V4 UVs for G3F?

dizzy88dizzy88 Posts: 49
edited December 1969 in The Commons

So, it looks like Victoria 4 for Genesis 2 Female (http://www.daz3d.com/victoria-4-for-genesis-2-female) gives you the ability to apply V4 textures directly to Genesis 2 Female. I assume this is an alternate UV set for G2F.

Does anyone know if there are plans for something similar for G3F?

«1345

Comments

  • HavosHavos Posts: 4,000
    edited December 1969

    Not easy to do I am afraid, as G3F UV's are based on a different system to V4, Genesis and G2F/G2M. If you search the threads that have appeared in the forums over the last few days you will see posts regarding this from people than know much more about it than I do.

  • AlienRendersAlienRenders Posts: 684
    edited June 2015

    It's possible to do. But it doesn't look like you'll be able to just use a V4 surface material like before. You'll have to use some kind of tool to create a new material. And there's been a lot of misguided information around lately. It definitely is possible. Not sure when someone will get around to it. I'm too busy atm. But I'll give it a shot after I finish something else I'm working on.

    Post edited by AlienRenders on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    You'll have to use some kind of tool to create a new material. And there's been a lot of misguided information around lately. It definitely is possible.

    Technically possible...probably.

    Easy...no, not likely.

    Actually usable, decent, high quality (same as original, no degradation)...again, not so likely.

    If it were easy/high quality, then like the pose converters that were out very quickly after the release, we would have heard something 'official' by now...and that's for the last generation's skins.

    Remember, it's not just new UVs...the whole layout and what is located where on the UV has changed, along with the scaling of the body parts. Any automated solution is going to have to account for that , too.

  • jag11jag11 Posts: 748
    edited December 1969

    It's possible to do. But it doesn't look like you'll be able to just use a V4 surface material like before. You'll have to use some kind of tool to create a new material. And there's been a lot of misguided information around lately. It definitely is possible. Not sure when someone will get around to it. I'm too busy atm. But I'll give it a shot after I finish something else I'm working on.

    I agree, it can be done. After all it's about coordinates, from old fashioned UV mapping to the shiny new UDIM. All that is required, and this is important, is a "near" perfect G2F clone morph, yeah, I know, G3F comes with a GF2 Clone, but it's not as "near" as required, been playing with this.

    This implies to enumerate coordinates from G2F, grab this coordinate's pixels from the texture and place them back to G3F's textures.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2015

    Not V4, but G2F Tynwen texture on G3F. It was a very crude and automated process, which used Cinema 4D VAMP UV transfer. Resulting UVs are very messy at seams; I haven't done any manual UV editing, just reassigned some polygons on G3F to different zones – it gave a bit of smoothness at seams but clearly they still need a lot of work.
    UVs of this remap became stacked just as G2F had them (but I'm pretty sure it is fixable) and I had to assign all textures manually because surfaces remained of G3F. I had to leave the eyes on original G3F UVs but it seems that they take G2F eye textures pretty good anyway. Renders are very simple, basically diffuse only on default DS shader with minor ambiance and sheen because otherwise my DS wants to choke.

    But this is just about 30 minutes of work in total and I'm not a texture artist; in addition C4D isn't that powerful and/or texture-oriented software.

    I did those transfers as a proof of concept, and now I wonder if it proved anything at all.

    G3F_G2F_Remap_04.jpg
    945 x 902 - 75K
    G3F_G2F_Remap_02.jpg
    544 x 914 - 51K
    G3F_G2F_Remap_01.jpg
    541 x 903 - 53K
    Post edited by Kattey on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Which is NOT going to be easy...

    Edges and seams have always been a problem with the gen4 stuff...and any automated solution is going to have to account for those peculiarities...take a close look at a bunch of maps, they'll all have edge blurring. Problem is...it's not uniform. Some blur 2 pixels...others 5. How are you going to account for that in a grab and translate? Not accounting for that and you'll end up with maps looking like they were stitched together by Victor F's seamstress. Okay, so just blur the whole thing a little...

    Well, that may work for the Diffuse map...but what about the problem areas on bump/displacement maps (there aren't many gen4 texture sets that come with normal maps...but they be one big mess...)? Or any other control map...Specularity, for example? Any solution will need to work well enough, with little/no seam distortion on the control maps...such that Iray won't throw a hissy fit using them..to be worth converting them.

    The way I see it...you are taking, for the most part, lower end/detail maps and making them even lower to fit on a newer, higher detail (yes, base resolution is lower on G3F, but the HD and SubD go a long way) map for a more demanding renderer and expecting spectacular results? That's just crazy...

    The best results would be doing the conversion on a map by map basis, using the originals as the 'source' and paint them to the new UVs, by hand in a 3d paint program...no, not easy or redistributable or 'instant', either...but closer to the original than any automated way I can think of.

    It's not like all the existing content has stopped working...yeah, there's going to less made for the older generations, but it's not suddenly worthless...and 3Delight still works or Iray materials can be user applied to it...so what's the big deal if the old skins don't fit?

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 56,429
    edited December 1969

    it won't be possible to simply do a new UV set because the boundaries have changed, and DS doesn't support using two different maps with two different UVs on the same surface (I can think of a Shader Mixer way to avoid the problem, but that would then require a custom Shader Mixer shader and a conversion script - so you would lose the original shader used - and if there are no edges where the maps meet it may well not be possible). Taking the base mesh into an editor, adding any needed new edge loops to mark out the old boundaries, reassigning the materials so each used one map from the old mapping and one map from the new mapping, remapping so the old maps fitted, and then baking from old maps to new would give you converted maps - possibly very good matches for the originals (though geometrical make-up styles, for example, might be unavoidably distorted). The problem would be that, unless the original artist ddi the conversion, the results could not be shared. What we are waiting for is something along the lines of Texture Converter 2 that can - ideally - be fed a materials preset and spit out a new preset and map set for use on G3F.

  • patience55patience55 Posts: 6,988
    edited December 1969

    Smiling, smiling .... oh the Cheshire kittykat is smiling :-) :-) :-)


    HEXAGON ROCKS MAN!!!! Yes. We CAN make make new uv sets for Genesis 3 :-)

    But ... oh boy ... it's going to be a bit of work to get that first setup done ... and then there will be a few more hurdles but I'll worry about that later. Best case scenario I'm hoping I can share ... BUT ... worse case scenario, I can make a tutorial :-)

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2015

    it won't be possible to simply do a new UV set because the boundaries have changed, and DS doesn't support using two different maps with two different UVs on the same surface
    It doesn't yet, but perhaps DS 5 does.

    Taking the base mesh into an editor, adding any needed new edge loops to mark out the old boundaries, reassigning the materials so each used one map from the old mapping and one map from the new mapping, remapping so the old maps fitted, and then baking from old maps to new would give you converted maps - possibly very good matches for the originals (though geometrical make-up styles, for example, might be unavoidably distorted). The problem would be that, unless the original artist did the conversion, the results could not be shared.

    And why it is a problem? If anybody could do it themselves, sharing won't be needed. Nothing in transfer tutorial thread is shared except knowledge, but it didn't prevent people from making their own stuff.

    What we are waiting for is something along the lines of Texture Converter 2 that can - ideally - be fed a materials preset and spit out a new preset and map set for use on G3F.
    I was told so many times that without GenX of some kind morph transfer is impossible, that without almighty vendor stepping in with commercial product I am, basically, helpless to do anything I need to be done, that I stopped to believe such words as soon as I got my first morph transfer.
    UTC and Texture Converter 2 are some of my most favorite tools, but I'm pretty sure a good remap result could be done without them. It is just I'm not UV specialist and know almost nothing about particularities of such transfers. That DS cannot, for now, have two surface subsets assigned for same figure is how I understand one of problems.

    Patience55, I'm eagerly awaiting :) Even if it doesn't work entirely well, I am hoping to see what you are trying to do.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2015

    mjc1016, I think you misunderstood what I did. I didn't transfer _maps_, as *.jpg files. They are entirely the same and unchanged as Tynwen for G2F had them, not resampled or anything. I did reskinned G3F so it could have G2F UVs and therefore could take G2F textures entirely, albeit the result had bad seams because VAMP process in C4D wasn't very precise in that respect, and also because G3F had a problem with material zones being slightly different from what G2F had. When I said 'diffuse only render' I meant that I didn't add bump/displacement/specularity maps because I had to do it manually, it would take some fiddling to make them influence things, it was already 3AM and my DS keeps on crashing during renders. But I could, if I so wished, because the jpg files themselves were used directly from G2F character Tynwen.

    I didn't do manual UV correction partially because I wanted to see how good/bad the automated process could be, partially because it was 3AM and partially because UV Layout didn't work too well with resulting reskinned UVs. _If_ I'd spend a lot of time on manual UV correction, I could make UVs match much better although the problem of material zones would remain at this point.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 56,429
    edited June 2015

    Techniques can be shared, but not UV sets that mimic the DAZ ones and not modified textures (without permission). So yes, instructions could be given but they would have to use a modelling application of some kind as DS doesn't have the tools for this (though with a suitable re-grouped and remapped OBJ and UV sets for that OBJ the maps could be applied to mesh and the map Transfer tool used for the actual conversion to the G3F UVs). It's the lack of a way to regroup the mesh that seems to block the use of DS alone - though using Shader Mixer to manipulate UVs and setting the shader to be bakeable might be a work around - however it would still require DAZ's permission to share a UV set that mimicked the G2F or other UVs.

    Post edited by Richard Haseltine on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited December 1969

    Techniques can be shared, but not UV sets that mimic the DAZ ones
    Why not, out of curiousity? DAZ 3D seem to have no restriction on selling such, so if geografts can be shared, why not corrected UVs? They are useless without designated DAZ3D products anyway, even more than geografts are, they cannot be transferred to 3rd party figures (not without even more hassle than to make them in a first place) so I don't see how they break EULA on redistribution.

    So yes, instructions could be given but they would have to use a modelling application of some kind as DS doesn't have the tools for this (though with a suitable re-grouped and remapped OBJ and UV sets for that OBJ the maps could be applied to mesh and the map Transfer tool used for the actual conversion to the G3F UVs). It's the lack of a way to regroup the mesh that seems to block the use of DS alone.


    Again, I suspect there is a workaround somewhere. And with DS pining to be in big boys club of serious applications, I wonder again if such features will be implemented in DS 5.
  • jpb06tjpb06t Posts: 272
    edited December 1969

    It's the lack of a way to regroup the mesh that seems to block the use of DS alone

    Even though I am a Blender user, I'd say that it is time for DAZ management to give a hard look at the idea of bringing Hexagon modeling into Studio.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 56,429
    edited December 1969

    Kattey said:
    Techniques can be shared, but not UV sets that mimic the DAZ ones
    Why not, out of curiousity? DAZ 3D seem to have no restriction on selling such, so if geografts can be shared, why not corrected UVs? They are useless without designated DAZ3D products anyway, even more than geografts are, they cannot be transferred to 3rd party figures (not without even more hassle than to make them in a first place) so I don't see how they break EULA on redistribution.

    So yes, instructions could be given but they would have to use a modelling application of some kind as DS doesn't have the tools for this (though with a suitable re-grouped and remapped OBJ and UV sets for that OBJ the maps could be applied to mesh and the map Transfer tool used for the actual conversion to the G3F UVs). It's the lack of a way to regroup the mesh that seems to block the use of DS alone.


    Again, I suspect there is a workaround somewhere. And with DS pining to be in big boys club of serious applications, I wonder again if such features will be implemented in DS 5.

    Distributing your own UV set would be fine, but distributing (say) a (UV clone" of the Victoria 5 UVs wouldn't be as they are not your wholly own work. DAZ had to give approval for the remaps in the store.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2015

    Distributing your own UV set would be fine, but distributing (say) a (UV clone" of the Victoria 5 UVs wouldn't be as they are not your wholly own work. DAZ had to give approval for the remaps in the store.

    But if V5 UVs are done, say, manually, and don't correlate 100% with actual V5 UVs (so skin details will be somewhat displaced), won't such UVs be my own work which parallels existing functionality but don't copy an actual product?

    And isn't UVs without textures are like rigs for clothes? By itself the rig is useless just as by themselves UVs are useless. And we can redistribute rigged clothes.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • HavosHavos Posts: 4,000
    edited December 1969

    I suspect how useful something is, or is not, on its own, is not really a legal consideration, even though you are correct from a practical viewpoint. If something is derived, even partially, from someone else's work, then you can not distribute it without the original owners permission.

    It would be preferable to get DAZ's permission to distribute any new UV set that can work with their figures. They might agree even for freebies, but that would be their decision.

  • dizzy88dizzy88 Posts: 49
    edited December 1969

    Wow, interesting discussion here!

    I managed to apply a set of V4 skin maps ("Dolly" by Addy) to V7. This is probably similar to what Kattey did, just automatic with no manual work (Maya's transfer attributes/shading sets).

    I see what Richard is talking about, though: G3F's edge flow near some of the boundaries is almost at a 45-degree angle from V4, so it's going to have jagged UVs at the boundaries, which will probably create seams if you look closely. Unless you insert a bunch of messy edge loops at the boundaries, which would mess up G3F's topology and deformations (which I think are very good and shouldn't be messed with).

    I would guess that with a lot of manual work it could get to a 70-80% solution, which probably isn't good enough for some people.

    I suppose the only other option is to bake the textures to the G3F UV set...but that would also be a bit screwy, since G3F has separate maps for the arms and legs, while V4's limbs are all on the same map, so you could have some weird problems with downsampled resolutions. Plus, you'd have to re-bake every time you wanted to use a new V4 character.

    Anyone have other ideas?

    V4-to-V72.jpg
    1024 x 768 - 292K
    V4-to-V7.jpg
    1024 x 768 - 186K
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Kattey said:
    mjc1016, I think you misunderstood what I did. I didn't transfer _maps_, as *.jpg files. They are entirely the same and unchanged as Tynwen for G2F had them, not resampled or anything. I did reskinned G3F so it could have G2F UVs and therefore could take G2F textures entirely, albeit the result had bad seams because VAMP process in C4D wasn't very precise in that respect, and also because G3F had a problem with material zones being slightly different from what G2F had. When I said 'diffuse only render' I meant that I didn't add bump/displacement/specularity maps because I had to do it manually, it would take some fiddling to make them influence things, it was already 3AM and my DS keeps on crashing during renders. But I could, if I so wished, because the jpg files themselves were used directly from G2F character Tynwen.

    I didn't do manual UV correction partially because I wanted to see how good/bad the automated process could be, partially because it was 3AM and partially because UV Layout didn't work too well with resulting reskinned UVs. _If_ I'd spend a lot of time on manual UV correction, I could make UVs match much better although the problem of material zones would remain at this point.

    You will always have the edge problem, unless you do them manually...correcting the edge seams, because there won't be enough control doing it automatically. You may be able to automatically get it close enough that the Diffuse maps won't be too bad...but add in any control maps that still have edge problems and you will make the edges worse, even 1 pixel 'off' and you will have a very noticeable seam.

    And to see how successful an automatic conversion really is solid colors and grid patterns should be used...

    So, let's say you finally, with manual adjustments get an acceptable UV set that can be added to G3F that will allow the use of old texture sets directly...but what about HD details? Or any of the other advantages of the new mapping? You are back to the inherent problems of scale and lack of/too much detail that the old layout has. The old layout was not very close to 'real' when it came to the what percentages of the surface area each map represented (the new layout is still off, but overall, it is better).

    Because of the changes in the locations (like splitting the limbs into separate arms and legs) it will be harder to match the details on the diffuse maps to the HD details (yes HD is UV neutral...but the painted on details to match them aren't). Mainly things like veins will be slightly 'off'. Of course there's no assurances that transferring the diffuse to the new UV layout won't have that same problem (at least an automated transfer...).

    So, don't use HD...

    Basically, once everything is said and done, why not just use G2F that CAN take the old texture sets and does have a working gen4 UV set, that if I recall DID take quite a bit of manual adjustment work to get right?

    In the end are the results going to be worth the effort?

    The more important things are clothing and morphs (hair, too, but transferring hair is a lot like clothing)...and both of those seem to be covered.

    As a technical challenge, I love the idea, but as a practical method, for DIY work...no, I don't think it's going to be something that will easily be done.

    And as for the paint the old on to the new in a 3D paint program...well, you are basically doing the same thing as if you were starting from scratch with photo references...so why not just start from scratch?

    Of course this is from a DIY viewpoint...for some PA to do it, it may well be worth it, at least initially...but like the other converters, the demand will dry up, once more texture sets become available, in the new mapping.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2015

    darrick.yee, It looks much cleaner than VAMP, very nice. Can you explain how you did it in Maya?

    mjc1016, I don't understand you point. Are you trying to tell that I and others shouldn't even try to make G3F take some other UVs because somehow it makes things worse? You surely know that not everybody is thrilled with HD shenanigans and locked up for consumers HD plugin. As for 'why to do it at all' – from what I'm getting from forums, some people have character they've made way back in Mil2-Mil3 area and faithfully transferred onto future generations, textures and morphs. They have stories and comics with those characters and surely they won't mind better bendability of G3F with their character's textures which they can't easily replace. I have unique skins that are still head above the flood of generic pretty girls textures on market in sense of imagination and work, and with new shaders and lighting they do still look good.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • dizzy88dizzy88 Posts: 49
    edited December 1969

    Well, I only transferred the skin materials, so the eyes/mouth parts/nails etc. are still G3F.

    I exported a G2F with the V4 UVs, then exported a G3F with the "Genesis 2 Female" morph dialed in, so the two figures were pretty much the same shape. Then I extracted the skin meshes from each of them (i.e., separated the skin object from eyes/teeth/nails etc.), and used Mesh -> Transfer Attributes to get a rough UV transfer, then Mesh -> Transfer Shading Sets to get the shading groups matched because I was too lazy to re-assign faces by hand.

    It's kind of problematic, though - I applied a checker to the torso to show the "jagged edges" problem in the neck and shoulder areas. Depending on the texture, it might not be noticeable, from far away. But it's definitely not a "clean" transfer.

    Maybe just baking to G3F's UVs would be best. The new UVs are superior in a lot of ways to V4, in my opinion. Of course, distributing the new maps would be a definite no-no, unless the original vendors gave permission.

    V4V7-seams.jpg
    1024 x 768 - 238K
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Then continue to use G2...because fitting them to the new layout is not going to be a perfect conversion. And fitting the old lay to G3F basically is crippling/removing many of the advantages (yeah, the bending and facial rig won't be problems) of the new stuff.

    And no, I'm not saying don't try...just don't get into the 'magic bullet' mind set...there isn't going to be one. Any automated solution is going to have seam problems. And a manual one is going to take time, probably lots of it and not be redistributable...unless you go the PA route and put it in the store/go through DAZ. But for the 'tinker' who wants to spend the time, go for it (and Kattey, you definitely qualify as Tinker...).

    There's several other threads talking about this issue...and several automated methods have been tried, and it seems that after the first flush of success it's 'oops, there are visible seams!'.

    And most of the folks that are going to convert will want an automated method where they won't have to spend many hours manually tweaking the results (which may end up being as much as just manually doing it from the start...) AFTER the conversion. So the options are...accept seams, wait for an 'official' solution that will cost money, spend a lot of time fixing/manually doing a conversion or accept that all is rebooted and G2 F/M are the PRACTICAL limit for what came before (of course tinkers NEVER accept that one :) ).

    So...bottom line of what I'm saying...automated solution is not going to work. It's going to be less 'perfect' than AutoFit (no matter what automated one you can come up with). It's going to take manual work to 'finish' the job...which will take time/effort. And unlike the past, where if there weren't bump/displacement you had alternatives...especially if you were converting the diffuse to match the new UV layout so it fit without changing the UV, you don't because you will have 2 different UV layouts or seams, so the conversions are going to have to be good enough for the control maps, too.

  • dizzy88dizzy88 Posts: 49
    edited December 1969

    Well, it depends on what you mean by "automated." ;) The V4-to-G2F mapping I'm sure took quite a bit of manual labor, but once done MallenLane was able to turn it into an "automated" thing in DS4 by adding the new UV set. Then there's the "automated" stuff that Kattey and I tried, which was just out of laziness...I could get better results by manually adjusting the new UVs, and then we'd have something similar to what V4-to-G2F was.

    But based on what it looks like so far, it seems it's not possible to get a clean result, even with 100% manual tweaking. Because the topology of G3F is so different from V4.

    On the other hand, baking the textures from V4 to G3F when needed could also work, and that's almost fully automatic. I've never tried DS4's baking functionality, but there are other programs that can definitely do it pretty well.

    So I guess the answer to my original question was "probably not." :)

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    That's exactly what I mean...the first time around MallenLane had to do all the hand work. AFTER that, initial 'clean' UV conversion, no problem...but that initial conversion isn't going to be quick. I'm pretty sure, that a good automated conversion with a ton of manual work could, eventually be acceptable.

    Baking, at least in Studio isn't going to really work...both the Map Transfer and Texture Atlas (the two baking options) are going to need some sort of reference...like a clean UV conversion. Baking in other programs...possibly.

  • MallenLaneMallenLane Posts: 128
    edited June 2015

    UV compatibility was possible because I modeled previous figures with certain edge-loop landmarks fixed in place, allowing similar UV boundaries since V4. These boundaries date from V3 in some cases. Their original purpose was to build fake clothes onto the skin. Building a human mesh based on how effectively you can carve them into fake clothing is not optimal. It kept introducing the same flaws:

    1.) For animation, where the flow of model was working against the bends. The way the shoulder geometry spreads on the outside, and collapses in the armpit. The flow from the under-side of the breasts around the deltoid.
    2.) The mesh re-direction (spokes and Y junctions) needed to move from the maintained seam, to where the model should be going. This increased the poly-count. It caused traveling edge-loop spirals instead of plain, easy to deal with, closed loops.
    3.) It prevented meaningful updates to the UV islands, which had remained relatively the same since V4.

    It was important to break away from old problems, so I didn't maintain those loops, therefore it cannot be backward compatible. The saw-tooth in the image a few posts back is because there are no edge-loops going the same direction in that area. Rest assured, if it were possible, you'd see it in the store. Your best bet is some sort of proximity based projection baking which can be found in other programs.

    note: There were other antiquated mesh choices I dropped, which also get in the way.

    - Separate lacrimals, which had a bad tendancy to wander away from the edge of the eyeball.
    - Seperate gums and tongue. This perpetuated a 'fake' quality to the interior of the mouth. You could visibly see that they weren't an integrated part.

    Post edited by MallenLane on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    UV compatibility was possible because I modeled previous figures with certain edge-loop landmarks fixed in place, allowing similar UV boundaries since V4. These boundaries date from V3 in some cases. Their original purpose was to build fake clothes onto the skin. Building a human mesh based on how effectively you can carve them into fake clothing is not optimal. It kept introducing the same flaws:

    1.) For animation, where the flow of model was working against the bends. The way the shoulder geometry spreads on the outside, and collapses in the armpit. The flow from the under-side of the breasts around the deltoid.
    2.) The mesh re-direction (spokes and Y junctions) needed to move from the maintained seam, to where the model should be going. This increased the poly-count. It caused traveling edge-loop spirals instead of plain, easy to deal with, closed loops.
    3.) It prevented meaningful updates to the UV islands, which had remained relatively the same since V4.

    It was important to break away from old problems, so I didn't maintain those loops, therefore it cannot be backward compatible. The saw-tooth in the image a few posts back is because there are no edge-loops going the same direction in that area. Rest assured, if it were possible, you'd see it in the store. Your best bet is some sort of proximity based projection baking which can be found in other programs.

    note: There were other antiquated mesh choices I dropped, which also get in the way.

    - Separate lacrimals, which had a bad tendancy to wander away from the edge of the eyeball.
    - Seperate gums and tongue. This perpetuated a 'fake' quality to the interior of the mouth. You could visibly see that they weren't an integrated part.


    YES!!!

    Thank you!!!

    I didn't make them...and I don't have any textures for sale, but I've done enough from scratch skin work to see those particular items, just looking at the templates/seam guides. That's why I've been so sure that there wouldn't be an easy solution..but from what you are saying MallenLane the best we can hope for is 'reasonably close', not perfect fit?

    I for one applaud and thank you for doing this...even though you may currently be the most hated DAZ person around...it has been needed for a long time. Thank you.

  • dizzy88dizzy88 Posts: 49
    edited December 1969

    UV compatibility was possible because I modeled previous figures with certain edge-loop landmarks fixed in place, allowing similar UV boundaries since V4. These boundaries date from V3 in some cases. Their original purpose was to build fake clothes onto the skin. Building a human mesh based on how effectively you can carve them into fake clothing is not optimal. It kept introducing the same flaws:

    1.) For animation, where the flow of model was working against the bends. The way the shoulder geometry spreads on the outside, and collapses in the armpit. The flow from the under-side of the breasts around the deltoid.
    2.) The mesh re-direction (spokes and Y junctions) needed to move from the maintained seam, to where the model should be going. This increased the poly-count. It caused traveling edge-loop spirals instead of plain, easy to deal with, closed loops.
    3.) It prevented meaningful updates to the UV islands, which had remained relatively the same since V4.

    It was important to break away from old problems, so I didn't maintain those loops, therefore it cannot be backward compatible. The saw-tooth in the image a few posts back is because there are no edge-loops going the same direction in that area. Rest assured, if it were possible, you'd see it in the store. Your best bet is some sort of proximity based projection baking which can be found in other programs.

    note: There were other antiquated mesh choices I dropped, which also get in the way.

    - Separate lacrimals, which had a bad tendancy to wander away from the edge of the eyeball.
    - Seperate gums and tongue. This perpetuated a 'fake' quality to the interior of the mouth. You could visibly see that they weren't an integrated part.

    I didn't know you were the modeler. I have to say that the main reason I'm finally moving on from V4 is that the G3F topology looks outstanding for articulation, so I'm glad you made those decisions. Definitely appreciated :)

    So it looks like baking to the G3F UVs is the way to go. Maybe we can convince some of the V4 vendors to release G3F texture maps, too. ;)

  • ModernWizardModernWizard Posts: 816
    edited December 1969

    Heck, I'd just settle for something like a Face Paster that would move face/lips textures from G2F/V5. I did a quick 'n' dirty manual version of this with Bree V5 roughly matched to G3F base Jeane texture. Obviously the features need some more precise alignment, but I think that automating such a process is eminently more feasible than trying to convert whole texture sets.

    I bring this up only because I'm really attached to all the custom makeups I've created for one of my characters, and I really don't want to leave them behind. At the same time, the facial fig and much improved expressions of G3F call alluringly... :p

    --MW

    paste.jpg
    601 x 735 - 67K
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Heck, I'd just settle for something like a Face Paster that would move face/lips textures from G2F/V5. I did a quick 'n' dirty manual version of this with Bree V5 roughly matched to G3F base Jeane texture. Obviously the features need some more precise alignment, but I think that automating such a process is eminently more feasible than trying to convert whole texture sets.

    I bring this up only because I'm really attached to all the custom makeups I've created for one of my characters, and I really don't want to leave them behind. At the same time, the facial fig and much improved expressions of G3F call alluringly... :p

    --MW


    Makeup would be easier if they were layers (PSD/pngs with transparent backgrounds), then you could layer and adjust in any image editor. Because ultimately, makeup isn't tied to the specific UV map, but rather the features of the diffuse map...or at least should be.
  • FSMCDesignsFSMCDesigns Posts: 8,091
    edited December 1969

    mjc1016 said:

    Makeup would be easier if they were layers (PSD/pngs with transparent backgrounds), then you could layer and adjust in any image editor. Because ultimately, makeup isn't tied to the specific UV map, but rather the features of the diffuse map...or at least should be.

    But then you have users like myself that don't use LIE or render in DS, so adding the makeup layer to the texture is the best way to go. Plus makeup also relies on the UVmapping of the texture for the most part.

    Count me in for a V4 UV layout for genesis 3 also, hopefully from an official source and not a workaround. No offense to those trying to find solutions, but I have tried a few of the workaround in the forums for transferring morphs (before GenX) and such and had to reinstall content because of it.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    mjc1016 said:

    Makeup would be easier if they were layers (PSD/pngs with transparent backgrounds), then you could layer and adjust in any image editor. Because ultimately, makeup isn't tied to the specific UV map, but rather the features of the diffuse map...or at least should be.

    But then you have users like myself that don't use LIE or render in DS, so adding the makeup layer to the texture is the best way to go. Plus makeup also relies on the UVmapping of the texture for the most part.

    Count me in for a V4 UV layout for genesis 3 also, hopefully from an official source and not a workaround. No offense to those trying to find solutions, but I have tried a few of the workaround in the forums for transferring morphs (before GenX) and such and had to reinstall content because of it.

    Then do them in the image editor and save out additional copies of the face map...that's the way it used to be before LIE, right?

Sign In or Register to comment.