Actually I don't think my method works... Messing with it it seems the shell doesn't really have independent zones. But it seems like you can export the geoshell as .obj and reload it as though you modeled it and it's going to be an outfit. Then I think you can create your own zones.... and use the transfer utility to make an outfit.

edit: OR if it's easier to edit the surfaces of the human figure you could do that, seems like the geoshell surfaces can save out with the .obj. (Of course, don't use the modified human, throw it out and use your own character. It won't matter once the geoshell is converted to clothes)

I think it's cool to get age diversity with these characters. She's that age that rarely gets created as a character - older, but not "granny" with a walker age.

Her skin has some nice detail "out of the box". :) I like that her morph isn't highly stylized nor overly "perfect". And her slightly larger nose is charming, imo, and gives a nice touch to the character. So many characters often look like they've had nose jobs. lol :) I like Sydney's more natural face.

Couple of things many folks don't realize is that the nose and ears never stop changing shape and usually get a bit larger as we age.  Look at any actress or actor that's been in the biz for decades... now compare their ears and noses ... quite a bit of difference for some, not so much for others so Kudo's on the sculpt for her as it's more realistic.   

I don't think there's any way to have a morph saved as an asset for a figure not appear when you load the figure.

I suppose you could try saving the character in your particular scene as a totally new figure and not just as a G8F character, so that it uses a different "data" folder than default G8F.

Well I still think the obvious solution is to not save as support asset, just apply the morphs you want to the base figure at base resolution and make sure everything else is zeroed out, export as .obj, import with morphloader, save as scene or scene subset.

Bunyip02_carrara thank you for those renders. I wasn't sure if the Rana morphs would add enough variance to use to make a group of frogs say at HighSchool or something like that. The textures would be helpful so it could still be helpful to get those packs from Sparky. I have his Rhino morph and a couple the Genesis chracters that would be interesting for me to bring it over and maybe get somthing more like the photo below.

I don't think there's any way to have a morph saved as an asset for a figure not appear when you load the figure.

I suppose you could try saving the character in your particular scene as a totally new figure and not just as a G8F character, so that it uses a different "data" folder than default G8F.

To be specific, the real problem was that the initial release included a child morph and a genital texture in the same package. I'm sure if there is a new child/young-teen release there won't be a texture for the gens. That's the rule Daz follows and Rendo has to date. Of coruse you could buy both adult and child release and swap.... but shhhh ... don't tell anyone.

Hh, hadn't thought of that, that does make much more sense

To be specific, the real problem was that the initial release included a child morph and a genital texture in the same package. I'm sure if there is a new child/young-teen release there won't be a texture for the gens. That's the rule Daz follows and Rendo has to date. Of coruse you could buy both adult and child release and swap.... but shhhh ... don't tell anyone.

It was decided a few pages back that we are not measuring motherboard and memory settings. Therefore the viewport SHOULD be set to Iray to minimise the effect of differing systems and their differing pre-render transfer times. 

Fyi if you want to know just the pure IRay rendering time (minus any overhead from the DS app or other system components like RAM/HDD or even initialization processes in Iray itself) just check your log file once the render has fully completed or you have closed the render window for one or more of the following lines (depending on which render devices you have activated):

The values marked in bold are straight from Iray itself, whereas values like:

Come from Daz Studio, and consequently include all slowdowns stemming from your overall system.

 

By the way, if you want to know how much of a discrepency there is between the time it takes Iray itself to finish a scene versus what DS reports in general, just turn the DS statistic into seconds and subtract the sum of the largest init + render value pair reported by Iray from it. So in this case, that would mean:

1 minutes 35.94 seconds = 95.940s

0.258s + 94.652s = 94.910s while 0.093s + 95.256s = 95.349s

95.349s > 94.910s

Therefore

95.940 - 95.349 = 0.591 seconds

For the record, in my testing I've yet to see a difference between them that was greater than about 2.5%. And anything less than 5% is usually regarded as statisitcally insignificant. So I wouldn't go too crazy about it. For most intents and purposes the longer time reported by Daz Studio (as hours minutes seconds while you render/afterward in the log file) is all that's needed. The one exception would be if two different render test cases (eg. with/without Optix Prime enabled) only differ by a couple of seconds. Then you might wanna examine these numbers more closely.

 

If in both cases rendering time does not include asset loading and geometry processing then how is rendering 1.5x faster when viewport is in Iray mode?

Daz Studio normally uses Iray in a minimum time to convergance optimized rendering mode called batch scheduling. However if you activate Iray in a viewport, it instead switches Iray into a rapid progressive feedback optimized rendering mode (for obvious reasons) called interactive scheduling (see pages 22-24 of the official "The Iray Light Transport Simulation and Rendering System" whitepaper via the official iray dev blog.) Ergo the observed differences in rendering rates. And also the reason why you should definitely NOT have Iray enabled in a viewport while performing benchmarks - it introduces lots of extra hardware calls into the rendering pipeline and makes your log files much harder to read. It also demonstrably doesn't eliminate the factor of differing pre-render transfer times  since the log file clearly states that time is still spent processing scene contents at the start of every render.  

 

Maybe someone from DAZ could clarify this behavior?

In their defense, the very reason why I know the above is true is because it is explicitly stated in the log file. Activating Iray for a final render gives you this:

Whereas activating Iray in a viewport gives you this:

 

Imo one of the coolest things about Daz Studio is how it enables people with little or no computer graphics/programming experience to create really cool photorealistic 3d art pretty much immediately. At the same time peaking under the hood can be a bit... overwhelming.

Is anybody else having problems getting an animation to transfer from G1 to G3 without losing the original movment from G1's shoulders and arms? I can't seem to get the proper twisting and bends to transfer from G1 to G3. With this script I have to apply motion made for G1 to G2 first( since there is to G1 or V5 to G3), no transfer just apply the aniblock to G2. But, when I use Zaz to transfer animation  to G3, the arms are always twisted or bent incorrectly.

You CAN fit V4 internal organs to Victoria 8. First, fit it to a Genesis figure, then fit it from Genesis to Genesis 8 Female. It may not be perfect, but might be good enough for your purposes. (I just tried it and it seems to be doing well in various poses)

They are conforming prop items, so they will bend and move when the figure does (although, again, if you've fit it for another figure, this might break amusingly). You cannot morph it significantly or unravel the intenstines.

It's an old product, it's 3DL only.

Some dashing, amazing PA did an Iray materials product that applies to this and a number of other V4/M4 anatomy items, here: https://www.daz3d.com/iray-materials-for-daz-anatomy

(And as I type this, hey, look, it's on sale)

 

Gosh, thanks for a lightning-speed reply :) Can you elaborate more on First, fit it to a Genesis figure, then fit it from Genesis to Genesis 8 Female. ? Could you explan this more noob-friendly? Also, the lack of Iray materials is not a problem, I'm using 3DL only, my GPU is too slow for Iray.

You CAN fit V4 internal organs to Victoria 8. First, fit it to a Genesis figure, then fit it from Genesis to Genesis 8 Female. It may not be perfect, but might be good enough for your purposes. (I just tried it and it seems to be doing well in various poses)

They are conforming prop items, so they will bend and move when the figure does (although, again, if you've fit it for another figure, this might break amusingly). You cannot morph it significantly or unravel the intenstines.

It's an old product, it's 3DL only.

Some dashing, amazing PA did an Iray materials product that applies to this and a number of other V4/M4 anatomy items, here: https://www.daz3d.com/iray-materials-for-daz-anatomy

(And as I type this, hey, look, it's on sale)

 

We already know how this is going go.  It repeats itself every two years or so.  Yes, by all means, if the cost outweighs the benefit, then don't bother with it.  There are plenty of non-figure items on my wish list for PAs to do.  This focus on next-gen Genesis appears (to my eyes) to be more about money than it does about innovation.

Don't get me wrong, I want innovation and I want new and better content.  I have probably purchased as much or more G8 content than average.  However, I have refrained from purchasing more than one or two G8 figures (due to lack of forward compatability) and expect that the same will be the case with G9. 

Many of us have spent much money/time on content, morphs, materials, poses specific to current and past generations.  Why is it that we should not expect that this investment in time and money will carry over to subsequent generations of Genesis?  Show me that building-in forward/backward compatability is impossible.  The evidence I see suggests that it is possible but we are expected to pay dearly for it in time and money. I see lots and lots of compatability add-ons for sale.  The application may be free, but, depending on what one needs to do, making practical use of it can be quite expensive.  But I don't mind paying extra for compatability if it really is that (e.g. in attempting to re-use G2 UVs on G3/G8, better expect any solution to be a messy workaround).

As for doing my own modeling, forget it.  My interest is in telling stories, not modeling.  I have been at this since the tail end of Gen4. I had little interest in modeling in the beginning and have no interest now.   Ditto for posing, morph building, texture creation, etc.  It pains me every time I purchase G8 content knowing that I am going to lose any one-click capability when I adapt G8 content to pre-G8 characters.  And yet, it pains me even more thinking about all the time and money that would go into any attempt to merge G8 (or worse, G9-10-11...) figures into my workflow.  Not gonna happen in my shop.

The add-ons are not 100% compatibility, though - morphs have to be reprojected in some way, maps may require stretching or compression to fit the new mesh and may, as with pre-Genesis 3 figures, require new mesh in a GeoGraft (which will then lack HD moprhs that are applied to the base figure), clothes have to have their shape adjusted and are likely to lose custom bones, etc. And such things require resources for their creation, it's really not reasonable to expect daz to do all of that in both directions and provide it for free - instead they usually provide the options for bringing old content across, which allow stepwise conversion from even older figures (Geensis 8 of course went beyond this with AutoFit clones for all previous Genesis versions) and leave it up to others to fill in the gaps with tutorials on conversion processes or store products.

We already know how this is going go.  It repeats itself every two years or so.  Yes, by all means, if the cost outweighs the benefit, then don't bother with it.  There are plenty of non-figure items on my wish list for PAs to do.  This focus on next-gen Genesis appears (to my eyes) to be more about money than it does about innovation.

Don't get me wrong, I want innovation and I want new and better content.  I have probably purchased as much or more G8 content than average.  However, I have refrained from purchasing more than one or two G8 figures (due to lack of forward compatability) and expect that the same will be the case with G9. 

Many of us have spent much money/time on content, morphs, materials, poses specific to current and past generations.  Why is it that we should not expect that this investment in time and money will carry over to subsequent generations of Genesis?  Show me that building-in forward/backward compatability is impossible.  The evidence I see suggests that it is possible but we are expected to pay dearly for it in time and money. I see lots and lots of compatability add-ons for sale.  The application may be free, but, depending on what one needs to do, making practical use of it can be quite expensive.  But I don't mind paying extra for compatability if it really is that (e.g. in attempting to re-use G2 UVs on G3/G8, better expect any solution to be a messy workaround).

As for doing my own modeling, forget it.  My interest is in telling stories, not modeling.  I have been at this since the tail end of Gen4. I had little interest in modeling in the beginning and have no interest now.   Ditto for posing, morph building, texture creation, etc.  It pains me every time I purchase G8 content knowing that I am going to lose any one-click capability when I adapt G8 content to pre-G8 characters.  And yet, it pains me even more thinking about all the time and money that would go into any attempt to merge G8 (or worse, G9-10-11...) figures into my workflow.  Not gonna happen in my shop.

I love the character, as soon as I saw him and all the options, I got him and made use of the sale to get Dolb who had been on my wishlist. Thank you Hellboy!

Here he is with a mixture of Edward 8 and the Bodybuilder morph to make a sort of rugged hero. I don't actually have the Brute, so Bodybuilder helped balance out his body shape - I still wanted some of Maxx's HD morph details, which can push out too strongly in some of the wrong places without the bulk of the Brute. Click to see bigger.

Thank you for the reply Leana. So the morph packge just means that I can have a G8 character that looks like Victora 7 and that is it? It doesn't really expand that capabilities of the G8 figure?

It gives you the V7 shape and textures for G8F, to use in combination with whatever other G8F content you have. It's not a conversion product.

Thank you for the reply Leana. So the morph packge just means that I can have a G8 character that looks like Victora 7 and that is it? It doesn't really expand that capabilities of the G8 figure?

> Therefore the viewport SHOULD be set to Iray to minimise the effect of differing systems and their differing pre-render transfer times.

Sorry, but that does not compute. Asset loading and geometry processing is not included in total rendering time shown in log:

...
2019-01-23 16:34:44.677 Loaded image LLF-TB-StrandsT.jpg
2019-01-23 16:36:37.703 Rendering image
...
2019-01-23 16:37:02.570 Finished Rendering
2019-01-23 16:37:02.590 Total Rendering Time: 24.92 seconds
End time (37 min * 60) + 2.59 sec = 2222.59 sec
Start time (36 min * 60) + 37.703 sec = 2197.703 sec
2222.59 - 2197.703 = 24.887 seconds = ~24.92 sec. The difference of 32 milliseconds is probably due to Windows timer resolution.

And what happens if you set viewport to Iray and start render after scene has been rendered in viewport?

...
2019-01-23 16:53:36.679 Iray INFO - module:category(IRAY:RENDER):   1.0   IRAY   rend info : Received update to 00203 iterations after 11.012s.
2019-01-23 16:53:37.305 Rendering image
...
2019-01-23 16:53:53.270 Finished Rendering
2019-01-23 16:53:53.290 Total Rendering Time: 16.1 seconds

If in both cases rendering time does not include asset loading and geometry processing then how is rendering 1.5x faster when viewport is in Iray mode?

Maybe someone from DAZ could clarify this behavior?

 

I'm using a daz3d plugin to make a morph which also creates templates and materials for the figure.

By "universal" do you mean that they are in the list of available morphs when you load G8, or that they apply automatically (ie with a non-zero value) to every character?

If it's the second one then it means that your morph asset has been saved with a non-zero default value, so you just need to edit the morph so that default value is 0 and then resave the asset.

The first one, zeroed out morphs that show up on all G8s.

Yea I could manually recreate them all by baking and re-freezing but I'm hoping there is a better way.  Many of them are a combination of zbrush morphs and shape movements and some include other morphs, so it's a big hassle to remake them.  

2busy, 

Did you ever get this figured out?  I have been running accoss memory allocation errors (win10, daz4.10, 1070) after a year of no issues.  So I'm beginning to think that it might be a plugin or morph that is loading incorrectly.  

But on yours, I was thinking (and that's always dangerous) have you tried upgrading the USB cable?  I agree with SixDs that it might be a USB wattage issue, but since it sounds like you're only really using it as an adapter, the electrical way to fix that bottleneck might be 1) shorter, cord, 2) beefier cord.  Since USB male and female heads can be purchased or cannibalized pretty easy, you might be able to convince a local electrician to solder you a more robust conduit. .  

I only chime in, because I was thinking about doing your exact setup, to be able to handle VR and rendering, but in a smaller more portable form.  For example, with my old i7 thinkpad, with onboard gpu, there were pci-e extentions built to run out the hot swap card ports, but they were pretty diy, and end results were never certain.  

Admittedly, external GPU enclosures are improving so this entire thread might be moot now, but I am curious as to whether the premise would hold.  

Regardless, I hope it worked out for you.