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
What benefit are you imagining this would add? Unless they have different weight maps (which would break clothing compatibility), then there's not going to be any meaningful difference from a unisex base. And it would *absolutely* break geografts.
Admittedly, one thing I'm peeved that Daz did not set up as a standard for G9 was to have masculine figures all built on top of the base masculine shape and feminine figures all built off base feminine so that clothes could at least rely on being able to have those two base shapes supported rather than having to approximate the entirety of any unknown morph with auto-follow.
All versions of Genesis require Daz Studio 4+ as that was the first version with full weight-mapping* (among other features) which they require.
* I beleive the OptiTex content did use a weight-mapped rig, how similar it was to the system used in DS 4 for the standard content I don't know.
Thank you.
Some people really just need to learn how to turn morph dials.
There would be people selling just the head and expecting you to buy the rest of the body as an add-on.
There is one thing a new figure could do. It could change the way parameters and morphs work such that if you have a large library of them, they aren't all loaded at once. Changing how the older Gens work would probably cause unexpected secondary effects that would annoy users. Starting with a new figure type, there would be less growing pains, as it were.
Of course, the new coding would mean no DS4 support, so it's unlikely we'd see this any time soon, as I and others above have pointed out.
Oh, and I assume it would be called Genesis X or GX just because it's a meme to use Roman numerals for version 5/10 of a product even if Roman numerals aren't used for prior versions.
If G9 weren't a commercial success, then either Daz would have already replaced it or we would have seen them rolling back to primarily G8; they are a medium-sized business, they can't afford to keep pushing a failed campaign for four years out of spite.
There are a mix of criticisms around G9.
* Sure, we've had things like Victoria Male, Michael Female, Xola Feminine, etc, but they're variants of the figure rather than being a "canon" point of the characters' identities.
However, whatever those criticisms are, they can't reasonably add up to saying that G9 is universally hated, because if it really were, the money would have already talked.
And, to be clear, I say that as someone who is so-so on G9 and still predominantly uses G8.
I don't think, that especially G9 pushes technical limits.
Those limits have been pushed with G8. G9 has infact been stepping down.
There is nothing really, that can be improved with figures. The DAZ Studio application has to be improved now.
Better animation
Feet/Hands floor contact
Better rigging system for more realistic joint bendings
Soft body tissue simulation (Bones, muscles and fat)
Way better universal expression tools. Those current FACS don't work better than Morph Targets.
Smoothing modefier for more than just one host figure, in order to avoide poke throughs on layered clothes.
Much more important, than another Genesis figure would be finally a new real time Hair and clothes simulation.
This I could really buy into! And not just the little cats, but the big fellows, too--so that we could do Caitians, Kzin, Aslan, Hrrallan, etc. Then there could be new dragon/draconian, dog/Vargr, feral/anthro-griffons, etc.
Hopefully plenty of options [Character Species for Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) Fifth Edition (5e) - D&D Beyond] for our developers to consider??
Or like Poser 7?
Hell No!!!
Please, not another "Portraits only" figure like Victoria 4 and Genesis 9.
Oh God, Hell NO!!! to subscription.
YES !!! to perpetual paid HD Morphs
And please, anything better than dforce.
It's because I don't like how G9 unisex chest turns out to males; It has too a "boobish" look to me; to get it right, I have to set female to negative. I also prefere a more "V" shape line for those muscles on man. I think the two models tend to look better when built specifically. So, if it is wanted to keep a single base figure, then I think there should be added more polygons at least to allow those kind of differences to be morphed out better, instead of building something "in-between" that actually looks good on neither.
somehow you seemed to have totally misunderstood everything I said, not separate meshes like early Poser content but geographed producing one single mesh
basicly the start with a sphere idea but a head
can have as many faces and whatever UVs you wish
kind of like Spore Creature creator
they don't even want to give us the dforce hair or HDmorphs
at any price
I loath subscriptions too
but I would prefer to pay them if that's what it takes than go without or rely on others to make something not even halfway to what I want
Regarding the hair, there is a newly updated product called Vision FX Version 3 that has been released as a stand alone, locally used, product with a "perpetual" license, no subscription. It used to be an add on for Paint Shop Pro. It needs a decent computer, but offers multiple AI models, and editing capabilities.
The models need to be downloaded, but is meant to be run offline. You can literally run dozens of iterations from the same base image.
I can use Fooocus inpainting on my own PC to do that
I wanted 3D CGI dynamic strandbased hair in DAZ Studio
I can also do that in Carrara, Poser, Blender and Unreal Engine
G10 will be announced the second I cave and move on to G9.
Probably.
I'll probably give G10 a chance, since chances are by then, G8 will be showing its age. I do wonder if G10 will be a product of AI, though.
My hopes for G10 - At minimum:
Separate female and male characters.
Head of G9F/M (better expressions) on body of G8F/M (better bending).
"Zero pose" like that of G9 with feet flat on the floor.
Flat and heeled footwear backwards compatibility with G9.
Clothing/hair backwards compatibility at least as far back as G8F/M.
This isn't inherent to the base topology or shape, and wouldn't be resolved via creating different variants.
The base shape of a figure does naturally influence creators and what they create, but it does not prohibit G9 taking shapes that are nearly indistinguishable from G8.
A while back I went through setting up G9 so that it had rigging that matched G8 as close as possible - and it's been long enough since that I'm not 100% certain which of these is G8 and which is G9
If I had to make a guess, I'd be basing it more on expressions, which I did not do anything with, than bends or shape.
Any premise that G9's mesh, base shape or rigging mean it cannot look or bend like G8 is just not true; most people might not be setting it up that way, but that's not the same as that it cannot.
I would strongly want G10 to go back to the wider leg pose of G8, and I consider it one of the genuine mistakes that was made in G9's design.
The narrower G9 base pose significantly increases issues with the auto-following of bend correctives for specific characters, and means that G9 characters of sturdier build end up with their thighs clipping into each other in the base pose (which is a nuisance as far as creating corrective fits for clothes or the starting parameters of a dForce simulation, particularly considering the bend corrective issue already mentioned).
I can't see G10 arriving until the cost of hardware upgrades gets back to a reasonable level. G10 will be more resource heavy than G9. I think it would cause a lot of meltdowns at the moment.
We know literally nothing about G10, not even whether it's currently being developed.
It does seem hard to imagine G10 being released so close to release of DS6. However, it's possible the next version of DS6 is being (or will be) coded to have features that start the process of supporting G10 features.
Regards
Richard
Gordig,
Just wanted to let you know that your wry remark above didn't go unnoticed. I wholeheartedly agree.
I joined Daz before the pandemic and over the years I've seen the highs and lows here in the Daz Forum. Yes, I've been around a while, not as long as the veterans. My post tally is relatively low because I've kept the principle that Silence is Golden. Or at least I try.
Back in those days the Forum was abuzz with positive energy. Lots of people were sharing their renders; groups actively hosted thematic contests; people discussed tips and tutorials. There was a community vibe on the upswing. That's how I remembered things.
These days ... I don't doubt that the larger community is just as active, perhaps even more so. But my sense is that all of that positive energy has migrated elsewhere. What we're left here in the Forum, particularly the Commons, is scholeric and cantankerous. Sure there's always been snark and sarcasm here, but the ones I see now are backed by conviction, the sort that takes a no-retreat-no-surrender, take-no-prisoners-alive ethos.
Before I picked up Daz I wasn't at all creative in the 3D arts. Photography was my hobby. What I've learned is how negative energy can be such a big drag on creativity. It kills curiosity. It dampens collaboration -- save for peak moments of frenzy when the curmedgeons swarm and "pile on". It enforces a blinkered world view that excludes any possibility that one could be wrong, that there are alternate POVs. At the end of the day, it's pretty exhausting.
I haven't given up hope altogether. There are still parts of the larger Daz Forum that I really enjoy, not just for the knowledge-sharing but also for the excitement and creativity people bring. It's also heartening to see folks I respect, who've stayed off of the Commons, starting to chime in. Going forward, we just need more positive voices to drown out the negative ones.
Cheers!
I feel like this describes the entire world right now.
Also, I've been around so long that half the stuff in the store these days look like things that people used to give away in Rendo's Free Stuff. I'm glad that we have better figures and renderers now, but the community as a whole certainly isn't as enjoyable as it was back then.
If one ignores the entire V4 Vs. Genesis, Poser Vs. DS acrimony that literally split the userbase in half and caused an exodus of then long-time vendors and users from these climes, perhaps. I became really active around that time and the things going on these days seem pretty tame compared to some of the sniping and diatribes that went on back then.
An update to my post. I have been trying a free trial, and this product IS NOT ready for use at the current time. Don't spend money on it. You probably need a 24gb GPU to do much more than enhance photographs well.
You quoted someone making a comment about male G9 bodies and female characters in what seems like a rebuttal? Am I missing something?
Yes, because the fact the example is female has no bearing on my point.
Differences in G8 and G9's expressions aside, this is a clone of G8F I set up on G9, and I made it close enough as to make the two figures very difficult to tell apart. Not just in shape, but in how they bend as well.
People can try and play spot the difference with a magnifying glass if they really want, but it does still show that the G9 mesh can be shaped to a considerable degree of precision. And I assure you, there is nothing specific about the G8F vs G8M figures that means this couldn't be replicated with G8M. (Indeed, it is on my to-do list). A unified mesh is absolutely capable of being the same shapes as G8 was, because here it is being G8.
As it happens, G3 and G8 are the exception in the Daz line-up; Despite many of the other generations nominally having two figure bases, they do actually have exactly the same topology. You can for example load shapes directly between M4 and V4, or G2M and G2F.
There's arguments for changing the way that a unisex base was handled, but going back to split figures with their own topology is not actually necessary to address the issues people are bringing up.
(And the proposal of a three-way split figure would just be its own massive can of problems).
Yeah, I remember product threads being full of people enthusiastically posting renders with the product, rather than complaining about the price or whatever.
There are a few threads that manage some enthusiasm, but they're quite thin on the ground.
I suppose some folks hate G9 -- many really, really like it.