I know poser has right/left visaversa pose symmetry, but does it have front/back symmetry. For example, if you named body parts fChainseg01 and bChainseg01.  I'd be really stoked if it did.  I also have the same question for Poser 12, not sure if that's something they worked on yet.

Davo

If you're making a chain with alternating links in it, there's a Poser script by looper-expert Cage: "A script which builds a chain prop along a path defined by positioning marker points". Tested and working in Poser 11.

If this is for your own use, maybe a workaround might be to scale the chain on the z axis to -100. It will essentially turn the chain inside out. The normals will be facing the wrong way so you might need to flip them.

Example file

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Q8IKiAA66opGsu_xlxRjkhT7ykpKFPww/view?usp=drivesdk

Front and back is the same as left and right with a chain of bones, just depends on the way it is being viewed. r and l labels will apply symmetry if the front and back actors are named such internally. Note joint order.

Of course if you're talking about a chain that is constructed in the shape of, say, a cross or X or an... octopus

? Stumped.

I'm familiar with your work so an octopus chain wouldn't be off the table, in a manner of speaking lol.

If that's the case maybe being more descriptive would have helped.

Hi guys,

I completely understand the rigging and and construction of a chain set, that's not a problem at all.  The problem is that currently only right and left side pose symmetry is allowed in poser.  This was to make rigging a figure easier so that the pose symmetry, including joint parameters could be mirrored to the other side of a human figure.  However, when you move away from humans and say into robots, or equipment with cords and chains, having symmetry mirrored from front to back is not possible, or not that I know of.  The closes I've come is rigging a figure right to left then rotating it's base 90 degrees along the y axis. This is okay, but not ideal if  front to back symmetry was just available.

Hi guys,

I completely understand the rigging and and construction of a chain set, that's not a problem at all.  The problem is that currently only right and left side pose symmetry is allowed in poser.  This was to make rigging a figure easier so that the pose symmetry, including joint parameters could be mirrored to the other side of a human figure.  However, when you move away from humans and say into robots, or equipment with cords and chains, having symmetry mirrored from front to back is not possible, or not that I know of.  The closes I've come is rigging a figure right to left then rotating it's base 90 degrees along the y axis. This is okay, but not ideal if  front to back symmetry was just available.

Davo,

Yes I know your rigging skills. I own some of your creature Poser figures. My example isn't a conventional chain rig at all, but a workaround layout for the problem you posted.

"The closes I've come is rigging a figure right to left then rotating it's base 90 degrees along the y axis. This is okay, but not ideal if  front to back symmetry was just available."

Did you even look at my example rig? It's not an ideal solution at all but it's a method or a workaround. Pretty certain it would botch "standard" easy pose to boot. In any case rotating something isn't necessary, symmetry is simply a function of the naming, not which axis it's in during rigging, although joint rotation order is relevant. Poser doesn't care what axis it's in, just the naming as far as I can tell.

I do agree that front to back, or vice versa, symmetry would be nice for the types of figures you mentioned. Not even remotely sure how difficult that would be to implement into Poser code though.

Forgive the illustration typo in my former post reply (should be rLink1, rLink2, etc), was tired from work when I made the demo.

Hi primorge,

I did download your file, thank you very much:-).  I was able to get the red balls to be symmetrically posed to the green balls but in a top down view only. If I viewed the figure from the side and moved the green balls up and down, then did a left to right mirror, the red balls went a different direction.  With naming the links rLink1, rLink2 rLink2 and lLink1, etc, then they would have mirrored in all axis correctly.  I believe that poser software uses the r and l prefix as a means to mirror body parts down the Y axis (top to bottom) along the x axis, (side to side)  If they had a f and b prefix (Front and Back), then it could mirror down the y axis (top to bottom) along the z axis, front to back.

D

I see. I didn't catch that. Admittedly I only gave it a cursory test in perspective camera along one axis. Very much an oversite. Can't blame a guy for trying lol. It was an interesting problem though, should have tested further for actual application situations. I'll take another look. I do agree f and b would be nice, sorry my example didn't help.

"The closes I've come is rigging a figure right to left then rotating it's base 90 degrees along the y axis. This is okay, but not ideal if  front to back symmetry was just available."

Looks like you are correct here in rigging and rotating to get the proper result with symmetry front to back. I just tested my example and can see the problem. That's what I get for questioning the practice of an artist that's probably rigged a thousand tentacles, ropes, chains, and tubes ;)

Thanks for teaching me a new trick Davo :)

"The closes I've come is rigging a figure right to left then rotating it's base 90 degrees along the y axis. This is okay, but not ideal if  front to back symmetry was just available."

Looks like you are correct here in rigging and rotating to get the proper result with symmetry front to back. I just tested my example and can see the problem. That's what I get for questioning the practice of an artist that's probably rigged a thousand tentacles, ropes, chains, and tubes ;)

Thanks for teaching me a new trick Davo :)

LOL, no worries :-)  Admittedly I was quite excited to try your rigging because I thought "aha! maybe I missed something" and I'm always open to finding new tidbits of knowledge.  It's refreshing to see responses to threads about technical issues.  I've been using Poser a long time, but have only surface knowledge of a few aspects of it, enough to rig a non-human figure without joint falloff zones and the like.  Ask me questions about lighting, weight mapping, injection morphs, fbm's, texturing and all you'll get is a dumb stare and "uhhhhhh...... weiggggght maaapppinnnng?.  I think Ajax's easypose underground program saved my life cause I could never figure that stuff out on my own.  I miss you Ajax!

Great program, easypose underground. I have it too, very useful for a host of things besides cascading ERC. 👍

Great program, easypose underground. I have it too, very useful for a host of things besides cascading ERC. 👍

I'll confess I've never used the hierarchy method of figure creation, call me a masochist but I enjoy the process of adding bones manually... probably would of saved me a lot of gaaaaahggg! moments with this guy...

an old figure of mine, materials need to be updated to SSS so these renders are rather primitive by current standards. Something I'm planning on getting around to, amongst a bunch of other more contemporary improvements. Anyway its 123 bones, EasyPose, and IK tentacles set up manually. 150 some odd morphs and a various ERC controls. I made this about 7 years ago I guess, I think I can create a vastly superior version now as my knowledge and sculpting/texturing skills have improved along with tech advancements, on my to do list. Still many of the old Poser utilities and methods are indispensable, irreplaceable really. Sadly many are no longer available for new users to utilize, only usable by those who were fortunate enough to get their hands on them back in the day. Not to say I don't think some of the newer Content Tools and methods aren't a godsend.

Just being conversational, as I think some of your work is pretty far out, no impetus to reply...

OH WOW!  That is very cool.  I wish I could do organic modeling, I'm used to doing more mechanical/environmental models. Very nice work!