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
Wow "hate" ... "not taking notice" ... did you even bother to read the posts ... you don't understand the underlying point of the post. All "the stuff that you like" is just fine (I regularly buy it too), but in a universe where opposing forces ("good and evil") are battling it out, it would be nice to have (not just Saron's minions, but also) more of a selection on the "other side" of the equation. This has nothing to do with "George" or "Sumo" or poses ... (which I am a proud owner of). I'd be interested in knowing what your informed opinion is after you've read ALL the posts and understand what the OP is saying.
.
They are to specific in my opinion. As an example if there is the choice to offer Napoleon or a soldier from his time period its better to offer the soldier. Napoleon would be very specific and difficult to use for images not about him while a general soldier from that time can be used in far more settings. For the characters from Daz its far better to offer general ones from a race or group (like angles, mermaids, goblins, orcs, dragons, elementals, faeries and such) or invent something new than doing specific figures like Buddha or Shiva.
I don't think they are "too" specific. On the surface, yes, but actually not. The kind of products I suggested can be used to create various iconography ... they are not limited to only what you think. The problem here is that you are only looking at the original product, like a "Buddha" (which is a meaningful and useful product in its own right, as becomes clear IF you've understood my posts above), not the larger context in which such a product operates and can be re-purposed for: you can branch out into other directions with it.
Again, it seems we have a case here of somebody who didn't read all the previous posts, or you just doesn't understand the meaning of "archetypal symbols" and the attraction these kinds of images have (on an unconscious level) ... and the different ways (not so specific at all) in which they could be used to balance out the scales of themes/products available in order to create more diverse renders/pieces of art.
sorry wasn't referring to you just when I posted this I didn't see what you posted got quoted and added to my second comment again was referring to others posting about not liking complaining about this stuff again as well as other content I did read your comments and know you had said nothing negative about it my first comment reply that I was commenting on your comment was referring to some of the darker type of angelic creatures and this comment sorry upset you was not meant to include or anything to do with your above comment sorry again
No problem at all =)
thanks mcorr
You have a different aproach to this. My argument is only in concern of how much freedom the content one buys allows and what can be created with it. I'm able to create a Buddha figure with a robe. Its not necessary for daz to build a full set around buddha specifically. If on the other hand as an example there was no mermaid in the store it would be really difficult to create an image with one for me.
I've saved loads recently with all these horror items. I don't want them, so I don't spend!
It's a vibe I'm getting too, but this stuff mostly seems to arrive together; so it will likely shift to something else, but folks make what sells; one does see othe stuff, and there is still a variety (within Daz's demographic) being produced and released; and folks like to explore their darker side - art in general and not just fantasy and horror is the best place for that. There must be a release I suppose.
And there's that, I have less need for it.
I prefer stories that challenge our (or at least my) perceptions.
The bad guys look attractive; the good guys, are what fill one's nightmares - their appearance at least.
But personally, I don't like sterotypes; making it easy for me to spot the good and bad guys: what am I, 10?
Please keep the conversation civil and about the topic, not other people.
Angels are usually fairly normal or idealized people, demons and devils are usually twisted bestial humanoids. There are a load of wings for angels and devils, and a bunch of different 'angelic robes.'
for other varieties of supernatural beings, we have various humanoid animals, and so on.
THIS ^^^^
I'm not talking about DAZ building anything. In my posts, I am talking about vendors making things.
Regarding making things yourself with what is at hand, that argument also goes the other way around. And in a more convincing way: we have plenty of skin shaders, textures and morphs to create awesome creatures, in addition to tails, horns and you name it. Using your argument, Why do we need more of them? Instead, it is exactly the items I mention that are not represented by the same spectrum of props, poses, cloths and characters. I think that is a clear numerical fact.
So regarding the "freedom" products allow for creating things, I've correctly understood what you said (and have now used your line of reasoning to counter your logic), and have -- instead --argued that (1) there would, in fact, be plenty of freedom given what I am proposing, (2) these products are under-represented and (3) such products are--in and of themselves--important (the archetype thing that nobody seems to understand) and (4) in my opinion, in demand (albeit perhaps a hidden demand like with George and Sumo, which I also already referenced as a counter-argument above in previous posts =).
Anyway, maybe I'm wrong. Or maybe there is just a limited understanding (or none) of the "archetype" thing I have been in vainly trying to get across. And maybe I'll just create this stuff myself, and then see how it sells =)
Sure - but by that same token, you're covered with what's in store ;)
"Anneka girl-scout and Michael 7-sins"
Its already been mentioned but it seems fairly obvious that part of the issue is that the good 'yin' to the monstrous or ghoulish 'yang' is usually just plain ol people. That is the raison d'aitre for monsters - a counterpont to the normalcy of human existence. We do not invent monsters to engage in conflicts with other monsters (usually), they are there to torment the lives and haunt the dreams of people.
The opposite of a demon or devil is generally considered to be an angel, but an angel is just an idealized human with wings, and what would be the opposite of an undead ghoul? A... not dead... person?
The duality here is people versus monsters. The opposite of monsters, for all intents and purposes, thoughout history, is plain ol wipe-yer-butt-with-yer-hand people.
Even good monsters are still monsters so I am curious what exactly would satisfy the need for balance regarding the ghoulish or monstrous offerings, after all there are already far far more people than ghouls and demons. Please note I am not arguing that this is a bad idea, I think more content is always better, I am just wondering what these new 'beings' would be exactly.
I think the answer lies unambiguously in the previous posts. They include a broader definition/context of the subject than you have presented, as well as clear statements that we are not just talking about "characters" here, but (I'll mention it again because I just love you guys all to death =) ... "poses, props and cloths that broaden the spectrum of what can be, for sake of argument, simply be called the "good against evil" archetype." Wow ... pretty repetitive on my part, huh? And since--not just those reading, but I too, have noticed this repetition going on here, I'm now off to actually doing some great "light versus dark" renderings. Everybody have a great weekend!!
We got the horns, tails, morphs and such just over the last weeks for genesis 3. The problem here is a snake tail, morphs and such usually won't work with the current genesis 3 if they arent created for it. For a Buddha on the other hand there isn't a special morph or addon necessary.
Possible. I'm posting just about my view and don't know what the general demand is. Characters like buddha or shiva would be a to specific representation of a certain person for my taste to buy them. In similar fashion I usually wouldn't buy a representations of a hollywood star as such specific content is difficult to use unless the render is conerning exact this person.
Right, and I was simply asking for unambiguous examples of such. And I was mainly replying to the phrasing of the OP. There is far more non-ghoulish content available than ghoulish so I guess fundamantally I am disagreeing with your premise no matter how often repeated.
there has been a spate of coffeeshops and scifi corridors too
and
so what?
this has to be the flakiest discussion I have read all week.
My bet is on Timmins.William
As for angels - there's a reason why they almost ever tell people (in the bible) not to fear them. Most likely they don't look much human, don't look simply beautiful, but dangerous and alien. That's the kind of angel which is missing in this store.
In my DA gallery I have a subgallery of renders in Hell, including one angel.
It was interesting trying to make a fallen angel and an unfallen sibling...
It's a common misconception, based primarily on the works of a few italian painters of the period.
If you go back through the original judaic and christian mythologies/metaphysics, there are heirarchies of angels. Over the centuries, these have been adjusted, and the heirarchy also has to do with how 'human' such entities appear. Do note, that there are several variations. But most do place similarly about the entities 'similarity' to mankind.
The 'most' human are the ArchAngels, a special category outside the heirarchy (as opposed to archangels, who are simply the next-to-lowest rank....capitalization counts!) There is dissent over the number (based on the particular source) though it varies between 4 and 10, and are considered the most 'human' in both appearance and in their ability to exercise a degree of free will.
The 'highest' order of angels, the Seraphim, are a bit different from popular depictions. Though even the seraphim have some variation (number of pairs of wings, weaponry, armor, etc.) They are described in Isiah as fiery beings having six wings, two which cover their face, two which cover their feet, and the last pair being used to fly. They guard the throne of God, constantly shouting praises. They are considered to the most powerful (aside from the ArchAngels.)
Below the Seraphim are the Cherubim. These are NOT cherubs (those are actually considered 'putti' and are a human invention) Cherubim have 4 faces (human, ox, lion, eagle) and have four conjoined wings covered with eyes, a lion's body, and the feet of oxen. Cherubim guard the way to the tree of life in the Garden of Eden and some also guard the throne of God. Not close to human in appearance, except for one face.....
Under the Cherubim are the Thrones. They appear as a beryl-coloured wheel-within-a-wheel, their rims covered with hundreds of eyes. Not remotely human in appearance.
Below these we have the Dominions, then the Virtues, then the Powers. Differing opinions on appearence, varying from the christian 'traditional' angels to not even having a physical form at all.
And finally, the Principalities, the archangels, and the angels. These can manifest a physical form temporarily, but are almost always very human in appearance when they do.
Varying sects have their own definitions and names.....The judaic scholars work a different system within the Qaballah, involving 10 tiers, with the Chayot Ha Kodesh at the top, and the seraphim in the middle in tier 5, and the cherubim and ishim rounding things out at the bottom.
The differences are quite fascinating to study, as is the historical perspectives on their development...... start here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierarchy_of_angels
Well, anybody who's watched the first four years of Babylon5 or has visited the year 2260, knows that angels are Vorlons. Yes they walk around in fabric covered jukeboxes but when they leave their environment suit they appear in many forms depending on whether the observing minds have racial memories of them. Apparently the Centauri don't. And if you piss them off they don't look at all angelic and you should run!
Well, it's actually more of a philosophical question than that......were the Vorlons simply tapping into the predominant religious beliefs of those who saw them, or were they the source of those beliefs? And of course, you'd never get a straight answer from a Vorlon as to which one it was.....
Based on the fact that every race in B5 saw them as something from their own mythology, and that SOME Centauri could see them (Emperor Turhan DID see Kosh without his encounter suit, as a dying wish, and based on his reaction, he definitely saw SOMETHING he recognized) but Molari saw nothing. I think this points to Londo not really believing in anything spiritual.....and all of that leads me to believe that Vorlons simply telepathically 'tap into' the subconscious of the viewer and present themselves as something 'angelic' based upon the viewer's spiritual beliefs......J'Lan for the Narn, Troshallah for the Drazi, etc. I also think that of the people on B5 who saw Vorlons, the only one who probably knows what they truly look like (in the absence of the Vorlon's telepathic influence) is Lyta Alexander. A strong enough telepath (especially once they had altered her) she would be able to block their subconscious influence on seeing them. Probably couldn't block it if they were consciously projecting an appearance, but she'd be aware of it......
We don't actually have that many skins to make monsters with. That is one area that is sadly lacking although there have been some here and there lately with the fire and ice shaders as well as a beautiful set of Mutant shaders. However, base monster skin is almost impossible to come by.
And I have seen plenty of more modern stuff lately, probalby a bit more than I have the monsters and ghoulies. But the monsters and ghoulies tend to grab your attention wether you like them or not while a modern bedroom suite and more pretty girls don't quite have the same dramatic impact, so you remember the monsters much easier than the items with a less dramatic impact.
Although I am certainly not at all adverse to having more diverse items come into the store. There are some gaps that could still be filled especially for ethnic clothing. There is only so much you can kit bash. The African headscarf was a welcome addition and I would love to see some traditional (not sexified) clothing for different cultures. Peoplewise, there are plenty of morphs and skins for just about any race and one can make ones own skin with the skin builder (hopefully skin builder for G3F and G3m will be out soon).
I personally don't do modern hardly at all so if its modern clothes, or rooms or buildings, I have no interest. And my wallet is happy on those days as well lol. And there are times I feel like there hasn't been anything but modern stuf for ages. Some of its just perception I gues.
Just wondering did any one else think it was weird to see a very nice Hijab marketed on a basically nude model, and not shown with any attempts at simulating traditional clothing at all?
I noted it, but the hijab, which I'm not in the market for, looks like a marvelous clothing designer quickie, so I guess my expectations weren't high.