Quote - When Joe says 'poserizing Genesis' does that actually mean retaining everything it can do in DS?

No, it won't do everything. UV switching and HD morphs are lost, for example. Possibly losing the ability to load in new morphs after the "poserized" figure is made, depending on how the figure is set up... for instance if dson isn't being used to scan for new morphs.

Quote - "

When Genesis first came out, I asked why didn't DAZ just "Poserize" a version for Poser users. You've demonstrated that it can be done, Joe. I could do it myself. But screw that. If DAZ won't go thru the trouble to just make a cr2 version of Genesis for Poser, why do I need to jump through any hoops to do it myself?

"

Vendor support. If you noticed in the store here, a lot of the V4 (for example) morphs and clothing don't have materials for both DS and Poser for various reasons. Now imagine the support effort to rig something twice and set up morphs twice. That's a lot of work for the return they would get. The figure would end up being lopsided towards one platform or another. DAZ recognized that putting the burden on the vendor wouldn't work in the long term so that's why there hasn't been a poser version. You can always look at Dawn as a case study of providing a model for each application and see their concerns being reality. DSON, although not perfect, does allow a vendor to make something once and have it work in both applications with just about all the same features, rather than one item having one set of features in one app then one set in another.

Quote - Sadly, many of today's artists do not want to educate themselves about  topology, and why it's important.

To be honest.... I don't think most artist do even need it. It's way beyond what they need and desire. Does an artist need to know everything, no they don't. I know enough people here that know everything when it comes to 3D yet their art is so poor. I rather be an artist who has no knowledge of topology and create beautiful art, then weary myself with knowledge I have no need for and doesn't improve my art at all.

Yes, I knew my fair share of topology and retopolgy. I do say knew on purpose..... it's been a while that I've used 3DCoat or used it in Hexagon. As an artist I don't have need for it at all. As a content creator, yes it's handy to know, but even then you can create some good stuff without having any knowledge about it.

Quote - That is what we hear, day after day, week after week, year after year in this forum. You are preaching for the choir.
However none of all these people has ever shown that they can do better and neither have anyone from Poser.

 (Better than Daz that is)

Well, that depends on what you mean by "showing" they can do better.  In my case, I've posted my models in other forums, and I did have a gallery of my original work here at one time.  I took it down for personal reasons. That's neither here nor there when it comes to what we are discussing.  It's not the fact that people keep saying stuff about topology, it's the fact that the people who DO model things for poser don't seem to listen.  It's not like we're lying about good topology, and why it's important.  It's not a myth.

I don't think Daz, as a company, make bad models.  I think the models Daz puts out are actually modelled very well for what they do.  Genesis is a great mesh.  I didn't even suggest anything about Poser models specifically, except for the fact that there are people out there who think sculpting something, then slapping a quick Zremesher on it, is good enough for a character model.  That's something Poser users SHOULD be concerned about, that there's actually modellers out there who believe this.

Poor topology can result in all sorts of issues down the line.  It can make it difficult to rig the model correctly, it can result in poor UV mapping, and it can even result in render issues.  Did you ever have a model that rendered fine in Firefly, but then you bring it into Luxrender or Octane, and suddenly you see problems, like self-shadowing, black spots, or other strange artifacts?  You might think that's due to lighting or materials, or render settings, but it can be a result of poor topology (ngons, skinny polys, or insufficient subdivision).

If the choir is preaching, there might be a reason.

Once again I ask, if the vendors don't want to do it, and they're getting paid, even if they don't think it's worth it, why the heck do they expect me to do it for them and have to pay for the privilege? That's one of the reasons I never adopted V4WM even though I did download her. I didn't feel like converting all those clothes. I've never disagreed with Joe about Genesis being a great figure platform... mesh... thingy, or whatever the heck the correct term is, but I just have to jump through too many not worth it hoops to do it, when there are other figures available for me to use. Granted, they're not Genesis, but for me they don't have to be.

"except for the fact that there are people out there who think sculpting something, then slapping a quick Zremesher on it, is good enough for a character model. "

I am sorry to say this, but-

I don't believe you.

 It has the ring of an urban myth

Quote - As a content creator, yes it's handy to know, but even then you can create some good stuff without having any knowledge about it.

So are you saying it's ok to be a model vendor, and take people's hard earned money, without ANY knowledge of topology?  Please read my post above.  As a modeller, if you want to produce consistantly high quality work, you need to learn at least something about how your craft works, beyond just learning how to use a particular software.  There's fundamental principals to geometry that are at work in 3D.

If you are going to model stuff for Poser, and don't care to learn even the basics about topology, it's not a great idea to become a model vendor..  Just because someone can fix a leak doesn't make them a plumber.

Quote - "except for the fact that there are people out there who think sculpting something, then slapping a quick Zremesher on it, is good enough for a character model. "

Quote - As a content creator, yes it's handy to know, but even then you can create some good stuff without having any knowledge about it.

Quote - I am sorry to say this, but- I don't believe you.

 It has the ring of an urban myth

Oh really?

Yes. Perhaps you have an example?

The greatest of the greatest (IMO) Content Creators I know of, is Xurge. I was at one of his web seminars. He is completely untechnical, model with Nurbs (Rhino) and don't know to edit a Bezier curve in Photoshop. The conversion to polygons is automatic, he have no real control over the meshflow.

Quote - Once again I ask, if the vendors don't want to do it, and they're getting paid, even if they don't think it's worth it, why the heck do they expect me to do it for them and have to pay for the privilege? That's one of the reasons I never adopted V4WM even though I did download her. I didn't feel like converting all those clothes. I've never disagreed with Joe about Genesis being a great figure platform... mesh... thingy, or whatever the heck the correct term is, but I just have to jump through too many not worth it hoops to do it, when there are other figures available for me to use. Granted, they're not Genesis, but for me they don't have to be.

Creating two separate models isn't a solution, standardizing on one is. Using the DSON importer works towards that goal, having the import functions natively read in Poser would be the best solution. Since the best solution doesn't seem likely, then you have the importer to someone have one figure with most of the same capabilities rather than two with separate features. Putting the burden on vendors to make both doesn't work, you can look through hivewire's store to see how this is panning out, even with their service to convert the items for you.

Honestly don't understand the "hoop jumping" catchphrases so many people that have not attempted try it use. I used one of the early versions and got it working on the first try. I spent last weekend working with M6 in Poser, and it wasn't that bad; in fact the only issue I had is getting the lighting correct. And looking through the gallery I'm seeing more people doing Poser renders using V6 and even some more vendors producing Genesis 2 items in this store... I about fainted when I saw the M6 spotlight last week.

Quote - Where would i go to learn more about mesh topology?

This get complicated and confusing.
Methods change as app's get better but for now.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpVCvgvzR_I
You can use this for game meshes or SubD meshes with vector maps.

Game meshes will be 100% Tri'ed when finalized. Have normal maps instead of vector maps.

SubD meshes you model or retopologize with mainly loops to have a good flow.
All the edges flowing in the same direction. See Roxie for a good example.
V1's Posetta was not modeled to be SubDed.

for character you just model in C4D they start at 5000 polygons with most Quads but some Tri's.
You SubD once makes poly count 20,000 and 100% Quads. the mesh is finalized

Quote - > Quote - As a content creator, yes it's handy to know, but even then you can create some good stuff without having any knowledge about it.

So are you saying it's ok to be a model vendor, and take people's hard earned money, without ANY knowledge of topology?  Please read my post above.  As a modeller, if you want to produce consistantly high quality work, you need to learn at least something about how your craft works, beyond just learning how to use a particular software.  There's fundamental principals to geometry that are at work in 3D.

If you are going to model stuff for Poser, and don't care to learn even the basics about topology, it's not a great idea to become a model vendor..  Just because someone can fix a leak doesn't make them a plumber.

I've been modeling for Poser for many years now and none of my customers have ever complained about my lack of topology knowledge ;) Yes, it's OK to model without having an extensive knowledge about certain things. You can create content for poser without having a knowledge about topolgy and from looking at various items I've bought over the years, a lot of vendors have no clue about that.

If I have to follow everyone's rule and demands, I might as well stop modeling, it's not going to be fun. This community can be so pushy.... you have to use weight mapping..... gamma correction is a must..... without topology your modeling is no good..... if you don't have an extensive knowledge about the material room you will never get anywhere as a vendor or poser users..... I can go on and on. If I'm going to live by everyone's demand I may as well stop doing what I'm doing, I will have to time left to do anything at all. At times I just want to have fun doing things without getting boggled down by all the ins and outs.

An just to let you in on a little secret..... not every vendor is using sculpting or zBrush and the likes in their workflow, but please, keep that to yourself. God forbid that not everyone in the world is sculpting, using zBrush, Photoshop and whatever big name or technique you can think off :P You would be amazed how far old school 3D modeling and texturing still gets you these days and plenty of people/vendors still using it.

Believe it or not, aeilkema, I agree with you for the most part.  It's not necessary to use Zbrush.  It's not even necessary to know all there is about topology.  However, this is why a fundamental understanding of edge flow is important...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_S1INdEmdI

Someone without any knowledge about how to properly model a human face, for example, will likely end up with a model that will not deform properly with expression morphs, contain artifacts, and render issues.  Anyone can sculpt a box into the shape of a face, but will it be able to smile, and emote without artifacts?  This is what i'm suggesting some people don't get, and how it can be bad for creating characters in Poser, especially now that we have new features like Pixar subdivision.  I'm not saying you NEED formal training, and sure, some static models can do just fine with ngons and any old topological order.  Cartoon or NPR characters, for example, can break the rules of edge flow, and still be just fine.  However, if you're modelling realistic characters, and want them to morph or animate, or even rig easily, then topology becomes an issue.

I suggest anyone who "doesn't believe" topology matters, watch that video for evidence of just a few reasons why it does.  There's other reasons too, like rendering with Path Tracing, where long, unsupported edges can cause render artifacts or black spots, etc., etc.  Or rendering with Poser's own IDL, where overlapping edges, or single-sided geometry can cause issues.

Need more evidence topology is important for Poser? Here's a thread from the WIngs3D forum, where a talented modeller was having artifact issues, and it was due to the topology. 

http://www.renderosity.com/mod/forumpro/showthread.php?message_id=4117062&ebot_calc_page#message_4117062

I can point to tons of evidence of how important topology is from other modelling forums as well, but do you really need more evidence?  This should be self-evident by now.  As someone on the previous page said, it sounds like urban myth?  Good topology is not a myth.

SM hafta do both - keep updating poser and provide models that work with poser.  they also need to lose any pre-2010 shaders that are still in content IMVHO.

Quote -      I would want SM to concentrate on the software, with the proviso that they do supply rigged dolls.  Rigged people are beyond the capabilities of all but a few end users, plus we need common base dolls if we are to make content for each other.

     Instead of completely new dolls with each release, I would prefer SM to develop, refine, and perfect a set of dolls incrementally.  That is, each Poser release would see an updated/improved edition of a standard Poser doll chassis set. 

     That being said, I think they are wise to supply all that content -including the legacy dolls- with a purchase of Poser.  It gives the newbie a good start on building a library.

I think they should keep the legacy content they have been providing, no reason to discard it.  But I also think it should be a separate install that is clearly marked as legacy content.

Beyond that I think they should update the legacy figures to current standards.  I've been told that it would be too much work, but I don't understand how as it seems that work has already been done.  I just wish the Poser figures that shipped with the installer were what an experienced user would update them to be.  I know many of the older figures have been weight mapped and most of them have several morph sets available, and EZskin would take care of the rest.  Also, I'd package them under their "proper" names eg. Posette, Jessi, Judy etc.

I don't quite get this software vs. content idea though...  It's only when new features like SSS, weight mapping etc. are added that the limitations of pre-existing figures becomes apparent.

"Good topology is not a myth."

Hasn't it occurred to you that it is a bit thick to pontificate of topology in a place that to a large part is occupied by professional or semi-professional modelers?

Quote -If I have to follow everyone's rule and demands, I might as well stop modeling, it's not going to be fun. This community can be so pushy.... you have to use weight mapping..... gamma correction is a must..... without topology your modeling is no good..... if you don't have an extensive knowledge about the material room you will never get anywhere as a vendor or poser users..... I can go on and on. If I'm going to live by everyone's demand I may as well stop doing what I'm doing, I will have to time left to do anything at all. At times I just want to have fun doing things without getting boggled down by all the ins and outs.

That's a rather stubborn way to look at it, and is quite self-limiting as a modeler. 

There are industry standards when it comes to modeling and topology that should be adhered to for a number of reasons. Primarily being cross-platform compatibility and ease of use. 

It should be obvious by now that many people don't limit themselves to just using Poser. They port the models they use to any number of other programs to animate and render. 

So when there's no consistency in the construction of the models, it creates a huge mess trying to sort out what models will work best in this package or not in that package.

When I buy content built by someone else I always check out how clean the mesh is. If it's a sloppy mesh I won't buy from that vendor again, no matter how pretty their model might look in Poser, because I know I'll be limited in where and how I can use it in the future, should I ever choose to. So while it may work just fine in Poser, it can be a nightmare in Maya or some other package if the mesh construction is crap. It also tells me the artist really doesn't care much about his work, and if he doesnt, why should I? There are plenty of other modelers I can buy from, and won't have the headache of having to fix their mess before I can use the model.  

A modeler should make his work appealing and usuable in as many situations as possible to maximize his customer base. It's not rocket science or brain surgery. There's a number of ways to build geometry that's clean and that animates and functions properly just by following a few guidelines and being consistent with them, and it doesn't have to be an inspiration killer. Once you learn the established techniques it becomes second nature to follow them. 

But that's just my advice. No one's forcing you to do anything you don't want. You can hand code your objs or paint with your elbows if that's what makes you happy. 

~Shane

The feature that I most want in Poser, that I most long for is baking. Imagine to be able to bake a complicated shader node setup into a nice map. That can I do in C4D.

With both ZBrush and Marvelous Designer along with C4D modelling is a breeze. It is the texturing that takes 90% of the time.

I judge a modeler after his texturing. Only a stark beginner doesn't understand the importance of a nice (quad) topology. But expertice in baking and all kinds of maps, in the usage of these new tools like nDo and dDo, substance designer and xNormal is hard to come by.

Quote - Hasn't it occurred to you that it is a bit thick to pontificate of topology in a place that to a large part is occupied by professional or semi-professional modelers?

They aren't the ones arguing to the contrary, obviously.

I'm looking in to faster better Texturing App's.

How fast would it take to texture these meshes with allegorithmic & or quixel ?
How well does Allegorithmic & or Quixel texture ,Do they strik across 90 degree angles.?

Having trouble getting grunge across the 90 to 60 degree angles.

I know Allegorithmic & or Quixel is for game meshes ,Are they still good to use with SubD meshes ?

Thanks

RorrKonn, 

Go to http://www.sparkyworld.co.uk/3d4own.htm and follow that free pdf tutorial:
Sparkyworld’s Guide To Creating Panelled Textures V1.1

" know Allegorithmic & or Quixel is for game meshes ,Are they still good to use with SubD meshes ?"

Of course they are. If it is that worn, typical, game look you are after you could try the brand new Substance Painter,
http://www.allegorithmic.com/products/substance-painter  (demo version and also very cheap right now)

It is really fun to use,

vintorix :

Oh ya ,half to have that worn n torn, apocalyptic game look.
New & pretties are just nauseating.

Sparkyworld’s Guide To Creating Panelled ,Very cool.

Allegorithmic & or Quixel are on my to get list n Allegorithmic 50% off now
.Dang ,I half to grow a new kidney fast ;)

Thanks for the info.

Always open to info on killer softwares

Quote - When I buy content built by someone else I always check out how clean the mesh is. If it's a sloppy mesh I won't buy from that vendor again, no matter how pretty their model might look in Poser, because I know I'll be limited in where and how I can use it in the future, should I ever choose to. So while it may work just fine in Poser, it can be a nightmare in Maya or some other package if the mesh construction is crap. It also tells me the artist really doesn't care much about his work, and if he doesnt, why should I? There are plenty of other modelers I can buy from, and won't have the headache of having to fix their mess before I can use the

See and that's what I call plain ridiculous, sorry to say so. If a vendor has released something for Poser and the items is intended for Poser, then it should be used in Poser period. Again, you are putting demands on the vendor that are not fair at all. The content hasn't been created for Maya or anything else to do and it has nothing to do with care for his or her work at all, to say that again, is ridiculous.

The content has been released for Poser, not for other applications. Now, to use your words, if your stubborn enough to use it elsewhere, that's your problem..... and saying that an artist doesn't care about his/her work just because you insist in using it for something it wasn't intended for is cray and even offensive. My goodness....

Besides as a modeler you should know that even if you have the best topology in the world, it is not a guarantee that the model will work in every application. Unfortunately a lot of applications simply interpreted object information incorrectly or the application used to model may do that as well.

I do think we're discussed this enough, it's obvious you want to make something arbitrary that should be, just because it's more convenient for you. You can think what ever you like, but please never again say that someone doesn't care for his work just because they don't live up to your standards, that's absurd. I'll leave it it that :)

There is more than one way to swing a cat. This mesh was made with ZRemesher. A greeting to all those who says that you cant't control meshflow in ZBrush. Mind you, I am not saying that you can do a whole character with this technique.

This is actually a good example for why I DONT use zremesher for my final mesh. 

This isn't bad tho, but it still needs a good bit of work. 

• Stretched polys under the breast and bunching of polys along the peak of the breast, this will cause distorted UVs, making it very difficult to evenly texture in a 2D app like photoshop. The geometry needs to be relaxed in this area. 

• Poles should never lay along the center line of the model, especially not 6-pointed poles. They create pinching and artifacts in renders.

• Same with triangles. Far too many triangles dispursed around the geometry in various places, many of them are completely unnecessary and could be spun together to form quads. For low poly models its more acceptable to have triangles, in discreet places if you can't get rid of them by working the mesh without adding more unnecessary geometry. 

I'd take this mesh into a modeler and correct the tris, stretching and poles. An extra 20 minutes of attention by hand would make the mesh much more useable and eliminate a lot of potential problems down the road.

~Shane

Sorry, Vintorix.

While those material zones might look cool, the meshflow is quite bad.

Much better to realise that bi-color design with a texture map and use the topology instead to create some realistic folds and to provide for better bending and perhaps morphing.

Young Soul Vanilla by AerySoul is an example of topology I wish more Poser merchants would create: Sculpted folds, real seams, yet still lightweight.

Most Poser cloth looks like it was cut out of styrofoam instead of sewn out of real fabric. And in almost all the cases, bad topology is to blame.

But if I do that the user can't change the individual areas in the material room!
Wrinkles can always be realized with ZBrush maps.
You make a choice. Either you emphasis the bending, or the material area or wrinkles, in real life everything is a compromise. But IMO if you choose the Aery Soul's way you should deliver it in the form of a morph. In combination with 100% welded mesh (which is important) you can then use it for simulation in the cloth room. You dial down the wrinkles before simulation and restore the wrinkles after, see the attached example. Conforming dress to the left, using bodyhandles, dynamic version to the right.

Otherwise I am flattered to be compared with Aery Soul, one touched by the gods. That is a first!

AmbientShade, the problem with you is that you have lost your sense of proportions. (the single thing Winston Churchill though was most important in life).

What are you comparing with? Mudbox? Can Mudbox do a mesh flow like that?

?

I've never used mudbox, I use zbrush for sculpting, texturing and map baking. Topogun for retopology.

No clue what you mean by the proportion comment. Sounds like an attempt at an insult to me tho.

I got the impression that the yellow zones were intended to be raised areas on a form-fitted shirt, something like sculpted leather armor or similar.

~Shane

Not an insult just a reminder that if you criticize something, you must show a software that do better. Otherwise it is just a waste of time.

Nothing can stand up to theoretical wishfulness.

Quote - Young Soul Vanilla by AerySoul is an example of topology I wish more Poser merchants would create: Sculpted folds, real seams, yet still lightweight.

Most Poser cloth looks like it was cut out of styrofoam instead of sewn out of real fabric. And in almost all the cases, bad topology is to blame.

Just imagine if even half the vendors and poser content artists strived to acheive the same quality as Aery Soul or others like them. But apparently, according to some anyway, that's just nonsense.

~Shane

Queen Elisabeth's Summer cottage

This reminds me of a Swedish comedy where two working colleagues have an argument, one has just bought an summer cottage and the other is jealous, so he is the all time referring to "Queen Elisabeth's Summer cottage". That is a summer cottage! he says.

While I find this discourse, extremely interesting, you guys do realise you've traveled way off from the original subject matter, right?

Steve will never notice my Poser Future post among it, that's for sure :biggrin:
Some very good points made here though, it's a good read.

My hottest wish is for baking. If I can get someone with me, I am prepared to tent outside SM offices untill it is done.

That would be nice and solve quite some export problems and will speed up rendering complex images a lot as well.

Quote - > Quote - When Genesis first came out, I asked why didn't DAZ just "Poserize" a version for Poser users. You've demonstrated that it can be done, Joe. I could do it myself. But screw that. If DAZ won't go thru the trouble to just make a cr2 version of Genesis for Poser, why do I need to jump through any hoops to do it myself?

Support; there would need to be Python scripts written to add morphs.  Also, Genesis 1 wouldn't have been compatible; Conforming of clothing to figures with animated joint centres didn't work until Poser 9 SR2, IIRC.  Both DAZ and SM rushed Studio 4.0 and Poser 9 out due to business deadlines, not because the technology was ready.

However, I will say I was expecting a Poser version of Genesis 2 when DAZ released seperate male and female figures, but that has obviously not been the case thus far...

Granted, but Male M3dia says that the vendors didn't want to make two versions of everything. They wouldn't have had to.  A poserised version of Genesis would have allowed the vendors to keep making Poser compatible clothes, while Autofit could simply handle the conversion for Studio users. That's what happened pretty much anyway because Genesis didn't have much to wear, and everyone was using their old V4 stuff through Autofit anyway. DAZ could have minimized or even prevented a major split in the community, but no  they adopted a "their way or the highway" mentality about it all, which forced everyone to pick a side.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - When Genesis first came out, I asked why didn't DAZ just "Poserize" a version for Poser users. You've demonstrated that it can be done, Joe. I could do it myself. But screw that. If DAZ won't go thru the trouble to just make a cr2 version of Genesis for Poser, why do I need to jump through any hoops to do it myself?

Support; there would need to be Python scripts written to add morphs.  Also, Genesis 1 wouldn't have been compatible; Conforming of clothing to figures with animated joint centres didn't work until Poser 9 SR2, IIRC.  Both DAZ and SM rushed Studio 4.0 and Poser 9 out due to business deadlines, not because the technology was ready.

However, I will say I was expecting a Poser version of Genesis 2 when DAZ released seperate male and female figures, but that has obviously not been the case thus far...

Granted, but Male M3dia says that the vendors didn't want to make two versions of everything. They wouldn't have had to.  A poserised version of Genesis would have allowed the vendors to keep making Poser compatible clothes, while Autofit could simply handle the conversion for Studio users. That's what happened pretty much anyway because Genesis didn't have much to wear, and everyone was using their old V4 stuff through Autofit anyway. DAZ could have minimized or even prevented a major split in the community, but no  they adopted a "their way or the highway" mentality about it all, which forced everyone to pick a side.

But Genesis isn't just about clothes, it is about the whole feature set. UVs, morphs, HD, for example. So still, having one figure that does a lot and one that does nothing doesn't sound exactly fair either. 

And as far as "their way or the highway", how is Dawn any different? With her, you do choose or you do it twice. DSON, plan it for Poser and you do it once and it works in both.

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - > Quote - When Genesis first came out, I asked why didn't DAZ just "Poserize" a version for Poser users. You've demonstrated that it can be done, Joe. I could do it myself. But screw that. If DAZ won't go thru the trouble to just make a cr2 version of Genesis for Poser, why do I need to jump through any hoops to do it myself?

Support; there would need to be Python scripts written to add morphs.  Also, Genesis 1 wouldn't have been compatible; Conforming of clothing to figures with animated joint centres didn't work until Poser 9 SR2, IIRC.  Both DAZ and SM rushed Studio 4.0 and Poser 9 out due to business deadlines, not because the technology was ready.

However, I will say I was expecting a Poser version of Genesis 2 when DAZ released seperate male and female figures, but that has obviously not been the case thus far...

Granted, but Male M3dia says that the vendors didn't want to make two versions of everything. They wouldn't have had to.  A poserised version of Genesis would have allowed the vendors to keep making Poser compatible clothes, while Autofit could simply handle the conversion for Studio users. That's what happened pretty much anyway because Genesis didn't have much to wear, and everyone was using their old V4 stuff through Autofit anyway. DAZ could have minimized or even prevented a major split in the community, but no  they adopted a "their way or the highway" mentality about it all, which forced everyone to pick a side.

But Genesis isn't just about clothes, it is about the whole feature set. UVs, morphs, HD, for example. So still, having one figure that does a lot and one that does nothing doesn't sound exactly fair either. 

And as far as "their way or the highway", how is Dawn any different? With her, you do choose or you do it twice. DSON, plan it for Poser and you do it once and it works in both.

Dawn is working with the dynamic that DAZ has already set in place. That dynamic wasn't there when Genesis for appeared, and like I said, Studio was already converting clothng with auto-fit, a feature Poser didn't have.  So continuing to make the clothing Poser compatible at least until DSON came along would have ameliorated the splt somewhat.

HD didn't come along until G2 anyway, so that wasn't an issue, and a poserized version of V5 would have kept a lot of Poser users and merchants happier.

Quote -
Dawn is working with the dynamic that DAZ has already set in place. That dynamic wasn't there when Genesis for appeared, and like I said, Studio was already converting clothng with auto-fit, a feature Poser didn't have.  So continuing to make the clothing Poser compatible at least until DSON came along would have ameliorated the splt somewhat.

Not really because in reality Poser and DAZ came out with different weightmapping systems and at genesis' release Poser didn't have the scaling fixed and no subdivision. Scaling didn't get worked on until a service release and subdivision didn't come out until Poser 10/2014 (though edge weighted creasing from Pixar's spec needs to be added in). So really even if genesis didn't get released, any future figure couldn't be released in both. The split was going to happen regardless because both companies aren't on the same page feature-wise and those features aren't compatible.

So let's take Genesis totally out of the equation and just look at the apps themselves.

Future figures would be available in only one app or they would to be "Dawns"... figures with base features that would exist in both applications. Vendors would just make stuff for one application or doing it twice for both; things made in one program would be met with cries from customers to see if they can get a compatible version for their application. But really the burden falls to vendor to make stuff for both applications, which they won't do for too  long. So those vendors that didn't want to split the market would stay with the older tech until the customers start wanting something different and gravitate to whatever software gives them what they want, then those vendors eventually will have to choose.

But SM provided the plugin architecture and DAZ created the DSON importer to allow genesis to be used in Poser. So it's a not a perfect solution, but at least the figure can be used in both and vendors don't have to duplicate their efforts to get something to the marketplace. And that's what vendors want: to be able to reach the most customers without increasing their effort.

So since vendors can not make cloths that fit more than a single figure we have to dump Poser to support them?  When I go to the store in real life I look for a size that fits.  The reason 100's of people can wear the same shirt is because it is dynamic.  That is it will fit any figure.

The following quote is from a product marketed at DAZ (Dynamic Classics for V6 and V5 supermodel):

"Dynamic Clothes flow with your character's shape in a more natural way. With conforming clothes, no matter what method you use, the more different from the base mesh your character is the more unnatural the clothes will fit. Particularly difficult fits are extreme shapes, where animated draping is recommended. Nothing fits more natural than dynamic clothes since these clothes don't fight geometry but flow with it creating exciting visual details with wrinkles and folds that dynamically change depending on your pose - enhancing realism in your renders"

So since even DAZ acknowledge the benefits of dynamics why don't the vendors support that method?  Dynamic has been a part of Poser since version 5 and the lastest version has added bullet physics.  I do know that DAZ does not have dynamics as part of the program and that it some type of hack/script add on and that each items has to be made by a single vendor/team.  WHY?

V4 is popular however it has 100's of flaws that is a whole vendor support area providing fixes to those issues. Genesis 1 only lasted a year before being dumped.  What assurance is there that Genesis 2 is all that?  And even if Poser was to add native support what features of Poser would the current vendors add?  The whole problem being they do not want to support more than a single figure/version odds are great they will not add any thing.

Currently the content I have for V4 is being used to convert to other figures.  Basically I have turned V$ into a dress dummy that cloths are made on.  This has the advantage for venders to make something that can be used by the vast number of users who refuse to upgrade and can be used by studio users also via the autofit.

" If a vendor has released something for Poser and the items is intended for Poser, then it should be used in Poser period. Again, you are putting demands on the vendor that are not fair at all."

I agree sir
for us end users who have no intention of ever rendering in poser itself
it is up to us to find poser/DAZ, purpose built content, that will work best in our programs.. or make our own.

No different than me harvesting free Sketchup models from the google 3D warehouse
and exporting them from Sketchup pro , to use in C4D.
Some render fine and some are useless crap (without a complete retopo)

Either way no responsibility ,for its compatibility with C4D, falls upon the original sketchup artist.

Cheers
 

Quote - So since vendors can not make cloths that fit more than a single figure we have to dump Poser to support them?  When I go to the store in real life I look for a size that fits.  The reason 100's of people can wear the same shirt is because it is dynamic.  That is it will fit any figure.

The following quote is from a product marketed at DAZ (Dynamic Classics for V6 and V5 supermodel):

"Dynamic Clothes flow with your character's shape in a more natural way. With conforming clothes, no matter what method you use, the more different from the base mesh your character is the more unnatural the clothes will fit. Particularly difficult fits are extreme shapes, where animated draping is recommended. Nothing fits more natural than dynamic clothes since these clothes don't fight geometry but flow with it creating exciting visual details with wrinkles and folds that dynamically change depending on your pose - enhancing realism in your renders"

 

So since even DAZ acknowledge the benefits of dynamics why don't the vendors support that method?  Dynamic has been a part of Poser since version 5 and the lastest version has added bullet physics.  I do know that DAZ does not have dynamics as part of the program and that it some type of hack/script add on and that each items has to be made by a single vendor/team.  WHY?

The dynamics conversation comes up from time to time, but sales-wise dynamics aren't as popular as conforming otherwise you'd see more items. Dynamics don't allow for details as conforming does. Dynamics make for flowing dresses, but more people want that jeweled bikini armor so they can rush into the temple ;). If dynamics actually affected DAZ's bottom line, I'm sure they would have moved on it by now.

Quote - V4 is popular however it has 100's of flaws that is a whole vendor support area providing fixes to those issues. Genesis 1 only lasted a year before being dumped.  What assurance is there that Genesis 2 is all that?  And even if Poser was to add native support what features of Poser would the current vendors add?  The whole problem being they do not want to support more than a single figure/version odds are great they will not add any thing.

Actually Genesis is was over 2 1/2 years old before Genesis 2 was released. It seems like a year because people spent more time arguing about it than using it ;) Technology does move quickly, especially in software so 3 years between figures would be expected. No one walks around with 6 year old cell phones or laptops, figure tech shouldn't be any different.

Quote -   Currently the content I have for V4 is being used to convert to other figures.  Basically I have turned V$ into a dress dummy that cloths are made on.  This has the advantage for venders to make something that can be used by the vast number of users who refuse to upgrade and can be used by studio users also via the autofit.

1. This does not support the target figure, but the source. A figure gains popularity and support from items specifically made for it. If no one buys for that figure or just simply converts what they have, vendors take it as non-interest and goes elsewhere. 

2. Eventually as people want more from their figures they will move towards other figures, so less people will buy into old tech. So then the vendors will have to choose and move as well. You don't want your figure depending on content of another when that happens.

Poser fussion meshes half to work in all those app's also.
Poser / DAZ Studio are just plugs for the main App's.

MudBox can place loops . time stamp 1:05
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cpVCvgvzR_I&list=PL90457F87CCF5513D

I'm guessing next version of zBrush can place loops.
I never thought of spliting the mesh in zBrush for loops.That's a killer idea.

Quote - " If a vendor has released something for Poser and the items is intended for Poser, then it should be used in Poser period. Again, you are putting demands on the vendor that are not fair at all."

I agree sir
for us end users who have no intention of ever rendering in poser itself
it is up to us to find poser/DAZ, purpose built content, that will work best in our programs.. or make our own.

No different than me harvesting free Sketchup models from the google 3D warehouse
and exporting them from Sketchup pro , to use in C4D.
Some render fine and some are useless crap (without a complete retopo)

Either way no responsibility ,for its compatibility with C4D, falls upon the original sketchup artist.

Cheers

Well, I AM paying for the demands I place on a vendor. Now if they don't think what i pay is worth it, nothing I can do. But if I had to buy a pair of pants from a tailor made for a person a size smaller than me, then I had to alter to pants to fit me, I probably wouldn't buy pants from that tailor very long.

You are entirely right RorrKonn, If the software will not do as you will you have to retort to pure brutality, sad but true! And here is what it looks like one mouse click later using ZBrush Panel loops,

 ZBrush and ZRemesher open up the entire Boolean world, that has been closed for us so long.

On the subject of "content" I think the main issue with end users is the constantly changing array of figure-based technologies, and as artists that's not really something they should have to be concerned about.

From a designers point of view I think the Poser format is the better of the two, and here's why I think so. When you look at what's required of a human figure, or pretty much anything really, it boils down to a few essentials:

• Total control over it's form.
• Total control over it's colour.
• Total control over it's joints.
• Total control over it's movement.

Both the Poser and Geneses figures offer this, but I think the Poser figures do it a lot easier and more efficiently.  I have no intentions of slowing down my Poser viewport with a DSON import, I already have the essentials in the Poser figures.

Today, a Poser figure not only allows the essntials listed above, it goes further still by allowing things to control other things, and for it's form to react dynamically.  The fact is that no matter how hard I try, when I add that lot together I can't think of anything that cannot be done with the figure technology already in Poser.

I also think Genesis is bad news for vendors in the long run.

In order to keep up development, money needs to be made by both the software and content developers.  Making it easy to morph from a toddler to an adult and bring the clothes along with it simply cuts out the requirement for vendored products, and frankly I've never seen such an idiotic move made by DAZ in the entire time I've known them.  IMHO, Genesis is nothing more than a marketing product that entices you with pointless technologies.  There's nothing you can do with Genesis that you cannot do with a much lighter and more responsive,Poser figure.  If only users would learn about joint driven morphs, axis bulges - and to my amazement - even built-in event-driven joint keyframing.

You can even make breasts bounce due to the fact that Poser now allows your figure to have a complete map-based soft-body.

I'm guessing DAZ thought Genesis would get one over on the Poser users, but all they've really done is over-complicate the situation (in typical DAZ fashion) and develop a format that will ultimately cut down the amount of products needing to be sold in their online store.  I've told DAZ directly on many occasions (lovingly of course) how stupid they are, and to me, Genesis is just one example of epic-scale stupidity.

One other thing to consider when you compare what DAZ and SM are doing, is this:

Genesis might sound like a good idea when you consider it starts off as neither male or female, but at the end of the day, that mesh still needs to morph to make it either one or the other.  Me personally, I prefer to see a whole new geometry with "character" on each release of Poser, and I have to say, Smith Micro do that very well.  Not only do you get figures that look very different from one another, that library of figures builds up as the release count increases.  You end up with a good selection of figures.

Try doing that with your DAZ Runtime and you'll find, for example, that even though there are masses of Victoria 4 morphs out there, the majority of them still look like Victoria 4.  It's an inherent side-effect of using the same geometry time and time again.  Now, stand Roxie next to Miki and see if that problem appears with the Poser way of doing it.

Nope (because they're completely different geometry).

You've never had it so good, you have Poser figures that have weight mapped morphs and dynamics for crying out loud - you even have total control over joint driven morphs.  People need to stop whining and start learning the technology that is already at their disposal in Poser.  You can already do anything you will ever need to do with a figure in Poser if you learn how it works.  And as long as Smith Micro keep up the characters and add the right features to Poser - I really don't see a problem.

I can't remember who said it, or even which thread it was in, but I agree the best way forward for vendors is to start supporting the characters that come with each new release of Poser (it makes perfect sense).  Roxie is a perfect example of that, she's a nice mesh with 'character', yet there's like a million outfits for V4 and Genesis and a lot of them still look like V4 or Genesis.

What about Roxie, Rex, Miku?

Quote - > Quote - " If a vendor has released something for Poser and the items is intended for Poser, then it should be used in Poser period. Again, you are putting demands on the vendor that are not fair at all."

I agree sir
for us end users who have no intention of ever rendering in poser itself
it is up to us to find poser/DAZ, purpose built content, that will work best in our programs.. or make our own.

No different than me harvesting free Sketchup models from the google 3D warehouse
and exporting them from Sketchup pro , to use in C4D.
Some render fine and some are useless crap (without a complete retopo)

Either way no responsibility ,for its compatibility with C4D, falls upon the original sketchup artist.

Cheers

Well, I AM paying for the demands I place on a vendor. Now if they don't think what i pay is worth it, nothing I can do. But if I had to buy a pair of pants from a tailor made for a person a size smaller than me, then I had to alter to pants to fit me, I probably wouldn't buy pants from that tailor very long.

If you would be a custom made item, sure, you can place any demand on the vendor. But if you buy a mass produced item, you cannot place any demands on a vendor at all.... the products is as is and you have to make sure it's working for what you want it to be for. If a vendor says it's for Poser and you want to use in DS then the work is on your shoulders, not on the vendor.

I do create my items with Poser in mind. Poser allows me to use a good number of modeling features, but not all. This has nothing to do with topology at all and that is what some fail to understand. Some of these modeling features do not work in DS at all, DS does not support them. To get the same result in DS, I have to model completely differently and avoid a number of features my modeling application offers me. This has nothing to do with topology at all, it has everything to do with how the end application interprets the data given to it in the object file. Yes, I can export models to .obj and while Poser will read them fine, I can make DS crash in mere seconds. Same goes for Vue, an item can work fine in both DS and Poser, but can sent Vue off into a crash...... in spite of the the topolgy being perfect.

So, I clearly state whith what application my items do work. If you want to use them with something else, then sure you can try, but there is no guarantee it will work at all. A few of my products I do offer for Poser & DS and seperately for Vue. Why? Because I know that Vue cannot handle some stuff.

And I can tell you that this isn't happening to me only.... some of the big names in the Poser world have models that work fine in Poser & DS, but have major issues in Vue.

Back to your pants..... your reasoning would be true if you bought tailor made pants for yourself or one size fits all. But that's not the case.... you are in a shopping mall and it's up to you to find the size that fits you! You cannot blame the manufacturer for buying a size that doesn't fit you and you have to alter it. No, you have to make sure you get the size you need. I offer Poser sizes..... Poser & DS sizes..... Vue sizes..... that's it. If you want to use it in Maya..... sorry, I don't offer that size. If you buy Poser size and want to use it in DS or Vue.... sorry, you bought the wrong size. Buy the size you need and if you want to use it beyond, you're going to have to do some aternation.

**
**You simply cannot place any demands on a vendor, since you buy a ready made product and that comes as is. You don't buy a vacuum cleaner and complain to the vendor that it doesn't make coffee now, do you? No of course not, you cannot place that demand on the vendor of the vacuum cleaner at all. It's a ready made product with certain use in mind. If you want it to make coffee, be prepared to make some (huge) alterations. Same with items you buy in the marketplace here, or anywhere else..... they are ready made products, as is, with a certain purpose in mind and the customer cannot demans anything at all from the vendor, unless it's not working for that it was intended for!

I'm working on it! :biggrin!: First out fit for Roxie is already at CP the second will probably beby week's end.