42 threads found!
Thread | Author | Replies | Views | Last Reply |
---|---|---|---|---|
moogal | 3 | 445 | ||
moogal | 2 | 234 | ||
moogal | 7 | 557 | ||
moogal | 6 | 518 | ||
moogal | 11 | 303 | ||
moogal | 1 | 264 | ||
moogal | 17 | 370 | ||
moogal | 14 | 349 | ||
moogal | 9 | 336 | ||
moogal | 9 | 291 | ||
moogal | 6 | 327 | ||
moogal | 16 | 420 | ||
moogal | 6 | 156 | ||
moogal | 35 | 1137 | ||
moogal | 2 | 103 |
971 comments found!
Yeah, weight maps. Preferably weight maps that double as soft body maps. Some of the above things have been addressed already. I think the 3 level search will make library management easier, or less important. I'm not sure about the subdivision thing though, but I thought the displacement mapping+smoothing was how people used Poser with zBrush. Not sure about improving the poly response (preview or render?) as the previews work well on my athlon 1900+, and the improvements to rendering time have been mentioned already. So, yeah, better joints/rigging is my top choice.
Thread: The incredible Streching Morph | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Export your figure's head to Wings. Load your morph into Wings. If your morph doesn't line up, then adjust it and export out. If it does line up, then reload the unmodified head into Poser as a morph and see if the translation problem still occurs. If you still have the problem, then it really is confusing! Either way, you shouldn't have to redo the morph to fix this problem.
Thread: Ok I did it I jumped on der festwagen. | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
I finally did it yesterday. I knew I was going to order it during the presale (because I want the free content even if I don't ever use it) but I wasn't sure which reason would do it for me. That little blurb at the bottom of reason 6, the one about using the GPU to see your shaders in preview, was just what I wanted to hear. ( Well, actually I wanted to hear shaders AND shadows in the preview, but maybe that'll still be in there...) As of now I haven't heard reason 7 yet. I sure hope it's something to do with better joint bending, weight mapping, or softbodies. It would almost have to be something like that to top the previous 6 reasons, wouldn't it?
Thread: P7 Brush Displacement with Symmetry | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
How is this not displacement? I know that it's not creating subdivision levels like zBrush, or tesellating like blender, but I thought that using a brush to push and pull a mesh was a form of displacement. I guess there's no "map" controlling the effect? (I should watch the demo!)
Thread: Is poser 6's Poser 4 Renderer slower than the same on P5??? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
I keep my shader trees pretty simple, mainly using textures to modify the various channels. That means I rarely use more than one node per channel. I've compared renders with and wihtout disabling shader nodes and the results were as I expected. Turning off the nodes I had no bump maps, and the transparencies seemed different. Turning them back on gave the results I wanted. I assume it was because I'm using textures and not procedurals.
I've never thought of rendering anything that high until a few days ago. It must take ages!
Thread: Reason number 4 | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Quote - i'd rather say:" How many times will the Poser community buy USELESS promises?" as we all know, poser's archaic joint-system bends geometries like sticks. when you bend a stick, it breaks. the announcement promises that now you can render your broken sticks even faster. does that really make you happy?
What are the useless promises? The last two reasons they gave will greatly benefit anyone currently using Poser. Of course, they won't be doing anything new, just doing it faster and with less hassle. I gather that's your point; that broken figures will still be broken and wonky deforms will still be wonky. AFAIK, that's all true. Still, there are figures that do work really well in Poser, and now we'll be able to render them quicker, which many of us will be happy with.
I'm hoping that there will be improvements made to the bending and deforms, but I don't see the concern some people have with this. I don't see why traditional figures couldn't coexist with an improved figure type, nor why it would need to be difficult to convert the current figures to a new type of rigging should one become available. I don't think the problem is the skeletons, but rather just the weighting of the joints is imprecise compared to what could be achieved with weight mapping. If a new system could be devised in which traditional joint parameters could be converted to weightmaps and improved further, then I think that'd be very good. I don't really have a problem with having to weld seams or not having more than 2 pieces meeting in the same place. I was looking at soft body simulations in blender and noticed that the softness can be controlled by the weight map (makes sense IMHO). I hope we get that someday, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that a version 7 that doesn't include this is "USELESS".
I use Firefly for more than just rendering figures, so my opinion may seem unusually biased.
Thread: Reason number 4 | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Well, they could always say "but I don't use Poser for renders, so where's my new feature?" But now they'll know we're onto 'em! (I, for one, absolutely can't wait to get this baby installed!)
Thread: How to question: merge two figures together, save as one, with one common shared | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Go into the group editor and select the piece you want to make a prop and it should turn red. There is a button to make a new prop and you will be asked to name it. Do this for each piece you want to make into a prop. You may want to conform the skeleton to the V3 and make sure everything lines up properly before making the props, but it shouldn't be a problem if you don't. Also, you can export parts of an object and reimport them.
Thread: How in the World can i create a simple Movie if Rendering takes years? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Quote - When using shadow maps of any resoution (especially small), remember that Poser calculates the map based on the total area of shadow casting objects. So if you have two figures standing on the "ground", your render will look better if you turn shadows off for the "ground".
I could have written this better. What I meant to say is do not have your ground object cast a shadow. If your two figures are in the middle of the ground your shadow map will only be calculated for the bounding box around them, so even a low res shadowmap will look OK. However, if you turn the shadow casting on for the ground, then the bounding box has to include the figures and the ground. So, even a high res shadow map would then look blocky.
I should point out that, in a case where you had for example a figure walking away from another, that your shadow map's bounding box will change as the figures become farther apart. This will cause the shadow to become less sharp as the distance increases, and may cause a shimmering effect in your renders. Still, I recommend a low res shadow map over no map in most cases.
Thread: How to question: merge two figures together, save as one, with one common shared | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
I'd convert the parts of the skeleton to props and parent them to their respective V3 parts. Then you'd only have one set of bones to worry about. Err... I mean one less set ;)
Thread: Reason Number 3 for Poser | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
**The day I got the notice that there were 7 reasons, I wrote down my own in a letter to a friend. I won't post them here (I couldn't if I wanted to) because I don't want to steal thunder from the actual announcements. I think I assumed all of the "reasons" would be improvements to the program. Content may be a great reason to upgrade, it's just not an "improvement". **
**I have to say that it's funny that I never noticed the lack of multiple undos. (Well, I noticed it, but it didn't occur to me as something to fix because I'd gotten used to it!) The instancing is cool, as one of my wishful improvements was for some type of crowd simulation. (I feel, having used versions 4-6, that maybe I'm not seeing the obvious problems with this program, but rather just the ways around them.) The one thing I really hoped to get in version 7 is some kind of GPU usage. I'd like to have, at the least, bumpmaps and stencil shadows in preview, and hopefully someday parallax mapping of the displacement channel like TrueSpace7 does it. I'm not holding much hope for these features as they've already mentioned the improvement to the preview they made by supporting high res textures. **
XENOPHONZ: I'm glad you had a laugh at that. I was running out of time and couldn't find the exact words I wanted. Of course some people around here will never be happy, what was I thinking?
Thread: Reason Number 3 for Poser | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
I think it's more likely that every user eventually finds something that could be improved in Poser. The more versions you've used, the more things you've probably found that need improved. The things is, some of those things have needed improved for a very long time, and aren't peripheral things (like the faceroom was to me-I still haven't tried it) but are the core functions of the program. I think we can all agree that Poser needed multiple undos (wondering if the camera undo will be seperate from the figure undo...) and has always had problems concerning rigging, or more precisely deforming of joints. There's a tendency for many users to only notice when their own complaints are being addressed or ignored. I can understand being underwhelmed by the lip-syncing if I already had bought and learned a 3rd party solution. Who can't say though that Poser should have lip-syncing given it's aim and other features? Of course that should be in there. Likewise, we will eventually need better rigging or some kind of ERC/morph/magnet overhaul of the current deform system. Things like soft select, or GLSL previews would have been crazy talk a few years ago, but are necessary and doable as witnessed in Quidam, Cinema4D etc. I still don't consider content a "feature", but I'll concede that it may be a reason to upgrade for some. Let's just hope there are more foundation improvements and refinements we can all benefit from, and a little something for everyone else to keep them happy.
Thread: How in the World can i create a simple Movie if Rendering takes years? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Here are my tips, some of them have already been mentioned. (I'm not sure if they're all useful, but my intuition said they were!) Here they are:
Use simple figures when possible. Poser4 has a few preclothed figures, and Poser3 figures are also simple.
If creating characters, create a morph and delete the morphs you used to make the morph (not expressions, just the ones you won't be using again). Poser 6 required for this(?)
Use jpg textures whenever possible.
If you absolutely need shadows, try using multiple shadow lights with very low (64-128) resolutons. This help will keep your characters to appear on the ground, as well as provide the subtle tones that you miss when turning off shadow maps.
When using shadow maps of any resoution (especially small), remember that Poser calculates the map based on the total area of shadow casting objects. So if you have two figures standing on the "ground", your render will look better if you turn shadows off for the "ground".
Get a copy of virtualdub and grab as many filters as you can find. Try experimenting with your preview output. Preview doesn't support shadows, smoothing (subdiv), or bumpmaps (or most anything else you need for realism) but the images can look great with a little post processing. I've created a nice bloom filter that, when used sparingly, gave a real sense of atmosphere to the pics I tried it with.
Avoid things alledged to be "dynamic"
Get a copy of Avid or Vegas and use still renders in your animation. You can keyframe and output a simple pan and zoom (Ken Burns' effect) animation alot quicker in a video program if you don't need real motion.
Those are my suggestions. Now I find I spend way more time setting things up than actually rendering them!
Thread: IMHO E-Frontier Poser 7 upgrade policy is disrespectful to Poser 6 customers | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Quote - Quite a few software vendors actually DO charge more if you are upgrading from an older version - it was one of the BIG reasons I decided NOT to upgrade to World Construction Set. Why should I pay more when I never got to use the improvements in the version above mine? Well, this is just my opinion, but 3D Nature lost a sale because it charges more for older upgrades.
Well, presumably those improvements will carry over to all future versions, right? For example, Poser 6 retains the firefly renderer from version 5. So if you were upgrading to 6 from 4, why should you only pay for the features that were added to version 6 and not the ones added to version 5 that you never paid for? I don't think the Poser 7 upgrade is unreasonably priced, but I expected at least a $30 difference between upgrading from 6 and upgrading from 5.
I still think blender has the best upgrade pricing. ;)
Thread: IMHO E-Frontier Poser 7 upgrade policy is disrespectful to Poser 6 customers | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL
Maybe people had complained that content was the last reason to upgrade to Poser6, so this time they made it first to disappoint a different third of their users? (With a remaining third left waiting to be disappointed when new content is one of the middle reasons to upgrade to Poser8, of course.)
This site uses cookies to deliver the best experience. Our own cookies make user accounts and other features possible. Third-party cookies are used to display relevant ads and to analyze how Renderosity is used. By using our site, you acknowledge that you have read and understood our Terms of Service, including our Cookie Policy and our Privacy Policy.
Thread: Reason 7? | Forum: Poser - OFFICIAL