Digital Art Zone

 
   
6 of 11
6
Versatility vs specificity
Posted: 21 July 2013 09:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 76 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  2200
Joined  2005-09-05
Richard Haseltine - 21 July 2013 05:52 AM
Pendraia - 21 July 2013 04:51 AM
Jabba101 - 21 July 2013 01:46 AM

Rigging I understand is ideally different between male & female, so why don’t we innovate a dual-rigged system with which we could select male/female movement?

Really well said Jabba!

One point though…it was my understanding that with genesis they could actually have multiple rigging to allow for rigging to suit the more extreme shapes. So don’t we already have the system available?

Yes and no. TriAx figures, and figures in Poser 9+, support having the joint centres moved by a morph but there isn’t any way to change the weight-maps that determine which areas of the mesh deform with a bend, so moving a centre a lot may still buckle the mesh unhelpfully. I don’t know how relevant that is to Genesis/Genesis 2 however.

Aha, t hank you Richard. I didn’t realise that it was so limited. In that case I’m fully in agreement with Jabbas post

 Signature 

Shadermixer tutorials and recipes
My ShareCG Gallery
Shadermixer Documents

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 10:16 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 77 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1374
Joined  2010-02-14
Pendraia - 21 July 2013 09:13 PM
Richard Haseltine - 21 July 2013 05:52 AM
Pendraia - 21 July 2013 04:51 AM
Jabba101 - 21 July 2013 01:46 AM

Rigging I understand is ideally different between male & female, so why don’t we innovate a dual-rigged system with which we could select male/female movement?

Really well said Jabba!

One point though…it was my understanding that with genesis they could actually have multiple rigging to allow for rigging to suit the more extreme shapes. So don’t we already have the system available?

Yes and no. TriAx figures, and figures in Poser 9+, support having the joint centres moved by a morph but there isn’t any way to change the weight-maps that determine which areas of the mesh deform with a bend, so moving a centre a lot may still buckle the mesh unhelpfully. I don’t know how relevant that is to Genesis/Genesis 2 however.

Aha, t hank you Richard. I didn’t realise that it was so limited. In that case I’m fully in agreement with Jabbas post

As do I.

I honestly thought that the whole “morph optimization” concept with Gen 5 characters already involved rigging variation.

 Signature 

“I’m sorry, I can’t hear you over the sound of how awesome I am!” ~ Brextor Ultimus

FORUM MEMBER POST RANKS
New Member = 0
Member = 25
Active Member = 250
Power Member = 1000
Addict = 2500

My Art Studio

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 10:43 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 78 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1571
Joined  2008-11-10
RCDeschene - 22 July 2013 10:16 AM
Pendraia - 21 July 2013 09:13 PM
Richard Haseltine - 21 July 2013 05:52 AM
Pendraia - 21 July 2013 04:51 AM
Jabba101 - 21 July 2013 01:46 AM

Rigging I understand is ideally different between male & female, so why don’t we innovate a dual-rigged system with which we could select male/female movement?

Really well said Jabba!

One point though…it was my understanding that with genesis they could actually have multiple rigging to allow for rigging to suit the more extreme shapes. So don’t we already have the system available?

Yes and no. TriAx figures, and figures in Poser 9+, support having the joint centres moved by a morph but there isn’t any way to change the weight-maps that determine which areas of the mesh deform with a bend, so moving a centre a lot may still buckle the mesh unhelpfully. I don’t know how relevant that is to Genesis/Genesis 2 however.

Aha, t hank you Richard. I didn’t realise that it was so limited. In that case I’m fully in agreement with Jabbas post

As do I.

I honestly thought that the whole “morph optimization” concept with Gen 5 characters already involved rigging variation.

The issue isn’t adjusting rigging, it’s how the mesh flows between characters that is specific to a gender.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 11:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 79 ]
Active Member
Avatar
RankRank
Total Posts:  571
Joined  2006-10-01
RCDeschene - 22 July 2013 10:16 AM

I honestly thought that the whole “morph optimization” concept with Gen 5 characters already involved rigging variation.

Because that’s what we were always told.
And I’m still not seeing any improvement.

 Signature 

Simplified guide to Genesis content creation.

My gallery.

 

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 11:17 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 80 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2712
Joined  2007-12-25
Richard Haseltine - 21 July 2013 05:52 AM

Yes and no. TriAx figures, and figures in Poser 9+, support having the joint centres moved by a morph but there isn’t any way to change the weight-maps that determine which areas of the mesh deform with a bend, so moving a centre a lot may still buckle the mesh unhelpfully. I don’t know how relevant that is to Genesis/Genesis 2 however.

I just want to check my understanding… so TriAx (and Poser 9+) figures can handle morphing a mesh into quite different shapes, and the bones can be aligned and adjusted to work with the new shapes, but the strength of each bone (joint) per polygon doesn’t change, right?  So the effect of this is that if you want (for example) to move some polygons from the shoulder to the upper arm, because you want a narrow-shouldered, long armed person, you couldn’t do that, because the shoulder joint would still try to move the same polygons. The result is that you have to expect the same polygons to be influenced by each joint as in the unmorphed version.

I’m still not quite sure I get why this is a problem with using the same mesh for male and female characters. Is it because the mesh density goes too low on the shoulders for guys or the hips for gals? You can use a different UV map (at least in DS) to avoid texture stretching, so I don’t think that’s it. Granted there are certainly differences between male and female human bodies, but at the resolution level we’re talking about, I don’t see why one mesh and rig couldn’t morph to be used for both, equally well.

To be honest, I thought the motivation behind Genesis 2 was mostly that every female morph had to be supported individually, instead of most of the support being for the Basic Female shape and only minor tweaks required for each female morph built on that (and same for the guys). If all the female morphs had been based on Basic Female and all the male morphs on Basic Male, wouldn’t that have worked as well as this figure split?

(This doesn’t take into account the extra polygons of G2F, rigged toes, etc.—just the gender split.)

 Signature 

Shop Zigraphix @ DAZ3D

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 12:49 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 81 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  13390
Joined  2003-10-09
zigraphix - 22 July 2013 11:17 AM
Richard Haseltine - 21 July 2013 05:52 AM

Yes and no. TriAx figures, and figures in Poser 9+, support having the joint centres moved by a morph but there isn’t any way to change the weight-maps that determine which areas of the mesh deform with a bend, so moving a centre a lot may still buckle the mesh unhelpfully. I don’t know how relevant that is to Genesis/Genesis 2 however.

I just want to check my understanding… so TriAx (and Poser 9+) figures can handle morphing a mesh into quite different shapes, and the bones can be aligned and adjusted to work with the new shapes, but the strength of each bone (joint) per polygon doesn’t change, right?  So the effect of this is that if you want (for example) to move some polygons from the shoulder to the upper arm, because you want a narrow-shouldered, long armed person, you couldn’t do that, because the shoulder joint would still try to move the same polygons. The result is that you have to expect the same polygons to be influenced by each joint as in the unmorphed version.

Yes, although an polygon here or there might be handled by a JCM. But I’m pretty sure some of the monster-creators have hit walls created by the weight-maps.

I’m still not quite sure I get why this is a problem with using the same mesh for male and female characters. Is it because the mesh density goes too low on the shoulders for guys or the hips for gals? You can use a different UV map (at least in DS) to avoid texture stretching, so I don’t think that’s it. Granted there are certainly differences between male and female human bodies, but at the resolution level we’re talking about, I don’t see why one mesh and rig couldn’t morph to be used for both, equally well.

I’m not sure that it was a factor, I was mainly adressing the question asked. It may be that having different weight maps (or bulge maps) is one of the advantages of the split, it may be that it’s irrelevant - I really don’t know.

 Signature 

DAZ Studio Frequently Asked Questions

Index of free DAZ Studio scripts and plugins list

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 01:18 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 82 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2757
Joined  2004-04-14
Kattey - 20 July 2013 11:21 PM

Genesis itself is a whole product, it doesn’t have halves, male, female or others. To artificially half its capabilities in order to compare it to G2F is anything but fair.

No, Genesis does not have halfs but Generation 4 did and genreation 3 was divided even more though the underlining techonolgy was the same across all figures of the same genreation.  What I meant as unfair is that Genesis2 is incomplete as the male half is not yet avaialble.  So while we can do comparisons to a degree, we lack the male half of the Generation 6 base figures to do a complete comparison against all previous generations (or which ever ones we choose to compare it to).

 Signature 

My DAZ3D Store
My Free Stuff
My Art @ DeviantART
Ships of the Line - MEGA THREAD
How to use the Poser Format Exporter - **Updated 2013-02-09**

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 01:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 83 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1801
Joined  2005-06-08
Mattymanx - 22 July 2013 01:18 PM

. . . What I meant as unfair is that Genesis2 is incomplete as the male half is not yet avaialble . . .

Yep, agreeing with this bit.  After calling the new version Genesis2, I’d say it was clearly unfair of DAZ to release only the female figure — if the gender-split had to happen (which I’m not conceding), we still should’ve gotten both male and female figures simultaneously, so we could see what we were getting into (like how well the clothing-conversion works, and how much support actually  gets provided to non-sexualized and unisex clothing).  Granting that female-before-male was how the Millennium figures were released, this isn’t a Millennium figure — Genesis1 gave us both at once (and more) the day it was released, Genesis2 should’ve too.

 Signature 

~

Hat-wearing member of the Bald Wizards Club

Eyebrow-Free Face Textures — A List

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 01:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 84 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1571
Joined  2008-11-10
KickAir 8P - 22 July 2013 01:43 PM

Granting that female-before-male was how the Millennium figures were released, this isn’t a Millennium figure — Genesis1 gave us both at once (and more) the day it was released, Genesis2 should’ve too.

No, if you doing mesh flows specific for a male and female figure, then releasing them separately made sense. Genesis 1 had the Same mesh flow so it could be released at the same time.

Even with genesis 1 being released at the same time, the female wasn’t very feminine and the male wasn’t very masculine. V5 still came out first correcting the female situation.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 03:14 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 85 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1074
Joined  2010-09-19

Ah yes, mesh flow… add the extra polys for female AND add extra polys for male to the same mesh and you got a mesh flow that can mix it up any way you want it.

 Signature 

My deviantART page
My ShareCG freebies
Some of my music

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 03:39 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 86 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1571
Joined  2008-11-10
Jabba101 - 22 July 2013 03:14 PM

Ah yes, mesh flow… add the extra polys for female AND add extra polys for male to the same mesh and you got a mesh flow that can mix it up any way you want it.

No. It a bit more than that. And really unless you’ve actually taken a mesh into a modeler, gave it a particular shape then loaded it back in and tried to pose it you probably won’t understand the concept; but it is a lot more than dropping a few polys here and there and expect it to move the way you want it.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 05:20 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 87 ]
Addict
Avatar
RankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2712
Joined  2007-12-25
Male-M3dia - 22 July 2013 03:39 PM
Jabba101 - 22 July 2013 03:14 PM

Ah yes, mesh flow… add the extra polys for female AND add extra polys for male to the same mesh and you got a mesh flow that can mix it up any way you want it.

No. It a bit more than that. And really unless you’ve actually taken a mesh into a modeler, gave it a particular shape then loaded it back in and tried to pose it you probably won’t understand the concept; but it is a lot more than dropping a few polys here and there and expect it to move the way you want it.

I’m sure you’re right—you would know far better than I. But I would like to understand this better. If you have time, could you explain a bit more?

 Signature 

Shop Zigraphix @ DAZ3D

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 06:37 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 88 ]
Active Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  538
Joined  2011-04-12

What exactly do you mean by “mesh flow”?

As I understand it, V4 and M4 were topologically equivalent (homeomorphic, if you want to be technical).  Same number of vertices, in the same order, with the same edges between them.  Did they therefore have the same “mesh flow”, or is there something more to it?

 Signature 

Not interested in the giant leap backwards that is “Genesis 2”.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 22 July 2013 08:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 89 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1074
Joined  2010-09-19

We all tend to abbreviate for convenience, then somebody else will pick up on what was not 100% conveyed in a single soundbite.  I won’t go on at length as I pitched up earlier http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewthread/25824/P60/#383690

Of course any male or female character can be made from the same base mesh, but it’s simply too much hard work compared to doing some relatively minor tweaks to a gender-specific mesh.  It’s as simple as that.

But don’t get me wrong, I can appreciate the flip side… how much work should be put into a character that sells for $15?  If we’re not prepared to pay $100 per character, something’s got to give… and the thing that’s been broken to maintain established pricing, in my personal opinion, is the universal flexibility.  I’m not saying I like it, I’m saying I can understand it.

So what I would like to know is this:  Now that an improved easier-to-work-with mesh has been released, should we expect the characters to be of higher quality and priced around the same as those for the ‘problematic’ Genesis mesh, or should we expect to see no real improvement to character quality but cheaper because the new mesh isn’t as much hard work?

 Signature 

My deviantART page
My ShareCG freebies
Some of my music

Profile
 
 
Posted: 24 July 2013 03:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 90 ]
Power Member
Avatar
RankRankRank
Total Posts:  1074
Joined  2010-09-19

If you flash the flesh in your renders, G2F should be on your radar - but if you mostly use fully-clothed characters, we’re still waiting on costume makers raising the bar for the new figure, albeit this should come as no surprise because an improved base for character makers does not miraculously make it any easier for the wardrobe PAs to make their outfits.

Image Attachments
G1StalkerGirl-G2Gia.jpg
 Signature 

My deviantART page
My ShareCG freebies
Some of my music

Profile
 
 
   
6 of 11
6