well, then it's the inner mouth :( Best bet is going to be adjusting the morph itself (perhaps a small magnet to pull the area under the lip out just a bit). Otherwise, it's postwork city unless you feel like creating a custom morph for his inner mouth... Sorry :(

Usually it involves scaling the teeth down or adjusting the morph below the lower lip. It's not black teeth, actually -- it's the backside of the polygons poking through the bottom of the lip. Most morphs don't include the teeth/inner mouth area, so those will stay the same. You can test it (to see if I'm right or blowin smoke) by making the material transparent for the gums/teeth...

the teeth poking through (or gums..).

Using industry standard metrics for adoption, Poser 6 probably comes in at around 74 to 82% of the total user base -- which is why the preference question is so important. Knowing what people prefer to use is more important, and I'm fairly satisified given the wide coverage of the survey (pretty much every major poser site featured it to some extent or other) that it's an excellent pull on the current userbase. Using only the estimated base of community specific active users, 609 respones is more than significant enough a number to be able to apply extrapolated data across the market with reasonable certainty. IT is indeed a great turnout in terms of polling. I'm rather excited now that I've acquired some exctremely effieicnt polling software for the follow up in June -- it will be muchmore smooth an operation with a more immediate and readily accessible dataset that when compared to this one will really rock as a decent comparative. Hell, it's soo good the frequency might even be able to be increased...

There are some really incredible results in there, John -- I've been limited while awaiting repair of my main system to using open office..org and peeking in at the data and some of it is just absolutely astonishing, lol. Some things I expected, but most of it is a total surprise to me!

Attached Link: http://www.oddditty.biz/Survey/Questions.html

IT's the nature of ther rendering engine. Pure Raytracers can be fast, but they generally don't do things like displacement and are limited in a lot of ways. Firefly is a hybrid engine -- that is, it combines various sorts of rendering types into a single one that is capable of doing several things at once. IT is a slow ray tracer. However, the trade off is the other capabilites it has (displacement and other surface and geom properties, notably) which it does better than a solid raytracer. Basically, its a choice: you can have a fast raytracer that does only sharp edged shadows, a fast reyes that handles softer shadows and surface deformation, or some form of combination that does both, but will tend to do one better than the other. (Note: this is an extreme oversimplification, but it gets the gist across) In general, raytracing is going to be slower than other sorts of rendering, chiefly due to the fact that it has to calculate all the rays. oh -- and I have recieved your messages, btw, but I'm unable to do anything at this moment.

There's been a V3 arm fix morph over at RDNA for well over a year (by Maveris)

Yes. Although you'll have to also rename the material zones inthe actual object itself.

Message edited on: 02/06/2006 04:02

OG, Shadowmaps above 1024 in general will crunch RAM and increase rendertime unneccessarily. They do have value in speicifc situations on one light or so, but using them as a default overall isn't the best solution. What you'll want to do -- and was described briefly above -- is use your "shadowcams". Whenever you do a render, poser calculates the shadow maps out. It then stores the positioning of those shadows as something called "shadow cams" -- basiclaly, it's sorta like positioning a light that throws shadows -- a negative light, in a way. You can look through that light (the shadowcam) and actually adjust it like you would a camera. This lets you get extremely fine control over your shadows if you can get your brain around the concept(it is a bit strange). You can control the "spread" of a shadow, the proximity of it, the angle of it, and other aspects -- without changing your lighting -- using the shadow camera. THis is one of the reasons it can take me as much as 30 hours to set up the lighting for a scene for a customer. First off, I have to get my angle. THen I have to get my lighting right. THen I have to set up my shadows properly (and I love my shaodws, so I'll spend more time working ont hem than the lights). By getitng a decent level of control over these aspects, you can use smaller, lighter depth maps, which improves rendering time without sacrificing the nice depth mapped shadows. (and don't forget my favorite trick lighting wise: a combination of tight ray traced and depth. Takes an extra light, but it can give some really cool shadows...)

I don't count myself among the hardware gurus. My particular estimation is that you have a good plan. Fast CPU, decent ram. Some notes: Poser lets windows control RAM access. So this is going to be controlled by the size of your virtual memory space (which should be set to a bit over 2 gig per machine, fixed, not controlled by OS). Assuming XP or win2K is used (both are still NT base), you'll want to use two drives in each system for best performance (server style set up). THese are physical drives -- one for OS, one for all temp and swap file operations. SInce they are rendering systems, add a third drive for storage if you are going to render to the system. Raid won't do you a damn bit of good insofar as performance. Go cheap. Either board will work. Kinda pricey, though. For something that just chugs, all you need is somethign that works, not that gets fancy. The multiple drives thing is strictly for squeezng the most performance out of the system possible. Since they are strictly renderboxes, a single drive partitioned would like do ok, and yeah -- you should get an integrated board if at all possible. For what you are describing, the only things that matter are CPU, RAM, and system set up. Everything else is dumped.

I've sent him the link to this thread, so hopefully you'll get a response...

um, I don't believe that's permissible under the terms of the package. You could, howver, pm Valandar himself here or at DAz and I'm sure he'd see about helping you out.

does it open it up to left forearm, by chance? f so, you need to download and install the most recent p5 patch, if still available.

Vanishingpoint.biz, MaryK