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
The topology looks much cleaner to me, depending on bone/weight constraits, the muscle system would be fine. I would personally like less polygons though, however, I can see the "catering" to different mediums. Now if only Daz3d did something about those bloody licensing fees (UE4 is free based on income, Daz3d could do something similiar, or as a lease to own subscription type of license; see allegorithmic).
Yeah. I mean, I love all the extra bones in the face. That looks hugely useful (makes me wonder if it'd be possible for someone to engineer something with similar extra bones but UV mapped in a way compatible with G2 and previous).
But I was already lamenting the lack of things like Four Arms in Genesis 2, let alone all the other fiddly stuff.
You have to remember one of the reasons Daz split the genders with Genesis 2 was so PAs would have an easier time making clothes (because they wouldn't have to worry about them fitting both genders). So it would not be a big surprise if making things easier for PAs to churn out content was a factor.
I don't feel they should have called it Genesis 3 but maybe Genesis Game Base, or something like that. And by saying its the next "thing" it kind of does to me the same thing. You see, I still use Genesis 1 in my renders. Everything after G1 has went in a different direction then I wanted. I don't like my Male and female charcters on a seprate mesh. My other problem is I liked Triax G3 is not. To me even if they (Daz) want to appeal to a wide range of types of 3d work they should continue to support all past versions. Its the same reason you wont see Windows 10 on my computer. No traps are going to sway me here if thats what you company is about (i'll just disconnect my Machine from the internet and do what i do (while surfing on an andriod device) MicroSomething. Be careful there are other 3D platforms out there and I can still use the meshes in my films (to be honest 15 years of doing this I can still use posette and make it look good if I need to). Keep holding back your real Tech. Someone will make it somewhere else eventually price it high then you can pretend to offer a cheap solution but limit elsewhere...lol.
I repeat, just study, its all any release is good for. G3 is great in Poser and works really well in Zbrush. Convert it to Triax first then send it over DSON and you have a great figure for poser as well as Daz. Know why? Poser doesn't do Triax it converts it back (basically).
how do I mark these forums so they send me notifications!!!!!!!
i think you bookmark them (little star at top right of title)and in your account settings turn on emails for bookmarked threads
Geez that so small and blends in so well I never seen it thanks!!!!
well sorry you dont like her. If its something you do not like at all and you have not asked for many refunds in the past you can try to ask for a refund and they may give it to you. i bought a set or two of some models that i realized i didnt need and they were nice enough to offer a refund.
I like Victoria 7 the only thing that i dislike on the base model is that you cant select the red lipstick without the eyeshadow thingy but oh well there are other figures that are coming and. i just think they are cool. your not the only one who dislikes them however. and its a matter of taste but for me i like them so far and with the body /head morphs once agian you can shape them to be as you wish ....
give it time maybe there will be more content down the road and you just may see something that sparks your interest later on and hey if not........wait and see what G4 brings in a few years ;-).
still looks way better then "mesh" bodies in second life ha thanks for sure :-p
...however some of us, like David GB and myself, are not game developers, we are illustrators who happen to use 3D as our medium..
From what I understood early on, the change in polygon structure for G3 was to facilitate easier use of the figure in games and animation. This seems to have been done partially at the expense of other uses (to expand on Cybersox's comparison) similar to how Windows 8 was designed more with mobile devices than desktop users in mind. There already is a product available in the store for reducing the polycount for game and animation purposes called the Decimator. We didn't need such to be done to the base figure. Yes there's HD, but as David points out, it is a real resource hog. Most of us do not have 12 core 4.0 GHz CPU systems with 64 GB of memory.
Like David, I also have been developing a story around a core group of characters, several of them teens. This really posed a difficult challenge when I came on board as there was no Gen 4 Teen/Preteen. Personally I did not care much for the facial appearance of the Gen 3 teens, as I thought they still had too much of an "adult" appearance. So I set off in an attempt to turn Vicky 4 into a viable 12 - 17 year old. Not an easy task as I kept running into mesh distortion when downsizing her breasts (which also affected clothing fits). Over the next couple years as well as investing a fairly sizeable investment in different characters (particularly those by Thorne/Sarsa) I was able to coax a more lithe, petite "teen like" physique out of ol' 5'11" supermodel Vicky. Then came Steph 4 with the NPMs and I finally thought had my answer.
...until Genesis came along. At first I was reluctant then to jump on the bandwagon not so much because of the figure but that I was still working on a 32 bit system that didn't support Daz 4 very well. I was lucky to get even a very simple scene with a single figure, clothing, hair, and one of Blondie9999's Backdrops Made Easy props and lit with a 4 point spotlight setup to render without crashing. When I finally did get my 64 bit system up and running I began seeing the benefits of the Genesis concept. The one nice part, I could mix different figure shapes without weighting down the mesh (which happened with the Figure Mixer in 3.1) and a good portion of my Gen 3 and Gen 4 clothing was transferable to Genesis without the need of a third party conversion tool. Legacy body shapes were Daz originals rather than PA content so they were inexpensive and worked for both fitting and to a more limited extent, textures. While there were still no teen figures (until just before G2F appeared) there was the "base child" shape which could be dialled in as needed. Next, there was Generation X so now I could import Gen 3 and 4 morphs as well as even character presets to Genesis.
So once again, I felt I had what I needed, (I did pick up the Young Teens 5) when along came G2F. Like others, I baulked at the return of the gender split as it meant more expense since I not only needed a separate male and female figure again (along with morphs for each) but I now had to purchase fit/UV clones for V4 (and later M4) which originally came as part of the Genesis package, while compatibility with Gen 3 had apparently been abandoned altogether. Considering how long it took to roll out the YTs 5 after Genesis was introduced I felt I going with G2F would be a step backwards for my work....that was until Zev0 released the Growing Up morphs a couple weeks later. With subtle adjustments to the different age presets, I found I could create very nice child to older teen characters. Along the road came Josie, Jayden, and later Belle, and Brodie who I picked up just to add even more variance to the "gene pool". When I sat down again and reworked my main character, Leela (putting Belle in the mix), I was totally impressed as what I saw is exactly how I envisioned my little "musical demolitionist", years before I ever heard of Poser or Daz (save for the UK brand of laundry powder).
So, we have arrived at yet another breaking point with G3.
Now having been on a shoestring budget (even less so since I lost my source of steady income), I just can't go on a wild no holds barred shopping spree every time something new comes out. I have to weigh out each purchase as to whether it not only fits my budget, but also the needs of my work. Seeing G3's apparent lack of compatibility with what I already have, I cannot justify the financial or time investment it would take to make the figure viable for my needs. The change in UV structure only further reduces the versatility, effectively contradicting the whole idea of "Genesis" concept as it was first presented. They may as well remarket G3 as the Millennium Woman 5 Uinimesh as it appears we have come full circle with the past.
So for my purposes, G2 is the end of the line as well.
My two zlotys worth.
You 've read my mind. But, is DAZ able to support different series at same time? Versatile Series (like G1), Artist Series and Game Developer Series, all with a list of pros and cons, well explained by the store and understood by buyers. If a buyer want Genesis Versatility he/she needs accept that clothes will have some problems and this figures can be not good for high standard of realism. If a buyer wants Genesis Artist he/she needs accept that genre is split and topology is subordinated to muscularity, and if a buyer wants Genesis Game Developer he/she needs accept that genre is split and topology is subordinated to game needs. But seeing the few information about generation 7 (with compatibility with bears and tulips) probably DAZ can not works with three or two series in parallel.
no they instead choose to label them G!, G2, G3 and discontinue supporting what each of them was good at. I think you said it well there, Thing is its all about marketing and yes i do understand that but to sell me into moving up now they would have to do something from the software end instead to be honest. And no I'm not going to go there because they know there is a list of things Studio doesnt do that it needs to for some of us to move on....
Seems to be plenty of muscular definition on this G3 figure. No mention of HD in this product or on the Karen 7 pages.
?
Posed Genesis 2 Female and Genesis 3 Female wIthout any correctives
Genesis 3 Female relies too heavily on correctives to maintain shape.
Is this a bit like the F35 then? It's not as good at old fashioned dogfighting as the F16, but isn't designed for old fashioned dogfighting because it's designed to have shot down the F16 long before the old fashioned scenario can take place.
.
What is this nonsense about shooting down F16s? The F35 is designed to have decimated the runways and carriers long before the enemy even gets a chance to scramble their planes or even to see it, because on radar it looks to be the size of a gerbil. A deadly, deadly winged gerbil equipped with a bad attitude and 500 pound runway de-paver devices!
Rawr!
In case you didn't know, that's the sound that winged gerbils make.
...well if the F-35 ever got all the bugs worked out, yeah, it's "acquire tone - fire - go" home. However, that "old fashioned" ability can still come in very handy.
Look at the A-10, old concept, ugly, slow, but highly manoeuvrable, tough, and rather effective (as well as accurate), even in this age of remote "Nintendo warfare".
So back to the matter at hand, my other question, why did they have to mess with the mapping which makes G3 incompatible with older textures?
Well, unlike the topology argument, which clearly people are disagreeing about (although it should be noted that Mallen Lane, who created G3F, also created all those figures going back to V3 that are being praised in comparison), the UV mapping is pretty clearly superior. The ONLY thing bad about the UV mapping is that it's not compatible with the V4 material zones.
...nor Genesis or G2 as they also use the Gen4 material zone set up.
That's somewhat akin to comparing Spitfire, Messerschmitt, Zero and Mustang. :)
Total number of kills was definitely on Messerschimitt's favor.
Chief Naval Test Pilot and C.O. Captured Enemy Aircraft Flight Capt. Eric Brown, CBE, DSC, AFC, RN, tested the Mustang at RAE Farnborough in March 1944, and noted, "The Mustang was a good fighter and the best escort due to its incredible range, make no mistake about it. It was also the best American dogfighter. But the laminar flow wing fitted to the Mustang could be a little tricky. It could not by any means out-turn a Spitfire [sic]. No way. It had a good rate-of-roll, better than the Spitfire, so I would say the plusses to the Spitfire and the Mustang just about equate. If I were in a dogfight, I'd prefer to be flying the Spitfire. The problem was I wouldn't like to be in a dogfight near Berlin, because I could never get home to Britain in a Spitfire."
Captain Eric Brown, the Chief Naval Test Pilot of the Royal Navy, recalled being impressed by the Zero during tests of captured aircraft. "I don’t think I have ever flown a fighter that could match the rate of turn of the Zero. The Zero had ruled the roost totally and was the finest fighter in the world until mid-1943." American test pilots found that the Zero's controls were "very light" at 320 kilometres per hour (200 mph), but stiffened at faster speeds (above 348 km/h, or 216 mph) to safeguard against wing failure. The Zero could not keep up with Allied aircraft in high speed maneuvers, and its low "never exceed speed" (VNE) made it vulnerable in a dive.
Kurt Bühligen, the third-highest scoring German fighter pilot of World War II's Western Front (with 112 confirmed victories, three against Mustangs), later stated, "We would out-turn the P-51 and the other American fighters, with the Bf '109' or the FW '190'. Their turn rate was about the same. The P-51 was faster than us but our munitions and cannon were better."
So, my first choice would be a Messerchmitt BF109. Design is older than Zero and Mustang, about the same as the Spitfire. Doesn't have the range of the Mustang or the Zero though, which makes more suitable in Europe than the Pacific. But if you're going to use the same plane on both fronts, the P51 wins hands down.
One note about the A10. I doubt either the F35 or F16 can make it back to base with a broken wing. :) Even if it's old, slow and ugly as hell, I don't think no other aircraft can boast that level of durability. In terms of reputation, it's up there on my list with F4G Phantom Wild Weasel. If you want remote capabilites, just go with those Predators.
Can someone tell me the difference between G3F and G2F? What is possible with G3F what is not with G2F?
I will not follow this trend buying new stuff and converters for new appearing figures at ever shorter intervals. Converters because of not dumping old content in the trash can.
But converters also a a thing.
Simple question. Is it not possible to create only one tool that allows to convert every figure to every figure? Why do I have to buy thousands of converters? That makes no sence (except money making)
Converter from Figure A (V4.2) to B
Converter from Figure B to C
Converter from Figure C to D
Converter from Figure D to E
while I just want to convert figure A to E?
and than you need also the converters for clothes and textures if you want to use your old content, what is necessary because of the ever shorter intervals of new figure appearance and less stuff for each single figure because vendors adapt to this development. You need your old content.
One gets more and more busy with converting and fixing things than with creative art and rendering. A totally crazy trend.
Just my point of view.
It seems converting and fixing things becomes more and more the main constituent of 3D-Art and creating scenes and images gets repressed and becomes a necessary Evil.
My point of view.
As an illustrator, I was very happy to upgrade from G2F to G3F because to my eye G3F shows greater anatomical realism than G2F. Whether her polygon topology follows the muscles or not, she bends soooooo much more realistically than G2F and doesn't require the use of any additional 3rd party "fix" products to make her joints bend naturally. She's particularly superior over all previous DAZ figures where shoulder and elbow bends are concerned.
In my experience, the only time DAZ put out a new generation of their flagship character that was a step backwards in naturalism and anatomical realism was the transition from V4 to G1. G1 had the advantage of being able to morph one mesh to be a man or woman, but the side effect was that neither looked as good as a mesh designed for a specific gender. (As we all know, this problem was addressed by splitting the genders again for G2F and G2M.)
To me, the only mistep DAZ made here was of branding and message. They should have left Genesis 1 as the only base figure in the Genesis line (which could continue on, catering to creatures and other extreme morphs), and started a fresh newly branded figure line who's selling point was greater gender specific realism when they debuted G2F, rather than labeling it "Genesis 2". That would have avoided people being upset that it no longer morphs into such a wide variety of extreme shapes as Genesis 1 was pitched as. That "removal" of what was touted as Genesis's key feature seems to have made a lot of people distrustful of new figure releases. If it wasn't marketed as Genesis 2, it wouldn't be seen as a problem. And we wouldn't have the silliness of one product line having two different series numbers (G3F and V7 being terms that are often used interchangeably around here). I can only imagine how confusing that must be for newcomers.
oh come on everytime someone says HD morphs a whole bunch of us start complaning about not being able to do it ourselves and then Daz chimes in and says you can't post that here...... To stay in topic I will simply state "We the People" cannot make our own HD morphs for Genesis 3 and that is a limit for now on what can be done by outsiders. (This is not a complant anymore for me so please don't erase this, its just a fact that limits us regular people that aren't in the clique). People that want to buy something made by the clique can get really great ressults with HD if they want every character to look like someone else made them and take the art out of ther whole thing..... G3's topology is great the only thing still stopping me is this because I like the low poly single mesh that G1 has. I would have upgraded long ago but I look at this as lack of support to the community (Who knows I might upgrade later, but I'm still not stuck to the point I can't move to another software if Tech isn't moving forward. I use Daz and Poser and I love Daz more right now.
Each generation's base includes an AutoFit clone for the previous generation, so you don't have to buy anything - buying a clone shape to skip several conversion steps is a convenience, not a necessity. Textures are, of course, another matter - though at the moment the only way to get from the older layout to G3F is by using a bake from something like Blender, as discussed in a forum thread, so there's nothing to buy. Similarly there isn't yet a GenX update, but you can use the free Transfer utility route to move morphs across without paying - again, there is a long forum thread on the method.
that is what I meant when I have written that converting and fixing and editing is becoming more and more the main constituent of 3D-Art these days. Creative work on creating images, renders, little stories becomes a necessary Evil, a triviality.
LOL, sorry that my fighter-aircraft generation analogy created such a side discussion.
The point is there's no sense in emphasising the deficiencies of a new thing when stripped of its new technologies, when it's those technologies that are the heart of the thing.
Genesis 3 is designed to work with the technologies available in DAZ Studio. We're moving on.
Hey, I'd be happy with no mesh topology at all. Let's have procedural descriptors of bone and muscle and skin and eyes and hair and gravity and inertia and collisions, etc, etc.
(coming DAZ soon)
Indeed. I mentioned in one of the previous threads how I felt that V7 seemed like the natural successor to V4; in a good way, and in a way that V5, V6 and friends somehow weren't. Those were good figures, don't get me wrong, but they seemed as much of a diversion as a progression. V4 was a great figure for its time, and the fact there's a ton of stuff still being made and sold for it on third party sites is testament. V7 seems to capture that V4 "thing". At least to me, but then I am easily distracted by a pretty face.
One area that I think G3F is not so good (and I'll just have to be seen as the perv that I am, ooer missus, etc) is the upper inner thigh / pubic interaction zone. I don't know if it's fundamental to G3F or just the way the individual variations so far have been shaped, but it seems a bit - vague? Given that Victoria, Eva and Karen are meant to be, in their individual ways, as fit as fiddles, that area seems relatively untoned and shapeless.
I could post lots of pictures of bikini clad young women to illustrate my point, but perhaps such research is best left to individual readers.
Anyway, back to aeroplanes...
Genesis 2 with V4UVs. Tiling at 10. Arms bent down and at default pose for comparison.