I want V4 Products not V5 or V6. Planned Obsolescence Has To Stop.

1568101113

Comments

  • FauvistFauvist Posts: 415
    edited December 1969

    robkelk said:

    This is because the Canadian bookstore chains (which, BTW, are all owned by the same parent company) has embraced digital distribution rather than running away from it or pretending it doesn't exist. In Canada, almost every bestseller on the current New York Times bestseller list can be downloaded legally - and it's profitable for Indigo to sell those books in that format..

    In Canada, last year, that bookstore chain sold the digital division to a Japanese company - so those digital books are bought, not from a Canadian company, but a Japanese company here http://www.kobobooks.com/ . So that is not the reason the Canadian chains are still in business.

  • FauvistFauvist Posts: 415
    edited December 1969

    My initial post that originated this thread was addressed to DAZ and content creators. All it said was that I want to be able to use new content with Victoria 4.

  • IgnisSerpentusIgnisSerpentus Posts: 1,362
    edited December 1969

    robkelk said:
    Now, if I was running DAZ3D, I'd be keeping the customers happy by paying attention to what they want and getting creators to make it for them, and I'd be doing everything in my power to make sure folks like Stonemason and Jack Tomalin don't decide the hassles of selling through daz3d.com outweigh the benefits of doing so... because DAZ3D is a middleman that needs both ends to remain happy with them.

    DAZ can't make anyone make a certain thing. They can suggest.... they can even use data to help in that suggestion, but they cannot force anyone to do a certain thing. Nor would they, actually, coz they're really nice people who understand artistic freedom. And if they did do that, you'd have lots of vendors walking out.

    I was at a brokerage (who shall remain nameless) once who tried to force certain stuff on its vendors.... we wont discuss the mass exodus that occurred thereafter.

  • robkelkrobkelk Posts: 3,190
    edited December 1969

    robkelk said:
    Now, if I was running DAZ3D, I'd be keeping the customers happy by paying attention to what they want and getting creators to make it for them, and I'd be doing everything in my power to make sure folks like Stonemason and Jack Tomalin don't decide the hassles of selling through daz3d.com outweigh the benefits of doing so... because DAZ3D is a middleman that needs both ends to remain happy with them.

    DAZ can't make anyone make a certain thing. They can suggest.... they can even use data to help in that suggestion, but they cannot force anyone to do a certain thing. Nor would they, actually, coz they're really nice people who understand artistic freedom. And if they did do that, you'd have lots of vendors walking out.

    I was at a brokerage (who shall remain nameless) once who tried to force certain stuff on its vendors.... we wont discuss the mass exodus that occurred thereafter.


    Actually, there is a why that they can get people to make particular items - they can commission the items and pay for them up-front.

    One wonders how many Daz Originals started out that way.

  • IgnisSerpentusIgnisSerpentus Posts: 1,362
    edited December 1969

    robkelk said:
    robkelk said:
    Now, if I was running DAZ3D, I'd be keeping the customers happy by paying attention to what they want and getting creators to make it for them, and I'd be doing everything in my power to make sure folks like Stonemason and Jack Tomalin don't decide the hassles of selling through daz3d.com outweigh the benefits of doing so... because DAZ3D is a middleman that needs both ends to remain happy with them.

    DAZ can't make anyone make a certain thing. They can suggest.... they can even use data to help in that suggestion, but they cannot force anyone to do a certain thing. Nor would they, actually, coz they're really nice people who understand artistic freedom. And if they did do that, you'd have lots of vendors walking out.

    I was at a brokerage (who shall remain nameless) once who tried to force certain stuff on its vendors.... we wont discuss the mass exodus that occurred thereafter.


    Actually, there is a why that they can get people to make particular items - they can commission the items and pay for them up-front.

    One wonders how many Daz Originals started out that way.

    There actually aren't that many ppl that work off of contract. But Id think DAZ is also investing mostly in gen 2 at this point, as far as buyouts go. Tho that's a guess...

  • BarubaryBarubary Posts: 972
    edited December 1969

    robkelk said:
    robkelk said:
    Now, if I was running DAZ3D, I'd be keeping the customers happy by paying attention to what they want and getting creators to make it for them, and I'd be doing everything in my power to make sure folks like Stonemason and Jack Tomalin don't decide the hassles of selling through daz3d.com outweigh the benefits of doing so... because DAZ3D is a middleman that needs both ends to remain happy with them.

    DAZ can't make anyone make a certain thing. They can suggest.... they can even use data to help in that suggestion, but they cannot force anyone to do a certain thing. Nor would they, actually, coz they're really nice people who understand artistic freedom. And if they did do that, you'd have lots of vendors walking out.

    I was at a brokerage (who shall remain nameless) once who tried to force certain stuff on its vendors.... we wont discuss the mass exodus that occurred thereafter.


    Actually, there is a why that they can get people to make particular items - they can commission the items and pay for them up-front.

    One wonders how many Daz Originals started out that way.

    There actually aren't that many ppl that work off of contract. But Id think DAZ is also investing mostly in gen 2 at this point, as far as buyouts go. Tho that's a guess...


    Well it's one way a company can support their figure without making everything themselves. The relative lack of DO's released for Gen2 so far surprises me a little and it's one of the reasons I occasionally referred to Gen2 as receiving 'little support'. But maybe they always did things this way. Or maybe they're just trying something new.

  • Peter WadePeter Wade Posts: 354
    edited December 1969

    Mr Leong said:
    We went from records to 8-track, cassettes, CDs. mp3 . . . .

    Innovation is not likely to stop.

    I believe this new V4 product was released this week http://www.daz3d.com/new-releases/hot-uniforms-college-girl

    I went from records and cassettes to CDs, but I didn't go from CDs to mp3s, I listen to both.

    I think the move to CDs was a big step forward. A lot of what followed looks like the music industry trying to make an easy profit by selling us things we already have in a new format but I suppose that's just capitalism in action (and I try not to think about DCC and Mini Disc that were nice but seem to have disappeared completely now).

    But as long as we keep secure backups of the installers we can carry on using Vicky 4 and all her clothes. The very latest version of Poser still includes Posette and The Dork, so I don't think they will be stopping support for Vicky 4 anytime soon.

  • Doctor OverlordDoctor Overlord Posts: 228
    edited July 2013

    I'm still using V4 and Daz 3d because I HATED the concept of Genesis 1. A single figure for both genders was a terrible idea, anyone knows that a tool designed to do multiple things is NEVER as good as tool designed for a specific purpose.

    Now that DAZ seems to have figured this out with Genesis 2, I may consider going to Daz 4 and V6 but I will most probably continue buying V4 products that I see. I will likely only purchase V6 items if their equivalent cannot be found for V4.

    Post edited by Doctor Overlord on
  • anikadanikad Posts: 1,860
    edited December 1969

    I have to say, some of the promos for G2F and V6 do not appear to be doing those characters any favours.

  • BohorBohor Posts: 9
    edited December 1969

    I'm still using V4 and Daz 3d because I HATED the concept of Genesis 1. A single figure for both genders was a terrible idea, anyone knows that a tool designed to do multiple things is NEVER as good as tool designed for a specific purpose.

    Totaly not agree with that. I think the results you can have with Genesis are fantastic. My favourite V4-characters I've transfer all to Genesis with GenX. And I still use a lot of V4 skintextures for genesis and genesis2. But I'll never go back to that V4-base with miserable shoulders anymore. The only time probable I'll use V4 in future is when I need backgroundcharacters. Very very far in the background then.

  • Paradigm67Paradigm67 Posts: 973
    edited December 1969

    I just think a lot of people are bitter (myself slightly included) that our built up libraries are becoming more and more difficult to use with shiny new toys lol. I know it sounds silly, but I've settled comfortably into Genesis (minus issues with lack of facial control). I'm more than happy with Genesis, but Genesis 2 looks pretty slick, I have to say.

  • MADMANMIKEMADMANMIKE Posts: 379
    edited July 2013

    Sorry if this has been addressed (late to the party and no time to read 15 pages of posts), but I started with Poser 4, moved to Poser 6, used D|S 2.3 to import to Bryce for a while, then abandoned Bryce and Poser for D|S. I was pretty annoyed by the continuous changes in figures too (and Clothing Converter's lack of Mac support), but with D|S 4.5 all clothing works with all figures.. so what is there to be upset about?

    This is V4 with the primary outfit being V2's The Adventurers and the backpack from V3's Dragonworld: Wildenlander..

    -Mike

    FElfAdventurerDS.jpg
    1174 x 1500 - 585K
    Post edited by MADMANMIKE on
  • RCDescheneRCDeschene Posts: 2,102
    edited December 1969

    But the sad fact of the matter is... even with all the posts in this forum of ppl wanting male stuff, Scorpy God did not do that well at all. It wasnt awful, but.... it wasnt amazing either... it didnt even hit my personal goal for sets I do of that caliber (which, to be clear, is a min I have to make to recuperate the time spent) And the female counterpart (Serpent Goddess) did well too, so it wasn't exactly the genre that tanked. My first male set (Godspeed) however, was a rousing success, so I figured, hey, Ill support M4 more often. But after Scorpy God, I'm now not so sure.

    It just goes to show that the requests in this forum are, sadly, a vocal minority. Once again, I defer to my previous statement.... if u guys want support for something, u gotta buy it. Vendors go where the $$ is. And if we spend a month or two making a set that flops, we are not likely to spend that kind of time on something similar in the future.


    Like the others who stated there reasons for not buying scorpion God, I too had no use for it. Remember that the other thing that people here ask to see more of, aside from male stuff and kids, is EVERYDAY CLOTHING, clothing that is practical and relating to real people. Almost all the male stuff I see here, and hell, even at Rendo is usually a bit to stylized for my taste. Hell, I'd even take man-slutware if it was made available to me. This is what I LOVED about David 5's Pro Bundle.

    This is why Genesis 2 should have stayed unisex. Genesis has some nice outfits that can go either way, hell even if it was built for a specific gender, there were some articles that looked really great on the opposite. THOSE are the items I buy.

    Though, IgnisSerpentus's info of his sales has got me thinking... I have to ask you PA's, out of all the male wear that you do make, which actually sells relatively better? Is it everyday clothing? Specific genre's? Textures? Because if there are some gems in that pile, maybe it would be best to focus of that particular aspect when you make male items. See what that does.

    Well, I will say straight up... I will never do everyday clothing. Im totally fantasy geared. To me, that would take all the fun right out of this. I will probably also never do kiddie stuff, either and rarely do things that are frufru or otherwise construed as cute (I feel like Im faking something lol) As anyone can see by my store, Im mainly armor-focused. I also do mostly darker stuff (and when not dark per se, its gritty) When u think of my stuffs, u should think... Erotic, exotic and a little psychotic LOL

    As far as male stats go, couldnt say to any degree.... other than the two packs I have (and already did kind of give those stats)

    But I can say... sex sells. Better than anything else, hence why there is such a preponderance of it. Though, I spose there are always exceptions.

    And btw... lol Im a chick.


    First of all, "Erotic, exotic and a little psychotic" should totally be your business motto! :D

    And absolutely! That's what I keep trying to tell everyone. 3D, like most computer/tech realms is a man's world. Women have a significant contribution to 3D art, yes. but hearing how Victoria and all her slutwear sells more than anything only proves that point. But I'm also willing to believe that if there is a pattern for what makes girls sell, there must be one for guys as well. After all, as much as guys love to fantasize about sexy chicks, they also love to stroke their own masculine egos, too. ; )

    But seriously, this will probably make some eyes roll, but I say someone should seriously start making some ego-inducing stuff for the guys and man-slutware to entice the ladies... : )

    lol it kind of is. I have it on my fb page, tho I don't really advertise it that way. But it definitely fits.

    And well, I dunno that Id go as far as to saying its a man's world per se. The funny thing is, there are plenty of female users.... but they all like and use stuff for the women too. Take me for example... I have a preponderance of female items in my runtime.... but I don't have a ton of male stuff. A few key items, thats pretty much it. Ive even rendered promos on default M4 lol And that even goes for my content.... Ive not largely focused on male things til more recently (coz my stuff tends to be armor, it does fit well there, and I do like working with M4)

    On one hand, it could be a sort of a sexualization for straight males, but for women, its all about empowering women or otherwise living in fantasy worlds vicariously thru their art. So either way you slice it, female stuff is largely favored.

    There is, however, also a large userbase of gay males in the community as well. These are the ones that buy a lot of the male stuff.... but it has to be bordering on erotic, I think, or at the very least construed as sexy (though, again, Im sure exceptions exist) Take Godspeed... Ive had conversations before that perhaps one reason it did well, is that Greek is sort of iconic to gays - because it was largely acceptable in Greece and the society was what introduced homosexuality most prominently in history (like Alexander the Great, for example) whereas Egyptian, which is the theme of Scorpy God, not so much. They were more incestual than homesexual per se, though there are some stories ... but for the most part, I think it was taboo (yeah, Im a history nerd... can you tell? lol)

    So theres a lot of factors at play here. But again, its really only speculation. You'd really have to poll the community, and ask probing questions to get a better detailed look as to why people buy what. And well, that would be an invasion of privacy, I think, in some cases. So all we really have to go on is pure speculation.


    Well, of course women buy Victoria as well. Let's face it, Victoria is the 3D Barbie for adults. And of course there's the gay male community. But just exactly how much of male content out there can we really call "man-slutware". Most of the guy stuff I've seen here is either fantasy or historical. It's nowhere near as ego stroking for guys or hormone enticing for women and homosexual men as much as all the female stuff here does for female idealism and hetero male lust.

  • MADMANMIKEMADMANMIKE Posts: 379
    edited July 2013


    This is V4 with the primary outfit being V2's The Adventurers and the backpack from V3's Dragonworld: Wildenlander..

    -Mike

    I guess my point is, I've spent more than ten years building up a runtime that's over 150GB, and now I can use virtually any of it on any figure I own..

    Post edited by MADMANMIKE on
  • Paradigm67Paradigm67 Posts: 973
    edited December 1969

    My issue with it isn't with planned obsolescence, but that, with G2, they are taking 2 steps that I disagree with:

    1. I don't agree with changing the base mesh so much that it disabled genesis morphs and clothing for working without taking extra steps. The changes that they advertise are minimal and I honestly believe could have been fixed while retaining backwards compatibility with Genesis 1.

    2. (Much worse). This isn't Genesis 2. This is Genesis 2 Female. DAZ has decided to make unique figures for male and female (and children, I believe?). They do this, they say, for the sake of being able to be have more gender specific options for figures, but I think this is a phantom problem. Not once have I had an issue with Genesis being male and female.

    3. G2:F is just plain hideous.

  • MADMANMIKEMADMANMIKE Posts: 379
    edited December 1969

    Not once have I had an issue with Genesis being male and female.

    I know, right? It's the 21st century, LGBT is acceptable already!

  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 2,350
    edited July 2013

    Greetings,

    My issue with it isn't with planned obsolescence, but that, with G2, they are taking 2 steps that I disagree with:

    1. I don't agree with changing the base mesh so much that it disabled genesis morphs and clothing for working without taking extra steps. The changes that they advertise are minimal and I honestly believe could have been fixed while retaining backwards compatibility with Genesis 1.

    2. (Much worse). This isn't Genesis 2. This is Genesis 2 Female. DAZ has decided to make unique figures for male and female (and children, I believe?). They do this, they say, for the sake of being able to be have more gender specific options for figures, but I think this is a phantom problem. Not once have I had an issue with Genesis being male and female.

    3. G2:F is just plain hideous.

    While I think 1 and 2 are technical issues that they felt strongly about, and chose to fix with a new base figure. Reading between the lines, I think it may even have been at the encouragement of PA's who DID have a problem (technical, not moral) building content for a non-gender-specific base and relying on morphs to convert to the female mode.


    Let me give you an example from today's DAZ Original, extrapolating hugely from what I've understood about how content is produced. Look at the breasts on the Avalon Adventure Outfit, more specifically the area between them. It shrink-wraps in. That's because the clothing is modeled to Base Genesis (the best practice for clothing modeling is to do that, apparently) and then conforms as the Base Female is dialed in. You have to go out of your way to add morphs that recognize the breasts appearing and add a gape to the space between the breasts. SRMS apparently helps with this, but nobody else seems to use it for their clothes, unfortunately.

    If you instead model it to a female, presumably, you start with the appropriate cloth behavior and changes to the breasts should be reflected in the better breast bridging. Now, notably, I feel like you can tell G2F clothing that was Base Genesis modeled first, because it still has that cling-wrap effect, and it's not obvious if PA's are using the female-specific nature yet. The hope/expectation is that when they do, clothing will get better. But we're in the early days yet... And I could be completely wrong, since...well, I'm not a modeler, I just try to understand how it works.

    But on the 3rd point... I STRONGLY disagree.. It's one of my favorite base characters; I can render G2F straight up, with some hair and a simple outfit, and I feel like I've got a person there, unlike GBF, I don't even need to morph it. I can, and I do sometimes, but the base character resonates with me exceptionally well. Significantly better than GBF did.

    This is a matter of taste, IMO, and I understand that at the core you disagree with the (previous 2) technical choices they've made, but I wanted to make it clear that on the 3rd, less relevant, point there is definite disagreement. For the technical choices, IMO, my opinion is still out. I'm happy to buy it, and I think it's good, and I think it'll drive better content in the future, but I simply don't pretend to have the expertise or actual data to determine whether they were the right choices.

    -- Morgan

    Post edited by CypherFOX on
  • anikadanikad Posts: 1,860
    edited December 1969

    I remember seeing a couple of promo's in the store, don't know if it was G2F or V6 where she did look hideous. Most of the promos they've looked perfectly fine so these two stuck out.

  • CypherFOXCypherFOX Posts: 2,350
    edited December 1969

    Greetings,

    anikad said:
    I remember seeing a couple of promo's in the store, don't know if it was G2F or V6 where she did look hideous. Most of the promos they've looked perfectly fine so these two stuck out.
    Ah; there are a few characters with what seem (to my untrained eye) to be uncomfortably long necks. I wouldn't go so far as to say 'hideous', but they weren't my cuppa, and I didn't pick them up. Similarly I wasn't a fan of Candace, because she looks _angry_ in all the promos (probably a combination of the slight fold above her eye, and her mouth set back slightly which seems to create a perpetual sneer), which is a shallow and absurd reason, but...well, I rarely claim to be a very good person.

    So I'm all fine with saying that some of the characters are definitely not what I would use, or buy, but the base G2F is very nice IMNSHO. ;)

    -- Morgan

  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,384
    edited July 2013

    My issue with it isn't with planned obsolescence, but that, with G2, they are taking 2 steps that I disagree with:

    1. I don't agree with changing the base mesh so much that it disabled genesis morphs and clothing for working without taking extra steps. The changes that they advertise are minimal and I honestly believe could have been fixed while retaining backwards compatibility with Genesis 1.

    2. (Much worse). This isn't Genesis 2. This is Genesis 2 Female. DAZ has decided to make unique figures for male and female (and children, I believe?). They do this, they say, for the sake of being able to be have more gender specific options for figures, but I think this is a phantom problem. Not once have I had an issue with Genesis being male and female.

    3. G2:F is just plain hideous.


    Firstly, whenever a new mesh is introduced it's invariably incompatible with previous versions. This was the same for Genesis with regards to Gen4 morphs (now somewhat remedied with the incredible GenX, but I digress) and Gen4 with Gen3 morphs. The reason is really quite simple to understand. The vertex counts are now different, the topology now works differently, and everything has to be designed with the new mesh in mind rather than the old. I assure you that if you were to simply apply one of the old Genesis morphs to a Genesis 2 figure the results would be ugly at best, and downright distorted at worst.

    If rumours are to be believed, there is a GenX coming out which will allow you to convert Genesis morphs for Genesis 2 Female. Something to look forward to I think.

    Secondly, while I echo your feelings about there being a gender split I am starting to realise exactly why this split was implemented, and what benefits it can actually offer. After my initial ranting and raving I took a closer look at the figure and started pulling it apart (almost literally) to see what reason there could have been for the split. It's not hard to see why the mesh is geared more towards females than men, and it's largely due to the topology. Where vertices meet you get your creases and small details in the mesh, and if those creases are in the wrong places, it can give unusual results when performing certain types of morphs. There is a lot more detail in the breasts and hips on Genesis 2, and much of their design suggests that creating men, while entirely possible, probably wouldn't look as accurate as females would.

    Finally, just no. Even when I was fuming about the gender split and raging about concerns over future availability for classic Genesis, never have I thought that Gen2 Female was 'ugly'. I still consider Gen2 Female and 'Victoria 6' to be virtually synonymous, but that's certainly not a bad thing if you want a female adult in your render. Aside from coming out of the box with a wonderful texture set, she's almost picture perfect in terms of proportions and design. Now that there's morphs which will enhance her appearance, I'm struggling to find an excuse not to replace my existing females with the new girl. She's more expressive, she's more accurate and damn if those Victoria 6 textures aren't to die for.

    Of course, this is all just the opinion of humble old me. I will say that if you consider she won me over when I was also very skeptical about the figure that's got to say at least something about the quality. I'm actually eagerly looking forward to the next figure and I would be absolutely bowled over if they have plans for a Kids 5 figure using the same system.

    Post edited by Herald of Fire on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,912
    edited December 1969

    It’s not hard to see why the mesh is geared more towards females than men, and it’s largely due to the topology.

    Interesting argument because I believe I saw the creator of G2F and G2M (MallenLane) saying that the mesh for G2F and G2M would be the same, vertex-wise. If true It would be fun to check your post when G2M would be released.

  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 2,013
    edited December 1969

    Kattey said:
    It’s not hard to see why the mesh is geared more towards females than men, and it’s largely due to the topology.

    Interesting argument because I believe I saw the creator of G2F and G2M (MallenLane) saying that the mesh for G2F and G2M would be the same, vertex-wise. If true It would be fun to check your post when G2M would be released.

    The number of vertices can be the same while changing the mesh flow. These are two separate things.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,912
    edited July 2013

    Kattey said:
    It’s not hard to see why the mesh is geared more towards females than men, and it’s largely due to the topology.

    Interesting argument because I believe I saw the creator of G2F and G2M (MallenLane) saying that the mesh for G2F and G2M would be the same, vertex-wise. If true It would be fun to check your post when G2M would be released.

    The number of vertices can be the same while changing the mesh flow. These are two separate things.


    Do you mean the position of those vertices will be changed somewhat, without adding new vertices, or changing their order like it is in any morph ever? I can, of course, be mistaken but the impression I got is that it would be the same female mesh, only modified to appear manly or even that initially it could have been a unisex mesh, rigged separately for G2F and G2M. While everything is possible and I can again, be mistaken, from past experiences I highly doubt it would be a different mesh - since Generation 2 through Generations 3 and 4 DAZ3D likes to reuse the same mesh not only because it creates a better user experience but because it lessens the development time; the whole unimesh idea is based upon both of this aspects. And while it is possible to add new or remove old edges without breaking of the mesh, vertex number, vertex order or UVs (even Hexagon can do it, if awkwardly), the G2F mostly have a new mesh density in same places that are important for both male and female figures (face, knees, etc) and human anatomy and muscles aren't that different between genders (attachable toasts aside) to validate a significant amount of completely new edge loops.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,384
    edited July 2013

    Kattey said:
    Do you mean the position of those vertices will be changed somewhat, without adding new vertices, or changing their order like it is in any morph ever?

    Morphs don't change the vertex order. In fact, they rely on it to assign the correct translations to each corresponding vertex. That's why it's crucial to not disturb the vertex order when exporting Genesis for morph purposes, and why even deleting a single vertex to move it can break the resulting morph.

    Genesis 2 Female is the name of the figure, not merely Genesis 2 which implies they'll be using a unique mesh. If they were using the exact same mesh, then there would be no need for the gender distinction and most people here wouldn't have many complaints. They can both retain the exact number of polygons and vertices and still have a different layout, depending on which vertices are connected. They might even retain a similar vertex order so that morphs can be interchanged between Genesis 2 figures, but that's pure speculation.

    Curiously, the Gen4 characters all had identical meshes, which is why morphs for one figure often worked on another and is also why both M4 and K4 worryingly have so many extra polygons in the groin intended to accommodate vaginal morphs. However, clothes were specifically designed with one morph of that mesh in mind, so presumably were easier to develop for.

    It is certainly evidence that they could have easily gone a unisex route if they had chosen to do so, and time will indeed tell whether or not Genesis 2 Male proves to be a different mesh or just a remastered one, as right now all we have is speculation. If ultimately it turns out to be the same mesh, then it's evidence the split was either manufactured to gather extra sales from the divide or an attempt to please PA's by giving them fewer compatibilities to worry about. I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

    Post edited by Herald of Fire on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,912
    edited December 1969

    I guess we'll find out sooner or later.

    Yeah, at this point it is all more speculations than anything else. I'm just saying that I personally will be highly surprised if it would be a new mesh (like actual new mesh, not just G2F with a couple of changed edge loops) because with all past generations DAZ3D demonstrated that they can create a very believable and realistic female and male figures from the same mesh.

  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,384
    edited July 2013

    Kattey said:
    I'm just saying that I personally will be highly surprised if it would be a new mesh (like actual new mesh, not just G2F with a couple of changed edge loops)

    If they change the edge loops they'd drastically change how the figure behaves when morphing and the fit of clothing. I feel it would be drastic enough to justify the gender swap. V4 and M4 have identical edge loops and identical poly/vertex counts since they truly are identical meshes. Ironically there are some I've seen who worship V4 for being a 'unique' mesh yet dislike G2F for the same reasons, possibly unaware that there was no real mesh differences in the 4th gen figures.

    Of course, back then we didn't have weight mapping, so it made more sense to have separate figures. If they feel they needed to split the genders once more, it's probably a safe bet that there will be some significant differences between the two.

    Post edited by Herald of Fire on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,912
    edited December 1969

    Of course, back then we didn't have weight mapping, so it made more sense to have separate figures. If they feel they needed to split the genders once more, it's probably a safe bet that there will be some significant differences between the two.

    This is why it would be fun to go back and check these expectations when G2M would be released ;)

  • zigraphixzigraphix Posts: 2,768
    edited December 1969

    Cypherfox said:


    Let me give you an example from today's DAZ Original, extrapolating hugely from what I've understood about how content is produced. Look at the breasts on the Avalon Adventure Outfit, more specifically the area between them. It shrink-wraps in. That's because the clothing is modeled to Base Genesis (the best practice for clothing modeling is to do that, apparently) and then conforms as the Base Female is dialed in. You have to go out of your way to add morphs that recognize the breasts appearing and add a gape to the space between the breasts. SRMS apparently helps with this, but nobody else seems to use it for their clothes, unfortunately.

    If you instead model it to a female, presumably, you start with the appropriate cloth behavior and changes to the breasts should be reflected in the better breast bridging. Now, notably, I feel like you can tell G2F clothing that was Base Genesis modeled first, because it still has that cling-wrap effect, and it's not obvious if PA's are using the female-specific nature yet. The hope/expectation is that when they do, clothing will get better. But we're in the early days yet... And I could be completely wrong, since...well, I'm not a modeler, I just try to understand how it works.

    Yes, I think this is the main reason for the split. DAZ made a decision with the original Genesis line to release a Basic Female shape, but not to make other female characters a morph off of that shape. As a result, if you model content on Basic Female, but the customer dials Basic Female to 0 and V5 to 100%, the clothing has to auto-adjust twice, once to get rid of BF, once to add morphs for V5. So creators have been advised to model on the unmorphed Genesis base so the system will only have to morph the clothing once, which many creators felt made it hard to model convincing female clothing, and then each female shape has to be supported manually to avoid the "cling wrap" effect. (And the same for the guys, of course, though the effect is less obvious in the chest area.)

    With G2F, the "base" shape to model for is the female, and all other morphs will be built from that, so the generally female shape is automatically supported. Of course, the farther you get from that basic female shape, the more the system has to try to adjust to fit, and the more likely you are to get artifacts like the cling-wrap effect, but since most female figures will be at least somewhat similar to G2F, the effect isn't that pronounced.

    I don't have any "insider" information on how G2M will be made, other than the public statements that the vertices will be the same. But at a guess, based on the way Genesis worked and the way G2F works, G2M will be the same mesh with slightly different rigging and probably a new UV map. But G2F and G2M could each be considered morphs from an underlying androgynous figure, Genesis 2, which is never released and isn't used directly to build character morphs from. (Except that you can get there with the G2F Body Morphs, which includes the androgynous morph.)

    The outcome is that clothes modeled for G2F will fit G2M less well than clothes modeled for the androgynous base would have (and vice versa), but clothes modeled for G2F will fit other female figures better than clothes modeled for the androgynous base, and same for male clothes on male figures.

    I'm still not enthusiastic about the tradeoff. The capabilities of Genesis, especially with SRMS, met my needs well enough, and I really liked not having to worry about which gender content was made for when trying to fit it to my characters, plus the content generally worked better for child characters than any content built for adult gendered figures. And since I do a lot with non-human figures, I really liked being able to make a range of morphed figures with or without gender features based on my needs. But for people who want to render photorealistic humans, I can see that this system is likely to give better results.

    As far as the OP goes... I think others have tried to explain that supporting 4th gen takes a lot of effort beyond supporting the latest generation figure, and that sales are less and less likely to compensate the creator for the extra effort, unless the outfit is highly unusual, yet still popular with a wide variety of customers. Folks who are trying to make a living at this need to do what will pay the bills. To a certain extent, we have to assume that if the content we want (e.g. for a particular figure, a certain style or genre, etc.) is rare, there may not be enough of us who want it to make it commercially viable. :(

    If you really think there's enough of a market for a V4 conversion of some newer item, see if the vendor in question is willing to commit to a conversion if you can raise the funds through Kickstarter or similar to compensate them for their work. (But don't be too surprised if you have a hard time gathering enough supporters to cover the costs of the project -- the vendor probably has a pretty good idea of whether there are enough potential customers out there or not.)

  • Paradigm67Paradigm67 Posts: 973
    edited December 1969

    I think this whole issue comes down to how small the 3D community is, even if it is growing. This wouldn't be an issue if you could rebuild your library for $50 instead of $500, but artists need to/ want to make money from their products, so you get $20 characters being sold to 50 people instead of $2 characters being sold to 500.

    Because of this, the release of a new generation (and the promise of much less support for the previous generation) causes a lot of unrest for those who have large libraries. Myself, I subsist mostly on freebies, but my library for genesis is quickly approaching multiple the couple $100 mark. I can't imagine how much re-equipping a large library will cost O_O

  • Agent_UnawaresAgent_Unawares Posts: 0
    edited December 1969

    But just exactly how much of male content out there can we really call "man-slutware".
    Wayyyy too much. It bothers me more than the female stuff, because from what I've generally seen:

    It's nowhere near as ego stroking for guys or hormone enticing for women and homosexual men as much as all the female stuff here does for female idealism and hetero male lust.


    ...this is the case, but for the "slutwear." So much of it looks like just female stuff converted to a male figure because I guess it's edgy or something? It doesn't accentuate the masculine form like the female slutwear accentuates the feminine form. So many sexy female suits out there, so much attention to detail, about nothing like that for the males, when the suit is the quintessential "sexy male" outfit.

This discussion has been closed.
Rocket Fuel