V4 UVs for G3F?

245

Comments

  • NadinoNadino Posts: 258
    edited December 1969

    But then you have users like myself that don't use LIE or render in DS, so adding the makeup layer to the texture is the best way to go. Plus makeup also relies on the UVmapping of the texture for the most part.

    Count me in for a V4 UV layout for genesis 3 also, hopefully from an official source and not a workaround. No offense to those trying to find solutions, but I have tried a few of the workaround in the forums for transferring morphs (before GenX) and such and had to reinstall content because of it.

    These users are working hard to help the rest of us. Workarounds DO work.

    You are not going to get an "official source" as MallenLane has already stated.
    I so wish they would just STICKY his responses.

    UV compatibility was possible because I modeled previous figures with certain edge-loop landmarks fixed in place, allowing similar UV boundaries since V4. These boundaries date from V3 in some cases. Their original purpose was to build fake clothes onto the skin. Building a human mesh based on how effectively you can carve them into fake clothing is not optimal. It kept introducing the same flaws:

    1.) For animation, where the flow of model was working against the bends. The way the shoulder geometry spreads on the outside, and collapses in the armpit. The flow from the under-side of the breasts around the deltoid.
    2.) The mesh re-direction (spokes and Y junctions) needed to move from the maintained seam, to where the model should be going. This increased the poly-count. It caused traveling edge-loop spirals instead of plain, easy to deal with, closed loops.
    3.) It prevented meaningful updates to the UV islands, which had remained relatively the same since V4.

    It was important to break away from old problems, so I didn't maintain those loops, therefore it cannot be backward compatible. The saw-tooth in the image a few posts back is because there are no edge-loops going the same direction in that area. Rest assured, if it were possible, you'd see it in the store. Your best bet is some sort of proximity based projection baking which can be found in other programs.

    note: There were other antiquated mesh choices I dropped, which also get in the way.

    - Separate lacrimals, which had a bad tendancy to wander away from the edge of the eyeball.
    - Seperate gums and tongue. This perpetuated a 'fake' quality to the interior of the mouth. You could visibly see that they weren't an integrated part.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,319
    edited June 2015

    Well, going on the assertion;

    In Daz Studio 4.8, Scripts, can’t access Hexagon (or any other external 3D modeling program) to make a UV automatically? Scripts can’t access PS/GIMP to redo the image layouts pixel by pixel? And Scripts can’t add and rearrange zones to G3F’s surface tab?

    Every way I look at it under the hood, it’s impossible in Studio alone with just a script, to automatically do a clean G3F UV conversion. It will require a lot of manual work on each map outside of Daz Studio to clean up edges, and relocate stuff on the map images, to convert them to UDIM.

    And I do prefer a bit of quality. Even tho I lack the tools, and skills. It may very well come down to doing what I've been daydreaming of doing with some figures more recent than V4, tho the concept would be the same.

    A proper set of native G3F body and head morph dials for the old figure.
    The process would be the same for the body. Dial the figure head in on the original figure base, and send that to Hexagon (for example), and also send a plane G3F figure to Hexagon. Then in Hexagon, move the G3F head mesh to match the original figures shape. Then send that G3F figure back to Daz Studio as a Morph, and save the morph appropriately. (I am not skilled in any of this, and don't know how to do half of it).

    Make a new set of maps from scratch, using the old maps as source material.
    In Photodeluxe, it was possible to have layers, and use one layer as a reference as you drew on another, like tracing paper. Photodeluxe also had a cool "Clone" brush that could be used to paint an area as a clone of a different area (with a controllable fuzzy border to the brush). It would almost be a no-brainer for me to open up the old map images, and slide them over, and clone the areas with the brush, onto the G3F maps (or a separate layer all together just tracing out the new layout). Now the show-stopper for me. Photodeluxe dose not function on anything after Windows XP, and I haven't a clue how to do any of that in Gimp. Also with Gimp, the ability to see layers behind the one your rotating and moving is not possible the last time I tried (All the other layers disappear when you go to do that).

    So, as a Daz Studio hobbyist, with limited funds and skills, Properly converting FW Eve, FWSA Wachiwi, and FW Yasmin, to G3F as native G3F figures Is indeed impossible. Not to say, it would probably piss off Fred, a PA that I respect very much so.

    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2015

    mjc1016 said:
    Then continue to use G2...because fitting them to the new layout is not going to be a perfect conversion.
    I believe it is a big liberty from your side to decide on what I should use, but I feel I must mention that I'm not using G2F and never did aside of test renders.

    And fitting the old lay to G3F basically is crippling/removing many of the advantages (yeah, the bending and facial rig won't be problems) of the new stuff.
    Could you name any of UV advantages of G3F not useful for animation? Unstacked maps for purposes of painting textures I understand. Also I'd like to understand how backward UVs comparability would destroy any 'benefits' that G3F has in sense of textures.

    Textures are still the same boring 4096x4096 jpgs + fancy shaders, and fancy shader can give a lot of life to older boring jpgs.

    And no, I'm not saying don't try...just don't get into the 'magic bullet' mind set...there isn't going to be one.
    Did I have so much of naive hope for 'magic bullet' in my post? Was such hope there at all?

    Any automated solution is going to have seam problems.
    Which is fixable with manual editing of UVs, regardless if you start with automated conversion or from zero. Again, what are you trying to tell? That I somehow misled people about automated process and claimed that it gives perfectly good seams?

    And a manual one is going to take time, probably lots of it and not be redistributable...
    So? Why people are so hung up on redistribution? Users who don't do things themselves probably will buy vendor products anyway, regardless if there is a freebie or not, and people who do it themselves could as well be satisfied with personal solutions.
    Having a choice between vendor who brings wrapped up pretty/costly product and something done by yourself, however much time it might take, is one thing. Having only vendor product and no other options at all is entirely another.

    There's several other threads talking about this issue...and several automated methods have been tried, and it seems that after the first flush of success it's 'oops, there are visible seams!'.
    I never said that automated process was seam issues-free. In contrary, I've mentioned that it isn't and, as with any automated process, it is a first step for further improvement. Where have you seen me to be surprised by bad seams? Or do you want to encourage people to just buy maybe-made products and don't try to do anything themselves? I'm not understanding your position.

    And most of the folks that are going to convert will want an automated method where they won't have to spend many hours manually tweaking the results


    I don't know, I haven't talked to all of the folks who do their own things so I have no way of knowing if majority of them would want to go one way or another.

    So the options are...accept seams, wait for an 'official' solution that will cost money, spend a lot of time fixing/manually doing a conversion


    You saying that as if spending time doing things I like to do is to waste it. I'm having much more joy from solving technical problems and making new things than from rendering of stock 3D figures.

    accept that all is rebooted and G2 F/M are the PRACTICAL limit for what came before (of course tinkers NEVER accept that one :) ).


    I hate(d) G2X with passion and I'm very glad that it died so soon. The only pity that G3F is a such disappointing replacement. Maybe in Genesis 5 people will finally get a fully articulated figure. I don't hate G3F but only because I don't care about it in the slightest. It could be replaced with G4F tomorrow for what I care.
    But your last part of the comment (about tinkers) comes as tinkers only stuck on previous generations out of blind loyalty to outdated stuff. I wonder if this was what you was trying to say.

    So...bottom line of what I'm saying...automated solution is not going to work.
    Just as I said with my little proof of concept. Again, I don't see the purpose of your messages. That the automated process(es) is/are not of sufficient quality and require/s future improvement? I thought it was obvious from close-up render at least, if text disclaimers were somehow missed.

    It's going to take manual work to 'finish' the job...which will take time/effort.
    Again, I'm reading it as if spending time and effort to use things you love work is a bad thing. For me it is not. People who want an easy solution will buy an easy solution anyway.
    And unlike the past, where if there weren't bump/displacement you had alternatives...especially if you were converting the diffuse to match the new UV layout especially on many interchangeable pretty girls. so bump/displacement in case so it fit without changing the UV, you don't because you will have 2 different UV layouts or seams, so the conversions are going to have to be good enough for the control maps, too.
    If seams on remapped UVs are matched well enough, bumps/dismplacements aren't usually a problem unless those are complicated up to second skin complexity.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • SadKitty_CarraraSadKitty_Carrara Posts: 21,978
    edited June 2015

    I like texture converter a lot and use it to convert maps frequently
    I waa disapointed 3DUniverse not only stopped developing new supported figure plugins but also they or DAZ pulled some from the store.
    I do have the generation 3 ones and the secondlife plugin that I can use for iClone heads.
    A G3F plugin would indeed be a great idea if just so I could use future V3 etc skins on figures that work in Carrara but am certain others would like it, I wish more plugins were made for other figures like obviously Dusk and Dawn for the Poser folk mainly but even the other DAZ figures since Generation 4 namely Genesis and genesis 2 characters so I can use their skins on V4 & M4 though admittedly there are a lot of UV sets there!!!


    Footnote I still use V4 & M4 a lot anyway, in Carrara at least. In iClone is where I mostly use the later figures, V7 would work there too if I decide to buy her, but anything that gets newer stuff working on older figures is always handy for me.

    Post edited by SadKitty_Carrara on
  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2015

    darrick.yee, thank you for sharing of the same process. This is about the same thing I did in C4D VAMP (I had G3F and G2F matched both to G2F default shapes and transferred UVs from G2F). UVs from remapped G3F only loaded if surface grouping in remap G3F figure remained intact and I had the same jagged areas, not to mention that UVs on remap themselves became quite crumbled. It was a surprise for me that DS figures cannot have two or more material zone sets on the same figure.
    It would not eliminate the problem entirely, because topologies are different, but it would give a better usability anyway, for this and other purposes.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,319
    edited June 2015

    Kattey said:
    darrick.yee, thank you for sharing of the same process. This is about the same thing I did in C4F VAMP (I had G3F and G2F matched both to G2F default shapes and transferred UVs from G2F). UVs from remapped G3F only loaded if surface grouping in remap G3F figure remained intact and I had the same jagged areas, not to mention that UVs on remap themselves because quite crumbled. It was a surprise for me that DS figures cannot have two or more material zone sets on the same figure.
    It would not eliminate the problem entirely, because topologies are different, but it would give a better usability anyway, for this and other purposes.
    Yea, especially for things like adding sweat, rain/pool wet look, or dirt/mud, tattoos, makeup, etc to a figure.
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Kattey said:
    mjc1016 said:
    Then continue to use G2...because fitting them to the new layout is not going to be a perfect conversion.
    It is a big liberty from your side to decide what I should use, but I feel I must mention that I'm not using G2F and never did aside of test renders.

    And fitting the old lay to G3F basically is crippling/removing many of the advantages (yeah, the bending and facial rig won't be problems) of the new stuff.
    Could you name any of UV advantages of G3F not useful for animation? Unstacked maps for purposes of painting textures I understand, but I could have unstacked maps on Genesis as well, so it isn't anything entirely new. Also I'd like to understand how backward UVs comparability would destroy any 'benefits' that G3F has in sense of textures.

    Textures are still the same boring 4096x4096 jpgs + fancy shaders, and fancy shader can give a lot of life to older boring jpgs.

    And no, I'm not saying don't try...just don't get into the 'magic bullet' mind set...there isn't going to be one.
    Did I have so much of naive hope for 'magic bullet' in my post? Was such hope there at all?

    Any automated solution is going to have seam problems.
    Which is fixable with manual editing of UVs, regardless if you start with automated conversion or from zero. Again, what are you trying to tell? That I somehow misled people about automated process and claimed that it gives perfectly good seams?

    And a manual one is going to take time, probably lots of it and not be redistributable...
    So? Why people are so hung up on redistribution? Users who don't do things themselves probably will buy vendor products anyway, regardless if there is a freebie or not, and people who do it themselves could as well be satisfied with personal solutions.
    Having a choice between vendor who brings wrapped up pretty/costly product and something done by yourself, however much time it might take, is one thing. Having only vendor product and no other options is entirely another.

    There's several other threads talking about this issue...and several automated methods have been tried, and it seems that after the first flush of success it's 'oops, there are visible seams!'.
    I never said that automated process was seam issues-free. In contrary, I've mentioned that it isn't and, as with any automated process it is a first step for further improvement. Where have you seen me be surprised by bad seams? Or do you want to encourage people to just buy products and don't try to do anything themselves? I'm not understanding your position.

    And most of the folks that are going to convert will want an automated method where they won't have to spend many hours manually tweaking the results


    I don't know, I haven't talk to all of the folk who does their own things so I have no way of knowing if majority of them would want to go one way or another.

    So the options are...accept seams, wait for an 'official' solution that will cost money, spend a lot of time fixing/manually doing a conversion


    You saying that as if spending time doing things I like to do is to waste it. I'm having much more joy from solving technical problems and making new things than from rendering of stock 3D figures.

    accept that all is rebooted and G2 F/M are the PRACTICAL limit for what came before (of course tinkers NEVER accept that one :) ).


    I hate(d) G2X with passion and I'm very glad that it died so soon. The only pity that G3F is a such disappointing replacement. Maybe in Genesis 5 people will finally get a fully articulated figure. I don't hate G3F but only because I don't care about it in the slightest. It could be replaced with G4F tomorrow for what I care.
    But your last part of the comment (about tinkers) comes as tinkers only stuck on previous generations out of blind loyalty to outdated stuff. I wonder if this was what you was trying to say.

    So...bottom line of what I'm saying...automated solution is not going to work.


    Just as I said with my little proof of concept. Again, I don't see the purpose of your messages. That the automated process(es) is/are not of sufficient quality and require/s future improvement? I thought it was obvious from close-up render at least, if text disclaimers are somehow missed.

    It's going to take manual work to 'finish' the job...which will take time/effort.
    Again, I'm reading it as if spending time and effort to use things you love work is a bad thing. For me it is not. People who want an easy solution will buy an easy solution anyway.
    And unlike the past, where if there weren't bump/displacement you had alternatives...especially if you were converting the diffuse to match the new UV layout especially on many interchangeable pretty girls. so bump/displacement in case so it fit without changing the UV, you don't because you will have 2 different UV layouts or seams, so the conversions are going to have to be good enough for the control maps, too.
    If seams on remapped UVs are matched well enough, bumps/dismplacements aren't usually a problem unless those are complicated up to second skin complexity.

    Read MallenLane's post. There will ALWAYS be seam problems...ALWAYS. The jagged edges will never go away.

    The biggest non-animation advantage...more realistic surface area scaling. There is still some work needed, but for one the ears are now not larger than the cheeks! Then there's the total remap of the mouth, the arms/legs/nails scales are more realistic...and the list goes on.

    If you want to work on a method of getting old skins on the new model, concentrate the efforts on projecting the old maps onto the new UV layout, not trying to fit the old UVs to the new model (it's not going to have a pleasant outcome)...and as far as that kind of projection goes, it's not something that can currently be done within Studio. It would have to be done in external software...probably a 3D painting program or something that supports UDIM and projection mapping...like one of the 'top end' modeling suites.

  • KatteyKattey Posts: 2,899
    edited June 2015

    The jagged edges will never go away.

    Unless they do complete U-turn in next generations and add all those edge loops back. It is not an impossible thing: looking at recent history example, a big gaming company confidently said about year or two ago that their new gaming console won't have backward comparability, no-no-no, who needs all that old stuff when you have the newest and shiniest? But when that decision bit them in their lower behinds, they announced the backward comparability for the same console with quite a bit of fanfare. Genesis unisex and Triax were both fanfared as a huge, new, into-the-future features and look where we are now – U-turn back to split bases and common weight-mapping.

    From what I get from forums, most of people don't have fancy software like ZBrush or Maya to get good texture projections. While I'll certainly try this way as well, I'd rather also seek the solution that can get an average user a reasonable result. C4D isn't a way either, sadly, but at least it proved some, so far imperfect, solution is possible.

    Post edited by Kattey on
  • dizzy88dizzy88 Posts: 49
    edited June 2015

    Kattey said:
    darrick.yee, thank you for sharing of the same process. This is about the same thing I did in C4D VAMP (I had G3F and G2F matched both to G2F default shapes and transferred UVs from G2F). UVs from remapped G3F only loaded if surface grouping in remap G3F figure remained intact and I had the same jagged areas, not to mention that UVs on remap themselves became quite crumbled. It was a surprise for me that DS figures cannot have two or more material zone sets on the same figure.
    It would not eliminate the problem entirely, because topologies are different, but it would give a better usability anyway, for this and other purposes.

    No problem. :) Yes, the UVs in Maya were pretty crumpled at the boundaries, too, which meant stretching on the model. Unfortunately relaxing those UVs will make them not line up with the texture boundaries anymore, for the reasons MallenLane described. So no amount of manual messing with the UVs will allow us to just plop a V4 texture on it without seams. But it's probably close enough for me, for most things. The face looks fine and I'm not planning on any extreme close-ups of the shoulders. ;)

    If you want to work on a method of getting old skins on the new model, concentrate the efforts on projecting the old maps onto the new UV layout, not trying to fit the old UVs to the new model (it's not going to have a pleasant outcome)...and as far as that kind of projection goes, it's not something that can currently be done within Studio. It would have to be done in external software...probably a 3D painting program or something that supports UDIM and projection mapping...like one of the 'top end' modeling suites.

    Yep, Maya can do it (it's kind of slow and painful), and I'm pretty sure Blender and C4D can, too. Substance is also great at it, but unfortunately doesn't support UDIM yet. You can also bake the normal/bump/specular maps by using them as the diffuse map, if necessary.

    Post edited by dizzy88 on
  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,319
    edited June 2015

    Kattey said:
    The jagged edges will never go away.

    Unless they do complete U-turn in next generations and add all those edge loops back. It is not an impossible thing: looking at recent history example, a big gaming company confidently said about year or two ago that their new gaming console won't have backward comparability, no-no-no, who needs all that old stuff when you have the newest and shiniest? But when that decision bit them in their lower behinds, they announced the backward comparability for the same console with quite a bit of fanfare. Genesis unisex and Triax were both fanfared as a huge, new, into-the-future features and look where we are now – U-turn back to split bases and common weight-mapping.

    From what I get from forums, most of people don't have fancy software like ZBrush or Maya to get good texture projections. While I'll certainly try this way as well, I'd rather also seek the solution that can get an average user a reasonable result. C4D isn't a way either, sadly, but at least it proved some, so far imperfect, solution is possible. Sounds like what I was just describing above, lol.
    [ # 32 ]
    Tho I was thinking of the wrought where you fuss with the map images directly (in PS/GIMP), rather then fussing with UDIM stuff.

    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    mjc1016 said:
    If you want to work on a method of getting old skins on the new model, concentrate the efforts on projecting the old maps onto the new UV layout, not trying to fit the old UVs to the new model (it's not going to have a pleasant outcome)...and as far as that kind of projection goes, it's not something that can currently be done within Studio. It would have to be done in external software...probably a 3D painting program or something that supports UDIM and projection mapping...like one of the 'top end' modeling suites.

    Yep, Maya can do it (it's kind of slow and painful), and I'm pretty sure Blender and C4D can, too. Substance is also great at it, but unfortunately doesn't support UDIM yet. You can also bake the normal/bump/specular maps by using them as the diffuse map, if necessary.

    Blender is a maybe...it doesn't really have UDIM support, but it can be made to work with them...if that makes any sense? It's almost as if Blender doesn't really care about what UV system is used, just that there's some way it can logically assign pixel A to point A...

    Real normals...no. Because places like the arms/legs/ears are much different scales what's going to happen when rescaling the parts, when fitting them, is that the slope of the height from the surface is going to change. Normal maps use the 3 colors to represent a point, angle and slope...based on the baked to UV map. Uniform upscaling (double the size) works because it doesn't change that relationship. Scaling parts...does. It would be like changing the strength of it. Faked normals based on one of the other maps (displacement/diffuse) not so much a problem as the 'distance from' is arbitrary and extrapolated, anyway.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,319
    edited June 2015

    mjc1016 said:

    mjc1016 said:
    If you want to work on a method of getting old skins on the new model, concentrate the efforts on projecting the old maps onto the new UV layout, not trying to fit the old UVs to the new model (it's not going to have a pleasant outcome)...and as far as that kind of projection goes, it's not something that can currently be done within Studio. It would have to be done in external software...probably a 3D painting program or something that supports UDIM and projection mapping...like one of the 'top end' modeling suites.

    Yep, Maya can do it (it's kind of slow and painful), and I'm pretty sure Blender and C4D can, too. Substance is also great at it, but unfortunately doesn't support UDIM yet. You can also bake the normal/bump/specular maps by using them as the diffuse map, if necessary.

    Blender is a maybe...it doesn't really have UDIM support, but it can be made to work with them...if that makes any sense? It's almost as if Blender doesn't really care about what UV system is used, just that there's some way it can logically assign pixel A to point A...


    Because at that level, it don't matter if it is UDIM, UV, PEX or whatever. The texture maps are just 2D image files, lol.
    Real normals...no. Because places like the arms/legs/ears are much different scales what's going to happen when rescaling the parts, when fitting them, is that the slope of the height from the surface is going to change. Normal maps use the 3 colors to represent a point, angle and slope...based on the baked to UV map. Uniform upscaling (double the size) works because it doesn't change that relationship. Scaling parts...does. It would be like changing the strength of it. Faked normals based on one of the other maps (displacement/diffuse) not so much a problem as the 'distance from' is arbitrary and extrapolated, anyway. What if you convert the 'Normal map to Displacement. Paint the Displacement maps where they go in you billion-dolor 3D painting program. Then convert them back to 'Normal' maps when your done painting.
    http://awesomebump.besaba.com/about/
    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • NadinoNadino Posts: 258
    edited December 1969


    Yep, Maya can do it (it's kind of slow and painful), and I'm pretty sure Blender and C4D can, too. Substance is also great at it, but unfortunately doesn't support UDIM yet. You can also bake the normal/bump/specular maps by using them as the diffuse map, if necessary.

    OMGosh YES!
    Proximity Baking aka "Selected to Active" !!
    *Runs into Blender*.....

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    What if you convert the 'Normal map to Displacement. Paint the Displacement maps where they go in you billion-dolor 3D painting program. Then convert them back to 'Normal' maps when your done painting.
    http://awesomebump.besaba.com/about/

    What everyone seems to be missing about normal maps, is that they aren't really normal maps if they are converted from another map. True displacement and normal maps can't be made from other maps, but need to be 'baked' from the geometry or in the case of displacement, painted for exactly that purpose. Yes, filtering tricks, can be used to create something that does, when in the proper format (greyscale or three color rgb) provide some detail and some height/depth data, but it isn't likely to be very accurate to the 'real' distances involved. And for most of the normal maps in DS, why bother converting them..just run the converted map through AwesomeBump or similar...like it like was to begin with.

    Any way, in the context of this particular thread, there aren't all that many V4 textures with normal maps. Genesis and Genesis2...yeah, you are starting to get them.

  • ZarconDeeGrissomZarconDeeGrissom Posts: 5,319
    edited June 2015

    mjc1016 said:
    What if you convert the 'Normal map to Displacement. Paint the Displacement maps where they go in you billion-dolor 3D painting program. Then convert them back to 'Normal' maps when your done painting.
    http://awesomebump.besaba.com/about/

    What everyone seems to be missing about normal maps, is that they aren't really normal maps if they are converted from another map. True displacement and normal maps can't be made from other maps, but need to be 'baked' from the geometry or in the case of displacement, painted for exactly that purpose. Yes, filtering tricks, can be used to create something that does, when in the proper format (grayscale or three color rgb) provide some detail and some height/depth data, but it isn't likely to be very accurate to the 'real' distances involved. And for most of the normal maps in DS, why bother converting them..just run the converted map through AwesomeBump or similar...like it like was to begin with.

    Any way, in the context of this particular thread, there aren't all that many V4 textures with normal maps. Genesis and Genesis2...yeah, you are starting to get them. Duly noted. I don't recall noticing a single normal map for any of the figures I have, tho I never looked threw each and every one going back to V4 (3D Mega gasp-for-breath bundle). Also, it had been 3delight for most of them (Including V4?), that handles Displacement maps far better then Iray on RAM-limited cards (mesh subdivision setting in the Iray shader surface tab).

    I simply assume, that the next best thing to true Displacement, is Normal (far better then just bump), for use in Iray.

    Another thought, as you pointed out with Thread density in another thread (no puns intended, lol). How much detail and size of maps do you want for skin pores and wrinkles, before it starts producing moire patterns and looks fuzzy in renders? Is an 8k x 8k pixel map appropriate for a face being rendered at only 1080p resolution, lol.

    Put your "Strings, Conformal Fields, and M-Theory" books away, it was in reference to Cloth and clothing bump maps. lol.
    http://www.daz3d.com/forums/viewreply/837722/

    Post edited by ZarconDeeGrissom on
  • 3D Universe3D Universe Posts: 292
    edited December 1969

    I like texture converter a lot and use it to convert maps frequently
    I waa disapointed 3DUniverse not only stopped developing new supported figure plugins but also they or DAZ pulled some from the store.
    I do have the generation 3 ones and the secondlife plugin that I can use for iClone heads.
    A G3F plugin would indeed be a great idea if just so I could use future V3 etc skins on figures that work in Carrara but am certain others would like it, I wish more plugins were made for other figures like obviously Dusk and Dawn for the Poser folk mainly but even the other DAZ figures since Generation 4 namely Genesis and genesis 2 characters so I can use their skins on V4 & M4 though admittedly there are a lot of UV sets there!!!


    Footnote I still use V4 & M4 a lot anyway, in Carrara at least. In iClone is where I mostly use the later figures, V7 would work there too if I decide to buy her, but anything that gets newer stuff working on older figures is always handy for me.


    Development was stopped on Texture Convertor for various reasons. DAZ pulled a whole lot of the plugins from the store because some stupid anti-virus programs were identifying the installers as containing viruses (the didn't). Although DAZ did promise to return the plugins to the store, I don't think it ever happened and frankly I got tired of asking.

  • patience55patience55 Posts: 6,988
    edited December 1969

    Read through all the posts, put together some notes:


    Some have spend THOUSANDS of dollars on V4 textures [be it for V4, G1 or G2]. That is the main purpose AFAIK for why to fit the new to the old layouts. The new layout is pretty awesome :-)

    Certainly some of the previously purchased V4 mats have the potential to be used on G3.

    Now, after I get 3's uvs to the 4's spaces ... as some may recall that yes there was a way to give a figure more than one set of "shading domains". I have not yet tested whether this will work with G3.

    While fixing known bugs in Hexagon would be nice, and making it 64 bit would be too, no it should not become "part of" D/S tyvm. We need to get models "out of D/S" in order to do certain tasks with them, then bring them back in. That bridge is gold. What I find rather irksome is that while not a modeler, D/S will upon occasion decide on its own to do some remodeling of an imported mesh making quite the mess. If Hexagon welds together a model using a trick that does NOT change the uvmap ... why in blazes does D/S decide it should? Anyways ... to remake the fingernail area is real easy. So the tutorial will use that section for the example and everybody can reuse their V4 fingernail polishes on G3. The really groovy matter is that one does NOT have to "redo" the entire map in order to use them. Not to discourage folk but the nicest Victoria 4 uvset for G3 would probably be a combination of G3 and V4's uv sets because yes, there are some mesh differences. And honestly, for some things, why go backwards? A good image editor [i.e. that works with layers] can help one redo things such as lashes.

  • NadinoNadino Posts: 258
    edited December 1969


    Development was stopped on Texture Convertor for various reasons. DAZ pulled a whole lot of the plugins from the store because some stupid anti-virus programs were identifying the installers as containing viruses (the didn't). Although DAZ did promise to return the plugins to the store, I don't think it ever happened and frankly I got tired of asking.

    That is very unfortunate, sorry to hear that happened.
    As already mentioned, an updated version of your wonderful program to work its' magic on the new figures would be very useful/wanted.
    But I understand, thank you for explaining your side :)

  • SadKitty_CarraraSadKitty_Carrara Posts: 21,978
    edited December 1969

    Nadino said:

    Development was stopped on Texture Convertor for various reasons. DAZ pulled a whole lot of the plugins from the store because some stupid anti-virus programs were identifying the installers as containing viruses (the didn't). Although DAZ did promise to return the plugins to the store, I don't think it ever happened and frankly I got tired of asking.

    That is very unfortunate, sorry to hear that happened.
    As already mentioned, an updated version of your wonderful program to work its' magic on the new figures would be very useful/wanted.
    But I understand, thank you for explaining your side :)
    yes me too, glad I grabbed the plugins I did

  • patience55patience55 Posts: 6,988
    edited December 1969

    ... edit ...

    Count me in for a V4 UV layout for genesis 3 also, hopefully from an official source and not a workaround. No offense to those trying to find solutions, but I have tried a few of the workaround in the forums for transferring morphs (before GenX) and such and had to reinstall content because of it.

    I assure you that unless somebody has found a way to totally goof up in the most horrendous way, there is no way a new uv set should be a cause for reinstalling anything. If you hate it, simply find the "one folder" under the vendor's name under the figure [which is under the creator's name] and delete it. I have made some pics for the tutorial, this is not a hard thing.

  • dkgoosedkgoose Posts: 1,384
    edited December 1969

    I agree it's sad I jumped to buy TC2 when it came out, I just thought maybe it wasn't selling after Genesis came out so it was discontinued, sad to hear the reason why, and that daz never put them back up, they could of made it a dim file to avoid the warnings you'd think. I'll also continue wishful thinking well see a TC3 for Genesis 3


    Development was stopped on Texture Convertor for various reasons. DAZ pulled a whole lot of the plugins from the store because some stupid anti-virus programs were identifying the installers as containing viruses (the didn't). Although DAZ did promise to return the plugins to the store, I don't think it ever happened and frankly I got tired of asking.
  • KeryaKerya Posts: 9,642
    edited December 1969


    Development was stopped on Texture Convertor for various reasons. DAZ pulled a whole lot of the plugins from the store because some stupid anti-virus programs were identifying the installers as containing viruses (the didn't). Although DAZ did promise to return the plugins to the store, I don't think it ever happened and frankly I got tired of asking.

    Thanks for stepping in - I have those plugins and from time to time I have to kick my antivirus not to delete the installers ... LOL
    But I really do still find it a useful piece of software!

  • dizzy88dizzy88 Posts: 49
    edited July 2015

    Ok, I managed to transfer textures from V4 to G3F by baking. Diffuse, bump, and specular maps.

    One problem was that G2F has fingernails/toenails as part of the skin mesh. So when you transfer from G2F to G3F, the nail texture gets baked into the skin. I solved it by moving the nail UVs over to the finger UVs (after scaling them down) and then sewing the UV edges. (The G2F UVs have "holes" at the tips of the fingers where nails originally were).

    Another problem was Maya-specific - Maya supports UDIM file textures, but the Transfer Maps function apparently doesn't. So if you try to bake the whole figure at once, instead of separate maps, it will just make one map for the face. So I exported G3F from DAZ using "Collapse UV tiles," then broke the mesh apart in Maya into separate Face, Torso, Arms, Legs meshes (i.e., one for each texture map) and then baked them one-by-one.

    I think the result is pretty good, no seams or artifacts as far as I can see. There is some minor stretching in some areas, but that's unavoidable as the G3F mapping is simply bigger (and potentially more detailed) in some areas.

    [Edit] This is Addy's "Dolly for V4" applied to V7:

    V4toV7-3.jpg
    1024 x 768 - 228K
    V4toV7-2.jpg
    1024 x 768 - 163K
    V4toV7-1.jpg
    1024 x 768 - 214K
    Post edited by dizzy88 on
  • JOdelJOdel Posts: 4,753
    edited December 1969

    Looks great.

    I was always very interested in Texture Converter, but it didn't run on a Mac, and even after some 15 years I am still dragging my feet about installing a Windows partition to run it in.

    Has anyone tried the Blacksmith 3D texture converter? I know that it is capable of converting textures for use with Dawn. How different are the UVs when going there?

    Mind you, I've no idea whether the makers have any intention of going there, but it seems like it would be a worthwhile direction to investigate.

  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited December 1969

    Ok, I managed to transfer textures from V4 to G3F by baking. Diffuse, bump, and specular maps.

    One problem was that G2F has fingernails/toenails as part of the skin mesh. So when you transfer from G2F to G3F, the nail texture gets baked into the skin. I solved it by moving the nail UVs over to the finger UVs (after scaling them down) and then sewing the UV edges. (The G2F UVs have "holes" at the tips of the fingers where nails originally were).

    Another problem was Maya-specific - Maya supports UDIM file textures, but the Transfer Maps function apparently doesn't. So if you try to bake the whole figure at once, instead of separate maps, it will just make one map for the face. So I exported G3F from DAZ using "Collapse UV tiles," then broke the mesh apart in Maya into separate Face, Torso, Arms, Legs meshes (i.e., one for each texture map) and then baked them one-by-one.

    I think the result is pretty good, no seams or artifacts as far as I can see. There is some minor stretching in some areas, but that's unavoidable as the G3F mapping is simply bigger (and potentially more detailed) in some areas.

    [Edit] This is Addy's "Dolly for V4" applied to V7:

    Congrats, that looks pretty good.

    Was it easy?

    No...

    Is it something that can be easily converted to a process anyone can do?

    No... (sort of; it can be, if you have the required software...which for the most part will be one of the 'main' 3d packages...Maya, etc)

    Is it something that is do it once, then it's doable for everything?

    No...each set will need to be done individually and won't be redistributable.

    Does it require non-Studio related software?

    Yes...at least some package capable of understanding UDIM and doing the baking.

    Is it a solution that can work?

    Definitely. It's probably the only solution other than 'starting over' and using the V4 maps as 'source' material and painting them in a 3D paint program that is going to have as 'clean' a result.

  • patience55patience55 Posts: 6,988
    edited December 1969

    mjc1016 said:
    ... edit ...

    Definitely. It's probably the only solution other than 'starting over' and using the V4 maps as 'source' material and painting them in a 3D paint program that is going to have as 'clean' a result.

    However if one only wanted one or a few, wouldn't this way be less work? And would not require anything other than D/S4.8.x and any ol' program that paints 3D models.

  • j cadej cade Posts: 1,542
    edited July 2015

    Here's the same method, but using blender. some tiny things still to tweak. Now that I have my proof of concept I am going to work on refining the method.

    It actually sounds like it might be easier in blender, I can at least bake multiple maps at once. For this I did all the diffuse together than all the, bump then spec, but If I set up the materials better I might be able to do them all at once.

    g3-lilith.jpg
    800 x 1200 - 313K
    Post edited by j cade on
  • mjc1016mjc1016 Posts: 15,001
    edited July 2015

    Kamion99 said:
    Here's the same method, but using blender. some tiny things still to tweak. Now that I have my proof of concept I am going to work on refining the method.

    It actually sounds like it might be easier in blender, I can at least bake multiple maps at once. For this I did all the diffuse together than all the, bump then spec, but If I set up the materials better I might be able to do them all at once.

    Which version of Blender?

    And if it does work well in Blender, it may just be able to be sem-automated.

    Post edited by mjc1016 on
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 55,122
    edited December 1969

    Did either of you cut extra edge-loops to account for the changed boundaries, or were you able to work with the existing topology by simply reassigning materials? I wa thinking the former would be required, by the descriptions above.

  • barbultbarbult Posts: 12,171
    edited December 1969

    What does "bake" mean in this context?

Sign In or Register to comment.