samsiahaija posted at 1:07AM Sat, 27 July 2019 - #4357726

I reinstalled a sluggish windows including all programs, and boy, what a difference it makes. All programs start up quicker now. (My external runtimes are still the same)

Back in the early days of Windows, the common practice was for users to reinstall Windows every six months or so, give or take a few weeks. These days, with terabyte storage and fifty-eleven programs crammed onto computers, users are much less likely to clean up their installations with a completely fresh install.

But, it's still a good practice, in my opinion, so long as one can mange to keep one's system organized well. (Personal computer use and program installation habits are much more complex/varied these days, too.)

an0malaus posted at 12:33AM Sat, 27 July 2019 - #4357895

Yes, I would like the solution to be generally applicable. Unfortunately, the Poser Python API does not support the creation of new groups. Full stop! [Pause for breathing, heart rate and blood pressure to return to normal...]

LOL!

I seem to recall python scripts that created objects and groups (ie: Ropemaker, some chain creating scripts, etc) so I assume you mean that you can not override/rename or add groups with an internally run python script using Poser's hooks.

That said, I have implemented an algorithm which can identify the edges of an actor's facets which are not shared (seams) and can map actor delta indices to original mesh vertex indices, so I could save a modified figure OBJ without vertex duplication.

On vertex dupes - Please, correct me if I am wrong. But, vertex duplication in Poser is "virtual." IOW, it's only on the Preview Stage where border verts are duped so they'll conform to Poser's... whatevertheheckitis that requires duped verts for multigrouped objects that, for some reason, Poser loves to break. For instance, on a simple Export, these verts disappear from the object, even if it was multigrouped.

Now, if you're talking about creating a "new group" in an existing group and having verts duped, thus completely borking any vertice order that could have ever existed for that multigrouped object, I follow you. I don't mess with Poser's Grouping Tool AT ALL. Why? Because it's "Poser's Grouping Tool," that's why. :) I would like to shoot it in its face with a bazooka... It's about as intuitive as a football bat and less useful...

Rigid decorations are one thing. I envisage a solution which will apply to soft decorations (like lace hems, etc) as well. Rigid decorations like buttons are well suited to one set of solutions (constant falloff deformer control), while soft decorations either require default deformer falloff, or are completely unsuitable for such control. Think of shirt collars, which are semi-rigid.

Ahh... I seeee what you're doing, there.. (Looking at the above earlier quote.)

OK, gotcha. So, basically, you could regroup all the fluffy-floppy bits that weren't already given special groups, do with them as you will with dynamics, and then not have to worry about "Oh well, none of the friggin' morphs work, now" problems. :)

But, the workaround for that was always, at least I thought, creating a new prop from the existing figure/prop for that specific animation. Yeah, sure, it was a DUMB solution, but it was one... :)

EditAdd: The "solution" is for Poser to stop mucking around with original object geometry and use virtual dynamic "groups" that simply assign verts to dynamic cloth groups instead of assigning actual object vertice groups to some wacky sort of scheme... For enabled objects, the settings/groups would be added in the CR2/Pose object file format, preferably without completely borking those up with incompatible entries because various versions of Poser apparently didn't ever include protections against error checks... "WTF is this? I dunno, better crash completely and corrupt every single critical process we can!"

The original concept is to repair morphed clothing which was badly morphed when my skills and available tools were crude. If the Morphing Tool could smooth deltas, I could just select problematic morphs and just restore flattened details by painting along hems, etc. Maybe it's worth asking whether the Morphing Tool could have an open API, so new, add-on tools could be implemented. [Not holding my breath. I'm sure Bagginsbill will get his Custom Material Node API before I get hooks into the Morphing Tool]

Do you have any doubt BB will beat someone over the head from across a table if they dare deny him that?

"We're glad you're all here! OK, first, let's talk about-"

"Firefly can never properly render IDL, especially AO elements in room corners, and Poser's default Lighting was never correctly implemented and the Materials system needs a true compound node system and the forums never appropriately notify me of message updates and-"

"-what you guys want for lunch."

(Much love for BB and other Node-Culters. :) )

I would certainly like to see programmatic support applicable to modifying weight maps (for deformers, as well as joints) within Python. Many's the time I've wished I could apply a linear falloff that doesn't require my non-existent painting skills to acquire uber-ninja-super-saiyan status to get the job done. ;-)

I want a honest-to-goodness manipulator.... If someone dared to add edge-loop or true vertice selection to that, I'd probably faint. And, of course, if Poser's "Smooth" and "Tighten-to" (ie: Lay On) didn't bork itself up every time it literally breaks certain mesh densities and or got its normal conflicts conflicted. In these cases, I'm not quite sure if there are any OpenGL related issues, there, for some sort of "out of range" problem. Not all breaks or wildly displaced verts show up in OpenGl display until the object is saved/reloaded, so it could be a memory issue or... wtf.

Anyway, I know I'm droning on,,, :)

The point is well-taken, though - There are some technical additions that could be a very real help. The trick is, though, demonstrating where the lack of these changes show up and reduce quality or capability of the product. So... "What if" examples that directly address these issues in the most common form (here's a pic "visual" form) would probably give the best evidence to help incentivize their inclusion, "bad painting" skills or no. :)

If Poser developers could do something to help keep scripts from getting orphaned in every release then I'd be kinda happy about that. I literally DREAD every iteration and patch of Poser for that ever-present problem. What happens when EZSkin versions no longer work after Poser has depended on them for all this time? SceneFixer is... critical for me. The Lighting Manager is pretty cool, too, for cleaning up older stuff and for figuring out WTFISWRONG when a scene doesn't render quite right in Firefly. "etc" And, of course, I hate Poser's native render settings window because it's dumb and reminds me of plastic hair and surprised hobos like Dork, preferring the scripted optional addition...

So, making some additions to Poser's Python capabilities would be very cool. But, I swear, if your insistence for hooks/script additions oprhans EZSkin and SceneFixer, Imma gonna be miffed... :)

jackwryan posted at 12:22AM Sat, 27 July 2019 - #4358100

Thanks to everyone who had suggestions. I guess there is no way to do it "the easy way," so I'll continue to move my smart props manually to the origin and then re-parent them to the Universe, check the "Inherit bends of parent", and exit to set the props' coordinates to the world origin. The prop can then be saved to the Library and it will load at any new scene's Origin.

The "easy way" would actually be to locate the prop file and scrub the overwritten origin points from the model so that it loads at 0,0,0. There is a script for working with resizing/rescaling props somewhere around here in the Freebies section. It's a pretty darn old little script, but doesn't require you to open the file in an editor. I'm not on my puter atm, so can't refresh my memory where the new object center overrides are for prop files, but they're in there and you can scrub them without having to load them into a working scene. Just edit them out and it's now back at 0,0,0 and/or at "object center" reference locs for the group it has been tagged to smartprop to.

You can try searching for "resizer" or something like that in freebies as well as anything that is a script that deals with Wavefront Object format. .obz files are just like .obj files, more or less and once you open it, the prop file format (pzwhatever) is a fairly self-explanatory set of toggles and data, from what I remember.

Exporting the object in wavefront object format will get it in that format if necessary, so you can use other tools on it. Just uncheck all the toggles for the file format, then check "export with group names" if you want. That way, you can easily and automagically assign the original materials to it by either making a material pose file from the original prop item's mats or just load the original prop first, then import the changed prop. Poser "should" use the exact same references to load materials for it. "Should." It does this really as a sort of "accident" so it's not guaranteed. But, it usually works.

an0malaus posted at 12:16AM Sat, 27 July 2019 - #4357957.....

In this example, the actor's internal, external and obj group names are all different, which is legal, but the Setup Room doesn't work that way. It wants an exact match between the actor internal name and the group name, so forces actor internal names to exclude spaces. This isn't really a problem if one knows that, but Poser could really help figure creators by warning them when actor internal names contain spaces, which it notably does not.

Interesting. The Setup Room should parse out spaces with a hardspace "_" for compatibiltiy when spaces are encountered. Old farts, like myself, always use hardspaces for blank spaces because blank spaces in any filenames/anything always resulted in a computer blowing up somewhere, even if it wasn't the one that was being worked on at the time... :)

@OP - Rename the Internal Name in Poser to "car_body" or "carbody" without the quotes and then open the resulting CR2 in a text editor to make sure there is no blank space between "car" and "body."

Notepad++ is a very awesome text editor and will make your life much easier when it comes down to examining CR2s and other filetypes: https://notepad-plus-plus.org It's free and it's one of the editors all the cool kids use... ;) (You'll notice the difference, immediately, in ease-of-use-for-intended-purposes.)

Penguinisto posted at 11:01PM Fri, 26 July 2019 - #4357873 Me, I want a healthy competing marketplace. It's the best way to ensure the best stuff is available to me and my little hobby. Choice is a beautiful thing... especially to those of us who remember the days when choice was either nonexistent or hella expensive.

(Apologies if my formatting poofs up... )

The key is "competing."

The products aren't always similar in this market, but many of the functions of competing products that we're concerned about are similar. Most consumer buy them to fulfill the same need/want. If one is examining differences or seeking to maximize strengths for this particular product, at least in terms of "figure" then we have a way to go based on what choices normal consumers of such a thing value. For myself, there''s no other variable than "Poser" for this particular product. That's my determiner. But, we've seen others who are not so loyal to a particular platform. And, more importantly, in order to expand and survive, the platform has to have active marketing and appeal as well as full-on and rabid support (internal) for the mainline crack it wants to sell - An uber awesome super-duper visually appealing and technically excellent figure with a darn good looking render potential straight out of the box with one-click "Do Art" capability. :) (I think PE had such a possibility and still might. But, everyone wants to get their team together to make their own brand-new-next-thing Vicky-Killer...)

Dude, it had no such support since Curious Labs cratered. And yeah, it's hella important that this time things go right (I know, I know...)

DAZ was pretty strong support. It was high profile and professionally run with a very clear emphasis on stewarding its product lines and their presentation to the consumer. DAZ ran it like they wanted to be "professionals." They rolled out figures properly with big blockbuster teams from a steady stable of recognized performers. Nothing passed through those doors that didn't get someone's eyeball plastered all over it before it hit the shelf. And, it showed. Personally, I feel their diligence and restrictions placed some limitations on variety and artistic style. Plus, there wasn't a single DAZ product with geometry in it that I couldn't identify as uniquely DAZ just from looking at the topo and UV. DAZ loved them some "thick" geometry and if you an replace a detail with a texture instead of real verts, then you're a thumbz-up DAZ piece of clothing...

Editorial note: This is for example. Can't very well talk about the sorts of things that make good figures and good figure markets without... talking about them.

Good news is, Rendo has 1) a separate and fairly healthy income stream outside of Poser, but 2) that income stream is actually related to Poser and DS, so Rendo (unlike SM, EGISys, etc) is fully incentivized to give Poser the needed care. This means figures, natch. It also means Marketplace standards that will help the figure(s) actually sell (so yes, it's related.)

It is good news in some respects. The most prominent of all of them is that Renderosity is a "High Profile" distributor for Poser products. Of course, the stable of those is kind of limited. RIP RNDA et al. But, there have really only been two footprints in distributors for Poser and one of them is Renderosity. The others were always a tier down, not in quality, just in overall presence. (Loved RDNA, Content Paradise never really counted because it was continually focused on Poser 4..., PW had a license that was too eclectic and Hivewire suffers from a lack of inventory.)

But, we gots a problem... Renderosity isn't a developer. Bondware specializes in front-ends/infrastructure apps for websites, AFAIK. (To be fair, Smith Micro was always primarily a networking IT company.) And, in my opinion, while Renderosity has survived, it's only done it because it's adopted a sort of Wallmart approach, but with the lack of professionalism that Wallmart has. It's not a slight, it's just a sort of sad fact that Renderosity has to correct if they want to truly leverage their one big asset that they bring to the table - Their footprint.

See this? -> https://www.renderosity.com/assets/images/homepage/1x2.png

That's an Unreal Engine promotional image from Hellblade: Sunua's Sacrifice. https://www.unrealengine.com/en-US/developer-interviews/exploring-the-mindset-behind-hellblade-senuas-sacrifice

Wow, I didn't know Renderosity was associated with Unreal development and Senua's sacrifice! Lemme click! ...

See this? https://www.renderosity.com/mod/bcs/delorean-dmc-12/136576/

Sweet! A "Delorean" automobile! It looks very nicely done, too, and there are also a couple of companion products for it. Hey, there's a "Game Development License" so I can license a real Delorean car for my game! I am sure that the original IP owners who actually own the Delorean Trademark that is so prominently presented on the front grill of that product would be thrilled that someone else is selling their Trademarked IP for them... Searching to see where the seller obtained legal license to sell a third-party wholly owned Trademarked and probably conditionally copyrighted name did not bear any fruit. IF legal license has been obtained, then I apologize for the mistaken assumption. If not.. then Renderosity has invited a lawsuit into their office to sit down and talk about "punative damages" in front of a judge...

(Hint: https://www.delorean.com <--- These guys actually own "Delorean" and the DMC ™ Trademarked logo, which is a thing that true "artists" like to protect.)

But, considering the admittedly talented artist's portfolio includes a number of third-party IPs that do not appear to have the legal license to sell such products without very practically threatening a criminal injunction charge and the shut-down of the entire Renderosity website while its inventory of items are searched by prosecutors. This would be far from the first time that licensing for the sale of third-party protected IPs was not in evidence on Renderosity.

Just not professional-grade administration in evidence, despite my own measly efforts in the past reporting similar Intellectual Property violations several times. They did act on my reports, but do not apparently suffer from the work of doing Due Diligence to protect the integrity of the marketplace nor the very real survival of their business against what could eventually amount to criminal prosecution for Conspiracy to Defraud, depending upon how many infractions a prosecutor's computer forensics team could dredge up. Someone at Renderosity got paid for the work it took to put such products up in the marketplace and to receive and deposit the commission payments they got. They were paid. To list products like that, someone wrote a paycheck.

It's things like that which worry me. Everyone loves to say "shut up Mork blah blah" and just goes on and discounts what I say. But... The above sort of thing is no better than one of those "gfx" sites that rips off hard-working 3D artists every single hour. We all want to do something about those, right? And, if our new Captain of the Poser Industry doesn't want to clean up its own image? If these sorts of things continue, then what chance does a legitimate successor figure to usher in the "new age" of Poser actually have?

Speaking of "figures," who now owns the rights to the Terai Yuki? (E-Frontier, still?) It'd be a good idea for Renderosity to seek out that license-holder and secure distribution rights, possibly some form of Terai Yuki Lite for an inclusion in Poser. Why? Japan, that's why. There's no reason to leave out the Japanese market, especially since it appears to have a decent showing for Poser. IIRC, Renderosity has sold similarly focused products for that market. (Several figures focused towards and popular in that market. "Near Me" or something like that, maybe? Can't remember.)

I'll restate something - I like Renderosity. I really do. I like the sort of "free spirit" in the community. What I don't like is what I have stated many times over the years - A lack of focus on professionalism and inventory stewardship. That's it. For a new figure, the Poser community who pays for products here deserves a heightened sense of professional development and attention to professional practices.

"Can anyone tell me what I've done wrong? Thanks in advance for any help."

This qualifies as "any help" since it's certainly not of professional grade.

This behavior is similar to Poser's behavior when it can not match a rigging bone in a figure to an object group. It will simply not load the child group that doesn't match up. ie: The internal names do not match. Check to be sure the figure doesn't have any default bones that have not been assigned or match with an object group.

On "FIGIRE_Setup" - I assume that's the generated bone to qualify your new item as a "Figure." You may need to go into the Setup Room and set the Internal name of the bone so that it matches the name of your primary parent object group. So, for instance, if the body of the car is named "body" then rename the Internal Name of the rigging bone for your car "body." If the car is "fully rigged" with real bones and such, you'll need to be sure each bone's internal name matches the name of the correct object group.

The behavior of "everything looks great during the first part of the process and then it's all horribly borked when I try to load the very same figure" is typical... :) Poser had all that geometry already loaded when you were first creating the figure. But, when loading the figure and encountering errors, it didn't bother with it because no rigging matched the group names it encountered. (It loads parented props on figures just fine because they're not of the same class of geometry.)

On scale - Is the geometry as presented in Poser scaled at 100%? IOW, when you had the geometry loaded on the stage, it showed it as 100% scale, right? If not, Poser could have rescaled it, perhaps, to its default scale during the "figure-creation" process and if it was far out of bounds then that could cause problems. For quick/dirty solve, export the object from Poser after you've scaled it down to whatever you need, then import that geometry at 1. (Poser does pretty good with scaling, but it'll also do a few wonky things with it, too. :) )

Glitterati3D posted at 5:37PM Tue, 23 July 2019 - #4357686

If you had any real knowledge of the marketplace, as you so pompously announce in every long, drawn out post you would know that the information you want posted on a public message board is protected by NDA.

In case you hadn't noticed, this entire thread now consists of 3 of you, with absolutely no first hand knowledge of the marketplace, bloviating about what this market needs. None of which have any skin in the game with products in the store and first hand experience.

I don't want to argue with you and don't know why you're so hostile. If you think I'm wrong, just point out what exactly you think I am wrong about without jumping up with sharpened sticks and trying to impale me with insults. Did I run over your cat in a prior lifetime or something?

I wanted to know what YOU thought about your sales experience and what YOU thought were the factors that made a meaningful difference. I have no concern about any argument you may have been having with anyone else, just the fact that you seem to have noticed some marked difference. I wasn't asking for numbers or specifics, just your opinion. If your opinion is covered by an NDA, I think such a document would be a bit too strongly worded for my tastes.

As for my experience, I've had plenty in other marketplaces. This is not a topic only for Renderosity vendors.

How many times has this thread topic come up over the years? And, the same general things keep on being stated, over and over, but there's no magical ultimate success? It's always the same list of "wants" and then the same claims of "this figure that just got released does all that, so what's your problem."

For the first time, Poser has direct marketing support through a "Major Distributor." You might know about selling your product to Poser users. That's fine. But, I also have knowledge as well and part of that includes how general business and marketing practices work. One reason that third-party figures have not been successful is because they didn't have any front-end support from a good high-profile marketplace with a large somewhat-captive audience. Figures that may be considered successful, and I would assume this would be some of the more eclectic, non-generic-human, sorts of comic/cute figures, would probably had a focused appeal and took advantage of a need that was going unfulfilled. (I am unsure what vendors consider "successful." That standard certainly changes from product to product, it seems.)

I only wrote another small paragraph, but decided to cut it. It's just not worth the effort it would take to get the point across. This thread, yet another "what do you want in a figure" thread, that never ends and resurrects itself every year, will continue on with all the same things in it. And, why? Because people think that doing the same thing over and over will eventually cause some sort of magical success.

There is only one thing that matters right now - Poser has the front-end support of a high-profile distributor. It has not had such support since the disastrous breakup of the marriage of Poser and DAZ. If you can't see how important that is, then I have to point out you haven't been paying attention to things that you should, as a vendor, have been paying attention to.

But, while I do like and wish all good things for Renderosity, they're not a 3D software developer (Bondware does web apps) and their own marketplace evidences a dire need for better and more professional management. While I am hopeful, I am not confident.

Glitterati3D posted at 11:54PM Sun, 21 July 2019 - #4357676

I think you probably forgot Dawn is on Renderosity as well.

There's probably a reason for that.

You really do not know what you are talking about. Sure, you can overpower the conversation with constant droning on and on with posts that are simply too long and by sheer virtue of volume, but you still are babbling incoherently when it comes to product sales.

Why the hostility?

Get back to me when you put product on the line and in the marketplace and can speak with some authority.

I asked a question specifically about your own marketplace knowledge and involving what could be your own analysis and comparisons of your returns. I assume you may have done some kind of observations regarding comparing marketplaces. I see that assumption was undeserved.

Glitterati3D posted at 7:47PM Sun, 21 July 2019 - #4357539...

Here's a clue for you: I made more sales in 2.5 WEEKS on Renderosity with La Femme, than I made in ** 2 YEARS** at Hivewire on Dawn, Dusk and Luna content.

Apologies for multi-posting. (Can anyone tell me wth button I'm not clicking to allow multi-quoting... or is that not a feature here?)

And, have you examined whether or not that was because of Hivewire's more limited marketplace, more limited "gang-on" support from other vendors, and the fact that Renderosity is a much larger marketplace with all that entails? Hivewire is a "smaller-pond" marketplace. (It's possibly an example, IMO, of moving from being a big fish in a small pond to being a small fish in a big pond.")

Marketplace Support is A Big Deal ™. Every marketplace in this industry has a captive audience. The larger that captive audience (Those who very much prefer buying from it) the larger the potential for baseline sales for any product. Units moved. Transactions complete. Every "potential" is much larger, even with competing products on the very same page. Smaller markets with less participation may allow for larger penetration, but will likely move less units overall if there is a larger marketplace.

IOW - The comparison is fairly meaningless without knowing much, much, more. I suspect you've just experienced the differences between releasing a new figure in a small market versus releasing one in a larger market. And, with more vendors in this market comes the prospect of complimentary products pushing sales of the original product as well.

Penguinisto posted at 7:36PM Sun, 21 July 2019 - #4357643....

So - with the typical user these days having a 15" laptop, that's pretty much what you have to shoot for. It's not a bad environment to work with (my previous laptop, a 15" 2012-era MacBook Pro, served just fine as a CG workstation), so your baseline specs are still going to be somewhat lower than usual, and, more importantly, your UI/UX is going to have to adapt to these realities as well.

I just wanted to point out a danger, here:

I, too, have run Poser on a high-grade laptop. But, I also output to a large secondary monitor.

The thing is, the general "do computer stuffs" market is moving to smaller, more convenient, mobile'ish platforms. Except for the people that really love visuals... And, that's the market Poser is peddled to. So, while some Poser users might make-do with a 15" screen, they're either wanting something more or they're financially or job-tasked-limited to what they're using. Because the output of this software and the purpose for which it is intended is "visual" its market is also oriented on that. And, that means nobody is going to buy Poser to "use" on their smartphone or iPad. But, they may make Poser output to be used for further engineering targeting those devices... And, if Renderosity/Bondware wanted to target that market of developers, then they'd incorporate features that catered to them. But, it wouldn't likely be targeted to running Poser on those devices.

Yes, making Poser more friendly to smaller-screen presentations would be nice for those users. But, most of them want more and heavy users are going to certainly want features that target their own needs and desires, which likely center around more robust machines and capabilities.

ie: The "danger" is overgeneralizing the habits of certain common industry markets to the habits of more specialized markets, which have decidedly different needs/wants.

Ps - Apologies for multi-posts, but I can't figure out how to multi-quote. So... :)

randym77 posted at 7:21PM Sun, 21 July 2019 - #4357584

I don't think I agree that it's the picture on the box that matters. Maybe Winter Queen Jessie tempted a few buyers.

When I bought Poser, it was because I saw the art someone else made with it, and I wanted to do what she did. I bought Poser sight unseen from Amazon. (And ended up paying way too much. Little did I know, Poser 5 would debut in about a week, and the price of Poser Pro would plummet, like sheep that roost in trees.)

The image I saw that made me want Poser was of two Michael figures. So, yeah, my next stop was DAZ. Where I again spent way too much money, because I didn't realize that if I waited 10 minutes it would go on sale. ?

The point is that it was what you "saw" and "knew" at the time that made you want to buy Poser. You "saw" a render that really appealed to you in some way, likely of a human, since that's something that many people can immediately identify. (If you were more of a landscapes kind of person wanting to duplicate Bob Ross paintings in 3D, maybe it would have been Vue instead?)

What you "knew" was that someone did some computer stuff, sitting at a desk, and pressed a button and did the "Do Art" thing and produced the render you liked. (Probably)

You likely had little knowledge of even what a simple "Pose" was, much less what node-based materials systems did or exactly what a "render engine" was, right? And, rigging and geometry and weightmaps vs deformers, etc... Well, that's not something a novice user can easily grasp without pushing and pulling rigged figures in a 3D app, right?

A box of cereal is sold more often by what the potential consumer knows about the ingredients pictured on the box. Some few enterprising consumers turn the box around to read the ingredients list, but they're much less likely to do that if there's also a blurb printed on the front of the box that says the product is "Healthy".... :) If it taste's great, it gets bought again and again.

A good product appeals both to those with little or no experience with its type and professionals, where applicable, who want specific professional-greade features.

AmbientShade posted at 7:02PM Sun, 21 July 2019 - #4357658

...The goal here is to provide a vehicle that anyone can start using and get interested in the content that's available. Chances are they'll eventually decide to start making or modifying stuff and want to upgrade to the full premium version....

I can't stand predatory "Lite" versions of software packages. :) By "Predatory" I mean software who's only purpose is to show you how much you didn't get for the amount of money you spent. (Which is what a ton of top-end 3D software developers produce for "non-professional" licenses for their darn software, despite claims of "giving non-commercial users the tools they need without the price of full professional licensing..." etc.)

I am more in favor of "Free Trial Periods" of fully-functional software that may have some limitations. For instance, the old "Everything you render has a big watermark" and/or "Content can not be expanded" or resolution/etc limitations. The point being that, in my opinion, everything a developer puts out needs to be a top-grade product that is fully functional for its intended use, not a "Give us money for something that is not worth buying."

Ages ago, I bought a Photoshop product that acted as a sort of introduction to Photoshop. What the heck was that thing? You could do some editing, cleaning up, etc with it, but it wasn't "Photoshop Lite" really. It was more of a full-featured stand-alone product that pushed itself up to the full limits of a "Novice Image Manipulator" sort of thing. Great product, got my full money's worth out of it, it was great for what it said it was targeted to do on the box description, and inspired me to end up getting the full suite. (I even had Corel Draw 4/6 whatever, IIRC, and still got CS because of the quality of that psuedo "Lite" version.) Unless a sort of Intro package does that for Poser, there's no point in producing one. It'd be better to have a free limited trial version, IMO. (Provided Renderosity/Bondware have the expertise to do that.)

Biscuits posted at 7:08PM Sat, 20 July 2019 - #4357454

Virtual World Dynamics Cloth and Hair is an extremely good Cloth (and hair) simulator.

If that was integrated in Poser by default that would be absolutely perfect!

Not having the product above, I'd still agree. From what I remember of its development, including it (or something much like it) would also not entail having to do anything significant with existing products. IOW - From what I know, nothing special has to be recreated that orphans any existing products in the marketplace.

(I see it's now being sold through the standard Renderosity marketplace. There's no requirement to have to contact/pay a third-party for this product, now? Initially, it was Paypal or CC direct, IIRC, which is why, though enthused by its initial showing, I opted out of buying it.)

Steve_Vaii posted at 6:51PM Sat, 20 July 2019 - #4357567

Thanks for the hint! I think this is exactly what I need. I´ll try it out :)

V4's rigging at the knees/calf is a bit tricky. You're also going to get some unexpected effects due to the nature of the changes in geometry for this body morph. There won't be any "self-collision deforms" available, no inherent "soft-body physics" available, to automate a solution to this problem.

Weight mapping the figure from scratch for this particular morph would be desirable as it will help move away from some issues with that particular joint setup. But, it still won't solve the collision issue by itself. You're just gonna have to make some JCM's for the kneebend or some correction morphs to make to look like you want it to.

Penguinisto posted at 6:15PM Sat, 20 July 2019 - #4357492

No one has ever bought a new version of Poser for the figures - we buy for the tools. In 2019, if vendors want to halt declining sales, they need to up their game and understand the marketplace as it is, not how they wish it was. Which brings us to....

Yes, they do.

It's "the picture on the box." A NEW user is going to buy what they "see." They will pay attention to things they know, like "you can do animations" and "there's a nekkid figure" and "you can make do picture." Those customers will be buying Poser based on what they "see" and, largely, that's going to be a "figure."

An old Poser fart, like either of us and others, is going to buy Poser based on "what we see" and "what we know" too. Our knowledge is just a bit more in depth and esoteric than a new user's.

But, Poser development and marketing has largely focused on... who? People who already own a version of Poser. Sure, that's a good tactic, but you can not ignore trying to attract new customers. Old customers die. The biggest "new customer move" Poser has done are the "game dev" inclusions for import/export ease-of-use.

Okay, I promised I wasn't going to do this comparison stuff, but... the Genesis figures allow me to use stuff made for Genesis versions 1-8, and (with an add-on script) Vicky 4 as well. It takes literally one-to-three clicks in a popup window to fit old well-made crap onto the latest-and-greatest figure, no matter the morphs, with no poke-through, and it scales perfectly in 99% of clothing and hair. Part of this is projection-mapping/collision-detection, but a big part of is is that the target figure is a lineage of one very well-maintained mesh/topo combo.

^--- This.

Everyone wants "a new figure." Then, when they come out, it means everyone has to either take a second mortgage to buy products to get half the functionality out of the new figure that they currently get out of their old one or else end up buying what amounts to a figure that has much less usefulness to them in the long-run.

Then, there's the rush of substandard product releases for the new figure that make that new, wonderfully constructed, V4-Killer, had the best demigodlike figure modelers "in the business" creating it, look like a piece of crap... And, with absolutely no stewardship of any product lines because people are afraid to tell anyone that their "artistic talent" is not equitable to their "technical skill"... the figure gets a few morphs that are just variations on "surprised hobo" and some clothing items that have been rigged with copy/paste and little else.

Thus... the figure dies a grisly death. Why? _ "'Cause I've already fixed all the "surprised hobo" morphs for V4 I have and have already fine-tuned my existing library of badly rigged and horribly textured 100's of freebie and purchased crap. Why should I go through all that for yet another figure that, in the end, will not have much else produced for it that I would want to buy, anyway?"_

"Technical" stuffs matter to current users who know what's up... That is very important. But, it's not "everything." Focusing too much on "this figure is technically better" is an engineering issue, probably pushed by scripters and programmers who have delved deep into the guts of CR2s, but aren't primarily "artists." A truly good figure takes a marriage of both artist and technically skilled craftsperson.

But, to sell such a figure and to make it successful? That requires focused stewardship and knowledge of the true marketplace.

Someone above, dunno who, mentioned the disconnect between a vendor's potential imagination of what the marketplace is versus what the marketplace actually is. This is A Real Thing ™. This is why there are specialist occupations in the real world. This is why an artist aggressively pursues trying to get their work into a good gallery and why a good gallery will stay in business no matter how many artists starve.. because they don't know how to make their art "marketable."

If we want a good figure, it needs to do what you have suggested above. It needs to be "stable." It needs to avoid the chaos of "yet another vicky-killer being introduced." And, in doing that, it will gain the attention of vendors who have technical and artistic skill that will gradually help to improve it and the selection of products created for it... for free. They will do all of this for nothing... The original figure team, the marketplace that hosts the accompanying products, doesn't have to spend hours creating new and better products for it. But, what they do need to do is to move from creator/seller to "Steward" to ensure that surprised hobo morphs and ineptly designed crappy clothing/accessory items DO NOT act to insult and degrade their carefully crafted product.

That has yet to happen outside of one particular marketplace.

Until it does, there will be no Vicky-Killer for Poser. It ain't gonna happen. The best product in the world can not survive bad management. Renderosity now has a unique opportunity - They can assert management controls over a platform product as well ass the content available for it. If they do it well, they could be very successful and their recent acquisition could actually start earning them money. If they do not, it won't and it will get sold off as a last-ditch effort to make money off a purchase that was never effectively capitalized upon. Only one marketplace has ever effectively, if not in reality, had such professional controls and influence over Poser and been successful with it. It wasn't Smith Micro...