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
I started working in Daz last year and had seen all the G9 hate, so I had started looking at both G9 and G8 to compare and G9 just looks better, but now that I have a decent library and thousands invested into G9, I can't see wanting to move to G10 even if it looks better so I can kind of see why people would want to work in G8 if they're heavily invested in it. Unless there's performance improvements in G10, I'd also be concerned about its resource needs, and with the high cost of any computer component and less disposable income in general due to the high costs of pretty much everything, now feels like a poor time to release a new G10. There's so much more that can be done to improve Daz Studio, and that IMO is where time should be spent, not G10.
Okay. The point you are trying to make doesn't seem to have anything to do with the one you quoted. I was confused by that.
G9 just feels difficult to work with. Create a custom character and watch how eyes and mouth sections fail to follow the main character's shape.
Missing edge loops makes it difficult to pose without having polygon artefacts. The only other way would be, to crank up subdivision up high.
This becomes more of a problem as soon as a (mostley female) character's shape differs from the stereotypical DAZ-Barbie shape.
The only real G9 purpose is a nice looking portrait, if it supposed to be realism, but I guess realism doesn't matter, when it is just about stylized characters being idle posed and rendered.
Unlike any other opinion I read in forums, I see G9 as a male base figure. Male characters just work best with G9.
Maybe G10 should be all female then. with again merched eyes and mouth sections....
AND an A stance default pose, which would make posing and shaping so much easier again.
yeah, that's the problem I have with it
I can transfer morphs between generations or sculpt them myself but the eye and mouth bits don't fit
cannot find any way to fix it, have searched but if it's been addressed anywhere Google or other seach queries are not showing me
I actually use Genesis 1 a lot for this reason besides the fact it works well in Carrara and Poser if I ever get a second computer I can reinstall it on
thats a whole other issue
I'm the same and I suspect part of the disinterest stems from folks already being invested in G8. Whenever there's a G10, you and I will probably resist it and find minor flaws with it "deal breaking" to justify not reinvesting in a new character type. The renaming of the bones between G3/8/81 and G9 if often mentioned in anti-G9 talk. (And some of the changes made are head scratching.)
I am not a regular user of G9. I find I'm hard pressed to get the best out of G8, or V3 for that matter, so there is no urgent need for me to 'grow into' G9 because G8 is cramping my style. There are advantages to G9, close-ups are much better than G8, and the expression sliders seem better thought out. When it comes to the better G9 portraits, I suspect a fair bit could be made up for by using the same shaders on G8 and having similar high res detail maps. When G9 came out people were learning how to use it and managed to accidentally turn off many of the joint correctives (I can remember a Zeddicus pose promo with absolutely appaling thigh deformations on the character - this one:
) - I think that may be a significant part of the cause of the problems with noodle joints. It seems to happen less now - I think people have learnt how to use G9. As for the bone name changes - ahh well. Not really an issue. They've been changing since I started, with few generations having the same names as the generation before. G3 & G8 were pretty much the exception there. Going from V3 to V4 we lost the 'Right & Left Buttock bones, so it has been going on a long time.
So how does this relate to G10? Well, I think it'll need to be a big step forward from G9. It would probably be good for DAZ, if there is a standard game rigging, to match that, so their beautifully detailed characters could get into games without degradation. Games are able to handle huge poly counts nowdays - the PS5 is pretty long in the tooth now, but the specs for what it can handle are mind boggling. This will cause another round of changes, another investment and another layer of incompatibility. Unless DAZ is very clever in the ways the incompatibility can be circumvented. What can we all do other than hope for the best?
Regards,
Richard
I don't know if it's exactly the problem you have, but Jay Versluis has a video on G9 eyes after importing a G8 morph:
the naming is helpful, that's something I didn't know
but some of the ones I have transferred are pretty extreme
I have wondered if fitting eyes and mouth to G8F etc like clothing could get the needed shape
Bugga Boo is probably the most extreme one for mouth particularly
I don't hate G9 per se, but there are some design decisions that have made my workflow more difficult, with one of the major ones being G9's overreliance on morphs or geogrphs to do everything. As a prime example, take the breasts... and no, I'm not talking about how the male breasts look less masculine or even the fact that the nipple of the base figure feels like an after thought. No, in this example what I'm talking about is the lack of specific pectoral bones for the positioning of female breasts. As anyone who's studied anatomy or spent a lot of time observing people knows, breasts are not solid fixed objects with a rigid shape, but rather add-ons to the torso that can take on wildly different positioning and shapes depending on the effects motion, gravity, age, breast size and relative firmness, and the angle of the torso's inclination. As a result, the shape of the breasts of a woman lying on her back or bending over look entirely different from the same woman standing up and that, in turn, affects the shape of the clothing on top of them. Get it wrong and your character looks like she just came from the plastic surgeon with brand new implants. Maybe some people like that look, but with G8.1 and the previous figure generations this could be adjusted quickly on the fly simply by adjusting the bones, and I even have utility that does it most of it automatically. WIth G9, however, you first have to have a set of seperate morphs for the left and right breasts (not included with the base packs,) then spend a bunch of time trying out different morphs to try to find ones that work with the exact positioning in your general image, and then hope that the end result doesn't eviate too much from the basic standing up shape if you're working with sequential images. The weirdest part of all of this is DAZ had spent the last two figure generations going in the exact opposite direction of develkopment with adding new expression bones each gen to get around the limitations of the morph-driven expressions of G3.
They said that they thought there needed to be three base figures, on the premise a unisex base was not capable of being shaped accurately enough to do the things that the previous generation's split figures did.
I was demonstrating that the unisex base was capable of being shaped very closely to the previous generation of figures.
G9's pectoral bones still exist, and the weights are pretty similar to the ones that existed on G8F, so I'm really not sure what you're saying here.
(This is using my aforementioned G8F clone on the G9, which does not mess with the weights at all, but it gets the shapes to line up to show roughly how they actually compare as far as the overall shape)
Adding more bones than are already there would be a nightmare in an area that's already very complicated as far as getting clothing to follow well.
Base G9 has the exact same breast pose controls as base G8F had. Aside from the translate/rotate/scale controls of each individual pectoral, both figures have a number of controllers:
- Flatten (L/R)
- Hang Forward (L/R)
- In-Out
- Side-Side (L/R)
- Up-Down (L/R)
These are in the base starter essentials of both generations. There are no more features on the base figure for posing G8F's breasts by default than G9's. (but G9's *are* less likely to explode if you try using a dForce simulation because of the more even mesh topology).
This has nothing to do with weitght maps and everything that is relevant to "physically" posing those parts of the figure with the mouse, not sliders. It's buried somewhere in the documentation but I really don't feel like diging though that, so here's a google search result that reveals:
[1]
That isn't in the linked thread, and isn't correct - Matt_Castle is right, Genseis 9 has pectoral bones
I hope this smooth shader dressed character is safe for the forum. But This is a g9 figure with pectoral bones. (Forum won't show the animation.)
Google's AI has either found, or completely made up, something entirely untrue. G9 absolutely still has pectoral bones, and they still function based on weightmaps, not morphs.
The G9 body has broadly the same weightmapped bones as G8F had - the names have changed, as has the exact hierarchy of the skeleton (the twist bones of the arms and legs are now branched off from a main bone, rather than being in the direct chain), and there's differences in the head, but you can match up body weightmaps more or less on a 1:1 basis between the two figures, with every G8 body weightmap having a similar and equivalent map/bone on G9.
Every version of Genesis has had pectoral bones, and I feel confident in saying that it's almost guaranteed that a hypothetical G10 would as well.
All of the Genesis models have pectoral bones. It was one of the rigging improvements over the generation 4 characters.
This is the biggest problem with AI - it presents incorrect information as fact, with no regard to source.
That was once called "disinformation." But only when it was true.
I know. The animation is amusing as the two images flip back and forth with the two rigging moves in the two images: up left, low right.
Okay... perhaps my teminology is incorrect, but if there's a page in the DAZ wiki that discusses this, then I have yet to find it, if it has even been published. What I do know is that I get multiple responses that accurately convey the issues I'm experiencing, which is breasts that lack the greater range of seperated mobility, rotation, and compression/extension found with the earlier generation figures except when additional morph packs are added... although I'm now noting that most of them refer back to the readme page for Zev0's Breast Control, which is very specific about not using bones. Would you disagree to the following query response:
"The primary difference between Genesis 9 and Genesis 8 breast rigging lies in the shift from gender-specific separate skeletons and dedicated pectoral/breast bones to a unified, androgynous base mesh that often relies on morph-driven or corrective-based soft tissue control rather than separate dedicated chest bone hierarchies. [1, 2]
Key Differences in Rigging and Structure
Try searching for Breast in the shop. There are just as many breast morph assets for G8 as there are for G9. And there are a similar number (but fewer) for older gens. Anagord has like 10 morph packs exclusively for G8. If the controls were so good in non-G9 era stuff, how would that make sense?
It isn't a terminology issue. It's an AI issue. Check the sources. I checked your links. None of them talk about morphs being necessary in G9.
Funny to see it using Breast Control as an argument for "G9 needs to use morphs for breasts" when Zev0 has produced a "Breast Control" morphs pack for every Genesis figure since G1, and the G8 and G3 versions basically provide the same morphs as the G9 one...
'I guess I have to explain it, you see, there is the bad pectoral bone, it move and move the breast, but it's a bad bone. Then, there is the good pectoral bone, it move the breast, but it's a good bone.'
(I doubt that Les Inconnus have ever heard about Daz Studio and Genesis, though)
(Probably not, but one of the good things with a lot of their sketches / quotes is how well you can "reapply" them to a many other things)
Great. Let's start with @Cybersox has not been getting the desired results from G9 breasts. Ok. Probably better to discuss the issue from first hand experience than to rely on ai to explain it. Then maybe people can help instead of going down a rabbithole about the ai explanation.
I would absolutely disagree, because all of the split Genesises have identical skeletons on both genders. There is no principle of gender specific skeletons; both the men and women figures have had pectoral posing.
The bone count difference is almost entirely in the face, because G8 had things like three bones for each eyelid plus an additional one for the inner and outer corners, rather than one for the upper and one for the lower. (It was actually a ridiculous number).
Disregarding everything after the head bone (i.e. all the face and ear rigging), G8 has 93 bones in the body. G9 has 101 bones in the body. While their hierarchy is reorganised, these are essentially the exact same bones as before. The difference is now including master bones for each of the upper and lower arms and the thighs, and the new anchor bones in the hand, which accounts for all the additional 8 bones. None of these new bones have any weights, they are just used for the new organisation of the heirarchy.
Other than branching the limb twist bones off rather than having them in a chain, the only other significant change to the way that G8 and G9 are rigged is that the foot and metatarsal weight regions have been exchanged. (I'm really not sure why).
The faces are different, but the bodies really aren't.
~~~~~
Whatever issue you are having, it is not because G9 has a fundamentally different skeleton or weightmaps, because it doesn't; they are actually really very similar.
Cybersox, SnowSultan:
Thanks for the acknowledgement. It helps to know I'm not the only one tuned in to the sporadic burst of negativity here.
I look back to that sense of community during the CV-19 period. Maybe that time was an exception, everyone being locked down an all; that what we see today is the baseline norm. Gosh, it's hard to fathom though how a handful of folks here have always been that negative. Today its nudity (the lack thereof or too much of it), hiking price of GPU, or generative AI. Makes me wonder what seeds planted today will blossom into tomorrow's gripes.
Early this year I read an interview of famous English actor. In his youth his father, also accomplished on the stage, adviced him to accept life's insanity, that there's always some sort of bedlam breaking out somewhere. Otherwise, if he didn't, then life would slowly grind him down. Food for thought.
Anyhow, I don't want to spam this thread. Talk of Genesis 10 is heating up and I really can't place a finger on all the passion people invest in it, for or against. When G10 comes out though, I'm sure it'll be something worth looking into.
Cheers!
All I know is that if Genesis 10 isn't named 'Gen-X' then it'll be a missed opportunity
[Or at least the Daz Marketing crew can have fun with that one when it, eventually, comes]