EClark1894 posted at 4:21PM Sun, 01 November 2020 - #4402618

Actually, I already went over the manual and pointed out to Jenn Blake several points where the manual was in error or needed to be changed. I did this back when Poser 11 from Bondware first came out. Aside from any new features or figures Bondware adds, mostly all the manual needs is to change or get rid of some links.

Indeed, it's capable of much better. Just look at the work Ghostship2 and some others are producing.

ghostship2 posted at 12:57PM Mon, 02 November 2020 - #4402451

yeah, it is interesting. The latest info states that Poser's Superfly is based on Cycles 1.12.That is superold. My own renders from Poser 11 look 100 times better than the promos they have included so far. I guess they don't ask me to do promos or let me into the "inner circle" because I don't use Lafeme or Lahome?

I use La Femme. And your lights. Because, well, the results are awesome. I sure wish you would do promos. You seem to be in possession of the proverbial and much sought after "clue".

I like her

But not that much...lol just kidding, she look's good :)

Great renders!!

What really concerns me is I wonder who their target audience is? If it's people who want to make nice "realistic 3D" images of human figures (meaning images that look like true 3D, and make the potential user want to use the software), then the sample images I've seen so far don't seem to qualify. The excuse that the software developers can't make great images is a poor one, The developers need to understand what all the switches/button/node do and how that results in great shaders/lighting/renders. They may not be able to create artistic renders, but should be able to create great technical render. Besides they should have beta testers that can make great images to be used for product promotion (with credit of course). How can you test the integration of Cycles, and know if it's working well for the end user, if your beta testers can't create great art with it?

At a minimum, I would expect to see renders the quality of those above, or my samples below (and I'm no artist). This is just me personal opinion, but if they can't produce great promo figure renders of at least the quality of my examples, or those by Ghostship, then I begin to question who their intended audience is. It hope it certainly isn't me, as the samples I've seen so far are definitely not anything I'm interested in producing. Yes, I know Superfly can produce images. But if the software producer has no marketing focus on showing off the great images their software can produce, how many people will be interested in buying the software? Maybe with the release of Poser 12 they will release a bunch of awesome images produced with it. I certainly hope so, unfortunately for me though I've lost out on the lower cost upgrade because I didn't upgrade to 11 before the release of 12, simply because with the images they have released so far, I don't feel that their focus for developing the software is the same place I want to go.

Note: These images aren't to promote one software over another. I think Poser is capable of similar quality renders (and I'm not a great artist anyway). It's just to show the relative minimum quality promotional images I want to see for Poser. If the software owner can't, or isn't, willing to invest in the production of promotional materials of at least this quality, then I'm not willing to invest in their product, even if I think it is capable of similar quality.

Gallery Link

Gallery Link

Gallery Link

Galley Link

Gallery Link

@Thoennes The lighting thing is mostly thinking about what lights would be like in the real world in the scene and then playing with light strength till it looks right. The car expo thing has the lights modeled into the building so I just turned on emission for them and that is all that is lighting that scene. All the surfaces use my super shader (car included). The sunset just uses an hdri on a dome and one light set real dim and orange colored for the sunlight.

@DustRider yeah, those look amazing. When I go to the Daz website I'm always blown away by the promo renders. I want to see that level of images AND web graphics from Rendo. The only thing I hate about Daz's web page is the side scrolling thumbnails that make me dizzy.

ghostship2 posted at 9:23PM Sun, 01 November 2020 - #4402747

@DustRider yeah, those look amazing. When I go to the Daz website I'm always blown away by the promo renders. I want to see that level of images AND web graphics from Rendo. The only thing I hate about Daz's web page is the side scrolling thumbnails that make me dizzy.

Thanks! LOL!! Definitely, the whole side scrolling thing there kind of drive me nuts too.

It would really be nice to see more renders from Poser of your quality!

@Dustrider - those are great renders! But, just to be pedantic: that nocked and drawn arrow should be resting ON the thumb, on the other side of the bow. With the bowstring inside the nock of the arrow (hence the term, nocked!). Yeah I am terrible, I know it. That said I really like the crispness and palette, and the image on the whole!

McGrandpa posted at 9:41AM Tue, 03 November 2020 - #4402991

@Dustrider - those are great renders! But, just to be pedantic: that nocked and drawn arrow should be resting ON the thumb, on the other side of the bow. With the bowstring inside the nock of the arrow (hence the term, nocked!). Yeah I am terrible, I know it. That said I really like the crispness and palette, and the image on the whole!

Hey McG! Thanks!

Hmmm, I never really zoomed in on the final image to make sure it looked right, since I spent quite a bit of time putting it in the "right" place. So, being a little pedantic myself, I had to go back and check the original image and scene set. The alignment on the arrow nock is matched perfectly to the string. Unfortunately, like way too many Poser/DAZ products, the person who made the bow (and the original pose I used for the image) was not an archer, and probably didn't do a lot of research on the subject. The bow draw morph for the bow (and the pose for the figure) was designed for the string to be deformed/bent by the noched arrow, with the archer drawing the bow by pinching the arrow noch between the thumb and fingers, not by placing the arrow between the index and middle fingers and using the fingers on the string to draw the bow. Unfortunately that makes the deformation of the string wrong for proper placement of the fingers, resulting in the fletching for the arrows being way to close to the noch to fully noch the arrow, so you are left with the options of 1) not posing the figure properly to draw a heavy weight bow, 2) posing the fingers properly and having the arrow fully noched which will cause the fletching to intersect (cut through) the fingers, 3) posing the fingers properly with the arrow in the proper location relative to the fingers and the arrow fully noched which will cause the string to cut through the fingers, or 4) pose the fingers properly with the arrow in the proper location relative to the noch but don't noch the arrow so the string does not cut through the fingers. I chose the last option, thinking that it would not be obvious the the arrow was not fully noched given the viewing angle. I obviously didn't do a zoomed inspection to see if I was right (I did just check the original file, and the arrow is in proper alignment), so that is why things look off. Of course the other obvious solution to the problem would be to fix the original morph. Unfortunately that wasn't an option due to the lack of geometry in the bow string. Anyhoo, great catch!! Of course now it's going to bug the heck out of me every time I look at the image now!!

With regard to the placement of the arrow in relation to the bow, she's holding it the way I was taught (and the way I shot for many years with a long bow, left and right handed recurves, and a compound - haven't shot in about 30 years though). She's has the arrow on the proper side of the bow for a lefty, the arrow always goes on the opposite side of the bow from the draw arm. I had a similar discussion with someone at DA, which caused me to double check to make sure it was right back then (but he missed the noching issue). I'm ambidextrous and slightly dyslexic, so I do make mistakes some times. The bow in the scene doesn't have an arrow shelf, but I did noticed that the angle of the image is creating a slight illusion of an arrow shelf on the opposite side from the arrow which makes it "look" like the arrow should be on the other side, plus she is shooting left handed which can add to the confusion. Having bow hunted for several years (always still hunting, stalking the prey) I would hate to try to hold the arrow on the bow with my thumb, much more natural to hold it with the index finger until you are ready to draw the bow. Additionally, when using the two finger draw, if the arrow is placed on the other side of the bow it will tend to move away from (sideways from) the bow when the string/arrow is released, which will adversely affect accuracy.

Here is a quick photo reference on a long bow

That's weird!! My post with the mages above is now showing and image not done by me (the first image), and has a corrupt reference to my second image. However the gallery links are still working properly. I first noticed it yesterday that the links were not working on the first two images. Now somehow the first image link is working, but it's not MY image. I don't want to spam the tread with repeat images, but I don't want someone to think I'm claiming their work!!

So, to make things clear I'll re-post the first two images from my post above again (sorry for the double post should the images magically re-appear above. I did a quick inspection of the post, and the actual links are bad so it doesn't seem to be just a server glitch, even though they were functional when they were first posted). Note: These are examples of the minimum quality images I feel should be used for promotion of Poser 12, see my post/discussion above (on Page 2) for clarity.

Gallery Link

Gallery Link

This image showing in my post above is not my image, I don't know who it belongs to (even tried doing a reverse image search so I could let them know), and I didn't post it (but I am reposting it here in case things get even weirder to make sure it's clear I'm not trying to use or claim anyone else's work). Nice image though, kudos to who ever did it!

Not My Image!!

DustRider posted at 2:30PM Tue, 03 November 2020 - #4403092

That's weird!! My post with the mages above is now showing and image not done by me (the first image), and has a corrupt reference to my second image. However the gallery links are still working properly. I first noticed it yesterday that the links were not working on the first two images. Now somehow the first image link is working, but it's not MY image. I don't want to spam the tread with repeat images, but I don't want someone to think I'm claiming their work!!

So, to make things clear I'll re-post the first two images from my post above again (sorry for the double post should the images magically re-appear above. I did a quick inspection of the post, and the actual links are bad so it doesn't seem to be just a server glitch, even though they were functional when they were first posted). Note: These are examples of the minimum quality images I feel should be used for promotion of Poser 12, see my post/discussion above (on Page 2) for clarity.

Gallery Link

Gallery Link

This image showing in my post above is not my image, I don't know who it belongs to (even tried doing a reverse image search so I could let them know), and I didn't post it (but I am reposting it here in case things get even weirder to make sure it's clear I'm not trying to use or claim anyone else's work). Nice image though, kudos to who ever did it!

Not My Image!!

That's my image, but I have no idea how it got included with your's. Started to post as an example of firefly, but it was late so I canceled the post.

I still prefer do renders in Poser without the question,I use DAZ3D but only exporting G8 or G3 to Poser and render everything in Poser,I do own props or interiors and putting them here as freebies,I'm still not sure if its worth it to sell them etc

Hope this helps

Thanks,Jura

jura11 posted at 8:45AM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4403141

I still prefer do renders in Poser without the question,I use DAZ3D but only exporting G8 or G3 to Poser and render everything in Poser,I do own props or interiors and putting them here as freebies,I'm still not sure if its worth it to sell them etc

Hope this helps

Thanks,Jura

Wow... Fantastic!

ghostship2 posted at 10:00AM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4402451

yeah, it is interesting. The latest info states that Poser's Superfly is based on Cycles 1.12. That is superold.

Cycles appears to have a different version scheme than Blender. I found this page of tags of the Cycles source code and 1.11.0 corresponds to Blender 2.8.1. If 1.12 is to be believed it would appear to be the most recent branch of code, still yet untagged. While this may mean that the version of Cycles is still "beta" and may require future updates to fix bugs, it is a good sign that we are getting all the new features.

https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/C/tags/master/

sschneew posted at 11:02AM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4403208

ghostship2 posted at 10:00AM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4402451

yeah, it is interesting. The latest info states that Poser's Superfly is based on Cycles 1.12. That is superold.

Cycles appears to have a different version scheme than Blender. I found this page of tags of the Cycles source code and 1.11.0 corresponds to Blender 2.8.1. If 1.12 is to be believed it would appear to be the most recent branch of code, still yet untagged. While this may mean that the version of Cycles is still "beta" and may require future updates to fix bugs, it is a good sign that we are getting all the new features.

https://developer.blender.org/diffusion/C/tags/master/

cool! Good to know!

philadam posted at 12:45PM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4403121

DustRider posted at 2:30PM Tue, 03 November 2020 - #4403092

Not My Image!!

That's my image, but I have no idea how it got included with your's. Started to post as an example of firefly, but it was late so I canceled the post. It's great to know who it belongs to! Was it done with P11 or P12? Well done, and IMHO better than the early promos!

@philadam

Glad to know who did the image. That's what I was tring to say in my post above, but I'm pretty much a mess trying to use these forums!!!

DustRider posted at 1:31PM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4403290

jura11 posted at 12:47PM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4403141

I still prefer do renders in Poser without the question,I use DAZ3D but only exporting G8 or G3 to Poser and render everything in Poser,I do own props or interiors and putting them here as freebies,I'm still not sure if its worth it to sell them etc

Hope this helps

Thanks,Jura

Really Outstanding work!! I honestly wonder why Bondaware/Rendo simply won't work with you, GhostShip, and others doing amazing things with Poser/Superfly to create their promos. There is some really inspiring work out there, but when the company that owns the software seems unable to produce outstanding work themselves, and unwilling to work with the artists that do to create their promotional art, it makes me wonder if they really understand what they are doing. Of course it may be that I'm not a part of their target demographic, so maybe it's just me expecting them to market Poser to me, when those interested in what I'm interested in aren't a part of their target demographic.

To be fair though, I did see one promo piece on the Poser 12 product purchase page that was rather nice, but it was only one image, and for a rather niche audience (more of a stylistic fantasy art, possibly heavily post worked). While a nice image, it's not what I'm looking for. You guys (and/or gals) are making the stuff that aligns more with what I'm interested in. So the obvious question for me, a potential customer who can't upgrade from Poser "10" Pro (need to buy Poser 12 at full retail), 1) do the development plans for Poser with the new owner align with my interests, 2) what/who is their target user demographic, 3) do they really understand their market, and the potential market well enough to lure new users to Poser and inspire old users who have move on to DS, CC3, Blender, et. to come back to Poser??? (Note: I find it interesting that I even have to wonder about Item 3, since I thought Rendo understood their user/customer base, that's one of the reasons I'm beginning to think they may be trying to take Poser in a different direction, one that mesh with my interests. I have no issues if this is the case, it's their software and should do what they feel is best for the software and it's future. But if this is the case, I don't want to invest in it only to find out it isn't going where I want to go.)

Thanks @sschneew !! It's good to know that they are using the most recent version of Cycles for Superfly. It shows that they are trying to keep up with the development of Cycles which is a really good thing.

DustRider posted at 2:06PM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4403281

philadam posted at 12:45PM Wed, 04 November 2020 - #4403121

DustRider posted at 2:30PM Tue, 03 November 2020 - #4403092

Not My Image!!

That's my image, but I have no idea how it got included with your's. Started to post as an example of firefly, but it was late so I canceled the post. It's great to know who it belongs to! Was it done with P11 or P12? Well done, and IMHO better than the early promos!

It is P11. I still prefer firefly, because I can get excellent renders in fraction of the time that superfly takes. I am an impatient person, so I don't like the wait.

I thought I'd show this comparison.

On the left side, the outfit is using shaders started in P11 but finished in P12. Poser's Physical Surface node and PBR textures were used to create the clothing materials. Lighting is a Diffiuse IBL light.

On the right side, the outfit has been converted to use P12 Cycles node for the root, and the new Principled BSDF shader. Same textures used in the first example are re-used here. Lighting changed to an area light.

I use La Femme. And your lights. Because, well, the results are awesome. I sure wish you would do promos. You seem to be in possession of the proverbial and much sought after "clue".

What lights & where can I get ..?? I need ..!! :)

@Ghostship your renders look amazing !!

3Dpixi posted at 4:55PM Thu, 05 November 2020 - #4403534

I use La Femme. And your lights. Because, well, the results are awesome. I sure wish you would do promos. You seem to be in possession of the proverbial and much sought after "clue".

What lights & where can I get ..?? I need ..!! :)

@Ghostship your renders look amazing !!

https://www.sharecg.com/v/86639/gallery/11/Poser/Studio-Portrait-Lights-for-Poser-11-Poser-11-Pro

@Ghostship2 - re-rendered with one of your Superfly Studio light sets. Thank you for these, they're great!

@ Deecey Looking Good!!!! I uploaded my lights to my freestuff here on Rendo. Should show up tomorrow. A little easier for people to get them

@ Deecey The overalls need roughness or some cloth weave bump. like this

Been having a bit of fun exploring the new cycles. Here's my attempt at shader conversion. Principled Hair seems promising, but I am having some issues with render artifacts. It looks a bit like gelatin or sugar-candy here. As always, I am super impressed by what others are able to create.

@braefell I think PHBSDF is borked at the moment. I get same error that I get with anisotropicbsdf with the triangles all over the mesh.

ghostship2 posted at 10:55PM Fri, 06 November 2020 - #4403633

@braefell I think PHBSDF is borked at the moment. I get same error that I get with anisotropicbsdf with the triangles all over the mesh.

It is.

Odd that it's V4 on the Poser 12 splash screen. I'd have expected it to be La Femme.

ghostship2 posted at 6:49PM Fri, 06 November 2020 - #4403633

@braefell I think PHBSDF is borked at the moment. I get same error that I get with anisotropicbsdf with the triangles all over the mesh.

Roger that. Thanks.

ghostship2 posted at 8:10PM Fri, 06 November 2020 - #4403569

@ Deecey The overalls need roughness or some cloth weave bump. like this

The jacket and overalls are made from Kevlar .. and there is a normal map that adds the fabric detail. Most of the pics that I looked at show a very tight weave, but maybe I can scale it up a little more.

yeah thenup the roughness because it looks like pvc or rubber rather than a fireman's coat.