Who are the most realistic Genesis 8 characters in 2020?

13

Comments

  • Noah LGPNoah LGP Posts: 2,583
    edited August 2020

    I lot of characters have come out since Genesis 8 was introduced.  I'm looking to find the most realistic looking characters and I'm wondering what are your personal picks for the most photo realistic Genesis 8 characters to date now?

    Thank in Advance

     

    I think the black characters are more realistic.

     

    Leroy 8

    Post edited by Noah LGP on
  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 17,990
    Diomede said:

    Just my once-per-year reminder that what is 'real' is actually made up (as in make-up).

    Thank you, Jamie Lee.

     

    That movie was released in 1988. Jamie posed without makeup in 2002. That is a 14 year gap in time, she was in her mid 40's by that point, and anybody is going to look radically different after 14 years. A more accurate representation of this would be to post a 2002 picture of her in movie makeup, like the article from 2002 does. So how about...Freaky Friday, LOL. 

    Hmmm, well the teenager Linsey Lohan in that case made some good fashion choices.

  • NylonGirlNylonGirl Posts: 1,654

    So the most realistic character is going to be a Black person who looks like Jamie Lee Curtis, dresses like Lindsay Lohan, and has Bluejaunte feet.

  • SnowPheonixSnowPheonix Posts: 896

    Richard Haseltine said:

    Since this has caused confusion in the past, are you looking for actual realism in the way the figure and skin respond to the lighting or hyper-realism with lots of painted-in detail that will show regardless of the lighting?
     

    Hi Richard,  I suppose I should say PHOTO realism in that when these models go to print, they should like like real people, something despareatly lacking and maybe a flaw of this style of rendering if you can't achive that.  The problem is you think only what you want should be made instead of listening to customers.  I like to check in and see if you've changed your mind or somehow have stumbled into some real photorealistic character but as usual, another disappointing response and no real products worth investing more into since I already have huge library..

    I hope you see this a positive feedback to up your game and make better products that look more realiistic... I would pay good money if they looked real.  It hasn't changed.... garbage in, garbage out... Make it real... or go home.

    Take care.

  • Hello, Can I bring this post back? I think that it should also be mentioned 
    https://www.daz3d.com/araminta-hd-for-genesis-81-female which turns out very well with any light. 
    and
    https://www.daz3d.com/syble-hd-for-genesis-8-female. I have a nude render of her in this gallery that I think is realistic enough. WARNING, NUDE.
    https://www.renderosity.com/rr/mod/gallery/syble/2930303/

    However in my opinion some aspects should be considered if realism is intended as Photoreal.
    1. Real pictures of real models in fashion shots are all but realistic, with washed skins, photoshopped legs, brest, etc. It doesn't make any sense searching for the most realistic caracther for those type of renders.
    2. Hairs are always a problem in photorealistic images. And fake hairs ruines photorealistm.
    3. Overexposed lights, micro blurring, small defects in the framing are all helping to make a photorealistic render. Actually I think it is much more easy to make realistic a Polaroid-like render than a perfect model picture.
    4. Details over details! A flattened bum when sat, gravity on brest, shorter legs, tanlines. And eyes! I barely find realistic eyes in figures.

    One tool that was very good for me seems to be discontinued by the author. It was Anagenessis shaders for skin. His deviant's page is alive and he is continuously looking for hyper realism in his renders, but with few to no explaination on how the results are reached. Here is his page: https://www.deviantart.com/as-dimension-z. In 2017 he was saying NGS3 were close to be published but I can't find it nowhere.

    Thank you.

  • cimenroller2cimenroller2 Posts: 76
    edited August 2021

    I think Ahmunet is great for photorealisim.I loved her lip texture.

    https://www.daz3d.com/ahmunet-for-genesis-8-female

    Post edited by cimenroller2 on
  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 9,900

    Elettrodado said:

    However in my opinion some aspects should be considered if realism is intended as Photoreal.
    1. Real pictures of real models in fashion shots are all but realistic, with washed skins, photoshopped legs, brest, etc. It doesn't make any sense searching for the most realistic caracther for those type of renders.

    So, one cannot take pictures of family members or friends in their everyday outfits doing everyday chores?

    Couldn't care less about making images of fashion models.

  • MoogooMoogoo Posts: 136

    For Daz I don't know about shape but for skin the option should always include ISourcetextures they are the best. IMHO

  • PerttiA said:

    Elettrodado said:

    However in my opinion some aspects should be considered if realism is intended as Photoreal.
    1. Real pictures of real models in fashion shots are all but realistic, with washed skins, photoshopped legs, brest, etc. It doesn't make any sense searching for the most realistic caracther for those type of renders.

    So, one cannot take pictures of family members or friends in their everyday outfits doing everyday chores?

    Couldn't care less about making images of fashion models.

    It must be my english, but I am just saying the exact same thing you are saying.

  • Torquinox said:

    What do you mean by realistic?

    To stand a chance of answering this question, we need a frame of reference.

    The OP presumes we all agree on what is realistic.

    Provide some examples of realistic 3D characters (Blender, 3DS Max, earlier versions of Genesis and pre genesis figures to offer some suggestions)

    When you provide the examples, try and highlight the aspects that particularly sell the realism to you.

    ^ This is worth repeating. Add in the look from other media (eg slick magazine realism, documentary realism, photorealism, etc), the desire to capture the lumpy asymmetry of the real world, and/or whatever else might factor in.

    What a perfect answer...

    For me its if you can look at the picture and confuse it for a real person, thats realism... It includes everything about the character from clothing and jewelery... any thing that doesn't look real spoils the illusion. I always like the old computer term, GIGO.. Garbage In/ Garbage out.. which is not saying that cartoon looking characters are garbage.. It's just saying that you can only get out of a project what you put into it. 

    Human beings don't start looking like cartoon because of bad lighting so I think that argument is silly.

    Anybody that looks at any print ad or real people knows what realism is but some people want to keep making excuses so that they can say your picture doesn't look real because your a bad artist.  but the fact is that if the model, clothing and equipment look real, modern CGI techniques in movies show that realism is achieve regardless of bad lighting..

    The real issue is that realism can be cost prohibitive and is difficult to achieve.  I would like to see a return to scanned characters with new HD techology...An issue that has really divided the art community and why the forum moderate was quick to address this issue.  I'd love to see a premium line.  I can't imagine any model wouldn't jump at chance to be immortalized

    I love using the face transfer technlogy too.. I've made a couple of cool character that way... anyways.. thanks for all the great feedback and never stop improving..



     

    4somegirls4a.jpg
    1288 x 575 - 449K
  • SergoyelesSergoyeles Posts: 11
    edited September 2021

    If we understand the definition of "realism" in this topic as something that we can confuse with something real, in my most honest opinion I do not think it is possible to do today in Daz Studio and the factors are varied, either due to lack of complexity in the options to modify the shading and morphs (I think I am not the only one who needs to export the characters to Zbrush or similar programs to edit them), the anatomy of the characters in the store are unreal and have absurd proportions with lack of detail, the lights are very simple in terms of customization or not very faithful to reality or simply the iray rendering engine is what it is.

    Anyway, it is possible to make renders that can come close to this realism, for example almost any character from Bluejaunte, we have an example in these promos where we see what I mean (https://www.daz3d.com/mega-updo-2-hair-for-genesis-8-and-81-females), it is in my opinion the most powerful renders I have seen in Daz Studio and there will still be postwork behind it, but you still see that it is CGI and your mind tends to mistake it for a video game character rather than a real person.

    Sorry for my bad english btw

     

    Post edited by Sergoyeles on
  • Philippi_ChildPhilippi_Child Posts: 648
    edited September 2021

    Since I'm an old guy I tend to gravitate to older figures. Realistic to me is RY Frida

    https://www.daz3d.com/ry-frida-for-victoria--8
     

    And RY Martha

    https://www.daz3d.com/ry-martha-for-genesis-8-female

    Just picked up this figure Izolda the other day from Rendo  by EichhornArt 

    https://www.renderosity.com/rr/mod/bcs/?ViewProduct=136734

    Anyway I think these are realistic older babes.

     

    Post edited by Philippi_Child on
  • PixelSploitingPixelSploiting Posts: 884
    edited September 2021

    WkD3D Ulaan from that other store. Because majority of Asian characters made for Daz either looks like J-Pop/K-Pop idols or can pass as Japanese or Han Chinese celebrities. Ulaan looks like someone from Mongolia or Kazakhstan.

    Post edited by PixelSploiting on
  • nelsonsmithnelsonsmith Posts: 1,336
    edited September 2021

    Some questions are actually pretty simple, but are made incredibly hard by overthinking it, which this thread certainly proves.

    I think most people are pretty confident they know exactly what something looks like that isn't photorealistic, and while you can find extreme examples of realistic things that don't look real at all, I believe most people know exactly what someone means when they use the term in respect to CGI and 3D.  It ain't that complicated.

    The question to ask is not to explain what someone means by "photorealism", but rather to ask "what skill level are you at?"  There are models in the Daz that can achieve incredible photorealism if you have the skills of lighting and composition to bring it out; in much the same way that a very attractive live model can look incredible unattractive with an amateur photographer.

    Post edited by nelsonsmith on
  • My vote is for Sera by Mousso... But to be fair, I'm pretty biased as I found her to be gorgeous, and I just bought her not too long ago!

  • FSMCDesignsFSMCDesigns Posts: 12,679

    nelsonsmith said:

    The question to ask is not to explain what someone means by "photorealism", but rather to ask "what skill level are you at?"  There are models in the Daz that can achieve incredible photorealism if you have the skills of lighting and composition to bring it out; in much the same way that a very attractive live model can look incredible unattractive with an amateur photographer.

    valid point! In all honestly, you can have the best 3D skin in the world and have it look awful if the lighting and settings are not set up properly

  • FPFP Posts: 115
    edited September 2021

    Do people really stuggle with what people mean when they say realistic?

    How many definitions of realism can apply to a human figure?

    "representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life"

    If you struggle with the concept of life and what things should look like when you look at them then is a more specific question really needed?

    I want to know what X figure will look like under overcast conditions, in shade under a palm tree at 1 pm facing west in mid October at Panama City beach vs the same character in New York 20 stories up on a helicopter pad at 2 am looking directly at a half moon.  It either looks/reacts  "real" under multiple conditions or it doesn't.   

    Post edited by FP on
  • nelsonsmithnelsonsmith Posts: 1,336
    edited September 2021

    FSMCDesigns said:

    nelsonsmith said:

    The question to ask is not to explain what someone means by "photorealism", but rather to ask "what skill level are you at?"  There are models in the Daz that can achieve incredible photorealism if you have the skills of lighting and composition to bring it out; in much the same way that a very attractive live model can look incredible unattractive with an amateur photographer.

    valid point! In all honestly, you can have the best 3D skin in the world and have it look awful if the lighting and settings are not set up properly

    Yes, I was speaking from first hand experience.  I've seen artists use DAZ to achieve remarkable photorealism ( or simply remarkable art for that matter) using the exact same models and tools that I have, and yet I wasn't able to come close to duplicating what they achieved.  Sometimes it ain't the tools but the person using the tools.  Give me a guitar to play a solo, and then give that same guitar to Angus Young and it will become immediately apparent that the lack of musicality had nothing to do with the guitar.  My asking what the best sounding guitar in the world is, isn't necessarily going to help me to sound like Jimi Hendrix, and once I'm playing at the level of Jimi Hendrix, odds are I no longer need to ask what the best sounding guitar in the world is.

    Post edited by nelsonsmith on
  • marblemarble Posts: 7,459

    nelsonsmith said:

    FSMCDesigns said:

    nelsonsmith said:

    The question to ask is not to explain what someone means by "photorealism", but rather to ask "what skill level are you at?"  There are models in the Daz that can achieve incredible photorealism if you have the skills of lighting and composition to bring it out; in much the same way that a very attractive live model can look incredible unattractive with an amateur photographer.

    valid point! In all honestly, you can have the best 3D skin in the world and have it look awful if the lighting and settings are not set up properly

    Yes, I was speaking from first hand experience.  I've seen artists use DAZ to achieve remarkable photorealism ( or simply remarkable art for that matter) using the exact same models and tools that I have, and yet I wasn't able to come close to duplicating what they achieved.  Sometimes it ain't the tools but the person using the tools.  Give me a guitar to play a solo, and then give that same guitar to Angus Young and it will become immediately apparent that the lack of musicality had nothing to do with the guitar.  My asking what the best sounding guitar in the world is, isn't necessarily going to help me to sound like Jimi Hendrix, and once I'm playing at the level of Jimi Hendrix, odds are I no longer need to ask what the best sounding guitar in the world is.

     

    Conversely, most hobbyists are not at the Hendrix level so they rely on help and precision from the tools at hand. Tiger Woods could probably hit a golf ball with a shillelag better than most weekend golfers with their expensive golf clubs which is why there is a market for specially developed clubs which disguise the limitations of the part-timer. When it comes to making art with DAZ Studio or other similar graphics packages, the dedicated artists will have the imagination, talent and technical know-how to work around the limitations. I don't. I'm a plodder making pictures for fun so I would like the software to assist with some things (not everything). My starting point is well into the creation process (as it is for most of us here). I don't sculpt the figures or make UV maps. I don't know the technical details of raytracing or the mathematics of collision physics but I might like to know how to make skin look more realistic using the sliders in the IRay surfaces panel. I certainly would like to know how to achieve realistic SSS for skin, for example.

  • davesodaveso Posts: 6,640

    FSMCDesigns said:

    nelsonsmith said:

    The question to ask is not to explain what someone means by "photorealism", but rather to ask "what skill level are you at?"  There are models in the Daz that can achieve incredible photorealism if you have the skills of lighting and composition to bring it out; in much the same way that a very attractive live model can look incredible unattractive with an amateur photographer.

    valid point! In all honestly, you can have the best 3D skin in the world and have it look awful if the lighting and settings are not set up properly

    yes, includeing Sera, which I already discovered. She looks better in default lighting than in most of the pre=packaged stuff I have 

  • xyer0 said:

    bluejaunte for true photorealism. Dasan 8, Dain 8, Babina 8, Kala 8, Sahira 8, Bridget 8, Tasha 8 for Core Figures. Zelara 8 and Nix 8 for looks good enough that you forget about photorealism.

    Their latest female Caprica is astonishing!  

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715

    FP said:

    Do people really stuggle with what people mean when they say realistic?

    How many definitions of realism can apply to a human figure?

    "representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life"

    If you struggle with the concept of life and what things should look like when you look at them then is a more specific question really needed?

    I want to know what X figure will look like under overcast conditions, in shade under a palm tree at 1 pm facing west in mid October at Panama City beach vs the same character in New York 20 stories up on a helicopter pad at 2 am looking directly at a half moon.  It either looks/reacts  "real" under multiple conditions or it doesn't.   

    So you're saying everyone means the same thing?

    I prefer to know what they mean, than make assumptions.

    I prefer believable to realistic.

    If i can accept the image im looking at, believe in the story it is telling, then all is well.

     

  • NylonGirlNylonGirl Posts: 1,654

    FP said:

    Do people really stuggle with what people mean when they say realistic?

    How many definitions of realism can apply to a human figure?

    "representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life"

    If you struggle with the concept of life and what things should look like when you look at them then is a more specific question really needed?

    I want to know what X figure will look like under overcast conditions, in shade under a palm tree at 1 pm facing west in mid October at Panama City beach vs the same character in New York 20 stories up on a helicopter pad at 2 am looking directly at a half moon.  It either looks/reacts  "real" under multiple conditions or it doesn't.   

    I think there might be some art students who have been given specific definitions of "photorealism" and "realism" in their classes, or something like that. And they think those definitions apply to the world outside of those classes. But I think there are also people who are just bored and feel like dragging out an argument about what "realistic" means. I once offered a working definition, that "realistic" means "likely to convince people it's a real person" and they didn't like that either.

  • My definition of 'realistic' is that which is not perfect. Real life has flaws and asymmetry, lines and wrinkles, moles, spots and scars.

  • FPFP Posts: 115
    nicstt said:

    FP said:

    Do people really stuggle with what people mean when they say realistic?

    How many definitions of realism can apply to a human figure?

    "representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life"

    If you struggle with the concept of life and what things should look like when you look at them then is a more specific question really needed?

    I want to know what X figure will look like under overcast conditions, in shade under a palm tree at 1 pm facing west in mid October at Panama City beach vs the same character in New York 20 stories up on a helicopter pad at 2 am looking directly at a half moon.  It either looks/reacts  "real" under multiple conditions or it doesn't.   

    So you're saying everyone means the same thing?

    I prefer to know what they mean, than make assumptions.

    I prefer believable to realistic.

    If i can accept the image im looking at, believe in the story it is telling, then all is well.

     

    If I asked you, what dog looks the most realistic, Snoopy or Lassie? Bolt or Benji? I would expect a normal person to choose the real dog. I'm struggling to understand what your concept of looks real is. If I said, I would like to see what a realistic version of Black Widow or Thor looks like, I would hope you would point me to a non-cartoon version of the Avengers movie. When I walk into a store and see a plant that looks real, I say to myself that looks real, I wonder if it's a good imitation or if it is a real plant. I don't drop into a philosophical study if I am in the Matrix.
  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715

    FP said:

    nicstt said:

    FP said:

    Do people really stuggle with what people mean when they say realistic?

    How many definitions of realism can apply to a human figure?

    "representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life"

    If you struggle with the concept of life and what things should look like when you look at them then is a more specific question really needed?

    I want to know what X figure will look like under overcast conditions, in shade under a palm tree at 1 pm facing west in mid October at Panama City beach vs the same character in New York 20 stories up on a helicopter pad at 2 am looking directly at a half moon.  It either looks/reacts  "real" under multiple conditions or it doesn't.   

    So you're saying everyone means the same thing?

    I prefer to know what they mean, than make assumptions.

    I prefer believable to realistic.

    If i can accept the image im looking at, believe in the story it is telling, then all is well.

     

    If I asked you, what dog looks the most realistic, Snoopy or Lassie? Bolt or Benji? I would expect a normal person to choose the real dog. I'm struggling to understand what your concept of looks real is. If I said, I would like to see what a realistic version of Black Widow or Thor looks like, I would hope you would point me to a non-cartoon version of the Avengers movie. When I walk into a store and see a plant that looks real, I say to myself that looks real, I wonder if it's a good imitation or if it is a real plant. I don't drop into a philosophical study if I am in the Matrix.

    If you can't tell, then it looks believable, which is my point; you found it to be believable before you questioned if it was real... Or not. The believable was a subconscious acceptance of the item, where as the 'is it real?' is a conscious thing.

    After that, you're mearly satisfying your curiosity, which can be a good thing, but the 'plant' has already served its purpose.

  • nelsonsmithnelsonsmith Posts: 1,336
    edited September 2021

    marble said:

     

    Conversely, most hobbyists are not at the Hendrix level so they rely on help and precision from the tools at hand. Tiger Woods could probably hit a golf ball with a shillelag better than most weekend golfers with their expensive golf clubs which is why there is a market for specially developed clubs which disguise the limitations of the part-timer. When it comes to making art with DAZ Studio or other similar graphics packages, the dedicated artists will have the imagination, talent and technical know-how to work around the limitations. I don't. I'm a plodder making pictures for fun so I would like the software to assist with some things (not everything). My starting point is well into the creation process (as it is for most of us here). I don't sculpt the figures or make UV maps. I don't know the technical details of raytracing or the mathematics of collision physics but I might like to know how to make skin look more realistic using the sliders in the IRay surfaces panel. I certainly would like to know how to achieve realistic SSS for skin, for example.

    Yes tools are important, but when it comes to the nature of a photorealistic model, we're talking about something relative, which is why I said to answer that question in a way that is meaningful, I really need to know what skill level you're at.  If you don't know about SSS,  controlling lumens, light placement, Dof and a whole lot of tricks that make photorealism possible,  a model I consider to be photorealistic isn't necessarily going to help you because you won't have the adequate mastery of the software to achieve the effects you're trying to get.  

    For example, not that long ago, I was really thinking that the rendering engine might be the key to photorealism, because contrary to what some people will say, I'd seen images rendered in Octane and Reality that fooled me completely, so I got Octane and Reality and the models I saw and I still haven't been able to get what I considered a completely photorealistic render yet with those engines, but I have on occasion been able to achieve it in Iray,  the same render engine that I got for free when I downloaded the software to start with.

    Being a film school grad I say this to anybody starting out at a novice level.  LEARN AND STUDY your fundamentals, LEARN YOUR TOOLS!  Just like owning the best camera in the world is not going to make your films look like Peter Jackson, having the most photorealistic model is not going to get you photorealism.  There are simply other things you need to know first, and the reason I can tell that you don't already know those things is that if you did, you wouldn't be asking the question.  Basically I can give you an answer, but in order to save you money and frustration, I'd rather be honest.  There are no shortcuts to being a good artist and shortcuts are really what a lot of people are generally looking for.

    That being said if you want a well-scuplted figure that can look incredibly photorealistic go grab Tate HD for Genesis 8.1 Male.  Little known secret:  some of the best sculpted models in the Daz store are the male figures.

    Post edited by nelsonsmith on
  • FPFP Posts: 115
    edited September 2021

    nicstt said:

    FP said:

    nicstt said:

    FP said:

    Do people really stuggle with what people mean when they say realistic?

    How many definitions of realism can apply to a human figure?

    "representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life"

    If you struggle with the concept of life and what things should look like when you look at them then is a more specific question really needed?

    I want to know what X figure will look like under overcast conditions, in shade under a palm tree at 1 pm facing west in mid October at Panama City beach vs the same character in New York 20 stories up on a helicopter pad at 2 am looking directly at a half moon.  It either looks/reacts  "real" under multiple conditions or it doesn't.   

    So you're saying everyone means the same thing?

    I prefer to know what they mean, than make assumptions.

    I prefer believable to realistic.

    If i can accept the image im looking at, believe in the story it is telling, then all is well.

     

    If I asked you, what dog looks the most realistic, Snoopy or Lassie? Bolt or Benji? I would expect a normal person to choose the real dog. I'm struggling to understand what your concept of looks real is. If I said, I would like to see what a realistic version of Black Widow or Thor looks like, I would hope you would point me to a non-cartoon version of the Avengers movie. When I walk into a store and see a plant that looks real, I say to myself that looks real, I wonder if it's a good imitation or if it is a real plant. I don't drop into a philosophical study if I am in the Matrix.

    If you can't tell, then it looks believable, which is my point; you found it to be believable before you questioned if it was real... Or not. The believable was a subconscious acceptance of the item, where as the 'is it real?' is a conscious thing.

    After that, you're mearly satisfying your curiosity, which can be a good thing, but the 'plant' has already served its purpose.

    So the purpose of asking for a 3D character the looks real would be to have a 3D character that when looked at looks real subconsciously and then attempt to find out it it was real with conscious effort.   

    Seems like a long drawn out question when I would think most people would just be ok with, "Can you link me to a realistic character?"

    I would hope that if a random person asked you to recommend a good Mexican Restaurant you wouldnt get into a extended debate on what real mexican food is.  You'd just use common sense to skip Taco Bell and direct them to a Mexican Grill. If I were to drive by a guy and ask them where a good BBQ place in the area is and they started off by asking me what my definition of BBQ was, I'd wonder if they had mental issues.

    Post edited by FP on
  • FPFP Posts: 115
    edited September 2021

    NylonGirl said:

    FP said:

    Do people really stuggle with what people mean when they say realistic?

    How many definitions of realism can apply to a human figure?

    "representing familiar things in a way that is accurate or true to life"

    If you struggle with the concept of life and what things should look like when you look at them then is a more specific question really needed?

    I want to know what X figure will look like under overcast conditions, in shade under a palm tree at 1 pm facing west in mid October at Panama City beach vs the same character in New York 20 stories up on a helicopter pad at 2 am looking directly at a half moon.  It either looks/reacts  "real" under multiple conditions or it doesn't.   

    I think there might be some art students who have been given specific definitions of "photorealism" and "realism" in their classes, or something like that. And they think those definitions apply to the world outside of those classes. But I think there are also people who are just bored and feel like dragging out an argument about what "realistic" means. I once offered a working definition, that "realistic" means "likely to convince people it's a real person" and they didn't like that either.

     

    Maybe I would be better served by asking to provide characters that are the opposite of unreal. 

    Post edited by FP on
  • nelsonsmithnelsonsmith Posts: 1,336
    edited September 2021

     

     

    Maybe I would be better served by asking to provide characters that are the opposite of unreal. 

    In this age of the contrarian where people like to play dumb to what is being said even though they know exactly what is meant,  that tactic wouldn't work either.  What you will then get are the same wiseacres asking, "What is your definition of unreal?".  cheeky

     

    Post edited by nelsonsmith on
Sign In or Register to comment.