I got it. I rerun the test with a combined mesh.

The morph pro dont concern with the vert , only polygon count i believe. 

AbyssalEros said:

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thank you very much. Your insightful post clarified a lot and might, in my opinion, reveal the possible intentions of Tafi/DAZ with NFT.
Still, — I might be too old to see any good in it — I wish there were laws against cryptocurrencies and everything connected with it.

I think from what I have read, Bitcoin is stored solely on the blockchain, but NFTs are split between servers, the record of the sale being stored on the blockchain and the asset (in this case the GIF or whatever) is stored on a separate server entirely, pointed to by the record of the sale. This means that NFTs are not as secure as Bitcoin in my opinion.

Loose the server where the GIF, PNG, JPEG are stored and the NFT is now worthless. Buyer beware!

Hi,

I saw some guide for example http://www.laylo3d.com/creating-characters-and-morphs-for-daz-3d-figures-import-obj-with-morph-loader-pro/

Only difference is I'm trying to load into 3dsmax to create the morph. Please review my workflow and see whats wrong with it.

1. Download and prepare the Gen8 female for developer.

2. Set the resolution to base. Use the OBJ script to export. (this will bypass the usual export with a bunch of parameters)

3. Open 3dsmax, import. Question

  a) do I import as a combined mesh (if I combine it, 3dsmax will add additional vert/poly due to the welding I think)

b) or leave it as independent mesh

Note: The count for the vert/poly is 17, 786 and 32, 736. My assumption is that, when I export out, this number need to maintain the same.

4. choose a body part and make a simple change, (modified = Edit Mesh). I'm not adding geometry. 

5. Export, same vert/poly count as screenshot. Note: I disabled the optimize option so that it doesnt mess with the OBJ.

6. Open Daz, Morph Loader pro. As screenshot.

7. Hit geometry error. 

Thanks for checking.

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

The digital item itself is NEVER stored in the NFT blockchain. That would be too costly. A block in a blockchain has a given size. Once the block is "full", it is sent of for mining. With NFT's you can pack multiple transfers in one block, limiting mining cost a bit. If you pack in the asset itself, the transaction would span many blocks, making it horribly expensive to mine those.

JStryder said:

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Thank you very much. Your insightful post clarified a lot and might, in my opinion, reveal the possible intentions of Tafi/DAZ with NFT.
Still, — I might be too old to see any good in it — I wish there were laws against cryptocurrencies and everything connected with it.

This article on VICE (https://www.vice.com/en/article/pkdj79/peoples-expensive-nfts-keep-vanishing-this-is-why?) asserts that the digital assets themselves are not stored on the Ethereum blockchain. Whether this is true some of the time or all of the time is not clear. An NFT would be less valuable in my mind if the underlying IP asset itself is not on-chain and encrypted by a key held by the owner, and/or in possession by the buyer (e.g., downloaded) after the NFT is purchased.

I am an IP lawyer licensed in California. I have also written a book (Blockchain Faith, available everywhere) about using immutable public ledgers for decentralized governance, so I am pretty familiar with uses of blockchain technology and their intersection with law. What I dislike most about the new platforms for NFTs is the lack of clarity about what IP rights, if any, are associated with ownership of the NFT. The platforms (including Opensea) have not done anything to standardize, certify, or secure rights. Their business model is directed at generating traffic and users. This is not the highest or best use of NFTs in my opinion. That said, NFTs have tremendous potential to empower artists and improve their quality of life, that is just beginning to be realized.

As a user of assets sold on the DAZ store who is uninterested in speculative trading, NFTs don't offer me any benefit. I would rather continue to purchase a non-exclusive right to use the assets commercially under Daz's EULA, for now. At least I know what I am buying.

It would be cool to buy an NFT token that would allow me to transfer my rights under the EULA to whoever holds the token, so long as I register the transfer with DAZ. That way I could resell assets when I am done using them. I would probably use the funds to purchase more new stuff from the DAZ store! But DAZ will probably not be brave enough to go there. Also, an NFT is nice (because of the immutable record) but not necessary to enable transfer of rights under a EULA. Nonetheless, NFT trading platforms may at some future time facilitate EULA trading certificates, and the 3D model platforms that offer this as an option may gain an advantage in the marketplace.

Padone said:

@DAZ_sam Thank you for your reply, I'm not sure to understand though. Are you saying that the forearm jcms are not supported, so there's no way to get them working ? If so then 1.9.9 may be a better option for the time being, where jcms do work. I mean, jcms are very basic features if they don't work then honestly I don't see any "benefit with this new approach". It's a bug to fix, not a benefit.

So may be I miss something or I didn't understand correctly what you mean.

Sorry if I am unclear. I agree it's a bug that needs to be fixed and we are working on it. The approach that was created before was just an estimate in 1.9.9. Since the skeleton was incorrect and had to be fixed it broke the hard-coded drivers that were created before. 
The new approach unfortunately still has a type of driver in Daz that isn't supported but, the benefit when we do get it fixed you can use any morph you like in Daz and won't be limited to just the morphs we preset up beforehand.
The state of Daz To Blender before we started working on it was, it works as long as nothing changes so unfortunately, we have a lot to fix as we fix other problems. Just want to make sure it's clear though that we aren't saying morph fix is complete. We just fixed a bunch of problems and it's in a better state than before. 

margrave said:

Ippotamus said:

Does TaFi own Daz?

It's spectacularly unclear. Wikipedia says Tafi was spun off from Daz3D. However, as I did some research, I found Daz, Tafi, and some defunct company called Morph3D all share the same CEO, James Thornton. So I guess there was some kind of restructuring.

There was morph3D/MCS system for unity
succceded by Morph ID
succeeded by "The Oasis"
succeeded by "Make tafi" now active in the Unity store.
The ratings are unanimous

https://assetstore.unity.com/publishers/51491

chest dformation on clothing is a hard thing to work with actually... i did my best with my transgender shapes and my character DD Blake to minimize //try to balance the areas that were being distorted... even tried to include a fix clothes push morph. But the reason for two shapes is really quite valid, the chest distortion shape affects clothing a LOT. It's not easy. Regardless of the route one takes, it's extra work. 

Padone said:

@DAZ_sam

As for 2.3.0.3 it seems jcms don't work. That is, I can export them and I see the driven morphs in blender, but they have no effect when I pose the figure. Below an example with G8F. I see other people at github reporting similar issues but I'm not sure how much they understand it, I mean, I see confused comments.

edit. jcms work fine in 1.9.9

Test scene included it's G8F with basic wear.

steps:

1. export the test scene with forearm jcms
2. import in blender
3. pose the forearm

Thank you for checking in. 
So the JCMs are working as intended, for now. The example you shared right now is a type of driver in Daz we haven't support yet. "ERCKeyed" In the UI you will get controls for any morphs that can be controlled. So for example in my export, I chose all the Base JCM morphs and I still have access to these morphs since it is ERCKeyed.
We are looking to support it in the near future. Benefit with this new approach any morph in Daz will be connected if you export out its connected morphs as well. 
 

flipdarkfuture_d975e74177 said:

Two of the DSFs are in characters I saved as morphs, which I think is part of the problem. I deleted them, but the issue is still there.

Looking at the log I can imagine what happened here. Possibly you saved your character not as actor but morphs without creating a dedicated combined slider and just ticking this. In that case DAZ creates duplicates of all used .dsf. files under vendor/product name (usually username/product) and it is not suficient to delete that one poarticular custom character but all of that folder to a location somehere outside the "morph". This will also get rid of all the Duplicate Formula errrors.

You might get a list of missed files when loading a custom character created with these files in place (for some reason DAZ prefers to refer to the user values rather the originals)  The only proper solution I have found beside dsicarding the work and start over is to note and hunt the original location down one by one, then edit the character files with notepad+ replacing all references to the user/product path with the original referrers. (I wish there was a script to allow for redirecting duplicated formulas to the original source). The beauty of notepad+ is that you can edit and replace mutliple files at once. In the future, when creating a morph, do  cobined morph slider adjust rig to shape and ERC freeze befor saving as new morph asset. The advantage of just saving a character preset is that a morph slider will play much better along with auto following assets. It strikes me that DAZ has made this apparent workflow not more intuitive.

Another pitfall is that DAZ by default creates a library in the public user documents library. So, check there, too. Key is to get a basic character looking normal without any morph values applied and then saving it as changed morph asset on which you should see a warning that there will be permanent changes to the character which is exactly what you want.

Have you bought the required products?
https://www.daz3d.com/genesis-3-female-body-morphs
https://www.daz3d.com/genesis-8-female-body-morphs

The actual pregnant morph is not included in "Pregnancy Morph Preset"

Cinema 4D but it wasn't really a big trick, it's just a little vertex modeling and import/export. Blender could absolutely do the same job. The belly morph was done with a sculpting tool called "inflate" (very standard) and the chest morph was mostly done with just selecting a set of points and scaling or rotating them with soft selection, with some care to avoid things like inappropriately scaling the boobs e.g.

Working on the face is very hard, working on parts of the torso like this is much easier.

Found a possible answer on youtube;

gerster said:

margrave said:

@Padone Well, Daz Studio is just fundamentally different from Blender, architectually. Everything is an outside file that's loaded in and applied to a standardized mesh with a rest pose literally baked into the software. Blender needs its rest pose to remain constant because it doesn't have a frame of reference for how the armature should be. You can't just "reset" the figure back to the default rest pose because that is the default rest pose.

Blender's Pose Library works great for storing default poses. If you need to animate a human and a werewolf, just create a Human_RestPose and a Werewolf_RestPose and apply it whenever you need it.

Not sure if I'm missing some basics, but if I pose a figure in Blender and want to reset the pose, I just need to select the bones and with alt + r all rotations will be resetet and I'm back to the rest pose.

Yes, that is correct. Padone is talking about having the ability to morph/blend between two different rest poses, which AFAIK isn't possible. There's just the one rest pose for an armature, and every other pose is recorded as an offset from that.

Partly, it's a structural difference between lightwave and DS.

Many things are "Hidden" in DS that appear in lightwave.

Additionally, the Shaping tab, only shows morphs that are defined as "Shapes", not anything else. Switch to the Parameter's tab, and you'll see all the morph dials in there.

If you switch on "Show hidden" in the tab menu.

I am waiting for the "Unflatable" morph ...

A wombat.

Also jumping back on the hockey train yet again since there's interest, and in case anyone's lurking with intent to create. Rink/arena with all the goodies I've mentioned before, a Zamboni Stromboli, and dear god please a new outfit and accessories for G8M. The M4 set does not convert well at all (nor I imagine would anything that involves items that are supposed to be relatively thick and/or rigid). Would like to see a helmet that has both a clear visor option, for those who own a dental morph package, and an option with a full cage, for those of us who don't.

And poses. Wheel, snipe, celly, boys!

A dForce octopus.

poorman_65 said:

It might be that the GHD Height morph is doing something odd. I just noticed that it makes a "Y Translation" change, even though the feet are staying in the same place.

Update - Just confirmed this by comparing the measurements agains the MWall that Sevrin recommended. Measure Metrics works great with normal Height changer, but doesn't reflect the changes from GHD Height. I will have to check some of the other Morph packages that I have to see how they do with Measure Metrics. 

One thing I have noticed about height morphs, is that some of them are taking the easy way out and just scaling the length of the bones, which in turn may make it difficult to fit hair and clothes on the figure. 

Really annoying that D|S can't import morphs directly from FBX, nor does the transfer utility seem to be able to do it. Also the viewport won't show you the subdivided mesh in animation preview, this is on the base mesh but it works fine subdivided too.