"my experience with Poser 6 has been that rendering at anything less than Final produced texture anomalies otherwise not there when rendered at Final." coughcoughcough erm... no? I've been using 6 since it came out.. and not found anything like that.... can you show a comparison?

"You do not need to use the highest settings. That is just silly. And I am sorry but a bit irresponsible." Hmmm? 1280 isn't huge with poser 6 it's not quite midway. no one is saying YOU HAVE to do it in final but draft isn't always going to give you great images either.

Stop focusing on "draft". This has nothing to do with "draft". :) look this isn't rocket science. Just the pixels need to overlap more. It is just that simple. I am sure it is a fine product. I am sure the texture look awesome at full settings. But I think this illustrates the inexperience, misinformation, and lack of serious concern for the current version of Poser. Should have been caught in beta testing. Period.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=2356407

*And who's to say it wasn't tested in P6?*

I'm just assuming that's what happened, because why release it with this flaw, when it's so easy to fix? As Anton said, it would take only a minute or two to fix.

*"You set the max. texture size to approximately the size of your render."

Actually no*

You don't have to, but it works well to eliminate noisy textures and speeds up the render. There is a slight decrease in quality, but for animation, you won't even notice. And for animators, it could make the difference between rendering in a few minutes and a render that takes hours.

You might find the discussion in the link interesting. It explains why large textures are often noisy in Firefly, and why reducing the Max. texture size fixes it.

I don't render with the max. texture size set to the minimum all the time, but I like to have the option.

Quote - The Mil Baby 1 looked like a monster LOL

The new one is really homely looking.

actually, i find this new mill baby interesting. i mean, for $5 i'll get it. but it doesn't look substantially better than the original mill baby to me. in fact, i'm really surprised at how unreal it looks. the cubed baby looks much more realistic and has been out now for what, more than a year? i've been waiting to see if daz would trump it, and well, they very much didn't. i've always felt that indie models didn't fail because of the "everyone loves supermodels" stuff people drag out each time indie figures come up, especially since just about all the (female) indie figures have been more stylized than v3 default. i think it's four things: realism, versatility, support and pricing. the indie figures that have beaten daz on any one of those points while maintaining a decent average on the other 3 seem to do fairly well (miki, apollo, ej, etc.). before this, i would have said that daz would always win on realism given the opportunity (because they have the resources). now i'm not sure. all i can say is that if i actually come to need a baby model, i'm still going to go cubed... that said, i think thorne's and sarsa's texture is nice (though the face morph made he/she/it look much older and perfect for fey-ing the baby). and i'm eagerly awaiting gareee's morph set.

Yeah, I agree. This baby isn't ugly, but it doesn't look much like a baby, really.

But the mesh is much higher-res than the old MilBaby, so I assume it could be morphed into a more realistic shape. Since the baby was $5, I don't mind paying for extra morph packs.

The Cubed babies are great. And anatomically correct. A little more than I want to spend, given that I rarely have use for babies, but very cute.

Well, I've played with Baby all evening, making some new morphs for it, and I think it's cute. AND baby-like. I like the Cubed babies too, but they're simply too expensive for such a niche product that a baby is.

trekkiegrrl - i noticed about the morphs! wow, you're fast! and incredibly generous. they are very cute. i think it's default face is ok, though strangely not as cute as aiko can be. just not very realistic. as for the price of the cubed babies... if i ever had to do anything professional that called for a baby, i wouldn't hesitate. basically, so far none of the daz kids seem to be able to acheive the realism their adult counterparts can. speaking of aiko, has anyone tried Shapeshifter (freebie script for changing heads between meshes at http://www.philc.net) on the baby? i bet one could do a chibi figure with it.

BAHH!! ill stick with Apollo's baby cole DEATH TO UNIMESH!!

The baby is not really unimesh. And it doesn't have those injectable morphs you so hate. In fact, none of the kids do.

Of course, that's because they have a lot fewer morphs than V3 and M3 have. >:-(

The baby is not really unimesh. And it doesn't have those injectable morphs you so hate. In fact, none of the kids do. Injectable morphs don't mean it is or is not based on the Unimesh. Lo-Res V3 and Lo-Res M3 don't have additional injectable morphs, and they're certainly Unimesh-based. "Unimesh" is the single mesh/topology base, and the figure is sculpted and scaled from that base. Luke and Laura (Millenium Young Teens) DO have additional morph packages with injection, as do Matt and Maddie (Millenium Preschoolers). bonni

Happy to see the thread get back to the baby....and I DID buy it...price will never be that good again...plus I got the gorgeous Thorne/Sarsa texture at the same time (oh alright, and the bassenette and it's textures, I admit it)... BECAUSE I am counting on one of the human morph masters to really do the little thing justice in the future....plus it helps get that Charity a push too! ....and yes...any texture artist should always put a little OVER the texture template edges for goodness sakes! :)

One thing I noticed thoug, regarding textures and seams, is that when I made my latest character, I fixed the seams by painting them in Blacksmith, and it causes seams when not rendered at the proper resolution in Poser 6 (not in P5 or earlier), but if I put a border around the texture, I got SEAMS in all programs. I even tried to manuallu brush the texture bits outwards to make sure it was the right colour (as a texture isn't uniformly coloured all around) but no go. SEAMS. So I eventually just let Blacksmith handle it. And now it's seamless, as long as it's rendered in the right resolution. So it MAY be a no-win situation with the baby too. I noticed a seam showing on the Elderlies texture I used for an elf pic, eventhough that pic was rendered at P6's FULL setting, with max texture size. And I've never had that seam showin on the Elderlies before. So it MAY be that the baby is slightly differently mapped, so that it will take unimesh textures, but not quite 100% (kinda like the navel problem if you use a M3 testure on V2)

Injectable morphs don't mean it is or is not based on the Unimesh.

I know that, but they're Wolf's pet peeve. :)

Ernyoka - the baby is differently mapped. Try a unimesh texture on it, and you'll see it doesn't cover the shoulders and the sides of the neck. Some M3 textures work, but most of the textures you'd want to use on a baby - female and child textures - don't work.

Hmm. I guess we will need a UTC plugin to cover baby then? ... That makes me wonder if you could simply remap a Mill Kid texture to M3 and have it work?

That's an interesting idea. That might work. IME, not all M3 textures work, but they are a lot more likely to work than V3 or Laura or Maddie textures. It's definitely worth trying.

Not so - see TOS: >>>> # No images in which characters under the age of 18 >>>> give the APPEARANCE of having no clothes." >> not so again. this has been explained. do a search >> for when the rules were brought in. the kind of >> image I stated was allowed ;) This is beginning to sound like Alice trying to reason with Humpty Dumpty. If I were about to post a picture of bathing a baby and I read the TOS (not the learned explication of the TOS), I would not post. SO WTF difference does it make if the TOS doesn't mean babies in bathtubs? It says babies in bathtubs. I was planning to post a picture of a naked child foot passing a doorway with the caption, "I'm hiding because I'm naked." Wait for the TOS storm to fall on me.... Like I said, I love the TOS. It's like going to the zoo. M

That was actually the reason for my question. A baby being bathed IS nude, even if you can't see the "bits" (the bits it doesn't even have btw) And obscuring the (nonexistant) biits with suds.. wouldn't that be to blot it out? That is also against the TOS. I'm not trying to stir up shite here (not much at least) but the TOS contradicts itself, if it is legal to make a nude baby in a bath tub, but not the same baby on a white fur (like the baby pics most of us have of ourselves...)

the TOS contradicts itself I'm not sure where you're getting that from? I don't see any contradiction.

"I'm not trying to stir up shite here (not much at least) but the TOS contradicts itself, if it is legal to make a nude baby in a bath tub, but not the same baby on a white fur (like the baby pics most of us have of ourselves...) " No offense but why pursue this TEDIOUS unwinnable argument ?? the rosity servers are private property we are INVITED GUESTS. that fact that they run a Store here and our purchases suport the site BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH not with standing. their TOS is what it is and it seems pretty clear to me at least

the TOS contradicts itself I'm not sure where you're getting that from? I don't see any contradiction. It's contradicting if you can't show "images in which characters under the age of 18 [that] give the APPEARANCE of having no clothes." because, usually you're naked when you're in a bath. Yet someone here said that it was ok to make pictures of babies being bathed. --- Wolf: Spare me. I want this clarified, because if I can't (for instance) show a pic of the baby in a bath, I'd like to know it BEFORE I get a "warning"

"Giving the appearance of having no clothes" This clause was introduced in an effort to prevent people from posting pics of children that look naked, then saying "Ah ha, but REALLY she is wearing a flesh coloured bodysuit!" or posting an image of a naked child standing behind a gate which "just happens" to cross the child at groin and breast level and then saying "Ah ha, but REALLY she is wearing a very small bikini behind there!" Truthfully, babies in bathtubs is a tricky subject because it can be depending on the camera angle, etc. Images are judged on a case-by-case basis by the staff. For example, this photo was allowed to remain as it is a head-and-shoulders portrait shot. The staff could not see a reasonable grounds for removal. However, bathtub shots where the camera is above the child and the lower torso/legs etc can be seen (even if covered by bubbles) have been removed. Hope this helps. Karen

BTW looking at that photo that was allowed i am struck by how much this new "mill baby" does NOT even look like an infant but more like a scaled down teenager Hmmmm.....NOT impressed :-/

It helps, Karen. In other words, portraits of a baby being bathed is ok :o) And shots taken so that the bath tub covers it all (not just the suds, but the actual tub) are ok, right? :o) Honestly, I wasn't trying to make trouble here, but I'm not interested in being labeled as a paedophile just because I make a picture of a baby in a bath either. With that said: Baby can be so much more than a baby ;o) Yep, I've been playing with Blacksmith again. In Denmark, it's customary to set a bowl of rice porridge up at the attic (if you have one...) for the "nisse" - a mix of elves and goblins, more or less. Not intirely good creatures... But they ARE the ones that bring the christmas presents... so it's a good idea to keep them friendly. And you do that by serving porridge for them at christmas eve.

Cute. That's a good use for him ^_^ Yes, a shot with the bathtub in the way of the camera should be fine.

I have bought the baby and once I got into it, and played with the dials on the head that come WITH IT, I was pleased...I also created a cr2 that would seek the textures of Aiko, which look great on the baby (if some post to make the eyebrows lighter or gone is needed, which I do not mind)... I have the oringal baby, the mil baby and now this one...got pulled in...but it's neat what all CAN be done with it...did you see the LITTLE PEOPLE (almost scary!) by putting an M3 texture on it?!?!? It was obviously made FROM M3 to take his textures so well...as the V3 ones look very strange (like kid got onto mommy's lipstick!!)...LOL!! TOS aside...I am glad and hopefully helps the charity! :)