This should be good... always wonderd what the purpose of the collision detection was. I mean, I know one use for it (which I'm not going to say, for fear of stealing the good doctor's thunder), but is that the only one? Bring on the answers maestro! jonthecelt

Bookmark

bkmk

For what it's worth the reason I heard why the Poser 6 characters have taken a 'step back, as it were, and removed the buttock 'bone' from their rigging, is in anticipation of the new rigging solutino coming in Poser 7. Of course, this was just hearsay, and I'm jiggered if I can now remember where I was this nugget of information, but I jut thought I'd pass it on. Rumour has it, that Poser 7 is going to update the rigging set-up so that unsightly creases and other stuf are a thing of the past... But then again, it might just be rumour. jonthecelt

If you look at the image closely, you can see that the bump map from the suit is applied over the invisible areas, as well. The 'simplest solution to this problem is to create a transmap of the areas you want to remain invisible. Then, apply this map to the 'colour' input on both the specular and bump settings (the bump is a little more complicated, but without firing up Poser right now and show you, I can't explain it better). This way, spec highlights and bump maps only apply to the areas you want shown. Transmaps can be a pain, but if you use one of snowsultan's excellents freebie template guides available here for most of the mainstream models, then it does make things somewhat easier. jonthecelt

Oh, and opera, this wasn't a suggestion to not use Poser: Pose-net requires the use of Poser in order to do its network rendering. Since Poser cant' do it natively, I guess someone thought it would be helpful to offer something you might not be aware of, that can help wth the situation. jonthecelt

In fairness, I think opera was referring to the site sucking, not the product. At least, i hope that's what they meant - it's kind of hard to state a product sucks that you haven't found, but it does make sense to be frustrated by a website you can't navigate around. and opera, I apologise for not givign you a link straight to their pose-net page. i'm so used to navigating there, i did'nt think anyone would have difficulty finding the relevant info. The fault is mine, and I apologise. jonthecelt

The dolly camera can be rotated and moved like other cameras... the difference is in the centre of rotation. The dolly cam is the only one with a centre of rotation on it's own axis, so will move 'properly', as if you were hold the camera yourself. Other cameras have a drift in their rotation. jonthecelt

Pose-net is available at poserproducts.com, by sixus1. jonthecelt

Just another perspective on the whole render big/finish little thing. All the illustrations you see in everyday life, whether it be a magazine advert or poster, or comic book art, or whatever, are rarely worked on at the dimensions you see them in. Most of the time, they are created much larger, just so that, as Englishbob says, you can work i Photoshop or whatever in the postwork and get finer control over the brushwork, etc. You can then resize it down, knowing that your postwork isn't going to stand out. Whreas if you start with a smaller image and zoom in to work on it, you're always going to be looking at a pizelated image, which can be difficult to work out 'where' in the image you're working, or what needs to be done. jonthecelt

The basic difference between the Main, Aux, Posing, Face, Hand CAmeras et al, and the Dolly Camera, is that the dolly camera rotates around its own axis. All the other cameras rotate around an external point - in the case of Maain and Aux, I think it's the zero point of the scene (though could be wrong), while the Face and Hand Cameras - well, it's kind of obvious what they're parented to/rotate from. This means that the dolly camera is the ideal one to use in animations where you want to get a feeling of the camera being 'held' by an operator. When the dolly cam rotates, it doesn't move in space as well. Hope this helps. jonthecelt

What I find worrying in this case isn't the legality of distributing his files (if it's the .pz3 scene, shouldn't be a problem, since all you're using is the out-of-the-box models - no inj morphs or simliar), but that the company should want these files so they can modify his work themselves. For starters, that assumes they're going to be able to just go in there and tinker straight away, knowing what they're doing (unlikely, but possible, i guess). Secondly, if they're happy for him to do the original work in the first place, why can't they ask him to make any alterations they require? It sounds like they want to pay him to do the donkey work of getting the basic animation set up, and then keep all the work from then on for themselves, so they don't have to pay him further? Also, they could tweak a few things, claim to have 'radically altered' the work, and so feel no need to pay him a full fee? Gawain, don't send them the .pz3... send them animatics, final animiations, stills, whatever rendered work you feel might help them... but eep the source material for yourself! jonthecelt

Thanks for the swift reply, nruddocks. for a minute there, figured it had to be me, since no one else had posted a problem! :) jonthecelt

Having a problem with these scripts, nruddock... it's not recognising a definition of 'mats' in line 47. Conversely, the original files seem to work fine for me. Any idea what I might be doing wrong? jonthecelt

Look in the freebies section for Snowsultan's stuff: she's done various seam guides, which will help you in this matter. jonthecelt