Outstanding, as always. You really do great work. Add me to the list of those that make it a point to visit your site early every month. Thanks

I got Zygote's beard and it's nice but leans a little towards the grizzly adams look. Haven't tried 'trimming' it with transparencies but that be an option. Along the face-hair lines ... I recently uploaded a moustache to Funstuff that is a kludge to be sure, still looks better (to me) than some of the flat ones I found. Maybe if you used that WITH the morph-beard that's around it may get you in the ballpark. - RJ

Amen on sloppy programming. I see it every day. If you're putting pages up, it's smart to check them in SEVERAL browsers. Oh yeah, hi. I haven't been around in a while ;-)

Diane, I think the effect worked, though as you say, it makes the figure look a little plastic. I do have to say, you had me worried as I read the line, ".. and then overlaid my scanned 'grey hair' onto .." until I realized you meant a scanned PHOTO of your head. Wheew, I had this mental image of you with your head pressed against the scanner bed. Anyhoo .. if it helps, you're not the only one with grey hair. Mine has been for years now. Though I will admit, mine is a tad longer than yours. :) Be well

Whoops ... sorry I added confusion. :) Guess it shows that I do my rendering in Bryce.

Thanks for the advice. Actually, the 'tattoo' was my 'get familiar with' transparency applied to leotard. I'll see what I can do about the arm. Again, thx - RJ

If the whole skirt is the same pattern, you might consider using a tile for the texture rather than actually mapping the skirt. Just a thought

Thanks .. must be a router problem between here and there because I'm getting a Server Not Responding Error. Will keep trying.

Is it me or is the Zygote site down since last night? - RJ

If you have a copy of UVMapper (great program, BTW) you can create a larger map that should help give some detail. Just resize the default map for the catsuit obj file. Creating a new map (rearranged) would cause problems. - RJ

bloodsong, I like it. Maybe if we could come to some sort of agreement here then the forum staff would put up the suggested conventions someplace that it'd be easy for everyone to reference.

Pan, you mention it doesn't sound 'worth it' but let offer another way of thinking about it ... You're doing a lot of work and getting some good textures out there. You may be doing it for love but it's obvious you take pride in your work. So, your URL is on your work but whoops ... you change host and that's now a bum URL. Each person need to decide for themselves when it's worth it to switch from a free host that they stay agrivated with. It's been my experience that when you get to the point that you notice the drawbacks (slow speed, limited use, etc) it's a good indication to at least consider another option. Be well. - RJ

Pan, as it happens, I own my own server and pay big bucks for bandwidth because it's someplace that can handle high traffic without bogging down. I host a few folks but they are special cases. Usually non-profit folks who don't eat a lot of bandwidth. I know when I started out, I found best.com to be reasonable for average bandwidth use. Heck, now that I mention them, I think I still have an account over there running a site for my mom. I think someone else owns them but last I checked it was still quite reasonable. I didnt add my 2 cents to drum up business for me or anyone else, just to let folks know free hosting is always a compromise. - RJ

Sorry, can't resist this ... Remember, you ALWAYS get what you pay for! Free use web host can offer that because when folks come to your page, they hope to siphon off a certain number to their stuff and/or sponsors. If you work around this by loading graphics straight from their servers, you're basically cutting off the limb you're sitting on. In case no-one's heard, bandwidth ain't free. SOMEONE always has to pay for it. Free host are doomed to constantly be slow, unreliable and often changing terms. Not to mention leaving broken stuff all over fun-stuf ;-) A better solution, IMO, is to find a cheap web host that offers reasonable terms. My 2 cents - RJ

Nice hint and helpful link. I usually use SmartSaver from ULEAD on JPEGs but it's not shareware. Forgive me if I drift off-thread a tad but your hint brings us a question that I've had for quite some time now ... I see hours and hours of work being put into poser textures, and the size of the map blown huge to get minute detail, and then the resulting map is saved as a JPEG. JPEG is a lossy format that, by it's nature, blurs colors and detail. To add insult to injury, if the map is touched up and resaved, the image quality suffers another generation of loss. Ok, so what am I missing? For me, it seems more productive to keep the files in .TIF format and keep the overall map size smaller. Maybe it's just me but the savings in file size (on more detailed textures) isn't worth the blurs JPEG adds. Anyhoo ... I've been wondering about that a long time now so I just had to ask. - RJ