yeah, it does go a-searching for files, though i am not sure whether it searches the entire runtime, or restricts itself to the appropriate subdirectory (such as textures) and then asks if it can't find it there (i think that's what it does, but my memory is feeble).  in any case poser is quite slow enough without allowing it to hunt for misplaced files at all, and i am glad rosity requires merchants now to use relative paths.

one can correct this without hand-editing by using hogwarden's utility CorrectReference, which is available in the freestuff here.  or one can shell out for his CRProII, which can do this and much more (my favourite poser utility for imposing some order on the slovenly filestructure :).

i am not good enough to help you, but the fact that the hair would be nigh impossible to do this well in poser shouldn't stop anyone -- since you draw the original hair, you could easily postwork the render.

"Pornography", to my mind, is something for which the degree of sexual titillation is the only thing that counts. There is no attempt at artistic quality. (I am aware that some would not agree with this definition.)

i don't exactly disagree, because that definition sort of works for me too, if just as a starting point for discussion -- but it has the same disadvantage as all the other ones:  it's still personal.  unless i know somebody put an image out there solely with intent to sexually arouse people, with no artistic idea in mind, i can't rightly pontificate on how that's "clearly porn", because i am not a mindreader.  with some things it seems pretty obvious -- they're artistically so bad that i'm tempted to deny them the "art" label right away.  but really, defining art by quality doesn't work either.  some imagery i might want to call porn because it's in self-identified porn magazines -- hustler, penthouse, playboy ... woops.  some of that stuff actually looks like people cared about the expression of the model beyond the spread legs, and lots of care is taken with lighting, with setting a mood.  when does that become art?  and this is all a whole lot harder with writing, because i find writing more difficult to separate from art than imagery.  so i end up, once again, saying "to me this image says nothing at all artistically, it just displays some 'fuck me' pose, therefore i classify it as porn", but i fail at finding a definition that works across the board.

the distinction between erotica and porn is also not per se personally important to me -- i don't actually sort my images with tags like "porn" versus "erotica".  sometimes an image turns my crank, and that image might well have been created as art, and part of what attracts me is the artistic value -- but i am not really looking at it with the art in mind whilst my crank is being turned, ya know?  other times even a really flagrant image without apparent artistic pretensions does nothing for me.  actually, most times self-identified porn does nothing for me, and i require some artistic values to even get into it.  that really smudges that porn/erotica line.

The distinction must be made, otherwise one concludes that there are subjects that cannot be treated by the artist, which to me is an abhorent conclusion.

that would be a very bad thing, i agree.  but i don't actually see why we need distinctions to prevent it, and, being as that distinction between porn and erotica is attempted by lots of people, i don't see it working all that well.  if you create distinctions, people will immediately start arguing about where the line should be drawn.  i think instead that anything and everything should be fair game for the artist, no subject should be taboo.  i rather not draw a line at all that's supposed to be meaningful for everyone.  i am quite comfortable with drawing my own personal lines, and letting everyone else do the same.

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=2661922

yeah, for those it doesn't matter.

in mathematics, raising a number to a power, also called exponentiation, means multiplying the number with itself a certain number of times.

the powers of 2 are important for computers, because those are based on the binary system, a system of two numbers.  some place where you might have come across that is computer memory, which is measured in powers of 2, for example: 256 is 28, 512 is 29, 1024 is 210.

that's why square textures that are in a size of powers of 2, such as 256x256, or 1024x1024 work well for poser.  and since it'll set aside the space in memory anyway, you might as well make your texture 256x256 instead of 200x200 and not waste that memory (if the texture is meant to be applied directly in poser).

that sounds like fun.  if they're textures to be directly applied in poser maxfield has a good point; use powers of two for the size.  poser, like many rendering programs, is optimized for square textures with a size that's a power of two, so you might as well use that for actual texture instead of empty bits.  if they're textures that people can use for clothing in a 2D graphics program, then that's irrelevant, because they won't be used directly.

that's a question to which the answer will depend.  :)  some more context?   if repetition isn't likely gonna be noticeable, seamless is great.  but large scale is better than repetition one can see, and sometimes the features should not repeat, period.  even with seamless tiles i don't create them all  the same size, but again it depends -- also to some degree on the size of the object, so the ratio comes out well.

butt-ugly is in the eye of the beholder.

i don't think jessi looks any worse than the lot of them, really.  the worst thing about her is that abnormally large forehead, and her upper arms are a wee bit short.  other than that, i like her fine -- i have complaints about every figure i've seen, and all of them require work to make them look like real people not suffering from anorexia.  jessi is a bit more on the stylized side, but i find her neither alien nor butt-ugly.  anyone who's seen a lot of people naked realizes that there is a huge variety of shapes among humans -- much more than among poser figures, heh.

my favourite out of the box remains SP3.  but who keeps them looking as if they just came out of the box anyway?  i care more about the quality of the mesh.  jessi's mesh doesn't strike me as bad, but i haven't really stretched the envelope yet at all.

yeah, you might want to re-evaluate your opinion -- the thread announcing the shelby cobra was the 2nd hit in the search i did (nruddock beat me to the post); the first hit being from this thread.  i find the search extremely useful now.

hey doc g, if you want to challenge yourself, or embark on a proof of concept project, more power to ya.  that sort of thing can be fun.  but i stand by my statement that poser's modelling is still clumsy beyond belief, and not a viable choice for people who're not up for a challenge, considering that there are real modellers out there for free.  and she already has zbrush!  i am of the belief that one generally ought to use the best tool for the job, within one's financial limits.  i am forever sharpening people's knives in their kitchens too.  :)

good luck with your house!

the tutorials at poserfashion are pretty easy, i think.

which version of poser are you using?  in poser 6, when saving to the library, in the dialogue that pops up i can pick "subset" -- then uncheck universe, check all the parts i want to save, and voilà.

poser isn't really a modelling program at all, though it has some miniscule ability to fiddle around with combining primitives.  trust me, you don't want to do that; it's clumsy beyond belief.

zbrush is ... different.  it lives in its own dimension.  absolutely fabulous for creating detail from what i've seen.  i don't know how fabulous it is at basic modelling -- most people who use zbrush appear to me to be developing their base mesh in another application.  but maybe they do that because they're more familiar with their other 3D program, and zbrush uses a very different approach.  it does appear to me to have plenty of modelling tools.

anyway, a quick look at the links below shows oodles of tutorials, including several for absolute newbies, and one for a dagger that makes me want to run out and buy zbrush right away!  looking at that dagger tute makes it seem quite easy to create jewelry in zbrush.

modelling consists mostly of matching of your mindset to your toolset, or the other way around if you can't easily shift to doing things in different ways (which is something that can be learned, with lots of practice).  if one modeller doesn't work for you (even though you started with the beginner tutorials, which is something a lot of people skip to their detriment -- learn to operate the controls before you start driving that automobile :), then you're best off looking for one that does things similar to the way you think about creating an object.

lists of tutorials:
http://www.3dcommune.com/3d/tut.mv?ZBrush
http://www.3dlinks.com/links.cfm?categoryid=13&subcategoryid=122

Attached Link: http://market.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?thread_id=2643355

jonthecelt -- if you use maya's cloth system, that'd be a fine method to use, because that is generally how maya cloth works.  it's great fun to work with IMO, because that makes it very intuitive for anyone who knows how to sew.  it's still somewhat different because garment panels need to be planar, so one generally needs to use extra side panels or the seams get too wide and the cloth doesn't fall as well.  but starting from patterns, complete with darts even, really works well.

for other modelling programs it depends on what the pattern is -- if it's simple this could work ok -- but then if it's simple, lofting would get there faster.  if the pattern is complicated it probably won't do you any good at all because IMO sewing complicated patterns that fit is much harder than modelling something from appearance alone.

in 3D modelling and animation it's often easier to "fake it" to achieve a realistic appearance, because the laws of physics either don't exist at all, or are very expensive in terms of processing power.