I got another response (this one from Matt Ko) from SmithMicro.  This is what he said:

"Thank you. I have downloaded Grappo2000's dress from your first image and that problem appears to be caused by the constrained groups she made in the waist area. Used correctly, constraining should work fine, but there can be cases where using constraining in awkward areas or overusing constraints can cause polygons to be positioned in an unnatural way that makes calculations more difficult, thereby creating unpredictable results."

I've also had this problem, so I need to go through my old renders and find one that plainly illustrates the issue.  They need a scene inventory to evaluate what's going on.  I've read complaints about SmithMicro, but they've never experienced poor service from them.  If the rest of you are having this problem with cloth simulations, I think they should hear from you, too!

Oh!  I've learned something new, then!  I didn't adjust anything other than the collision offset and collision depth.

Thank you!

I used Poser's default settings.  I was going to use the ones you suggested in the ReadMe, but after saving, Poser crashed . . .  (It often does that.)

Attached Link: Lili's Angel Dress

I've tried to insert images into this forum several times without success, but this time the "Attach a File" link on the bottom actually worked for me.  Progress!

This is a beautiful dress prop, Grappo!  Thank you!

Amanda at SmithMicro got back to me on the cloth collision issue today.  She wanted an example of the problem, a scene inventory, and an outline of my procedure and settings.  That seemed reasonable to me. I strongly recommend that any of you who've experienced this do the same thing I've done and submit a report.

I've submitted a bug report for this, too!

I keep waiting for them to ask me what I want in the new version of Poser Pro.  A SmithMicro rep exchanged several e-mails with me before PPro 2010 came out, and I felt pretty impressed that someone took the time to do that.

I trust that BB is right.  The folk at SmithMicro would like to create a software product that its customers love to use.  P8 was a big improvement over P7, just as P6 was far better than P5.  I'd rather they take their time and offer me something that is substantively improved over PPro 2010 than to release an updated version that doesn't significantly outperform its predecessor.

Now, whether or not I'll have the skill to USE the program to its potential is another matter, entirely . . .

;)

Quote - I'm talking about far worse comments that are not anywhere near as bad as the two you mentioned.  :) 

In terms of being scathing rebukes of artistry?

Quote - So nudity cannot be artistic?

That's not what I intended to say.  Sorry for not communicating clearly.

Quote - Or yours just aren't artistic?

Well, I think they are, but that's my view.

:)

Quote -   And why are they coming to Renderosity to look at CG nudity when there are sites with actual nude photos they could browse instead?

You know, I wonder the same thing . . .  It's just a bit curious to me that renders with a nudity tag get more views.

Quote - So is that a "bit of encouragement" or a "scathing criticism" in your view?  And if you knew about the lighting already, did you post that in your description for the upload that you wanted help with the lighting?

Neither.  Scathing criticism is uniformly negative and often malicious.  My point in making the remark about being sanctimonious is directed at those who think that if a render isn't perfect, it's not worthy of being looked at.

Quote - They didn't say it was wrong.  They said it wasn't quite right.  You can always ask them how to improve your lighting?

There is a fundamental difference between "wrong" and "not quite right?"  I've received suggestions like: "You need to use shaders for your character skins."  (They ALL have complex shader trees.)  "You should try IBL lighting."  (Which I do.)  The problem is that one size doesn't fit all.  Lighting that works well in one situation looks terrible in another.

Quote - In your culture do both of those statements mean you should pack up your things and give up doing computer art?  And do you think that by displaying your work in galleries that somehow you should have a right to receive only rave reviews?  You can disable ratings and comments for your uploads you know.

You're really missing the point.  I'm reading commentary in this thread that makes it sound like the standard for art is absolute "realism," and I'm reminding everyone that not all of us are there yet.

It would be helpful if people could specify what they like about an image.  Sometimes, it's the gestalt of the thing that's appealing, so it's hard to articulate a particular aspect of the work that speaks to the viewer.  Having written this, I agree that cookie cutter replies serve no real purpose.

Still, for someone like me who doesn't GET a lot of commentary on my renders, affirmation is better than nothing.

Hmmm . . .

Not all of us are at the same level of expertise, and a bit of encouragement goes a long way toward motivating more effort.  When I first started posting on alt.binaries.3d.poser several years ago my renders were awful, but they represented the best I could do at the time.  If I'd received scathing criticism, it might have been easier to give up the hobby than continue.  What purpose does that serve?

The only time I get more than 100 views on ANY render I create is if there's a "nudity" tag on the post.  That means a large number of people who peruse the galleries are not necessarily looking there for purely artistic reasons.

So, let's not get too sanctimonious here.  Some of us are better at creating 3D art than others.  Some of us are learning.  When I get comments like: "You don't have the lighting quite right," I think: "Well DUH!  You don't think I KNOW that?"

Telling me how to improve is constructive.  Telling me I'm wrong is likely just stating the obvious . . .

I agree with Robyn that realism also involves attention to posing details.  Simply having a scantily-clad female standing in front of a fractal background and staring, often wide-eyed, at the camera isn't really accomplishing very much from an artistic point of view.  Posing should look natural.  That's part of what makes a render look real.  (It's also harder to pull off when more than one figure is in a scene.)

She brings up a related issue, however, that we would do well to understand.  Perspective in art is an applied mathematics.  The geometry of the Golden Section and the Rule of Thirds has helped artists create work that mimics reality and is pleasing to the eye.  This blending of maths and creativity has been integral to the creation of quality art for centuries, and it makes perfect sense that it should extend into the realm of CG art.

So, maybe what we should be striving for involves a broad variety of skills.  To make a render look "natural" requires an understanding of how Poser works, in terms of its limitations, its lighting, material nodes and rendering features.  But we ALSO have to incorporate the REST of our artistic capabilities.  Changing figure rigging and having the finest texture mapping in the world won't help if we ignore compositional technique!  I spend DAYS working on renders because there is no easy way to do everything well without exerting significant effort.

Only what I've read in this forum . . .

Attached Link: Painting Testimonial Pictures

Simon looks rather creepy to me, so if I have need of a villain, he often fulfills that role.  One of the nice things about having James, Jessie, Alyson, Ryan, Simon, Sydney, Michael and Victoria is that they all look reasonably different.  Apparently, though, everything is going to change when the NEW version of Poser and the DAZ Gen 5 figures come out . . .

Quote - You'd be hard-pressed to do high-quality animation in Poser alone, but that said, most high-level animation uses a number of programs, not just one. I use Poser (with Daz figures) to edit bvh motion capture, and adjust & compose the animation, adding the hand gestures, applying lip sync (from Mimic) etc., then render in Cinema 4D. You can judge if it's getting me anywhere:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UDq0_GOE0pc

Lots of other software gets involved, but I spend most of my time in Poser, animating. I think with the proper skills, one could do something decent using Poser in the process, that--while it wouldn't be a Pixar--I agree with Stallion that you might be able to make something good enough for television, or maybe some kind of online commercial product--at least, that's what I'm hoping, someday!  ;-)

THAT is impressive!  Beautifully done!

Attached Link: Robert's YouTube Channel

However, it can be rather fun to make characters "come to life" when the animation is completed.  Some of the examples listed in this thread are quite well done, and I will likely never get THAT good.  It's ok, though.  Most of us who use Poser do so as a hobby.

High quality?  That depends on the perspective of the viewer.  Why don't you give it a try and post your results here?