I want V4 Products not V5 or V6. Planned Obsolescence Has To Stop.
This discussion has been closed.
Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
224 S 200 W, Suite #250
Salt Lake City, UT 84101
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
You could make a new thread/topic on this subject and post a link to it in this thread since it looks like others want to discuss it as well :O)
Actually, Anna, since I was pretty much the guy who made the big deal about it here, I was going to ask if all the posts regarding male skimpware be moved into it's own topic. I actually want this to be discussed into something that might actually help influence the way male content will go for G2M.
Greetings,
I would only suggest, for the male skimpwear topic, that you google 'Brosie the Riveter'. It's an awesome story of subverting this particular issue, and shows off skimpwear for men. :)
-- Morgan
K6 is fine. I just want to see some movement on that front. Zev0's kids morphs look incredible (when do they ever not?) but ultimately it's just the shape. Since Young Teens was the only real official kids launch with Genesis, and an older generation of kids at that, there hasn't been many clothes which suit children as well as the adults for the figure. When G2F was launched without the Basic Child morph my best guesses were that they were either not adding kids to the new Generation or that they were saving them for a unique release like M6 and V6. The former would almost be an unspeakable crime, so I'm hedging my bets on the latter.
So, either a full K6 launch or some backwards compatibility for K4 textures and the like would be ideal. Both would be the icing on the Genesis 2 cake.
Well, I'm not looking at Gen 4 figures with Rose tinted Glasses.
I didn't have trouble with Gen 3 when it came out. I didn't have trouble with Gen 4.
I installed them, could easily find them, clothe them, pose them. No problems.
Do I have poke thru sometimes? Yes. Depends on the outfit.
So no rose tinted glasses here.
I load V4 into Carrara 7Pro or Daz and she works. Natively.
No funky DSONs or broken Carrara 8.5 needed.
I have a friend who loaded Genesis on his computer back when it came out. He hated it.
I wanted to see for myself (and didn't want to mess up my system) so I went over to his place.
Damn thing didn't pose right, couldn't morph it to look right, the clothes didn't fit right.
We're both experienced users, not newbies.
Thought it was a piece of junk and was shocked when Daz kept pushing this thing.
Even more shocked that people began defending it, considering we had both declared it DOA.
I was rendering V4 stuff an hour after getting her.
I don't think the TWO of us got a single render after struggling with Genesis the better part of the day.
Now obviously, some of you have got this thing working and some of you swear by Genesis, so it can't be a complete piece of junk. Some of the renders I see are incredible for Genesis. So, at some point, when I get an extra machine, I'll load it up and struggle with it some more.
I really would like to see what some of you see in this figure.
Versatility, innovation and ease of use. While I could do the same with Generation 4, moving morphs from V4 to M4 (because some were made for V4 and some for M4 but not for both) and crossdressing clothes from M4 to V4 was a lot of bother, import and export and jump through the loops. With Genesis I have a figure that can morph in the way I want and wear clothes I want much easier and without paying a double price.
To really leverage Genesis best I think you have to be a DS user. I tried C8.5 and quit after many attempts because it doesn't work with Genesis to my standards (or any standards from what I could see).
So for some I think they have a harder time seeing value in Genesis because they use other software, software that works well with Gen3/Gen4. So really no value in Genesis to them in practice, which makes sense because they get more done using supported content.
Genesis works very well for me in DS, but I haven't tried in Carrara. (I do a bit of modeling in Carrara, but I don't use it for rendering very often.) I don't use Poser very often, either, but I do understand that Poser users have had a lot of trouble getting Genesis to work as easily as the 4th gen figures. So what software one prefers might be a major factor in how much one likes Genesis. (Note that I am NOT suggesting anyone ought to change their software of choice, just recognizing that the software used probably correlates with how much people like Genesis.)
What I like most is the ability to mix and match morphs, textures, conforming clothing and accessories, etc., without regard for what kind of shape the creator had in mind. Most of my images are manga style or feature non-human figures, and a lot of my female characters are dressed in pants and shirts, or other "practical" clothing. When I have both genders in a scene, sometimes they're in uniform or otherwise need to wear clothes in the same style or that match, and because Genesis (original) is gender-neutral, I can do that easily. I can add anime-sized eyes to a RawArt anthropomorphic character, and morph to male, female, and child versions so I can have a scene of related figures, and clothes will fit all of them. I can mix ethnic features into my manga character designs. I feel that Genesis puts fewer constraints on my ability to create characters that match my vision.
I also like the way collision detection and smoothing works, for the most part-- clothes will usually fit my Genesis figures even when I've piled on a number of odd morphs.
There are things I don't like as much. The way smoothing works, currently, tends to limit the kinds of modeled details clothes can have, and sometimes obscures details that do exist. (This is the "doughy clothes" complaint.) Geografting sometimes looks odd or limits the textures the base figure can use. Rigging long skirts is very different than it was in 4th gen and earlier, and content creators haven't built up the years of expertise they had with the previous rigging tech, so I'm still waiting to see really good skirts with a full complement of movement and style morphs (especially sit and kneel morphs), and I've almost given up hope that we'll ever get a Genesis kimono, even a simple yukata. And I wish we could make morphs that go from quadruped to biped and back (e.g. werewolf transformations).
Clothing conversion utilities were very weak early on, but I think they have improved tremendously, especially with SRMS. Rigging tools have been improved in DS 4.6, making it easier to influence the same area from multiple joints, which we need for things like long skirts. Hopefully support in other applications will also continue to improve.
I'm reserving judgment on G2F. I'm not very happy about the gender split, because it undermines a lot of what I like about the Genesis concept, but I do like some of the enhancements like individually rigged toes and lower jaw. I think we'll need to see how easy it really is to convert content from one G2 figure to another. (E.g. what will happen to custom bones?) I think we can reasonably expect G2M without too much delay, but I don't know if we'll ever see a separate child figure. I don't know as that matters so much from the standpoint of creating realistic children, as Zev0's morphs are likely to be enough, but figure launches tend to also mean a surge in content designed for that figure concept, so we'd probably need a child figure release to get much in the way of child-specific clothes.
So... you asked, and that's my answer. I don't claim to speak for anyone else. :)
Actually, I PMed Anna about that, she said that she'll try proposing something to "the bosses" over at DAZ for a K6 with child UVs.
I love Genesis 1 for it's versatility. You can share morphs & clothes designed for any type of figure, male, female, child, adult. With auto fit & Gen X I have access to all the old & new stuff. This versatility allows me to quickly create just about anything I can imagine in my own style. I like the ability to use parts from several different outfits to create something that is not easily recognized. I have so many morphs it almost feels as though I'm sculpting with clay. I can and have done custom sculpts but the dials can be so much faster, allowing me to create much more. With previous generations I felt like a photographer, with genesis I feel like a God.
I have little interest in Genesis 2 right now. I see & appreciate the improvements but I need the versatility of Genesis 1 to create works that feel like they are my own. I might try to convert things over at some point.
Anyway, I'm just sharing what works for me. I've seen amazing stuff done with all generations, so it's all about what most effectively allows you to achieve the result your after. Hopefully the market will remain large enough for all of us. It's nice when multiple figures can be supported but it's understandable that this is not always viable.
Could not have said it better myself. I'm loving Genesis 1! Any figure that lets me mix V2, V4 and SP products to make an outfit is awesome!
Right out of the box it loaded fine, and the morphs are built in rather than applied as an injection morph like Victoria 4. There is no need to hunt down every individual character morph or pack in my ample content library, a strong 90% of all of them are available simply as a morph slider. I can blend a little of each character into the others without the use of separate plugins to create countless unique characters, something I was unable to do using Victoria or K4.
I can add weight to figures to make them more plump, and remove weight to make them underdeveloped. I can alter height and age dynamically on the fly and use any prior skin for V4, K4 or M4 figure on it. I can make Genesis look almost identical to her V4 counterpart or his M4 counterpart respectively. I can add almost any outfit for both M4, K4, V4 to Genesis and have it shrink fit immediately to the figure I'm using, irrespective of which morphs I'm currently applying. I have a vast wardrobe of Genesis hairs and clothing, all of which fit the myriad of characters which Genesis can become straight out of the package.
I can use some of the added correction morphs to fix minor issues such as clingy clothing, and some bending issues. I can apply my old morphs for Gen4 characters to Genesis using Generation X. Lastly, I can do all of this without needing to concern myself with how it works. I just click and it performs. For my part, it's easily the smoothest most issue-free figure I've ever had the pleasure to work with. You wanted to know what I see in the figure, well there's your answer.
Genesis 2 offers most of the above, though I was admittedly dismayed at the loss of the child morphs. It also offers more. More expressions thanks to the beautifully detailed face, more movement thanks to better rigging and ultimately more realism. I've always said that one of my goals is to make at least one image that is almost indistinguishable from a photograph. To do this, I need a figure which is up to the challenge. I think Genesis 2 might just be that figure.
I'm not sure when "skimpwear" became the term; I was always referring to "slutwear," clothing designed specifically to make someone look sexually appealing. It can cover the entire body even.
Showing skin, for example. That can help sell a sexy outfit for both genders (though I don't think it's at all fundamental or necessary). But for men, you generally want to show the torso, for women you go for the legs and maybe cleavage, but never the entire chest or it can hit barbaric/pornographic notes. And concealing the same parts on a man as you do on a woman for titillation often looks ridiculous. You can argue a woman looks ridiculous too, but not everyone likes sexualization, and it still fulfills the purpose. Put a man and a woman in a loincloth and Princess Leia's bikini top, the woman still looks feminine. The man looks like he got reaally, really drunk. Take off the top and he's just as passable as she is.
Putting this separately as it's not directly related to the other discussion.
Nope. Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.
Humans being a species that reproduces sexually, both genders have been evolutionarily driven to be more sexualized.
Nope. Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.
Humans being a species that reproduces sexually, both genders have been evolutionarily driven to be more sexualized.
This. It is actually society that struggles to desexualize people. Conservative media is constantly railing against human nature and how it's reflected in advertising.
Nope. Nope. Nope nope nope nope nope.
Humans being a species that reproduces sexually, both genders have been evolutionarily driven to be more sexualized.
I think Paradigm is making the social constructivist argument, i.e. she was constructed by society to be more sexualized. If one is thinking in terms of social construction, biological determinism has next to no place in the conversation, unless, that is, one wants to argue that the idea of biological determinism is in of itself a social construction.
This sort of thing is the domain of philosophers, social scientists and first tier English majors.
I think Paradigm is making the social constructivist argument, i.e. she was constructed by society to be more sexualized. If one is thinking in terms of social construction, biological determinism has next to no place in the conversation, unless, that is, one wants to argue that the idea of biological determinism is in of itself a social construction.
This sort of thing is the domain of philosophers, social scientists and first tier English majors.
Doctoral students in education get into it, too. ;)
I think Paradigm is making the social constructivist argument, i.e. she was constructed by society to be more sexualized. If one is thinking in terms of social construction, biological determinism has next to no place in the conversation, unless, that is, one wants to argue that the idea of biological determinism is in of itself a social construction.
This sort of thing is the domain of philosophers, social scientists and first tier English majors.
I'd actually like to argue that social construction is consequent to biological determinism. =P
Agent_Unawares, exactly my point! It's an unfortunate disproportion, but when it comes to sexual appeal, you have to take into consideration what drives the attraction. For most heterosexual males, it's women with a lot of skin, and for most heterosexual women, it's topless men with a ripped body. Then there's the factors that, as stereotypical as they are, still ring evident in society: men are more sexually drawn to looks and women are more emotionally drawn to personality. This is why short skirts and midriff tops sell to men while muscle outfits and romantic suits do it for women. Don't believe me? Take a look at men & women's magazines, look at the posters young men & women have on their walls, take a step into any major clothing brand store.
Animus & Anima is ever a powerful duality! :)
Keep in mind that what looks attractive is culturally dependent, and this can actually drive biological features. There are a number of particularly striking examples in Africa, which is has been less culturally homogenized than Europe over the past thousand years. Interesting discussion here: http://clamormagazine.org/issues/15/feature1.php
Well of course, culture effects a great deal of things in each society. But there are also pornographic studies that show that people from all around the world look up material under certain common categories. Hell, it's been found that most viewed material in Southern States in the US is ebony and the most viewed material in Middle Eastern countries is gay.
But all of that doesn't matter to this matter, because what's evident is that the most purchased content here at DAZ is females and their slutware and I'm quite sure that the majority of these investors are men, as with anything in the realm of computer/3D. That seems pretty Western, doesn't it? But we don't know exactly know where all these people are buying from or how far out exactly DAZ sells their content. We can't really play it by culture so much as we have to play it by direct gender of the audience if we're going to get male content to sell better. We need to play the assumption of what will stoke a man's ego as well as what will entice a woman.
What the hell happened to all the posts from 21 July?
I know I posted here and so did others.
There were? I don't recall any.
Some of the Admins did say the Forums themselves have been doing that every now and then.
Or you could be getting confused as to which of 2 similar threads you posted in. :roll: :coolsmirk:
This is why short skirts and midriff tops sell to men
Actually, those outfits are equally as appealing to both the male and female base. If you look at the types of outfits most Renderosity and Sharecg freebie creators focus on, the female base loves the slutware just as much as the guys. It's just the SUPER slutware that only the guys like.
Keep in mind that what looks attractive is culturally dependent, and this can actually drive biological features. There are a number of particularly striking examples in Africa, which is has been less culturally homogenized than Europe over the past thousand years
I disagree. As a general rule (with exceptions among fetishists), what is considered attractive is pretty streamlined and universal (with the ONE exception of various HIGHLY derranged practices throughout history such as flattening babies' heads, corsetry, foot binding, and other degenerate body-disfiguring practices used to visually differentiate the social elite from the worthless commoners and slaves. Note here that I am NOT referring to ritual practices such as scarification and the like-- merely the ones done to separate oneself from the "icky pleibs")
Most of what we find attractive in a mate-- and this is universal and biological-- are indicators of fertility and health. In women, this includes youth (females must be strong in order to endure pregnancy), and supple/firm breasts and buttocks. In males it includes a full head of hair, some degree of muscular definition (esp. of the buttocks, chest, and abs).
Hair is a major area of focus for both genders, but much more so for women than men (some types of male-pattern baldness can sometimes be a sign of heart disease-- which is the biggest contributor to reduced male fertility. It's also an indicator of age-- another major blow against fertility) Hair is also a major indicator of health-- dry and brittle hair can be a sign of malnutrition, chronic disease, or age.
Men are biologically attracted to a very specific waist-to-hip ratio, which is within the maximum range of fertility. However, many cultures (including the west in the past) hold deranged views of sexual attractiveness based on social status instead of biology-- namely, that heavy women are "sexy" because surely they must not have to work very hard if they can be so fat! This is also why many cultures value pale skin in women (in the west it's gone the opposite as we've gotten lazier-- so now a tan is attractive because the girl looks healthier and also more ambitious, and we've moved far, far away from our pre-20th century obsession with female skin so pale it literally looks anemic-- again, a past degenerate mentality we had due to humanity's reprehensible idolization of the social elite-- they surely must be rich if they can avoid work that would result in tanned skin...! Sorry about my bias here. Though I should mention that most of the cultures who still favor pale skin don't suffer from it to a derranged level like nearly every culture including the west used to. DAYUM at how much the west overdid it... Looking at the old paintings, they even idolized ghasttly pale skin in the men back then.)
Yes. I have several thousand poses that were created for Victoria 4. Probably about 10 sets of poses just for her hands. And hundreds of poses I made myself - dance poses, athletic poses etc.
I can't even get Victoria 4 to work in DAZ's own Carrara without spending hours fixing the textures for every single thing I import. Why do I bother importing V4 and her hair and clothes into Carrara if they don't work? Because there are entire sets of location models that only open in Carrara.
Hours? How are you trying to do it? Mental telepathy? I can completely rebuild a V4 shader in about ten minutes. Once done I just drag and drop the universal shader ball to my shaders and never have to rebuild the shader again.
You do realize there are Carrara shaders for Mil4, genesis and genesis 2 female, right?
Are you saying you spent all that money on all those clothes for V4 yet didn't buy the carrara shaders for her? And whom fault is that?
So I load Genesis with the V4 uvmap and set her shaders up. Then I load some clothes on her and have to go to the shader room to change the highlight setting on 2 shaders. Oh my got that is just so much work :-/
Guess what? Unless what you open in carrara is a carrara file you will have to rest the shaders.
Now built in obsolescence is when a product goes bad fast, like TVs or toaster ovens; anyone remember when TVs lasted 20 years?.
Moving forward in technology is not built in obsolesce. Not at all sure where you got the idea it was. Weight painting has been around for ages, carrara had it when DAZ bought it. DAZ is just now bringing DAZ figures up to today standards.
Now going from G1 to G2 with in a matter of months isn't built in obsolescence because G1 still works fine; well as good as it ever did. But it's all marketing now. When the sales of G2F items starts to drop we will see G2 male. Once those sales start to drop we will see G3. It's not built in obsolescence, it's releasing a new version; like cell phones, to keep the sales up. It's not obsolete if it still works, it's just out dated.
As in this comp I am working with now isn't obsolete, it works great and is compatible. Apps run on it as good as I would expect. But it being 14 years old means it's out dated.
Now I like genesis, I love the weight painting, no more poses ruined by tube bends. It's a boon that I can use all my mil4 items with genesis; autofit may not work as good as it could but then DAZ wouldn't be making 50% off the PA's workarounds if it did.
For me I have far more serious issues with DAZ then not really supporting a 5 year old figure. My issues have to do with DAZ switching horses mid stream.
Well, I hope I will be forgiven the slight thread derail, but remember, that most of those 'deranged' practices kind of served a need, even if they were sometimes 'overdone' as you correctly put it.
We're talking about societies here that were based on inequality, and in such a society the 'betters' can't just look the same as everyone else - I mean how are you gonna tell apart a king from a peasant? The way ruling worked back in those days (and really, I'm not sure any other way of ruling would have cut it - IN THOSE DAYS), you absolutely had to look fancy, to legitimize your rule. It did, in some small part, contribute to the stability of society.
We tend to look back at our ancestors with such contempt, that we often overlook how smart and resourceful they often were - just as much as we are today. That's not to say, everything that was done at any given time was right, or just or even fair - but that's just as true today. We evolved technologically, and a little bit biologically - but mentally? Barely.
I'd be more convinced about the "beauty is universal" argument if it were backed by a study that specifically included non-Westernized cultures, or even historical retrospective. The research I've looked at makes a case for general attributes of health, but not the specific measures some are claiming. Even in terms of presenting a healthy appearance, tanning, extreme dieting and high heels all come to mind as highly unhealthy practices that many in modern Westernized culture seem to associate with "beauty."
lol, this thread is so far off the rails your minor course correction won't bring it anywhere near back on topic.
Nope! Not a lift of a finger from me! :3
But in all seriousness, I actually do want to start a distinct topic about this sort of thing.