The genital is invisible by default, in the file. What you are seeing is the hip/buttocks from the inside (through a hole in the hip geometry, due to the genital geometry being invisible). You can a)navigate to the genital in the Scene tab, and click the closed eye icon (which will toggle it open - changing the "Visible" property), or b)select the genital from the Scene tab and scroll to the bottom of the General property group in the Parameters tab, and click the "Visible" property.

Also, it is important to clarify, you should NEVER install 'over' a previous build. Always let the installer uninstall the previous version before installing the new one. The uninstall will not remove anything that it didn't install to begin with (for instance, your content or plugins). Installing 'over' the previous build runs the risk of causing obscure problems by leaving incompatible files on disk, and thus D|S attempting to load them upon launch.

-Rob

Message edited on: 06/18/2005 19:29

IPB has been alomost completely re-built. It has been a while, thats for sure... but as Kalypso suggested, I've been rather busy with another project with higher priority, so work on IPB has been done in my 'off' time, when I can find time on weekends; when I'm not working on something else. The 1.5 update includes the ability to create your own libraries, so you can support any figure you care to build a library for and define any morphs you so choose. A few more options have been added, the interface has changed to better accommodate the added functionality, and hooks have been put in to accommodate a module I'm currently working on... but, more on that later. Prior to the rebuild, this would have been a real pain to pull off. IPB was initially written procedurally because all I ever meant for it to be was a simple utility for in-house production and it was simpler/quicker to write it that way... But in letting it leave the confines of the office, I soon found out how time consuming it would be to support the way things appeared to be headed. I added support for Michael and Freak the 'old' way, simply because I didn't have the time for a re-write during that time. Anyway, just after starting the update to support Stephanie (which would have been 1.4), I decided that it wasn't worth continuing down the same path only to be met with the same headache later... so I began rebuilding it instead. Yes, it has taken longer than it would of if I just added support for Stephanie... but if you look at it from my perspective, I didn't just add support for Stephanie, I added support for any figure anyone cares to build a library for. Either way, it is currently being pushed on to make sure I haven't missed something, then it'll be posted on the product page. -Rob

Having been informed that Shoshanna removed the posts (as stated above, and in IM), I offer my apology to Michael for suggesting that it was he who deleted them. In any event, without the posts, or summary of those posts, the responses seem disconnected. There was no need to ever have gone there... but it did, at my expense. Just wanted the facts for those reading, so that in developing their opinions of the events, they have adequate information to base those opinions on, in so much as this thread is concerned. MachineClaw (I'd use Robert, but it feels like I'm talking to myself ;)), Along with other bug fixes and the like, we have begun to work on the interface. Part of that work includes saving/loading the layout of panes/tabs... customization. Right now, you can drag tabs between panes, you can resize the panes themselves, you can dock/undock panes, you can hide/show panes, some tools can be can be hidden/shown... and that provides a degree of customization already, but it will be better utilized when saving/loading of layout is in place. Another thing that will help with regard to work flow is once more of the keyboard shortcuts are in place... at first there will be pre-defined keystrokes, but our aim is to provide a way for the user to define/re-define what keys do what... Yes, I'm on the development team, and it feels great to contribute as I do, but make no mistake... I'm a user at heart, which I tend to think is a good thing. I was on that side of the fence before I was on this side. I want what a lot of people want. I've paid attention to what people have said they wanted, and I've kept that in mind as we've built the spec. We're far from done. -Rob

If you are reading this thread and wondering about, what now seems to be, a disconnection in some of the latter posts, starting with #23... Michael Brooks (aka Sarge / sargebear) has apparently deleted a few of his posts. His posts ranged from attempting to insult me personally based solely on my employment with DAZ (in particular, my bio on the website), making slurs about the religion of some of DAZ's employees, to suggesting improper accounting practices by DAZ. The sole purpose of this post is to put the posts that remain into perspective. -Rob

Michael, I'd ask you to explain the purpose and relevance of your post... but its pretty apparent that it is nothing other than plain ol' trolling. Predictably transparent. Lets get something straight, you don't know me from Adam. You and I have never had reason to speak, or anything else for that matter. That I once accepted a single phone call from you, years ago, at work, only because I was told by our receptionist that it was work related, doesn't change that a bit. You have axe to grind, and that is abundantly clear. That you would attempt to insult me and make something personal out of the mere fact that I work at DAZ, nothing more, only speaks about your character. That you apparently have an issue with the chosen religion of some of those who are also employed by DAZ, only says that much more about your character. You paint yourself in a rather revealing light, albeit not very flattering. And not that it has any relevance, or that it is any of your concern... but, I'm not Mormon. Equally irrelevant? I'm not alone. Unless you have something constructive to add to this thread, we're done. Continue being belligerent and you can deal with the admin, I'll waste no more time on you. Try and have a pleasant evening. electranaut, Jackson, DBMiller, Thank you for your input, and for keeping it civil. Your concerns, along with many others, will be taken into account as we continue development. -Rob

ming, I said some prefer a scientific approach... not that that is the approach we were taking, though 3D in general is a bit visual and scientific, depending on your perspective. I use a trackball, and am quite fond of it actually... though I admit, I'm not sure if that is what you mean. I'm still not quite sure what "it" is, that you're refering to. As you'll notice from my previous post, I describe two different controls... I'm not sure which you're talking about, and your response can be construed to imply either of the two. Its apparent you took my words as an insult. As I stated previously, I did not intend to insult you and even tried to clarify my meaning. I'm sorry you read it the way you did. That is the last I'll say on the subject, as it seems niether of us intend to budge. -Rob

ming, I didn't call you a novice, I stated that the intent of those particular controls were aimed at novices... not that only novices would use them, or find them useful. I'm sorry you take that as an insult, it had nothing to do with you, or anyone in particular for that matter, it was simply clarification of intent. Some folks like that type of control, some like the scientific approach... some like Lightwave, Mirai, some MAX, others Maya, some Cinema 4D, trueSpace, Rhino, Carrara... the list goes on and on. Point is, you can't please everyone, but you can certainly try to provide a couple alternatives, which is what we are doing. If it doesn't suit your tastes, ok, but there is no need for the insults. -Rob

DBMiller, I'm sorry you feel I was being sarcastic, I seriously was not. Perhaps that you cannot hear my voice, see my expressions, and hence my tone, is why you would read my words that way. I was trying to answer questions, with supporting information (which you may or may not have known the answers to). My questions in return, are prompts for thought with a little hope (on my part) of optimism (on your part - the collective)... not sarcasm. The one line I can now see misunderstood as sarcasm: "I'll give you a hint... yes. That would be because we are still working on it.", is actually quite the contrary. It is my, apparently misunderstood, attempt at exciting whomever is reading, that there is more to it than what you currently see, followed by a qualifier for the preceding comment. As to the remaining bugs, we're working on them. Please consider that your bugs are not the only bugs we contend with (not suggesting that you haven't, just a reminder). With the resources we have, we are blazing through the bug database fixing what we can, when we can and when it makes the most sense to. Please refer to my previous where I state that focus thus far has been on content support and stability. Please also consider, in regard to your specific stability issues, that we need to replicate the bug in order to solve what is causing it. I'm assuming that you have in the bug submission, but in stating your problem here, you give no specifics on the setup of your computer... which leaves the impression that D|S is just plain buggy, rather than it is conflicting with something specific about your particular machine, be it OS, graphics card, driver, OpenGL, processor speed, RAM... the list goes on. My apologies for being candid, dry and direct. Please know that none of my words above are meant sarcastically. I pause often when I talk, I qualify some of my comments with associated information, perhaps too much... but sarcasm it is not. -Rob

While I appreciate the feedback, and I am sorry you "hate" the interface... I fail to see how that qualifies me as a "moron", or rather my work as "moronic". Much thought has gone into the "how", the "why" and the "when". There are valid reasons for the way things are done, and being anything less than a full 1.0 release - there is a very high probability that several interface elements are not complete, or even missing altogether (I say that as if I'm suggesting that there might be, when in fact I know that to be the case... I designed it). Without being complete, some elements don't quite make sense, I agree (that is, unless you know what the missing elements are and how they function - which I wouldn't expect you to). Inspiration for the UI comes from many sources, most of which are successful, proven, 2D/3D applications currently on the market, while others are from the OS' D|S supports. Much of the focus thus far has been on content support and stability... interface will get more attention as the previous becomes less of a concern.

I'm not quite sure I understand your meaning of "balls". If you're referring to the controls in the view tab, they are meant for novice users, those new to 3D. The images with the camera and arrows are to help them understand how that control manipulates what they see... in a way that they could make the connection between a real camera in their hands. They are bigger so that they are easy to see... again, for someone that may not quite have a grasp of 3D yet. They are not intended for someone who is a bit more comfortable in 3D, or concerned with screen real estate.

If, however, you are referring to the red, green and blue rings that are displayed at the bone center point when a bone is selected... They are a fair ways away from finished, as are the rest of the 3D manipulators. They are very basic right now, emphasis on the word "very". Ever seen the 3D manipulators in MAX? If you have, you have some insight on where these are headed, plus a few things. If in fact, these controls are what you're referring to when you comment on alignment... the colored rings are oriented to local space of the bone: X = red, Y = green, Z = blue, not world space, hence the angle.

As to the "could have implemented both"... we did. The Parameters tab contains... ...parameters of the selection. To boot, the sliders update as the corresponding manipulators are used in the 3D view, real time. Want to type in a specific value? Right-click the slider, type in a new value and hit Enter, viola. Want to nudge the value a little? Use the nudge arrows on either side of the slider. Want to adjust how the slider works? If it has limits and what they are if it does? How much a 'nudge' is? What the label of the parameter is? Double-click the name of the slider... a parameter settings dialog will pop-up. Notice anything? Notice the blank area of the dialog? Suppose that means something is missing right now? I'll give you a hint... yes. That would be because we are still working on it. ;)

If you're wondering why you don't see parameters for the default "camera". Thats because its not a "camera", its a view. Cameras are objects in the scene that are animatable, views are not. Views are simply that, views.. they let you view the scene. They have no parameters/properties that can be animated... whereas cameras do. The drop down menu at the top left of each viewport has 7 standard views, regardless of any actual cameras you add: Perspective, Front, Left, Right, Back, Top and Bottom. All views except Perspective, specifically, are orthogonal.

-Rob

What comes with the alpha, currently, is all that is available at the moment. The remaining portions of the guide are undergoing the editing process. As a matter of fact, I'm making another run over the manual through the weekend, before another draft is posted. Coincidentally, I was taking a break from proofing when I came here. I don't have a solid date to give, as I've not completed proofing... but it will be soon. -Rob

Brian, in the ReadMe, under "Known Issues", in the "Imported Poser Content" section, it states "Inverse Kinematics (IK) not supported." Turn off IK for the figure before saving. Poser will convert rotation values to their approximate non-IK equivelent. D|S parses the rotation values on import.

-Rob

...again, the yet unimplemented portions of the UI. If you haven't already, please submit this to the db. -Rob

In designing the UI, I've gleaned inspiration from several applications. I'm a fan of BodyPaint (same UI), myself, so... yes I have certainly seen Maxon's widgets. That said, our 3D manipulation widgets are not finished, not in the least. There is plenty of UI not yet implemented. Although I do like the simplicty of C4D/BP widgets, I also like some of the feedback provided by 3ds max 5 style widgets, but there must be a balance between 'enough' and 'too much' visual feedback, for certain.

-Rob

cross-posted.

It has nothing to do with content. Memory can factor in, but the likely culprit is a lack of support, by your video card, for particular OGL extensions... namely a transparency buffer. Partial implementations of the OGL spec certainly don't help either, especially considering we're writing against the spec. Will we work around the limitations of the card? We've already tried to include a number of fallbacks, in the event an extension is not supported by the card, and we'll continue to refine them as needed, but there comes a point where a particular card (or series of cards) just won't cut it. D|S creates a 'log.txt' in its root directory. Amongst other things, recorded in that file are the extensions your card supports, and which of those D|S is using. Reporting the issue and including that file will help us identify the problem.

FWIW, at home, my current primary machine has a GeForce4 Ti4600 128MB... I've not had a single problem. I also have a PIII 733MHz Dell Inspiron 5000e (laptop) with a Rage Mobility 128 M3 16MB, which has been relegated to continue the rest of its life as a glorified email client, but I see the same widget display issue on it. At the office, one of my machines has a Radeon 8500 128MB... and with each driver, new/different problems occur in ALL applications I use which utilize OpenGL, not just D|S. ATI's drivers have been... well... annoying, to say the least. I'm in the process of migrating to a new machine at work... one with a GeForce FX 5600 256MB card. Like I said, FWIW.

-Rob