G3 to G8 Pose Converter
ebergerly
Posts: 3,255
in The Commons
Umm, so I saw a product for sale in the store...A G3 to G8 Pose Converter, so you can transfer G3 poses to G8. Cost is $22.95, marked down to $16.07.
And this is needed because G8 is "extremely backwards compatible" with the other figures?
Cough, cough...
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
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
*Rolls Eyes*
G8F IS very backwards compatible. She comes with the ability to wear all base G3F textures, she can wear G3F clothes and hair, G3M clothes and hair, G2F clothes and hair, G2M clothes and hair, and Genesis 1 clothes and hair. That's the most backwards compatible that we've gotten since the Genesis line has come out.
Also, if you don't want to pay for a pose converter, you can use a free one - http://www.sharecg.com/v/88560/browse/21/DAZ-Studio/G3F-G8F-pose-adjust-scripts-Legs-Arms-and-Full
I'm sure it's not quite as good as the bought one, but works really well with a couple minor adjustments to the poses.
So yeah, "cough cough" indeed...
*Finishes Eye Roll*
Okay, I'll match your "Rolls Eyes" and raise you a "C'mon, are you kidding?"
Poses generally, in my experience, don't work.
Morphs generally, in my experience, don't work.
High heel shoes never work.
Now it's fine to say "oh, but it's better than before", or "yeah you can use a workaround", but that's missing the issue. DAZ was very clear in their advertising that G8 was "extremely" backwards compatible. Now, I love DAZ, but geez, whether it's better than before is irrelevant. Just tell us we're gonna have to buy pose converters and morph converters and stuff to make it work. I realize it's difficult because of topology and a bunch of other stuff to make things totally compatible, but again that's a side issue. Just be straight, that's all.
Poses have always required some tweaking because of differences in characters, so I don't consider the ones that exist for G3 to G8 a must have.
Actally, this http://johngate2014.deviantart.com/art/Genesis-3-to-Genesis-8-Pose-Converter-686836011 pose converter works swimingly. It's pretty much dead on accurate. The only thing it has as an issue is that it's totally centered on the hip, so characters shorter than G8/G3 standard will float off the floor. But that's a pretty much standard thing.
And yes, High heels never work. Because high heels require a number of workaround to fit them to their intended characters. It's the nature of the figures. So me any figures that high heels can be transfered between without effort.
I find it odd that you think "Most backward compatible" somehow means "Solves every problem with crossfigure issues that ever were or ever will be." Genesis 8 has more support built in than any previous Daz figure. The statement is, unusually for marketing, 100% true, without need for adopting a special viewpoint. To borrow your logic, all additional crossfigure supports in previous figures are, themselves, workaround. They're addons, and scripts and freebies.
If you want to skewer Daz for locking on to a tagline that they had to know would make people think they were giving away more than they actually did, okay. But they didn't lie. It's not as exciting as one might possibly imagine, but it is exactly what it says on the tin.
There is nothing untruthful about DAZ's claim that G8 is extremely backwards compatible. Morphs have never worked from previous versions to the latest because of the nature of morphs. As for having to adjust poses I have to do it even with poses made for the figure they where made for because I like to spin morphs dial to create unique charaacters.
Here's some quotes from DAZ advertising:
"Extreme backward compatibility and amazing advancements all in one..."
"COMPATIBILITY
Genesis 8 includes backward-compatible and even male to female clones for all of the previous generations and sexes of Genesis products. This means that items that were specifically created for Genesis, Genesis 2 or Genesis 3 can now all be used on Genesis 8. So break out that Genesis 2 space suit you loved or your favorite party dress for Genesis, it's time to strut your favorite stuff! "
I dunno, if you guys think that's reasonable then that's fine. But just because "it's always been that way" or "it's just a minor tweak that doesn't bother me", then I don't see how that makes stuff compatible. I doubt many new users who haven't been around to deal with (much less, understand) all the old issues would agree with you.
I'm a fairly reasonable and intelligent guy, and after seeing that advertising I felt pretty certain I could just drag and drop poses and morphs from G3 and they'd work. But they don't. Not sure why there's much argument about this.
Still don't see how what you get isn't exactly what it says. It has clones for all the previous Genesis. The Genesis 2 space suit you love will probably fit without issue, and your favorite party dress for Genesis will probably fit without issue. Autofit's never been perfect, after all.
That's compatible. Considering that it usually took multiple products from multiple third parties before previous figure reached similar levels of crossfigure capability, it's extreme. Nothing about poses, nothing about shoes, directly. I can see how you'd want the word "items" to cover shoes, but welcome to marketing. Buyer Beware is kinda built into American law. In this case, if it doesn't explicitly say X, don't assume X. Everything it explicitly says is true.
You keep using those words. I do not think they mean what you think they mean.
Singular Blues, using your point, what would you consider as "incompatible"? If you apply a pose, and your character ends up distorted, is that incompatible or compatible? If you apply a morph and it doesn't work, and you have to redo from scratch manually, how is that not incompatible?
What would have to happen for you to call it incompatible? Would the character have to explode and crash your machine? Or maybe if the pose had zero effect? But still you'd have to manually tweak it.
Please, define "incompatible".
Poses (AKA Pose Presets) are starting points for a lot of us, not the end result, so tweaking is an expectation that we have for them. And as I've said in other threads, character morphs have never been directly compatible between generations of figures so expecting it without DAZ specifically saying they are is more than a little strange to me.
For some reason you guys want to believe that just because YOU PERSONALLY know how to deal with the incompatibilities, or know the history of how it's difficult, then that erases the distinction between compatible and incompatible.
Using your definition, ANYTHING is compatible, because ultimately there's a way to get around anything that doesn't work by fixing it manually. I just don't get the logic. "Oh, it's never worked, therefore we shouldn't expect it to work"? Really?
If it claimed that poses were compatible and they weren't that would be an issue, but it is clear - as others have said -that the compatibility is in textures (Genesis 3 Female) and AutoFit clones (back to Genesis).
Maybe I mis-read this statement, or maybe I don't know what "items" means, but I assumed it meant morphs, textures, poses, clothing, hair, etc.
"This means that items that were specifically created for Genesis, Genesis 2 or Genesis 3 can now all be used on Genesis 8"
Without reaching for a dictionary, because words don't work that way, I'd say compatible means things work together. Incompatible means they don't.
If I'm compatible with my firends, it means that on one of more measures of relationship, we work together. It does not mean that we work together on ALL levels. This stikes me as trivial. The only person I am compatible with on ALL levels is me. And my friends aren't me. Incompatibility suggest, however, that things work together on no levels, or so few that it isn't worth the cost.
Seems straight forward enough to me.
For you, "items" covers more things than Daz intended when they used the word. Caveat Emptor. One can never assume marketers are unaware that the words they use might imply more than mean, but to avoid legal trouble they sually have a clear idea of what the mean when they se a word. The consumer is left to ask, "How far from what most people agree this word means is their definition?"
I could say "people have two eyes." This is something most would accept as true statement. Yet not all people have two eyes.
The blub says "items." Many hundreds, if not thousands of items are covered by the statement. it is true for those things. It doesn't say ALL items. Similarly, I don't say ALL people have two eyes. You complain that the idea of "compatibility" being read by those who disagree with you is limitless. Perhaps. But I suggest your definition of "incompatible" is equally without limit. Look hard enough and you will always find a detail that doesn't transfer between figures. I still fail to see the point of that. Certainly, I can see it if the marketing only evaluates as true in narrow and absurd ways. It's deceptive, in that case. For legal values of deceptive. This blurb is not deceptive. It simply doesn't specify which items.
Many gaming consoles are backwards compatible. Not all games are forward compatible. There are last gen games that won't blay on this gen consoles despite said console being able to play other last gen games. This idea that it is true often enough for many things is how I see compatible generally defined. At least one of the next gen consoles will be incompatible with last gen games becaus the cost of emulating the previous gen machine is too high. This is incompatibility. Nothing, or almost nothing, will work from the pool of things of interest.
As for the argument that knowing how things work makes one special ... That's like saying it is upsetting that the Tesla Model X doesn't make coffee, and it's justified because you didn't know that cars aren't coffee makers. Or maybe limit this to the Model X doesn't run on gasoline. Cars use gas, and the Model X is a car, so let's get upset. Or something. Again, it's an argument without limit. Most things that are knowable are unknown to you. To extend the model X metaphor, the counter is, well, this car runs on electricity, there are ways to keep it charged with a bit of effort, the keys are there if you want to drive it, but you're free to use your current car. It has advantages and is compatible with most destinations but not all of them. Compared to non-Tesla electric cars, it has pretty exteme destination compatibility but thee remain places that are just out of range. That's cost of the advantages. Pretty sre most people would evaluate that as true, even if it doesn't meet their needs.
For whatever reason, your needs for poses to do something they've never done before is high. I can see how not having that met would upset. But that doesn't make the blub false. It means your expectations were not aligned with reality. Whether it is reasonable to blame the blub for that mismatch, well I think it's clear we don't agree on that. It just seems to me that see that statement saying what you think it says is to put way too much trust in marketing, and to expect way too much perfection of technology. Seems a path to life filled with disappointment born of expecting the impossible.
Poses are not items, except in a very broad sense; neither are morphs, as those need to be designed against the specific mesh of a base figure such as Genesis 3 or Generation 8 (aka Genesis 8). Skin textures do work without adjustment and if you can accept the basic settings autofit uses, so do clothing and hair; it's when you want to have all of the adjustment morphs that they contain that they don't work as expected.
Wow, Singular Blues, it didn't require 5 paragraphs, just a simple explanation why distorted poses and distorted morphs aren't considered "incompatible".
But I think this discussion has reached the end, and comes down to what people want to believe. If it works for you, then fine. Personally, I don't care whatsoever, since I really don't need what G8 has to offer at this point. I just thought it was interesting.
I wasn't aware there was a word limit. Since you are representing to find it hard to understand: I gave you a short answer and you seemed to miss the point. So I changed tack, and went with weight of detail. That why "5 paragraphs." I rather thought the short answer covered your subsequent objections, so I thought more detail as required. Since pointed had already failed. Mind, not failed to change your mind. I wouldn't expect that. I mean failed to make any impression. Your subsequent statements were items already answered.