Loading...
> >

Poser vs. DAZ

123457

Comments

  • CybersoxCybersox Posts: 9,296
    kyoto kid said:
    Rashad Carter said:
    crocodilian said:
    nonesuch00 said:

    To use these elsewhere is to export them in a format that a 3rd party program can use whether that be Poser, Unity, Max, Maya, Blender, and on & on. If a game engine were ever support DAZ Studio figures or Poser figures natively then that is a coup for that product,

    A strong reason that the world needs to break away from the old Daz/Poser architecture. V4, the flagship of the Poserverse was built on massive geometries, with massive texture maps. That's how you got good looking things, back in 2006.

    But that's a million miles away from any game engine, or indeed from modern renderers. The 70K poly figure with the giant texture maps, transmaps, that's never going to work well with a game engine, and its a waste in a world with powerful modern renderers. Displacement, subdivision surfaces, instancing -- these are the technologies that enable low poly figures to to render beautifully, and yet remain practical.

    Bottom line is that adhering to "state of the art circa 2006" doesn't get you what you want. No one's building a game engine to manipulate 70K poly figures, because its a waste of cycles and there's no need to.

    There really is a need for a more modern geometry and shading system. Look at what Zbrush does-- now 15 years old. Simply stunning levels of detail, without crippling geometries . . . but getting that kind of performance inevitably means an architecture beyond "lotta polys and big bitmaps"

    There is another side to looking at this.

    Gaming is not the only thing that matters in 2016 CG artwork. In fact, if you ask me, most games look like total crap from a technical standpoint. Seriously, I wouldn't find most of the frames I see in games as acceptable if they were still images. Poor lighting, strange shading, all in the name of speed. Unless one is truly dedicated to building games, I think one should almost completely avoid mention of it. I just don't think there are THAT many DS users building games at this point in time. And there are also the new Morph3D models which are streamlined for gaming purposes.

    The ONLY place Genesis 3 outperforms V4 is in DS itself. Simple reasoning is, that for Genesis 3 to look good it requires Daz Studio specific technologies, such as HD morphs. Do not take HD for granted. Its been observed since nearly the first week of G3 release that spinnning dials on Genesis 3 doesnt look nearly as awesome as spinning dials on V4 due to the severely reduced polygons available in Genesis 2 and 3. The fact that Bryce, not even Carrara or Poser, can take advantage of HD morphs, means that Genesis 2 and 3 simply don't look as good when rendered outside of DS. V4 on the other hand, with her heavier geometry, allows for much more morph detail without the need for Studio-centric technologies like HD morphs. As a person who only uses DS to pose figures and to morph them so that I can send them to other engines like Bryce for final rendering. I've been stuck on Genesis 1 and previous figures if I want to do any real morphing. To my mind, this is a terrible shame. And the reason for this is that Daz3d hasnt updated Bryce nor Carrara nor Poser to take advantage of the tools these new models were designed to rely upon. Genesis 3 literally becomes 1/10 as useful without the HD morphing. Without HD, you have nothing.

    Also, I'd like to address the issue of environments. All an application needs to become decent with landscapes is 1. Sky Model or HDRI Dome equivalent    2. Sunlight Model    3. Atmospheric Scattering Model   4. Instancing Technology for vegetation.

    The new Fern Lake and Through the Woods products demonstrate that point. Stonemason could have easily developed these landscapes for Carrara or Bryce, but it's become obvious that most DS users want to do their final renders in DS if they can. So it's smart to start making more detailed landscape content for use directly within DS itself, which the new Instaning Technology allows. That trend will continue and the necessity of outside tools like Carrara and Bryce will fall to the wayside provided people find themselves happy with the available environmental content being produced in the future.

    ...I might have stayed with Gen4 if there was a viable teen figure (along with appropriate clothing) and clothing cross fitting wasn't so much of a pain (even between different characters within the same "unimesh"). Autofit may have it's flaws, but it performs far better than any of the old third party conversion tools.

     

    j cade said:
    Cybersox13 said:
    j cade said:

    What do you want to know about the weight map brush?

     

    (Oh and this is not facetious, I'm more than willing to answer questions/give a basic rundown. I love the weightmap brush and think everybody should use it)

    What I'd really like is a tutorial on using it with deformers.  I know it's possible, but I've never been able to find anything that actually breaks it down by process.

    Oooh I know how to do that, Its pretty simple.

    Add your deformer (select your figure and hit the add deformer button) 

    Position it roughly how you want it

    Select the deformer (any of the three parts: base, field, or deformer will do)

    Select the node weight brush and go to the tool settings panel with the deformer selected

    Under unused maps there should be an option called "influence weights" add that map, It should match the fall off of the d-former field.

    You can now paint this as any other weight map and it will control the fall off field

    below are some crappy pictures hopefully showing what I mean

    Aaaah!  I think it's been the influence weight maps option that I'd been missing.  Thanks!  I'll have to try this after work.   

     

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715
    Cybersox13 said:
    mrposer said:

    mmmm... someone starts a Daz vs Poser thread and an Iray vs 3DL discussion broke out ... I do think the fact there are now 2 render engines to support in DAZ Studio has further accelerated the move away from Poser support at the DAZ store... esp. now for even prop sets that no longer have Poser versions or material support.

    Definitely.  It's interesting to note that in the less than a year G3F support has exploded over at Renderosity to the point where the 3D Figure Essentials category now has nearly a thousand items versus just a little over 4800 for V4. a number that's taken ten years to build.  By comparison there are just under 300 for Genesis 1, just under 500 for Dawn and just over 1350 for G2F, but since those all work in either DS or Poser, it's hard use those as a gauge for determining software bias.  WIth G3F being DS only, however, it would definitely seem to indicate that there's been a huge move to DS only support by a sizable portion of non-DAZ affiliated PAs in an extremely short period.  Which may not necessarily reflect what people are actually purchasing, of course, let alone what people are actually using in the privacy of their own homes, but where there's smoke there's usually fire.        

    Considering there is a free script available to get G3 working in Poser, the sales will certainly reflect useage to some extend, but the fact a script was created and apparently being used, suggests Poser users want to use G3.

    Who can blame them, more tools are always good to have.

  • CybersoxCybersox Posts: 9,296
    nicstt said:
    Cybersox13 said:
    mrposer said:

    mmmm... someone starts a Daz vs Poser thread and an Iray vs 3DL discussion broke out ... I do think the fact there are now 2 render engines to support in DAZ Studio has further accelerated the move away from Poser support at the DAZ store... esp. now for even prop sets that no longer have Poser versions or material support.

    Definitely.  It's interesting to note that in the less than a year G3F support has exploded over at Renderosity to the point where the 3D Figure Essentials category now has nearly a thousand items versus just a little over 4800 for V4. a number that's taken ten years to build.  By comparison there are just under 300 for Genesis 1, just under 500 for Dawn and just over 1350 for G2F, but since those all work in either DS or Poser, it's hard use those as a gauge for determining software bias.  WIth G3F being DS only, however, it would definitely seem to indicate that there's been a huge move to DS only support by a sizable portion of non-DAZ affiliated PAs in an extremely short period.  Which may not necessarily reflect what people are actually purchasing, of course, let alone what people are actually using in the privacy of their own homes, but where there's smoke there's usually fire.        

    Considering there is a free script available to get G3 working in Poser, the sales will certainly reflect useage to some extend, but the fact a script was created and apparently being used, suggests Poser users want to use G3.

    True, but since that that script has only existed for a month or so, I think it's fair to say that everything that's happened on the G3F front until then has been completely and solely reflective of a DS only focus.  Whereas determining the roots of the growth of the Dawn and G2F markets are a lot harder to pin down, given that both were poser compatible out of the gate.  In a game where companies are reluctaint to actually dole out real sales numbers, it's about as clear an indicator as we're likely to see.

  • crocodiliancrocodilian Posts: 82
    edited April 2016
    Cybersox13 said:

    One of DAZ's greatest weaknesses for years has been the lack of decent, up-to-date documentation

    A statement that could be made of . . . just about pretty much all consumer 3D software. Its complicated stuff, and as developers pound it out, documentation comes later, if ever.  Online communities really are the best source of information about the current capabilities of these packages. Big shops, like Autodesk and Adobe, do have big resources applied to documentation support, a new rev of 3DS will have accompanying documentation that's very good. Its also costs $3600.

    Take a long time desiderata of mine: instancing. Instancing is hugely powerful, the way to get an army of orcs instead of just one or two. Now, iRay has instancing, and DS has a very limited implementation of it, and not much information about it, but I'd expect that this will change rapidly from iteration to iteration. Any documentation on these kinds of functions are likely to be out of date very quickly, as you have two levels of change, iRay is changing, and DS is changing.

    Post edited by crocodilian on
  • BendinggrassBendinggrass Posts: 1,380
    Jan19 said:
    Chohole said:

    Genesis is not a merchant resource. not any of the 3 generations of Genesis

    Thanks, Cho.  :-) 

     

    That sounds iffy to me...

    Better just to read the EULA yourself:

    http://store.smithmicro.com/sellers/cpstaff/license/PoserPro-EULA.pdf

    Definitely iffy.  :-)  I should've kept my mouth shut about Paul/Pauline, because it seems that nobody is exactly clear on what their status as a "merchant resource" means. 

    It was one of those "before the sun rises" posts. frown  They don't count.

     

     

    So that makes me wonder about the procedures requried in constructing a new character that is compatible with, for example, Genesis 7.

    How does a vendor go about doing this?

    I know there are "merchant" products or resources you can buy to use in this, but what else is required to do this.

    Would you need some kind of "blank" V7 to work on?

     

    A run down on how this kind of thing is done would be fascinating.

     

    Thanks.

    R 

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    Bendinggrass said:

    So that makes me wonder about the procedures requried in constructing a new character that is compatible with, for example, Genesis 7.

    How does a vendor go about doing this?

    I know there are "merchant" products or resources you can buy to use in this, but what else is required to do this.

    Would you need some kind of "blank" V7 to work on?

     

    A run down on how this kind of thing is done would be fascinating.

     

    Thanks.

    R 

    That is one of the big advances with the Genesis family...the file that is generated is just a list of changed vertices...not a geometry file.  So no assets are being 'shared', just settings.   And that's true whether it's dial spun or sculpted (you can't export a morphed figure and do sculpting on that...because that 'freezes' someone elses morphs and a few other things you need to be careful about...but generally, it's much easier this way).

  • lx_2807502lx_2807502 Posts: 2,996
    crocodilian said:
    Cybersox13 said:

    One of DAZ's greatest weaknesses for years has been the lack of decent, up-to-date documentation

    A statement that could be made of . . . just about pretty much all consumer 3D software. Its complicated stuff, and as developers pound it out, documentation comes later, if ever.  Online communities really are the best source of information about the current capabilities of these packages. Big shops, like Autodesk and Adobe, do have big resources applied to documentation support, a new rev of 3DS will have accompanying documentation that's very good. Its also costs $3600.

    Take a long time desiderata of mine: instancing. Instancing is hugely powerful, the way to get an army of orcs instead of just one or two. Now, iRay has instancing, and DS has a very limited implementation of it, and not much information about it, but I'd expect that this will change rapidly from iteration to iteration. Any documentation on these kinds of functions are likely to be out of date very quickly, as you have two levels of change, iRay is changing, and DS is changing.

    Again, Blender is completely free and has one of the best manuals and range of learning materials of any 3D program I've seen (especially because a lot of it is actually written in human rather than programmer.) Obviously it's going to cost money to have staff dedicated to documentation... but shouldn't that be a high priority position for any company? What's the point of constantly bringing in shiny new features to bloat up a program that people struggle with the existing features (or don't even know they exist) because no one explained them properly?

  • Ghosty12Ghosty12 Posts: 2,080

    Cybersox13 said:

    If you really want to get into Poser cheap, you can currently buy Poser Debut

    Neither Studio nor Poser can make the models that they assemble, rig, pose, and render.  Neither can make the environments in which the models are placed.  In the past, Studio-based figures had a dependable bridge to Bryce, Hexagon, and Carrara. 

    BUT

    Genesis 3 reveals a troubling trend.  Because Bryce has not been updated, the bridge does not work for everyone because of evolving operating systems.  If not addressed eventually, new users will not have equipment that can rely on the Bryce bridge to place the posed figures in environments.  Because Carrara has not been updated, Genesis 3 figures and content are useless in Carrara, and that channel to environments will also close.

    So, if you want to pose a character under an HDRI dome, Studio might be fine in the long run.  But if you want your models to interact in an environment, Studio has some questions.

    Not to mention that there's a disturbing new trend of DAZ products that only work with the Iray renderer, ignoring the fact that many customers either cannot or prefer to not use Iray only products. Ironcially, it brings to mind the huge rift that occured in the Poser world way back when Poser 5 changed the default material settings.   

    And this is what is worrying, I have bought very little over the last few months because the things that I do want are made to utilize only Iray, I just don't have the need for it not with the work that I do which is mainly making comics that I then postprocess through an image filter..

  • crocodiliancrocodilian Posts: 82
    edited April 2016
    lx said:

    Again, Blender is completely free and has one of the best manuals and range of learning materials of any 3D program I've seen (especially because a lot of it is actually written in human rather than programmer.) Obviously it's going to cost money to have staff dedicated to documentation... but shouldn't that be a high priority position for any company? What's the point of constantly bringing in shiny new features to bloat up a program that people struggle with the existing features (or don't even know they exist) because no one explained them properly?

    Blender's manual is the work of, largely, a community of folks-- not really different from forum threads here. It is as good as the work of the volunteers who write it.  As open source software, the guts of Blender are more visible to folks documenting it.  When I try to understand DS' implementation of iRay's instancing, for example, there's no ability to look at the code repository, not Daz' and not Nvidia's. I can only see what it is that they've said about what they've done.  That makes it more difficult for volunteers, even knowledgable ones, to contribute documentation.

    Looking at the Poser/Daz world, there are any number of threads here and on other forums that expose far more functionality than the formal documentation ever did. Guys like BagginsBill and contributers to the Poser Node forum on RuntimeDNA-- just amazing innovations, stuff that was never in the documentation, all kinds of innovations with respect to the Firefly renderer. Similarly on this forum you'll find knowledgeable folks filling in the gaps from experience . . . that's why forums are valuable.

    In the world of closed source commercial software, the way its typically works is this: the priority is development, with some 3rd party contractor coming in after a package is completed to write it up. Sometimes a shop will have an in house documentation guy, sometimes not. When looking at hobbyist level software-- which is what DS is-- there's not the same commercial motivation to document for customers. When you look at a big commercial package, which is being sold to corporate accounts, there's not just documentation, there's support, eg feedback from developers about what does and doesn't work, bug fixes, etc.

    Blender also has something which commercial software typically doesn't have, for competitive reasons-- a very clear roadmap of functionality to be added to future modules. With Daz for example, as we iterate in the 4.9 releases, obviously there's a 5.0 out there, that likely has some big changes . . . I don;t think anything about it has been announced; Daz isn't going to tip their hand too openly about what for them has commercial value.

    That said, the Blender documentation is not at the level of Autodesk's -- you pay your $3600, and you do get something for it.

    Post edited by crocodilian on
  • lx_2807502lx_2807502 Posts: 2,996
    crocodilian said:
    lx said:

    Again, Blender is completely free and has one of the best manuals and range of learning materials of any 3D program I've seen (especially because a lot of it is actually written in human rather than programmer.) Obviously it's going to cost money to have staff dedicated to documentation... but shouldn't that be a high priority position for any company? What's the point of constantly bringing in shiny new features to bloat up a program that people struggle with the existing features (or don't even know they exist) because no one explained them properly?

    Blender's manual is the work of, largely, a community of folks-- not really different from forum threads here. It is as good as the work of the volunteers who write it.  As open source software, the guts of Blender are more visible to folks documenting it.  When I try to understand DS' implementation of iRay's instancing, for example, there's no ability to look at the code repository, not Daz' and not Nvidia's. I can only see what it is that they've said about what they've done.  That makes it more difficult for volunteers, even knowledgable ones, to contribute documentation.

    Looking at the Poser/Daz world, there are any number of threads here and on other forums that expose far more functionality than the formal documentation ever did. Guys like BagginsBill and contributers to the Poser Node forum on RuntimeDNA-- just amazing innovations, stuff that was never in the documentation, all kinds of innovations with respect to the Firefly renderer. Similarly on this forum you'll find knowledgeable folks filling in the gaps from experience . . . that's why forums are valuable.

    In the world of closed source commercial software, the way its typically works is this: the priority is development, with some 3rd party contractor coming in after a package is completed to write it up. Sometimes a shop will have an in house documentation guy, sometimes not. When looking at hobbyist level software-- which is what DS is-- there's not the same commercial motivation to document for customers. When you look at a big commercial package, which is being sold to corporate accounts, there's not just documentation, there's support, eg feedback from developers about what does and doesn't work, bug fixes, etc.

    Blender also has something which commercial software typically doesn't have, for competitive reasons-- a very clear roadmap of functionality to be added to future modules. With Daz for example, as we iterate in the 4.9 releases, obviously there's a 5.0 out there, that likely has some big changes . . . I don;t think anything about it has been announced; Daz isn't going to tip their hand too openly about what for them has commercial value.

    That said, the Blender documentation is not at the level of Autodesk's -- you pay your $3600, and you do get something for it.

    Without really disagreeing with what you said, there are two things I have issues with there:

    The first is that the forums here aren't the same because they aren't particularly easy to navigate if you're looking for various bits of info. You can find information on specific topics (sometimes) but it usually involves going to google instead of the forum search and then sifting through pages and pages of information for that bit you're after. From memory Daz did give us a wiki to write the manual for them but then no one really used it.

    I get the idea that smaller companies work this way, but also I have issues with the idea that that's okay and that because we're all fine with it, it continues to be the way things are done. Why should you have to buy an expensive piece of software to be able to learn about all the extensive features put into a program in a reasonable manner? It's not just about being well documented: it's about paying any attention to them at all. The features are all there in Studio and clearly took quite a bit of effort to design and implement. Why is it so hard to make any sort of effort to advertise them - it's not just lack of detailed information; there are a load of features that are just never introduced at all. 

    I mentioned earlier that most of us receive daily emails from Daz: why can they not spare 2 lines of text to mention that they just put up a youtube tutorial or a simple have you tried this tool thing (or in an ideal world, give it a bit of explanation and then have a small render contest around it) ? But no, the only focus is on Victoria Clone 3574286 and her latest intense bikini armor, buy these deals that we can't actually program our store to manage properly, and not a thought to providing so much as a hint that make a customer want to poke around in the program a little more than they might otherwise.

  • ColdrakeColdrake Posts: 236
    edited April 2016
    lx said:
     

     

    I mentioned earlier that most of us receive daily emails from Daz: why can they not spare 2 lines of text to mention that they just put up a youtube tutorial

    Subscribe to their YouTube channel and they will notify you when they put up new tutorials. I've gotten these three in the last 5 days.

    The Iray Uber Base Shader,

    Changing Default Settings

    Getting Started in Iray

    Post edited by Coldrake on
  • lx_2807502lx_2807502 Posts: 2,996
    Coldrake said:
    lx said:
     

     

    I mentioned earlier that most of us receive daily emails from Daz: why can they not spare 2 lines of text to mention that they just put up a youtube tutorial

    Subscribe to their YouTube channel and they will notify you when they put up new tutorials. I've gotten these three in the last 5 days.

    The Iray Uber Base Shader,

    Changing Default Settings

    Getting Started in Iray

    Considering that the highest view count of those 3 is 800 and the other two are 100-200 each, and that Daz surely has more people than that on their mailing list, they could clearly be getting a lot more traffic simply by putting in a one line link in one of the emails when a new video comes out. 

    "Subscribe to the youtube channel" doesn't answer the problem of people not knowing those things are there in the first place. If you look at the content being produced on the channel, it started with some tutorials long ago, then became sparse highlights of new characters for sale and art submissions, then suddenly kicked into gear with a wealth of new content: that you can only find out about if you happen to go to the channel in the first place. No part of Daz is directing us there.

  • crocodiliancrocodilian Posts: 82
    lx said:

    Without really disagreeing with what you said, there are two things I have issues with there:

    The first is that the forums here aren't the same because they aren't particularly easy to navigate if you're looking for various bits of info. You can find information on specific topics (sometimes) but it usually involves going to google instead of the forum search and then sifting through pages and pages of information for that bit you're after. From memory Daz did give us a wiki to write the manual for them but then no one really used it.

    So, all it takes is for someone who wants to, to pull the information out of these threads into something more organized. Over at Newtek's Lightwave forum, they've got a sticky at the top of the forum "Basic stuff Lightwave users should know, but are not-so-obvious", running on to 18 pages of incredibly useful stuff for anyone who uses Lightwave. Yes, it would be more useful if harvested into a Wiki; no, no one's done it yet.

    What I think helps Blender with organization is the discipline required of an Open Source project. Because you have various  remote teams working on different new bits of functionality, they're compelled to organize the project explicitly. When you have a closed source project, the Product Manager, the CIO, those guys can do more of the organizing "by feel".

    So, yeah, in general, Open Source imposes some disciplines about clarity and documentation that have real benefits to users.

     

    lx said:

    I get the idea that smaller companies work this way, but also I have issues with the idea that that's okay and that because we're all fine with it, it continues to be the way things are done. Why should you have to buy an expensive piece of software to be able to learn about all the extensive features put into a program in a reasonable manner?

    The community votes with their feet. And they vote for "implement new stuff as fast as you can".  I imagine it was a huge effort on Daz' part to get the iRay rendering up and running as well as it does, on as heterogeneous a hardware constellation as the user base has. You have to have priorities-- in hobbyist software, the priority is innovation, not documentation.

    Even when there are beautiful documents, they become outdated very fast. Somewhere I have a manual that's truly a work of art, Ken Musgrave's manual for his "Mojoworld" (something like Bryce or Terragen, world creation software). The manual was expensive, well written, and out of date within a year due to the fast pace of revision.

    The best guides are typically 3rd party books. I'm kinda surprised that there's not more activity for Poser and DS; back in my Bryce days, Susan Kitchen's "Real World Bryce" was magnificent. For a while, there were even "Bryce camps" where you'd go to geek out with other Bryce nerds over the obscure gnostic beauty of the Deep Texture Editor. FWIW Kai Krause had a design aesthetic that held that you should discover the power of the software, rather than be instructed in it. It was like flying a Romulan spaceship . . .

  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 3,936
    edited April 2016

    "its been observed since nearly the first week of G3
     release that spinnning dials on Genesis 3 doesnt
     look nearly as awesome as spinning dials on V4 
    due to the severely reduced polygons available in Genesis
     2 and 3. The fact that Bryce, not even Carrara or Poser,
    can take advantage of HD morphs, means that Genesis 2
    and 3 simply don't look as good when rendered outside of DS."

    Sorry but you do not seem to be accounting for the 
    native sub dividing methods in the various other programs
    that have more advanced tools than bryce,carrara& poser.

    For Example Zevo's HD aging morphs look great in Blender
    2.7+ when using the Mcj teleblend exporter to convert DS scenes
    over to blender.

    I am an animator who renders ALL of my finals in Maxon Cinema4D
    Studio.

    I create my animation for genesis 1-2 with a comination of 
    Iclone Pro,aniMate2,and graphmate& keymate.
    I use BASE resolution figures and export the .obj file& MDD Data 
    (point level animation), out to C4D where the fully textured
    and lit copy of the obj file is waiting to receive its animation data.
    I simply place the C4D copy under a"Hypernurbs modifier"
    and choose from a variety of subdivision methods ,in C4D,
    and watch as my HD details re-appear. 

    Post edited by wolf359 on
  • mindsongmindsong Posts: 1,734
    interesting workflow and information wolf359, tnx. ms
  • lawrence.s.rouse_d7b09fbb38lawrence.s.rouse_d7b09fbb38 Posts: 2
    mrinal said:

    Also with Adobe Fuse (currently in preview and also available as part of CC) in the pipeline, I would say, the options are opening up. Being part of an established Adobe family and as long as it is distributed within CC subscription it is already positioned to attract newcomers.

    Yes, and now that they actually have Fuse CC working it looks like it is going to be a competitor so long as adobe continues to work hard on it. It will be interesting to see what becomes of it once they get it off the ground. If it does compeate with will (my opinion) be much more econimical than these other programs. Although I am giveing DAZ3D a thumnbs up for their marketing strategy. As for Poser, I think they are stuck in the old way of doing things. A lof of these software companies just do not see the light when it comes to affordability (cloud subscriptions are the way fo the future). Eve AutoDesk is tinkering with cloud subscriptions and their current ones is pretty decent. 

  • WendyLuvsCatzWendyLuvsCatz Posts: 40,190

    I tried twice to install Adobe Fuse through Adobe ( I have the Steam version) but regardless of my settings and choosing my E drive in the default pathways, it insisted on installing to my tiny SSD C drive so had to remove it, so until they can get that at least right they are no competition.

    The Mixamo autorigged results of my Steam versions at least work in Carrara and iClone, sadly my PoserPro12 does not do imports.

    With Poser's future on the line it will be interesting if Adobe would consider buying it from SM and adding native support for Fuse, then I think DAZ might be a bit worried!

  • AllenArtAllenArt Posts: 7,175
    edited July 2017
    Havos said:

     

     

     

    Post edited by AllenArt on
  • EcVh0EcVh0 Posts: 535
    lawrence.s.rouse_d7b09fbb38 said:

    As for Poser, I think they are stuck in the old way of doing things.

    I smell, Nokia

  • nonesuch00nonesuch00 Posts: 18,762
    Pack58 said:

    Off topic but I'm interested to understand what this

    nonesuch00 said:

     even if you didn't with them.

    adds (that's useful) to the discussion?

    Edit: Bad,bad,bad spelling.

    Just what it says, technology moves on and you can't expect the rest of the world to stay with outmoded ways of doing thing because you don't like airbags or lots of new safety features.

    Poser 12 Beta is looking quite good though. They're moving on now and I like what I've saw.

  • shadowhawk1shadowhawk1 Posts: 2,206

    The only reason I left Poser was due to them not updating so Genesis and Genesis 2 could be used natively wouthout other programs. I find Poser to be a far better program in most ways. The only positive thing I have found with Studio that I wish Poser had is PowerPose. If Smith Micro had updated to include native use of G1 & G2 I would have gladly paid for the new version of Poser over the free version of Studio. 

  • DustRiderDustRider Posts: 2,888
    nonesuch00 said:
    Pack58 said:

    Off topic but I'm interested to understand what this

    nonesuch00 said:

     even if you didn't with them.

    adds (that's useful) to the discussion?

    Edit: Bad,bad,bad spelling.

    Just what it says, technology moves on and you can't expect the rest of the world to stay with outmoded ways of doing thing because you don't like airbags or lots of new safety features.

    Poser 12 Beta is looking quite good though. They're moving on now and I like what I've saw.

    Poser 12 Beta??? I haven't been able to find anything official about Poser 12. Could you possibly point us in the right direction as my Google Fu is failing me here.

    I did find a few musings about a possible new interface at the SM forum, but that is about all I could find. Except for a video on youtube entitled "Poser 12 Beta 2" by Seraca1 (I believe he is our Wolf359 - if not, I'm sure Wolf will correct me). I'm 99% sure that video is to show what Poser/SM should be doing for Poser 12 with another software, not an actual Poser 12 Beta, since in his comments he states "This is what smith Micro needs to implement" (maybe a character system in Unity or iClone - again I'm sure Wolf will give the full story if this is his video).

  • Blackbirdx61Blackbirdx61 Posts: 300

    So for the most part we stumble upon ways of doing things and then share them here. The result is one part great adventure and one part frustration. :-)

    As long as I can remember, and I've been with DAZ since 3.x;

    But serious Question, does anyone know off hand if Poser (10) Debut supports the DSON importer; or would I have to go with the full version of 11 to import the v4 Charactors I have built in DAZ, it could be pretty challanging to get those morphs exactly wrong again. As they where created when I did not understand morphs, but that resulted in some pretty unique toons.

    Anyhow definately planning to install Poser for a test drive, just not sure if the copy of Debut I own will do, or if I'll need to shell out for v11.

     

  • KaribouKaribou Posts: 1,325

    I love both programs.  I've used Poser since P6.  But DON'T buy Poser 11.  It's a step backwards, in my opinion.  There is at least one reputable software dealer -- Studica -- who still sells legitimat digital licenses of Poser Pro 2014.  They cater to educational licenses, but have standard licenses (Such as Poser Pro 2014) that do not require you to be a student or teacher to purchase from them.  It runs about $175.  Strongly, strongly, STRONGLY recommend it over Poser 11.

  • AdemnusAdemnus Posts: 744

    I started with Poser and kept up for quite a few upgrades but frankly I find the ease of use of DAZ just better.

  • MasterstrokeMasterstroke Posts: 2,320

    I' started with Poser4. I've been with Poser untill PPro2014. What made me change to DS was the Iray render engine and the Genesis3 figures. Poser has not done enough to introduce better figures with their programm. Stock figures are like hosts to an app like DS or Poser. They suppose to be a tech demo, a basic to work with and to just represent the application. DAZ understood, so their figures go through a constant development progress with every release. They've put a lot of effort by setting up a JCM system, that gives a decent joint bending result. This is my main expectation to a figure posing and animation program. I still miss some in house cloth and hair simulation. An easier workflow for ERC editing and creation whould be nice too. So I became a DS user, because it just works best for me.

  • nicsttnicstt Posts: 11,715

    For me it isn't a case of one V the other; they are both capable pieces of software, and obviously not the only ones that can be used to produce renders; find one you like use it, ideally use more than one, you'll learn more - it will take longer though.

  • mmitchell_houstonmmitchell_houston Posts: 2,512
    Karibou said:

    I love both programs.  I've used Poser since P6.  But DON'T buy Poser 11.  It's a step backwards, in my opinion.  There is at least one reputable software dealer -- Studica -- who still sells legitimat digital licenses of Poser Pro 2014.  They cater to educational licenses, but have standard licenses (Such as Poser Pro 2014) that do not require you to be a student or teacher to purchase from them.  It runs about $175.  Strongly, strongly, STRONGLY recommend it over Poser 11.

    In terms of the Live Comic Book Preview, which provides very good geometric edge rendering, Poser 11 is lightyears ahead of previous versions of Poser, and light years ahead of Daz Studio. For those of us interested in Non-Photographic Rendering, Poser 11 is my tool of choice. And keep in mind, I make this endorsement after I've already examined most of the shader and scripted camera offerings out there. (I was a beta tester on Line Render 9000, and it comes closest to achieving the results I get out of the box with Poser 11.) I'm not going to defend the program's other features (no native support for Genesis figures, library incompatabilities and poor FBX imports), but for rendering line-art, it's top of the heap.

    BTW: I am exploring Carrara as an option for NPR rendering, but I'm still struggling with the learning curve for that app.

    PS: If you're interested in what I mean by NPR, take a look at my gallery for the line art images, or visit the nice folks who hang out over in the Non-photographic Rendering forum here at Daz.

  • mcorrmcorr Posts: 1,104
    edited July 2017

    Started with Poser when Fractal Design came out with it, back in 1995 (poser1). Then after DAZ Studio came out, I gave it a shot. It was more about the potential of that kind of 3D software than what it was actually able to do back then. Poser always felt clunky to me (the UI) and DAZ much more accessible. I have only been able to recently say that the tools (actually DS) have caught up with my vision and I can finally make what I imagine .... and it looks decent ... about 20 years later. That's a long time to wait.

    Post edited by mcorr on
  • mmitchell_houstonmmitchell_houston Posts: 2,512
    edited August 2017
    mcorr said:

    Started with Poser when Fractal Design came out with it, back in 1995 (poser1). Then after DAZ Studio came out, I gave it a shot. It was more about the potential of that kind of 3D software than what it was actually able to do back then. Poser always felt clunky to me (the UI) and DAZ much more accessible. I have only been able to recently say that the tools (actually DS) have caught up with my vision and I can finally make what I imagine .... and it looks decent ... about 20 years later. That's a long time to wait.

    I agree. I remember trying Daz Studio 2 and, after less than a week, decided it wasn't worth the effort to learn. It just wasn't there, yet. I stuck with Poser, which was really hitting its stride with the Victoria and Michael Elite figures. And then along came the various iterations of DS 4. That was when I felt it had something to offer. And Genesis was a huge leap over what I was capable of doing with the aging V4/M4 figure line. But, then along came Genesis 2 and 3, and I feel something is lacking here at DS. Although it is making huge strides forward in terms of phtorealistic rendering, this toolset seems to be completely ignoring dynamic clothing, non-photographic rendering (it's been ages and we still don't have a competent geometric-edge rendering option). Don't get me wrong, Iray is FANTASTIC. But it's not really what I'm looking for. I've spent lots of time and money exploring scripted cameras and Photoshop filters, and I still can't get what Poser 11 delivers. Despite the fact I'm stuck using ancient figures (V4/M4) or poorly supported modern figures (Paul, Pauline, Dawn & Dusk are nice, but there just isn't sufficient vendor content support for them). For now, I'm an artist being forced to select tools that don't fully deliver on their promise, even after all these years.

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