Well I'll be Damned... by machobubba

Poser • Pin-ups • posted on Aug 17, 2010

Open full image in new tab Zoom on image

Hover over top left image to zoom.
Click anywhere to exit.

Members remain the original copyright holder in all their materials here at Renderosity. Use of any of their material inconsistent with the terms and conditions set forth is prohibited and is considered an infringement of the copyrights of the respective holders unless specially stated otherwise.

Description

I've been using the dynamic version of this dress due to the problems posing, then I found out that this dress has body parts called left, right and skirt wich gives it perfect posing abilities... Now look at this image Full Size and let me know which version of the dress is better the Dynamic being the three smaller versions or the original Morphing version used on the main image.... Thanx 4 Watching... PS Thanks for all four previous comments....

Comments (14)

)

Pierrot_Lunaire

2:03PM | Tue, 17 August 2010

Very nice work!

)

J5ive

2:08PM | Tue, 17 August 2010

The Dynamic looksDrapes more natural 4 Sure!!

)

puffle_huff

2:19PM | Tue, 17 August 2010

Wonderful character!

perlk

2:51PM | Tue, 17 August 2010

This has happened to me loads of times... I go in and realize there's a part called "shins" on a skirt or something and it's moveable, and I'm like, crap, I didn't realize I didn't have to convert it to dynamic! Nonetheless, great render.

)

Faemike55

2:55PM | Tue, 17 August 2010

The dynamic is the best

)

Rainastorm

3:23PM | Tue, 17 August 2010

Well at least I'm not the only one that sort of thing happens to..hehe I like the dynamic dress and how it works...Ive got to play with this more.

)

alessimarco

3:36PM | Tue, 17 August 2010

Unable to use dynamic clothing in DAZ on a Mac, I can't help you! But nice work!

)

MrGorf

4:47PM | Tue, 17 August 2010

That's the kind of thing that often they forget to mention in the Readme files. All I can say is that for a dress like this in poses like that, the conforming version must be an awful lot quicker...

)