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
© 2026 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
And avoid Thunderstorms
'It's fantasy!' Then why don't the women have turnips for heads and are swinging dangerous fish at one another? Not all 'unrealistic' is the same.
'Moral turpitude' That's... not the point at all. I have no problem rendering nudes (which reminds me, I should do a 'skyclad witches' render at some point).
If you want to do a turnips for head and swinging fishes render go for it nobody can say your worng because it's your fantasy.
But you can't say a bare midriff presents an impractical and unrealistic target while fighting becuase historicallay people fought nude all the time. Fantasy can be how you like it, reality doesn't change.
Or to put it another way, it is a fantasy so it doesn't matter how realistic it is but even if it did matter the things peopel are having a problem with did happen anyway.
1. This Thread was started by Ramwolff, not Powerage, so unless Ramwolff is leading a double life, it wasn't "The Vendors Product" thread in the first place.
2. You are reading far too much into the comments here if you think this is "Another litany of moral turpitude". It is simply a discussion about the protective value of a armor.
You would have a point if she was simply wearing iron panties and some sort of chest wrap. however, I think most people are not commenting on that her midrift is exposed, but that ONLY her midrift is seriously exposed. It to me is no different than sending a modern solder in body armor out to the front line but not giving them something to cover that area. And for the record I find Historic Armors that do this, such as many Roman Gladiator outfits equally laughable. Some other points here, Armors change and evolved. Saying it is pratical because it once was or that "historically" X happened is absured. The armor in question invokes 14th-15thc type armors (at least to me), and as such, for the time period, it would be impractical, a pike or arrow would easily taker her out.
Another big point that seems to be overlooked, is that there is often a difference between parade armor and battle armor, and many parade armors would be highly impractical in battle. If this armor is Parade armor, I would see nothing wrong with it.
As the thread starter I've found the conversation to be very interesting! I have no issues about anyone so far in what's been discussed.... continue...........
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5CETMV4nz0
The problem isn't in not having historical authenticity to base this stuff on (which isn't true, as there are some historical examples), but that costumes often labelled as armour are designed with practicality in mind for male figures, yet are often seemingly designed with sex appeal as the primary aim, when it comes to showing up in the store for any female characters.
This goes for any era, of course. I loved the general look of the futuristic riot control GCop outfit too much not to get it, but was very disappointed to discover there was no optional morph to avoid the 'stripper cop' look, by simply covering up her cleavage a little. Such a shame, because I could have used it for some really great serious renders!
But, yeah, I don't have any problem with sex appeal being a primary aim, but when that's at least 95% of what shows up? This video perfectly illustrates what I'm talking about!
That was brilliantly funny! Thanks for the link Xeno!
I seem to recall that 'standard' legionary armor began to include chain shoulder/upper arm pieces as 'anti-Dacian' armour once they had met the Dacian and Thracians who had a habit of using a two-handed chopping weapon called a rhomphaia or falx.
I'm pretty sure I'm not going to get my daughter any Halloween costumes from the store once she hits teens, because... JHC on a pogo stick.