I don't want to start a fight. I swear I don't. So, I've purposely tried to frame this question so as to avoid that. Please let's do that.

One thing that I've noticed about Poser is that after one or two versions of a Poser figure, they tend to start all over again, with the only exception to that seeming to be Miki, who got up to version 4 before she disappeared. So, should Renderosity continue with version numbering La Femme? Should they bring back Miki 5? And most of all, what improvements would you MOST like to see in the next version of figure released by Poser?

I don't really see the point in having figures have the same name unless they are just updates. But if you want to add new features, then you need to start a new figure. A problem with the Mikis, Vickys, and Genesises is that you have 4 or 5 of them that can't share each other's assets without conversion. But if you search for something for one of them in a market or freebie section you'll likely get stuff for her sisters. To keep compatibility would limit the upgrades you can make on them. If they aren't going to be compatible, you might as well avoid confusion and give them different names.

All that said, it doesn't mean that older figures should be ignored once the new figure comes out. If improvements could be made to Lafemme, then do it. Poser has long neglected content so people couldn't use the figures. Yeah, you could use wardrobe wizard to the fitting room to get them clothing, and the universal pose function was supposed to allow us to use other figure's poses, but without morphs and textures you end up with a room full of clones.

As for what I'd like to see in a new figure is for the poser team to review the complaints that killed the other figures and see what can be done to avoid them in the futures, things like lack of symmetry, poor bending, over-reliance on JCMs (not saying not to have any but limited) good topography, a thoughtful number of material zones, not so many it takes you forever to change them by hand but not so few you need to use masks to separate them, and enough content to get started.

RedPhantom posted at 5:25PM Tue, 05 November 2019 - #4369284

I don't really see the point in having figures have the same name unless they are just updates. But if you want to add new features, then you need to start a new figure. A problem with the Mikis, Vickys, and Genesises is that you have 4 or 5 of them that can't share each other's assets without conversion. But if you search for something for one of them in a market or freebie section you'll likely get stuff for her sisters. To keep compatibility would limit the upgrades you can make on them. If they aren't going to be compatible, you might as well avoid confusion and give them different names.

You could always do what DAZ used to do when they upgraded the Vickies, and just change the heads on the newer bodies with the older models. Then too, you do have the Fitting Room in Poser now, so you could still make them wear the older clothing.

I know what I want but I have no idea how to achieve it. Simply put, any figure to be able to bend in the same way as a human, without showing odd creases, folds, flat areas, tears or breaks. For body parts to follow each other in a realistic way and for any body fat - if applicable, to behave in the way it does on a real human figure. All this and to be easy to use. Oh, and morphable enough so the base figure doesn't show through after a new character is created.

Yeah, it's a lot to expect but you did ask.

The only reason you need a new figure is if the program has new features that the old figure can't handle. So what do you think the program is going to do that requires a new figure?

RedPhantom posted at 7:01PM Tue, 05 November 2019 - #4369284

I don't really see the point in having figures have the same name unless they are just updates. But if you want to add new features, then you need to start a new figure. A problem with the Mikis, Vickys, and Genesises is that you have 4 or 5 of them that can't share each other's assets without conversion.

Well, sorta... but I can't just cram a 2003 Dodge Ram V-10 engine into the engine bay of my 2017 Ram 1500, either - yet they both bear the same name, and even have the same Ram's-Head badging and general crosshair grille design.

The point is that, given the timescales involved (especially here in the software world), companies will keep the name, but evolution demands that stuff changes. That's the way it is...

For giggles, I recently converted a 2002-era Vicky 3 skin and put it on Genesis 8. I had to run it through a couple of texture converters (one of those converters - originally sold by 3D Universe, aka Dark Whisper - I had to dig up from its CD-bound grave and install it in Windows in compatibility mode so that it would work... I know, right?), convert it for iRay use, and I had to concoct a subsurface map myself so it would render nicely in iRay. I'm willing to bet a similar process would await me if I wanted to use a Jessie skin (Poser 5) on La Femme or Dawn.

Now here's the good news on both fronts: In Genesis-land, G8 can use nearly all of G3 stuff w/o issue (they also share the same UV Maps, IIRC), with only the poses and geografted stuff being different (the pose difference is basically joint-shifting, and geografting was pretty much brand new right before G8 came out). In Poser-land, I strongly suspect that Rendo wants to do something similar in order to maximize their catalog inventory over time. Betting that Hivewire will likely want to do the same if they can.

Overall, I think that future updates are gonna be incremental, unless some new uber-wow new tech comes out of nowhere that will require a radical difference in mesh or rigging or etc.

The name techically is immaterial but like a family name it may help to get the category. The Mikis are a line of SE Asian figures. Terai Yuki was a (short) line of toon figures. Choice of a name is a marketing consideration. Re-using a name could lead to confusion, but can also help recognition.

The key problem in this poserverse, diversity, is also its strength. Had the figure specification been clear and fixed: rig topology, mesh topology and UV mapping shall be as for P4 female or Poser refuses to load it, then any possible change could have been accomplished by a morph, a pose, and a material file. I wonder whether the fold would still have existed though.

Problem we have is that every developer of a new figure wants to stand out and makes his own rigging hierarchy, his own uv mapping, and so on, makes his own set of proprietary morphs, with self-invented names, wields intellectual property rights over all of this, and then wonders why so few people are using their figure. Sure control chips and facial rigging are still a bit new technology and experience grows with time. UV mapping has been there since the Poser1 figure however, so I fail to understand why that has not yet converged. What was the big flaw in the UV layout of Pauline that made the makers of La Femme choose a different one? Paul/Pauline were free to use. There were no copyright issues on the UV layout. There were good skins around for Pauline so WHY was there a new UV layout that required starting all over again?

So, most important now: STANDARDISATION!!!

• Single rig topology,

• Single mesh topology (or if must one specific for each gender)

• Single UV mapping

• Standard set of body morphs (the ones affecting clothing fit).

I think its important to consider at what level this would apply. Given we're still in the innovative stage in the technology if any standard was applied at the mesh level as soon as someone invented a new fancy pants way of doing something any restriction would soon be seen as a roadblock. Most standards/protocols I've come across describe a set of rules how something is done but does not define the implementation. As an example, if PBR could be called a standard, it defines the parameters and calculations but not how its implemented. SM implemented it via the physical root node, but once this was done it meant PBR mats from other applications could be used with Superfly. How/if this could be done for rigging/uv maps I don't know - possibly this is something that will resolved by the games industry.

So when I originally asked this question, here's what I was thinking about: figure density, like whether it need to be higher in subdivisions. Should there be be more detail in modeling, or should that be more HD morphs? Rigging? Weightmapping?

SubD levels are one consideration, but as far as how detail is applied, there are multiple philosophies on this. Personally, I'd like to see something you can adjust - dial up the SubD when the figure is close-up so you can get those details, but dial it way down when the figure is in the distance because details no longer matter.

Or better - yet... how's this for an idea: Unreal Tournament ('member that game?) did the de-rez thing for its meshes programmatically in the Unreal Engine - close-up figures and objects had oodles of detail so it all looked (for the time!) nice and realistic, but far away figures were un-SubD'd (is that a word?) as their distance from the player POV increased, in order to take pressure off of both the CPU and GPU (they did it so that the framerates stayed high and game play could remain smooth).

Maybe Poser could do something similar? Figures could automatically lop-down SubD levels (or fractions thereof) as their distance from the camera increased? This would of course have to be calc'd between the "render button pushed" stage and when it gets handed off to the render engine, but it seems doable. Given that the tech is at least 20 years old, it shouldn't be too much of a burden, or increase overall render times by much (in fact I daresay the time savings from the actual render process would more than offset any additional time taken to rez-balance a scene in preparation for rendering...)

I implemented level-of-detail for Krystal, years ago, though it could only be used properly in DAZ Studio. While Poser doesn't have an auomated LoD feature yet, we could probably emulate some of that functionality right now using Python scripting to calculate distance-from-camera, and either geometry-swapping or the decimation features of the Game Dev code branch to handle the swap-out.

I'd like more sub d's in the base figure. I'd like the base figure to be rather vanilla - just a middle of the road attractive male/female that could be easily morphed in any direction and be able to lose the recognition of the original figure. I think a base mesh should be a base. Everytime I bought some HD addon at DAZ I always felt cheated - that it was just another way to squeeze the consumer.

BTW, I remember when Genesis started out, it was a single mesh that could become male or female. Personally, I remember when V4 did that, and I didn't much like the ambiguity in meshes. So is it still important to some people that the mesh beable to be male or female?

I do want separate male and female meshes, also, as idiotic as it is, no gens bothers the hell out of me lol

Little_Dragon posted at 11:27AM Wed, 06 November 2019 - #4369369

I implemented level-of-detail for Krystal, years ago, though it could only be used properly in DAZ Studio. While Poser doesn't have an auomated LoD feature yet, we could probably emulate some of that functionality right now using Python scripting to calculate distance-from-camera, and either geometry-swapping or the decimation features of the Game Dev code branch to handle the swap-out.

LoD! THAT's the term I was looking for!

( Gratzi! )

EClark1894 posted at 11:30AM Wed, 06 November 2019 - #4369375

BTW, I remember when Genesis started out, it was a single mesh that could become male or female. Personally, I remember when V4 did that, and I didn't much like the ambiguity in meshes. So is it still important to some people that the mesh be able to be male or female?

The Unimesh concept is still in play, and the way Genesis is built, it tends to work pretty well (I can hang male clothes on the female, use the poses for whomever, and I haven't tried it yet, but I think the UVMaps swap out no sweat, etc.) Also, Unimesh was a thing in V3/M3 and V4/M4, though it operated differently and neither they or G2/3/8 do that male/female dial thingy anymore.

Little_Dragon posted at 1:51PM Wed, 06 November 2019 - #4369369

I implemented level-of-detail for Krystal, years ago, though it could only be used properly in DAZ Studio. While Poser doesn't have an auomated LoD feature yet, we could probably emulate some of that functionality right now using Python scripting to calculate distance-from-camera, and either geometry-swapping or the decimation features of the Game Dev code branch to handle the swap-out.

Sorry to derail the topic everyone, but...Merciful Mogg! Little Dragon! Where the ^&*$!!! have you been?! You're like the mythical city of Brigadoon, appearing from the mists after a long absence only to vanish again for months or years at a time the moment one glances away!

Sincerely,

Bill

Well Poser does have LoD and and subd, SubD is fuly scriptable but LoD is not easily callable in Python because it comes with a dialog asking for input.
Distance to camera (of the origin of the body actor) is easily done. One would have to trap the render commands, or use an alternattive button to start the render. I use that already for a script that allows me to set the focal distance. .

If you are not interested in a detailed genital area, I would see no reason not to use one single mesh topology and rigging for all figures. In the end Poser is a way to define geometry facets in a workspace and render them. no more, no less. What sets Poser apart from general purpose 3D apps is is the tools to control the positions of these facets.

If you would make a control mechnism for it (on a WxPanel that you can hook into the interface) any funky way to arrange the facets that make up a figure could be used. For the rest of Poser such Funky New Tech Figure (FNTF) would just be a prop. You'd lose some of the support functions Poser has, but FNTF would play nicely with its old school roommates and perhaps even be able to use the cloth room.

If you are not interested in a detailed genital area, I would see no reason not to use one single mesh topology and rigging for all figures

...and if you are, something like Geografting would fix that in a hurry (you could add male or female plumbing that way, machts nichts.)

Should Miki be brought back for number 5? Should there be a La Femme 3? I'd really like to see a male version of Miki.

Penguinisto posted at 8:24AM Thu, 07 November 2019 - #4369397

...and if you are, something like Geografting would fix that in a hurry (you could add male or female plumbing that way, machts nichts.)

Sure grafting goes a long way but I wanted to leave that out of the discussion and just talk the base version, and leave out monkey tails, elephant's trunks and the like.

EClark1894 posted at 8:30AM Thu, 07 November 2019 - #4369398

Should Miki be brought back for number 5? Should there be a La Femme 3? I'd really like to see a male version of Miki.

I understand there are some ownership issues with the legacy figures. Bondware takes a prett cold position towards Paul/Pauline or even Roxy who was received not too bad at the time. I can imagine a native SE Asian figure with mesh and rigging topology and UV mapping same as La Femme. Same holds for an African figure.

What would La Femme 3 have to bring? I do not expect Bondware will jump on key changes in the infrastructure or, may heaven forbid, changes in anything that may bring a change from how things were 15 years ago. With PoserPro 11.2 they grafted an annoying and fragile system of fake library files calling Python scripts only to avoid using the system of product information .xml files that Poser has and supports.

Redfern posted at 2:45PM Thu, 07 November 2019 - #4369383

Merciful Mogg! Little Dragon! Where the ^&*$!!! have you been?!

Slumming about in Second Life, mostly. Tinkering with the new Worgen character from World of Warcraft. Also taking time out to master Blender, and familiarise myself with the newest features in Poser and my video-editing applications. Once I understand how these tools work (and often don't work), I can start devising ways to overcome their inherent limitations.

The problem with the single mesh UV topology for both male and female is that it doesnt work. Example: Kyle 1.5, which is my go-to mesh these days, is based off Krystal, and the result is that the chest textures on Kyle get shoved way out of proportion and squeezed into the valley between Krystal's breasts, something that also affects how clothing is rebuilt in Wardrobe Wizard: it's like it's looking for breasts that no longer exist because the UVs are telling it that they're there. I've finally figured how to make it work, but only through a lot of trial and error, and even then it's not as good as it could be.

UV coordinates are assigned to vertices (points) so they are tied to the topology of the mesh, with all the limitations that follow.

The only texturing system that does not use UV coordinates that I have heard of is PTEX.

A figure with different UVs, JPs and Rigging would probably gain nothing from being part of a series name-branding. Horizotal name identity for similarly rigged and UVd figures of different ethnicity seem OK from user perspective.

I'd like futurePoser figures to be compatible with VRoid export (or, VRM file format. It is a GLTF 2.0 file wrapped with a IP-protection layer for rights usage in interactive Augmented and virtual reality).

Currently, Dawn is undergoing improvements to make her Dawn 2.0. Chris is using the same mesh, but making changes in both UVs and rigging. Are you saying that this can't be done for La Femme for some reason? And admittedly, I'm not looking for La Femme 8.0 .

caisson posted at 4:51PM Sun, 10 November 2019 - #4369507

UV coordinates are assigned to vertices (points) so they are tied to the topology of the mesh, with all the limitations that follow.

What matters is the mapping from 3D space to 2D space. The actual vertices are immaterial. They are just interpolation points. If you subdivide the mesh, the textures do not change.

The actual cutting of the mesh is more or less standard between modern figures, with seams in places where they are least likely to be in full view as far as practicable for the expected average use.

EClark1894 posted at 5:55PM Sun, 10 November 2019 - #4369696

Currently, Dawn is undergoing improvements to make her Dawn 2.0. Chris is using the same mesh, but making changes in both UVs and rigging. Are you saying that this can't be done for La Femme for some reason? And admittedly, I'm not looking for La Femme 8.0 .

It's not the same mesh. It's a new mesh built on the old one.

I think the more relevent question is : who should be the PRIMARY supplier of the next generation of poser figures.

Crowd sourcing the poser native figure development to various third parties, whom all have their own philosophies, has not worked very well in the past.

native figures and core application development CANNOT occur separately from each other by various disparate cottage industrialists

Thus far Bondware appears to be making this same fatal mistake

Without ONE central authority enforcing UNIFORM FIGURE STANDARDS that content creators can implement, there will never again be broad vendor support for poser figures only a few scattered partisans here and there making items for thier favorite figure from the lot.

Implementing figure enhancing , CORE APPLICATION FEATURES such as a modern dynamic hair system,modern Character animation tools with functional IK or an easier clothing rigging etc. has to be done by the people who own both the core program and the primary figures.

One of the symptoms of madness is doing the same thing, over and over, yet expecting a different result. Poser vendors have made it very clear over the past decade or so that they will not support any figure that comes with Poser. Until someone figures out how to get the vendors on board, a new figure is simply a waste of time and resources.

As a Poser customer, I would prefer better fitting room support, Texture Transformer support, a Hair Control System module for figures, and something like Phil C's Shoe Last.

If I have that, then it doesn't matter if vendors support a new figure - as a Poser customer, I'd have the freedom to use whatever figure strikes my fancy, as opposed to just 1 figure.

ssgbryan posted at 3:29PM Mon, 11 November 2019 - #4369844

One of the symptoms of madness is doing the same thing, over and over, yet expecting a different result. Poser vendors have made it very clear over the past decade or so that they will not support any figure that comes with Poser. Until someone figures out how to get the vendors on board, a new figure is simply a waste of time and resources.

As a Poser customer, I would prefer better fitting room support, Texture Transformer support, a Hair Control System module for figures, and something like Phil C's Shoe Last.

If I have that, then it doesn't matter if vendors support a new figure - as a Poser customer, I'd have the freedom to use whatever figure strikes my fancy, as opposed to just 1 figure.

ROFLMAO, you have that option NOW.

No one is forcing you to use La Femme or any other figure.

Did someone somehow erase all those figures out of your product library? And, if so, given your years of preaching, one would think you have enough experience to create and rig your own figure.

ssgbryan posted at 3:46PM Mon, 11 November 2019 - #4369844

One of the symptoms of madness is doing the same thing, over and over, yet expecting a different result. Poser vendors have made it very clear over the past decade or so that they will not support any figure that comes with Poser. Until someone figures out how to get the vendors on board, a new figure is simply a waste of time and resources.

As a Poser customer, I would prefer better fitting room support, Texture Transformer support, a Hair Control System module for figures, and something like Phil C's Shoe Last.

If I have that, then it doesn't matter if vendors support a new figure - as a Poser customer, I'd have the freedom to use whatever figure strikes my fancy, as opposed to just 1 figure.

Apparently no one ever reads the original post in a thread. I wasn't asking for a new figure to support, but what, if any, IMPROVEMENTS to the current one should be made. I do find it hard to believe that any vendors wouldn't want to see any improvements to a figure, but I do agree with you about increasing the Fitting Room support.

SamTherapy posted at 4:53PM Mon, 11 November 2019 - #4369294

I know what I want but I have no idea how to achieve it. Simply put, any figure to be able to bend in the same way as a human, without showing odd creases, folds, flat areas, tears or breaks. For body parts to follow each other in a realistic way and for any body fat - if applicable, to behave in the way it does on a real human figure. All this and to be easy to use. Oh, and morphable enough so the base figure doesn't show through after a new character is created.

Yeah, it's a lot to expect but you did ask.

It's a lot to ask only because we're so close to the limit of what can be done within the confines of how Poser has always worked. There is no conservation of volume, parts don't automagically deform when they collide with each other. Such a figure would have to have countless corrective JCMs and or handles. And that's why I've never understood the clamoring for a new figure. Given Poser's limitations I don't really think a future figure can be that much better than the figures that have been released in the last two years or so. Maybe in theory, but not practically. We really need something like that elastic implicit skinning that was shown off a few years ago. The program itself should be handling much more of what now must be built in to each individual figure by its creators/users. http://rodolphe-vaillant.fr/permalinks/elastic_implicit_skinning_project.php That and a sensible way to apply soft-body dynamics to older figures would be nice. At a mesh level many older figures are still quite nice. Many of their limitations are simply due to the state of Poser when they were made.

I am with moogal on this - I really don't think there is much more that can be done for a figure within Poser. I have always viewed "better bending" as much of a red herring as communism. The "better bending" crowd will never be satisfied, and quite frankly, I think it is a waste of time to try to cater to customers that won't actually be buying content.

If you are looking for improvements to a figure - take a hard look at the cottage industry that is devoted to fixing the DAZ figures. How many products were made for each figure? Would any of those types of add-ons improve a modern Poser figure? Personally, I think it would be better to add improvements as add-ons. That would make it easier for vendors, and anything that can be done for that is a good thing.

I think the last two replies indicate why this thread seems to me to be pointless. The future of figures for poser depends on what changes/new features are implemented in poser.

If this thread had been started in the poser 7 days how many people would have come up with weight mapping, sub-division, face chips, linear translation and scaling of body parts? These were features that added to poser that figures could adopt.

And in the end all people really want is more lifelike figures that are easy to use and create content for. As poser hopefully develops, figures can follow suit.

So, if I understand you right, you won't know you need it until you figure out that you can't do it in Poser.

ssgbryan posted at 4:20AM Tue, 12 November 2019 - #4369912

I am with moogal on this - I really don't think there is much more that can be done for a figure within Poser. I have always viewed "better bending" as much of a red herring as communism. The "better bending" crowd will never be satisfied, and quite frankly, I think it is a waste of time to try to cater to customers that won't actually be buying content.

If you are looking for improvements to a figure - take a hard look at the cottage industry that is devoted to fixing the DAZ figures. How many products were made for each figure? Would any of those types of add-ons improve a modern Poser figure? Personally, I think it would be better to add improvements as add-ons. That would make it easier for vendors, and anything that can be done for that is a good thing.

I agree that improved figure tech can only occur inconjuction with updating the core program to support the improvements.

Not to say everything has to be implemented by the bondware team I am all for talented third parties stepping in to fill major gaps in the programs feature set even with $$paid $$ addons .

Does poser have an official SDK??

All of those third party fixes/addons for Genesis such as GENX2, fit control,skinbuilder pro,the IRay skin converters and the hundreds of free scripts for animation etc were only possible because of the freely available Daz studio SDK.

There is even a free 64 bit plugin for audio based lipsinc that parses .dat files from the opensource Papagayo software. in addition to the Three lipsynch options offered by Daz

what is the state of python in poser 11.x??

if some clever programmer decides he wants to fix the broken IK system or improve the lip syncing tools..where does he start??

SDK = Software Development Kit. I now return you to your thread.

SeanMartin posted at 10:54AM Tue, 19 November 2019 - #4369502

The problem with the single mesh UV topology for both male and female is that it doesnt work. Example: Kyle 1.5, which is my go-to mesh these days, is based off Krystal, and the result is that the chest textures on Kyle get shoved way out of proportion and squeezed into the valley between Krystal's breasts, something that also affects how clothing is rebuilt in Wardrobe Wizard: it's like it's looking for breasts that no longer exist because the UVs are telling it that they're there. I've finally figured how to make it work, but only through a lot of trial and error, and even then it's not as good as it could be.

This points out a big current shortcoming of Poser which is the inability to swap out UV sets.

As far as discussion of the Miki series goes, my favorite Miki is Miki 2 because she has a beautifully detailed shape. However, she doesn't bend particularly well and I'm not skilled enough to weightmap her...

WandW posted at 5:27PM Tue, 19 November 2019 - #4370671

This points out a big current shortcoming of Poser which is the inability to swap out UV sets.

Sure but you can have two versions of the same figure with different mapping and replace the one with the other.

There was a guy (DPHoap something or other) that sold on Content Paradise that sold UV remaps for many SM figures, using the V3 UV set, so it certainly can be done.

yes that was dphoadley.

He did Posette and Antonia to V3 mapping.

The Posette to V3 mapping is still at ShareCG. The Antonia to V3 maping is at the Antonia page (https://sites.google.com/site/antoniapolygon/)

FVerbaas posted at 5:28PM Tue, 19 November 2019 - #4370674

WandW posted at 5:27PM Tue, 19 November 2019 - #4370671

This points out a big current shortcoming of Poser which is the inability to swap out UV sets.

Sure but you can have two versions of the same figure with different mapping and replace the one with the other.

True, but one then has to distribute the required .obj files, which is hard to do legally for a third-party product without making it difficult for the user to install; most folks don't want to meddle with UVMapper, or even RTEncoding...

People don't want to fool with RTEncoding because they truly don't realize that it is really only 2 clicks, and you are done. For whatever reason, people have implied that this stuff is hard - it isn't.

It is like the cloth room, the interface is non-nonsensical, but once you use it, you kick yourself for not having moved to it years ago.

Poser isn't _ load, conform, make art_ - sometimes, you have to add a couple extra clicks.

There are a few solutions to this: 1 - make the decoding part or RTEncoder into a script (algorithm is described in the help text) that looks if the gemetry file it needs exists and if not does the conversion as part of the load process. This typically means the conversion is done the first time you call the cr2. No fussing with RTEncoder necessary 2 - Since Rendo knows which users have Poser, make avaialble for sale only if buyer has La Femme Pro or Poser (for the PG version). As freebie can be in freeie section in the protected Poser download area. This would be a general solution for any mods and alterations developed from Poser material. 3 - Make La femme mesh a merchant resource like Paul/Pauline's

rats format messed up and edit timed out

Apologies.

What exactly is RTE doing, Is it placing a different UV on , lets say La Femme from, lets say V4 ? or is that texture converter which only lets you fit the textures to a different UV ?

I would like to see a version 5 of miki, but make her look more like Miki 2.

What I'd like to see most in improvements is soft dynamics for skin and muscle. So if there was a Miki 5, if she's sitting down that would make the sides of her hips expand out slightly and the points of contact under her legs to the back of the knees are pushed up/in like they would in a real person.

I know there's the bullet physics but I'm talking about built in body dynamics that can react in real time while posing. I don't think this is possible in the current version of Poser, but the two things that really kill a lot of immersion of Poser images for me is bad posing and not understanding human weight distribution and figure/surfaces that don't show any signed of interaction. Soft body dynamics would go a long way in solving one of these for me.

CHK2033 posted at 3:38PM Wed, 20 November 2019 - #4370773

What exactly is RTE doing, Is it placing a different UV on , lets say La Femme from, lets say V4 ?

RTEncoder merely encrypts/decrypts files, using another file as the key, to permit legal redistribution of things derived from existing content. Remapping LaFemme to V4's UV coordinates would need to be done with other software, but RTEncoder would let you share the modified geometry file.