Victoria 6 has been released.

11415161820

Comments

  • HellboyHellboy Posts: 1,383
    edited December 1969
  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited December 1969

    Hellboy said:

    Amen to that. :)

  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited June 2013


    Yes, the post I replied to that has your quote. ;)

    No figure is going to have what you want. Every figure is going to have problems regardless if it's well behaved in certain areas or not.

    And I don't think your making your point about a gender specific base being preferable. So far, I remain unconvinced. A Unisex mesh can accomplish the same thing, especially if enough research and time is put into it before releasing it to the public for use (which should have been Genesis 2). There is no doubt in my mind a Unisex mesh can perform just as well as single gender mesh which your advocating if DAZ bothered to research ways to accomplish everything you prefer. I see no evidence to the contrary.

    It is your prerogative to remain unconvinced. If Genesis works better for you, then stick to it.

    Looking back at my posts, I still believe I haven't written anything about perfection, or perfect figures or whatever. I simply want a well behaved figure, along with well behaved shapes and morphs. Well behaved in the sense that they take into account the figure base shape both unposed and posed.

    Post edited by wowie on
  • PendraiaPendraia Posts: 2,958
    edited December 1969

    wowie said:

    It is your prerogative to remain unconvinced. If Genesis works better for you, then stick to it.

    Looking back at my posts, I still believe I haven't written anything about perfection, or perfect figures or whatever. I simply want a well behaved figure, along with well behaved shapes and morphs. Well behaved in the sense that they take into account the figure base shape both unposed and posed.

    I will be sticking with Genesis(the original) for the time being...I'm yet to be convinced that it wasn't possible to keep it a unisex figure and keep improving it.

    However...I'm not having a go at anyone else. Everyone has a right to their opinions and if Gen2F works for you that is great.

    After glimpsing the possibilities with Genesis(the original) I'm not willing to settle for less. I want a unisex figure that I can morph into anything and I'm happy to stick with the original figure until something better comes along.

    Maybe I'm one of a few maybe I'm one of many. I don't really care...my only concern is it doesn't suit me.
    I'm very deeply disappointed in DAZ 3d's choice to not provide more information at the time of the launch. If there has been too much speculation that has been primarily because people were uninformed about what was happening. DAZ 3D could have minimised this by keeping people in the loop instead of treating us like mushrooms.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 36,352
    edited December 1969

    Hellboy said:

    ...thank you.

    I rest my case.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 36,352
    edited December 1969

    ...crap city, 3dopencommunity keeps returning a "Server Not Found" error (which almost caused me to take a hammer to my USB wireless modem). This is double plus ungood.

  • Lissa_xyzLissa_xyz Posts: 6,099
    edited December 1969

    Argh. I don't want to like her, but so far everything I've thrown at her comes out ok, even the Supersuit.

    G2F_supersuit.jpg
    500 x 800 - 92K
    G2F_pose_test.jpg
    800 x 800 - 134K
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 36,352
    edited July 2013

    wowie said:
    Let's see the figure with (first) and without (second) the crease point correction, in the default/zero position and compared

    This is the point I'm making. The figure retains the same weight mapping, the same correction, but the problematic shape needs to be corrected. In other words, shape (FBMs) or morphs (PBMs) should not alter crease points or cause mesh collision problems. To do this, it is necessary to shape it so it accounts for the way the figure is rigged (thus bends).

    As Male-M3dia pointed out, having a gender specific base can help (along with better weight mapping and mesh topology).


    ...so why does it have to be gender specific? Why cant the standard Genesis figure have the improved bending?

    Why? because it doesn't promote the need for gender specific content.

    This along with the added polys for "improved" breast mesh handling could be provided with the base unisex version

    It's all marketing. Make us pay more for less.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,490
    edited December 1969

    Kyoto Kid said:
    ...so why does it have to be gender specific? Why cant the standard Genesis figure have the improved bending?

    Why? because it doesn't promote the need for gender specific content.

    This along with the added polys for "improved" breast mesh handling could be provided with the base unisex version

    It's all marketing. Make us pay more for less.


    To be fair, Male M3dia's post was a very convincing argument for Genesis 2's case. Out of my own curiosity I went and checked on the various JCM's he referred to, and he wasn't kidding. There are a huge number of corrective morphs on a lot of different parts of the figure when it comes to Genesis in order to achieve the unisex results.

    Now I'm not saying for a second that I necessarily agree with the sex division, but in terms of content, it would probably be a lot faster to develop for the new figure than it would be to create the same items on Genesis 1. From a publisher's point of view, it makes perfect sense to have the split, which might arguably give us a greater variety of content than we'd had for previous the previous Genesis.

    I know this is like trying to douse a bonfire with a thimble, but I think we should give it time and see how things progress. As evidenced, there is still content being released for the original Genesis, so we're not losing out yet. There may come a time in the future when support dies out, but perhaps by then we may have been sold on the new figures. We simply don't know what's being planned for them, and what might be waiting in the wings.

    I won't say I'm in full support of the new Genesis, but I've been following the arguments for and against quite closely. I've tested and retested Genesis and Genesis 2 to support these bold claims, and I can see that it does actually have potential. Yes, I lament the loss of dozens of useful morphs and yes I miss being able to age my figures dynamically, but if the momentum holds then the 'Genesis 2' range of figures could become our 'go-to' figures.

    For me, this hingest highly on how they handle 'Basic child', or even IF they include it, but also how well the figure is provided for by PA's. It's my hope that we won't need to see a dozen new UV sets for 'Genesis 2' and that the content has a good range rather than being dominated by sexy stripperware. If early indications are anything to go by though, I don't think we need worry about the latter.

    ...still waiting on an official response to say "Hey, we haven't forgotten about the kids!".

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited July 2013

    wowie said:
    Kattey said:

    Having properly weighted map will help a lot but the trick is that this properly weighted map in G2F that some people might praise so much for its gender-specificness isn't actually gender specific weightmap, it is unisex. It appears as gender-specific because default shape sculpt is a female but this is smoke and mirrors. By transferring Genesis male morphs/shape sculpts back and forth (only main morphs, not JCMs) I get a male who is very much the same male I had in Genesis (with all JCMs), bends being better and all thanks to _generic_ improved weightmaps G2F has, but still very much and very noticeably male without an influence of supposed 'female' rigging.
    There is nothing in G2F's rigging that is gender-specific so the idea that female figure somehow has better "female" rigging is not true. General rigging improvement? - yes. Gender-specific rigging improvement? - no and G2F with the same rigging it has now could have been as easily made with default unisex sculpt shape, and two sets of morphs in areas where fat distribution is different.

    Male-M3dia made a good point about topology. Look at my posts above. The weight map is only one part of the equation. You also need the correct mesh topology. From my example, you can see the V5 shape altered the crease point. So it was the shape that's causing the issue. Putting in correction to the shape so the topology works better with the bending is the solution.
    First of all, in your pictures I don't see the need for correction. As human body can be very different, I don't personally believe in 'ideal' bends and shapes - my own knees don't bend exactly like corrected knees in your pictures and thus even corrected bends look no less (un)realistic personally to me than uncorrected ones.

    But lets imagine that any drastic shape needs to have better, corrected bends. Why do you think you will avoid doing this with G2F? If tech behind the rigging didn't change, any drastic shape in G2F will require corrections to make better bends, - and considering that the difference between default Genesis shape and V5 is a smaller difference than the difference between G2F and its own Heavy morph, meshflow-wise, you'll have to do no fewer corrections than in Genesis. Just having gender-specific initial figure won't eliminate the need in corrections or lessen their amount when mesh is altered so much as in Heavy morph or you need a such precision like in your V5 example.

    In case if tech is improved up to point that rigging and weightmaps autoadjusts itself to meshflow (I don't think we are there yet), again, the Genesis 2 should have been unisex figure, because the difference between male and female shapes isn't all that drastic as the difference between G2F and its own Heavy morph, so technically if this technology exist than nothing would prevent Genesis 2 from being unisex in this case.
    So what the point of default female shape again? You either do corrections for any change of shape anyway with current level of technology, or unisex figure would have autocorrected bends if technology is improved that much, or, in case if G2F rigging is so good right now it doesn't need JCMs to correct bends on Heavy morph (which doesn't have any joint corrections last time I've checked), you can use it on unisex shape as it is because the difference in meshflow between unisex and G2F shape is a smaller difference than meshflow difference between G2F shape and Heavy G2F shape.

    Also look at those pictures.
    First is a default female G2F shape bend, posed like on your pictures. When compared its underknee bend crease to your corrected V5 bend crease (from post #507), it doesn't look the same and it looks more like a bend from post #506, which I presume wasn't corrected as much.
    Second picture is same G2F with OriginalGenesis shape (unisex one) unlocked, and from what I see the underknee bend is closer on it to V5 bend you did with D-Formers in #507, which I presume is more correct from your point of view.

    So why default G2F underknee 'gender-specific' bend considered to be better than original Genesis bend and not to be corrected? From what I see from pictures you posted, you will have to correct G2F default bends anyway if V5 underknee bend crease from post #507 is of any indication of better bends you want to have, because it isn't any near this sharper shape.

    G2F still has a lot of hidden correction stuff, only they aren't JCMs as much as CTRL properties (basically, scaling and pushing).

    G2F_GenesisKneeBend.jpg
    416 x 543 - 60K
    G2F_DefaultKneeBend.jpg
    401 x 527 - 77K
    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited December 1969

    Well inside crease is much better in the second image. I'm guessing, and I could be wrong.. that there might be a general softening in the general shapes vs the Vx shapes to give the Vx shapes a market.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    Well inside crease is much better in the second image. I'm guessing, and I could be wrong.. that there might be a general softening in the general shapes vs the Vx shapes to give the Vx shapes a market.

    Just to be clear: second image is a unisex OriginalGenesis shape (unlocked, not transferred) with G2F rigging. First is default G2F female shape.
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited July 2013

    On a separate note.... any software company has a similar approach in that they come out with a version, come up with a series of patches, add-ons, etc... and eventually roll many of (not all) those into a new version/starting point. That is how they pay the bills. They aren't going to survive just updating the previous version beyond a certain point. This does have the advantage of giving a new starting point.

    The one challenging thing here is the fundamental change of vision in the 'Genesis' concept and hopefully, through this dialog that's been going on in the forums, DAZ might consider two separate paths, one with optimized figures, and another with a generic base. You are right about Heavy vs light being a drastic difference also, perhaps even greater then the gender issue. That was why Freak had his own base figure. There should be a base figure for Heavy also.

    Whatever route DAZ takes, some people will be disappointed as there are always tradeoffs. Having two lines does create a content issue even more then the current direction they seem to be headed in that some content would be made for base figures, some for the generic base. I think this would be good in the long run, but people who had the generic figure as their focus would probably complain at how their clothing didn't work as well as clothing made for specific bases and how, well you see how this could go....

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited December 1969

    Kattey said:
    Gedd said:
    Well inside crease is much better in the second image. I'm guessing, and I could be wrong.. that there might be a general softening in the general shapes vs the Vx shapes to give the Vx shapes a market.

    Just to be clear: second image is a unisex OriginalGenesis shape (unlocked, not transferred) with G2F rigging. First is default G2F female shape.

    Well at that level of bend, I have to agree either way the second one is better.

  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited July 2013

    The next real advance will be when soft body collision is incorporated into the mesh for realistic deforms without deformers.

    Also, personally I wish DAZ would have taken this opportunity to upgrade the rigging in general, especially in the face. And while we're wishing, it would be nice to have visible rig controls on the actual characters rather then have to dig through an interface to find what ones happened to be tucked where.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited July 2013

    Gedd, I'm not saying that techology shouldn't move on, but my whole big dissatisfaction with G2F is that technology in it looks stagnated and all changed done 1) from technical standpoint don't provide actual gender-specific benefits to justify the split 2) make it a huge step back to Generation 4 3) (such as improved mesh and rigging) could have been done on unisex figure instead of female one with the same level of technical innovation 4) feel extremely rushed and customer-unfriendly because we lost so much functionality that amount of added technical improvements don't balance this at the slightest. It is almost like opposite of fear of change. I want a change. I want a better Genesis figure, true to concept. I see no technical reasons why it couldn't have been done while true to concept. But all pluses and minuses combined, G2F isn't one.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited July 2013

    Well I don't disagree they could have done more to have a generational change, as many of my posts have indicated.

    My other point has been however, that many people here are in favor of more base figures that have more control of detail for that specific type of character... debating throwing out the split altogether is something that has been done extensively and basically there are different views on this that aren't going to be resolved. The reason is of course that there are good reasons for each... it appears you are unable to see the reasons for the split, which is ok... but regardless, there are people who welcome it and debating it further will serve no purpose. Personally, I see a vision for both, but that's just me.

    [Edit] I do think posts where well presented areas like the Knee morph issue is presented as a 'why is the newer version apparently retrograde in this...' Points like that are very useful in understanding the benefits and tradeoffs of new/old. Specific comparison points are good if they are bringing new information to the table to think about.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    The next real advance will be when soft body collision is incorporated into the mesh for realistic deforms without deformers.
    Poser now has Bullet physics. Some guys were making Bullet physics plugin for DS years ago and we still don't have it. *grumble, grumble*

    Also, personally I wish DAZ would have taken this opportunity to upgrade the rigging in general, especially in the face. And while we're wishing, it would be nice to have visible rig controls on the actual characters rather then have to dig through an interface to find what ones happened to be tucked where.


    But-but-but... I'm finding visible controllers visually annoying -_-
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited July 2013

    Visible controllers in Poser? I haven't used Poser in years if that's the case, but are the controllers always visible or only when in pose mode? More specifically, visible controllers should be visible when in pose mode and that area is selected.

    I do prefer sliders for morphs. Thinking about it, my gripe isn't as much sliders vs visible controllers for posing things like eyebrow arch as it is the sliders aren't categorized in a manner that makes sense for most people from what I've seen in posts over the time I'm here.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited July 2013

    The reason is of course that there are good reasons for each… it appears you are unable to see the reasons for the split, which is ok… but regardless, there are people who welcome it and debating it further will serve no purpose.
    I'm able to see the reasons but so far nobody have shown me a convincing technical proof that G2F's 'gender-specific' rigging/weightmaps/mesh improvements convey the new level of benefits that can't be unisex with the same level of attention. I'm asking people for proofs (because as with any human being, my perception isn't absolute) but so far those proofs aren't convincing: rigging and weightmapping when applied to male shape doesn't make it any more female, on unisex figure bends seems to be even better, there are no double adjustments with transferred morphs, etc, etc.
    Personally, I see a vision for both, but that’s just me.

    If it was a DAZ3D vision, Genesis would have had an official G2F autofit clone (and it is one of the easiest things to do too). If only I knew how to make/correct Projection Templates....
    Post edited by Kattey on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    Visible controllers in Poser? I haven't used Poser in years if that's the case, but are the controllers always visible or only when in pose mode? More specifically, visible controllers should be visible when in pose mode and that area is selected.

    No, not in Poser. I saw visual controllers (like for eyes, and such) in some other applications.
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited December 1969

    Someone did put up an image of breast differences which were obvious, albeit it was a single post.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    Someone did put up an image of breast differences which were obvious, albeit it was a single post.

    Any links?
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited July 2013

    No, but it was in one of these threads. The previous version had obvious edges showing where it should have been smooth. I've run into this myself, as I'm sure most people who've done any amount of morphing breasts have. The G2F version was noticeably smoother and more realistic with the same morph. Also, if one tried to flatten out the chest entirely as one did in another image (same general area as the previously mentioned image I believe) it didn't smooth out to a decent looking set of male pectorals. It was also mentioned that the added vertices would make fitting clothing in the chest area easier, without the cling wrap by default so much, or the pinching that happens with some outfits. I have not tested this myself.

    As I mentioned before, the polygon flow in the hip/pelvis area are also different. Archeologists use this as the prime area to determine if a skeleton is male or female. The joints, elbows/knees are not specific to male or female to any extent that I know of so discussing them, while relevant to gen5 vs gen6 issues is not germane to gender specific issues.

    Perhaps instead of a male/female specific base shape they should have come up with a boobies with female hips/pelvis and related area vs no boobies and male hips/pelvis and related area bases...

    [Edit] Deleted part about joints, as there are environmental issues that are greater here. The real issues are the ones above.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited July 2013

    Gedd, without images and texts that surround them I can't really say if those examples are justified, because my point is that while the mesh in G2F _is_ improved, it can and should have been unisex. Yes, improved mesh would make some areas smoother/sharper/better but why it has to be limited only to female shape?

    As I mentioned before, the polygon flow in the hip/pelvis area are also different. Archeologists use this as the prime area to determine if a skeleton is male or female.

    It is an interesting phrase because I believe I saw MallenLane's (who are designing whole Genesis/G2F/G2M line) saying something along the lines that mesh for Genesis 2 figures is the same, polygon-wise, for both incoming G2M and G2F figures. Can be mistaken but this is my distinct impression.
    Post edited by Kattey on
  • larsmidnattlarsmidnatt Posts: 4,511
    edited December 1969

    I will say for certain that I haven't used Sub-D at 2 yet for any of my G2F renders, where for G1 I always had to do that to get the figures to look natural. I'm actually a bit surprised it worked out so well.

    But I do a lot of curvy pinup gals so it's always more noticeable in my works. Others mileage may vary.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited July 2013

    I never had to use Subdivition 2 on Genesis either and I don't ever do curvy pinups ^^" (unless you consider a guy with bunch of crystals growing from him as a curvy pinup)
    I had to use higher Subdibision on some old clothes, autofitted to Genesis, and hair, but never a figure itself.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited July 2013

    Kattey said:
    Gedd, without images and texts that surround them I can't really say if those examples are justified, because my point is that while the mesh in G2F _is_ improved, it can and should have been unisex. Yes, improved mesh would make some areas smoother/sharper/better but why it has to be limited only to female shape?

    As I mentioned before, the polygon flow in the hip/pelvis area are also different. Archeologists use this as the prime area to determine if a skeleton is male or female.

    It is an interesting phrase because I believe I saw MallenLane's (who are designing whole Genesis/G2F/G2M line) saying something along the lines that mesh for Genesis 2 figures is the same, polygon-wise, for both incoming G2M and G2F figures. Can be mistaken but this is my distinct impression.

    As to point one... males don't have breasts. Putting in polygons in that area along with the flow for them only complicates things like texturing that area among other things. It also complicates other issues related to morphs. Male figures should have more lat area then females by default also. I've tried explaining this but without the other person studying topology, uv maps, stretching/pinching, etc.. it does't seem to get across at times.

    As to point two, I have made this point from the beginning when I first saw the mesh. The differences between Gen5 and Gen6 are obvious looking at the mesh. If they carry the same topo over to the male mesh, then they are not taking advantage of one of the main reasons to go to different meshes, so in that case I would say it would be a fail. But the only way to know that is to see what comes.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    As to point one... males don't have breasts.
    Not even manboobs? They looked quite like breasts to me, albeit not very good.

    If they carry the same topo over to the male mesh, then they are not taking advantage of one of the main reasons to go to different meshes, so in that case I would say it would be a fail. But the only way to know that is to see what comes.


    And if they won't, it would be a fall back to Generation 1 and even bigger fail, IMHO.
  • Joe CotterJoe Cotter Posts: 3,234
    edited July 2013

    It appears one of the underlying differences people are having is with one group debating the perceived actual differences Gen5 has over Gen6 vs what different base figures can achieve. Whether DAZ delivers on the split or not is somewhat unrelated from if there is a reason for doing it. Both have good debatable points. The problem comes when people in the debate are mixing the two to different degrees.

    The other issue being that different people have different takes on what is important, and it is important to not put only our own take on what is important forward as if it was the only one that was correct. The best solution will not satisfy anyone totally, but will hopefully satisfy as many as possible as much as possible, which means compromises.

    Post edited by Joe Cotter on
Sign In or Register to comment.