by people trying to use them and the discussions about where they are lacking and how to improve them that often follows. I'll admit not knowing much about the faceroom, but it does seem to have become a neglected feature. If it has fallen behind the times and isn't used by a large percentage of users, then it should be updated or less prominently displayed. Blender just retired its legacy renderer for similar reasons. You'd think something like that could be included indefinitely but it turns out that when you update a program significantly those changes can affect the entire program, even parts that aren't specifically being improved. At some point those things actually can slow development.

The point is that you don't HAVE to get rid of the Face Room, but it shouldn't be limited by default to just a few figures or, yeah, it's virtually useless. At least continue development and bring in more figures to use like Dawn and PE.

Earl, now please tell us WHY you need the face room?

You "can"

• Create morphs in free apps like Blender. The only limitation is your imagination.
• Create morphs using the Poser internal morph brush that even works on a SubD mesh and can bake down to base mesh.
• Some figures have chips, they only lack the Coke that goes with them.
• Mix and stir all existing morphs at will.

With all these "newer" options, that did not exist in Poser 5 when the face room came out, we can pretty much state that the face room became obsolete over the years.

If I was in charge of Poser, the face room went out, and I would not spend a second of developers time on it, but concentrate in area's that do NOT have a replacement yet like Hair and Cloth room.

I use the face room because it is easier to use than any other option on those figures it supports. To me, the whole point of using poser is to make things as easy as possible. I use poser because I am not an artist, I don't have the skills to create the sort of content I want to use, that is why I spend a considerable money on content. If I want a random face on a figure in a crowd, simply load a figure in the face room and click a few times on random face until I find one that suits.

And combining the face room with the morph brush generally makes life easier. I didn't say spend lots of time developing the face room, I just objected to people who want features removed seemingly purely because they don't use them.

I don't believe posters to these forums are typical poser users, everyone needs to consider that the way they use poser might be very different from the way others do. I don't want to use Blender. I've installed it, looked at tutorials and even bought books on how to use it. But any desire I have to use it is so rare that the effort is just not worth my time.

If we remove features from poser just because you can do that in a different program imho that will lose more of the user base to other programs.

Honestly? It should be just a matter of going into Preferences and ticking room tabs on and off.

It's really annoying to me when I accidentaly click Face Room or Hair room when I'm trying to get into the others cause I never use those two... but I don't think it should be removed from the program. Make it user-friendly, give us an option "show Face Room" "Show Hair Room". And all the others too, because some people simply don't do content creation at all and all they need is the Pose room.

on/off is a good idea.

i was talking with someone not that long ago who, in brainstorming things, suggested having Room Modules - meaning that your basic rooms [Pose & Material] come with Poser directly [base Poser, not a Pro version]. in doing this, the cost of the base program is reduced a bit, because you could then buy any additional 'rooms' separately to add-on, like a Cloth room, or a Face room, etc. if said 'rooms' were things that interested YOU specifically...

i thought it was any interesting idea. not sure, muchless how, it would be done, but interesting nonetheless.

and before anyone gets in a tither about what i've written, i'm not advocating anything; i merely found the idea innovative... shrug

Modo does this and I -love- it. We can select favorites for each "room" and then choose to show all tabs or simply favorites. Makes life so much easier. Having this in Poser would be a huge plus.

Afrodite-Ohki posted at 1:23PM Wed, 14 August 2019 - #4359349

Honestly? It should be just a matter of going into Preferences and ticking room tabs on and off.

It's really annoying to me when I accidentaly click Face Room or Hair room when I'm trying to get into the others cause I never use those two... but I don't think it should be removed from the program. Make it user-friendly, give us an option "show Face Room" "Show Hair Room". And all the others too, because some people simply don't do content creation at all and all they need is the Pose room.

nightsong posted at 2:00PM Wed, 14 August 2019 - #4359360

Modo does this and I -love- it. We can select favorites for each "room" and then choose to show all tabs or simply favorites. Makes life so much easier. Having this in Poser would be a huge plus.

A certain other application, which I shall not name, does that as well, just like Modo does: Windows -> Panes (Tabs) -> {Pick what ye want or don't...}

But that's not why I popped in.

I popped in because I wanted to see just how far gone my memory was, to wit: Didn't Poser have the ability to turn tabs (okay, "rooms") and other UI elements on and off way back in the day? It was either that or the ability to minimize and hide all the crap you didn't want, can't remember which, and I'm not shaking out an ancient Poser 7 CD and doing an install just to find out. Either way, if it's not there now, it shouldn't be too awful hard to put back in...

tonyvilters posted at 5:39PM Wed, 14 August 2019 - #4359332

Earl, now please tell us WHY you need the face room?

You "can"

• Create morphs in free apps like Blender. The only limitation is your imagination.
• Create morphs using the Poser internal morph brush that even works on a SubD mesh and can bake down to base mesh.
• Some figures have chips, they only lack the Coke that goes with them.
• Mix and stir all existing morphs at will.

With all these "newer" options, that did not exist in Poser 5 when the face room came out, we can pretty much state that the face room became obsolete over the years.

If I was in charge of Poser, the face room went out, and I would not spend a second of developers time on it, but concentrate in area's that do NOT have a replacement yet like Hair and Cloth room.

Tony, I'm in favor of getting rid of the Face Room. Personally, I find it limited and it hasn't been developed since they put it in. That said, my last post was more to why I'd leave it in, provided they developed it some more and added more figures to support. If they're not willing to do that, then sayonara, Face Room.

Penguinisto posted at 6:58PM Wed, 14 August 2019 - #4359370

nightsong posted at 2:00PM Wed, 14 August 2019 - #4359360

Modo does this and I -love- it. We can select favorites for each "room" and then choose to show all tabs or simply favorites. Makes life so much easier. Having this in Poser would be a huge plus.

A certain other application, which I shall not name, does that as well, just like Modo does: Windows -> Panes (Tabs) -> {Pick what ye want or don't...}

But that's not why I popped in.

I popped in because I wanted to see just how far gone my memory was, to wit: Didn't Poser have the ability to turn tabs (okay, "rooms") and other UI elements on and off way back in the day? It was either that or the ability to minimize and hide all the crap you didn't want, can't remember which, and I'm not shaking out an ancient Poser 7 CD and doing an install just to find out. Either way, if it's not there now, it shouldn't be too awful hard to put back in...

No, the tabs couldn't be closed, at least not in the program. I can't say there wasn't a hack somewhere along the line, but I never heard of one. All the controls could be hidden, but they can still be. There was also a show all tools and hide all tools option. This is all based on poser 7, the earliest I have on my machine.

RedPhantom posted at 7:14PM Wed, 14 August 2019 - #4359393

No, the tabs couldn't be closed, at least not in the program. I can't say there wasn't a hack somewhere along the line, but I never heard of one. All the controls could be hidden, but they can still be. There was also a show all tools and hide all tools option. This is all based on poser 7, the earliest I have on my machine.

Excellent - thank you for indulging me on that one :)

OK, another couple of features in my seemingly endless list of things that should have been implemented since Poser 1, but didn't fit the paradigm of figure based posing:

The ability to save and apply library poses to props not currently parented to any figure. Have you ever scaled a box prop and placed it somewhere convenient in a scene that you'd like to be able to replicate on another freshly loaded box, without having to clutter up your prop library? Try applying a pose to a prop that isn't part of a figure and see whether it (doesn't) happen(s).

I have a library full of various deformer zone falloff curve profiles, which I can happily load and apply to any zone parented to a figure. But woe betide that I should want to apply them to a scene prop's deformer zone with no figure affiliation. Ba-Doom! Thankyou for playing!

While we're on zone falloff curve point assignment, these are inaccessible to Poser's Python API, so there's no workaround, unless you consider creating a new, dummy figure in a scene, temporarily parenting the deformer to it to apply a pose, then unparenting the deformer. YUCK! PTOOIE! I've written a Poser file parser that can read these falloff curve points, but has no mechanism with which to apply them, and cannot fall back on Poser's own LoadLibraryPose() method, because that still won't apply anything to an unparented prop!

Has anyone asked for instancing in this thread yet?

Penguinisto posted at 2:51PM Sat, 17 August 2019 - #4359370

nightsong posted at 2:00PM Wed, 14 August 2019 - #4359360

Modo does this and I -love- it. We can select favorites for each "room" and then choose to show all tabs or simply favorites. Makes life so much easier. Having this in Poser would be a huge plus.

A certain other application, which I shall not name, does that as well, just like Modo does: Windows -> Panes (Tabs) -> {Pick what ye want or don't...}

But that's not why I popped in.

I popped in because I wanted to see just how far gone my memory was, to wit: Didn't Poser have the ability to turn tabs (okay, "rooms") and other UI elements on and off way back in the day? It was either that or the ability to minimize and hide all the crap you didn't want, can't remember which, and I'm not shaking out an ancient Poser 7 CD and doing an install just to find out. Either way, if it's not there now, it shouldn't be too awful hard to put back in...

Yes you could actually hide rooms before but it could only be done with a file hack. Some of us did that with the CP Tab.

Here's another wish-list item for Poser 12: Superfly shadowing inaccurate away from scene origin

While it's still available on the SM Forum, it seems much easier to just link to the thread, but here's a summary:

Due to presumed floating point underflow conditions, Superfly renders exhibit shadowing artifacts on close objects when both camera and objects are located far (> 40 metres) from the scene origin. This could be fixed with adaptive arithmetic logic (dynamically increase floating point exponent size to prevent mantissa underflow).

As a further adjunct to my previous wish (library pose applicability on unparented props), this would, of course need to apply to grouping objects as well, so they can be conveniently placed where required by a pose, without needing to be parented to a figure.

I just got into Poser and 3D, so perhaps I don't know what I'm talking about, but it seems to me that a program called Poser ought to have MUCH better posing mechanics. There are no even slightly realistic constraints on what limbs do, and it's often difficult to avoid moving an arm or leg in such a way that it seems to collapse or radically distort the mesh. Also, in customizing a figure, I find that it's far too easy to make the interface between two parts obnoxiously visible. There ought to be a way to automatically keep the bottom of the waist morph consistent with the top of the hip morph, etc. Of course, maybe all these things exist, which brings me to the next point- how about some decent documentation? Other than the manual, which really isn't that informative about a lot of issues, there is not a lot of Poser 11 info out there- many issues can only be explored by going back to tutorials from ancient versions, and there's no good way to tell if the info is still valid until you spend a lot of time trying to make it work. A relatively small thing about the library- there ought to be a way to view all the stuff associated with, say, a single figure, in a single list: Figure, hair, poses, materials, etc. These things would make the program a lot more user friendly for people who have no idea what they're doing, like myself.

@HKHan99 welcome! You are not alone in desiring things from Poser that those of us who have been using it from version 1 have been wishing for nearly 20 years. Any child of any gender who's ever played with a doll or action figure knows that you can't bend an arm through the body. Poser's initial incarnation was as a posing aid for artists, with a figure (fondly called "Woody") like those string and ball-jointed models seen in many an artist's studio. But Woody in Poser is not wood and string, but polygons and pixels, which exist in a virtual realm where almost anything is possible (a la The Matrix) and any restrictions or limitations on posing a figure or props must be implemented at a very low level. Joint rotations for limbs CAN have limits set in Poser, so that when rotating parameter dials, the limits of joint bends are adhered to.

Unfortunately, not everything is so simple. Inverse Kinematics, where multiple actors are rotated and positioned in a chain by dragging one body part around, involves quite complex calculations to solve the necessary rotation angles. For early Poser, on 20 year old Mac/PC hardware, it was much easier and more responsive to just let the algorithm do its thing and ignore joint rotation limits. Now most modern PCs certainly have the grunt to deal with that AND apply joint limits to IK posing responsively, but Poser's ownership and development teams have had other pressing priorities (bugs, new features) to deal with, so this hasn't happened yet.

Dealing with soft-body dynamics, which handles how skin and flesh would deform when limbs collide is another area where Poser could have pushed the boundaries, but has not yet arrived at a point where it's seamless and simple to do and "Just happens" when users expect it to. We have a Bullet physics engine which could potentially do that, but as with many features of Poser which originated externally to the development team, there are restrictions on how well such things can be integrated into Poser, especially if they have to be licensed.

I remember that there have been quite a few excellent How-To references for Poser over the years, which covered topics such as figure creation and conformed/dynamic clothing that suddenly become dated when Poser releases a new feature that was not previously available. Poser's manuals, though replete with much detailed information, have never had the luxury of explaining at length WHY a user would use certain techniques in creating their artwork, rather than others. That kind of information, can generally be found in forums like this, though. Many experienced hobbyists and vendors are delighted to be able to assist newcomers to Poser and 3D art.

Just ask, and we'll try to help ?

Hi,

I am using subdivisions a lot, and there is some issues with that system.

I would love, for example, that the symmetrical copy of a morph could work properly at very high sub levels. In general, it creates some strange distortion problems. Sometimes its not that bad, just some weird angle problems on some triangles... But sometimes, there is a vertex that is so much offset from the surface that the whole morph is unusable...

Also, the dynamic clothes does not interact correctly with the highest level of subdivision.

Bigmuff72 posted at 11:31AM Mon, 19 August 2019 - #4359804

Hi,

I am using subdivisions a lot, and there is some issues with that system.

I would love, for example, that the symmetrical copy of a morph could work properly at very high sub levels. In general, it creates some strange distortion problems. Sometimes its not that bad, just some weird angle problems on some triangles... But sometimes, there is a vertex that is so much offset from the surface that the whole morph is unusable...

Also, the dynamic clothes does not interact correctly with the highest level of subdivision.

I've found, and maybe it's just me, that one reason subdivisions aren't symmetrical is because the model isn't built symmetrically.

Bigmuff72 posted at 11:31AM Mon, 19 August 2019 - #4359804

Hi,

I am using subdivisions a lot, and there is some issues with that system.

I would love, for example, that the symmetrical copy of a morph could work properly at very high sub levels. In general, it creates some strange distortion problems. Sometimes its not that bad, just some weird angle problems on some triangles... But sometimes, there is a vertex that is so much offset from the surface that the whole morph is unusable...

Also, the dynamic clothes does not interact correctly with the highest level of subdivision.

I've found, and maybe it's just me, that one reason subdivisions aren't symmetrical is because the model isn't built symmetrically.

an0malaus posted at 11:07AM Mon, 19 August 2019 - #4359798

Just ask, and we'll try to help ?

Thanks, anOmalaus! My first interest in Poser was actually as a drawing aid- not so much for the pose-doll aspect per se (something done very nicely by a number of cheap and easy to use programs lately), but for accurate character models under high contrast lighting schemes- basically to aid in character consistency in comics and illustration series. Given the rather large amount of set up work required to get these results, though, I am trending more toward doing the extra labor involved in rendering out comic panels instead of aids to drawing them- but am finding the rendering controls for this kind of thing rather obtuse. (The comic outline feature, for instance, is pretty awful and draws a lot of garbage where no artist would. I get that this can be selectively turned off for some things, but oh my!). I don't know much about the technical end of rendering, but it would be lovely to have more transparent controls and perhaps some ability to connect user-defined scripts to make some of the effects smarter.

EClark1894 posted at 12:49PM Mon, 19 August 2019 - #4359821

Bigmuff72 posted at 11:31AM Mon, 19 August 2019 - #4359804

Hi,

I am using subdivisions a lot, and there is some issues with that system.

I would love, for example, that the symmetrical copy of a morph could work properly at very high sub levels. In general, it creates some strange distortion problems. Sometimes its not that bad, just some weird angle problems on some triangles... But sometimes, there is a vertex that is so much offset from the surface that the whole morph is unusable...

Also, the dynamic clothes does not interact correctly with the highest level of subdivision.

I've found, and maybe it's just me, that one reason subdivisions aren't symmetrical is because the model isn't built symmetrically.

V4 for example is symmetrical, i checked several times within Zbrush.

Poser should be able to read "Sharp edges". Imagine what could be build with far less geometry if sharp edges where properly read. (Curently the value is ignored).

Okay, I've been messing around with the renderers quite a bit, and here's my big wish: For Superfly and Firefly, there should be a way to plug global effects processes at the back end of the process. In other words, let all the individual objects have their individual materials as they exist now, but intercept the process for ALL of them to apply procedures and textures across the whole render. And, of course, there should be a tick-box for each individual element or group of elements to exempt it from the global process. It seems to me that Preview mode allows this- the toon display mode, for instance, but the display modes don't allow much fine control or any insertion of user procedures.

Hi, About the last interview. Can someone of Poser developers explain: why is it so hard to sell just Poser engine? During 20 years all of us have accumulated tons of content. There are great 3d party figures. Only thing we need is Poser itself.

I dont know f this is addressed anywhere in the preceding pages, but if by some chance the developers are still looking at this thread, may I add two more requests?

A tool that will grab up everything — whether to do a mass delete or a mass grouping. There are a couple of vendors here whose work I love, except that everything is in a kazillion parts that all have to be deleted individually if I dont need them in a scene — and it's a huge waste of time looking for every single light switch knob and piece of plumbing. If I could just draw a big ol circle around them and hit delete, things would be a lot easier.

Second, an option to flip between poser documents — essentially being able to open two at once — so I could move things from one to another.

@SeanMartin - it's possible to select and delete multiple items from the Hierarchy window; also P11 can save partial scenes, it'll open a list where you can tick off which items you want to save - if that helps?

Check out http://d3d.sesseler.de/index.php?software=poserpython&product=delete for a script that will allow you to select and delete many things at once.

I would like improvements in the cloth room and hair room. The thing about rendering the edges of dynamic cloth thicker is a great idea. The Hair Room just needs to be better all around. Better hair shaders, better handling of memory so hair doesn't go through things it's supposed to collide with, easier styling. I still use the hair room, but honestly, I think it's gotten harder to use in the later versions of Poser, rather than easier.

I would also like to be able to use La Femme (and L'Homme) in the Face Room.

Let's see, if we're limiting it to 5 items, I have two left. I'd like better toon rendering options.

And I'd the ability to lock the workspace, or remember the settings. I sometimes accidentally drag a palette where I don't want it to be, and it's a pain to try and get everything back the way it was.

randym77 posted at 10:32AM Fri, 23 August 2019 - #4360225

And I'd the ability to lock the workspace, or remember the settings. I sometimes accidentally drag a palette where I don't want it to be, and it's a pain to try and get everything back the way it was.

Already possible.

Every palette has this tiny triangle button pointing down - click it and switch off "Drag-Docking enabled". I used to do what you said all the time so I switched off drag-docking on all of them, this will make it impossible for you to move the palettes. Just switch it back on when you actually do want to adjust your interface, then back off when you're done.

Isn't this what the ui dots are for. If you have a ui setup you like just click on a ui dot to store it, then you can return to the ui you want, The first thing I do when using a new install of poser is to click on the first ui dot while the ui is in default so it is easy to get back to this, then set up my ui as to how I want it and click on the second dot And you can do this for each room.

UI Dots can help, but keep in mind, if the drag n drop is enabled for a window when you set the UI dot, it will be re-enabled when you use that dot again.

I know how to use UI dots and the floating/docked/docking enabled thing, but what I'd really like is a way to lock everything at once. Setting each palette one by one is a right pain. The dots have to be done for each room (and I somehow manage to lose the UI dots palette sometimes). I'd really like a pull-down lock/unlock option that does everything - all palettes, all rooms. (Since, so far at least, I have never managed to lose the topbar menu.)