If he paid for a platinum membership, and the Sara doll was a product created and distributed to platinum members for free, yet he was still denied access to it due to his conduct in the forums, then daz is clearly violating their own contract. Because, if sara is only suppose to be for platinum members, that means that in essence every platinum member paid for their copy of sara (and any other 'free' item intended for platinum members), which means he's being denied a service that he paid for.

"Of course, if this is the case, pursuing this angle may result in the ending of your Platinum Club membership as well; and perhaps your general store access."<< Not necessarily true. Though again, it depends a lot on the current internet laws, which are few and far between. But in the real world no company can deny a consumer the right to buy their products or shop in their store. Example... If you sued walmart for something, whether you won the case or not, walmart cannot prevent you from shopping in their store in the future, nor can they use that as a basis for preventing you from becomming an employee in the future. Its against the law.

Apparently, from other threads I've read here and there, DAZ has a few disgruntled individuals in their customer base. I currently am not one of them. The concept that PJF brings to light, about their possibly being a contract violation between yourself as a paid-for platinum memeber and DAZ, is a valid point. However you'd have to re-read the platinum member TOS rules (all memberships have them, whether they're paid for or not). Most of the time, even if you are a paid member, if you do something that goes against the TOS for that site you still get banned, and they don't "have" to refund any portion of your membership fees. However, since there are very few laws that govern the internet, a lot of companies/sites/etc create their own laws which may or may not be in violation of federal/state laws and consumer rights. This means that just because its in a company's TOS, doesn't mean its legal (paypal, for example, is currently dealing with a similar situation where a portion of their TOS did not comply with federal law but no one said anything about it until now). So, just cause its in their TOS, doesn't mean its legal, regardless of whether you agreed to it originally or not. Which means they could still be in violation of something (contract, law, etc), by banning you. Just my two cents. do with it what you will. (there are copyright laws too, which a lot of people don't realize. For example, if you alter something in any noticeable manner, regardless of who created it, the altered version automatically becomes yours, with which you can do whatever you want).

comunism....

uhm, i guess i'm missing something. what's the big deal with/against DAZ? i thought they were just one of the more popular vendors for poser material... i assumed they were somewhat of a fledgeling company that got started by creating new models for poser and have grown from there. so, why don't people like them?

If its a morph that you created maybe you didn't create it for both pecks.?? If its a pre-created morph that you loaded into the properties menu, you probably have to select each peck to morph it. I haven't messed with mike's morphing dials yet, but if its set up like vicky, there are dials for her chest, then left collar/breast and right collar/breast. chest dials will alter the chest and both collar regions (usually), while collar dials work only on the collar that is selected. :)

wow, didn't realize that was such a long reply... sorry...

I can agree and disagree with these comments. (i'm a libra so i tend to look at things from several different perspectives before drawing a conclusion. its my nature). First off, what is and is not 'art' is very much a matter of opinion. What you find beautiful I may find ugly or offensive. Or just plain dull. Also, a lot of people have different tastes as far as what genre of art they like. For example, its extremely rare that I like anything that deals with the 1920's to the 1960's or 70's. Images that depict scenes from those time periods just don't appeal to me. Once in a while I might see something that I like but its rare. Doesn't mean its not art. Nudity will attract attention 9 times out of 10. That's a simple fact. Pornography is the #1 selling media in the world, and probably always will be, regardless of how many critics and prudes there are out there (and most of the time the same people that preach about how wrong it is are the same ones that have the biggest collection stashed somewhere under their beds or in their closets). Of course not all nudity is pornography but all pornography is nudity. (at least as far as the general concept of what pornography is... but if you're someone like robert smith for example, who thinks pornography is a disgustingly obese woman (or man) gorging themselves on a box of twinkies, then...). People like seeing naked people, especially in the U.S. Excluding mid-eastern countries, and maybe china, the u.s. is the worst when it comes to sensorship. "can't let our kids see naked people! It'll scar them for life!" so they grow up thinking nudity is wrong and they teach their kids the same thing and it goes on and on. First time I ever went to London I saw a billboard on the side of a bus with a woman lifting her shirt, showing the world all she's got. It was a beer ad, if I remember correctly. It's all over europe, and sometimes in canada, but you'd never see it in the states. Not out in public anyway. Over there they don't really care about nudity. At least not nearly as much. You see it all the time and no one thinks anything of it. Yet why do you think the company used a nude woman in their ad? Then there's the concept of what message, if any, the 'artist' is trying to convey in his/her nude portrait. I personally use, or try to use, a lot of symbolism in my work. I only have two pieces in my gallery so far, (course I've also only been a member of renderosity for a lil over a week now, so...), both of them use a generic naked poser model. But neither of them really have anything to do with nudity. Its all about the message. As for fantasy and sci-fi work, i agree there's a ton of it out there, on this site and countless others. For some reason its proly up in the top rankings of digital imagery these days. That doesn't mean half or most of it isn't crap, or poorly done. It usually is. I for one am a fan of GOOD fantasy and/or dark, sometimes disturbing images. I do some of my own. Most all my work has some sort of supernatural/fantasy-like undertones. Its more creative than every day life, at least to me. Still doesn't mean that most of what I see is any good, in my opinion. But someone else might see the same image and think its fantastic. Errors in images are sometimes deliberate. Depending again on what the creator is trying to convey. Other times it gives the work character. And other times it just screws the whole thing up. Lighting and shadowing is an extremely difficult element to reproduce correctly, for anyone regardless of experience level. (i doubt there are any masters of light rendering out there, and for those who think they are one, there's always going to be someone else to come along and say its not right). Don't get me wrong though, I totally agree that there are some elements of people's work that are just blatantly bad and make it obvious that the creator didn't care enough to take the time and correct them, or at least try to correct them, before posting the image. That is irritating, especially in cases like the ones you mentioned. And its just as irritating when you find other work that is excedingly better by leaps and bounds and no one seems to care, cause its not showing any "interesting flesh". One thing that really irritates me is the fathoms of images out there depicting women in various states of undress, regardless of the genre (from 1920's new york to the deepest underbelly of middle earth). Not that I don't find women attractive, or the work exceptionally well done, but.. just yesterday I was browsing through an artist's gallery on his personal web site. I don't know how many pages there were - tons - and proly 99% of them were all women. Excedingly well-done, at least in my opinion. But there were no men, doing anything. There were a couple of male creatures, orcs, beasts, etc, but no men. Why? There's no question the artist couldn't do them just as well as he'd done the others. He just chose not to. Obviously because the male physique doesn't appeal to him as a person, but shouldn't those lines of bias dissolve in the mind of an artist? Generally speaking artists are some of the most open-minded people in the world. Until it comes to seeing or creating images of men. Put two or more women in a render, lying next to each other in various states of undress (not to mention what they might be doing), throw it up in a gallery and you'll get so many hits you might exceed bandwidth. But make it two men and all you'll get is flames. (no pun intended). Okay. I'm done with my rant. stepping down from my soap box now

I tried that. but when I rendered it, the hair didn't show up. and the hair no longer acted as hair in the hair room. :( course, i didn't do the select subset thing... i basically just exported all 3 pieces as an .obj file, then imported them back in. i'll try it again and see... thanks :)

i see... and now i know what skull caps are used for... grrr.... uhm, just out of curiosity, did curious labs win the award for worst user manual ever written for a software product?

Very nice work. I dont know what the girl is either exactly, but i think she'd look cool as a sort of "grim fairie" heh..

The mesh pattern doesn't match poser. poser's face mesh has a ton more polygons in it than these

(and poser's figures look better) ** There are a few programs on court tv that use poser to recreate crime scenes in order to figure out how someone murdered someone else, etc. i've heard them mention poser a few diff times...

Message edited on: 08/15/2004 20:16

hmm. interesting. thanks.

hehe, yep. i already downloaded wings. For some reason when i first went to the site a few days ago i thought it was only for mac, but I wasn't paying much attention and only saw the mac link for download. I so wish i had a mac, as I know they're much better at graphics. but anyway... as for maclean, i appreciate the advice. Not a downer at all. I know its a long process. But I love learning and I love graphics and animation. I also have a tendency of being impatient and skipping the "easy" parts. But I want to know all there is, or at least as much as I can know from the relavent tutorials that are available these days. I'm sure now it is much easier and faster for someone to pick these things up than it was say six years ago when there weren't as many sources of info available as there are now. I'm taking things one step at a time though. And when it comes to computers and programs for them I've always been a very fast learner (minus the whole 'six months to a year just to figure out how to put clothes on people.. ehem...' For now I just want to create an original wooden stake. After that I'm going to figure out how to create a sword - FROM SCRATCH. :-D Then hopefully by the time I can afford to buy 3DMAX I'll know enough about all this that I won't have trouble learning that program. Damn I wish I'd gone to school for this kind'a stuff when I had the chance. pouts

ok i found them. and they are interesting, i will read them. but i need to know how to build an item from scratch, not from props already inside poser. i know... i always gotta do things the hard way.