bump maps & normal maps do not raze the topology or polycount

displacement maps & vector maps will raze the topology and polycount

Nope, sorry, I have to step in here.

The first line is correct, bump and normal maps do not raise topology or polycount. = Correct. They visually "fake" 3D without actually doing anything in 3D.

The second line has an error => Displacement maps will raise topology, = correct, but it WILL NOT increase polycount.
Polygon count stays exactly the same as before.

A displacement maps "displaces" the topology at pixel level, and only the pixels that are inside the UV_Map unwrapping are used.
Finer detail can be obtained by using bigger displacement maps from 4096x4096 up to . . . . the highest I went during testing was 16Kx16K (Poser has no limit on texture maps size.) All pixels that are inside the UV unwrapping will effectively "diisplace the topology in 3D space at pixel level.".
The more pixels/surface, the higher the detailing.

Carry on.

Did you try playing with IK , ON and or OFF.
Old shoes had an issue with IK

Try both, the figure and the shoes.

a very basic remark here. Does your figure look happy? Does it look "inviting". Does it look like she "wants to meet you". Says ; " Buy me?"

Would you fall in love with someone walking around with that sad expression? Also, there is absolutely no "life" in the texture. No detail, no life, no contrast, no tan nor shadow.

Look to get some "flicker" in the eyes. (Not specular, but that "lifelike flicker" young women can have when they are inviting you to buy. Promo girls "have that" touch of wider inviting eyes. The eyes have no 3D in the mesh nor the texture around the eyes. She looks pale as if she was ill. But even when ill, there must be some "life" in the girl.
And those pouty lips, as if she "has" to kiss, but does not want to kiss.

The only skin texture we see is on the nosebridge, and that's about it.

We see a smoothed head, with a texture deprived of contrast and detail, and a girl that does not like to live. Pale skinned and sad..

Sorry, to be "hard" but that's what I see.

As a last comment because Scarlet certainly has her artistical value.

**To fix? And in this order:
**- Correct the object file to a fully symmetrical object file

• Review all riggings at all joints
• Pass a dedicated technical beta-test cycle

and we wish her a happy future in 3D land.

Best regards, Tony

Allow a small comment please; What upsets most end - user / customers is the nature of the errors made, and how these slipped through the system.:

• Basic- errors that were made at a very early stage by respected content creators. => (No problem yet, there is a safety net )

• The beta-testers did not see or report ( Oeps, the safety net is failing! )

• The Renderosity Quality Control team did not see or report (Jakkes, the last safety net is gone ! )

The documented errors are of the kind the community accepts from beginners, from free stuff creators, from the less experienced, but not from a well respected content creator.

All reported factual and documented issues are so basic, They all surfaced within hrs of release. =>  They should have been seen by the creators, the beta-test team, and the Renderosity QC team. **=> The whole system failed.
** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No figure will ever be perfect, agreed. If this release proves anything at all?

It proves the value of an independent, dedicated, motivated, technical beta-test team from day1.

Facial shapes, body shapes, large or small breasts do not matter; That is the artistical freedom; => The playground of the creator.

The technical side should have a, and I can not repeat this enough, an independent technical beta-team from day1.

True artists are so focused on the artistical value that they sometimes make the most basic technical errors.
=> These have to be reported and corrected in the beta-test cycle, and that's why you need an independent technical beta- team from day1.

The material setup, the rigging, the JCM's, can all be pached up with an update. What worries most technical reporters is the assymetrical obj file.

The last asymmetrical native Poser figure with an asymmetrical obj file was Sydney, a long time ago. The newer Poser features need "figure object file symmetry" to work properly. That's why some of us have been hammering SM's door down => KEEP the figures symmetrical ........ PLEASE !

The application and the figures need to be "in sync" to work properly.
And Poser needs symmetrical object file figures for all its newer functions to work as designed.
**
For Scarlet's release? The whole Scarlet beta-test cycle failed. Including the Renderosity QC.

**The only lesson that can be learned is: Install an independent technical capable beta- system from day1, and listen to your beta-testers.
Have a nice day all.

Whaw, that's a huge technical achievement.

Don't like the rude scene, but technical?  WHAW!

@ FVerbaas

If you know what you are doing, Poser MAINTAINS symmetry.
Even if you do NOT know what you are doing?
The fix is less then 20 seconds.

Yes Shane, there are multiple reasons to keep going after assymetrical meshes.

**First of all ; That mistake was made at the very-very beginning. Sixus wrote 6 years of development? So the error dates from at least 5 years back.
**Everything done after the assymetrical obj file is for the garbage tin. *You can not unscramble scrambled eggs. That is technical, and economical impossible.

**They can patch up the material setup, they can patch up the rigging, but to repair the object file? They"ll have to undo 5 years of work and restart from there.
**
IMHO, that figure should be pulled from the market place ASAP.

=> How did it pass beta-testing anyway? What did the beta - testers do?

=> How did it ever pass the Renderosity Market place quality control checks?

As end users we have to look at everybody's responsabilities; The creator(s), the beta-test team, and the Renderosity Quality Control team.

What has been shown in this tread is basic-basic-basic stuff.
So basic, that for anybody that has the slightest amount of self respect, it is impossible to believe or accept.

About Poser making a mesh assymetrical. Yes, and no.

A content creator "knows" what is happening at each save. And the fix is a 20 second job. (Less when you know what you ar doing)
I have figures/meshes, that have countless saves, over and over again. And they are as symmetrical as they were on day1. 

And as a last remark.
Any content creator that saves an obj file from Poser, to be used for production and or distribution, has has been either blind or death, or both, for about 20 years or so.

Mistakes like these are widely accepted from beginners, from freebie makers, from less technical end users.
It is unacceptable from what should be classified as ;  "Respected content creators."

I find it utterly rude to "attack" those that report such basic- basic- basic-, and such obvious issues, that should have been dealth with by the creators in the first place, the beta-test team in the second place, AND ultimately by the Renderosity Quality Control team.

This figure should never have gone public.

I am with heddheld on this one.

Bump and displacement maps are rather simple grey scale maps and a lot more end user friendly as normal maps.
Just open in any paint proggy, and adapt / adjust when required.

Thanks W and W.
Gonna grab him this time. (Grab or hug)
Mmm, don't know that one yet. LOL. 

Sorry Pumeco.

As a tester, I have to stay independent, and can not team-up with anybody.
Time permitting, I offer help and beta testing for free to all who asks for it.
But I will stay independent.

Both words are equally important :

• Independent
• Motivated

When one joins a "team" one looses the "independent" part.

This tread has been a harsh one.

The only point proven is :

Who ever you are, and whatever you make; You need motivated and independent beta testers from day 1. => And listen to them!

It is just impossible to check your own work.

And now, sleep well on both ears, I am bugging out of here.
Night all.

@ moriador

All my free time goes into testing Poser, figures and props for free, and for the benefit of the whole community. After some years, one "knows" what and were to look for.
My "tone" depends heavily on the client and on the environment.

Here we have an experienced builder that comes with a product. The expectations are higher as usual for a novice builder.

The quality of a product starts at day 1, with the very first polygon. => And from this day 1; creators should get some motivated beta testers.
The obj file, the rigging, the texturing all have their role to play.

Loose symmetry, in the obj file, in the rigging, in the dependencies, in the magnets, in the morphs, and basically, you'v lost the figure.
Loose symmetry? => GO BACK.

Before building the very first "character" or "expression" morph, the basic obj and the basic rigging has to be checked over and over again, by at least a dozen motivated beta testers for at LEAST a month.

The errors are NOT in the innovations, but in the basics of the basics.

My "tone". As said depends on the individual, and the evironment.

When Sixus says: Forget GC?  Blood pressure rises, little hairs on the neck stand up. Does Sixus really want us all to go 5 years back in time?
Or did he just say that he did not know how to set them up?

When some find my remarks "bashing". 
Sorry, from a long time creator, one can expect a better quality. And most of what surfaces in this tread was visible in the previews.

Breasts. LOL. Some know that breasts are a sensitive point. LOL.
BEFORE modifying Posettes breasts, many-many moons ago, I did a "breast" study that took more then a year. And I have been modifying 3D figures breasts ever since. Some are "full", perky, pointy, sagging, lifted, ha-ha-ha-, some are plastic.
By accident, my "demo girl" has sagging breasts. => And they will stay there. LOL. She was build after a "real woman" and tja, they are "there". Sorry, I"ll tell her you don't like them there. => Have helmet I can loan?

If your renders look good? Call Scarlet an artistical succes.

Technical we see obj file errors, we see rigging errors, we see material errors, we see morph errors.
Things we did not expect from an old time creator with some years behind his belt.

Those long tris usually come from automatc 3D generation software. Feed some pictures, and let the software create the obj file. => That's what ya get.