Standardize rigging and posing between 3D programs!
jdavison67
Posts: 689
in The Commons
You would think that by now the 3D industry would have a standard for rigging and posing 3D objects, so that you could share rigged objects across platforms.
JD
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 problem is that each application has good reasons for doing what it does, at leasta dding tweaks to a common system. There have been numerous attempts at formal (Collada) or de facto (FBX) standards but they always seem to diverge as companies add support for special features. The safest bet are the vertex-cache formats like .mdd and Alembic, but that's at the expense of losing the rigging and just getting a record of how the vertices defining the shape moved. Materials are even more variable due to the huge range of render engines, all with different features and implementations - at least with the move to PBR systems we are seeing a degree of convergence, with MDL being somewhat widely supported (including in DS).
I understand programs having unique special features, but it would seem that the concepts could have a shared set of building blocks at their core, as most 3D objcts have similar elements, be it polygons, or ngons Maybe I'm thinking about it the wrong way.
That was pretty much the idea behind Collada (FBX was made for a specific purpose, Motion Builder, and was then geenralised). The problem is getting everyone to stick to a single defined standard.
2D is better served, but even there you can't preserve all the features of a painter document in a PSD file, nor will every image editor handle everything in a PSD from Photoshop. Tiff is even worse.
It would help if everyone was not so protective of their formats too.
DAZ studio only could exist because Poser allowed other software inc Carrara, Shade and Vue to use cr2 etc which seems to have been forgotten, it stands to reason more DAZ models would be sold if other softwares could natively open duf.
They can, the DSON standard can be used by anyone who wishes to implement it.
But getting the other software companies to adopt it is going to be difficult.
And therein lies the problem
What must be understood is that "Rigging" is only part of what makes a CG character funtional and Each program has its own "rig control systems and IK solvers that determine how the figure can be manipulated within those environments.
For example Iclone pro has an excellent Foot& hand contact system For leaning on tables and walking on inclines and other uneven terrains.
But when I export an Iclone Character from 3D Exchange as an FBX file.
This will not magically transfer those Iclone native hand& Foot contacts Solver features to Daz studio or Unity etc.
Yes as a temporay hedge against the potential loss of the singular platform that supported its content business model,
Zygote/Daz created an alternative to the floundering poser application based on the CR2 Figure format.
However The poser based CR2 is a Bloated& unweildy format not given to Expandability or innovation.
There are very good technical reasons why Daz has adandoned it
for its native figures.
Forgive me but to what "other softwares" do you refer??
I hear this quite often from DS users and it is quite an incorrect leap in Logic.
Note how the aspring games content division of The parent company that own owns Daz3D,( Morph 3D) is not trying to convince the makers of unity to support the "DUF" format.
Proprietary formats tend not to do well in a competitive consumer market..ask Sony about this.
Actually if DAZ wanted to sell more models & Game Dev License I wonder if it would be possible for them to make a Unity Game Engine module that could handle DAZ models, well let's be practical, Genesis 3 models natively in DAZ Studio including LODs.
This is the business model
I knew about the Morph 3D as I own a couple, well actually their only 2 base models. As the realistic style is more for those folk doing completely different type of games than me the style is not suitable for my game style.
When I bought a DAZ Game Development that also made buying such Morph 3D models a redundant expense. I've looked at the script UI/API and it's OK but it would be nice to have a character builder / dressing room in Unity from DAZ 3D and created for DAZ 3D / Poser characters and an exporter in DAZ Studio that allowed me to export characters, clothing, and so on in DAZ Studio that I've customized directly in DAZ Studio to that character builder in Unity that that fellow talked about and it menu options and such be populated. I guess expecting a port of DAZ file format is a bit much and a waste of effort as Unity's physics and such is geared to rigged FBXes with bones and blendshapes and works quite well.
While most programmers can do that work themselves Unity, like DAZ, has many, many hobbiests that don't know a whit about programming or 3D modeling so I will continue to watch what DAZ 3D does.
I just checked the Unity Asset store for a standlone character builder / dressing room from Morph 3D that you just add your own DAZ models too without buying other models and it must not be finished yet as there is none in there.
Hi I would imagine that there are Licensing
restrictions.
Those morph3d MCS models are under a different license
for use in potentially Commercial game releases,
than our existing poser/Daz models.
Well the big one for me would be if someone could create a python script for Blender, DAZ developers themselves could find this in their interests.
Vue also, I never went beyond Pioneer but not getting content in nicely was one main reason I never bothered with it. The collada worked sometimes and Poser if you ran Poser on the PLE but was too buggy to throw money at for a Pioneer module.
Not in my budget but Maxscripts and Maya plugins are obvious like the existing transposer, and C4D importers, I may consider oneday buying Lightwave though if there was an easy way to get DAZ content in and use its rigging and morphs.
Getting back to the original statement of standardization. I'll offer my two cents for whatever it'll buy in the market.
Right now the technology is emerging to scan real people in 3D commercially. The cost is about $100-$200, but locations where this can be done are still very limited. For your money you get a 3D printed statue, and if you pay a little extra a 3D software model (probably *.OBJ non-rigged) that is mapped. I believe that when enough people and families have their own perrsonal static models the next step is that they will want them to move. Then you'll see rigging standardize to handle these static model scans of real people.
After that will come the standardization of texture mapping. I believe that the driver will be "once I have my model and can move it why can't I change the clothes or make-up?"
Fabric Engine would be useful, in this instance, Kraken Rigging Framework.
http://forums.fabricengine.com/categories/kraken
http://fabricengine.com/