Because a girl has (not) to look good when...
nicstt
Posts: 11,715
Seriously, can we change the criteria for action poses.
Sexy not needed.
http://www.daz3d.com/sweet-caster-poses-for-genesis-3-female-s
I could have used something like this, but not when stood on tiptoe etc; even though only $3 and change atm.
Post edited by nicstt on
This discussion has been closed.
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
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
I like them. Tiptoe means they will work well for heels with minimal effort.
You can repose the feet
Many poses are weird like that. Just like heroins fighting in highheels.
seriously? Almost half of them are flat footed, LOL.
Also my first thought. It would take about 10 seconds.
I'm confused, the poses you linked to are mostly posed with the feet flat on the ground except for those that are suppose to be hovering or actually up on tiptoes, and there's only a couple of them at the most.
Granted, but I already own lots where I can repose the feet.
@Scorpio
I suppose its the 'supposed to be hovering or up on tiptoes' I object to, as after all, "i'm hovering, so pointing my toes out is the right thing to do."
Whats weird about that?
Let me think:
well, when out with friends:
"hang on a sec, I'm changing out of these heals if we're walking to the next 'place'"
or:
"slow down I can't walk quickly in these heals"
or:
"please, can we stay here, my feet can't take any more walking in these hells"
Mum just visited, and I asked her about high heels: "Well, when I was young and stupid enough to wear 'em cause they looked great; but they hurt like hell, even when they were expensive ones, and much more than walking was a challenge." She finished with, "Fighting in high heels? LOL"
If you have to ask....
According to this new product
http://www.daz3d.com/greek-chic-outfit-for-genesis-2-female-s
It seems the ancient Greeks were wearing high heels too (or at least in the home of Gods!).
I can make that outfit look even better with SickleYield's ancient sandles.
The gods can use magic to fix the problems /nod
I did not think the shoes matched the dress. Good shoes but not for the dress.
Yes I do. A heroine swinging a sword at an Orc or casting a spell and the wierd thing is she is in heels!
The ancient greeks were also not wearing layerd lace and William Morris inspired print dresses inspired by modern dressup costumes of greek dress. They weren't known to let miniature eagles rest on their finger tips and carrying golden staffs of perpetual raging fire was almost unheard of. It seams odd to look only at the shoes for lack of realism.
Historically women fighting was wierd full stop but we don't get 101 posts demanding female fantasy poses should only be sitting spinning yarn, back breaking work in the fields, nursing infants and sweeping the floor do we. If anything any semi historic female pose that includes fighting is unrealistic and the sexual ones, given the worlds oldest proffession are probably more on the money. Everything is relative I guess but when I see a picture of a female fighting I know we are looking at a fantasy render and the last thing I go looking for is, "realism".
I just get fed up of the whineing. The PAs put lots of time and effort into making these great poses, props and outfits and all some people can see are the shoes or the foot position. Putting a flat foot on a pose high heel pose is so much easier tahn the other way round, just flatten the foot.
Who's whining? Women fighters are well documented in history. I think the earliest documented and latest episodes were in Japan (Nakano Takeko who fought and died during the Boshin War in 1868).
We just doubt that those women where fighting in high heels. That's all. No need to get offended. Let the PAs speak for themselves.
Now, the funny thing (to me) about this conversation is knowing that MEN actually fought in heels historically. Heels started as footwear for horse archers. ;P
As far as the sorcery poses go, I thought they were pretty tasteful for the most part. Elegant female spellcasters are a fantasy trope, and Genesis 3 is the new girl...we're going to see products for her that look like things we've seen before, because G3 is going to need to have them.
Maybe you're just wimpy, I have flat, wide feet, and still can walk around all day in heels (go museuming even) and still be comfortable
that said, I have noticed a lot of the DAZ ladies seem to prefer narrow heels which do have some strategic disadvantages. Buggers do tend to sink into anything that's not concrete. So I would say a picture of the DAZ ladies standing on grass in them is physically wrong, as they should be falling over backwards while their heels sink in the ground.
That seems to be the case, but I hardly doubt that after they unmounted they went home in heels, and besides, archers were not foot soldiers.
Same with the Samurai. I have seen some ancient paintings of them wearing "getas" (Japanese sandals with heels), I still can't even see them fighting wearing them, they look good for a portrait painting though.
An easy solution is repose the feet or apply a preset pose for different foot position. Even the "oversexualized" set of poses from one of the PA have partial poses that include partial feet poses in different angles. Another solution is pose builder, which can be used to mix a "well posed" torso with arms and legs from the "thematic althoug oversexualized" set, or even tweak the "bad posed" torso until a "well posed". This script worth in any case, because it can convert any simple 20 or 25 set of poses in a collection with a hundred of poses by partial pose mixing. Add to this tool pose converters and pose master scripts then you get infinite possibilities from generation 3 to generation 6 for your generation 7 figures.
Warning: If you think that you will stop to buy poses packs with these tools...hahahaha...you will find that you want more and more poses because you want more and more partial poses options
The fashion spread to Europe and by the 17th C men, including foot soldiers were wearing heels to war.
Once a week people moan about women wearing heels in fantasy pictures. They never appear to worry about the over sized sword that even a burly doppelsöldner would have struggled to wield for any length of time let alone a skinny armed super model. Or the helmets with horns on them that would only have served to pull the helmet this way and that effectively blinding them. Or the invented armour that would have served no practical purpose other than weighing the warrior down. No its the shoes, or the midriff that needs to be picked out and has been in fantasy pictures since the late 70's.
I understand the huge sword. It's impractical. Armor did not weight the soldier down. That is another huge myth. There was a doucment on Youtube which I can't find now from people who actually studied medieval armor and could actually tell you when even a Museum got it wrong. Here is one showing an armored individual running and jumping.
Also, sword fighting as depicted in paintings and movies is totally wrong as well. There are actually sword fighting manuals that have survived that depict how sword fighting really was like. It is nothing like you see in the movies, especially.
Please, where are you getting this foot soldiers in heels? I would like to read that if you can provide a link.
Oh, one more thing. We are talking about high heels here. There are boots that have one inch heels, that's not the same.
Unusual, but not unheard of; Boudicea is perhaps the best known example. History was largely written (maybe very close to exclusively?) by men, so I wouldn't be too sure of anything; an example being that the early christian church expunged all evidence of anything to do with females being in positions of power; the gospels written by them for instance. (BTW, this is not an attack on religion; merely an example.)
So you're whining becuase you're fed up of it; I see. I think it is best if this thread is closed, as opinions, and discussions we don't agree with are whining.
I always thought the purpose of these threads were for those wishing to whine, to do so; at least one purpose at any rate. :)
Heels serve a practical purpose; they take the wear and tear and the brunt of the impact; heels generally depicted on the shoes here are high-heels, even stilleto; painful to walk in I believe; painful when stood upon, I can vouch for. Shoes haven't always had heels, they were added later; they have varied in size.
And my concern isn't practical but believeable, or at least not immediately unbeliveable; armour that doesnt cover much of the body may offer little protection - but there can be reasons for it being as it is; heels on rough ground break believeability in the story that the image is trying to convey; I can't help but wonder how the hell they would walk, never mind anything else. The story might explain why those heals are required, but I wouldn't actually get that far as I've moved past that image, series of images, or whatever it was.
No it's a myth that armour didn't weigh you down, it weghed lots so of course it weighed you down. What it didn't do if the harness was well made and not too cheap is restrict your movements too much. The vidio you linked to, well made reproduction harness, most couldn't have affored armour such as this and how long do you think a fighting soldier could have maintained such levels of exertion wearing that much steel? There is a reason it was large increadibly fit and muscular men that made the best knights.
My point is most of the armour you see in fantasy pictures however don't do two things. They don't picture a harness that distributes weight to the areas you woudl want it and they don't as a rule provide any useful protection. So all that weight with no added protection, not realistic is it? If you have ever had the misfortune to watch Vikings the armour in that, all of it useless for protection. Yet we don't have a problem with this sort of armour in fantasy renders but we do have a problem with heels?
The thing is though, it looks cool.
There is no evidence Boudicea ever fought only that many male warriors fought for her. If there really were a great many female warriors I really don't see why or even how they woudl have been expunged from the histroy books or even folk history. That really doesn't mean we shoudln't make cool pictures with female warriors just that we should be careful about saying something isn't realistic when it didn't really happen anyway.
You still have not provided me with an image or a link to high heeled soldiers. You mentioned heels that archers used, but I can't find anything longer than what seems like one and half inch heels. They are clearly made for horse riders as they are even made to arch the foot upwards in the middle.
As far as armor is concerned, of course, most armor in 3D models or drawn are not practical, even modern depictions of weapons, like the huge swords you mentioned are extreme fantasy. People like to point out high heels the most because in modern times we see those a lot, and I guess it gets pointed out as the most obvious impractical tool in times of war. Also, our comic book heroins are replete with high heels. So it gets mentioned a lot. That's all.
Only nobles could afford armor for themselves and maybe a few of their best warriors. Real armor was not cheap. I wish I could find that documentary on Youtube that I mentioned in a previous post. It even made fun on a test done back in the early 19th century where they were making the argument that armor weighed so much that a crane was needed to mount the Knight! LOL! I kid you not. That's how myths are born.
Please don't call each other whiners - address the topic, not the poster.
Lack of evidence should never be taken as evidence of something; as you say there is no evidence to say she fought, and while sugestive, there is also nothing catagorically stating she didn't fight. There is also an alternative supposition: that the omissoin of what she did may mean she fought but men didn't want to write about it; it was - afterall - not a suitable job for a women.
We? I wasn't aware I'd said anything unrealistic. There is supposed to be a germanic warrior female too, I can neither remember who, and have no idea of the veracity of this memory, so will say no more.
But I think you are looking only at the more formalised aspects of war; I'm pretty sure millions of women have tried - how successfully I have no idea - to defend their families when they have been in danger. This is frequently in times of war. No doubt some of them took the fight to others, that it hasn't been documented is more proof of the fact then men write history, at least in the past, not women; I am a man myself. I mention this as I was watching a documentory on history and how the fact it is generally written by men has both skewed what we know and prevented us from knowing a huge amount of what happened to women. We missed a whole aspect of history. The written history can't be expunged when it wasn't written in the first place.
The purpose of this thread was in the exasperation of yet another pose set depicting women in a certain way; I realise it's a fantasy aspect, but it isn't mine; I hope someone sees this and produces something different. If Daz doesn't accept such products, as I read in another thread, then there are other places to buy products; or as I usually do now, I make my own from scratch, or adapt pre-existing ones.