joezabel opened this issue on Sep 22, 2005 ยท 56 posts
joezabel posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 11:33 AM
On the "Goodbye Poser" thread, someone made the interesting speculation that Daz3d's Victoria 4 will only be functional within the Daz Studio application. This sounds like commercial suicide, but with qualifications, it kind of makes sense: 1. Poser is behind the times in terms of rigging. Weight-based rigging would improve the figure, but Poser6 can't handle it. If Daz created a weight-based plugin for Studio and released it along with a weight-based V4, they would have the next step forward in the evolution of 3d figures, and a powerful incentive for people to migrate to their platform. 2. e-Frontier itself may be working on weight-based figures for Poser 7. If they are, it would be their figures that would have it, and Daz figures would not. It might even be proprietary, freezing Daz out of the next step in figure evolution. So it's risky for Daz not to pursue option #1 above. 3. Daz has the option of releasing different versions of their figure, one for Poser, and an advanced version for Studio. That way their financial risk would be minimized. What I don't know is-- A. Can weight-based rigging (and other innovations)really make that much of a difference? Is it going to be worth it to the customers? B. How interchangable can a figure like this be? Can you use the same textures? Is it a big deal for the manufacturer to create the different versions described in #3? C. Is e-Frontier almost there anyway? Is the new Fei-Fei character a weight-based character posable in Shade?
maxxxmodelz posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 12:03 PM
"A. Can weight-based rigging (and other innovations)really make that much of a difference? Is it going to be worth it to the customers?"
Weight mapping joints can provide MUCH better control over deformation (bending) than is currently available through Poser's falloff zone method. It's what most modern rigging consists of today. So, the answer would be, yes.
Is it worth it to the consumers? That's something that I think will be up for further speculation... people like myself, who do animations, or poeple who don't do much postwork on their images would love it, because it would mean a character's mesh wouldn't get so badly messed up when bent in certain ways at the joints, but people who do extensive postwork anyway probably won't care one way or the other.
"C. Is e-Frontier almost there anyway? Is the new Fei-Fei character a weight-based character posable in Shade?"
No. At least not the limited version they're giving away with Shade 8. Message edited on: 09/22/2005 12:04
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
morganza posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 1:34 PM
I have no idea what weight-based rigging is, can you supply an image or two to show the differences. Or some links. It would be fantastic to have a model that dosen't deform to the point where it looks like a toy.
maxxxmodelz posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 1:59 PM
Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=2414021&Reply=2414038#2
kuroyume0161 gives an excellent explaination of what weight mapping is in this thread above.Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
wolf359 posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 2:00 PM
if DAZ did go with traditional weight mapped riggs that would pave the way for FBX export of those weight based figures to other application like: LW,MAX Cinema4D.Carrarapro4 ,MAYA Softimage XSI et al.
maxxxmodelz posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 2:13 PM
Attached Link: http://store.cgsociety.org/product/000129/
Also, if anyone is interested, this is an EXCELLENT book outlining many of the modern techniques used in modeling and rigging realistic human figures. No, its not Poser-specific, but it shows the kinds of possibilities that exist in other apps, and what Poser *could* eventually migrate towards sometime down the road. It also features some of the best character modelers and riggers in the CG biz today... definitely worth looking at.Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
operaguy posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 2:30 PM
One of the contributors is Steven Stahlberg, who knows a lot about which he speaks. ::::: Opera :::::
maxxxmodelz posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 3:19 PM
"One of the contributors is Steven Stahlberg, who knows a lot about which he speaks." Yep! Not to mention Pascal Blanch a renouned 3dsmax artist who creates some truly unique characters... Pascal Blanch/a> H.E.R. by Sixus1 is a Poser adaptation of one of his female characters.
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
renderq posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 4:35 PM
stahlbergh is an outright genious. he produces very excellent models.
pakled posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 4:45 PM
I thought weight-based rigging meant only the skinny guys worked on the top-gallants..;)
I wish I'd said that.. The Staircase Wit
anahl nathrak uth vas betude doth yel dyenvey..;)
stallion posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 4:50 PM
"3. Daz has the option of releasing different versions of their figure, one for Poser, and an advanced version for Studio." DAZ Studio is more advance than Poser???
You might as well PAY attention, because you can't afford FREE speech
wolf359 posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 5:04 PM
no.... "advanced' as in a DAZ figure that uses industry standard weigh maps and bones in its control rig unlike posers archaic tri-axis dependant joint system
joezabel posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 7:02 PM
I don't want to come across as a Poser or Daz loyalist, but those high-end images are not all THAT impressive. Very nice, to be sure. But keep in mind that if you're a top professional artist working on commercial projects, you are going to have to use the high-end industry standard. That also means you are going to have to have the professional skills that make superb work like what we see possible. It's the trained professional artist's eye, more than the technology, that makes these works so impressive. Furthermore, the better models we're exposed to seem to have only one pose, and a lot of them are just heads. I have yet to see a clearly superior high-end realistic model that looks good in full anatomy shots and many different poses. And of course, a lot of these images have postwork (as all professional still images should.) It not that hard to cover up flaws in postwork.
maxxxmodelz posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 7:23 PM
"And of course, a lot of these images have postwork (as all professional still images should.) It not that hard to cover up flaws in postwork." You're right, but most of these guys do animations. Have you ever seen Stahlberg's figures in action? Or the figures from FinalFantasy? You can't have screwed up joints when working with animation, or you're finished. It would take far too long to fix those problem over the course of say 50,000 frames. Stills, obviously, allow you much more freedom. Perhaps the images in and of themselves don't impress you very much, but the bending of the models at their joints is what really counts, and what we're talking about. The rest is just a matter of the "artists eye", texturing, and a matter of opinion. ;-) "I have yet to see a clearly superior high-end realistic model that looks good in full anatomy shots and many different poses." I'd recommend investigating the works of Steven Stahlberg, and visiting CgTalk once in a while. Many of the "stills" you see on those galleries are actually stills from an animation, or a model that's about to be animated for movies or games. Steven's models have appeared in countless animations, and his models are all fully rigged specifically for that. Also do some research into Blur Studios and check out some of their mind-blowing animations, or the works of Liam Kemp. Liam has done some award-winning animations featuring realistic human models. There's also amazonsoul.com, which is created in part by one of the same guys who worked on the FinalFantasy movie. The images and models there are HIGHLY realistic, and also animated. Be warned, the content is of an adult nature, and most of it is hidden behind a member's only area, but you do get to see some impressive stills, and small clips of animation.
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
joezabel posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 8:08 PM
Attached Link: Smokin by Steven Stahlberg
I'm sure these figures are better animated than Poser figures would be, but I don't think the difference is as great as one might think. After all, a figure in motion is more difficult to study to find flaws. And motion-capture is used for a great deal of animation work, and that in itself creates quite an illusion of realism. As for perfect joints, see the attached recent Stahlberg pic. Wonderful pic, to be sure; but look closely at the inside of the elbow on the right arm (which is bent and is wearing a glove.) The fold in the skin is wrapping around the arm in a 3D figure kind of way, not in a natural human way. 3D has come far, but it's still got a long way to go.
maxxxmodelz posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 9:17 PM
"3D has come far, but it's still got a long way to go." Oh, I agree with you there. However, notice the copyright on that image is 2001. How were Poser figures in 2001? He's advanced the model since then with new techniques, just like Poser has advanced it's models (ie., ApolloMax). Not sure if he's posted those newer ones on his site though...
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
maxxxmodelz posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 9:23 PM
Attached Link: http://www.androidblues.com/stool.jpg
This is the one that gets me. The bending is excellent at the joints, but notice the buttocks and hip region also bends very well... far more realistic than even V3, which has some major problems in the butt/hip area. The knee bend is much cleaner as well.Now before we go off on how postwork could solve these things, he does have a wireframe image of the same model in the same pose... showing that it's not a matter of painting out bad joints, but actually superior rigging and mesh design. The Wire Mesh and Flat Shaded Version It would be quite difficult to get Vicki, or just about any other mesh in Poser, to bend like this without problems. Now that's fine for still images, but again... the difference would be drastic in an animation.
Message edited on: 09/22/2005 21:26
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
stonemason posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 9:53 PM
Attached Link: Stahlbergs topology thread
"showing that it's not a matter of painting out bad joints, but actually superior rigging and mesh design" this thread at CGTalk has been running a couple years..at over 100 pages long it goes deep into what makes a good(poseable) 3d figure.worth a read. http://forums.cgsociety.org/showthread.php?t=108412
joezabel posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 10:15 PM
The stool illo does a good job of showing extreme limb bending that V3 cannot do. But I don't see any other poses with that model. Is it a model that looks equally convincing in other poses? And in the wireframe version, it appears that her calf musclue intrudes upon her thigh quite a lot-- is it just lucky that on the surface it appears that the thigh and calf are squeezed against each other and flattening each other out like in real life? This brings up ideas that make my head spin-- soft-body dynamics, collision... are 3d figures capable yet of reproducing the way body parts react to other body parts?
Tashar59 posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 10:20 PM
BM.
maxxxmodelz posted Thu, 22 September 2005 at 10:54 PM
"is it just lucky that on the surface it appears that the thigh and calf are squeezed against each other and flattening each other out like in real life?" The flattening is due to how the mesh is modeled and rigged. The bending at the knee/thigh/calf is due in part to the model's toplogy, weight mapping/skinning, and overall rig. It's because of weight mapping and some of the more advanced rigging techniques being employed that such deformations are possible without postwork. Softbody dynamics, as we know them, can also help for certain things like secondary motion of "soft" objects in animation, but running a softbody simulation isn't required for most bending deformations on a properly rigged figure, and is, in fact, not practical. There are plugins for some applications, for instance, that employ advanced rigging systems which can help simulate muscle movement UNDER the skin... meaning, the skin deforms, but the muscles beneath it also move... this is called "sub-skin deformation": Absolute Character Tools Hercules I've had the opportunity to view and utilize some of these tools myself (not the plugins above, but the actual applications and their rigging/animation tools), as well as having worked with Poser for some time now, and the difference is quite obvious. Part of your original question was if we thought Poser could benefit from such technologies (would it make a difference), and the answer should be clear. I don't think it's a matter of if it will happen, but when. Eventually, I think Poser will impliment weight mapping, etc. Maybe in Poser 20, if it's still around by then. :-)
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
R_Hatch posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 3:06 AM
Once again, I must defend an aspect of Poser that is being unnecessarily disparaged. Poser's rigging is not as powerful or as flexible as weight-mapping, that is true. However, until I see any evidence that the "professional" third-party figure creators have even an inkling of how to rig in Poser to its full potential, then there's really no point in wishing for yet more advanced features that nobody will be able to use properly. Hopefully eF will seriously overhaul Poser where it really needs help: the light system.
joezabel posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 6:07 AM
BTW, I don't want to sound overly-skeptical about the advanced techniques and high-end software. I'm just analyzing and probing from a position of relative ignorance about them. I recently purchased Lightwave, and am still in the stage of 'Golly look at all these friggin' controls!'
I do want to reiterate, though, that I think the talent and effort of the artist is critical. In the area of non-animated pictures, I think you can use Poser to create just about anything (including the stool pose.) And the recent Miki movie shows that a Poser figure can achieve amazing effects in animation (yeah, I know, it was rendered in 3D Studio Max, but it was a Poser figure.)
stonemason posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 7:37 AM
joezabel ..I've been using 3dsmax for nearly 3 years now...I'm still saying 'Golly look at all these friggin' controls!'
maxxxmodelz posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 9:09 AM
"However, until I see any evidence that the "professional" third-party figure creators have even an inkling of how to rig in Poser to its full potential, then there's really no point in wishing for yet more advanced features that nobody will be able to use properly." Now THIS is a great point. Anton's ApolloMax has proved that even with the "outdated" setup room and joint control currently in Poser, it is still entirely possible to get very adequate, and sometimes excellent bending from a figure. Until this is fully realized, I agree that introducing more advanced features is probably pointless for most people. "And the recent Miki movie shows that a Poser figure can achieve amazing effects in animation (yeah, I know, it was rendered in 3D Studio Max, but it was a Poser figure.)" I'm a big fan of Poser for some things... facial animation is one of them! Poser's control dials are super-easy to access, and allow animators to very quickly set up some great facial movement/expressions. Plus, the pre-made morphs you get with most figures take the tedious time out of creating your own expressions from scratch. That's the real power of Poser... to be able to access and animate things quickly! As you know, however, they weren't able to show a good full body animation with Miki, probably because her initial release had some horrible joint bending problems in the knee and elbow areas. Another trouble spot on most Poser figures is shoulder rotation, and how the mesh is deformed in that area. "I've been using 3dsmax for nearly 3 years now...I'm still saying 'Golly look at all these friggin' controls!'" I hear ya, Stefan! I''ve been using Max myself for about 2 years, and still feel like a darn newbie. ;-P
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
stahlratte posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 9:29 AM
"I've been using 3dsmax for nearly 3 years now...I'm still saying 'Golly look at all these friggin' controls!' "
Yep, and thats exactly the direction Poser should NOT go.
While Im all for improved rigging dont forget that Poser is a hobbyist tool.
The question is, will a future Poser X that can produce similar quality pics like Max or Maya also become as hard to learn as Max or Maya ?
It better should not, as otherwise it would loose a lot of its market to an entry level D|S.
How many of the average users are using all of Poser 6 advanced features right now ?
And dont forget that Poser characters usually have only one set of JointParemeters that have to handle all posing.
If you readjust the Joints for more extreme poses the results will get much better.
Anyway, heres what I could come up with NEA/Posette in about two hours:
Not perfect but I think her bending is not that bad either.
If one really needs 100% Max or Maya quality, then why not use Max or Maya ? As much as Id like to see improvements, I also have to ask about what will be the trade off ?
BTW, would be interresting to see how close one could get to Stahlbergs original with V3, S3 or Jessi.
stahlratte
svdl posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 10:14 AM
Some very interesting points here. Reminds me a little of the "postwork-no postwork" discussions. I don't have Apollo Max, but as far as I hear he bends very well, without joint controlled morphs. So using the full potential of the simple Poser rigging system CAN result in very good figures. It's just that most common figures are not rigged optimally. Not a fault of the rigging system, a fault of the riggers. So why clamor for a more complex (though technical superior) rigging system when the existing one - if used right - can deliver results that are (almost) as good?
The pen is mightier than the sword. But if you literally want to have some impact, use a typewriter
joezabel posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 11:17 AM
From my vantage point of knowing next to nothing about 3D, I think in the future the apps will evolve into two branches: 1. Modular aps like Maya that exist on the cutting edge of the field, can do virtually anything, and require advanced programming knowledge. 2. GUI-based apps that can do do almost anything (including Poser-like figure manipulation), lag two or three years behind the cutting edge, and are relatively easy to use. It will continue like this until practically the outer limits of 3D knowledge and development are reached (which they eventually will be-- this isn't nuclear physics or mapping the genome, after all). After that, the GUI-based apps will quickly assume the lead, and the programming-intensive apps will be strictly the realm of researchers and scholars.
wolf359 posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 11:38 AM
I too must admit that im not overly obsessed with revamping poser rigging as some seem to be. Look, im an unrepentant heterosexual bachelor who certainly enjoys the sight of a fit healthy Naked female as much as any guy. but it seems to me that that the "joint obsession" here seem to be based on close up stills of nekkid poser females as opposed to overall CG scenes and functionality. I have the DVD of "final fantasy TSW" and honestly I could'nt truly say how well the joints behaved on" Aki Ross" because she was DRESSED for the entire film. I have apollo MAX BTW and he seems to bend very nicely with his supplied canned poses but for custom manual posing he breaks also. Im not saying that there is not room for improvement but when you get a fully dressed figure animated with a little motion blur wearing dynamic clothing the joint issue only becomes an issue for web forum "technicrats" clicking through the footage frame by frame.
maxxxmodelz posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 4:39 PM
"but it seems to me that that the "joint obsession" here seem to be based on close up stills of nekkid poser females as opposed to overall CG scenes and functionality."
Not true at all. Bad joints are bad joints, and at some point in an animation, they're going to be troublesome... hopefully only briefly, and not in a close-up shot. I'm sure you've encountered it, because I know you do animations, and I know I've encountered it many times. Yes, clever camera angles and dynamic cloth can take care of some of the issues by hiding the broken joints, but conforming clothing inherits much of the same problems as it's "parent" mesh. This can become problematic if you want to avoid the overhead of running dynamic sims on all your clothing all the time. Motion blur can't hide everything, especially where there's not much of it going on, or if you ever plan to output to high def or DV.
Anyway, it's not just mesh breaks, it's also rotation and gimbal lock that poses issues for animation, as I'm sure you're aware. Regardless of one's personal tolerance of such things, I don't think anyone is really "obsessing" over it. Just a matter of fixing what can be fixed, and moving on. :-) Message edited on: 09/23/2005 16:40
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
wolf359 posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 5:18 PM
Attached Link: every day motion
">>>Motion blur can't hide everything, especially where there's not much of it going on, or if you ever plan to output to high def or DV."<<< well i just suppose my work flow is different from others I am just speaking from the persepective of someone interested in every day motions in my animations not just extreme poses of nekkid girls with close ups of their elbows and knees and in every day ambient movement even wearing sci fi type out fits I find my poser figures just dont "break" with "use limits' enabled during animation and neither does their clothing using a careful combination of BVH and handkeying here is is an example of "everyday motion" using the venerable Mike2 addressing a conference of scientists or the like( see link) and yes i do action scenes as well. I agree that posers tri-axis joint params are archaic at best but I want to tell stories as animated film "director" so my priorities are a little different. :-)
joezabel posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 10:05 PM
byAnton posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 11:07 PM
Wolf, You talk about your animations and such quite a bit. I have seen some of your Bounding box animations and standing renders. Do you have a gallery somehwere of fully rendered completed works? I'd love to see them.
-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the
face of truth is concealment."
maxxxmodelz posted Fri, 23 September 2005 at 11:28 PM
"Well, here's my version of the Stool scene, using V3 in Poser 6 and Photoshop for post-production. Creation time-- about an hour." Looks good. What was postworked exactly? "Do you have a gallery somehwere of fully rendered completed works? I'd love to see them." I would too. You should post some to the Animation Outlet here. If you need server space, I might be able to help you with some free space on mine. BTW... "but I want to tell stories as animated film "director" so my priorities are a little different. :-)" What's that mean? What makes your priorities different from most animators? I've been working on a CG short for a while now... I'm about a month into it. Yes, I'm telling a story, and yes, my priorities are on conveying that story, but also on getting the best possible visuals I can. What's different? :-)
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
linkdink posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 3:45 AM
Impressive bending and renders from both stahlratte and joezabel, and I liked wolf's little animation too. Very interesting thread, although most of it is above my head....
joezabel posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 8:17 AM
wolf359 posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 9:04 AM
" Wolf, You talk about your animations and such quite a bit. I have seen some of your Bounding box animations and standing renders. Do you have a gallery somehwere of fully rendered completed works? I'd love to see them." Online gallery?? Not really I rent server space where i had alot of my older stuff motion tests and such, i have gotten very busy lately( real life stuff) i recently deleted alot of my older clips from my server (those that most here have already seen) and frankly have only gotten "serious" about poser again since the release of Wardobe wizard has allowed me to properly cloth my prefferred figures M2/V2. ;-) And now puppetmaster has given me the power to animate "nonstandard" figures with ease by motion transfer from more basic figure like possette and dork http://66.70.166.29/promo/pptmstr.mov So right now im in a "preproduction" stage so to speak performing animation tests and determining what would be the best approaches and workflow with the newer tools i have chosen POSER5&POSER6 DAZ MIMIC for character setup/previs animation and now CARRARA PRO4 for rendering finals. all of my newer animation now sits on my firewire server and are not online. "What's that mean? What makes your priorities different from most animators? I've been working on a CG short for a while now... I'm about a month into it. Yes, I'm telling a story, and yes, my priorities are on conveying that story, but also on getting the best possible visuals I can. What's different? :-)" That means overall lighting.textures,timing ,mood ,presentation etc. everytime a new female is released many people immediately pose her Naked,and render close ups of her bent elbows and knees and post them in the forums along with the usual lamentations of: "AHHH forget it guys! she sucks like all the rest look at this elbow!!!" hopefully the rumored Vicky 12 unlimited and her 1155 support files needed for INJ/REM/CHNA/VIS/DELT/PHI/BETA/KAPPA will finally give us a figure we can actuallY use without post work" LOL!!! Do i believe poser could benefit from better rigging or even tradtional weight mapped riggs like we have in lightwave??? OF COURSE!!! but i also beleive its prudent for me to just focus on getting the best i can out my current choice of figures instead bouncing all over creation seeking the holy grail of the "perfectly bending naked knee or elbow" but to each their own. ;-)
R_Hatch posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 10:39 AM
Obviously you have no idea what you're talking about, as I will illustrate with my brilliant marketing plan: Phase 1: Naked Women with close-ups of knees and elbows Phase 2: ??? Phase 3: Profit! Viva la underpants!!!
ynsaen posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 3:24 PM
well, just cause I don't want to miss peeping my head in and saying it all over again, I'm posting here, lol. however, it was already said :( "So using the full potential of the simple Poser rigging system CAN result in very good figures. It's just that most common figures are not rigged optimally. Not a fault of the rigging system, a fault of the riggers." Less simply put, and inclusive of muscular deformation, an effectively rigged figure using the poser system is capable of bending the same way as a weight mapped figure, and at a lower system overhead cost and easier end user alteration capability. It is not possible with the generic, simplistic rigging currently prevalent in the figures commercially available at present. Weight mapping came about before the poser system, and is actually more archaic. It is, however, a markedly different system, that requires a greater level of effort, time, and attention to utilize effectively than the poser system, which is much simpler to learn and provides more time (and cost-) effective results. "The question is, will a future Poser X that can produce similar quality pics like Max or Maya also become as hard to learn as Max or Maya ? It better should not, as otherwise it would loose a lot of its market to an entry level D|S. How many of the average users are using all of Poser 6 advanced features right now ? And dont forget that Poser characters usually have only one set of JointParemeters that have to handle all posing. If you readjust the Joints for more extreme poses the results will get much better." Weight mapping, by the nature of its methodology, is more complex to perform, requires greater complexity in programming, and a greater knowledge on the part of the user. So, yeah, it'll be a more complex method. Which will affect conforming anything, making clothing more complicated to use and to make unless a shift to dynamic is used. The P6 rigging enhancement already in place aren't used by even the "big" name riggers at this point, and the center of mass element is esentially ignored by most folks, which creates a dramatically more involved capability in posing that's not being paid attention to. If joint paramaters, right now and as they are, are so difficult to understand for most people, then what the hell will they do when they have to start making the weight and zone set up to create an effective weight mapped rig, which are roghly double in number per joint and are tied to the mesh itself, which the poser format is not. weight mapping is a good thing. But it is not better by default. Being an industry standard doesn't make you better -- it just makes you used more widely. Sorta like Windows. Or postwork. add in joint controlled morphs and erc factors to poser's rigging, and the capability to match is suddenly present both easier and more directly. ya just can't port it over to competitive high end applications. Big wah. Am I the only one that remembers when they all used the poser system themselves, but chose to change in part becuase it looked like poser was going to die off? OR that maya (which is the industry standard, again)had seven different rigging methods for a couple versions there? Its a matter of personal taste and need. While I recognize that some people want to move poser figures into other applications, it's my opinion that they should simply drop poser and import the raw models and do the rigging themselves, which is the industry standard practice -- each character has a custom rig. Most have multiple rigs for different purposes within any given project. Sully had seven rigs, for example. Last I saw, shrek had 19. ah, what the hell. I'm crazy anyway, and what does a girl know... ;)
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)
byAnton posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 4:00 PM
"So using the full potential of the simple Poser rigging system CAN result in very good figures. It's just that most common figures are not rigged optimally. Not a fault of the rigging system, a fault of the riggers."<< Polygon skin doesn't shift over the bone so it will always deform like a wetsuit Krazy-glues to your body. That aside, I agree with the above statement. Be great with basic tools and you will be greater with greater tools. Knowing the basics is so important. Poser isn't an bad system. It isn't exactly gracefull, but it can yield good results. There are three majot factors that result in bad rigs. 1) Rushing 2) Lack of experience 3) Pluging a pre-made mesh into Poser. Rigging and Polygon creation are interlaced. You must create your mesh to have a symbiotic relationship with the rig and vice versa. You cannot simple plug a mesh into a rig and expect great results if you are not able/willing to then make changes to the polygon flow. Weight mapping is beautiful but if someone can't master Poser joints, weight mapping isn't going to be any less challenging. The additional problem with weightmapping is clothing. Poser allows a method of conforming. Weight mapping dependant rigs will demish the flow of clothing down to just the figure makers. Any method of converting Poser joints to weight mapping can also convert the weightmapping back to Poser.
-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the
face of truth is concealment."
wolf359 posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 4:43 PM
Attached Link: center of mass
*"The P6 rigging enhancement already in place aren't used by even the "big" name riggers at this point, and the center of mass element is esentially ignored by most folks, which creates a dramatically more involved capability in posing that's not being paid attention to."* Some of us animators have taken note of the new center Mass object with autobalance enabled... pretty cool ;-) but im curious as to what new *"rigging enhancemants"* are in poser6 though???
maxxxmodelz posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 9:47 PM
Attached Link: http://www.catoolkit.com/products/CAT/default.asp
***"Weight mapping came about before the poser system, and is actually more archaic."*** ynsaen, I'm not sure the dates either method came out, but it's certain that weight mapping is the one method that's more proven, and has undergone the most refining and development. I don't know about Maya's rigging methods, but in 3dsmax, rigging a character with Character Studio and "physique" is MUCH easier than Poser's traditional boning system, and the paramentric nature of the skeletons makes it very easy to resize bones, and fit the rig to any biped mesh, or make any variety of changes to the rig at any time AFTER it's been completed. If ease-of-use is the priority, then I don't see how it's current setup room is easier to use than this. CAT (Character Animation Toolkit) is a more advanced version of Character Studio, but also uses a very similar parametric rigging system, which allows you fit bones to any shape creature in a very short amount of time... compared to traditional bones, like are used in Poser. If anything, this is the direction where I would hope Poser goes in the future. It would, in fact, make figure creation (at least on the rigging side) easier and much more efficient.Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
maxxxmodelz posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 9:56 PM
"The additional problem with weightmapping is clothing."
Not entirely true, Anton.
Perhaps is some applications, weight mapping on traditional bone rigs is problematic for clothing creation, but again I have to point to the parametric rigging systems like CharacterStudio or CAT. With these systems, you can apply clothing just as easily as conforming them in Poser, and in addition, allows HAIR that is "physiqued" or skinned to the head object to bend and deform with the head and body much better than Poser's conforming hair (at least the ones I've worked with). Using parametric rigs, like are in these utilities, no longer would you have to "group" polygons and clothing at setup time. No more "cutting" meshes into groups, etc. This is the most aggrivating and complicated part about Poser's current system. You simply fit the skeleton into the mesh, and apply physique. Then, you adjust envelopes, falloff, and weighting where necessary, or assign stray vertices to certain "bones" if needed. It's simple really, and makes clothing creation much easier than in Poser, because the clothing doesn't have to be grouped the same way as the figure. Message edited on: 09/24/2005 22:06
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
byAnton posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 10:04 PM
In theory I agree with you. I was referring to the learning curve for Poser merchnats who are used to just plugging an obj into an existing cr2.
-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the
face of truth is concealment."
maxxxmodelz posted Sat, 24 September 2005 at 10:09 PM
"In theory I agree with you. I was referring to the learning curve for Poser merchnats who are used to just plugging an obj into an existing cr2." Well that's true, definitely.
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
R_Hatch posted Sun, 25 September 2005 at 12:40 AM
"but im curious as to what new "rigging enhancemants" are in poser6 though???" LOL, there aren't any. I don't know why the idea was even brought up in the first place, except as a poor attempt to distract us from the fact that the P6 people are rigged up P4-style. A very poor attempt, might I add, since there AREN'T ANY NEW RIGGING ENHANCEMENTS IN POSER 6, no matter how often the question is avoided. The only verifiable reference that was ever used to support this was that the P6 people have nifty dials on their hands/fingers to make hand posing easier, which QUITE OBVIOUSLY has nothing to do with the ARCHAIC rigging on the rest of the figure.
wolf359 posted Sun, 25 September 2005 at 8:39 AM
joezabel posted Sun, 25 September 2005 at 9:35 AM
Lightwave question-- I'm a newbee Lightwave user. Can you import a Poser figure as an object, then add a skeleton to the character and make it in effect a Poser figure that can be posed in Lightwave? And related question, can you give her weight maps? And that prompts the question, if you can, why doesn't anybody offer a figure for sale that has this done already?
maxxxmodelz posted Sun, 25 September 2005 at 10:27 AM
"what is your opinion is on how a newer
weight mapped rigging system
in some future version of poser might change
the way poser users apply morphs.??"
I don't see how applying morphs would change all that dramatically... in truth, it wouldn't be much different, and it would probably make it an easier process to create/apply full body morphs, since you wouldn't have the whole 'cut mesh' issue to work around. Poser is definitely the easiest application to morph a figure, but that's due largely in part to the vast library of pre-made morph content available for the characters.
In 3dsmax, the process of morphing is almost the same as Poser's. There is a morph modifier (a modifier in Max simply being an 'effect' you apply to an object that allows you to change it's structure in some way) which you would apply to the original mesh. This brings up a panel that contains empty morph channels. All you do is create a copy of your original mesh, make the changes you desire to the shape of that copy without changing the polygon count, then load that new shape into one of the empty channels. Once it's loaded into the morph modifier, you can remove the altered copy of the original object from the scene. The morph modifier works almost exactly like dialing morphs in Poser, so there's no real difference in it's functionality. It's very simple to use. In fact, Poser users would be familiar with it's functions almost immediately.
So in my opinion, the functionality of how morphs are dialed up or down in Poser would not need to change based on new rigging techniques.
I really think Poser should adopt some of the characteristics found in systems like CharacterStudio, where IK/FK blending, among other things, makes animating a figure much more enjoyable. Take, for instance, Poser's "Walk Designer". This is a good idea in theory, but badly implimented. With CharacterStudio, you can actually "plant" footsteps anywhere in a scene, as many as you desire, and in any direction, and your character will follow them effortlessly. You can place footsteps along an incline, for instance, and your character will automatically adjust it's walk cycle to walk up or down the incline, without ever worrying about your character's feet interpenetrating the surface, or sliding, as if on skates. If your ground surface is uneven, your character's walk cycle will adjust to accomidate all the bumps, etc. If you move footsteps far apart, then your character will hop or jump to accomidate this. These are the kinds of things that can make you pull your hair out in Poser... you could spend hours adjusting curves in the graph editor to "fix" what the Walk Designer should already be able to do, or what a BVH is supposed to help you with.
Anyway, now I sound like I'm "bashing" Poser entirely, and that's not the case at all. Poser is still a great application (I wouldn't own it if it weren't), with lots of untapped functionality, but I just think there are some things that people do not realize are available out there, and automatically assume Poser is the best at what it's supposed to do, because, after all, the box says it's the "Premiere Figure Design and Animation Solution". ;-) Message edited on: 09/25/2005 10:37
Tools : 3dsmax 2015, Daz Studio 4.6, PoserPro 2012, Blender
v2.74
System: Pentium QuadCore i7, under Win 8, GeForce GTX 780 / 2GB
GPU.
byAnton posted Sun, 25 September 2005 at 12:12 PM
"but im curious as to what new "rigging enhancemants" are in poser6 though???"<< Certain anolomies in Poser4 and ProPack have been found and removed which previously resulted in odd but obscure cr2 behavior.
-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the
face of truth is concealment."
byAnton posted Sun, 25 September 2005 at 12:12 PM
"but im curious as to what new "rigging enhancemants" are in poser6 though???"<< Certain anolomies in Poser4 and ProPack have been found and removed which previously resulted in odd but obscure cr2 behavior.
-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the
face of truth is concealment."
ynsaen posted Sun, 25 September 2005 at 4:13 PM
Maxx -- you are right. It is more proven. That's one of the reasons it became an industry standard. Still doesn't establish that it is better, merely different. Nothing in the world wrong with different. " I don't know about Maya's rigging methods, but in 3dsmax, rigging a character with Character Studio and "physique" is MUCH easier than Poser's traditional boning system, and the paramentric nature of the skeletons makes it very easy to resize bones, and fit the rig to any biped mesh, or make any variety of changes to the rig at any time AFTER it's been completed. If ease-of-use is the priority, then I don't see how it's current setup room is easier to use than this." Create conforming clothing with CS. Standard methodology is to create a separate item and then manually duplicate the motions across both. While retaining that capability doesn't seem to be of paramount importance to the designers of poser, it is to the larger number of users and content creators -- who really do more to make poser the widely used program that it is now than CL itself does. Take a basic bipedal structure and add four more limbs to it. CS has the inherent weakness, as a paramteric system, of only being capable of doing what it is created for -- and that was really the most basic srigging for the most speedy use. Interestingly enough, CS was developed to make wm rigging easier, and does exactly the same thing that most poser folks do -- it creates a "generic" rigging that is simple -- and has flaws of its own just as the predominant rigging systems currently in use by poser content creators have -- just different flaws. CS is a less flexible system than the poser one. Not worse, not better. And oh, yeah, I'll give ya the Setup Room sucks right off the bat. Royally. I know you aren't bashing poser. You love it as much as I do. Is there a better method? Doubtless. Are any of them as flexible and simple to use? not really. Additional enhancements to the rigging include not only some cr2 quirks from P4/5, but also greater scripting freedom and connections, combined with mateial room, creasing angle, and displacment capabilites, as well as the goal and Mass elements and the pmd format (which is not compatible with the hack version that inspired it). So yes, there were some enhancements. Not knowing what they are doesn't make them absent. And not thinking they are earth shattering changes doesn't reduce them in importance. I do agree that IK needs to be improved considerably in Poser -- so much has been advanced within it, that greater control and freedom over IK would stunning. Have to admit I'm impressed with what D|S did in that department. And improvements to the walk designer (a parametric system)would be welcome as well.
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)
R_Hatch posted Mon, 26 September 2005 at 1:23 AM
Setup room sucks? WRONG! Er, um, at least IMHO :) What do you dislike about the setup room? Aside from a few issues that aren't the setup room's fault (camera navigation issues), I find the setup room to be the fastest and most enjoyable way to create a new character rig. I still do a lot of tweaking back in the Pose Room with the Joint Editor, but for getting the basic rig in place, the Setup Room is the place to be. Some tips for using the Setup Room: * Make sure that you ALREADY HAVE YOUR OBJECT GROUPED THE WAY YOU WANT IT. Name the bones accordingly, and keep in mind that this is CASE SENSITIVE. If you try to go back to the Pose Room, and it tells you that you have some polygons not belonging to a bone, then you do. This is the one thing that could be improved in the Setup Room, since 9 times out of 10, the "NO_BONE" group shows no polygons. * Don't bother trying to finish rigging both sides of the figure in the Setup Room. Get one side the way you want it, and then just quickly approximate the other side, making sure that the hierarchy and naming are correct. Use symmetry to finish up the other side. * Use the Front Camera when placing bones initially. Use the Zoom tool when needed, restoring the Front Camera afterward. Use the Left or Right Cameras to move the eyes/feet/toes into position. Use the Top Camera when moving the fingers into position.
byAnton posted Mon, 26 September 2005 at 1:36 AM
I think in the end, the only way to judge weightmapping and our community, it to see it implimented and then judge if without any JCM, if it is much better.
And then see if clothing makers can catch on with it. Typically, radically new Poser features take a couple years to really catch on within the Poser community.
It seems Daz managed a weight conversion from Poser joints so I see no reason why it can't spit them back to Poser.
Even if they don't, I am sure we will see some sort of legacy conversion before any chance of current poser jointing being abandoned. Perhaps as a utility.
Message edited on: 09/26/2005 01:37
-Anton, creator of Apollo Maximus
"Conviction without truth is denial; Denial in the
face of truth is concealment."
wolf359 posted Mon, 26 September 2005 at 5:21 AM
"It seems Daz managed a weight conversion from Poser joints so
I see no reason why it can't spit them back to Poser."
for the same reason we cant "spit" A rigged figure from lightwave back to poser
you will have to somehow to give poser the ability to read them.
and if it just a full conversion back to an old style poser tri-axis rig then
what is the point???
IMHO a direct conversion of poser rigging to tradtional
industry standard weight maps is not likely to happen
the reasons for this are well documented by those who have tried to thus far
As you Already know, Poser uses axis-dependent weighting for "Joint Parameters".
THREE axis's for each bone
It bases its "bone" deformations on each axis, averaging them together.
even if these averaged weights are fed into a standard weight map Like those used in
MAX, MAYA ,Lightwave, Cinema4DXL. Softimage et al
properly, these high end apps bones will not take note of them
(Real bones seem to ignore these dynamic changes and stick to the initial maps)
this is why FBX export of posable figures from poser is a Non Starter.
This is why the expensive "CR2 to Bones" plugins from Greenbriar studios
will only give you a rigged poser figure in the target apps(Lightwave&Cinema)
standing in the default "T" arms out position needing to be properly re-weighted
if you plan on bending any joints.
Now to be perfectly Frank ,i have not looked closely at "MarkDC's"
expensive plugins that claim to convert poser rigs Directly to MAX & Softimage XSI rigs
and cant comment on wether those conversion are "perfect" or need
weight map adjustments afterwards.
that said i still believe it is more likely that DAZ will simply release version
of the vicky/Mike meshes etc already rigged and weighted to work in some future releases of D/S
that supports such "traditional" rigs
I personaly would see such a development a a Good thing as DAZ figure would then be
availabe in a format that could be used directly in nearly every major 3D character
Application Except HASH which is a Xenophobic closed application any way. Message edited on: 09/26/2005 05:22
Chris posted Fri, 30 September 2005 at 5:12 AM
++ bookmarked +++
"It Is Useless To Resist!" - Darth Vader
