When using the drop down menu to select library items there are occasionally entries that are greyed out and consequently unselectable.

However, when using the icons instead, I can select all my library items, regardless of whether or not they were greyed out in the drop down menu.

An example of a grey out menu item is attached. The hair folder is greyed out. Which ones, if any, are greyed out varies with each program launch.

Wow, thanks JenX, you're a star!

I've bought the DAZ package so I'll give it a try later.

Cheers,
Snarlygribbly

@JenX

Did you simply plug the maps in, or did you adjust any values in the PoserSurface node too?

This is looking quite promising - thank you!

Thanks pjz99, that's very helpful.

Are the .dsb files in plain text and is there any useful information I can extract from them to make the process easier?

I'm thinking of the values that will need to be entered into the PoserSurface node (Displacement value, Transparency value etc.)

I should be able to work out appropriate values of course, but if they were available somewhere it would be easier.

@Sharon,

It's possible to incorporate a point light and a prop into a single Prop file, so that whenever you load the light prop (bulb, candle, lamp etc.) it has a parented point light loaded with it automatically, in the right place.

If that's what you're after then I can describe how to do it. PM me seperately, because this forum's brief doesn't cover that kind of thing and it's best to start off on the right footing :-)

I'm with HeWhoWatches on this matter.
The point of realism in art died with the daguerrotype. Since then artists have sought to create images that touch people in ways the camera cannot. Not necessarily better ways, but different. A Monet can, in some ways, tell you more about a scene than a photograph could while being objectively far less realistic.

But I still strive to create realistic images in Poser.

Why? Because I want control of the medium I'm working in. I want to be able to make choices based on my artistic vision, not constrained by what I can and cannot do technically. When I make an 'unrealistic' image I want it to be because it suits the concept I have in my head, not because it's all I know how to do, and I want control over the ways in which it's unrealistic.

Let's not forget to that the movement and action in those old cgi films and videos is a huge distraction. In a still image, the viewer has time to see the faults. Wooden poses, lifeless chalky skin, blank expressions, inplausible lighting etc. only serve to distract the viewer from the point your image is trying to make.

So I like images that have enough realism to overcome those petty distractions, but not so much that the image's whole concept becomes subordinate to the quest for realism.

But to achieve that balance you need the skills to control the level of realism, and that's what some people are trying to achieve here, I think.

As Anthanasius says, the shader has a reflection node which will give you the variation from pure white that you want. Your lighting will also affect the apparent colour of the snow. I also find that ambient occlusion in the IBL light gives a nice tonal quality to the snow. I usually set it to 10 inches or more. Please note that one of the check boxes on the user interface is 'Do it quicker', which switches off the reflection node. This is intended for preview rendering while developing your scene. The final render should have that box unchecked in order to activate the reflection node. On the other hand, I have plans to include a colour picker in a future release so that it can be used for things like cake icing etc. In the meantime, lighting, ambient occlusion and reflection will achieve what you want, I think.

Attached Link: Snarlygribbly's Snow Machine

And it's free :-)

Well, the original plan was to test it properly and get it to a stable release version before sharing it. The download link was just for the testers.

But I'm rubbish at this, and pathetically weak-willed :-)

So many people have asked for the password and I've not been able to say no that now they outnumber the testers by a long way.

So, I've removed the password requirement.

The script hasn't much error checking in it, probably isn't stable on all platforms, the UI sucks and the snow isn't quite how I want it to be yet ...

.. but go get it, have some fun and make some cool pics (and I'd love it if you showed them to me).

It'd be kind of nice if you mentioned the script when posting any pics to the galleries that have been made with it, but it's not a requirement.

Cheers,
Snarlygibbly

It appears so.

Rather than wait, I started puting together my own solution.

It's in development, but working.

You can find out more at: http://ssm.snarlygribbly.org

Cheers,
Snarlygribbly

@ Silke

It'd be cool if you would do some testing! I've  sitemailed you the password for the download link.

Cheers

Attached Link: Snarlygribbly's Snow Machine

Anyway, if anyone is interested in the work in progress, here is the link.

The download link is restricted to testers only at the moment, but if anyone seriously wants to have a go with it and provide me with some useful feedback I'd certainly be interested.

The final product will be a freebie for everyone to have fun with.

Even better, if anyone cleverer than me (i.e. most people here, I'd imagine :-) wants to help me improve it then I'd be keen to collaborate.

Some of the nodes generated by the script were first put together by Anthanasius, referred to by Bagginsbill above. Anthanasius has very graciously allowed me to use them as part of the Snow Machine.

Cheers,
Snarlygribbly

Attached Link: Snarlygribbly's Snow Machine examples (Poser)

Cheers,
Snarlygribbly

Quote - The images themselves are fairly well put-together and highly imaginative. You might want to give a bit of story-line or what was going through your mind (what was your inspiration) when you created the image. Something.

Yes, I've been a little lazy in that respect. It's not just laziness - I do like to let the viewer draw their own conclusions without giving them too many preconceptions. However, I do see what you're saying and I could (should) write something about what motivated me to produce the image, and I can probably do that without compromising my desire to let the viewer read into the image what they choose to.

Well, at least there's a holiday coming up so I should be able to find the time to write a few notes against each image!

Thank you.