Coleman posted at 2:12AM Fri, 16 October 2015 - #4233776

Makes me wonder if there's a Rendo member named Vertice. Didn't trees exist before a word was MADE UP for them?

Anyways...

The V4 above looks fake because she is totally symmetrical ( is that a word? Jeez, this is a tough forum ). That skin texture looks great. I like your lighting. Her face looks like a cartoon character's perfectly symmetrical face. The imperfections sell the reality.... in my opinion.

Interesting opinion. I looked at your gallery but i couldn't find a good example for an asymetrical face. You have any picture that would be good for studying that technique?

Scene fixer with crease angle did NOT work. The tools is still very handy and nice to have, but i think the crease angle and smoothing only affect renders with poser (firefly).

I uploaded the subdivided mesh render on my gallery if someone is interested. Still not happy with the lighting and I will try to add a necklace. Also gonna zoom in a little bit more since i want it to be portrait style. But looks already close to what i had in mind. So thanks again to everyone here for your valuable input and helping me out!

Wow, so many posts! At first - big thanks to all of you. I value every single feedback and it already helped me a lot. Thanks for making this a great and helpful community.

OK so the Polygon count is not the big problem here, thanks for making that clear. Still it made me curious, so I experimented a bit with the Gnarly subdivision script.

It does indeed make the figure much more high poly, i used "3" as a subdivision level (which seems to be the maximum) and the render in Luxrender already improved really a lot. Ironically it now renders faster in Luxrender. I guess that props are easier to handle than figures by Luxrender. I would not have expected that since the Poser scene file bloated from around 6 MB to like 560 MB (!!!)... So benefit from it - if you wanna speed up stills rendering from Poser characters convert then to a prop.

Next i will try that scenefixer script - is this the latest version?

http://orphans.basicwiz.com/

I don't use firefly besides for preview renders since i discovered LuxRender. I find that my render look much better in LuxRender - even though it is obviously much slower.

I really originally thought it must be the polygon count because Victoria 4 is like nearly 10 years old? I come from Vue where i often render scenes with millions of polygons, so i thought 77,000 is pretty low. Thanks for correcting me there!

I will experiment a bit more and compare different approaches. The subdivision script is "good to know" but it also makes everything slower in poser and turns figures to props. So probably not an option for animations... And it just resulted in a glitch ball for the hair (The hair is not that much of a problem though).

I am also curious how the scene fixer with the 180 degree crease angle will work out - that sounds promising i think.

I also wanna look into "weight mapping", i have heard that term before, but i don't really know what it is. I will search for some info about it only and how it can help me. Definitely a topic that makes me curious.

RedPhantom posted at 7:56AM Mon, 12 October 2015 - #4233326

Which version of poser do you have. Each one comes with new figures. People may recommend one for a version you don't have.

Also some will recommend you try subdividing your figure to help with the low-poly problem. It's a nice feature if you have it but it can sluggish up your computer too, unless you don't subdivide until just before rendering.

If you're worried about 67000 being too low poly, you might have a problem. The only figure I have higher is Miki 4. That's not to say I have every figure. Someone might have a better suggestion.

Poser Pro 2014. For Victoria 4 subdivision is not available since it is not unimesh i think? ALso if i understand it right subdivision only help if you render in Poser (Firefly) which is not an option.

I used subdivision in LuxRender, but it only worsened the problem, creating artifacts at other places of the mesh. If higher polygon count does not help (I thought Victoria 4 is pretty "aged" and newer characters would be higher res), then what is the final trick here? Or am I just the only one ever doing close-ups (The above sample pic isn't even THAT close i think)...

I have Poser Pro 2014 and i render with LuxRender. I tried to enable Subdivision in LuxRender and edited the Crease angle, but both just worsened the problem.

Here is a picture of Victoria 4 - under extreme lighting conditions it is very visible (look at the shoulder). Is there any trick?

Interesting challenge!

I am not so good at rendering smiling girls, but here is my try (Victoria 4.2 with RIO):

Thanks everybody for your comments! Very helpful!

I think the problem was the textures in the runtime folder. Something might have gone wrong when i copied them from the old Poser 5.

I now deleted all hair, then used the original installers to install all hair again and now it works fine indeed! Thanks again everybody!

Quote - > Quote - A hefty price tag ?

 

Aye will be so. I stopped at Vue 9.5 because I didn't see anything that would have knocked my socks off in 10- 11. I stopped buying trying to keep up with the Jones on new versions I can find plenty of other things to waste my money on then to waste it on versions of software with little new in them. One has to come to a point to live within their means :)

I stopped at Vue 6 infinite. Not saying that from Vue 6 Infinite to Vue 11 Infinite there's nothing in it for me, but meh I rather had a new car and still don't regret that step.

Hmmm, maybe the gfx are lagging out the brush? I'd try setting the main draw window to wireframe for a test stroke and see if the problem might be something fpu-related. WHen i had a bad gfx driver installed i had problems with loads of the brush related functions, also editing terrain. I had no problems in wireframe mode though and when i set resolution to something low like 1024x768 it was much better, so i found out my gfx card driver was a version which was way too old. After updating it i didn't have any more problems. Not sure if that also helps in your case though... 

Attached Link: Newest Vue 1.2 in a Webbrowser Link! CLICK!

Update: I tweaked it a bit and now it at least works in 64K colors! Yay! Also should be compatible with most browsers/configurations now...

http://www.renderarmy.com/vuenew.htm

Alternate Applet Version:

http://www.renderarmy.com/vuenewalt.htm

And if you now click into the screen it should capture your mouse and keyboard continuously.

Let me see your renders!

:biggrin:

Yeah the second one always gives the warning. My friend said like "because it's not an applet". I honestly don't understand the difference to be honest. I can only say that both pages result in the same vue demo if you can get them running.

The java app or applet or whatever you call it is actually JDosbox, kinda virtual machine that emulates a DOS PC. I have set it up to boot into a win 3.1 environment that shows the link to the Vue 1.2 demo on startup.

Basically it also works for Windows 95 and 98. I tried to temper with it and could get Vue 2 demo running, but the image is a bit too large, it's over 100 MB. Maybe i can strip it down a bit, so i can also make a vue 2 demo for the web.

ANother thing to do would be installing SVGA drivers for win 3.1 - i think it's possible. Then it would look a bit nicer than with these 16 colors.

Attached Link: Vue in a Webbrowser Take Two: Now more compatible

Now it even works in Firefox here at home (Windows XP 32 Bit), BUT you must first press "YES" when it asks you if you wanna run that java application and for the second question when it is like "Blah security risk, do you wanna block unsafe content?" press "NO". Then i also got it working in my firefox...

http://www.renderarmy.com/vue2.htm

A friend of mine has reported he also got it working on chrome.

Here at home in WIndows XP i can't get it running on neither IE or FF as well. Java is just puzzling me... I got no idea what the problem is.

Quote - Doesn't work either in IE for me.

Do you have Java installed? I have windows 7 64-Bit and IE9 here and at least that worked. Wish i was a better HTML programmer but i just copy & pasted the code from some tutorial.

Hmmm yeah i also could only get it to work with Internet Explorer, although the site where i got the sourcecode from claimed it would also work with other browsers. I'm not sure how to make it work for all browsers... :sad: