Victoria 6 has been released.

11415161719

Comments

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited July 2013

    Gedd said:
    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.
    It is sort of Siamese twins process, I think. How would you look at the existing actual difference between default Genesis and G2F shapes and rigging when, to compare them adequately, oranges to oranges, you need compare them on similar shapes, which leads to some proofs of concept that G2F could have been unisex and bend not any worse than G2F current shape does?

    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.


    Speaking from technical aspects, I think people are also mixing following things: rigging in next generation is improved (which I think is true), this rigging is improved _because_ G2F is female and cannot be used for unisex figure (which I think isn't true) and rigging is improved so much that correction morphs or other hidden corrections would not be needed anymore in Genesis 2+ if we strive for better bends (which I think isn't true with current level of technology). For morphing/shaping, I think other issues are mixed: new mesh is an improved mesh (which I think is true), new mesh is a better female mesh _because_ it is made specifically for female shapes (which I don't think is or will be true, because I highly suspect G2M will be same mesh, just reshaped and reskinned, and there is an very much same unisex shape as Genesis in G2F already), new mesh isn't suitable for unisex figure (which I think isn't true), and new mesh must be made female and only female because the rigging is 'female' (which I don't think is true because see above about rigging).
    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited December 1969

    wowie said:

    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.

    And that's expecting perfection and no figure is going to do that. And even if it does, there's going to be a whole new set of problems to deal with with any new figure.

  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited December 1969

    Pendraia said:
    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.

    Agreed.

  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited December 1969

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

    Trust me. I can make her ugly for you. ;)

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

    @ Pendraia... you are one of many from what I can discern.

    I debate both sides of the fence but would miss further development of the original Genesis concept if it wasn't continued.

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 36,414
    edited July 2013

    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.
    [...]

    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.

    [...]


    ...this is precisely what I have been getting at. More new content, which, as we have already seen, will not be compatible with the original Genesis. If it involves less work, why wouldn't a PA be more attracted go this route instead? We experienced the same situation back when Genesis was released as it was easier to make conforming clothing for it than the Gen4 figures with all the additional rigging/fit/JCM issues involved.

    Look back over the last year and see just how much Gen4 content has been released in comparison to that for Genesis here in the Daz store. The ratio is pretty skewed in favour of Genesis. This is why I and others are concerned. Other stores have not fully embraced Genesis as much since they also cater to customers who use software other than Daz Studio which either poorly supports, or doesn't support Daz's Tri-Ax weight mapping. So I don't necessarily see an increased shift to providing more Genesis content in the future there just because G2 has taken its place.

    Not providing content for a given figure is essentially not supporting that figure. It happened with Gen4 after Genesis was released and it is most likely bound to happen again with Genesis with G2 now available particularly if as you mention, it no longer requires dealing with all those pesky JCMs that Genesis involved.

    Like others, I have a fairly large investment in this already. I am tapped out, I cannot afford a whole new wardrobe of content and essentially "ditch" a good portion of what I already have because Daz no longer cares about continuing iconic figure support (which is now required for both UV compatibility and fitting) for their "new arrival".


    ...still waiting on an official response to say "Hey, we haven't forgotten about the kids!".
    ...if the release of K4 was any indicator, we could be in for a long wait. I feel the same concerning a G2Teen as well.

    This is just one other reason (besides the huge reinvestment in new content) why I am extremely hesitant to adopt G2. Not about to play the "go back to square one" game all over again when I finally have what I need to support my ideas.

    Post edited by kyoto kid on
  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 36,414
    edited December 1969

    ...and take a few days off from rolling out new shinies for V6 to fix this bloody forum timeout bug.

    It has been getting more and more obnoxious as of late and a real pain for those of us with slower connections as we have to wait through several extra screen refreshes. It took me nearly 12 minutes to fix a simple typo because I was logged out and had to sign back in all over again then reopen the thread so I can re-edit the post because I'm always directed to my account page instead.

  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited December 1969

    Kattey said:

    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).

    In which post did I wrote the G2F knees (or other joints for that matter) are better?

    I think G2F still needs corrective adjustments. From what I've seen though, the correctiohs hold with almost any morphs currently available. This is different with Genesis (as I've illustrated).

  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited December 1969


    And that's expecting perfection and no figure is going to do that. And even if it does, there's going to be a whole new set of problems to deal with with any new figure.

    Then those are your words, not mine.

  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited December 1969

    wowie said:

    And that's expecting perfection and no figure is going to do that. And even if it does, there's going to be a whole new set of problems to deal with with any new figure.

    Then those are your words, not mine.

    My words on your expectations? Yes. But I'm not the one expecting perfection when I am perfectly happy with Genesis. ;)

  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    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.

    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.

    There's no need for softbody (although I agree that will be nice)

    http://s2013.siggraph.org/attendees/technical-papers/events/implicit-skinning-real-time-skin-deformation-contact-modeling

    A video

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RHySGIqEgyk

    Somebody already made a formal feature request for the next version of DS (though I'm hoping it will also appear for Carrara). I do wonder though if rigidity maps could be used instead. I haven't tried it yet.

    A figure with such a feature, plus muscle weight maps and wrinkle maps will be a godsend.

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

    That only deals with self intersection, not the interaction of the soft body mesh of a character with other surfaces, such as a chair etc...

  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited December 1969

    Gedd said:
    That only deals with self intersection, not the interaction of the soft body mesh of a character with other surfaces, such as a chair etc...

    That's why I'm curious whether or not DAZ will integrate such tools to Carrara, which has Bullet Physics.

  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited July 2013

    Here's a shot of a thigh/butt correction I've made with Genesis. I originally made it with V4 shape in mind.

    When I switched back to basic Genesis shape (non male and female), the correction on the lower thigh was too strong, so I dialed that back. It can be applied as a correction to the V4 shape rather than joint correction. The last pic is the Genesis base shape without the V4 shape correction.

    ThighGenBaseCorrected.jpg
    736 x 704 - 111K
    ThighGenBase.jpg
    736 x 704 - 114K
    ThighV4.jpg
    736 x 704 - 109K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited December 1969

    Let's see what other shapes look like.
    This is Genesis Female and Male base.

    ThighGenBaseMCorrected.jpg
    736 x 704 - 113K
    ThighGenBaseFCorrected.jpg
    736 x 704 - 113K
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited December 1969

    Now let's see M4, M5 and V5.

    Looks OK from this angle.

    ThighV5Corrected.jpg
    736 x 704 - 108K
    ThighM5Corrected.jpg
    736 x 704 - 110K
    ThighM4Corrected.jpg
    736 x 704 - 110K
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited July 2013

    This is V4's butt. Note the lateral position of the left butt in relation to the groin area.

    Now let's compare that to Genesis Base shape, Genesis Male Base and Female base. I have tried to position the hip so the placement of the groin stays pretty much the same between shapes.

    They're not as high as I hoped they will be, but acceptable.

    ButtGenBaseF.jpg
    733 x 704 - 135K
    ButtGenBaseM.jpg
    733 x 704 - 132K
    ButtGenBase.jpg
    733 x 704 - 131K
    ButtV4.jpg
    733 x 704 - 125K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited July 2013

    Time for M4, M5 and V5. V5 is a little off in positioning.

    Now, I could make corrections to the butt and thigh to have a similar look to V4, but those corrections can't be used as shape corrections (strictly JCMs). Which I prefer not to do.

    So, Kattey. How would you fix this particular inconsistency between shapes? Because if you can, I think there will be a lot of thankful Genesis users. Without resorting to methods like ZeV0's butt bend fix.

    ButtV5.jpg
    733 x 704 - 132K
    ButtM5.jpg
    733 x 704 - 136K
    ButtM4.jpg
    733 x 704 - 138K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • HellboyHellboy Posts: 1,383
    edited July 2013

    Even with those unmapped, wireframe closeups without subdivision, its barely noticeable.
    I don’t see anything so far that justifies losing all the really good, useful features while spending double.

    Gedd said:
    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.

    I made male textures for Genesis and never had a single issue.

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

    I would have to agree regarding those comparisons.

  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited December 1969

    Hellboy said:
    Even with those unmapped, wireframe closeups without subdivision, its barely noticeable.
    I don’t see anything so far that justifies losing all the really good, useful features while spending double.

    Gedd said:
    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.

    I made male textures for Genesis and never had a single issue.

    Totally agree. The minor "improvements" are not worth the gender split.

  • Lissa_xyzLissa_xyz Posts: 6,099
    edited July 2013

    Gedd said:
    As to point one... males don't have breasts.

    Realistic men most certainly can have breasts. Whether they're there by being unfit, transgendered, hormone imbalance.. they can certainly have them.

    I invite you to Google "gynecomastia".

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

    So, Kattey. How would you fix this particular inconsistency between shapes? Because if you can, I think there will be a lot of thankful Genesis users. Without resorting to methods like ZeV0’s butt bend fix.

    I agree with others, changes are barely noticeable. I had to look really close to make any difference, and for me this barely noticeable change doesn't make a figure any more right or realistic because-I-believe-in-an-infinite-variety-of-human-body position.

    But for sake of science: in G2F rigging adjustments are solved through CTRL properties instead of JCMs, from what I see, through custom scaling of various axes of bones, i.e. if you want a thigh wider, you scale Z axis slightly, etc. I think CTRL are more sophisticated than just scaling we have through parameters tab, which is why I don't think G2F has any less of hidden stuff than Genesis had with JCMs. This method by itself isn't 'female' at slightest, and can be used with unisex shape.

    As for fixing those inconsistencies on global level, the tech would need to know how to automatically recalculate behavior of surface depending on change of shape and rigging to give any particular user a result user wants. We can adjust shape (morphs) and rigging (bone adjustments/ERC freeze), but tech isn't here yet for weightmaps. And even when it arrives, I'm pretty sure somebody will think the result _still_ needs adjustments, because beauty (or a lack of such) is in the eyes of beholder. I don't believe that until we introduce mind-reading to DAZ Studio, it would be possible to create a perfectly responsive figure that would change in an ideal way to any user (because your adjustments aren't what I like, and the other way around). Genesis came pretty close to this ideal thing with current level of technology, and G2F is a step back because it doesn't use those few advances of technology DS 4.6 introduced to full measure.

    But when if you want to compare how Genesis and G2F rigs/skins hold with adjustments regardless of the shape, you probably should either introduce G2F to male and neutral shapes and rigging adjustments, or limit Genesis to female shapes only, because otherwise G2F will look better due to limited nature of the changes in it (can't compare male and neutral shapes on default G2F). Or we are not longer talking about this?

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

    Vaskania said:
    Gedd said:
    As to point one... males don't have breasts.

    Realistic men most certainly can have breasts. Whether they're there by being unfit, transgendered, hormone imbalance.. they can certainly have them.

    I invite you to Google "gynecomastia".
    I understand that, there are exceptions to every rule of course. If someone was going to make a male character with breasts they could morph it from a female character. The point is, on 99% of the cases, males don't have breasts and they are a significant area of variation in mesh that requires attention if one is going to make a mesh that takes breasts into account.

  • JOdelJOdel Posts: 5,808
    edited December 1969

    More to the point. Pre-pubic females usually don't have breadsts either.How long are we going to have to wait until we can build Genesis 2 11-year-olds?

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 36,414
    edited December 1969

    ...exactly. Thank you. I struggled enough in Gen 4 to come only so close without having to script my own morphs (which I had no knowledge of how to do anyway).

    Not about to wait a couple years for a G2T/YT6 or G2K/K6.

  • murgatroyd314murgatroyd314 Posts: 1,184
    edited December 1969

    JOdel said:
    More to the point. Pre-pubic females usually don't have breadsts either.How long are we going to have to wait until we can build Genesis 2 11-year-olds?

    It'll probably be possible to do it from a male base. Hope your 11-year-old girls like men's clothing. (Only being slightly sarcastic here.)

  • Lissa_xyzLissa_xyz Posts: 6,099
    edited December 1969

    JOdel said:
    More to the point. Pre-pubic females usually don't have breadsts either.How long are we going to have to wait until we can build Genesis 2 11-year-olds?

    It'll probably be possible to do it from a male base. Hope your 11-year-old girls like men's clothing. (Only being slightly sarcastic here.)

    That requires waiting for a male base. lol

  • SassyWenchSassyWench Posts: 602
    edited December 1969

    Couldn't it be done by setting G2F to Androgynous first?

  • kyoto kidkyoto kid Posts: 36,414
    edited December 1969

    ...I'll just stick with the "Original" as it already allows me to do so and use whatever clothing I please.

    10 year old Annika Grozenk Grande from my story.

    Base Figure: Genesis, YT5 (both Julie and Justin), Basic Kid.

    Hair: Bolina Hair by 3Dream/Mairy. Skin MAT: Thorne/Sarsa's Tommi for V4.2

    Clothing - Top: Sadie Fae by Mada/Thorne, Capri Jeans: JeanZ for V4 by 3D Wizard, Shoes: Teen Ashley Clothing by 3DUniverse

    Annika.jpg
    636 x 900 - 388K
Sign In or Register to comment.