Quote - Actually I am trying to standardize the names...when we switch to using map templates, the purpose of each will be explicitly and exactly based on the standardized names.

You will not have to connect the maps to anything to set up a map template. You will simply identify the files you want to use.

... VSS (will) take care of it all behind the scenes, and just give you a nice clean GUI to fill out.

Fantastic!  Can I have this NOW!

Seriously, you're throwing around a $20 price but I'm telling you I'd paid more.

You know I was blown away by your AMUCFS and always hoped one day I would be able to figure out how to adapt it to other models.  VSS is the answer to my prayers!

Now if you guys can just get all this Python crap worked out - my head is spinning trying to understand what the heck you're all talking about.

Quote - > Quote - Comparison of AMUCFS to VSS.....

is this apollo maximus? the body looks different

Yes, I originally used Jepe's DICK AM VI cr2 to open Apollo.  The I added the AMUCFS MAT afterwords.  The Texture maps were replaced but the morphs remained.

Quote - Regarding switching AMUCFS to VSS:

VSS put the second skin map into the diffuse node. 

...

My bad!  You can't add a map to this node. 

The original map is now shaded differently.

First image is AMUCFS 1 click with RT&AO (although, I think you mentioned somewhere in this 25 page long thread that you had turned off the AO?)

Second image is 1 click VSS.  As shown in the post above, the "HairTransMap" was used as a Bump Map.  You can see in the second image, the "bump" of hairs on his skin.

Last image is VSS adjusted.  The "Bump Map" was added in correctly (manually to all body skin material zones) then I used the VSS Control Prop to Increase the bump to .004 and displacement to .03

I know you're working on the basics, but if you find the time to show how to hook up a HairTransMap....

VSS put the second skin map into the diffuse node. 

It grabbed the "Hair TransMap" and placed it in the Bump Map.

It got the Displacement Map correct.

It ignored the Bump Map and the second Displacement Map - not sure what that one's about.

Before reading your recent posts about how the VSS looks and sees what is plugged into where, I assumed that it looked for map names and placed them accordingly. 

I thought you were on the brink of standardizing the whole Poser system of naming conventions for MAT products.

Alas, I guess not.

BB, that MAT set-up that used the body map as a displacement map was Jepe's Dick AM VI - one of his older products. 

Luckily, we already know all Jepe's future products will most likely be VSS compatible.

RE: replacing displacement maps.  2 kinds: Head & body

Dang!  That's actually a good reason for not having the option of replacing what's in the control prop with what already exists.

Although, most models have separate head and body maps.  Would it be possible to add an extra option to ask whether "head",  "Body" or "All" when changing out maps?  (I know nothing of python - just throwing things at the wall to see if anything sticks)  It would certainly make your VSS even MORE versatile!

As far as having a Texture Map hooked up for Displacement, I didn't check to see if the pre-existing character was set up that way.  I'll check it out tonight when I get home.

Also, pre-existing characters with AMUCFS loaded don't fall into the correct positions once VSS is applied.  I post examples later tonight when I get home.

BB, where are you?  Hope all is well.  And if so, I need you.  I have many items for you to look at .

In the above picture, I entered a new Displacement Value and image into the VSS prop.

I ran Macro1 and the value got transfer correctly, but it seems because there was already an image map plugged in, it did not replace it with my new desired one. 

I would think the "Control Prop" would take precedence. 

If I don't add a map to the VSS prop, don't touch the one that's already in my figure.  But, if I do add a new map - then replace any that are already there with the new one.

Are there more reasons than not why we wouldn't want this rule?

I changed the name of the Hair TransMap from "...Hair Displacement Map" to "...Hair TransMap" in order to match your terminolgy.  Yet, for both the first name and second name, VSS selected it  for the Bump Map.

Meanwhile, the actual bump map called, "...Body4Bump" was completely ignored. 

Even more strange, it placed the actual displacement map correctly (veins - although you can't see any in the final render) but that image's name is "...BodyBump0"

I know you love a good challenge.  Here it is.  What happened?

A vast improvement!

A Fantastic thing this VSS is!!

BB, I got the same results as Isaoshi. 

Mac OS X 10.4.11 Intel Xeon with Poser 7.0.2.132

BTW, although I'm Mac, I come from PC and still have & use my PC right next to my Mac. 
Unfortunately, I don't understand how the Mac works as well as I understand how the PC works.

Sorry about so many posts at once but I forced myself not to post anything until I was completely caught up.  23 pages later and now I'm posting everything at once.

Apollo does have a Hair TransMap, which we all know is way better than painted on hair. 

Jepe's texture doesn't have a TransMap, all the hair was painted on (I believe, by hand.)  In fact, he provided in that package 4 separate Maps with different degrees of hair.  Hopefully from what he's learned in this thread, in the future, he'll provide 1 hairless texture and then 3 separate TransMaps.

So the picture on the left is AMUCFS with Jepe's Dick AM VI plugged into it.  Again, Jepe doesn't include a Hair TransMap and that's why the hair is so flat in left picture.

I took the texture map into PS and desaturated it, blew it up with light so almost everything washed away.  I then erased everything that wasn't hair and wa-la:  A Hair TransMap.  Which is applied on the right and makes the hairs POP off the body.  I l;earned all that with your help.

Now, I just need to figure out how to apply Hair TransMaps in VSS so get them on my models in the future.

Anyways, the VSS version on the right is 100 times better than on the left.  Perhaps a little hot, but I did nothing more than run the synchronize script.

In this picture, I used your indoor02 (I believe - I'm not at my Mac and it's the peice of info I forgot to check before leaving the house this morning)

Initially, Dixon was WAY blown-out in light.  So, I reduced the intensity of all 3 lights to exactly 1/2 of their original setting.

I also changed the spot color to pure white and the first value (can't remember name) I reduced to, I think, .4.

Also, the 2.2 value on whichever node you always talk about, I reduced to 1.8.

I remember throughout the 23 pages reading about how to fix this and that, but I have to go back and look for the info again to clean this up.  I didn't have time this morning trying to rush to work.