I see no problems when I straighten her forearm.  I'm not a modeler. I don't see what you see

Ok, I will post one example.

This is a comparison of Scarlet and my unreleased Sydney WM. I did not release it because the mesh is asymmetrical in Sydney and certain functions in Poser break the rigging. Just as it does with Scarlet.

Granted this is a rather extreme pose, but it proves a point. When I rig a character I want it to be able to do extreme, tie it in a knot, etc.

Trust me when I say that you can pose any character I rig in rather extreme poses and the mesh follows along fine.

There are no jcms, no magnets, etc, in Sydney WM, none zip, nada..... The only compromise is the mesh.

If I could have gotten a symmetrical Sydney mesh made, I would have released it.

Do you see any differences between the two?

This was going to be free, just as Antonia WM and V4 WM were, but without a symmetrical mesh it is not going to happen.

Mesh symmetry is a requirement, not an option.

Hello, Rebekah of Sixus1 here.  Stopping in to give an update.  A service release for Scarlet is pending approval and will be available very soon.

Addressing concerns voiced by our customers we have made a few additions and a couple of changes to Scarlet. They are as follows:
1.) Joint Parameter / Skin Weights adjustments on the Hip/Thigh area

2.) Eyelashes - 2 morphs have been added for the top and bottom lashes for user preference adjustments on placement of the lashes & the Lengthen morph has been changed

3.) Scarlet's material settings have been changed to work better with the default Poser render settings regarding gamma correction

 
If you have ANY questions, concerns or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me.  Thank you for your support!  We have much more Scarlet products, packages, morphs, poses, kits, tutorials and resources coming...and if you have any requests please send them our way so that we know exactly what our users are looking for.

Thanks for the support.  I have downloaded the update and this is Scarlet rendered in Poser 2014 straight from the box, very happy with the material changes.  It is getting late here in the UK so I will look at the other changes later.

I am really looking forward to the extras you have for Scarlet.

Mesh symmetry is a requirement, not an option.

Does the Scarlet mesh have more polys on one side, like Sydney with her extra row in the left chest, or does it just not superimpose from left to right?  The latter is potentially fixable, whilst the former isn't without essentially creating a new mesh...

I have not looked at it close enough to tell. But it does not cross over right. Mirroring from the right to left affects parts of the the right side and corrupts the left,

I downloaded the update version of Scarlet.....

I am not going to comment on it, because it isn't worth hearing that it "kinda works" again.............

I have not looked at it close enough to tell. But it does not cross over right. Mirroring from the right to left affects parts of the the right side and corrupts the left,

I downloaded the update version of Scarlet.....

I am not going to comment on it, because it isn't worth hearing that it "kinda works" again.............

It is a shame that you are not going to comment as your views regarding the mesh are clearly based in fact and therefore valid.  Not only that but I do want to know what is wrong with her and I do not have the skills find that out for myself.  If Scarlet is a disappointment and you feel the money has been wasted then I really do hope you get a refund. For me it is not a question of it "kinda works" for me it is more a question can I use her and so far the answer is yes but it's usefulness quite limited at this point, which quite frankly, I expected with a figure that is this new.  There is much I like about Scarlet but clearly there are issues however, the issues stated so far do not detract from the way I want to use the figure.  Of course if the problems with the mesh means that few people are going to develop clothes then it does become an issue for me.

The vendors have at least responded to some of the comments even if it does not go far enough for some people.  As we are all going to use any new figure in a different way it is understandable that for some the issues will be a show stopper while for others they will be an annoyance.  I am not trying to be a fanatic about this and I accept that there are clearly issues but for the moment I am not ready to put Scarlet in the waste bin and I am keen to see what other Scarlet packages become available.  It could well be that Scarlet does finish up in my wastebasket but for the moment I see enough that I like about her to want to persevere. 

Well I hope that all makes sense and does not upset anyone, if it does it is not intended and, in my defense, it is no longer late in the UK it is the early hours of the morning.....time for bed.

I have not looked at it close enough to tell. 

It is a shame that you are not going to comment as your views regarding the mesh are clearly based in fact and therefore valid.  

I think it would be best to just stop commenting on the character all together. Not everyone wants to know, or would believe it for that matter. It is a shame thou, the mesh idea had potential.... But it isn't symmetrical. Not sure what else you want to know.

Lots of the newer tools in Poser are assuming a symmetrical mesh. Weight mapping (creating, mirroring, etc), Morph Brush, (Creating, mirroring, splitting etc.)

Not having a symmetrical mesh negates many of those tools, and some of them will destroy the character you have loaded (Mirror with copy joints) if the mesh is not symmetrical..

If you are going to make a figure for the newer versions of Poser, you have to start with a symmetrical mesh if you want the tools in the program to actually work.. 

I installed the update and ran my trousers through the fitting room again.

The issue with the sideways thigh bend appears to have been resolved, and I noticed some SR1 adjustments when transferring the morphs.

When installing, the file size and date on the obj file for Scarlet were identical  between the version I was installing and the one already installed. Were any changes made to the mesh at all?

Bending the thigh backwards and forwards is still a problem with the rigged pants, her butt pops out through the pants even in a normal sitting position. The glute deforms very strangely when bending the thigh backwards. Any set of ballet or figure skating poses for her would require additional morphs. Some people like their Poser figures to dance.

I am giving up on rigging this outfit for Scarlet. It is taking too much of my time and the results are unsatisfactory.

I'll release the pants and shirt as dynamic and also make a dynamic dress for her - at least one. She needs new shoes as well, I'll make those if someone else doesn't.

Dynamic pants and shirt for Scarlet. This will be uploaded to freestuff today. The pants come in six colours. Nine colours for the shirt.

... But it isn't symmetrical. Not sure what else you want to know.

So basically you are saying that the Poser system does not for every vertex in x>0 find a symmetric vertex in x<0 or vice-versa within the search tolerance. This could be the result of:

1 - position drift as could result from:

    a -  rounding off in the .obj file or

    b - morph corrections made but not made symmetric.

2 - the symmetric vertex simply not being there. This case 2 (not being there) again could be the result of:

    a - position drift (vertex intended to be at x=0.0, it's own mirror, but the vertex drifted outside Poser's search tolerance range)

    b - there is no paired vertex

1a, 1b, and 2a are solved with a morph. 2b would be topology error, which would be much more serious.

I installed the update and ran my trousers through the fitting room again.

... Bending the thigh backwards and forwards is still a problem with the rigged pants, her butt pops out through the pants even in a normal sitting position. The glute deforms very strangely when bending the thigh backwards. Any set of ballet or figure skating poses for her would require additional morphs. Some people like their Poser figures to dance.

Have you tried adjusting the joint parameters on the pants? Sometimes this is necessary even after using the fitting room, depending on how far the clothing mesh sits from the figure mesh. Baggier clothing will require additional JP adjustments than tighter fitting clothing will. You can also create ERC adjustment morphs that will react to the leg bending in the areas where you're getting poke-thru. You can create those morphs inside PP2012 and 2014 with the morph brush and the parameters menu, without having to go into another modeling app.

Also, you can transfer morphs from the figure to the clothing via the figure menu > "Copy morphs from..." option. If you haven't already tried that of course.

Hello, Rebekah of Sixus1 here.  Stopping in to give an update.  A service release for Scarlet is pending approval and will be available very soon.

Addressing concerns voiced by our customers we have made a few additions and a couple of changes to Scarlet. They are as follows:
1.) Joint Parameter / Skin Weights adjustments on the Hip/Thigh area

2.) Eyelashes - 2 morphs have been added for the top and bottom lashes for user preference adjustments on placement of the lashes & the Lengthen morph has been changed

3.) Scarlet's material settings have been changed to work better with the default Poser render settings regarding gamma correction

 
If you have ANY questions, concerns or comments, please don't hesitate to contact me.  Thank you for your support!  We have much more Scarlet products, packages, morphs, poses, kits, tutorials and resources coming...and if you have any requests please send them our way so that we know exactly what our users are looking for.

Thanks for the update Rebekah.

Have you tried adjusting the joint parameters on the pants? Sometimes this is necessary even after using the fitting room, depending on how far the clothing mesh sits from the figure mesh. Baggier clothing will require additional JP adjustments than tighter fitting clothing will. You can also create ERC adjustment morphs that will react to the leg bending in the areas where you're getting poke-thru. You can create those morphs inside PP2012 and 2014 with the morph brush and the parameters menu, without having to go into another modeling app.

Also, you can transfer morphs from the figure to the clothing via the figure menu > "Copy morphs from..." option. If you haven't already tried that of course.

Yes I copied the morphs and before that, I made sure all the hidden morphs were visible. I spent some time trying to adjust the joint, but it isn't simple and it isn't quick, and this is a free item. As Robynsveil put it, struggling with rigged clothing when dynamics give a far superior result, is a waste of time.

Quote Nanette Tredoux

I spent some time trying to adjust the joint, but it isn't simple and it isn't quick, and this is a free item.

 

Many thanks for your perseverance and work. I look forward to working with your freebe item :)  

 

 

OMFG!!!
Thank you Moriador!!!

Later,
Roxie - Girl With Blade

... But it isn't symmetrical. Not sure what else you want to know.

So basically you are saying that the Poser system does not for every vertex in x>0 find a symmetric vertex in x<0 or vice-versa within the search tolerance. This could be the result of:

1 - position drift as could result from:

    a -  rounding off in the .obj file or

    b - morph corrections made but not made symmetric.

2 - the symmetric vertex simply not being there. This case 2 (not being there) again could be the result of:

    a - position drift (vertex intended to be at x=0.0, it's own mirror, but the vertex drifted outside Poser's search tolerance range)

    b - there is no paired vertex

1a, 1b, and 2a are solved with a morph. 2b would be topology error, which would be much more serious.

Has ANYONE submitted the rigging tool issues to SM?  Asking this question seems stupid, but I was around for the single-axis scaling issue.  People bitched for years in the forums about it, but were also hell-bent on not submitting a bug report for it.  It didn't actually get fixed until a bug report was submitted.  And no, listing it in a Poser Bug thread in a forum isn't getting the issue into SM's pipeline.  It has to go through the process, and that starts with submitting a bug report.

RDNA had a long-running thread with SM on feature requests for the next version of Poser.  Not a single person discussed rigging.  There was a lot of whining about figures, though.

I have submitted lots of reports on rigging. 

They have added/corrected many things that I reported, so it is not like those reports go unnoticed. They do listen.

99% of the rigging issues are not there when using a symmetrical mesh with a base figure. 

There is really no need to reinvent the wheel, just use a symmetrical mesh.

Asking SM (or any other 3D company for that matter) to write tons of additional code to support what can be completely avoided in the first place is just odd.

Many 3D programs have symmetrical requirements if you want to mirror things correctly, it is nothing new or out of the ordinary.

That time when I got pissed-off about the symmetry being off in Poser on Roxie, I got an earful!
I think the developers and vendors should take symmetry reliability a lot more serious than they appear to do, it's vital to not losing your hair.

That said, SM did fix the symmetry stuff I complained about, so a thumbs up to them for that.

Been working on MRs for Scarlet.  Enjoy!

Well done Hinkypunk!

Let's say it like that: Scarlett is an excellent portrait model. ;)

That said, SM did fix the symmetry stuff I complained about, so a thumbs up to them for that.

Symmetry issues should not be so difficult to tackle and when of type 1a, 1b, 2a above easy to fix as long as the drift is of a lesser order of magnitude as the mesh size. Move vertices to the average mirrored position and done. This could be done even in Poser as a script tool. Issues of type 2b above could be signalled and added to a vertex group 'unpaired', and left for the use to fix.  A first step would be to make the search tolerance in Poser a quantity the user can define. Not sure if it is in not already in the settings files somewhere.

@FVerbaas
I was a bit more than that, it had something to do with vertices not getting synced at joints or something, can't remember now, but they fixed it in either the last update or the one before that.

Well done HP!

@Pumeco,

Geometric non-symmetry is not a problem for using the information as-is. The issue is that in .obj geometry vertices have no name or identification. Finding 'mirrored pairs' of vertices for copying vertex weights for example or morph paths is done by comparing the co-ordinates.  The search of mirror partners of vertices is done using a certain tolerance, they are float values and you canot compare on being equal like you can with integers. The margin is chosen large enough that pairs are matched with success, but small enough to avoid false pairs. Each time a file is saved and re-opened, a rounding off takes place which may set off position drift. Position drift therefore tends to grow with number of times the file is re-saved, Any synchronisation that worked correctly in the past may fail in later phases. Poser happily applies the mirrored info to any partner vertex found, but it does not warn you if it does not find a partner for a vertex, nor if vertices are left un-modified.

The value of symmetry is not for the rendering but for the identification, an aspect that is not part of the .obj specifiction. The root of the problem lies of course in symmetry information, when that is an explicit part of the design, is not stored explicitly. This however is the consequence of using a general purpose low level definition like the .obj format.

Been working on MRs for Scarlet.  Enjoy!

Now that I really like, well done.

Interesting bit of information, FVerbaas.

Cheers Frans, it sounds like some sort of intelligent comparison system is in order then, maybe a switchable import option that can look at the geometry and understand that the figure has mirrored geometry and re-symmetrise it on import - pre-morph.

That said, SM did fix the symmetry stuff I complained about, so a thumbs up to them for that.

Symmetry issues should not be so difficult to tackle and when of type 1a, 1b, 2a above easy to fix as long as the drift is of a lesser order of magnitude as the mesh size. Move vertices to the average mirrored position and done. This could be done even in Poser as a script tool. Issues of type 2b above could be signalled and added to a vertex group 'unpaired', and left for the use to fix.  A first step would be to make the search tolerance in Poser a quantity the user can define. Not sure if it is in not already in the settings files somewhere.

If it was that easy, don't you think that every 3D program out there would do that? Applying a correction morph does nothing to the original geometry, that is not how it works.

Meshes are stored in a KDTree, the original obj info in memory is never modified no matter how many morphs you apply to it. It is a look up chart for everything that follows.

Have you ever noticed that meshes like Antonia, Dawn, Star, V3, V4, Genesis, etc are symmetrical? I could list hundreds more that are.

Do you think that is a coincidence?

Or is it because they know that every step past that requires it in just about every application?

Trying to justify modifying a program to use non symmetrical meshes is nothing more than an excuse for not making it symmetrical in the first place.

PhilC in his Poser Tool Box has an alignment tool that can fix type 2a errors with user-defined tolerance. Phil I do not know if you are reading but maybe consider to extend this to include the type 1 X-symmetry errors and report on type 2b.

Applying a correction morph does nothing to the original geometry, that is not how it works.

Yes it is a little more complicated. LOL! Apply the morph, save the morphed geometry. Principle is the same.

How tall is Scarlett compared to Dawn, V4, Roxie, and Genesis?

Applying a correction morph does nothing to the original geometry, that is not how it works.

Yes it is a little more complicated. LOL! Apply the morph, save the morphed geometry. Principle is the same.

You can just as easily do it in the modelling program the wire frame is crafted in. No matter how you look at it, the geometry should be symmetrical from the start, the user should not have to correct for it, edit a cr2 etc..

This argument seems pointless. People are just looking for ways to put the blame on someone else.

... No matter how you look at it, the geometry should be symmetrical from the start, the user should not have to correct for it, edit a cr2 etc..

I could not agree more! Problem is that real life and ideal life do not always line up and meshes with symmetry deviations beyond Poser's decision limit do exist. For me, I prefer to understand what is going on if symmetry operations go wrong and to have a tool to deal with it if I run into such situations, most likely when I screwed the symmetry of the mesh up myself.
I am not aware of an argument, and we are off-topic.

No, it is not off topic. Scarlet's wire frame is not symmetrical. Others eluded to it being an issue with the rigging tools in Poser and that Poser should have a way of correcting for a mistake made in the modeler, by the modeler.

Yes, we get it. The mesh is not symmetrical, likely due to a combination of reasons.

Is there a reason to keep banging on about it though?

It does not negate the issues with Poser itself making a mesh asymmetrical over time, which it does do, and has been experienced by multiple content creators, to include myself, for a good while now. It doesn't mean that that is the only reason Scarlet's mesh is not 100% symmetrical but it does contribute to the issue. Whether it's been listed as a bug to SM I don't know. I don't even know how you would go about doing so in a provable way other than sending them multiple versions of a file demonstrating it in sequence.

Yes, we get it. The mesh is not symmetrical, likely due to a combination of reasons.

Is there a reason to keep banging on about it though?

It does not negate the issues with Poser itself making a mesh asymmetrical over time, which it does do, and has been experienced by multiple content creators, to include myself, for a good while now. It doesn't mean that that is the only reason Scarlet's mesh is not 100% symmetrical but it does contribute to the issue. Whether it's been listed as a bug to SM I don't know. I don't even know how you would go about doing so in a provable way other than sending them multiple versions of a file demonstrating it in sequence.

It is ironic, that we are not supposed to talk about it, but yet you bring up shortcomings in Poser that can be completely avoided as well. Setting up a wire frame in a modeler, grouping it, etc, has nothing to do with Poser.

But whatever......................................

I guess I will just stop posting in this thread and accept the fact that content like this is welcomed, encouraged, and the new norm here because Poser was loaded on the system and messed up the modeling app used to create the wire frame...

How tall is Scarlett compared to Dawn, V4, Roxie, and Genesis?

 

Shorter...that is pretty plain to see when comparing default figures alongside each other.

But then is V4 supposed to be tall, or scarlet short?

It is simple enough to make Scarlet as tall or short, or as disfigured as you desire.

I have tended to make her slightly taller but that's a personal preference  

 

Yes Shane, there are multiple reasons to keep going after assymetrical meshes.

**First of all ; That mistake was made at the very-very beginning. Sixus wrote 6 years of development? So the error dates from at least 5 years back.
**Everything done after the assymetrical obj file is for the garbage tin. *You can not unscramble scrambled eggs. That is technical, and economical impossible.

**They can patch up the material setup, they can patch up the rigging, but to repair the object file? They"ll have to undo 5 years of work and restart from there.
**
IMHO, that figure should be pulled from the market place ASAP.

=> How did it pass beta-testing anyway? What did the beta - testers do?

=> How did it ever pass the Renderosity Market place quality control checks?

As end users we have to look at everybody's responsabilities; The creator(s), the beta-test team, and the Renderosity Quality Control team.

What has been shown in this tread is basic-basic-basic stuff.
So basic, that for anybody that has the slightest amount of self respect, it is impossible to believe or accept.

About Poser making a mesh assymetrical. Yes, and no.

A content creator "knows" what is happening at each save. And the fix is a 20 second job. (Less when you know what you ar doing)
I have figures/meshes, that have countless saves, over and over again. And they are as symmetrical as they were on day1. 

And as a last remark.
Any content creator that saves an obj file from Poser, to be used for production and or distribution, has has been either blind or death, or both, for about 20 years or so.

Mistakes like these are widely accepted from beginners, from freebie makers, from less technical end users.
It is unacceptable from what should be classified as ;  "Respected content creators."

I find it utterly rude to "attack" those that report such basic- basic- basic-, and such obvious issues, that should have been dealth with by the creators in the first place, the beta-test team in the second place, AND ultimately by the Renderosity Quality Control team.

This figure should never have gone public.

@ FVerbaas

If you know what you are doing, Poser MAINTAINS symmetry.
Even if you do NOT know what you are doing?
The fix is less then 20 seconds.

Tony, the same can be said for most of the figures that are included with Poser. They aren't symmetrical either. And aren't you one of their beta testers, and have been for quite a while? 

I agree there should have been more checks and balances done with Scarlet, but it doesn't make her unusable. Her mesh can be corrected without having to undo everything. It's not like Sydney or the other G2 females, where their geometry isn't even identical from one side to the other. Yet people still use them and make content for them. And those figures came from a full studio that should have known better than to release something like that - figures that are impossible to use with some of the features of the current version of their own software, such as the mirroring functions.

The asymmetry issues that scarlet has can be adjusted. It's not that far off to begin with.  The geometry itself is identical across the X axis. It's just alignment issues that are the problem - which can be corrected with morphs or corrected in the base geometry and saved back out. The same cannot be said for the G2 girls. Their geometry would have to be split, mirrored and re-welded, and all the morphs that exist for them would have to be rebuilt entirely. Not the case with Scarlet.

You are right in that these things should have been paid closer attention to from the beginning, with any figure that gets created, but it's not the end of the world and it doesn't make the entire figure garbage as you are suggesting. They are issues that are fixable, and I don't see any reason for her to be pulled from the market. Considering she's #2 on the top selling items in the MP right now, I don't see that happening anyway.

Why should buyers not expect a higher standard from vendors who bill themselves as professional Poser content creators?  Poser the way it supposed to be?  Maybe it should read more of the way Poser has been since what, Poser 6? Or was it Poser 5?

 and I don't see any reason for her to be pulled from the market. Considering she's #2 on the top selling items in the MP right now, I don't see that happening anyway.

From the Product Submission Guidelines: "Product Testing

All products must be thoroughly beta-tested before being submitted to the Marketplace queue. Once submitted, your product will be reviewed by our Quality Control Staff to determine whether it meets the standards of quality we have set for the Marketplace. Once accepted, your product will be thoroughly tested by our team, and if there are too many technical issues it will be failed, as determined by our Testers."

I couldn't find the part about ..." unless the product is likely to make the top selling items list, in which case screw the testing and documenting of technical issues, that'll be done by the end-users who bought the product, while vendor and broker are otherwise engaged counting money and admiring sales graphs."

I swear some of you would bitch if you were hung with new rope.

Yeah, listen, it doesn't matter whether a rope is new or old!!!
Hangings are better when they're short-drop cause it makes them wriggle for longer!!!

I've used short-drop on Vickes lots of times!!!
It works great even with old rope!!!

Later,
Roxie - Girl With Blade

Allow a small comment please; What upsets most end - user / customers is the nature of the errors made, and how these slipped through the system.:

• Basic- errors that were made at a very early stage by respected content creators. => (No problem yet, there is a safety net )

• The beta-testers did not see or report ( Oeps, the safety net is failing! )

• The Renderosity Quality Control team did not see or report (Jakkes, the last safety net is gone ! )

The documented errors are of the kind the community accepts from beginners, from free stuff creators, from the less experienced, but not from a well respected content creator.

All reported factual and documented issues are so basic, They all surfaced within hrs of release. =>  They should have been seen by the creators, the beta-test team, and the Renderosity QC team. **=> The whole system failed.
** --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No figure will ever be perfect, agreed. If this release proves anything at all?

It proves the value of an independent, dedicated, motivated, technical beta-test team from day1.

Facial shapes, body shapes, large or small breasts do not matter; That is the artistical freedom; => The playground of the creator.

The technical side should have a, and I can not repeat this enough, an independent technical beta-team from day1.

True artists are so focused on the artistical value that they sometimes make the most basic technical errors.
=> These have to be reported and corrected in the beta-test cycle, and that's why you need an independent technical beta- team from day1.

The material setup, the rigging, the JCM's, can all be pached up with an update. What worries most technical reporters is the assymetrical obj file.

The last asymmetrical native Poser figure with an asymmetrical obj file was Sydney, a long time ago. The newer Poser features need "figure object file symmetry" to work properly. That's why some of us have been hammering SM's door down => KEEP the figures symmetrical ........ PLEASE !

The application and the figures need to be "in sync" to work properly.
And Poser needs symmetrical object file figures for all its newer functions to work as designed.
**
For Scarlet's release? The whole Scarlet beta-test cycle failed. Including the Renderosity QC.

**The only lesson that can be learned is: Install an independent technical capable beta- system from day1, and listen to your beta-testers.
Have a nice day all.

As a last comment because Scarlet certainly has her artistical value.

**To fix? And in this order:
**- Correct the object file to a fully symmetrical object file

• Review all riggings at all joints
• Pass a dedicated technical beta-test cycle

and we wish her a happy future in 3D land.

Best regards, Tony

The asymmetry issues that scarlet has can be adjusted. It's not that far off to begin with.  The geometry itself is identical across the X axis. It's just alignment issues that are the problem - which can be corrected with morphs or corrected in the base geometry and saved back out.

That's encouraging.  I hope they fix it.  If they don't have to re-do everything, there's no reason why they shouldn't.
And I wish they'd take up shvrdavid's offer to let him rig it and give away the figure.  You can't claim a figure is what Poser is meant to be if it's not properly weight-mapped.  They can still make money selling textures, clothing, morphs, etc.  It's not like the "give the base figure away" marketing plan is unheard of in Poser land.

The last asymmetrical native Poser figure with an asymmetrical obj file was Sydney, a long time ago. The newer Poser features need "figure object file symmetry" to work properly. That's why some of us have been hammering SM's door down => KEEP the figures symmetrical ........ PLEASE !

The application and the figures need to be "in sync" to work properly.
And Poser needs symmetrical object file figures for all its newer functions to work as designed.

Alyson 1 and 2 are also asymmetrical, to the tune of only 93% matching, as are all her derivatives. She came along long after Sydney. Blackhearted had to correct her asymmetry before he could make Anastasia, and the same can be done for Scarlet. I'm sure Ryan 1 and 2 are similar, tho I haven't checked directly. I know that Roxie was also asymmetrical on her initial release because it made morphing her in z-brush a headache. I think that was fixed with her update last year though.
@randym77: A company like Daz can afford to give away figures, where an independent artist can't. An artist deserves to be paid for their work, whether some people appreciate their work or not is irrelevant. Just because someone offers to fix something for free doesn't mean it should then be given away. I think Sixus1 should be the ones making the official fixes in a service release, if they feel it's important enough to do so. And I'm sure if they get enough complaints about it they will. 

Personally I like her, even with her flaws. And I don't even render females. She's the first female that I've actually wanted to work with in quite a while. She has a certain edginess about her that I like, that I don't see in most of the other figures. She actually looks like a female for a change, instead of an alien, or a prepubescent boy and she doesn't have linebacker shoulders or a manchin.

There are some things I don't like about her, like her hands, but I can resculpt them on my own. I can modify her entire rig on my own if that's what I want to do. Her mesh is a bit dense and not very detailed but there's enough geometry there to create the details it's currently lacking.

She needs some work but she's not bad so far.