Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I believe you. I have no idea what it is then. Could it be a problem with my install of Daz? I just did a render of Adaline without the geograft and everything looked perfect. Then I added the geograft, applied the textures and rendered again and I can clearly see the outline of the geograft on her. Its almost like its casting a faint shadow around its edges, but obviously its not.
Cool, thanks Redz. Its really good to know I'm not going crazy lol
.
I don't even need the legs posed to see it. Just the zero pose is enough for me. The worst seam is the one along the top of the geograft - makes it look like they have a small roll of fat there.
The Adaline genital textures, not the default body maps? The body maps worked for the Genesis and Fenesis 2 Female Genitals but not for the G3F genitals.
I'm not seeing that, just seams visible in the under parts. Being unable to post pics is limiting but the problem is there for all the G3 textures with gens that I own.
Hope these pics are allowed. First shows the top seam for v7, which looks good to me. Next is underside seam where you can see a seam line to the left. HTH
Yeah, I know. I'm using the Adaline genital textures (Iray).
I decided to try adaline with Iray to see if I had same issue, but i can't even apply the gen materials it gives me an error message :/ And she has hip and gen preset. Thats new to me. (must be the way to get over the workflow issues with the new gens)
I wonder if she got an update since I downloaded her to fix the iray issue. I've never used her myself. So far only used Kelly and Camile and stock vickie.
Now lookin closer Kelly does have a texture issue too! I just never rendered close enough to see it! Crap! Kellys gen map has a seam but the gen area is noticably blurrier than the rest of the map. Which is strange cause the OpenGL preview makes the gens seam sharper...At the distance I would render (at least arms length away) kellys materials look OK but now I can see the slight seam and I can't unsee it.
Camile seems fine though. Glad I don't render close up like that...but I do think there is a problem with the new gens or the workflow used to set these up as they aren't a perfect match.
"I can't work out whats doing it though - it ends up looking like the geograft is a slightly grey-er sticker thats been stuck onto the models."
Unless it has been fixed there is an issue where the gama can be set improperly for some textures. Since it sounds like a spec or bump not matching issue click on those maps then select the image editor and see if the gamma matches those maps on the body. Long shot but you never know.
I just did a quick test with the three of them. Both Adaline and Bonnie cleared up if I applied the full texture, then the gens (to the gens of course) and then the hip to the full body. Not a clue what that does but it did work. If there are seams you would need to be right up on them to see them..just sayin. With summer I applied the gens mat and then went back and re applied the body. Again all matchy matchy.
there is a different torso texture used if u want to use gens. At least for Adaline. it's a new approach i havent seen yet. I tried manually swapping the texture to confirm and it seems to be teh case. (check the texture folder, there are two torsos)
i dont see the seam with adaline anymore. at least not 3DL.
If it works for some but not others.
I'm thinking it's render settings if your using CPU or 3D Card or Optix Prime Acceleration.texture compression etc etc.
does it matter what 3D Card your using ?
Ok, I've been experimenting and I think I know what the problem is that I'm seeing (and I'm fairly sure that it'll never be changed). I tried changing all of Adaline's textures, including gens, to the Aluminium Anodized Iray shader so that she was all one even tone. I could still see the issue, so its obviously nothing to do with the textures - its the effect of the geograft's geometry on the model. On closer inspection in OpenGL, removing and then restoring the geograft over and over, I can see a slight ridge that forms along the top of the geograft when its applied (its easier to see from certain angles), almost like the geograft is sucking inward the area below that line and pushing it up and out into a raised divide. Edit: Actually its more like a short, straight slope inwards/downwards.
This is what I'm seeing when I render - its whats preventing the smooth transition of the lighting from torso to gens because the lighting is shading that area as the subtle ridge-then-sink that it is, which then throws off the lighting on the rest of the area. Its probably not very obvious if you shine a bright light right at it.
Obviously this hasn't been enough to bother most people, but its enough to bother me (especially when I know theres a product available on another site that doesn't do this). Now that I've seen it, I can't unsee it.
I think I'm going to have to use Dformers to create a morph to remove that ridge... either that or go back to 3feetwolf's superior product.
I wonder if it matters what morph you are using.
If that is happening on the zeroed shape it should definitely be reported as a bug.
I don't think its a bug though - I think its the intended shape of the geograft and how it affects some models. I have reported it, but I don't think they're going to care.
but is the graft smooth when zeroed? Cause I just used stock shape for my testing and didn't notice the shape you mentioned. the connection was smooth.
So I'm wondering if the morphs makes the graft act up.
If you don't look too closely in OpenGL then it appears smooth, but if you take a closer look on models like Adaline, Bonnie, Summer (to a lesser extent) from a low angle you can see (or I can anyway) that its not totally smooth - theres a bump where the top line of the geograft meets the torso. Its not a sharp bump, but it is enough to influence the lighting on the models.
I haven't tried the geograft on base G3F. I have tried it on V7 and its much less pronounced, but I hate the V7 textures so don't intend to use that.
Well I am specifically asking about base G3F because if the geograft looks fine there, then its the morphs causing the issue. I dont have the nether region installed on this machine as that would not be a good idea. So I can't confirm myself.
Textures can be used on different shapes, so I'm not asking about the textures. But you suggest there is a geometry issue. Which is what I didn't observe myself with G3F.
The geograft is smooth on the G3F base figure - it doesn't have the ridge/bump. So it must be the character morphs doing it, yes.
I'm sure I'll be told I'm wrong though, as usual.
That makes more sense to me though, because I can't see them letting the base out with a hitch like that. I can see it more easily happening with new morphs though. And my last round of test were just with G3F and no character dialed in and it seemed OK for most of the characters I tried. If it really is the morphs, we could have that fixed by the PA or even fix it ourselves I would think.
As expected Daz have said that they see no problem with it, so thats that I guess. No advice offered or anything - just the usual response of 'its fine, go away'. Consequently this may well be the last thing I ever buy from Daz.
There have been several texture set that have shown a difference between materials when rendered in Iray. The problem seems to be settings for gamma saved in to the images. Another thing I noticed with some texture set is that Genital maps having a high resolution per surface area than the torso map make the genital texture appear smoother than the torso texture. This the same resolution visual effect that earlier figures had with the head and neck seam.
Yeah, I've been chatting with Nadino about it (who kindly offered to help me) and probably what I'm failing to get across is that the issue I'm talking about is noticeable, but subtle. Its not, by any means, a big black line outlining the gens area - its not that obvious. The transition from torso to gens is what I would describe as "almost right, but not quite", which is what makes it so frustrating.
Edit: Well we haven't managed to resolve it, but at least I know I'm not the only one who can see it now
.
While very subtle - it is not user error. Very good eye actually to pickup on the suble difference. Scene set up and materials were setup correctly in this scene. It's more to do with the blending technique of the textures. Not trying to bash anyone promise - but that there is a subtle transition that doesn't blend well upon closer examination.
A temporary suggestion, you might consider setting texture compression so the gen map is downgraded to torso resolution. Obviously not ideal, but...
How would I do that? Are we talking about the texture compression settings in the Advanced tab under Render Settings? I usually have it as 2048 - 4096, but I also tried it at 512 - 1024 and that didn't make any difference.
Should I go lower?
No he meant for the texture asset itself. However I don't think that would address the issue you mentioned.
Oh, ok, thanks.
The reason this bothers me so much (if anyone is wondering, lol) is because Daz refuses to show us the genital prop or any of the gens textures prior to us purchasing the products. So we are forced to put our trust in Daz's quality assurance and purchase these things blind. If I'd been able to see these images of this product before buying it I probably wouldn't have made the purchase (or certainly not the whole pro bundle anyway).
All I'm saying is, if you're going to ask your customers to trust you and purchase something blind then you should really make every effort to ensure that its perfect.
If you want something fixed, it has to be reported as a bug, so it can be fixed. Please include a DUF file that shows the issue and a list of products used.
I did - it was rejected by the content team. They said that the products "are functioning as intended". That was all I got.
You included hte duf file that shows the issue?