@DocMatter wrote: "Someone pointed me to an easy way to use texture maps as bump maps, but how about specular maps? Or is there a relatively easy way to make a spec map? Thanks!."

If that "easy way" with bump maps was to run the texture map through a Math Functions node to turn it grayscale and adjust the brightness/contrast, you can do the same thing to make a procedural specular map.

As far as I understand it, you don't really need a specular map, per se, unless you want to control which parts of the diffuse texture get more or less specular light. Spec maps (greyscale images) usually get plugged into the Specular Value input on the PoserSurface root node, not into the Specular Color input, so they provide control over the intensity of the specular highlights -- from 0 (black areas of the spec map) to 1 (white areas) -- but they don't contribute to the color of the highlights or their type (glossy, blinn, etc.).

If you don't need to have the specular intensity correspond closely to the texture map, then you can just use one of the nodes under Lighting to provide the type of highlights you're after -- like Blinn for skin or other soft surfaces, or Glossy for hard, shiny or wet surfaces. You don't need to to plug a spec map into those nodes, although it's possible to do so.

If you've used EZSkin on a figure's skin materials, you'll see that it ends up connecting a procedural bump map to the Reflectivity input on a Blinn node (which is connected to Alt_Specular, with the regular Specular blacked out). In fact, a good way to learn more about options for procedural bump and spec maps is to delete any image-based bump and spec maps that came with a figure's skin materials and then run it through EZSkin. You can then study the nodes that go into creating the procedural bump and specular and experiment with them to learn more about how they work and why.

Of course, all of this assumes you're using Firefly and not Superfly. If you were asking about spec maps for Superfly, never mind! I use Poser Pro 11, but I don't use Firefly b/c my projects call for a style that Firefly is better at.

consumer573 posted at 7:07PM Sun, 26 August 2018 - #4335292

I guess I think it is dumb to have work that people have done as a sunk cost and that other people are willing to buy and say, 'no we're not going to sell it anymore because it is old and we have moved on.' To me it is recurring revenue with minimal effort.

I'm sure Renderosity must have some kind of rationale for taking older products off the market, but I don't know where to look for it.

I do wonder how much has to do with the vendors who created those products, like maybe they don't want them available any longer, perhaps b/c they're no longer involved in 3D or feel the products don't adequately showcase their current skills?

I'm assuming that Renderosity would consider putting products for older figures back on the market if vendors updated them, perhaps with some new materials or promo renders. Vendors also have the option of making those older products available as freebies, here at Renderosity or elsewhere, so that at least their hard work continues to be useful. I suppose we'll never know why some of them don't do that unless they chime in!

Just FYI for anyone following this thread here and not on the SM forum: I'm not able to test out Karina's Batch Color Gadget b/c of the error message shown below (which is something all Poser script writers should probably be aware of).

But if any Windows users are willing to test the gadget, on their own props are on my "Messy Painter" prop set, please let me know.

If it works for Windows users, I will change all the Materials to use the setup Karina's gadget works with and include info about the gadget in the Readme.

But a.big THANK YOU to both Karina and ironsoul for sharing potential solutions with me!

@ironsoul: I just had a chance to try your script, but it doesn't seem to do anything in my scene.

The first time I tried it, I had changed the references to CTag in the script to my custom Blender node name instead (Blender-PaintColor), and when that didn't work I thought maybe I'd messed something up by editing the script.

So I reverted to the original version of the script and changed the Material on an object so that the paint color blender's name was instead CTag. That didn't work either (I tried both launching the MT5 file from the library and running the script from Poser's File menu command).

Just out of curiosity, I then tried running the script on an object with the original Blender-PaintColor name instead of CTag, and I got the error shown below. So the script is doing something, but I don't know enough about Poser Python to debug it! Any thoughts?

ironsoul posted at 2:02PM Fri, 24 August 2018 - #4335272

Hope that provides some ideas.

Thank you SO MUCH for doing this! I came back to this thread to post an update about Karina's suggestion on the SM forums and hadn't expected to see an actual script I could try!

I will test it out shortly. So do I need to change the Blender nodes' names to CTag, or should I change CTag in the script to Blender-PaintColor (which is the name I used for all the paint color Blender nodes)?

Thanks again for being so helpful!

Here's an early promo render so you can see what's in the "Messy Painter" set. The set (like all of mine) is meant to be stylized/slightly toony rather than photorealistic, since I'm making things to use in my own young-adult graphic novel.

SeanMartin posted at 5:49PM Wed, 22 August 2018 - #4334200

Thing is, all of these old meshes are just fun to work with.

I thought of another reason why I like the way SeanMartin uses older figures: because he gives them such vivid personalities! My eye will always gravitate more towards the characters who look a bit "larger than life," as though they're "characters" in all senses of the word, conveying personality through expressions and body language -- even if their bends aren't perfect, their textures aren't hi-res, and their clothes don't have realistic wrinkles or whatever. But that's just my preference, not a commentary on what's "better" or not. And I suspect there are others out there who are glad to know they're not alone in their enjoyment of older figures!

ironsoul posted at 5:32PM Wed, 22 August 2018 - #4335175

Never tried it but if the blender node can be given a unique tag (eg name) it should be possible to write a python script to scan through a scene and copy a value to each node with the same tag it finds.

In an ideal world how would you see this being used? For example would the user set the colour on the currently selected prop's mat room and the script take the value from there, or do you see it as clicking on the side menu to bring up a colour picker? Also would this be applied to all your props or just the currently selected one?

Thanks for the response and for giving this some thought!

Ultimately my goal is for it to be as easy as possible for the end user to change the color of paint used in a scene, using a paint color of their choosing. A script that would allow them to change the color of the paint on all paint-ready objects in the scene would be amazing, if it's possible. As for where the new color would come from, I'm open to suggestions!

I'm assuming users would be comfortable enough with Poser's Advanced Material Room to change the colors on a Blender node, to create a new paint color. That's what I'd originally intended them to do, but when I went through every item to save MT5 presets with pink and then white paint, I realized that it's kind of a pain to change each one manually b/c there are so many!

So maybe the user could choose a new paint color on one object (by clicking on the Paint Color Blender's color chips), and somehow a script would apply that color to all the other objects with Paint Color Blender nodes? Or maybe the user would save the new paint color as an MT5 (perhaps w/ only the Blender and color mixer nodes selected) and the script would somehow apply/change only those nodes on all the other paint-ready objects? I'm comfortable enough with scripting languages to edit Python scripts, but I don't know much about how Poser Python works, so I'm not sure what's possible.

Every mat zone that takes paint has the paint color set up the same way, as shown in the screenshot above (two close colors on a Blender node, mixed by a Turbulence node). What varies is what the Paint Color Blender node is plugged into, as well as other things like bump, transparency, specular settings, etc. I also use Blender nodes elsewhere in the shader setup for most objects, to apply the trans-masked paint splats and to limit the glossy specular to them, but I'm guessing there's a way to make the Paint Color Blender nodes a unique ID? Would the external name of the node be sufficient, or would I need to go through the MT5 files and make sure all the Paint Color blenders use a specific internal name, like Blender_5?

Again, thank you for giving this some thought, as I know it's kind of an odd request. However, being able to change only one component of a shader setup would be useful for many purposes, I'd imagine! I'm pretty sure I can do that with D3D's Extended Shader manager, but I can't count on end users to have that.

I'm in a similar situation as I develop a graphic novel I intend to deliver via web, so I'll toss out a few thoughts.

I've created some terrible, horrible, no good, very bad headaches by copying/moving items into different runtimes, so now I have only three:

• default Poser content
• content I downloaded (purchased or freebie)
• content I created

My "downloaded items" runtime is HEAVILY customized so that all items for a particular figure are organized into subfolders for that figure. For example, my Characters library has a top-level folder called V4-APPAREL which has subfolders for shoes, pants, dresses, etc., and the Materials library has a matching set of folders (regardless of whether the materials were in .pz2 or .mc6 format).

The upside is that I know where everything is. The downside is that I lose the references to vendors that typically come with their runtime packaging, with the vendor's name or initials used as the top-level folder name for the product. So what I do instead is either add the vendor's name to the end of the folder name (like LittleBlackDress by Esha) or add the vendor's name or initials to the ends of library files (using macOS Finder's ability to batch rename). If I'm not sure who the vendor is, I open the library file in BBEdit and look for the top level geometries folder for the product and use the name of that folder.

I like the idea of taking this one step further and renaming items within Poser, which is easy to do on the Properties panel or Hierarchy Editor. That way you really would have almost all the info you need for credits within each .PZ3 file (except for things like light presets or Python scripts you used).

But here's what I've been doing thus far. I have a Numbers spreadsheet set up to record info like skin, eyes, morphs, hair, and clothing for each character I set up, along with stats like FBM and height dial settings. And b/c I've already set up my runtime to display the vendor's name with each item, it's easy to figure out who should get credited for what item.

I hope that's at least a little bit helpful!

(I also keep Numbers spreadsheets to track info on all the hair models, skin textures, and character morphs I have, so that I can more easily put together characters of different backgrounds as well as their family members, but that might be of interest only to other Virgos :-)

Livebyhonor posted at 8:17PM Tue, 21 August 2018 - #4333895

then possibly go to the more advanced poser.

I'm pretty sure some DS users would object to the idea that Poser is "more advanced," esp. since DS comes out with new toys faster (like dForce). What it really boils down to, IMO, is which app you feel most comfortable using.

My goals are similar to yours, to make images for a web-based graphic novel, and after playing with DS and Poser I chose Poser for several reasons, including (a) I prefer the interface (which I've customized to my liking); and (b) I like that I can easily open and edit any Poser file w/ a text editor. I also just "get" how Poser works in a way I never did with DS. But that's about personal preferences, not which app is "better" for a particular purpose.

I was considering MOHO

When I first started thinking about doing a graphic novel, I got Anime Studio Pro (now MOHO) and I spent a lot of time learning it. But after a while I got frustrated with trying to represent 3D space (characters in an environment) using 2D techniques. If my mind worked that way, I'd just draw my comics!

I find it SO much easier to comprehend the 3D environment, where I can position characters, furniture, walls, etc. and point a camera at them the way I would in the physical world.

Also I am considering seeing if i can get someone to help me make some 3d models of my characters that i can use instead of my initial idea of just using stand in models and then re drawing my own characters.

I recommend holding off on the idea of getting someone to help you make original models. Both Poser and DAZ Studio come with human figures you can use as starting points, and most of these can be customized extensively to become a wide variety of characters. Customizing these figures is SIGNIFICANTLY easier than creating and rigging an original human model. And it doesn't have to be expensive, either, as some figures have loads of free content available.

You can try both DS and Poser for free, although obviously you have to purchase a Poser license to use it beyond the trial. But SM occasionally puts Poser on sale for ridiculously low prices, so watch out for those.

If you're a Windows user, another option to consider is Reallusion's iClone. After getting fed up with Anime Studio Pro (now MOHO), I got Reallusion's Crazy Talk Animator 2, and if I were still interested in doing 2D that's the app I would've stuck with. But Reallusion doesn't make iClone for Macs, for whatever reason!

One last thing: if you happen to search Google for info on using 3D apps (or CGI) to make comics, you'll find some useful info, but you'll also find some rather heated opinions on the subject that tend to come down in favor of "traditional" methods. Don't let that deter you. The best method to create your art is the one that lets you create it the way YOU want it to look!

Good luck!

SeanMartin posted at 7:27PM Tue, 21 August 2018 - #4334200

True, he has his limitations, but it's like restoring a Model T and letting it have some fun all over again.

I really love what Sean does with these older figures, but that's most likely b/c his work falls within a spectrum from "stylized to comic book" and that's the aesthetic I most enjoy in Poser renders. If your goal is to produce work like that, then you don't have much need for a skin texture that's "technically correct" down to the last pore (and so huge that it eats up half your texture cache!). Indeed, you might find that an older, lower-res, slightly more "airbrushed" skin, run through EZSkin for the awesome procedural bump + spec, is actually "better" for your purposes.

In other words, what we each consider "better" in a texture or model depends on what style we're aiming for when we put scenes together to render. If your goal is to produce photo-realistic renders, then you probably do need to use the newest stuff, as it's always improving towards that end. But if that's not your goal, then you can get a lot of good use out of older content, esp. if you can tweak it to take advantage of newer rendering technologies (SSS, IDL, etc.)

My primary figure is V4, and I now use the Sasha-16 version (which has a bunch of amazingly useful dials I wish all figures had, including height control), but even before I ever tried out a weight-mapped version of V4 I very rarely had problems with her bends b/c I put her in everyday clothes and everyday poses (nothing nude or extreme). I also very rarely had (and still rarely have) problems getting clothes and hair to fit or crafting a variety of different characters out of the ++/A4/G4 morph sets (plus Faerime). Most importantly, I just like working with her, as I've gotten to know how she works well enough that it's easy for me to get what I want with a few turns of the dials.

I've never used V3, but I do have Aiko 3 and find her very cute. If someone reorganized/improved her dials the way Karina did with the Sasha-16 version of V4, I'd use her a lot more often!

So I totally understand the preference for "older" figures, and it's too bad that it's so hard to find some of the older items made for them. Some folks have shared their items as freebies, but others have disappeared. The good news is, the kind of person who likes using the older figures is typically also the kind of person who doesn't mind using various hacks and tweaks to get newer stuff to work with them!

@waynewiz: I'm also using Poser Pro 11 on a Mac, and here's how the magnifier tool has always worked for me (as far back as Poser 9): After I've chosen it from the Tools menu, I click and drag over an area in the preview window that I want to zoom in on. So maybe what you're missing is the click AND DRAG part?

As far as I know, zooming in is the only option. To zoom back out, I just use the keyboard shortcut for "restore camera" (shift command h). That re-sets the view to the active camera's most recently "memorized" state. (So obviously that only works if you memorized the camera's settings before using the magnifier!)

As for dealing with changes in an animation timeline, here's what I do: I turn animation OFF for all my cameras except the Main camera, and I only use the Main camera to actually frame each shot. For anything else I might need to do on a frame, I use the Aux, Pose, Face or orthographic cameras, all of which are quickly accessed via keyboard shortcuts. (You have to enter your own shortcut for the Aux camera, on Poser's Preferences panel). If I need to see something on a particular frame the way the Main camera sees it, in order to fix a pose or whatever, then I just copy the Main camera's parameters on that frame to the Aux camera.

You can also, of course, add new cameras to the scene, but as far as I can tell there's no way to assign keyboard shortcuts to them, so I don't use that method.

Hope that helps!

Oh, and one more thing: I've gotten myself into quite a mess by switching animation on and off for the Main camera, so now I just leave it on.

@DocMatter: that happens to me all the time, and I am also using Poser Pro 11 on a Mac (MacBook Pro w/ macOS High Sierra). Sometimes it'll happen after only 30+ minutes of working in Poser, and other times it doesn't happen for a few hours. But I can kind of feel when it's about to happen. I go to move the camera and something feels not quite right, almost like my trackpad has given me an unexpected haptic response. From that point on, the parameter dials will no longer turn and/or only the camera's parameter dials will display, even if I have a prop or figure selected.

Sometimes I can resolve the issue by switching between the Pose and Material rooms. But if that doesn't do the trick, then I quit Poser and open it again. Or, if I've been using it a while and have had Photoshop or my modeling app open too, I restart the computer first.

As for reporting it to SM, I'm not sure how much that would help, as they seem to always say to Mac users that they can't reproduce the problem. I guess that's not too surprising given that we all use our computers and Poser in such a wide variety of ways. In the grand scheme of things, I consider this to be an annoyance but not a major problem, since at least Poser doesn't actually crash!

If you just want to be able to see the back of your object, so you can continue setting it up, then you might try adding an infinite light to the scene, yRotating it 180º, and adjusting the xRotation so that it lights your object. If you don't want that light to contribute to your render, you can either turn it off before you render or go to the Material Room and change the light's Diffuse and Specular color chips to black (but NOT the Color chip, which should stay white).

Another option is to delete all the lights currently in your scene and instead set up three infinite lights (left, right, and back) so that they illuminate whatever is in the center of the scene. I use this as my default "working lights" setup.

If you want to actually render the back of the object, then your best bet is to select it and rotate it around so that the part you want to render is facing the lights you already have.

If you want to have a set of spotlights that you can move around as needed, try this: load a sphere primitive from Poser's Props library, set up your lights to illuminate the sphere, then parent the lights to the sphere (by dragging them onto the sphere's entry in the Hierarchy Editor). Now you can move the sphere and the lights will move with it. Make the sphere invisible to the camera on its properties palette and change its display mode to wireframe to make it easier to position near your subject before you render.

I know this is a lot to take in if you're a really new Poser user, but we were all there once, so please let me know if I can clarify anything further!

I've been keeping my eye on the Blender site, awaiting the release of 2.8 before I spend any more time trying to learn Blender. But I just recently came across a fork of Blender that supposedly has a much more user-friendly interface (bforartists), and now I'm wondering how that version compares to what's coming in 2.8. Has anyone played with both bforartists and a recent beta of 2.8 who can comment?

I do all my 3D work on a MacBook Pro while sitting on a sofa (for ergonomic reasons), and I really appreciate that Blender can work with the trackpad-- no external mouse needed. That's surprisingly and frustratingly rare in 3D apps. But what has always driven me nuts in Blender is that there's no simple interface for controlling the camera, like the strip of camera controls at the top of Poser, DAZ Studio, and my favorite modeling app thus far, Cheetah3D (for Mac).I look forward to seeing how camera controls work in the next version of Blender!