hi! not sure if this is nude enough for the nudity tag, but before we have an innocent soul suffering a cardiac arrest.... ok, the problem is the cracks of the (raytraced) shadows cast on the floor. it has to do with transparency, because with all trans off it renders ok. and there's a lot of transparency around this character's hip. apart from the lingerie there's a second v3, reduced to hip and legs for the stockings and yet another v3, reduced to hip and buttocks for the pubic hair (ok, the latter not really necessary for this scene...). imo it's the microscopic poser universe that makes firefly f... up shadows. what do you guys think? tia A.

Have you tried setting both the second and the third v3's to not cast shadows? as they basically cast the same shadow as the primary v3, there shouldbe no change in the casted shadows appearence, but may fix the issue you are having

otherwise, have you tried changing the min shading bias and other raytrace options onthe shadow casting light? if not, show us your shadow settings and we can see what options you ahve

actually, i've made that thing a couple of weeks ago as a 'present' for a friend. i have already worked my way around this problem. in this image the character has already been postworked, i just left the shadow for demonstration. so, everything is ok by now, and i didn't mean to ask for help. i am sorry for stealing your time, i should have made that clear in my first post already. what you suggest is correct and that's what i've done. the problem is, that, in order to get all shadows right, you have to render it a couple of times plus hours of postwork, i.e. a weekend wasted for something the render-engine should do. this is what i would like to discuss. and the only answer i've found so far is this 'microscope'-thing. (edit: but i have not tested it yet.) what's your opinion about it? once again, i'm sorry for my mistake.:blushing: A.

thats quite alright, but if your not askingfor help, I do not understand what it is your asking for opinions on..

the problem is likely caused by multipletransparent object in a close enough proximity toeach other to come within the raytracing's shading bias, and be ignored completely.

in bryce, which is afaik a much simpler renderer, you check shadows, you check soft or sharp, you hit render, and every shadow is just as it is supposed to be. but not in poser. why not? and this min bias thing - what is it really good for? as i see it, it has to cover a basic flaw of poser. the manual says: Q:"Shadow Min Bias: The Shadow Min Bias parameter specifies how far to shift samples towards the light source to prevent self-shadowing of objects." self-shadowing of objects? doesn't that sound a bit weird? what makes objects 'self-shadowing'? and why? i think these questions are quite interesting. and i don't know much about the technical/logical background of these things. in fact, my knowledge more or less zero, and i would like to know more. ;)

P6 and P7 have the same problem with raytraced shadows and objects that use transmaps, see -> http://www.runtimedna.com/mod/forum/messages.php?ShowMessage=186139

Depth map shadows behave properly.

aah, I have had this problem in the past, all I do to fix it is to increase the shadow blur radius, I usually set mine to 3 all the time, and thus almost never see this problem, let me run some test renders and see what I can come up with.

this will take little while, as I am running poser on my computer at home, and controlling it via VNC.

as to why it happens, I think it has to do with the way firefly traces light. like most ray tracers it starts at the pixel on the image and traces the light back to the object and then from there to the light source. the problem is that it does this in "steps"...

Quote - apart from the lingerie there's a second v3, reduced to hip and legs for the stockings and yet another v3, reduced to hip and buttocks for the pubic hair (ok, the latter not really necessary for this scene...).

 

I don't understand what the reasoning is for multiple V3s?  You have multiple textures you want to layer onto one model?  Seems to me you could do this with a Blender node, could you not?  In the same way trans-mapped pubic hair can be applied?

thank you guys! @nruddock yep, that thread covers exactly the same problem. Q:"Depth map shadows behave properly." true, but they ignore trans-maps completely and make shadows of the mesh, not of the trans-map. sigh! here again: render a couple of times and postwork. the dog's chasing the own tail! @templargfx for this shadow the radius was set to 2, and it's quite messy around the shoulders, like stainded. awful! in the end i rendered it with 0,0 and blurred it in pshop. not exactly good, but still better than this;) Q:"as to why it happens, I think it has to do with the way firefly traces light. like most ray tracers it starts at the pixel on the image and traces the light back to the object and then from there to the light source. the problem is that it does this in "steps"..." do you mean the raytrace bounces? i'm curious about your test results;) @pjz oh no! i'm no friend of this second skin thing! just a blender node is too 'flat', and displacement looks ridiculous, kinda good enough for freebie thumbnails. in the end, the only thing that fits skintight to v3 is a second v3 with 0,0something displacement. true, for this image - upper ends covered, white background - a blender should do, but it would have taken me more clicks to set the nodes;) as for the pubic hair...that 'onboard' stuff is as awful as the rent and as pita as 'onboard' eyebrows. and the pubic hair material zone of v3, miss 'kinkypimpinella-has-a-bunny-on-her-thingie'? no thanks! A.

If you dig through your various texture collections you must have (assuming you have had V3 for a while) you'd be surprised how many pubic transmaps you already have that can be subbed in, I found ten.  International Beauties, anything by 3dCelebrity, and some others, SP3 for example (although that's peach fuzz, practically not even there).  For something under lacy cloth imo it's more than sufficient (I'm okay with how it looks bare).

PS check your email

hi pjz! once more a question of taste... i think nature has done an excellent piece of work when this part of female anatomy was designed. to put hair there was an outstanding idea. it's this veil vs naked skin thing, y'know? well, ok, it is a bit annoying when you have to pick those hairs out of your mouth afterwards...still: i don't like this 15-hairs-somewhere-on-top-of-it version. i see it as a waste of valuable resources. amen. ps: got your mail and script:) dang, that's all greek to me! well, i'll try my luck sweat thx a lot!