hornet3d posted at 2:54PM Fri, 27 November 2015 - #4241223

I hope SM make enough pirates pay for a legal copy to make up for those loyal users that are not updating, somehow I doubt they will.

There are some very smart people with big stakes riding on being right that think DRM just encourages piracy. Personally, my opinion (and it's certainly not an original one) is that piracy only begins to matter if the people that pirate might have been legitimate customers in the first place. Most people that want your product and have the money to buy it will buy it, imo, and if they don't have the money for it they were never legitimate prospective customers in the first place. Thus, them stealing it (and let's be honest, that's what piracy is, whether pirates admit it or not) doesn't actually matter since it represents no loss for the seller. In that narrow instance, theft of non-tangible goods like software or content by people that did not represent actual demand (the economics term meaning both desire to have a thing and the ability to pay for it) is a victimless theft.

All that said, I am not advocating piracy. I am spelling out the reasons that I think DRM is just wrong-headed, especially intrusive and onerous DRM. Honestly though, is there really another kind?

shvrdavid posted at 8:09PM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241131

Just so everyone here knows, the re rig of Pauline that I am working on uses the exact same joint centers as the default Pauline does. It is done that way so it is compatible with content, not to start another version completely. It wont require scripts, or a Masters Degree in Poser to use. You can simply copy the rigging to the cloth for many things. Here is the progress, there are no jcms in it at all.

I have considered doing a radical departure rigging wise, but it isn't like anyone here wants a figure that actually bends like a real person does..

It's looking very good so far. I look forward to using it when it is done.

Zev0 posted at 1:52PM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241093

And that is the PROBLEM. Compatibility! Why would people invest in Paige if there is no morph packs or one outfit if that creator fails to provide continued support or get vendors onboard for that figure? Look at Genesis. All shapes, morphs, characters and skins built for it can work with each other. WHY? Because the base and rigging is standardized. What point would it be if all of those were standalone figures with no compatibility with each others content and vendors will have to do individual support for all instead of just once off? How hard is this to understand? Seriously.......

The only thing that's hard to understand is why you are still whining about other people possibly putting their efforts where they wish instead of just doing the same thing yourself. You do sell a few items, but really, do we have to have the sermonizing to go with them? You've made it clear that you aren't interested personally, and won't support anyone that is, so it's really none of your business.

EDIT: Why do different figures have to be compatible with one another anyway? I don't often find myself wanting to put Freak 3 clothes on Skyler.

Zev0 posted at 12:49PM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241088

Whether you prefer Pauline from Smith Micro or Paige from vendor X wouldn't matter at all.

Really? What if I created outfit is designed for Pauline's rigging and doesn't work on Paige because she has different rigging and breaks the outfit? Are you going to bother to update it for Paige? Oh crap, somebody just released Mariah that has a different rig. Are you going to update your product to support that version as well? What about morph packs? Gonna do it for all or just support the official version? All I am saying, is give vendors a set base to support, a set standard, one that works out of the box, or most will not bother with your platform. Simple as that.

Well, why would you be trying to use an outfit for Paige on Pauline? Would you try to have your Jessi clothing work on Victoria 7? The point is,Pauline, Paige and Mariah wouldn't be different versions of the same figure. They would be completely different figures. You do understand that, right? Taking a base mesh and making different things out of it is pretty standard for the CG industry as a whole.

Zev0 posted at 11:30AM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241076

Bigger market maybe...But again, who is going to support that version if it is not official? What if another Pauline shows up that can work in DOS? It is going to be a circus.

You're operating under the assumption that the new figure would be marketed as a Pauline at all. There's your mistake. The key is whether or not the existing Pauline figure is truly open source. If it actually is, you can do whatever you like with it.

If a person makes a figure from an existing open source figure, using only its geometry and adding their own original rigging, then it is not the figure from which the base mesh was taken in any meaningful sense. It would just happen to have compatible UVs, if the person making the new figure left the original UVs intact. Therefore, there could be many new figures, each with their own names (none of them being called Pauline), all sharing UVs. Those people that makes skins would be able to sell to owners of any figure based on Pauline's geometry. Whether you prefer Pauline from Smith Micro or Paige from vendor X wouldn't matter at all.

Lyrra posted at 8:55AM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241065

Pauline uses specialized poser 11 prop handles for face and some body rigging. I'm not certain how this would translate to earlier versions of poser.

Someone should try that and see what happens.

LM

Even still, having her .obj to get to work on would be sweet.

AmbientShade posted at 8:31AM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241051

Zev0 posted at 8:00AM Thu, 26 November 2015 - #4241041

User gets Poser11, looks for commercial content support for these figures, there isn't because the figure is an MR and if you want something you need to do it yourself.

That's the fault of the vendors. The MR is specifically for vendors to take advantage of. If they choose not to it's no one's fault but their own. I fail to see the logic in that statement.

There are other people working on figures. It doesn't have to come from SM. There are a number of artists around here who could build a good commercial support network for whatever they might produce just based on the success of their previous work. SM provided Pauline and soon to be Paul - as an attempt to give content artists a blank canvas to build whatever figure they want to build without having to start from absolute scratch or worry about licensing restrictions and copyrights, etc. It's not possible to meet everyone's expectations in what makes the perfect figure. That's where a true content artist gets to step in and build whatever they want from that base starting point and grow a following around their work. I agree she could be better, and a lot of testers tried to get her to a better state but deadlines are deadlines. There are a number of people who seem to like Pauline more than previous SM figures. And they've taken several steps with P11 to make content creation easier, which could just as easily have been what was meant by the 'content is king' phrase. Since it was never actually elaborated on it's anyone's guess what was really intended by it.

So a person could take Pauline's .obj and start over completely if they wanted to, like she's just a base mesh? They could use the topology that's already present, since it's actually pretty good, and sculpt her in zbrush or whatever, and turn her into a totally new figure that they then UV if they like and rig to their satisfaction, and then sell her as their own creation, that doesn't even require Pauline or Poser 11?

That doesn't seem like that a bad a deal at all, if that's the case.

EDIT: Hold up. If she is actually open source, why hasn't anyone started just disseminating her so all poser users and content creators can get started with her?

Xatren posted at 8:20PM Wed, 25 November 2015 - #4241001

bhoins posted at 7:56PM Wed, 25 November 2015 - #4240903

Which render engine are you thinking of to support the idea that OpenCL is the way of the future?

None of them. I am considering LuxRender for my personal use. The point about OpenCL being the direction most everything will be going in the coming years is a broader one. Historically, closed proprietary technologies and platforms tend to lose out to those that are more accessible to a wider range of developers. CUDA has had a great run, and will of course continue to be relevant for years to come, largely due to the strengths of nvidia's new GPU render cloud. I just think that as OpenCL continues to be adopted across the wider computing industry, we'll see the ability of nvidia to exert market pressure in the graphics processing sector of that industry diminish. Developers won't feel as compelled to offer specialized support for nvidia's proprietary tech (or nvidia branding), because there will be a viable alternative. Personally, I think that would be a good thing.

WARNING: TIN FOIL HAT REQUIRED BEYOND THIS POINT

Now, I am aware that CUDA tech can use the OpenCL framework. My point, in relation to CG, is that we will see a new alternative to CUDA emerge (perhaps many of them), designed and optimized specifically for OpenCL. We could have devices with benefits similar to CUDA competing with one another and therefore giving us a range of choices and price points. Rendering engines like iRay, open to more than glacially slow CPU rendering or a specific brand of GPU... What a brave new world that would be.

bhoins posted at 8:32PM Tue, 24 November 2015 - #4240710

Not necessarily. Much depends on your experience with Daz Studio. They are both easy to use, but they both require shader conversion for best results.

They both do the same thing. They both connect Daz Studio with the open source Luxrender engine and they both have advantages and disadvantages.

LuxRender is a Physically based render engine and works very much like Maxwell, Octane and Iray. Is there a particular reason that you wanted to use Luxrender, instead of simply using the built in Nvidia Iray render engine?

Yes. I own an upper-end AMD gpu (Sapphire r9 270x 4gb), and would like to take advantage of it, rather than wait for a cpu render in Iray. Imo, it was a mistake to incorporate Iray, since it effectively shuts out half the market from enjoying the speed of gpu rendering, especially since OpenCL is the way everything is going to be going in the next few years. Obviously, I could be wrong about that. It's just how I interpret things.

Well, I certainly didn't mean to rekindle an old argument here. I plead ignorance, since I just returned to Poserland and am only just starting to pick up DAZ Studio.

What I gather from the thread's useful bits is that Reality is easier to use than Luxus. Is that accurate?

I understand about not developing a Reality for Carrara. I still want one though.

Have you considered a Reality for other programs out there, like Modo perhaps? It has a great renderer built in (in use at ILM even), but it's CPU based.

Thanks everyone or your input. It looks like I will be getting Reality. I just wish there was a Reality for Carrara as well, so I could keep things uniform between it and Daz Studio / Poser.

I see. Thanks for the info, guys.

Why has the grudge continued for as long as it has? That's a good question. I left Poser back when Firefly became a thing, and am just now coming back to it as Superfly is being introduced. That kind of makes me an outsider. As an outsider, it seems to me like some childish people are mad that they can't use DAZ's new toys, and other childish people want to keep the bickering going because they didn't get hugged enough or something.

EDIT: Let's not forget the childish people that want everyone to stop liking what they don't like and agree that their toy is the best one.

operaguy posted at 10:09AM Wed, 18 November 2015 - #4239309

[edited to add: Just to be clear, I don't use Reality for rendering animations! That would be nuts.]

Aww, why not? Are you telling me you'd rather not set your GPUs on fire?