Victoria 6 has been released.

11415171920

Comments

  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited June 2013

    6. The Legs: More muscular legs for M5 while V5 has the more sexy ones.

    So, you see. M5 is very male and V5 is very female. A Unisex mesh is more than capable of achieving both looks and both genders and very realistically

    ProofLegs.jpg
    689 x 631 - 114K
    Post edited by Knight22179 on
  • TheKDTheKD Posts: 2,593
    edited December 1969

    gilikshe said:

    All G1 shapes male or female, toon or monster can be converted to G2F, with a high probability, all G1 shapes male or female, toon or monster will be able to convert to G2M. D3D spoke about G2-to-G1 convertion, G1 would be the bridge between G2F and G2M. So, in morph I don't believe there are problems, but a change in flows of work. Problems come from uv-maps. Until I know, G2F doesn't work with any male UV and nobody had speak about M4 to G2M UV-map.

    Yes, morphs can be transferred, if one has time and patience. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have that time, that is the reason I use premade stuff in the first place. It's not that I can't model my own stuff in blender from scratch, but it takes too long. As it is it takes me days usually to make a finished render, if I modeled all my own, that would be weeks or even months.

  • GiGi_7GiGi_7 Posts: 1,269
    edited December 1969

    TheKD said:
    gilikshe said:

    All G1 shapes male or female, toon or monster can be converted to G2F, with a high probability, all G1 shapes male or female, toon or monster will be able to convert to G2M. D3D spoke about G2-to-G1 convertion, G1 would be the bridge between G2F and G2M. So, in morph I don't believe there are problems, but a change in flows of work. Problems come from uv-maps. Until I know, G2F doesn't work with any male UV and nobody had speak about M4 to G2M UV-map.

    Yes, morphs can be transferred, if one has time and patience. I don't know about anyone else, but I don't have that time, that is the reason I use premade stuff in the first place. It's not that I can't model my own stuff in blender from scratch, but it takes too long. As it is it takes me days usually to make a finished render, if I modeled all my own, that would be weeks or even months.

    Yes. It is now annoying. I used a few step Ben method, it convert very quickly all my shapes but not in optimal place (parameters), and some of this have rare behavior when are in extreme pose. Kattey method or Larst's can be better but time consumer. In other hand Generation X can be one or two clip solution, I don't know if current batch conversion gen4-to-genesis works optimally, I don't know if conversion gen1-to-gen2 will obtain batch conversion, but if it obtain batch conversion and it is near to optimal (shapes are placed ordered in shape tab and few shapes have problems to conversion) time and patience will be minimal. With morph for now, I'm optimist. UVmap is another thing, G2F has V4, V5 and V6, surely G2M will obtain M5 and M6, and future of M4 is ??????

  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 3,563
    edited June 2013

    6. The Legs: More muscular legs for M5 while V5 has the more sexy ones.

    So, you see. M5 is very male and V5 is very female. A Unisex mesh is more than capable of achieving both looks and both genders and very realistically

    You're not looking correctly, because you're looking at the final shape and not what it took to get to that point.

    Select V5 or M5, then select the "Show Hidden Properties" ... then click on the currently used.

    You'll see all the JCMs and correctives to get to that point; and that's not with any bending.

    Load up G2F then the V6 and unhide the hidden properties. How many JCMs and correctives do you see now?

    There aren't any.

    For each figure added to the gene pool, you'd have to create a lot of JCMs and correctives to define that shape, which increases the size and amount of morphs saved and time it takes to load a character in a scene. With all those morphs in Genesis, now try to click the property editor. (hint: don't do it... I have a special library where I do my property editor stuff). In short. That's a lot of work to bring any new character to the genesis gene pool.

    Genesis 2 cuts down a lot of that work. There's one of the big differences between the two generations.

    Post edited by Male-M3dia on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited June 2013


    And what's your point your trying to make here, Wowie?

    The point is that morphs should be made with how the mesh topology is laid out. Adding a morph without paying attention to the mesh topology will cause problems when you pose the figure (as I've shown). If you look back at my post, my point was never about gender specific morphs, but why a gender specific base is preferable. It's not about masculine/feminine look of the shapes or the morphs.


    So you expect perfection then. Come now, Wowie, no figure is perfect. Every figure ever created needs improvements. The day a figure is created that is absolutely perfect in every way is the day we don't need another figure to replace one that is already perfect. That day will never come because there is always room for improvement.

    Can you point the post where I wrote I expect perfection? I only wrote that morphs should be well behaved, that means paying attention to the topology and how the original base figure bends.

    Post edited by wowie on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited June 2013

    You're not looking correctly, because you're looking at the final shape and not what it took to get to that point.

    Select V5 or M5, then select the "Show Hidden Properties" ... then click on the currently used.

    You'll see all the JCMs and correctives to get to that point; and that's not with any bending.

    Load up G2F then the V6 and unhide the hidden properties. How many JCMs and correctives do you see now?

    There aren't any.

    For each figure added to the gene pool, you'd have to create a lot of JCMs and correctives to define that shape, which increases the size and amount of morphs saved and time it takes to load a character in a scene. With all those morphs in Genesis, now try to click the property editor. (hint: don't do it... I have a special library where I do my property editor stuff). In short. That's a lot of work to bring any new character to the genesis gene pool.

    Genesis 2 cuts down a lot of that work. There's one of the big differences between the two generations.

    Thank you for that post.

    That is another reason why I like Genesis2 much more than Genesis. JCMs are hacks, necessary due to the legacy rigging system.


    I can say for sure that G2F or even Genesis 3 won't solve those problems either in this respect. As long as there are polygons and no algorithms on how to smoothly add/locally subdivide more polygons (and make it work with UVs, and rigging, and autofit, and everything) when you stretch/bend something unless you don't need to do anything much different from default shape ever. So again, G2F supposed benefit doesn't seem to be much to me here either.

    Read Male-M3dia post. Having a properly weight map rig can help a lot.

    Post edited by wowie on
  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 3,563
    edited June 2013

    wowie said:

    Thank you for that post.

    That is another reason why I like Genesis2 much more than Genesis. JCMs are hacks, necessary due to the legacy rigging system.

    Let me correct you on that. JCMs aren't hacks, they allow a morph to look a certain way through a bend, so you can get natural looking bends, and sometimes corrects a bad bend. Weightmapping alone is not the answer, as sometimes a JCM will be necessary when you go into more extreme shapes from the weightmap's definition.

    JCMs were necessary in Gen 1 because the weightmap was for the base genesis shape and couldn't be changed. So as you turned it into a male, female or creature, it was necessary to create JCMs for those shapes. For my newer products I create JCMs in the hip area to account for my custom shapes bending.

    With Gen 2's starting point being a male or female, there was less need for JCMs because the base shape was generalized for a male or female shape. Since Gen2Female already had the general shape and weightmap for a female, V6 didn't need any JCMs for assisting her going to her shape. This is what Mallane meant by Gen 1 was flexible at a cost, takes a lot of work to get the androgynous Genesis to a gender behind the scenes.

    Will JCMs be needed in Gen 2? Most likely as custom shapes for figures and creatures enter the gene pool, but you should need a lot less of them.

    Post edited by Male-M3dia on
  • Herald of FireHerald of Fire Posts: 3,490
    edited December 1969

    Let me correct you on that. JCMs aren't hacks, they allow a morph to look a certain way through a bend, so you can get natural looking bends, and sometimes corrects a bad bend. Weightmapping alone is not the answer, as sometimes a JCM will be necessary when you go into more extreme shapes from the weightmap's definition.

    JCMs were necessary in Gen 1 because the weightmap was for the base genesis shape and couldn't be changed. So as you turned it into a male, female or creature, it was necessary to create JCMs for those shapes. For my newer products I create JCMs in the hip area to account for my custom shapes bending.

    With Gen 2's starting point being a male or female, there was less need for JCMs because the base shape was generalized for a male or female shape. Since Gen2Female already had the general shape and weightmap for a female, V6 didn't need any JCMs for assisting her going to her shape. This is what Mallane meant by Gen 1 was flexible at a cost, takes a lot of work to get the androgynous Genesis to a gender behind the scenes.

    Will JCMs be needed in Gen 2? Most likely as custom shapes for figures and creatures enter the gene pool, but you should need a lot less of them.


    Wow... okay, I concede that I might have been considerably misinformed about Genesis 2. I was unaware of just how much fiddling Genesis took to create the shapes I'm so accustomed to, and it *finally* answers one of the questions that I'd been asking about for ages -- "Why do we need a gender split?". I assume that's not the only benefit, but it would explain why so many PA's have been praising the figure so highly despite a heavy *ahem* 'resistance' from a vocal community. Thanks for finally putting that one to rest.

    Though, I'm still curious about the male version of Genesis 2. In my mind it would have made sense to release both male and female figures simultaneously. Not necessarily packs like Michael 6, but the base figure at least. One can only assume that they're still working on it, or are working with PA's to give it a punchy launch like Victoria 6. My money's on the latter, but you know what they say about assumption.

    Now the last burning question which I'd love someone at Daz to answer is what happened to Basic Child? Can we expect a morph, or a new figure, and if it's the latter are we going to (finally) see a full fledged K5 (K6?) release? Note: Saying "yes" to the last question will earn hero worship from yours truly for at least the next few months.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2013

    wowie said:

    Kattey said:

    I can say for sure that G2F or even Genesis 3 won't solve those problems either in this respect. As long as there are polygons and no algorithms on how to smoothly add/locally subdivide more polygons (and make it work with UVs, and rigging, and autofit, and everything) when you stretch/bend something unless you don't need to do anything much different from default shape ever. So again, G2F supposed benefit doesn't seem to be much to me here either.

    Read Male-M3dia post. Having a properly weight map rig can help a lot.
    Having properly weighted map will help a lot but the trick is that this properly weighted map in G2F that some people might praise so much for its gender-specificness isn't actually gender specific weightmap, it is unisex. It appears as gender-specific because default shape sculpt is a female but this is smoke and mirrors. By transferring Genesis male morphs/shape sculpts back and forth (only main morphs, not JCMs) I get a male who is very much the same male I had in Genesis (with all JCMs), bends being better and all thanks to _generic_ improved weightmaps G2F has, but still very much and very noticeably male without an influence of supposed 'female' rigging.
    There is nothing in G2F's rigging that is gender-specific so the idea that female figure somehow has better "female" rigging is not true. General rigging improvement? - yes. Gender-specific rigging improvement? - no and G2F with the same rigging it has now could have been as easily made with default unisex sculpt shape, and two sets of morphs in areas where fat distribution is different.

    And how does Male-M3dia post addresses the issue of polygon stretching? Or you mean that you'd prefer every drastic shape done as separate figure like we had years and years ago in Generation 3?

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 3,563
    edited June 2013

    Kattey said:

    Having properly weighted map will help a lot but the trick is that this properly weighted map in G2F that some people might praise so much for its gender-specificness isn't actually gender specific weightmap, it is unisex. It appears as gender-specific because default shape sculpt is a female but this is smoke and mirrors. By transferring Genesis male morphs/shape sculpts back and forth (only main morphs, not JCMs) I get a male who is very much the same male I had in Genesis (with all JCMs), bends being better and all thanks to _generic_ improved weightmaps G2F has, but still very much and very noticeably male without an influence of supposed 'female' rigging.
    There is nothing in G2F's rigging that is gender-specific so the idea that female figure somehow has better "female" rigging is not true. General rigging improvement? - yes. Gender-specific rigging improvement? - no and G2F with the same rigging it has now could have been as easily made with default unisex sculpt shape, and two sets of morphs in areas where fat distribution is different.


    I think you're ignoring the mesh flows when you transfer shapes back and forth. The chest area between the two is going to be the issue. Those shapes you transfer will have issues with mixing because of the flows. You have that same issue if you used GenX to transferred Gen4 shapes using the clone of the figure rather than the genesis shape. This is why using the Kids4 clone as a figure wouldn't allow mixing of shapes because the mesh flow is entirely different. Using the transfer tool is going to do the exact same thing, so you'll need to clean up the transferred meshes with a modeling tool, otherwise you're going to make a mess out of the genesis 2 figure.


    And how does Male-M3dia post addresses the issue of polygon stretching? Or you mean that you'd prefer every drastic shape done as separate figure like we had years and years ago in Generation 3?

    Why do you think there were so many UVs in Gen 5?

    Post edited by Male-M3dia on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2013

    I think you're ignoring the mesh flows when you transfer shapes back and forth. The chest area between the two is going to be the issue. Those shapes you transfer will have issues with mixing because of the flows.
    So far shapes tested, including drastic and male: 11
    Problems with chest area: 0, not in bending/rigging at least, and not in morphing/shaping.
    And I've posted the renders.
    Genesis and G2F have about same mesh. Yes, there are areas with slightly more or less density but it isn't a drastic enough difference to speak about totally different mesh flow like between V4 and Genesis, for example and the changes in morph transfer are extremely minimal so far.

    You have that same issue if you used GenX to transferred Gen4 shapes using the clone of the figure rather than the genesis shape.
    Never had GenX, never intend to, so can't compare, sorry.

    This is why using the Kids4 clone as a figure wouldn't allow mixing of shapes because the mesh flow is entirely different. Using the transfer tool is going to do the exact same thing, so you'll need to clean up the transferred meshes with a modeling tool, otherwise you're going to make a mess out of the genesis 2 figure.

    Can you post some renders where you, using the method of transfer utility, is seeing a problematic results with Kids morph transfer from Genesis to G2F?
    Because I don't really see how clone shape (basically a morph) in existing model can have "mesh flow is entirely different." problem.

    And how does Male-M3dia post addresses the issue of polygon stretching? Or you mean that you'd prefer every drastic shape done as separate figure like we had years and years ago in Generation 3?


    Why do you think there were so many UVs in Gen 5?
    The question wasn't about making separate improved UVs but about making a fully separate figure (as in Generation 3) any time when a need in new UVs arises, i.e. any time when shape is noticeably different from default shape. Because this is what Wowie shown as desirable example in those expensive meshes, from what I understood.
    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 3,563
    edited June 2013

    Kattey said:

    So far shapes tested, including drastic and male: 11
    Problems with chest area: 0, not in bending/rigging at least, and not in morphing/shaping.
    And I've posted the renders.
    Genesis and G2F have about same mesh. Yes, there are areas with more or less density but it isn't a drastic enough difference to speak about totally different mesh flow like between V4 and Genesis, for example.

    Yeah, I've seen your renders. Yes you have issues with those meshes. Don't eyeball it in DS4. You need a modeling tool to see the issues in more detail.


    Can you post some renders where you, using the method of transfer utility, is seeing a problematic results with Kids morph transfer from Genesis to G2F?
    Because I don't really see how clone shape (basically a morph) in existing model can have "mesh flow is entirely different." problem.

    Actually this is an old discussion from the old forum when the DSF Toolbox was released. People thought the could free the Kid4 clone (as well as the M4 and V4 one) and add it to the gene pool, and I said the same thing and they thought I was joking. I posted renders there though people didn't believe me. There it was shown how mixing with the clone with genesis morphs ended up with double abdomens and other body irregularities. It wasn't until they got the tool themselves and saw exactly what I speaking of, of course after spending $15 on something specifically for that ability where had they listened I could have saved them time (and going through sales for a refund). So it's really up to you if want to add a bunch of morphs that really need to be cleaned up before using into Gen2.


    The question wasn't about making separate improved UVs but about making a fully separate figure (as in Generation 3) any time when a need in new UVs arises, i.e. any time when shape is noticeably different from default shape. Because this is what Wowie shown as desirable example in those expensive meshes, from what I understood.

    You spoke of texture stretching, and my response was to that. You don't need to make a figure because of texture stretching, you just need to create a new UV if your shape is extreme, that's the benefit of Gen1 and Gen2.

    Post edited by Male-M3dia on
  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited December 1969

    6. The Legs: More muscular legs for M5 while V5 has the more sexy ones.

    So, you see. M5 is very male and V5 is very female. A Unisex mesh is more than capable of achieving both looks and both genders and very realistically

    You're not looking correctly, because you're looking at the final shape and not what it took to get to that point.

    Select V5 or M5, then select the "Show Hidden Properties" ... then click on the currently used.

    You'll see all the JCMs and correctives to get to that point; and that's not with any bending.

    Load up G2F then the V6 and unhide the hidden properties. How many JCMs and correctives do you see now?

    There aren't any.

    For each figure added to the gene pool, you'd have to create a lot of JCMs and correctives to define that shape, which increases the size and amount of morphs saved and time it takes to load a character in a scene. With all those morphs in Genesis, now try to click the property editor. (hint: don't do it... I have a special library where I do my property editor stuff). In short. That's a lot of work to bring any new character to the genesis gene pool.

    Genesis 2 cuts down a lot of that work. There's one of the big differences between the two generations.

    That wasn't even the point I was trying to make. So what if it requires more work? My point has been made. Genesis can make realistic males and females. DAZ could have, and should have, created a better Unisex mesh. They didn't want to.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2013

    Kattey said:

    So far shapes tested, including drastic and male: 11
    Problems with chest area: 0, not in bending/rigging at least, and not in morphing/shaping.
    And I've posted the renders.
    Genesis and G2F have about same mesh. Yes, there are areas with more or less density but it isn't a drastic enough difference to speak about totally different mesh flow like between V4 and Genesis, for example.
    Yeah, I've seen your renders. Yes you have issues with those meshes. Don't eyeball it in DS4. You need a modeling tool to see the issues in more detail.
    I don't eyeball, and I know how to use modeling tools and how to compare properly. Please circle red on my renders where you see the problem with chest because so far I only have your words for it, while my experience shows me otherwise.

    Can you post some renders where you, using the method of transfer utility, is seeing a problematic results with Kids morph transfer from Genesis to G2F?
    Because I don't really see how clone shape (basically a morph) in existing model can have "mesh flow is entirely different." problem.

    Actually this is an old discussion from the old forum...

    Any lInks? Search doesn't work on old forums, I think.
    when the DSF Toolbox was released. People thought the could free the Kid4 clone (as well as the M4 and V4 one) and add it to the gene pool, and I said the same thing and they thought I was joking. I posted renders there though people didn't believe me. There it was shown how mixing with the clone with genesis morphs ended up with double abdomens and other body irregularities. It wasn't until they got the tool themselves and saw exactly what I speaking of, of course after spending $15 on something specifically for that ability where had they listened I could have saved them time (and going through sales for a refund). So it's really up to you if want to add a bunch of morphs that really need to be cleaned up before using into Gen2.
    I didn't use DSF toolbox so I don't know what was the issue with it, but via transfer utility, when done properly, I'm not seeing a doubling of adjustments in Kids shapes transfer between Genesis and G2F. You spoke of texture stretching, and my response was to that. You don't need to make a figure because of texture stretching, you just need to create a new UV if your shape is extreme, that's the benefit of Gen1 and Gen2.
    Yes, but from what I understood about Wowie's point of view (correct me if I'm wrong), separate figures are still preferable to drastic shapes because the rigging for them are made with those particular shapes in mind and Wowie thinks it is better than to have a uniform rig with adjustments for each shape.
    Post edited by Kattey on
  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited June 2013

    wowie said:

    And what's your point your trying to make here, Wowie?

    The point is that morphs should be made with how the mesh topology is laid out. Adding a morph without paying attention to the mesh topology will cause problems when you pose the figure (as I've shown). If you look back at my post, my point was never about gender specific morphs, but why a gender specific base is preferable. It's not about masculine/feminine look of the shapes or the morphs.


    So you expect perfection then. Come now, Wowie, no figure is perfect. Every figure ever created needs improvements. The day a figure is created that is absolutely perfect in every way is the day we don't need another figure to replace one that is already perfect. That day will never come because there is always room for improvement.

    Can you point the post where I wrote I expect perfection? I only wrote that morphs should be well behaved, that means paying attention to the topology and how the original base figure bends.

    Yes, the post I replied to that has your quote. ;)

    No figure is going to have what you want. Every figure is going to have problems regardless if it's well behaved in certain areas or not.

    And I don't think your making your point about a gender specific base being preferable. So far, I remain unconvinced. A Unisex mesh can accomplish the same thing, especially if enough research and time is put into it before releasing it to the public for use (which should have been Genesis 2). There is no doubt in my mind a Unisex mesh can perform just as well as single gender mesh which your advocating if DAZ bothered to research ways to accomplish everything you prefer. I see no evidence to the contrary.

    Post edited by Knight22179 on
  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 3,563
    edited December 1969

    6. The Legs: More muscular legs for M5 while V5 has the more sexy ones.

    So, you see. M5 is very male and V5 is very female. A Unisex mesh is more than capable of achieving both looks and both genders and very realistically

    You're not looking correctly, because you're looking at the final shape and not what it took to get to that point.

    Select V5 or M5, then select the "Show Hidden Properties" ... then click on the currently used.

    You'll see all the JCMs and correctives to get to that point; and that's not with any bending.

    Load up G2F then the V6 and unhide the hidden properties. How many JCMs and correctives do you see now?

    There aren't any.

    For each figure added to the gene pool, you'd have to create a lot of JCMs and correctives to define that shape, which increases the size and amount of morphs saved and time it takes to load a character in a scene. With all those morphs in Genesis, now try to click the property editor. (hint: don't do it... I have a special library where I do my property editor stuff). In short. That's a lot of work to bring any new character to the genesis gene pool.

    Genesis 2 cuts down a lot of that work. There's one of the big differences between the two generations.

    That wasn't even the point I was trying to make. So what if it requires more work? My point has been made. Genesis can make realistic males and females. DAZ could have, and should have, created a better Unisex mesh. They didn't want to.

    I think it was, but you were looking at the end result. With a unisex mesh, you have to do work behind the scenes to get it to a gender and move correctly. Even then, people tend to learn a lot about their work or products over a few years so that's why Genesis 2 came about. I'm not saying I'm excited about the split; however working with genesis behind what most people see I can understand why it was done.

  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited December 1969

    6. The Legs: More muscular legs for M5 while V5 has the more sexy ones.

    So, you see. M5 is very male and V5 is very female. A Unisex mesh is more than capable of achieving both looks and both genders and very realistically

    You're not looking correctly, because you're looking at the final shape and not what it took to get to that point.

    Select V5 or M5, then select the "Show Hidden Properties" ... then click on the currently used.

    You'll see all the JCMs and correctives to get to that point; and that's not with any bending.

    Load up G2F then the V6 and unhide the hidden properties. How many JCMs and correctives do you see now?

    There aren't any.

    For each figure added to the gene pool, you'd have to create a lot of JCMs and correctives to define that shape, which increases the size and amount of morphs saved and time it takes to load a character in a scene. With all those morphs in Genesis, now try to click the property editor. (hint: don't do it... I have a special library where I do my property editor stuff). In short. That's a lot of work to bring any new character to the genesis gene pool.

    Genesis 2 cuts down a lot of that work. There's one of the big differences between the two generations.

    That wasn't even the point I was trying to make. So what if it requires more work? My point has been made. Genesis can make realistic males and females. DAZ could have, and should have, created a better Unisex mesh. They didn't want to.

    I think it was, but you were looking at the end result. With a unisex mesh, you have to do work behind the scenes to get it to a gender and move correctly. Even then, people tend to learn a lot about their work or products over a few years so that's why Genesis 2 came about. I'm not saying I'm excited about the split; however working with genesis behind what most people see I can understand why it was done.

    Thank for explaining what goes on behind the scenes. Still, DAZ could have researched a better way for a Unisex mesh to work better instead of taking the "easy" way out by splitting the gender.

  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 11,164
    edited December 1969

    Please explain to me how doing double the work is taking the easy way out

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2013

    Frank0314 said:
    Please explain to me how doing double the work is taking the easy way out

    Because vendors don't have to care about JCMs as much, - at least this is how I understand this aspect.

    And from my experience of previous years, aside from official DAZ3D morphpacks (for which we would have to pay both times), very few PAs will be actually doing double work, i.e. supporting both figures. G2F will get 90% of support, as any female figure got before, few people will do things for G2M and ever fewer will do anything for both. So yes, gender-split is much easier for vendors to develop to, for the cost of customers not being able to use their stuff with flexibility they want.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • frank0314frank0314 Posts: 11,164
    edited December 1969

    Most PA's already do double the work supporting both Poser and DS. Generation 4 figure were all separate and no one had an issue with it. Now for some reason they do.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2013

    Frank0314 said:
    Most PA's already do double the work supporting both Poser and DS. Generation 4 figure were all separate and no one had an issue with it. Now for some reason they do.

    Because Genesis shown us that you don't have to split your figure on two to have both highly functional male and female figures. This is why G2F looks like a huge step back and yes, I'm against going backward to Generation 4 in this respect. It is like your was taught to fly only having your wings clipped 'because it is better that way': you can't make people forget that this was possible and go back to more cumbersome platform, now when they know that things can be done like that.

    And gender split in Generation 4, - in particular, a severe lack of male/modest clothes, - was one of the main reasons why Genesis was adopted by so many people. Saying nobody had an issue with Generation 4 support is simply not true.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • HellboyHellboy Posts: 1,383
    edited December 1969

    Kattey said:
    Frank0314 said:
    Most PA's already do double the work supporting both Poser and DS. Generation 4 figure were all separate and no one had an issue with it. Now for some reason they do.

    Because Genesis shown us that you don't have to split your figure on two to have both highly functional male and female figures. This is why G2F looks like a huge step back and yes, I'm against going backward to Generation 4 in this respect. It is like your was taught to fly only having your wings clipped 'because it is better that way': you can't make people forget that this was possible and go back to more cumbersome platform, now when they know that things can be done like that.

    And gender split in Generation 4, - in particular, a severe lack of male/modest clothes, - was one of the main reasons why Genesis was adopted by so many people. Saying nobody had an issue with Generation 4 support is simply not true.

    This is exactly what I think as well.
    The reason I supported Genesis since day one was because it proved to be a huge improvement in my workflow and achievements. I'm not spending twice what I already got just to go 2 generations backwards.

  • SassyWenchSassyWench Posts: 602
    edited December 1969

    Frank0314 said:
    Most PA's already do double the work supporting both Poser and DS. Generation 4 figure were all separate and no one had an issue with it. Now for some reason they do.

    Well, as far as people not having issues with Gen 4 being separate figures, that's because we didn't know any better. LOL Genesis spoiled us!

    That being said, if it was wreaking havoc creating clothes from PA's (according to MallanLane in the thread he started), then IMHO, there is a very good reason to go back to male and female. To lose some of the finer detailing because of trying to make things fit a myriad of characters is maybe not something a lot of vendors are willing to sacrifice.

    It's a trade off, and agree or not, DAZ decided to go this way. To have detailed male clothing without having vendors stressing about it fitting female body forms (or taking out some of that detail to make it work better) or have female clothes lose those details shrinking to fit male bodies, yeah it's understandable really.

    For my part I'm not thrilled but I'm also not up in arms about it. I have all my G1 morphs in G2F and clothes and textures are mostly workable and expressions and bending and elbows and knees and quite a bit better! And I still have G1 so it's the best of both worlds to me. :) And who knows what surprises DAZ has in store for us when G2M arrives!

    And I think Girl 6 may work better on a real female form. LOLOL

  • murgatroyd314murgatroyd314 Posts: 1,184
    edited December 1969

    JCMs were necessary in Gen 1 because the weightmap was for the base genesis shape and couldn't be changed. So as you turned it into a male, female or creature, it was necessary to create JCMs for those shapes.

    So, the obvious next step for the developers is coming up with a way to allow morphs to adjust the weight map.

  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited June 2013

    I hope this post helps my point across.

    This is V5 knees with the d-forms corrections I've made. As you can see the crease point when the knees are bent is less than optimal.

    3.jpg
    1080 x 1048 - 110K
    1.jpg
    1080 x 1048 - 150K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited December 1969

    To correct the crease point, I added two new d-forms to move it where I want them to be (and more inline to the crease point position with M4 and M5 Genesis shape).

    Now, the dilemma is whether I fiddle with the d-forms (or the morphs made from it)? Making two separate JCMs so there is a specific V5 correction? I would say this is to be avoided. What I should do is have the crease point correction to the unposed V5 (altering V5 shape) and have the d-form corrections for the knees bending intact for all shapes.

    2.jpg
    1080 x 1048 - 149K
    4.jpg
    1080 x 1048 - 110K
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited June 2013

    Let's see the figure with (first) and without (second) the crease point correction, in the default/zero position and compared

    This is the point I'm making. The figure retains the same weight mapping, the same correction, but the problematic shape needs to be corrected. In other words, shape (FBMs) or morphs (PBMs) should not alter crease points or cause mesh collision problems. To do this, it is necessary to shape it so it accounts for the way the figure is rigged (thus bends).

    As Male-M3dia pointed out, having a gender specific base can help (along with better weight mapping and mesh topology).

    6.jpg
    1080 x 1048 - 172K
    5.jpg
    1080 x 1048 - 169K
    Post edited by wowie on
  • ColdrakeColdrake Posts: 236
    edited June 2013

    Well, as far as people not having issues with Gen 4 being separate figures, that's because we didn't know any better. LOL Genesis spoiled us!

    That being said, if it was wreaking havoc creating clothes from PA's (according to MallanLane in the thread he started), then IMHO, there is a very good reason to go back to male and female. To lose some of the finer detailing because of trying to make things fit a myriad of characters is maybe not something a lot of vendors are willing to sacrifice.

    It's a trade off, and agree or not, DAZ decided to go this way. To have detailed male clothing without having vendors stressing about it fitting female body forms (or taking out some of that detail to make it work better) or have female clothes lose those details shrinking to fit male bodies, yeah it's understandable really.

    For my part I'm not thrilled but I'm also not up in arms about it. I have all my G1 morphs in G2F and clothes and textures are mostly workable and expressions and bending and elbows and knees and quite a bit better! And I still have G1 so it's the best of both worlds to me. :) And who knows what surprises DAZ has in store for us when G2M arrives!

    And I think Girl 6 may work better on a real female form. LOLOL

    Well said! That's exactly the way I'm thinking. Thanks for saving me all that typing. ; )

    I think people will be making products for G1 for years to come.


    Coldrake

    Post edited by Coldrake on
  • wowiewowie Posts: 1,987
    edited December 1969

    Kattey said:

    Having properly weighted map will help a lot but the trick is that this properly weighted map in G2F that some people might praise so much for its gender-specificness isn't actually gender specific weightmap, it is unisex. It appears as gender-specific because default shape sculpt is a female but this is smoke and mirrors. By transferring Genesis male morphs/shape sculpts back and forth (only main morphs, not JCMs) I get a male who is very much the same male I had in Genesis (with all JCMs), bends being better and all thanks to _generic_ improved weightmaps G2F has, but still very much and very noticeably male without an influence of supposed 'female' rigging.
    There is nothing in G2F's rigging that is gender-specific so the idea that female figure somehow has better "female" rigging is not true. General rigging improvement? - yes. Gender-specific rigging improvement? - no and G2F with the same rigging it has now could have been as easily made with default unisex sculpt shape, and two sets of morphs in areas where fat distribution is different.

    And how does Male-M3dia post addresses the issue of polygon stretching? Or you mean that you'd prefer every drastic shape done as separate figure like we had years and years ago in Generation 3?

    Male-M3dia made a good point about topology. Look at my posts above. The weight map is only one part of the equation. You also need the correct mesh topology. From my example, you can see the V5 shape altered the crease point. So it was the shape that's causing the issue. Putting in correction to the shape so the topology works better with the bending is the solution.

    Now, that is only with one shape (V5) and one joint (two if you count left and right). V4 required different corrections altogether. Morphs that generally add volume (Pear figure, Voluptuous, Bodybuilder, Heavy) also needed corrections. Combine them and you have a lot of mess to clean up.


    Let me correct you on that. JCMs aren't hacks, they allow a morph to look a certain way through a bend, so you can get natural looking bends, and sometimes corrects a bad bend. Weightmapping alone is not the answer, as sometimes a JCM will be necessary when you go into more extreme shapes from the weightmap's definition.

    I'm calling it a hack because they still do corrections to the mesh (mesh corrections instead or using weight mapping entirely). I would love to see Poser 10's magnet correcting weight maps instead of JCMs. It's still a hack, but a much more sophisticated and well behaved one. That or better weight mapping tools in DS5.

  • Knight22179Knight22179 Posts: 1,194
    edited June 2013

    I see very little difference here. Genesis = Harder work to achieve the same thing VS. BF2/V6 = Less work to achieve minimal improvements.

    Yeah, it's less work and you do bring valid points (all of you have). But if DAZ only worked on a Unisex mesh to improve it in a way that we can achieve the same exact thing with less work, it would be the far superior figure to any Gender specific figure. But DAZ didn't want to do that so they split the gender to achieve "gender specific" things.

    Before BF2/V6 we saw how powerful Genesis can be. Male, female, child, monster, alien, etc. All in one mesh and not separate. That's not even taking into account money saved by having to buy multiple clothings sets that are the same but for different genders, morphs and the like.

    If DAZ had spent time and effort to improving Genesis, we'd be seeing all this stuff your posting Wowie and on a Unisex Mesh. The mere fact that Genesis itself was possible says right there that even more is possible with each new Generation of "Genesis" that could have been made if Genesis had been improved upon instead of splitting the gender, which is not an improvement. It's two steps backwards.

    Post edited by Knight22179 on
Sign In or Register to comment.