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
I think Victoria 8's face is o.k. What I don't like is, what's so typical for DAZ Characters. I don't like V8's strangulated waist with the (over)toned six pack abdomen. It doesn't look like an houreglass shape at all. Sorry, this looks just wrong, if you go for realism. It works fine though, if you're going for comic book characters. Allmost all Gen3Females except Bethany had this (issue) before.
I'm not touching this core debate with a 10 meter cattle prod, beyond admitting I'm not sure what the fuss is about.
I do want to say beware science. Seriously.
There's basically one kind of scientific result. It sums to "we think this is what's up."
This type breaks into two classes: Class one is "We think this is what's up and it is so well documented that it would be absurd if it wasn't what's up. Further, if we turn out to be wrong, the right answer will be so similar to this that the lay berson won't know the difference."
Example: Newton's Laws of motion as a description of space. It is "wrong" compared to Einsteinian spacetime, but so accurately wrong, that it's easier to do Newton's math that it is to do Einsteins for most applications. It's used to be, in the ideals of Natural Philosophy (we call it physics, today) that you had Natural Law, which was right, theory, which was are really super good explanation, and hypothesis, which is an educated guess about what the theory is. Broadly.
The second class is scientific result is "Hey, isn't that something. We think it means this." This is meat of the practice of science. The art of figuring out what's what. It is not Law (modern science has given up on Law as a knowable thing for the most part. We keep kinding new stuff that shows the old style Laws aren't quite right. Still so right you aren't going to get hugely different results--so, no perpetual motion machines that do work--but still able to be refined). Especially when it comes to brain science, and what it all means, most of what we know is still close to hypothesis that Theory. You might say it's a theory, in the common sense, but the common use of the word "It's just your theory man" is, scientifically rendered as "It's just your hypothesis, man." We know a lot about things that go on in the brain, and we can make predictions, useful predictions, but they aren't THE WAY THINGS ARE.
So we know, for example, that symmetry is more important than almost anything else when it comes to beauty. This is a very solid result. I'm not sure how strong the results on types of jaw lines might be. They could be very good, or much weaker. But until they have the authority of General Relativity, they aren't ends of discussion and shouldn't be used that way. (GR is not an end of discussion either, but if your counter point flatly contractics things that are known to happen and explained by GR, then you counter point is probably wrong. Because GR explains so much so preciesly that anything more right than it has to agree with it.) These various studies on what people find pleasing aren't of the same level that anything proving them wrong must agree with them. So as points of arguement, the are more useful in terms of what they predict.
So, may I offer a prediction: If the studies in questionare point to an underlying truth of the human condition, Victoria 8 won't be rendered a lot compared to Victoria 7. As far as I can see, they are same face, but one has been given more "character" while the other is generically soft.
Dowloads isn't a useful metric, because one might buy either to get something that comes with the package, or to get the bonus pricing of the bundle. But number of renders over time, is, at least in theory, something that can be checked. If the changes to V8 over V7 are problematic, it would show up there.
Mind, this is not a controlled experiment, and I can't see how to fully implement it, but it does point to how to use any scientif result, much less one that is closer to hypothesis than theory. Assume it true for arguement's sake then ask what it predicts will happen next. (and, if setting policy, whether that predicted result is tolerable or acceptable). So, if V8's features really are "too masculine" what does that predict will happen next, and how can you test that result?
(End note: I'll be the first to admit that even scientists don't use science this way, but it is the ideal they are supposed to be aiming at. Science isn't supposed to be about what is right. It's ideally about what is true. The scientist should be as happy to be wrong as to be right, so long as being wrong point the direct to the truth. But science is a human activity, and humans have funny ideas about right and wrong as opposed the truth and falsehood. People are pushed to try to be right even the fact of evidence that their idea is false. Because being wrong, while potentially interesting, is also potentially career ending even in places where is ought not be. The fact that humans rarely live up to the ideals is no excuse for trying to use science as a bludgeon, rather than as tool for predicting the future.)
Tastes vary and forlore is rampant. I was listening to a podcast of an interview with Richard Prum of Yale on his book The Evoliution of Beauty. Interesting enough that i bought the book. He's talking mostly about animals and how they perceive beauty, but gets into humans. it turns out there is no scientific support for the symmetry is beautiful argument. It's folklore and a few discredited studies are always cited.
I'm happy to see V8 as there is much more realism, but a lot of that is potential. I think we'll see characters and morphs built on her that are big improveemtns.
My wife and I have a very tall friend .. she's 6'8" You know someone and get used to their physical appearance, but a character like V7 seems short:-) No, changing height doesn't really work .. you have to tweak a dozen other things...
Now if someone only made a decent ferret model....
https://link.springer.com/article/10.3758/BF03208842
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1068/p3123
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00338.x
It's a reasonably strong result.
Additional data suggest artificial symmetry (perfect symmetry, like Daz figures and mirrored photo manipulation) strike people as lacking warm emotion and thus less attractive, but doing symetry by averaging across, or averaging many faces (which tends toward symmetry) is rated more attractive. Like I said, fairly strong. It's not law, though. It simply predicts that people generally agreed to be attractive will be more symmetric against those generally rated less attractive. It also predicts people will sort perfect symmetry into the uncanny valley bucket more often than not.
I like V8, and I really liked V7. V6 was OK. V5 less so. But I bought V8 because my favourite character/skin maker (Raiya) has used Victoria X as the base of the majority of her characters; so, I think I'm going to need her (and I got a super sweet deal). Thanks, Singular Blues, for your fun and interesting comments.
I was born into a family overpopulated with beautiful women, but their beauty ranged from demurely feminine to Valkyriesque masculine. I like both extremes and the middle. Endocrinally speaking, both maleness and femaleness are hacks on humanity mostly caused by the hormones testosterone and estrogen. This is probably why male and female children are so similar facially, and why, after sexual hormones naturally decrease production, women begin to exhibit masculine features and vice versa. (Puberty initiates the insanity known as adulthood, but afterwards most people return to preferring cuddles, candy, and ice cream to other things.) The testes are the same tissues as the ovaries, the glans of the penis the same as the clitoris, etc. with only their respective genetic instructions distinguishing them.
I'm glad to have a Victoria that doesn't look like a beauty contestant. But I'm not sure if I will like the consequences of this.
For what its worth Prum calls that study out as discredited and notes more recent work doesn't see a signal...
I'm not a social science person and can't be a judge .. just what he notes in 2017
Means a lot actually. I am yet to see G8 picture which would not look as DS render...Alas. They all look very graphical to me - not meant as a negative thing in general, but it seems to me Iray is "photo" engine first, and graphical variants should come as add-on effects.
Ernst Mach once basically destroyed a guys career because the guy disagreed with the great Ernst Mach. Mach was wrong. Factually. His conclusion was wrong. Science is a human activity.
Those three weren't the only results, just the ones I felt like linking. I don't know who Prum is, but this isn't social science, it cognitive science. So I hope Prum isn't a social scientist. Who knows, maybe Prum is right. Maybe Prum isn't. Which is why it's a bad idea to go trying to beat down opposing arguments with "because Science." It has to go farther than that is all I'm saying. "Because science, this. Therefore, that." If that doesn't happen, then the science or the interpretation of the science was flawed.
I'm happy to entertain the idea that all of the signals in the different works can't be replicated, but not merely on Prum's word, whoever Prum is. I wouldn't take Einstein's word over studies I know exist. I'd need an argument as to why that POV made more sense, or cites on the papers behind Prim's assertion.
To do otherwise weakens the utility of science. It's why no one is sure what science has to say about nutrition, for example. People keep rushing to publish news, "New study says!" It's more recent, etc and so on. But without access to the source, it's just noise, and you can pick and choose what you want. It still seems a strong result. It takes just one strong counter example to take down a strong result, but I need to see the counter, not just know Prum said it. Because I can never know if Prum is right or pulling a Mach. But I can read the paper for myself, and weigh the argument.
The history of science analyzing beauty is a trash pile of racism and bigotry.
That, too.
I also know it's not practical to look at all the papers. the layperson has to choose and pick. and it's totally valid to trust Prum. Really. Nothing wrong with saying, "Look, Prum does this for a living, so I'mma leave to Prum and follow Prum's lead."
But it's not an argument for the gal who doesn't know Prum from Adam and trusts somone else. When that comes up, you do need to grab the paper, if you want to convice her that Prum is closer to the truth than someone else.
To hades with all the studies. We have had well established artist guidelines of what make men look masculine and women feminine. Victoria 8 for the most part doesn't fit the guide lines but she isn't the base figure anymore so this isn't really a problem. Personally I would like future Victorias be more neutral with most of the change being in proportions. She should be slightly larger than life at nine heads tall and a bit broader at the shoulders and hip and a bit narrower at the waist, give her two bonus shapes of super model and super hero. Why not throw Stephanie Petite in the Pro bundle with again her being mostly about proportions. Stephanie should be eight heads tall, narrower at the shoulders and hip and no change to the waist. Bonus shapes for Stephanie would be slim and curvy.
mebbe should make title of thread?
Everyone has a different idea of "beauty", based on culture, upbringing and sexual orientation. If one person likes something/someone and you don't that doesn't automagically make them wrong.
You are suppose to be dissatisfied and buy a ton of morphs folks, get with the program!!!! I really don't usually buy ready made characters. I bought a ton of morphs for G3F and saw some more I wanted the other day. I am still working with G3F so I don't really care how V8 works yet. I do have some issues when creating realistic characters with the morphs I have. Frankly, V8 looks better to me out of the box to get started working on the nose and cheek areas that have been a pain when I am working on good old G3F. I personally am less attractive than V8 so I'm not gonna cast any stones.
Which features? Specificity is good.
Well it is usually a subset of evopsych, and the history of evopsych is (mostly) a trash pile of racism, bigotry, and sexism (serioulsy evopsych has so much gender essentialist crap)
Girls like pink because they gathered berries! Nevermind the fact that up until relatevely recently blue was the girl color and pink the boy color. Never mind that this color preference doesn't really exist in other cultures, Never mind that blueberries are blue and pretty much no berries are pink. We asked some ladies and gents to pick colors they liked quickly and more ladies liked pink! Doesnt it feel like a great just so story? (Yes I am making fun of a real study. Its largely inoffensive other than in its stupidness)
On her own? Not really. But some of the characters that have come out for her are my absolute favorites so far out of any generation.
Also, to be frank, seeing that the default pose has the arms lowered tells me clothes will fit so much better at the shoulders that I squeal with delight. M8 should be the same way I sincerely hope.
Here's a render of mine of V8 with one of the characters that I just love. I think she looks very realistic.
And because I love thoroughness an exacting comparison of Victorias 7 and 8
Please note the the lines I have drawn are the same lengths on both sides.
Exactly the same: Width from nostril to nostril, width of bridge of nose, width of mouth, distance from nose to mouth.
Slightly different: V8 has a slightly wider nose tip, V7 has a slightly wider distance from outside of ear to ear cheekbone to cheek bone, jaw, and widest part of skull. More generally the general structure of V7s head is a smidge wider.
Noticeably different: lower lip to chin, overall length of head, everything about the eyes. Generally, V8's head is longer V7 has giant alien eyes (seriously looking at the two of them right next to each other V7's eyes are terrifying)
Other notes
Honestly looking at them side by side, to me, V8 doesn't look less feminine, just more like a human being
Terrifying alien eyes? Hardly. Look at these (and wonder how they're still pretty as well).
+1
And I like V8's ear shape better.. and not because I have any preference from an attractiveness point of view. V7 has very puffy earlobes, I had to either make my earhooks on the earring a bit larger than real world or make a custom V7 morph in every pair of earrings I made for G3F (and adjust rigging to shape so the dangly parts bent correctly). The other Daz characters for G3 auto fit just fine. After the first couple pairs I gave up and made my reusable ear hook model a bit bigger from front to back.
Alien no, but definately childlike. Looking at your comparison it's clear V8 was made to look like a mature adult female instead of like a child. Cuteness sells.
At any rate, V8 looking more like an adult human didn't hurt her sales according to a DAZ employee that posted in the forums that V8 sold more than prior generations of Victoria.
From my perspective it will definately be easier to get more varied looks via morphs from G8F / V8 than from prior generations because the eyes won't go as wonky as easily. It also should make it easier on the folk that make FaceGen Artist Pro to get their program working more accurately.
I find her both attractive and realistic.
The first Victoria character (shape especially) that I've liked;
Personally I have never found the waifish teen look to be at all appealing.
This was a great analysis of v8 vs v7. I agree about the eyes entirely. Not a fan of the anime oversized eyes. It is a stylistic thing a lot of people like but I frequently have to dial down the female characters eyes. I like my adult women to look mature.
Bit of trivia. The human eye is remarkably regular in size from adult to adult. Variance is only about 2 mm. And children's eyes are only a bit smaller, excluding toddlers.
To say an adult has large eyes is pretty much to say they have small head. So, the logical question wrt to the eye thing is, are V7 and V8's heads about the same size? Obviously, V8's is taller but having the big eyes, V7 should a more "teen-scale" head, if you will. As if V7 is V8 at 15.
Actually I thought were talking eye distance not size. Yeah it's true V7 are too big to be realistic, but I thought V8's are a bit close together although that is probably also a side effect of the narrower head.
I feel vindicated that I almost always scale G2 and G3's eyes down ;). Not only are V8's eyes a more normal size, but her irises are also a more normal size in comparrison to V7's, which like her eyes, are huge ;).
Laurie
Wow, side by side, I far prefer the proportions of V8 to V7. The differences are adjustments I usually make when I'm dial spinning to get a face shape I prefer and hopefully reads 30-something.
This is what some people tend to forget or just ignor. V8 looks nothing like any of the women I knew growing up so for me she is not the average woman. Neither did V7. I just happen to prefer her look over the new one.