I would venture to say a good bit. I know there's a set of them for the G* at least, and was one of the first products released for it. Similarly, when V4 was released without them, a product of this kind was made very quickly.

From a character creator's standpoint, it is considerably easier to have them part of the base mesh. That way, when creating custom head morphs (at least in Modo and Zbrush), the brows are morphed along with the head without gapping or unrealistic space between the face geometry and brow geometry, leading to a minimum of distortion. Trying to match a conformer as a completely separate piece is a considerable extra investment of time and effort, and rarely (IMHO) yields results equal in quality.

peeks in MAT zones for eyeliner or lipliner might be rough, since it ends up being very different shapes and you'd want to keep naturalistic fades around the edges (which mat zones can't do on their own). One of the biggest kicks in the face to realism is hard MAT zone edges on organic forms; we don't have those on us. ;) If you look at closeups of eyes, lips, etc. on people, you'll see a tiny fade from one region of color to the next. Without that, things start to look more doll-like and less natural. Bear in mind I say all of this as something of a UV nitpicker of doom and someone who lurves a ton of MAT zones to tinker with, too. ;)

You could arguably get a similar effect to what I think you're hoping for with alpha masks and blender nodes for a much broader range of styles, but that would require one of the python scripting geniuses to code something up to swap them around with the way the materials presently work. And you'd want the scripting... I've been picking at a project like this in just the material room to try to arrange something that's versatile and swappable without being too confusing for the end user, and keep tabling it since it's quite tricksy. (It is, ironically, deliberately doll-like. ;) )

I know I would be voting for an eyebrow zone, on a separate plane. Possibly a doubled plane to allow for good visual depth. :) I also have a slight case of 'missing it, could be useful' for the pubic hair plane on V3. Also a fan of the eye surface. Those tend to be handy ones, but they require the geometry to back them up, and some folks seem to keep wanting to kill off those bits of (IMHO quite useful) geometry.

D'oh, I kept forgetting... check out photoshop brushes by Deviney. He has a set of 'Skulls' somewhere -- I forget if it's here, or DAZ, but it's a great pack. I've bought from him frequently on both sites and never regretted a single one; they're amazingly useful and he does a really great job with them. It has a lot of fantastic options for tattoo designs, as it also includes a number of 'background elements' that are tribal designs, lightning, etc. so it's not just a pile o' bones. :) (I totally blanked on the existence of this one until I just had to use it for something myself.)

It would likely come in very handy for goth or rock tee shirt designs as well, so it may be a good investment to use for both packs, as well as future uses!

Coolness... was just a little worried since I was the one who seemed to cause some upset (which wasn't intentional at all). My communication skillz are mad indeed... but generally more in the 'as a hatter' sense of the word.

I mean, it would suck royally to get everything together and then get bounced from being able to sell here (which is a kick@ss place to be a vendor in my experience) over something that is fairly easily avoided. I would hate to see that happen to -anybody-.

browquirk Who on earth is 'they'? Fellow vendors not wanting to see someone step into a legal minefield when they're just getting started?

And since when did spending time digging up references and information to share to help someone avoid potential discouragement, expense, MP restrictions, and legal trouble translate to 'beating someone up'?

I'm glad you're checking for answers, indeed!

I think a part of the confusion that emerges about copyright is that, in much of life, we're generally accustomed to being able to do as we wish unless we're explicitly told 'no' for some reason (be it law, religious strictures, etc.). No one, for instance, told me I can't be nibbling on ice cream at the moment... even if it meant sticking dinner in the fridge until breakfast. innocent whistling

When it comes to copyright issues, the thought process (necessarily) works completely in reverse of that: the default is 'no' unless and until you get a concrete 'yes' from the specific copyright owner.

That reversal of thinking is actually the easiest way for people to approach the subject initially, I think. It really is completely the opposite of what we're used to in a lot of aspects of life.

No bothering done, no worries there. :)

My concern is simply that Renderosity takes copyright issues quite seriously, and of all the issues a new vendor can run up against, having that particular strike held against you would make things considerably harder for a long time to come.

If someone has good, fun ideas, having legal problems come as the result of them can be very discouraging, and can rapidly decrease their interest in creating things, period, especially if they really don't seem to see it coming. Imagine walking through the woods, looking up at the trees, feeling the sun on your face... and then tripping into a bear trap. Not my definition of a good time, for sure! ...I certainly wouldn't be too keen on hiking after that.

I'm pretty serious about being pro-imagination. ;) That means strongly encouraging people to create, create, create. It's just a considerably more tricksy process than a lot of people think to keep on the safe side, and avoid the bear traps. This is especially hard at the beginning when a lot of misinformation is spread regularly -- even in art schools, by well-meaning professors! That's why that 'myths about copyright' page is one of the best, in my view, on the subject.

Seconding Kendra (and pretty much everyone else).

The advice you were given there is completely and totally bunk, and it would not surprise me if this guy lands himself in court sooner or later if he's fool enough to follow it himself.

This isn't the first thread like this you've posted, so I have some concerns that maybe spending some time looking into the real legalities of what can and can't be used would be of major benefit to you. That time seems to be spent looking for loopholes instead of looking for proper tools and resources that can be legitimately used in a legal and professional manner.

Information right from the horse's mouth: http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-fairuse.html

"How much of someone else's work can I use without getting permission?
Under the fair use doctrine of the U.S. copyright statute, it is permissible to use limited portions of a work including quotes, for purposes such as commentary, criticism, news reporting, and scholarly reports." This generally means: 'not what we're doing as vendors pretty much ever', so we don't get a pass here.

**"How much do I have to change in order to claim copyright in someone else's work?
** Only the owner of copyright in a work has the right to prepare, or to authorize someone else to create, a new version of that work. Accordingly, you cannot claim copyright to another's work, no matter how much you change it, unless you have the owner's consent." In other words, all that 'but if you change 10% of it, it becomes yours and you can do whatever you want with it!' gossip you hear on the internet and elsewhere is false.

The following links should also prove helpful:

http://www.templetons.com/brad/copymyths.html

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/Copyright_and_Fair_Use_Overview/chapter0/0-b.html -- The best and clearest advice here is this: "With one important exception, you should assume that every work is protected by copyright unless you can establish that it is not. As mentioned above, you can't rely on the presence or absence of a copyright notice (©) to make this determination, because a notice is not required for works published after March 1, 1989. And even for works published before 1989, the absence of a copyright notice may not affect the validity of the copyright -- for example, if the author made diligent attempts to correct the situation.

The exception is for materials put to work under the "fair use rule." This rule recognizes that society can often benefit from the unauthorized use of copyrighted materials when the purpose of the use serves the ends of scholarship, education or an informed public." Again, everything we are doing as commercial content vendors is not something that falls under the 'fair use' exception.

Hope this helps. :)

I have to agree this can present an issue that hiding doesn't always fix; if I'm trying to smooth some pokethrough for an image, seeing how clothing fits a body is very relevant to the morphing process. So the locking tip... super useful.

So many times, I've needed to tug something out to cover Vicky's rump, only to end up making her posterior all the more superior instead! ;)

Mostly commenting to bookmark this and keep a beady eye on it, since I think I'll be hopping all over it if it hits the store. :) (My actually commentary would be hard to transcribe, as it involves gibbering, and lots of excited sounds I don't think there's spellcheck-friendly onomatopoeia for yet.)

I could definitely see a use for a 'proper profiles' set, but also for a range of fun and interesting lights that are profile-independent. I suspect both would also be quite profitable -- but likely have slightly different markets, both of which have a strong enough presence, I suspect, to make the efforts worthwhile. I'd likely hop on both, personally. One for realistic effects, one for slightly simpler 'oooh, shiny'.

Quote - I need to pump out commerical level renders in 8-10 minutes tops.

...if you find out how to manage that, share with the rest of the class! ;)

(Seriously, I don't get a normal shot out that fast with no bells or whistles.)

IDL+SSS has been the best option for me, at least. It takes longer, but not remarkably longer on average than any other promo renders I have to do. Maybe 25% longer... but my promo renders average an hour presently. That's still a marked improvement over previous versions, though!

Quote - 2) Lack of customization. I don't want my Anastasia to look like everyone else's Anastasia. To my knowledge Alyson doesn't have the most versatile dial morphs.

whistles all innocent-like

Yeah, I'm evil, I know. I also need to get off my rump and finish that-unnamed-that up. ;) Or was it a them? Yes, evil. Evil indeed. But I know I'm not the only person who is currently or is planning to do some work with her. :)

Anastasia is too pretty to NOT play with... I just need to get the three or four that have been languishing finished for an age out the door first. Blackhearted did a positively killer job on her.

Stephanie4, please please please. I love her various shapes. :) The morphs in that pack add such a huge range of lovely details whether used on the S4 base or (my preference) on the V4 base.

 Look at Lisbeth's Mandy hair here -- I'm betting that's the one.

In all seriousness, I have never had to convert a file, even those that claim I will need to. You may want to try the PC files first before getting too worried. grin For installation, BetterZip works nicely in my experience, and I'll second the recommendation for XShruggy.