You Think Daz Studio will replace Poser?

No

Replace? I agree, no. Sharen

Its only another new program. If there was a new 3d program nobody would say will it replace lightwave or 3dsmax.

For the time being, it's just an alpha which has a loooong way before coming close to what Poser does at the moment. There are numerous bugs and a lot of things to improve before it's really usable. On the other hand, it's off to a good start and has several good points (global lights, interface) and a lot of potential. If I can risk a bet, I'd say that it has the potential to replace Poser4 if DAZ fixes what needs to be fixed in this current version. As to replacing Poser5, it has not yet the potential to compete with it, even in Poser5's still unfinished form. But DAZ have stated that they wished 3rd parties to write plug-ins for it, so it might expand the possibilities. But all this is just a wild guess... Time will tell. Que sera sera.

The face room is NOT useless I made a head that was almost perfect. Firefly and the cloth room are great and I will be looking forward to poser 6 though I want to get daz studio also. This silly partisan argument about "my program is the best- No mine is" doesnt help anyone and is really rather childish.

No it wasn`t you I was getting at, I was just saying that anyone arguing about two programs in this way is a bit pointless.

The hair and cloth features are third party add on's 50% true.

I absolutely DETEST Poser. I use it only because I have to. If there was an easy way to import Daz's figures into other apps like LW or C4D, I'd use them, instead. The last Poser upgrade (ver. 5) shows just how far the CL team has their heads stuck in their collective behinds. We've been asking for OpenGL support for YEARS now, plug-in frameworks and optional render-engines. P5 added a bunch of gook I'll never use, and bogged down what little pep P4 had. CL didn't listen, they plowed ahead and ignored a great many requested features...features that are commonly found in other, low priced packages. D|S has OpenGL, plug-ins, optional rendering engines (or at least, the ability to add them later) and the CPU overhead is a FRACTION of the stress Poser puts on a system. WIll I jump ship when D|S arrives? Absolutely!

Poser 4 is one of the best 3d programs ever. I would say that it is one of the best computer programs ever. If there was no poser 4 there would be no daz studio and probably no daz the company, either.

You Think Daz Studio will replace Poser? Maybe, maybe not. Depends on what CL does with P6. Either way competition is usually good for end users. -Mark

ratteler you said "Hehe. Paradoxicly, if there were no DAZ, there would be no Poser Either" I dont believe that is true, okay you wouldnt have the millenium figures but there are so many other people selling ( and giving away free ) products for poser that daz would not really be needed.

Ratteler you also said "its nothing like lightwave" lightwave is an excellent program but the newer versions have went a bit "poser 5" it has some great new features but is a bit clunky. I use version 5.4 of lightwave, the layout program is excellent in that version. In lightwave 7 the layout has some bad changes, the keyframing has been changed and not in a good way. I couldnt even get lightwave 6 to run on my computer so I wont even mention that one...

Poser's future depends entirely on it's new owners. Until we hear their plans all else is speculation. It's also useless to argue at this time since no one knows how D|S will turn out in the end. For now, save your breath, go to your corners and a year from now when there's something real to talk about, come out fighting.

Ratteler I don`t have a mac it is a pc. Posette and dork arent the only other figures but maybe we should just agree to disagree?

Actually, xantor, a good portion of the products other people are selling are for, well, DAZ-related products. IMHO (and that's all it is), without DAZ, Poser would not be as useful and may have gone defunct some time ago. I ONLY use DAZ figures because they are the best out there. The stock Poser figures are really sad. You can't do anything near professional with Dorkmeister and Dinkette - unless you have a love of masochism and oodles of time to waste. ;) Yes, there are other figures out there. Are they as consolidated as DAZ figures? (Do they offer a line of figures with full props, clothing, hair, poses, light/camera sets?) And I agree with Ratteler concerning LW 7.5. I dislike the dual-app interface, but it is rock-solid and full of great features.

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

I do not know if D/S can replace Poser. It is no complete application, it will take quite a while to include and debug all the missing functions. Sure, OpenGL and a "normal" interface for a Poser-Style App is great, but I will not even concider spending money for it when it isn't rock stable. Poser 4 is still too buggy for me, not to speak about Poser 5, which i will buy if they get it stable.

DAZ Studio is neither ready nor stable. If it has the ability to replace Poser is a thing that only time will tell.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

The great thing about D|S is that there is no direct money to spend. The base application is free. How much of Poser is/was free? Ah, none of it. Comparing D|S, a new, alpha, incomplete, not-yet-ready application to one that has been around for many years is really not possible. It'd be like comparing that new OS that I'm currently writing (hypothetically, of course) to Windows XP or some guy's first paint program to Adobe Photoshop CS. How can you even consider doing such a thing? If D|S is still around and being updated regularly in two or three years, Poser will either be dead (as in "no longer being updated") or being reworked like a banshee to keep up with the competition. - Again, hypothetical. As is most of this conversation. :)

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

I can see it coming: One day, we'll have D|S vs Poser flamewars instead of (or in addition to) Mac vs PC flamewars.

Poser will become a retro-nostalgic utility for the coming much more powerful 21st Century Daz Studio. Poser (at least in its current form) will be sold in discount catalogs in future years for $75 or less. Bryce 5 is already selling for $75 as a full blown app (and still a good one- but no future it seems.) If you look at the World War II analogy- the enemy forces had superior fighters and bombers and skilled pilots. Within only a few years the U.S. had massive carrier fleets and state-of-the-art P51's and B-29's with nearly unbelievable aircraft and pilot production capacity. --DAZ is just getting their first Prototype airplane on the field for basic flight tests. Most of you have NO IDEA what this baby can do, but the backroom BUZZ is that its going to be AWESOME! I've seen this business for a very long time. I was using a cool little program called "XP" written by two brothers named Knoll- software now know as PhotoShop. Bought my first multimedia software from the tiny little HSC Software (later to become Metacreations. I have owned ALL the Metacreations software since version 1 or 2.) Anyway- DAZ STUDIO for you newbies out there- is a spin-off of Zygote, which between them and Viewpoint, made or marketed the vast majority of GOOD QUALITY 3D models for professional users of MAX, Lightwave, etc. So the people at DAZ have a MUCH DEEPER and LARGER VISION than most little Poser newbies can grasp. They think the 3D WORLD revolves around POSER, but it DOESN'T. DAZ is making a VERY SMART and very SHREWD decision in where DAZ STUDIO is going. DAZ could care less if Poser is still around years from now selling for $59 or whatever. In fact- it will still make a nice ENTRY LEVEL software for 3D newbies. The people who bought Poser will have to TOTALLY RE-WRITE it for VERSION 6 (taking a year or more) and then enter a market that will be dominated by a DAZ POWERHOUSE Software Application, plus CARRARA, C4D, TRUESPACE, MAX, LW, MAYA, etc. It is going to be a TOUGH ENTRY to a crowded and very competitive 3D marketplace!

Veritas777 that is very patronising "all the little poser newbies" and I am not a poser newbie I started off with version 1.

I think Daz Studio looks very promising, but I'd like to see the finished product first. :) I have to admit, Poser frustrates me depending on what I'm trying to do, so if another product will fit me better, than yes, I'm quite willing to forget all about Poser. Didn't Zygote make Posette & company? Then that group that was doing the Poser models split off and turned into Daz? So... we wouldn't have those models to draw people in if those folks hadn't created them...

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

What could be interesting is if Daz does actually get the 1,000,000 downloads it's after. That might even be enough to get some notice from the big program companies out there that are looking for new markets to conquer. Daz might just attract some real competition to the whole 3D "hobby" field & the guppies might get swallowed.

"So... we wouldn't have those models to draw people in if those folks hadn't created them..." Then again, maybe someone else would have made these models? All this what if not why when who without whom is futile.

-WAR- GOD, I DO Love it so! --- Gen. George Patton

Begun, the clone war has - Yoda The attack of the clones.

Just curious, veritas.... does Daz pay you to say this stuff? 'Cause I've heard some homers before, but some of the stuff I've read in this forum is wayyyy beyond 'Gipper speech' cheerleading. What I've seen rendered in D|S is aight. Nothing particularly spectacular, but aight... looks like it's got some pros and cons. Pro - Free base. Con - You're kidding yourself if you think all the professional grade plugins will be $15 and less. Pro - Decent lights, likely on a par with Vue. Con - Save up for the first renderer speed upgrade plugin or make plans to hit the movies while you render. Pro - Lot of adaptibility. Con - At this point, it needs that pro to offset its problems with some systems and vidcards. Pro - Open GL. Con - Open GL speed. All in all, about what I'd expect from an alpha. I'm reserving judgment till it gets a lot more stable.

BEWARE - NOT TO EXPECT IN THE NEXT YEAR PROBABLY

After looking at the possibilities of 3delight, I woner how far DAZ will go in replacing poser. If I got the descriptions right, 3delight is able to render NURBS als well as native Subdivision Surfaces. This are features which are pretty useless when you render meshes made for Poser. But if there are enough people using D/S there could be a market for a Subdivided Vicky, which would be using very ow memory, probably have much less problems with the joints and even renders faster then any polygonal model.

I do not know if DAZ has the ressources to really use this options. But if they do Veritas could be right - Poser would have to include the same technology or would be clearly outdated.

Just a wild thought, of course. DAZ will probably have more than enough work to include Poser-compatibility, which is nessecary to enter the market. I doubt that they will find the time to include such a feature early. But if they do, the effect could be drastic.

greetings,
Uwe

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

"If I got the descriptions right, 3delight is able to render NURBS als well as native Subdivision Surfaces." Correct. 3Delight and Tempest (aka FireFly) have a lot in common. Which means if CL and DAZ sat down at one table, we could have a format for NURBS figures that worked in both Poser 6 and D|S 2.

Subdivision Surface would probably be the better choice. NURBS and SDS have the same smooth surfaces, but NURBS is much more difficult to handle. But I do not know if Pixel3D's Tempest renderer is able do work with these, since their own software seems not to use them.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

Mathematically, SDS are a generalization of NURBS and do not differ that much implementation-wise (that's why apps like Maya can convert NURBS to SDS). The current version of Pixels3D is very NURBS-centric, which is probably why they haven't implemented SDS yet, but rumors/hopes/speculations/hints are that this will change in future versions. Also, Tempest does have the same "smooth polygons" function as FireFly, which is replacing polygons with B-Spline patches that follow the Phong normals. They're not as smooth as SDS are, but they work quite well with existing meshes. A change to SDS or NURBS will, however, break with a few things that Poser users became familiar with, at least with Tempest and 3Delight: The RenderMan interface, which they both use, does not allow to split a SDS or NURBS primitive in material groups.

If I remember right it is also not that easy to use UV-Mapping on NURBS Objects. You can also get Gaps in the meshes with NURBS surfaces, as soon as you cut them or have holes in them. This is (AFAIK) the reason why Weta (Lord of the Rings movies) changed all their models from NURBS to SDS between Part I and II. At least that's what the "Digital Production", a german magazine, told.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

With NURBS, your UVs are closely tied to the topology. The advantage is that you don't have to create a UV map separately like with polys but that you get the UV map for free, automatically. The disadvantage is that you have less control over how the UVs are arranged. Holes can happen when you build your model from unstitched NURBS patches. The DP...my roommate is subscribed to it and I have a few issues of it too. But I never found that it had that much interesting information, it doesn't go deep enough for my taste - some of the reviews sound almost like press releases.

I read it as entertainment. I like the "making of" - section. I would not rely on any software or hardware review there, but reading how something was put together is intresting for me. Gru Uwe

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

argoforg- Don't get paid Nuthin' from DAZ. They don't even KNOW WHO I AM! I have spent way more on DAZ models over the past years- so actually I am PAYING THEM! But since I've already made a $2000 plus deal on a DS ALPHA render- I've already made ALL my money back! I make MONEY because I DO STUFF, not WHINE ABOUT STUFF. Go over to the Poser forum if you like to whine about stuff. My advice is: SPEND SOME TIME under the Daz Studio hood and figure out how to make it work for your renders. It's already EXCELLENT, but obviously it's still ALPHA and hardly anything has been implimented yet. So just use it for where its at now and expect things to get better and better as new versions come out. Also like what Stewer and Bantha are talking about as I can LEARN NEW STUFF and we can all work on the idea of making DS a great product. If Poser 6 comes along for the ride that's o.k., too. All the better for all of us!

First, lets see if CL can get SR4 to work. Then , if P6 would be freestuff, and does what it has to, and then if they come up with a figure that at least looks and bents like a woman, then, it wil stay around. But they will need at least another two years to recover from P5. No one will pay for P6 after P5. Unless it can prove ...........

Poser 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, P8 and PPro2010, P9 and PP2012, P10 and PP2014 Game Dev
"Do not drive faster then your angel can fly"!

veritas: They don't even KNOW WHO I AM! And neither do you know me. So, kindly quit being so patronizing and suggesting that I don't do anything, just because I'm not out to slob on Daz' knobs over an alpha version of a program, okay? I do plenty of work in four different programs, and I certainly don't need someone with rose-tinted glasses attempting badly to read me a 'newbie riot act' because I come in unbiased, rather than with some preconception that Daz3D is the be-all end-all. I came here for relatively unbiased opinion, and to discuss and compare what is being done with or said about D|S. I don't recall whining, unless pointing out flaws in an alpha release that will likely (hopefully) be addressed is whining. I could point out similar flaws in a lot of software, but it's a D|S forum, now, isn't it? It's obvious based on your thread titles, and your general demeanor, that you've either got issues with Poser/Curious Labs or simply worship zealously at the altar of Daz|Studio/Daz3D. Either is fine with me; it's your opinion and you've obviously made your money back and then some, so you're entitled to it. But there are plenty of people who can be devoted to their choice of software without leading in with condescending statements to that software's competitors' users, or calling out thread titles like 'Poser is Daz|Studio's little redhead stepchild monkeyboy!!!!' I suggest you take a cue from them. Like I said... I'm reserving judgment on the whole until it's stable. Yeah, it'll be free. Yeah, Daz is getting software and plugin developers. Yeah, it looks like it can do some decent things... but Poser 5 looked like it could do some decent things, too, and had a lot of people here salivating. It looks aight. But thus far, I haven't seen anything I would consider particularly groundbreaking, so rather than blast it or slobber on it, I'm biding my time to see what the end result is like. And forgive me for saying so, but I'm not nearly so sold on its producer as some might be... that's because I've seen Daz as a creature of whim as of late... working all-out on the biggest, newest thing and unveiling it to all sort of glorious fanfare, then slowly letting it fade from memory and fall wholly to their brokers as the newness begins to wear out and the next biggest, newest project comes along. That's my own personal opinion, and it doesn't reflect one way or the other on D|S as-is. And if you want to call it whining, fine. Like I said before. You don't know me.

Okay, after reading this, I sounded a helluva lot harsher in this than I meant to be, and I posted it while still in kneejerk 'slam back' mode. Since R'osity has no 'edit' button, I just wanted to say I'm not coming in here itching for a fight or anything like that. But I guess I take being talked down to pretty hard. So, sorry if I went overboard on that post. AF

Interesting. The 'working on the next big thing while leaving support of their current big things to other folks' made me think of an argument I saw about Apple computers. Macs and Daz. hmm.

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Well, testing and gauging at least an idea of what the finished product will be like. Like I said... I'm reserving judgment. I realize it's an alpha. And I realize that there's potential there. Doesn't make a whole lot of sense to slam it any more than it does to say it's the greatest thing since sliced bread, specifically because it's an alpha, and there will likely be some pretty major changes to accommodate the beta release. But believe it or not, Ratteler, I'm running an even keel on this... not really swaying one way or the other. I'm not particularly fond of Daz's recent marketing practices (see above), but I don't have any particular reason to think they're going to put out crap software, either. I just try to make observations based on what I see.

"And I realize that there's potential there." All this talk about "potential" is always reminding of how you say "uh...yeah...it has a lot of..uh..potential!" when you in fact think it's crap but don't want to hurt the feelings of the one who made it. (Think about parents visiting their son's modern art exhibition.) You know, "potential" like in "things it doesn't to (yet)". Don't misinterpret that I'm saying D|S is crap (I'll hold my judgment until we non-PC members get the opportunity to test in our own hardware) but all this "it has potential" I hear so often sounds like "it could do a lot of cool things, but right now it doesn't". As an observation, I hear more talk about what they think D|S could or should do than I hear people talk about what it does already do.

D|S doesn't do anything for me, except crash unexpectedly whenever I twist a camera or body part, with a nasty boom boom restart the computer driver conflict. That's when I switched to an ATI card, the NVIDIA I had in it before didn't even do that... it would just crash boom boom and even a three finger salute wouldn't work. Studio has potential, but its wasted as long as I cannot run the program. So I'm sticking to Poser 5 for human characters, and boning simple models in Carrara that don't need to be exported to Poser. Now once Eovia is done with the bridge to Carrara, its highly possible I may never use Studio... as I'm heavily invested in Poser stuff and the thought of rebuying everything and not being able to use some of the stuff I like doesn't leave me feeling real cheery. Sometimes its not good to be on the bleeding edge of things. I wish Daz luck though, two healthy competing apps is what the community actually needs.

Why would you have to rebuy everything?!

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Daz studio will have plugins and features that poser wont have so if you use poser figures only then some of these features wont work, so you will have to buy more daz studio specific figures and props etc. The first time I wrote this I pressed escape on the keyboard instead of an apostrophe and it deleted the whole message. :(

There's no reason at all to re-purchase everything, poser stuff works in Studio, that much is evidenced by the huge amount of posts detailing it. There are some problems that Daz will need to address but once that's done it should all work. The only differences that will occur will be with studio specific models that "may" use weight mapped jointing rather than cut zones like Poser. The simple fact here is that it's a far superior system to the current more familiar joints as it doesn't result in shattered body parts. Even so, it may not be necessary to repurchase anything. Converting an item from cutzones to single form is as simple as exporting from poser as a solid and then re-boning for Studio. If IF Daz introduce weight mapping properly to Studio. I'm fascinated where people get the idea that they'll have to purchase all their stuff again. Utter nonsense. It appears currently that the major problems with importing poser models is from three things. Path errors in the file, source errors (lights, geometry, etc), and model deformation caused by a poorly implemented filter (cut zones becoming obvious). All can be fixed.

To answer the original question again: Maybe daz studio AND poser will both be successful well into the future.

I'm sorry Xantor, other than weight mapping I don't honestly see what Studio can implement that can't apply to poser figures. Currently there is nothing offered by other applications - cloth, hair etc that I can't use on Poser models now. The only thing that becomes problematical and destroys poser models (that are cut as opposed to solid) is soft body dynamics. Trying to apply that to a default poser model is a nightmare in futility. Same with cloth dynamics on poser clothing, it must be a solid geometry or it self destructs (IIRC). I'm curious what extras you think (other than weight mapping and soft body) could be implemented that would make importing poser models pointless?

Maybe daz studio AND poser will both be successful well into the future I agree with you, it's distinctly possible. Poser has new owners and backers who aren't going to arbitrarily ditch it (yet), there's always a need for low priced introductory level 3D Apps and they'd be foolish to shelve it. Studio fills or will fill another much needed niche in several markets. There's no reason why they both can't evolve and succeed very much independant of each other. The presence of Vue didn't destroy Bryce (Corel did that all on their own). Lightwave hasn't hurt the Max market and XSI hasn't killed Maya. There's always space for applications and user preferences that will keep things going.

actually, the grouping is what I'm talking about. I have been playing with it and seem to not be able to fix that. (unless I buy real uv which I cannot afford right now, I've discovered that uvmapper is breaking the model skin when resaving it, due to the grouping) If I fix it after reuvmapping, it breaks every morph in the figure. I don't know about you, but I don't have time nor desire to remake that many morphs, especially for a Daz figure I only wanted to reuvmap in some places. (and unlike some people, I actually like to move their mouths and give them facial expressions... lol) Haven't seen DAZ able to really fix it yet either. I'm not one of the ever hopeful, I'm pretty sure they don't really want me to reuvmap/edit the figures geometries in the way they become more useful for me. Also with newer models (weightmapping) I'm not interested in buying all new characters, all over again, with the related all new clothes and all new textures. If they would offer a free update that would be nice, but I highly doubt that will happen. I figure it will be new chars and new stuff, and that's great for the collectors, but here its time to make use with what I have. Also with some of the things I do, I am left wondering if I should really work with an all new figure more geared to what I need... if that's the case, I might as well break out Judy and Don and see what I can do with them instead. (thinking about totally replacing that horrid robot head they have... the bodies are actually pretty good starts but need more subdividing/smoothing in some places) Anyway its all immaterial, as the program won't run without crashing. And its not like my computer is a scrapheap... have a gig of ram and a 2.6 ghz processor, with a fairly fast ATI Radeon graphics card.

Sorry Bijou, I don't see what you're saying. Some of the functionality of Studio is limited at this time because it's a pre-beta release. So some figure functionality and morph manipulation capability is missing, and some of the figures come in looking odd. That (hopefully) will be fixed for the beta release and fully functional for the full release. Judging that now on a pre-release piece of software is mistaken. However, I agree completely with you about evaluating your own direction. Alpha software is "not" a judge of the final product, never has been, never will be. You should see the alpha versions of games and other software for a good clue here, they only represent the finished software in basic form. Most of the code is present, yes, but only a small amount is active. If the program won't run on your system then judging it as useless is again mistaken. It's not FINAL yet, it's an Alpha (does anybody actually understand what Alpha means?) Report the problem to Daz and explain what error message (if any) you get, your system spec and what precisely happens and what you do to cause the crash. They'll perhaps try to fix it, or manage to identify what causes the problem and explain it to you. As has been said in other threads here, Studio crashes can be caused by a variety of things, identifying that "thing" is the important part. If you are expecting to be able to work with Studio and use it in a production pipeline as part of your earnings now, then quite frankly anyone trying that trick is playing with fire. It's not ready for that yet, regardless of what a certain person is trying to beat into people. Your system not being a scrapheap is immaterial, something is conflicting. Same as with the release of Poser 5 there were massive conflicts for many people and a 2 ghz plus computer was seen as essential. I know someone running studio on a p3 500 quite happily and it's far more stable than Poser4, and yet another who can't even get the thing to install. It's test software, being tested to determine problems. If new figures are introduced for Studio (distinctly possible depending on the direction of the software) then yes, you need to evaluate whether you want or need to move up to these and spend yet more money. Thus far I've resisted the version 3 figures from Daz because I have no use for them. Same thing applies to any other models. If I don't "need" it, I won't buy it. Studio is no different. I won't buy figures or models I don't need and would hope to be able to use my existing libraries as best as possible - with a view to converting them if necessary. Free updates are distinctly possible. I know several vendors who updated their products for Poser 5, and several more who updated their products for the version 3 figures - releasing these updates as "free". Daz may or may not offer the same facility. Mostly though I should imagine that a new control figure (cr2 or in this case .daz) would be released rather than a new geometry model, because mostly we work from referenced geometry not imported geometry. Daz may already have plans in this regard and it wouldn't be the first time that they released an updated reference model using existing geometry. It's impossible to make those judgements at this stage of development because only parts of Studio are currently functional. The new dynamic morph system that Rob is talking about as a Studio replacement for inj morphs sounds fascinating, but it's not ready yet. Inj morphs still work the same, but studio employs them differently, dynamically. So there are changes there. I'm not trying to argue with you, just say that making assumptions about what will or won't work at this stage is like predicting the lottery numbers. The only people who know are the development team and the project co-ordinator. Weight mapping isn't uvmapping. Weight mapping is a joint control system that tells the software what polygons stretch and move, and which ones stay in place. So you wouldn't need to re-purchase clothing and textures all over again, your existing clothing would work and existing textures would apply to them because the uvmaps would be the same. What would change is the nature of the geometry being referenced and the information in the control file. Same as it is with Poser 5 dynamic cloth. You export an existing piece of clothing as a solid object. Import it to use in the cloth room, and wow, the uvmap is intact. Studio can work the same way. So there's no need to re-purchase anything. NEW models are a different matter all together, you will probably buy those for poser anyway - or studio if it eventually suits your work style - unless you're trying to say that you'll never buy clothing, figures or textures again, ever.

Well-said. :)

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

I'm talking about something else, I know uvmapping and weight mapping are different animals. I'm saying that UVMapper Pro is breaking the model skins, which is a major inconvenience when reuvmapping a Daz model and then wanting to use it in Studio. I'm not sure if I will even be able to reuvmap a Daz model native to Studio, and still have it work in Studio with its associated morphs like I can do with Poser. I'm pretty sure that I will have to rebone the figure from scratch and make all new morphs. (and I got good sources for that information) Daz hasn't exactly been nodding very much towards us *erotica folks. We usually have to do a lot of mods to a figure to get it usable for our stuff. If its made too difficult for us to mod a figure, you'll probably see most of us sticking to Poser. And that's a shame... but I liken it a bit to the VHS/Beta debacle... Beta was technically better, but people liked longer length tapes. g Its a great little program (though it won't work on my computer), but I'm not sure if its going to be full featured enough for me to get a lot of use out of it, unless I sit down and make my own figures to use for it, or hope someone else does. Which makes me have to evaluate my direction... that's correct. But I do wish it well, because by now I believe only by it doing well, will we see more innovations on the Poser side of things.

*** I'm sorry Xantor, other than weight mapping I don't honestly see what Studio can implement that can't apply to poser figures. *** Since D/S use a renderer which is capable of direct SDS-Renders they could release models which rely on Subdivision. Models would be much much smaller in memory, would bend far better and look good from very close to very far. Poser's renderer cannot do that, up to my knowledge. But it still is wild speculation if DAZ even tries to do such things.

A ship in port is safe; but that is not what ships are built for.
Sail out to sea and do new things.
-"Amazing Grace" Hopper

Avatar image of me done by Chidori. 

I have SDS in Carrara, I use it pretty regularly on Poser figures by now, I just whack into the vertex modeller and I can choose any material and give it SDS smoothing. Great feature, and I can adjust how many levels of smoothing I want it to have. I just wish I had something like Studio inside Carrara... that would be a perfect little world for me. Actually Studio's bones work quite similar to Carrara bones, its just more advanced than Carrara. Ah, here's hoping to the next version of the program. At least Eovia is close to releasing the Poser plugin.

Ahhh, I see, yes UVMapper does tend to do that sometimes. I can't help you there, mapping models or re-mapping them is a complete mystery to me, kind of like the Bermuda triangle. :) In answer to your point about studio. Studio still utilises a uvmap facility and operates with a Runtime directory. So the implication here is that it will still reference external geometry (seems to insist on it in fact). This means that you will be able to remap models precisely like you can now, without having to purchase expensive software (Unwrap3D is only 40 odd dollars and considerably more powerful than UVMapper) You shouldn't need to rebone from scratch or make new morphs. The primary difference is that Studio, judging on it's insistance for external geometry reference, won't use embedded morphs. So any morph will need to be in an external geometry file and dynamically referenced through the program. I have no idea how that's going to work until they actually implement it in the program and explain it. It appears that it will use a form of scripting engine that will call the morph when it's needed. All a bit of a puzzle there and until they get it to work in-house we won't have much of a clue out here. No, Daz doesn't pander to the erotica folks, this is true. Genitalia appears to be a bit of a no-no with them and in many ways I can understand their resistance to playing in that field. I very much doubt this will change any time in the future. I would find it extremely difficult to believe that any modifications you and the others do to figures would be non-functional in Studio. Regardless of Daz's apparent prudishness in this vein, you use "morphs" to detail anatomy. Morphs do work in studio (after a fashion at the moment) and will work properly later. The difference here is in the way those morphs are applied. It may even be that your option here will be to stick with Poser. It's impossible to judge until these functions are introduced to studio in order to compare them. I agree with you on the beta/vhs thing, betamax was far superior. We had the same thing with satellite broadcasting here in the UK.. BSB used a square receiver that wasn't affected by atmospheric conditions, SKY used a dish receiver that sucks. Sky won, BSB were bought out and we have BSkyB using mesh based dishes that get knocked out in a high wind, rain and several other weather conditions that never even phased the squarial. but I'm not sure if its going to be full featured enough for me to get a lot of use out of it That may be likely. Studio is quite obviously going to be plugin based and infitinately customisable as a result, but it won't hold the basic functionality that Poser does. Then again there's a difference between "Free base software" and a 300 dollar full program. It's even possible that Studio will never match your needs. Can't really judge that yet. *** because by now I believe only by it doing well, will we see more innovations on the Poser side of things.*** That's entirely likely. It's more than probable that one of the things that prevented Poser developing properly was it's complete lack of competition and the idleness of CL because of their market domination. If Studio makes the grade it will be a serious wake up call for the people who rested on their laurels for four years.

offtopic, but hey, what's the difference between UVMapper Pro and Unwrap 3d... I'll check into it if its really doing more.

http://www.unwrap3d.com Aside from price, there's quite a few things that are different. It's apparent from what I've read that the new version of UVmapper will be extremely impressive, but I suspect it will also have an impressive price tag. Aside from multiple projection and mapping utilities, unwrap3d will allow you to uvmap a variety of model formats. So, no more hard work converting 3ds to obj and praying the file size isn't crippling. Formats supported can be found http://www.unwrap3d.com/formats.html and a feature list http://www.unwrap3d.com/features.html Retailing at 39.95 US, it's quite a bargain, and gaining popularity and support rapidly.

oh gawd... a uv relax function... here I go to buy the fricking thing... thanks for pointing it out to me. I kinda like UVmapping, call me geeky, weird, or something g I don't just use morphs, on some figures I've actually added geometry for genitals. The Daz figures are woefully inadequate regarding the number of polygons in the groin... morphs only look ok at a distance, and sometimes not even then.

Just don't assume the referenced geometry of newer figures will be in OBJ format... they may not be. I'm actually adding geometry to figures, so its going a lot beyond uvmapping. I'm familiar with the uses of weight mapping. But I'll wait and see if Studio is going to be right for me... at this point I do not have enough information to be sure that its going to be useful or not. It may end up being that its not, it may end up being that it is... we'll see. What I require out of my figures and programs is that things are heavily customizable by me. Poser is that. Carrara is that. I'm not sure yet if Studio will be. the way Carrara bones work and the way Daz bones work are similar... just C doesn't have weight mapping yet. Here's hoping that gets put into the next version...

Just don't assume the referenced geometry of newer figures will be in OBJ format Quite honestly I don't mind if it isn't. Most of the other formats are compressed by one routine or another making them far smaller, resulting in the ability to have much larger collections in a much smaller area. Quite frankly I much prefer 3ds or lwo format because they retain all the part information and are eminently animateable, obj is just too damned big sometimes. That in my opinion is where Poser fails dramatically. Being utterly incapable of reading grouping information from 3ds and other formats. I would have a hell of a lot more fun with 3DS models (smaller) as figures and we'd have a huge amount more variation in available characters because those from other applications could have been incorporated (by those who can afford them) possibly driving the development of the millenium folk further through that larger competition field. Studio obviously does and will support obj as a geometry reference, I /really/ don't mind if it branches out to other things, I have a huge amount of vehicles, characters and other things that I can't use in Poser because of the pain in converting the damn things.

hmm, I don't have any problems using 3ds files in Poser? But then I don't use Poser's importer for converting them... I use a nifty utility called 3dWin. http://www.tb-software.com/ yeah I agree in principle that a proprietary format would be better... I dont think they will be able to use LWO due to file format copyright issues. But I don't know how open a Studio format is going to be. All questions that will be answered down the road... they are rather important to me. You know what one of my Poser and Studio pet peeves are... that damned smoothing algorithm. Sometimes you want to turn it off ... lol. Carrara is so great for that... I can define in the vertex modeller if an edge is smooth or hard, I smooth the edges on organic models and I give hard edges to things like my gemstones.

Why not? Cinema4D imports lwo with grouping and texture information intact, it imports 3ds with grouping and texture information intact, C4d also imports and exports various other formats as well. It may not return the boning information but that's because it uses a different system to the other software types (for obvious reasons). So why Poser has to import the things as a solid grouped unusable object is quite beyond me. I don't have any problems using 3ds in poser, what I have a problem with is if I import a 3ds file all the texture information is lost or misinterpreted, the file is a single solid object with no animateable parts (unless I import piecemeal) and is non-functional in every aspect. I don't mean props here but characters and models that are animated in any other piece of software. I'd like to see that problem sorted in Studio or it'll just be another funky toy for a limited and bloated 3d format. I agree with you about the smoothing algorithm, it IS irritating, highly, and it would be great to be able to selectively turn it off for some parts.

well, importing a format and referencing it as external geometry are two different things... :) It may be to their advantage to have a proprietary format that is tweaked to the program. I just hope they have utilities for working with the files. I think we are in agreement on this though... thats why I use a converter that doesn't mangle the texture information. (though I rarely make anything in 3ds format, as I do my modelling in Carrara/Amapi) Would be nice if Poser didn't mangle them, but oh well.

Not really, they both need to be able to read grouping and texture information, they both need to be able to set up relationships to the file parts, so it doesn't matter if it's imported or referenced there is still the file information that has to be utilised by whatever the system is. Mind, I think we're just dotting eyes and crossing tees here. :) I've tried a variety of converters for files and most of them mangle information in some form or another, I'll take a good look at the link you provided and see if that offers better facilities than I have at the moment.

Manually reading an obj file has advantages for hand editing, and temporary watermarking or signing, but... normally this would be for editing points or materials etc. Using software like 3DExplorer or whatever it's currently called allows you to edit the material settings, part naming, and other things for several file formats. The primary advantage of an editable format like obj is bypassed by that facility. Same with the .mtl file generated by wavefront object format, it's a handy way to edit material settings seperate from the actual geometry file, again the need is bypassed by utilities like 3DExplorer. About the only advantage that obj now has over other formats is the facility to hand edit vertex and vertice, even writing your own object if you have the patience to bother these days. Unfortunately as a text form rather than binary the file size becomes hugely bloated with complex models and that's a disadvantage because of the amount of ram eaten by it (still an issue for some computers). And of course programs like Poser that choke on the refresh rate. Unfortunately not having Lightwave the facility it offers is unavailable to me, I threw my money at Maxon instead. :) Deep Exploration, that's what it's called now, and it looks like it's been improved considerably... damn my bank account has suffered enough lately... sigh

LOL. Be nice if Maxon made it easier, Mocca is a very daunting plugin and while it's powerful as all hell, the learning curve is so steep it's an overhang.

"But since I've already made a $2000 plus deal on a DS ALPHA render- I've already made ALL my money back! I make MONEY because I DO STUFF, not WHINE ABOUT STUFF. Go over to the Poser forum if you like to whine about stuff." Wow, that is about the most condescending thing I have seen in a while. I am glad for yout hat you made some cash with the D|S render... more power to you and a bright future. But don't assume that this means everyoen who doesn't like your favorite tool are whiners. D|S studio is cute, and I am sure it will grow up to be a useful application - but there isn't a thing it does right now that can't be done in Poser 5. The OpenGL preview renders are nice - but I know none of my clients would be happy with them. In its raw form 3Delight is certainly capable of going toe to toe with Firefly... but at the moment at least for my purposes I need more support than the alpha version od D|S is goign to give me aroudn the renderer. I like Daz, I hope D|S works out well... but to imply that anyoen who doesn't think it kicks as is a whiner who never "does anything" is short sighted.

Questor- Other than Mocca, is C4D's base set up pretty primo for just modeling and rendering, etc? And is it set up to import PZ3's yet? I ask because I'm looking at picking up 8.5 (or possibly 8.5 XL) with my tax check, but I'm doubting something fierce I would need any animation set ups, since I mostly do stills. AF

Most of the interesting render features for C4D are in the "Advanced Render" module which unfortunately is not included in the base 8.5 package.

Cool. I was thinking about picking up singular modules along with it, rather than the whole XL package, which might cost a bit more, but is still worth it. So the render extras will be on the list. I do know I don't need the full studio, because of the animation extras, and I may not even need the Dynamics. But the poser import is likely the most important thing to me. I mucked around with Bryce beforehand using OBJ export, and with subdivided materials, you might as well just bash your head into a brick wall.

Argoforg C4d is set up primarily as a modeller, it does come with an excellent built in render engine but as Stewer mentions, the "real" power is in the Advanced Render module. You can get a lot more information from the Maxon website regarding the additional features added on by the module. Thus far I bought the base pack and Advanced Render on release, followed by Shave and Haircut, Mocca, Thinking Particles and Pyrocluster as module expansions just before christmas, next purchase will be the Dynamics module. Having said that, my next purchase might have to be the 8.5 upgrade, they've done some interesting things to the material dialogues and interface that look like fun to play with and the new sub-surface scattering for character models looks like glorious fun. If you have a penchant for outdoor scenes you might want to consider X-Frog for trees and plants and the Ozone plugin for skies. Cinema has it's own terrain generator so unless you have terragen you shouldn't need much of anything there. PZ3 import doesn't exist (as such) for Cinema 8 or 8.5. The plugin (somewhat broken) from CL is for the version 7 release IIRC, but there is a workaround to make it function in 8. There is however an excellent import utility (free) that actually works from Amazones - I have the url somewhere if you ever need it). I highly recommend this plugin for use with Cinema 8 as it works properly with poser objects, mat files and other things. Other than that I could go on for hours singing the praises of Cinema, I love the program even if I am incapable of doing much with it yet. :)

Attached Link: http://brian.curiouslabs.com

Hi Questor, It's too bad CL didn't go into further development with the C4D plugin. I worked on the first release of the PzrForC4D Pro Pack plugin a few years back when I was still employed with CL. I wrote a tutorial a few years back with Ringo Monfort who was involved beta testing the plugin. However, I would be interested in obtaining the import utility you mentioned above. Can you also send me the URL? I just re-installed C4D v7.3 with BodyPaint. Although I prefer LW for rendering, I do like the C4D modeler and would like to revisit the rendering engine. Thanks, -DefaultGuy

You can find info on the Amazones plugin in these threads: http://forums.mec4d.com/viewtopic.php?t=215 http://forum.mazak-grafikwelt.de/viewtopic.php?t=11 cheers, Stefan

Thanks Stefan!

Stewer pretty much answered the question for you, there's also some information buried in the Cinema 4D forum on this site. The location for the version 7 (and 8) Amazones plugin is http://www.amazonescity.com/

You cant edit or make figures in daz studio but you can with poser 4 and 5. You cant edit the daz file format but you can edit the poser format with poser 4 and 5. Till daz studio isnt a very slow render only program then the makers and users of poser dont need to worry too much.

In its present state, daz studio wouldnt be a good replacement for poser 3.

1.) I'm a poser newbie. Have been for over five years. I take umbrage at the condescension of Veritas, and if there are issues with that umbrage, then please, by all means, call me out in a separate thread and I will come to do battle. Being beaten into submission by a girl might be fun, too... 2.) D|S will not replace Poser. Doing so would require the merger of DAZ and CL, with The new company formed deciding on the further development of D|S over Poser. It may do so on the computers of people whose efforts to produce work they like have been so frustrated that anything would be better. That this is a sign of their unwillingness to learn and adapt and overcome is a point for other debate. 3.) D|S will not succeed well initially if they do not effectively support 3rd party products currently int he market. This is analogous to the condition of the Poser world between Poser 3 and Poser 4, which opened up the effective market to what it is today. 4.)Poser would be doing much better if development of it had not been utterly stopped for three years. IT would also be doing a lot better if folks didn't seem to think that their options for inclusion are better than the ones CL actually did. 5.) D|S will be slammed thoroughly in the same way that Poser 5 is. For the same reason: expectations that are excessive on the part of members of the community. Neither program is 3DS Max. They are not modelling packages, they are charactr animation and presentaiton packages -- as noted earlier, the mid point between 3d clip art and full blown modelling apps. 6.) Both are entry level applications. Entry level applications are not bad. Without entry level applications, there would be no discussion at this moment. 7.) DAZ has never, ever said that D|S would be free. They said the BETA would be free. 8.)D|S will, in version 1, be better than Poser 4, and likely equivalent to Poser 5. They have a robust community, a very well known set of desires and abilities (also known as working goals), and a great team of interested folks working on it. Verion 2 and Poser 7 will decide the fates of the two programs, not Poser 6 and Version 1. 9.) Discussion of what it "will soon do" does no good to those of us who do not wish to experience the unique pleasures of alpha testing. What needs to be discussed is "what it does do". At this moment, since the bulk of my content is 3rd party or self developed, what is does do is screw up my figures. It renders them pretty nice, though. It is not odd to me that it supports most DAZ figures -- I expect it to support them without fail or issue -- but if it does not support 3rd party content, then it's value to me is none (And I was more excited about it thatn Veritas long, long ago -- an affordable option? Gee, now there's an idea!) 10.) The D|S vs Poser flames will be going for a mighty long time. Since all I want is something that lets me keep having fun, this should aid in my humor...

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)

The reason I was disparaging about daz studio was because people have been saying already that it is better than poser but now that I have tried studio I can see that it is not. This IS only the alpha but unless there are major changes in the full version 1 it still wont be better than poser. By major changes I mean something like the set up room for `studio. Getting rid of the binary figure files or at least making an editor for them. I am sure that there are other things I have not mentioned.