Just out of interest - where is the physical location of this file on my hard drive?

http://127.0.0.1:11530/assets/addLibraryButton.png

It may be Apple blocking something in Flash, and I’m wondering if the permissions for that location are wrong or could be adjusted to be readable in some fashion.

Quote - Well thank goodness there is still a real man's UI - terminal. I was able to fix the file name.

Odd that you are getting this problem. I can go into just about any file with BBEdit (or its free sibling TextWrangler) and edit them, even files without .txt extensioms. The File>Get Info window in Finder will let you set permissions for the file if you want to edit it.

Anyway, looking at my SnowLeopard backup, the .cfg files you mentioned are the same, so the Lion install hasn’t messed with those Flash settings.

I have tried installing Flash 10.3, which gives you a system prefereces control panel for editing settings (instead of going to the Macromedia domain), and explicitly gave it the .swf file as well as the bin-release folder. I noted an Acrobat trust file does this explicitly, so I thought that if Adobe does this, then surely it’s some kind of example to follow (yeah, I know).

I added these lines to the .cfg file for good measure:

/Applications/Poser Pro 2010/Downloads/Runtime/ui/Flex/LSMGUI/bin-release/LSMGUI.swf

/Applications/Poser Pro 2010/Downloads/Runtime/ui/Flex/LSMGUI/bin-release/LSMGUI.html

Still no change though.

Quote - Oh man I'm ticked off with my Mac.

I was going into the trusted config area to check how these files look. The file is called PoserPro2010Trust.cfg. I renamed it so it would open in a text editor; PoserPro2010Trust.cfg.txt. Now it will not let me rename it back to what it was. It says I don't have permission.

So I copied it to another folder. I rename it to remove the .txt. Then I try to copy it back and it says it is already there. No it isn't - they have different names. But the stupid computer for babies claims that these two files are both txt files and will not let me put either one back to what it was before I made the first change.

I hate Mac OS - take this baby shit and shove it.

You will really like Lion then. Apple decided that it’s best if you can’t see your library file. Imagine the shock when I couldn’t see it in my user folder.

Anyway, your post about the trusted files stuff is interesting - I’m going to dig into my Snow Leopard backup (alway,s do this peopl - take a back up before upgrading the OS) and see if there are any differences.

HI,

trued giving trust to that folder in the Flash dialog. No luck. Also tried these in the Terminal:

codesign -f -s - /path/to/bin-release/swf files

and

codesign -f -s - /path/to/Poser Library App

thinkng that would help, but, again, no luck. Opening the HTML file in Safari fails to display the icons either.

Quote -  I finally got the serial number problem fixed but I still can't get the external files to all show up without crashing, so hopefully there will be a fix soon

What was the fix for the serial number problem? I am having the exact same problem, and SM are trying a lot of Permission Fix type things, but I’m not getting anywhere.

Quote - This thread is huge. Maybe we should stop using it, and start doing individual threads on individual topics?

There is a lot use useful information here - when I stumbled across it, I had to read every page to pick the helpful stuff out of it. I know that there is PDF of information too, but I think it’s been superseded by more recent developments.

Breaking out some VSS threads, with the relevant information in them from the start would be a good place to start, as well as a VSS Developments thread where new versions etc. can be announced.

 This thread is huge. I have a few bookmarks for useful pages. This one should show you how to set up lipstick.

This technique could also be used for other things, makeup, tattoos spring to mind.

 Well, here is my first comparison render. It’s Apollo Maximus.

To the left is the non VSS render. It’s the Latin skin texture, and I guess it looks very "Poser-ish" - quite dark, no real detail where you would expect it to be. To the right is the same file, but this time I’ve run VSS over it. I’ve tinted it a very slight green, just to stop it getting too red. It looks so much better - and what impresses me is the level of detail in there. The stubble looks far more convincing, and the detail in the eyebrows is much better. There is better skin definition too.

BB - I’ve only recently found this - so in relative terms, hours is about right for me. I should be working...

 Phil;C, I should have replied earlier - I got distracted by BB’s VSS shaders...

Thanks for the reply, and the code fragment. I’ll give them a go. And, yes, my typing is appalling. Usually, I spell check.

Quote - I know exactly what you went through.  Glad to have made a difference. 

You could make your adjustments in the VSS prop and resave it into your library under a unique name.  Although you will accumulate several custom props that way, it is perhaps the best way until the general version becomes available.

That’s what I’m doing. I also tend to save finished figures to my library as well just in case they are useful in the future. That way, I know I have a reference to go back to.

I’m very impressed by what VSS’s shaders can do - I could lose hours to it. Maybe it needs a health warning!

Quote - @hairydalek:  I understand what you are implying.  I also had the same problem with the LK-Lyra texture for V4 by lkiilerich.  This vendor uses node shaders for the skin texturing so essentially I'm replacing one set of nodes for another.  I don't know which version of Poser you are using but I'm going to assume you are using PoserPro.  The reasoning is that what you are encountering is actually over gamma correction applied both the VSS nodes and the Poser render settings. 

Hopefully I'm doing this correctly, the included image are renders performed with IBL white @ 20% accompanied with 1 White Spot Light @ 40 % Intensity.  Left image is the base texture, center is rendered with VSS, Gamma Correction 2.2, and right image rendered with VSS, Gamma Correction 1.  As you can see, the center image is somewhat acceptable but has an overall gray appearance and is considerably lighter than it's counterpart on the left.

By going into the material room and changing the GC from 2.2 to 1.0, not only do you restore the skin textue but you improve the quality of the render.

Hi,
yes - it was Gamma. Thanks for the post.

I thought of this very late last night, but didn’t post until I had tried it out this morning. I had forgotten that this was in the VSS as well. Gamma Correction seems to be everywhere. So I had Gamme in the render AND the shaders, which of course made a right pig’s ear of the whole thing. Now that Gamme is back to 1 in the shaders, I’m getting what I expect. Phew!

There’s a lot of information here, and I was trawling this thread for clues about tinting textures - GC was not in my mind at that point.

Is there a way of automatically picking up the render settings GC and adjusting them in the VSS prop in Python? Maybe that’s a feature which needs to be added as a switch (on by default?).

 HI,
it’s not the preview I’m having problems with - it’s the final render where the problem arises. I’m not at my main machine either - when I am, I’ll see if I can get a couple of renders together to show what the problem is.

 HI,
I’ve been looking at tis the last few days, and I’m rather impressed in what it can do. What I am having problems with is darker skin textures - they seem to come out overly red or just too light. I’ve tried tinkering with the tint and SSS colours (I’m using the newest version of the shader), but with little luck. The skin colours end up looking grey - I can’t seem to get the colours I’m after.

The image used for the texture is close to the colour I want, but I’m not sure what settings I need to use to restore those colours in the shader. If I want a caucasian/northern European skin colour, I can get it.

I saw a render of a green figure here done with VSS, along with the settings, but I can’t find it. 

Quote - > Quote - Should the gamma settings in Poerr Pro’s render settings match the gamma setting for your monitor profile rather than the "out of the box" figure?

Yes, they should.

In fact, they should match the gamma settings of the monitors that your audience is going to use to view the pictures, as well. Can anyone detect a can of worms here?

And no one has mentioned profiling monitors and ICC files yet ... :-)

Thanks, bagginsbilol, for your suggestion. Why didn’t I think of this.... doh! 

Quote - 2.2 for PC, 1.8 if you're on a MAC

1.8 is the default gamma setting for Macs when you take them out of the box, which is a figure set for print work. However it seems to be fairly common practice these days to set Mac gamma to 2.2, especially if you are working primarily on web sites and you need to be sure that your images will work properly on Windows machines. Working to a gamma of 1.8 can make your colours seem very dark on a Windows machine.

Should the gamma settings in Poerr Pro’s render settings match the gamma setting for your monitor profile rather than the "out of the box" figure? I’m giving this a go, BTW, and so far I think it’s making a positive difference.