Loading...
> >

Will There Never Be a Way to Transfer HD Morphs?

124

Comments

  • AsariAsari Posts: 703
    Leana said:
    Asari said:
    An honest question, and not trolling - if it's content sold at Renderosity that bothers Daz so much, why not shut down that altogether with encryption so that only content purchased at Daz will work in Studio? 

    Because it's a very bad idea and they'd lose a lot (if not most) of their customers.

    For one thing, quite a lot of users are against DRM on principle and would just stop buying from Daz because of that.

    Secondly, quite a few customers have a lot of content they bought elsewhere or got for free. Personally if I can't use the ton of content I already have from other places in newer versions if DS, there's a very good chance I'll stop upgrading DS and buying new stuff.

    Thirdly, there are a lot of customers who buy content at Daz to use in other apps. If you restrict the content to DS only or make it more difficult to use elsewhere, you lose them.

    Yeah I understand that. These are all good points.
  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 40,189

    LOL as a person who uses practically all my DAZ content in other apps it would stop me dead spending another cent and I could save up for C4D yes

    addicts need intervention 

  • ChoholeChohole Posts: 33,604
    edited April 2020

    Actually Daz 3d also own and sell programs themself that  are not Daz Studio and still use content from the Daz store (and elsewhere)

    Post edited by Chohole on
  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Luciel said:
    nicstt said:
    codex34_f5f1fb6f55 said:

    To be honest, the HD morphs are a bit of a gimmick, the only thing they provide over other techniques, with the exception of vector normal maps, is that they allow for full or partial undercuts and creasing in the geometry, which is ok for extreme morphs and characters, but practically useless for general everyday human figures. For human figures you can do everything with standard morphs, displacement, bump, and normal maps. The only application I see for human figure HD morphs is in closeup animation because you can change morphs in animation easier than you can change images, but then people are not creating such content, they are creating HD static morphs for human figures, which is pointless IMO. If I want zits, scars and wrinkles on my figures, I get photoshop out.

     

     

    No you can't.

    Details from normal maps for example are lost at the outside.

    Just use tesselation maps then, those can change the silhouette of objects. I mean, you can do so with normal maps and some slightly fancy shader coding too if you like (though it doesn't look the best though as it's a bunch of "shells", and is pretty "heavy" as a shader).

    However, regardless, the point still stands that at even reasonable distances the effects on a "normal" human shape will be virtually indistinguishable. 

    Reasonable, by who's definition. Close ups, and characters often end up in closeups, will change what is 'reasonable'.

    The only substitute for geometry is geometry, anything else is getting around limitations of the system and about what compromises one is going to have to take.

    They can certainly be indistinguishable, but can means they can also be distinguishable too.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Ellessarr said:
    nicstt said:
    codex34_f5f1fb6f55 said:

    To be honest, the HD morphs are a bit of a gimmick, the only thing they provide over other techniques, with the exception of vector normal maps, is that they allow for full or partial undercuts and creasing in the geometry, which is ok for extreme morphs and characters, but practically useless for general everyday human figures. For human figures you can do everything with standard morphs, displacement, bump, and normal maps. The only application I see for human figure HD morphs is in closeup animation because you can change morphs in animation easier than you can change images, but then people are not creating such content, they are creating HD static morphs for human figures, which is pointless IMO. If I want zits, scars and wrinkles on my figures, I get photoshop out.

     

     

    No you can't.

    Details from normal maps for example are lost at the outside.

    and how they are lost?

    Because the details, which are a 'trick' using light, don't exist in the actual geometry.

    So a flat plane with a convincing brick wall, when perceived from certain angles will show as flat, no matter what the normal maps do. You either use real geometry, or consider alternatives such as displacement maps. Iray prefers real geometry to displacement maps, although both have their place.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    edited April 2020
    Leana said:
    Asari said:
    An honest question, and not trolling - if it's content sold at Renderosity that bothers Daz so much, why not shut down that altogether with encryption so that only content purchased at Daz will work in Studio? 

    Because it's a very bad idea and they'd lose a lot (if not most) of their customers.

    For one thing, quite a lot of users are against DRM on principle and would just stop buying from Daz because of that.

    Secondly, quite a few customers have a lot of content they bought elsewhere or got for free. Personally if I can't use the ton of content I already have from other places in newer versions if DS, there's a very good chance I'll stop upgrading DS and buying new stuff.

    Thirdly, there are a lot of customers who buy content at Daz to use in other apps. If you restrict the content to DS only or make it more difficult to use elsewhere, you lose them.

    I'd drop it like a hot brick; and did when it was introduced. It is one of the reasons, probably the main one, that I avoid 'Smart' content like the plague; calling it by another name doesn't stop it incorporating  a DRM system.

    Fortuneately it isn't used, but it still exists, and whilst it exists, I'm not using said system.

    DIM, which I like (as irritating as the new one can be), is my preferred method, but I'm fine with manual if it ever disappears.

    Post edited by nicstt on
  • Hurdy3DHurdy3D Posts: 1,076

    An interesting question would be, what if someone would write a plugin, which allows to import, export and split DAZ HD morphs.

    Would DAZ sell this plugin in the store? devil

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,342
    nicstt said:
    Ellessarr said:
    nicstt said:
    codex34_f5f1fb6f55 said:

    To be honest, the HD morphs are a bit of a gimmick, the only thing they provide over other techniques, with the exception of vector normal maps, is that they allow for full or partial undercuts and creasing in the geometry, which is ok for extreme morphs and characters, but practically useless for general everyday human figures. For human figures you can do everything with standard morphs, displacement, bump, and normal maps. The only application I see for human figure HD morphs is in closeup animation because you can change morphs in animation easier than you can change images, but then people are not creating such content, they are creating HD static morphs for human figures, which is pointless IMO. If I want zits, scars and wrinkles on my figures, I get photoshop out.

     

     

    No you can't.

    Details from normal maps for example are lost at the outside.

    and how they are lost?

    Because the details, which are a 'trick' using light, don't exist in the actual geometry.

    So a flat plane with a convincing brick wall, when perceived from certain angles will show as flat, no matter what the normal maps do. You either use real geometry, or consider alternatives such as displacement maps. Iray prefers real geometry to displacement maps, although both have their place.

    I don't know that Iray prefers anything in that way, but it does need actual vertices to move so displacement has the same resolution limits as HD morphs - unlike 3Delight which doesn't need a pre-divided mesh.

  • LeanaLeana Posts: 12,799
    nicstt said:
    Leana said:
    Asari said:
    An honest question, and not trolling - if it's content sold at Renderosity that bothers Daz so much, why not shut down that altogether with encryption so that only content purchased at Daz will work in Studio? 

    Because it's a very bad idea and they'd lose a lot (if not most) of their customers.

    For one thing, quite a lot of users are against DRM on principle and would just stop buying from Daz because of that.

    Secondly, quite a few customers have a lot of content they bought elsewhere or got for free. Personally if I can't use the ton of content I already have from other places in newer versions if DS, there's a very good chance I'll stop upgrading DS and buying new stuff.

    Thirdly, there are a lot of customers who buy content at Daz to use in other apps. If you restrict the content to DS only or make it more difficult to use elsewhere, you lose them.

    I'd drop it like a hot brick; and did when it was introduced. It is one of the reasons, probably the main one, that I avoid 'Smart' content like the plague; calling it by another name doesn't stop it incorporating  a DRM system.

    Fortuneately it isn't used, but it still exists, and whilst it exists, I'm not using said system.

    DIM, which I like (as irritating as the new one can be), is my preferred method, but I'm fine with manual if it ever disappears.

    Smart content has nothing to do with DRM, it's just a database system to organize your content.

    You're thinking about Connect and the fact it can be used to install encrypted content.

  • LeanaLeana Posts: 12,799
    edited April 2020
    gerster said:

    An interesting question would be, what if someone would write a plugin, which allows to import, export and split DAZ HD morphs.

    Would DAZ sell this plugin in the store? devil

    Maybe, maybe not.

    It would depend on the plugin, I suppose, and on the actual reason why they don't publish theirs (which AFAIK was never given by Daz, all we ever had were possible reasons given by various people). 

    Post edited by Leana on
  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 40,189
    edited April 2020

    HD morphs themselves never really been a thing I sought for human figures

    on creatures it looks great

    what I did seek and certain PA's specifically said they did not want to do was matching displacement maps as an option 

    the best I got was I could make them myself using Xnormal etc

    believe me I tried

    its easier now I know how using Zprojection in Zbrush but would be much simpler if the textures were an option from the start

    some PAs do include them and I am always grateful 

     

    Post edited by WendyLuvsCatz on
  • duckbombduckbomb Posts: 585

    We're straying here.  I get that some people get along fine without HD morphing, and even more can make displacement and normals work for them, but for others the difference is night and day.  The discussion shouldn't be revolving around the validity of the request by the customers, but rather the options at our disposal to solve the issue.   

    Normals and displacement look great, sometimes, but neither are as easy or effective as making quick adjustments in HD and moving forward.  Additionally, since it's not real geometry it's effectively "post work".  I can't make a comically large bump on the head and drape a band aid over it a normal map using Dforce (weird example, but the first to come to mind).  There are tons of reasons why people would prefer the option to use real geo over displacement.

    Exporting out subdivided items, re-importing them (to preserve material zones), and then using GoZ from there seems to work, and when you do it with people you gain the bonus of faster load times.  You lose, however, the ability to pose, though, so...  that's a big drawback lol

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    edited April 2020
    Leana said:
    nicstt said:
    Leana said:
    Asari said:
    An honest question, and not trolling - if it's content sold at Renderosity that bothers Daz so much, why not shut down that altogether with encryption so that only content purchased at Daz will work in Studio? 

    Because it's a very bad idea and they'd lose a lot (if not most) of their customers.

    For one thing, quite a lot of users are against DRM on principle and would just stop buying from Daz because of that.

    Secondly, quite a few customers have a lot of content they bought elsewhere or got for free. Personally if I can't use the ton of content I already have from other places in newer versions if DS, there's a very good chance I'll stop upgrading DS and buying new stuff.

    Thirdly, there are a lot of customers who buy content at Daz to use in other apps. If you restrict the content to DS only or make it more difficult to use elsewhere, you lose them.

    I'd drop it like a hot brick; and did when it was introduced. It is one of the reasons, probably the main one, that I avoid 'Smart' content like the plague; calling it by another name doesn't stop it incorporating  a DRM system.

    Fortuneately it isn't used, but it still exists, and whilst it exists, I'm not using said system.

    DIM, which I like (as irritating as the new one can be), is my preferred method, but I'm fine with manual if it ever disappears.

    Smart content has nothing to do with DRM, it's just a database system to organize your content.

    You're thinking about Connect and the fact it can be used to install encrypted content.

    Indeed, but it is incorporated into Connect; Daz call it Encrypted 'something' (Encypted Daz Connect? It is no longer used, but the feature is still there.) and it's a DRM system.

    DRM systems need to encrypt items to work affectively; Encrypted items aren't necessarily a DRM system. The scripts are encrypted, but they don't phone home or stop working if someone is not authorised to use them.

    Anyway I neither want to deviate from topic, nor get stuff removed.

    ... And Smart Content isn't a Database, it's the system that uses a database. Google isn't a database, although it massively utilises them.

     

    Post edited by nicstt on
  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    duckbomb said:

    We're straying here.  I get that some people get along fine without HD morphing, and even more can make displacement and normals work for them, but for others the difference is night and day.  The discussion shouldn't be revolving around the validity of the request by the customers, but rather the options at our disposal to solve the issue.   

    Normals and displacement look great, sometimes, but neither are as easy or effective as making quick adjustments in HD and moving forward.  Additionally, since it's not real geometry it's effectively "post work".  I can't make a comically large bump on the head and drape a band aid over it a normal map using Dforce (weird example, but the first to come to mind).  There are tons of reasons why people would prefer the option to use real geo over displacement.

    Exporting out subdivided items, re-importing them (to preserve material zones), and then using GoZ from there seems to work, and when you do it with people you gain the bonus of faster load times.  You lose, however, the ability to pose, though, so...  that's a big drawback lol

    I've exported with 3 or 4 levels of subd (after posing etc) made the change I wanted and re-imported as an object; then I've rendered the scene after copying the shaders and materials onto the imported obj. It works fine, but as you say, no posing.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Richard Haseltine said:
    nicstt said:
    Ellessarr said:
    nicstt said:
    codex34_f5f1fb6f55 said:

    To be honest, the HD morphs are a bit of a gimmick, the only thing they provide over other techniques, with the exception of vector normal maps, is that they allow for full or partial undercuts and creasing in the geometry, which is ok for extreme morphs and characters, but practically useless for general everyday human figures. For human figures you can do everything with standard morphs, displacement, bump, and normal maps. The only application I see for human figure HD morphs is in closeup animation because you can change morphs in animation easier than you can change images, but then people are not creating such content, they are creating HD static morphs for human figures, which is pointless IMO. If I want zits, scars and wrinkles on my figures, I get photoshop out.

     

     

    No you can't.

    Details from normal maps for example are lost at the outside.

    and how they are lost?

    Because the details, which are a 'trick' using light, don't exist in the actual geometry.

    So a flat plane with a convincing brick wall, when perceived from certain angles will show as flat, no matter what the normal maps do. You either use real geometry, or consider alternatives such as displacement maps. Iray prefers real geometry to displacement maps, although both have their place.

    I don't know that Iray prefers anything in that way, but it does need actual vertices to move so displacement has the same resolution limits as HD morphs - unlike 3Delight which doesn't need a pre-divided mesh.

    I have no idea where the post was, but pretty sure it was official; geometry has less overhead than displacement. Think it was nvidia official, thinking about it.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,342
    nicstt said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    nicstt said:
    Ellessarr said:
    nicstt said:
    codex34_f5f1fb6f55 said:

    To be honest, the HD morphs are a bit of a gimmick, the only thing they provide over other techniques, with the exception of vector normal maps, is that they allow for full or partial undercuts and creasing in the geometry, which is ok for extreme morphs and characters, but practically useless for general everyday human figures. For human figures you can do everything with standard morphs, displacement, bump, and normal maps. The only application I see for human figure HD morphs is in closeup animation because you can change morphs in animation easier than you can change images, but then people are not creating such content, they are creating HD static morphs for human figures, which is pointless IMO. If I want zits, scars and wrinkles on my figures, I get photoshop out.

     

     

    No you can't.

    Details from normal maps for example are lost at the outside.

    and how they are lost?

    Because the details, which are a 'trick' using light, don't exist in the actual geometry.

    So a flat plane with a convincing brick wall, when perceived from certain angles will show as flat, no matter what the normal maps do. You either use real geometry, or consider alternatives such as displacement maps. Iray prefers real geometry to displacement maps, although both have their place.

    I don't know that Iray prefers anything in that way, but it does need actual vertices to move so displacement has the same resolution limits as HD morphs - unlike 3Delight which doesn't need a pre-divided mesh.

    I have no idea where the post was, but pretty sure it was official; geometry has less overhead than displacement. Think it was nvidia official, thinking about it.

    I do recall being told, and repeating, that the surface-level division settings was less memory-efficient than the object level (that was in the early days, I've no idea if it is still true). That doesn't necessarily mean that displacement per se is less efficient - though thionking about it further, as far as I know (unlike 3Delight) the HD morphs are baked in DS and the final shape at specified resolution is what is sent to Iray while, again as far as I know, displacement is carried out within Iray so the maps must be passed across which certainly uses more memory

  • duckbombduckbomb Posts: 585

    There's also weird issues with displacement that appear when far from world center, almost like the black eye thing.  Sometimes changing that render optimization setting fixes it, but sometimes you have contradictory issues like male black eye that needs "speed" selected and weird displacement issue that requires "memory" to be selected.

    Its possible I'm just doing something wrong, but at the same time I use DAZ because overall it's very simple and I'm more interested in what I create than how to create it, if that makes any sense...

  • LeanaLeana Posts: 12,799
    edited April 2020
    duckbomb said:

    There's also weird issues with displacement that appear when far from world center, almost like the black eye thing.  Sometimes changing that render optimization setting fixes it, but sometimes you have contradictory issues like male black eye that needs "speed" selected and weird displacement issue that requires "memory" to be selected.

    It might be the same kind of "precision" problem as with the black eyes: as it's far from center the number of decimals Iray can use to compute the position of the surface is limited (it uses more "number slots" for the non-decimal part), so there are artifacts, for example where surfaces which should be distinct with enough precision end up in the same location due to number rounding (for the black eyes it's usually the cornea and sclera "colliding").

    I'm not sure a HD morph would work much better in that case though, you'd still need the precise data after all...

    Post edited by Leana on
  • duckbombduckbomb Posts: 585
    Leana said:

    It might be the same kind of "precision" problem as with the black eyes: as it's far from center the number of decimals Iray can use to compute the position of the surface is limited (it uses more "number slots" for the non-decimal part), so there are artifacts, for example where surfaces which should be distinct with enough precision end up in the same location due to number rounding (for the black eyes it's usually the cornea and sclera "colliding").

    I'm not sure a HD morph would work much better in that case though, you'd still need the precise data after all...

    You're probably right!  I'm not super technical, but it makes sense to me!  I like to use displacement for things like scars, cracks, scratches... those kinds of things.  When this happens it looks like a black "tear", if that makes sense.  Doing what I mentioned above about exporting it out at a high SD level, and then re-importing, re-texturing, and then morphing via ZBrush in HD always fixes it.  I think that it's something to do with the interlopation (like what you mentioned) that occurs at render time, vs real geometry which just acts physically like it should with no additional stuff needed during render time.

    Obviously, my argument for allowing for HD morphs is that I could eliminate a bunch of steps from my own workflow in those instances and just use HD, but I also realize I'm a single user with a single use case and so I totally get that I'm the one that needs to find solutions...

    Thanks for the background on what could be wrong, though... it always makes me feel better to know that the issue isn't just me being dumb, and that it's just something I need to work around :)

  • Oso3DOso3D Posts: 15,088

    Here is an example of using Normals vs. HD morph.

    The first image is Exile with 4 levels of subdivision and the HD morph. The second is the same figure at 1 level of subdivision. The third is 1 level of subdivision plus Normal maps baked from the SubD4 HD morphs.

    Yes, there is a slight difference, but I doubt most people would notice under anything but 'zoomed right up to his eye' renders.

    (click to get new window with full resolution)

  • duckbombduckbomb Posts: 585
    Oso3D said:

    Here is an example of using Normals vs. HD morph.

    The first image is Exile with 4 levels of subdivision and the HD morph. The second is the same figure at 1 level of subdivision. The third is 1 level of subdivision plus Normal maps baked from the SubD4 HD morphs.

    Yes, there is a slight difference, but I doubt most people would notice under anything but 'zoomed right up to his eye' renders.

    (click to get new window with full resolution)

    Hey!  Yeah, I saw you post this on another thread with regards to this topic, and this is a fantastic example of what Normals are capable of.  There certainly is a place for this in our toolbag, and it's an added bonus that it is more lightweight than brute-force geometry.  Inside a vaccume, this looks like a silver bullet, but it starts to fall apart for me when I start interacting with other objects and figures.  For instance, say this dude was wearing a spandex suit (which would look hilarious)... you wouldn't be able to get DForce, or even the autofit, to properly conform to the underlying mesh.  For details like you have here on the face, maybe this isn't a problem, but the same example holds true when you start dealing with larger and more drastic changes to the mesh.

    I guess poke-through is really my biggest issue here.

    I LOVE using normals, and your example here is a perfect image to show that for many, many cases NORMALS are perfectly fine, but it's only one tool in my bag that I wish would include the ability to modify HD topology. 

    I'm sorry for spamming this thread, I'll step out now.  I'm not trying to be argumennitive, but I saw the conversation going in the direction with regards to the validity of wanting HD morphs, and I'm not interested in defending my workflow.  I know why I want it, and it's a shame we don't have it, but we make do with what we do have :)

  • AsariAsari Posts: 703
    Is there a difference whether you bake details into a normal map or a 32 bit displacement map, other than for rendering the displacement details you have to up the render subdivision level?
  • MeneerWolfmanMeneerWolfman Posts: 431

    I can undestand the argument about not giving us access to tools for importing 4 subdivided HD morphs. If Daz wants to keep that proprietary for vendors fine.

    What I wish they would give us is just subdivided 1. The base mesh now is so low poly that trying to make your own jcm's or corrective morphs is incredibly hard to do with certain parts of the body. I'm left in a constant state of sculpting in base, import, subdivide it back to 3 and then see that my moving the 3 polygons in the trap/delt area of the base mesh did not do what it looked like it would do.

    Since genesis 1, Subdivided 1 has been the "base rez" of all characters loaded. I don't see why we can't have that level of detail to import. It's not like we can make custom hd characters with it, but it would definitely give us more polys to better make corrections and small morphs with.

  • codex34_f5f1fb6f55codex34_f5f1fb6f55 Posts: 148

    Technical question, I know geometry subdivision sub divides the entire model, so subD 4 is 17kx4x4x4x4 polygons no matter what (according to my memory usage), adding geometry for a zit adds geometry to the toes, but does displacement do this as well or is it adaptive subdivision?

  • Matt_CastleMatt_Castle Posts: 3,023
    duckbomb said:
    I guess poke-through is really my biggest issue here.

    I think you may have mixed up displacement and normals.

    Displacement can cause pokethrough, as it only affects the geometry shape at render time.

    Normals cannot cause pokethrough, as they never affect the shape of the geometry. A normal map tells the renderer what vector to add/subtract for a given texel from the angle of the geometry said texel is sitting on when calculating angle of incidence. The concept is perhaps odd, as real world lighting cannot artificially modify the collision angle in the same way, but it's really easy for a computer to look up a point on the normal map and say "I should calculate the reflection for this point as if it were tilted slightly more to the right". (Hence why it's one of the dominant methods used for computer game, as it has really low computing cost).

  • EllessarrEllessarr Posts: 1,395
    edited April 2020
    Oso3D said:

    Here is an example of using Normals vs. HD morph.

    The first image is Exile with 4 levels of subdivision and the HD morph. The second is the same figure at 1 level of subdivision. The third is 1 level of subdivision plus Normal maps baked from the SubD4 HD morphs.

    Yes, there is a slight difference, but I doubt most people would notice under anything but 'zoomed right up to his eye' renders.

    (click to get new window with full resolution)

    see that is the thing unless you are a "super perfeccionist and use super duper close-ups you can't notice too many differences between hd and normal baked, the same goes for displacement/tesselation, they can do the job pretty well overal, specially for games, while i don't know how much someone need a super perfect hd resolution render, for game and even animation using baked normals, displacement or tesselation can do the trick pretty well unless you are going do a super zoom.

     

     

    MeneerWolfman said:

    I can undestand the argument about not giving us access to tools for importing 4 subdivided HD morphs. If Daz wants to keep that proprietary for vendors fine.

    What I wish they would give us is just subdivided 1. The base mesh now is so low poly that trying to make your own jcm's or corrective morphs is incredibly hard to do with certain parts of the body. I'm left in a constant state of sculpting in base, import, subdivide it back to 3 and then see that my moving the 3 polygons in the trap/delt area of the base mesh did not do what it looked like it would do.

    Since genesis 1, Subdivided 1 has been the "base rez" of all characters loaded. I don't see why we can't have that level of detail to import. It's not like we can make custom hd characters with it, but it would definitely give us more polys to better make corrections and small morphs with.

     

    well the genesis 1 and genesis 2 used to have "more polygons" than genesis 3 and 8, genesis 1 have 19296k vertices and 2 have 21556k vertices while g3 female have 17418k vertices and male have 17246k vertices and g8 male and female are between 16k to 17k vertices, which means g1 and g2 have more polygons to work and "round more things", it's not just about "hd" it's about the base polycount difference between the "2 old genesis figures" from the others 2 more "new ones" which have less.

    Post edited by Ellessarr on
  • MeneerWolfmanMeneerWolfman Posts: 431
    Ellessarr said:
    Oso3D said:

     

    well the genesis 1 and genesis 2 used to have "more polygons" than genesis 3 and 8, genesis 1 have 19296k vertices and 2 have 21556k vertices while g3 female have 17418k vertices and male have 17246k vertices and g8 male and female are between 16k to 17k vertices, which means g1 and g2 have more polygons to work and "round more things", it's not just about "hd" it's about the base polycount difference between the "2 old genesis figures" from the others 2 more "new ones" which have less.

    I'm aware of that. Which is why I said "the base mesh is now so low poly..."

    Like I said, I just wish they would throw us a bone and give us  the ability to import 1 subdivided just so we can have a realistic amount of polys to sculpt with, while still preserving their ability to keep real HD resolution morphs proprietary.

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 108,342
    codex34_f5f1fb6f55 said:

    Technical question, I know geometry subdivision sub divides the entire model, so subD 4 is 17kx4x4x4x4 polygons no matter what (according to my memory usage), adding geometry for a zit adds geometry to the toes, but does displacement do this as well or is it adaptive subdivision?

    The displacement SubD option in surfaces affects the whole model. The model gets divided to the maximum of the figure setting and all the separate surface settings.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    edited April 2020
    Ellessarr said:
    Oso3D said:

    Here is an example of using Normals vs. HD morph.

    The first image is Exile with 4 levels of subdivision and the HD morph. The second is the same figure at 1 level of subdivision. The third is 1 level of subdivision plus Normal maps baked from the SubD4 HD morphs.

    Yes, there is a slight difference, but I doubt most people would notice under anything but 'zoomed right up to his eye' renders.

    (click to get new window with full resolution)

    see that is the thing unless you are a "super perfeccionist and use super duper close-ups you can't notice too many differences between hd and normal baked, the same goes for displacement/tesselation, they can do the job pretty well overal, specially for games, while i don't know how much someone need a super perfect hd resolution render, for game and even animation using baked normals, displacement or tesselation can do the trick pretty well unless you are going do a super zoom.

     

     

    MeneerWolfman said:

    I can undestand the argument about not giving us access to tools for importing 4 subdivided HD morphs. If Daz wants to keep that proprietary for vendors fine.

    What I wish they would give us is just subdivided 1. The base mesh now is so low poly that trying to make your own jcm's or corrective morphs is incredibly hard to do with certain parts of the body. I'm left in a constant state of sculpting in base, import, subdivide it back to 3 and then see that my moving the 3 polygons in the trap/delt area of the base mesh did not do what it looked like it would do.

    Since genesis 1, Subdivided 1 has been the "base rez" of all characters loaded. I don't see why we can't have that level of detail to import. It's not like we can make custom hd characters with it, but it would definitely give us more polys to better make corrections and small morphs with.

     

    well the genesis 1 and genesis 2 used to have "more polygons" than genesis 3 and 8, genesis 1 have 19296k vertices and 2 have 21556k vertices while g3 female have 17418k vertices and male have 17246k vertices and g8 male and female are between 16k to 17k vertices, which means g1 and g2 have more polygons to work and "round more things", it's not just about "hd" it's about the base polycount difference between the "2 old genesis figures" from the others 2 more "new ones" which have less.

    I agree, and doubt anyone would disagree that normals have their place.

    It is never a good idea to presume that only one method will fulfill every requirement.

    Post edited by nicstt on
  • duckbombduckbomb Posts: 585
    Matt_Castle said:
    duckbomb said:
     

    I think you may have mixed up displacement and normals.

    Displacement can cause pokethrough, as it only affects the geometry shape at render time.

    Woops!  Your right, I did!  Thanks for pointing it out.  My overall argument is the same, however...  Displacement causes poke-through, and normals don't work well at certain angles.  A place for each, and each in their place, I wish I could add HD sculpting to the mix :(

Sign In or Register to comment.