jaguarry3 said:

Paul's request for a larger TOS era Romulan bridge set me thinking . None of the Romuan bridges had seats so all the consuls would be standing only and of course you would need to incorporate a central periscope unit. Just playing around in Hexagon this is what I have so far. ignore the garish colors I am just setting up seperate walls so i can have different views. Comments suggestions welcome

Oh, I like this a lot!

Paul's request for a larger TOS era Romulan bridge set me thinking . None of the Romuan bridges had seats so all the consuls would be standing only and of course you would need to incorporate a central periscope unit. Just playing around in Hexagon this is what I have so far. ignore the garish colors I am just setting up seperate walls so i can have different views. Comments suggestions welcome

ssgbryan said:

blubeetle3 said:

mdbruffy said:

So why is the U.S.S. Invictus controversial ?

Good question!

The Invictus is so controversial because, without making too fine a point of it, it is a "warship". Starfleet prides itself on being an agency of exploration, and it doesn't like to be seen as a military force. But, Starfleet also has the responsibility of defending the Federation from hostile forces. Starfleet has flirted with warships before with the Defiant class and Prometheus class. But, both the Defiant and even the Prometheus were small, overpowered ships. The Invictus is a very large (25-30% larger than a Sovereign class starship), very heavily armored ship with a vast arsenal of weapons and a detatchment of Starfleet Marines.

The Invictus is Starfleet's response to a number of events: the Borg incursions of the sector and of Earth itself, the Dominion War, and Shinzon's attempt to destroy Earth to name a few. The Invictus was envisioned to be a strong line of defense for the Federation. Or, as I like to put it, "...When it hits the fan, Starfleet sends in the Invictus!"

Some of this isn't very well thought out.

Starfleet's primary mission IS defense of the Federation. It controls the "monopoly of force" for the UFP. That is why every ship in Starfleet has weapons.

If you want to make the Invictus controversial, have the ships' history include some "questionable" missions i.e. gunboat diplomacy.

Some real world examples would be:

1. United States behavior toward Central & South American countries over the past 100 years or so (Mexico, Honduras, The Philippines, Cuba, etc).

2. Britain's 19th & 20th century behavior towards "independent" nations like Egypt or how they handled internal dominions like India before granting independence.

Now that I think about it - a lot of stories in Star Trek (TOS, TNG, etc) could be viewed as 23rd & 24th century versions of how Russia & England jousted over the Northwest Frontier in Afganistan.

I have to disagree with you. It's been stated many times over many of the series that EXPLORATION is Starfleet's primary mission. "...To explore strange new worlds. To seek out new life and new civilizations..." Starships are armed for defense. And while it's true that most Federation starships can outgun spacecraft from lesser civilizations, compared to the likes the Borg or the Jem'hedar, most Federation craft are underarmed.

The controversial part of the Invictus is that it doesn't even offer the pretense that it's a ship of exploration. The ship has few labs and most of its sensor capabilities are geared toward tactical purposes.

Now, ask yourself how the Vulcans would feel about that. Or even the Federation's allies. How would the Klingons or the Cardassians view a ship like the Invictus? How would non-allied cultures like the Romulans view the Federation using a cruising weapons platform?

ssgbryan said:

blubeetle3 said:

mdbruffy said:

So why is the U.S.S. Invictus controversial ?

Good question!

The Invictus is so controversial because, without making too fine a point of it, it is a "warship". Starfleet prides itself on being an agency of exploration, and it doesn't like to be seen as a military force. But, Starfleet also has the responsibility of defending the Federation from hostile forces. Starfleet has flirted with warships before with the Defiant class and Prometheus class. But, both the Defiant and even the Prometheus were small, overpowered ships. The Invictus is a very large (25-30% larger than a Sovereign class starship), very heavily armored ship with a vast arsenal of weapons and a detatchment of Starfleet Marines.

The Invictus is Starfleet's response to a number of events: the Borg incursions of the sector and of Earth itself, the Dominion War, and Shinzon's attempt to destroy Earth to name a few. The Invictus was envisioned to be a strong line of defense for the Federation. Or, as I like to put it, "...When it hits the fan, Starfleet sends in the Invictus!"

Some of this isn't very well thought out.

Starfleet's primary mission IS defense of the Federation. It controls the "monopoly of force" for the UFP. That is why every ship in Starfleet has weapons.

If you want to make the Invictus controversial, have the ships' history include some "questionable" missions i.e. gunboat diplomacy.

Some real world examples would be:

1. United States behavior toward Central & South American countries over the past 100 years or so (Mexico, Honduras, The Philippines, Cuba, etc).

2. Britain's 19th & 20th century behavior towards "independent" nations like Egypt or how they handled internal dominions like India before granting independence.

Now that I think about it - a lot of stories in Star Trek (TOS, TNG, etc) could be viewed as 23rd & 24th century versions of how Russia & England jousted over the Northwest Frontier in Afganistan.

You have to remember that one of the influences GR qouted for Star Trek was the "Horatio Hornjblower" stories- which are set in the 19th century. The whole 'Ship-far-from-home-and-captain-has-the-last-word-and-responcabilty" thing comes from that.

blubeetle3 said:

mdbruffy said:

So why is the U.S.S. Invictus controversial ?

Good question!

The Invictus is so controversial because, without making too fine a point of it, it is a "warship". Starfleet prides itself on being an agency of exploration, and it doesn't like to be seen as a military force. But, Starfleet also has the responsibility of defending the Federation from hostile forces. Starfleet has flirted with warships before with the Defiant class and Prometheus class. But, both the Defiant and even the Prometheus were small, overpowered ships. The Invictus is a very large (25-30% larger than a Sovereign class starship), very heavily armored ship with a vast arsenal of weapons and a detatchment of Starfleet Marines.

The Invictus is Starfleet's response to a number of events: the Borg incursions of the sector and of Earth itself, the Dominion War, and Shinzon's attempt to destroy Earth to name a few. The Invictus was envisioned to be a strong line of defense for the Federation. Or, as I like to put it, "...When it hits the fan, Starfleet sends in the Invictus!"

Some of this isn't very well thought out.

Starfleet's primary mission IS defense of the Federation. It controls the "monopoly of force" for the UFP. That is why every ship in Starfleet has weapons.

If you want to make the Invictus controversial, have the ships' history include some "questionable" missions i.e. gunboat diplomacy.

Some real world examples would be:

1. United States behavior toward Central & South American countries over the past 100 years or so (Mexico, Honduras, The Philippines, Cuba, etc).

2. Britain's 19th & 20th century behavior towards "independent" nations like Egypt or how they handled internal dominions like India before granting independence.

Now that I think about it - a lot of stories in Star Trek (TOS, TNG, etc) could be viewed as 23rd & 24th century versions of how Russia & England jousted over the Northwest Frontier in Afganistan.

Ken Gilliland said:

Well, the contest is closed and today I'll be handing it over to the judges. With a total of 26 images, a wide diversity in theme and some truly stunning work, I glad I'm not a judge. They have there work cut out for them!

I know I'm thanked many of the entrants personally for their entries, but let me take this moment again to thank everyone for supporting my bird series over the years. I know birds, at best, are an afterthought when creating a 3D image, this contest was created to help change that perception.

I wanted to say that to me the bird models are so nicely crafted they hold up very well as central subjects for 3d images. There were great renders for this contestand I am honored to have been able to participate. I learned a lot from looking at the other entries.

Novica said:

natrix natrix said:

The 50% discount simply won't work for me! I tried with 2 different browsers, different products - no luck :(

RawArt is the only store that is not giving me discounts. Nothing happens. The rest are working. It's now 9:15am Central Time, this is ridiculous.

EDIT- well, it WAS working until I tried Jack's. It only gave me an additional 10%, and with the 30%, that equals 40%. GRRRRR.

natrix natrix said:

The 50% discount simply won't work for me! I tried with 2 different browsers, different products - no luck :(

RawArt is the only store that is not giving me discounts. Nothing happens. The rest are working. It's now 9:15am Central Time, this is ridiculous.

Woolyloach said:

Complaint: off to argue with the osteopath, I'm sure he'll want me in the hospital early next week but I can't go in until Friday.

Non-complaint: gong to my room early, will be there in time to get BBQ RIBS :cheese: :cheese: for dinner and some BBBEEEEEEEEERRRR!!! Ribs, beer, and country music ALL NIGHT LONG BABY! :coolsmile:

Gong to spend the weekend icing the foot and chilling :coolsmile: - maybe do a render or two - and WRITING! There are advantages to living too far away from party central to go out late :lol:!

beer sounds good!

Complaint: off to argue with the osteopath, I'm sure he'll want me in the hospital early next week but I can't go in until Friday.

Non-complaint: gong to my room early, will be there in time to get BBQ RIBS :cheese: :cheese: for dinner and some BBBEEEEEEEEERRRR!!! Ribs, beer, and country music ALL NIGHT LONG BABY! :coolsmile:

Gong to spend the weekend icing the foot and chilling :coolsmile: - maybe do a render or two - and WRITING! There are advantages to living too far away from party central to go out late :lol:!

Ahh, okay...that's a very nice image.

However, in real life there would not be that much illumination from solely a backlit moon and some starlight. I would suggest you figure out what your actual light sources are and try to model those, and if you want, enhance them to increase the effect.

I always suggest starting very simple.

First, you have a backlit moonlight that, by itself as a direct source, would not light anything that faces the camera. You also have some light bulbs that will provide some nice dramatic lighting. But if you want to light your figures you'll need to figure out what the actual light source would be to cause that. Otherwise your image looks too well lit and evenly lit and you lose the drama associated with such a wonderful and dramatic scene.

Maybe add some dappled moonlight playing off the ripples in the water, or some other light to isolate and separate the main characters in the scene. Or maybe place a lamp in the canopy of the boat to light them.

I suppose you could assume there's a second moon above (over the camera's right shoulder) giving that fairly bright light and shadows on your buildings, because it does give a nice highlight. But beware of too much light, or what could be an incredibly dramatic and breathtaking image might become bland.

But really, you have the makings of an absolutely gorgeous image, so I'd suggest you put some work into it.

BTW, one of the key areas that separates okay images from incredible images is composition, and particularly the rules around providing a central subject to your images. If you have everything well lit, which many hobbyists tend to want to do, you are losing an opportunity to provide drama and impact. Your background is gorgeous, but you want it to frame the central subjects.

The more I work in Daz and Hexagon and understanding those little things the easier it's getting. One of the big rules I've learned is when you do transfer the object from Hexagon into Daz and save it, DO NOT change anything about it from what you did in Hexagon, even and especially the textures. That's where I was having the problem. Also if creating a simple primitive and setting the textures after you've saved it, again DO NOT change the texture. I can change the textures in the things I've bought but not in the things I've created.
And setting up the cameras as I create each subscene set makes it easier to make those little adjustments in the placement in the scene, and they help to see at another view without having to turn the central pivot grid.
Now I've so many cameras in the village to help get to certain points of view.
It's pretty much gotten to where when I do run into a problem, I stop and think "okay, what have I learned so far?"

RAMWolff said:

Hey Joe.

One more question for you. In ZBrush, I have both boots. How do I delete one of them? I've looked through every menu. I searched on Z Central .. nada or I'm not using the right key words. I masked it off but not sure if that's the way to go. HELP!

Turn off symmetry then

A) You could mask the one you want to keep, then in visibility, click hide, and then in geometry click delete hidden

or

B) In the void, ctrl-shift click, and then drag the green box so that it encompasses the boot you want to keep. In Geometry, click delete hidden.

Though, you don't have to only make one boot and then duplicate it. Using symmetry you can make both at once. I just find that I get a better view of the thing I'm working on if I just do one at a time.

Hey Joe.

One more question for you. In ZBrush, I have both boots. How do I delete one of them? I've looked through every menu. I searched on Z Central .. nada or I'm not using the right key words. I masked it off but not sure if that's the way to go. HELP!

Hi 3D taday :)

My only wish is it’s lack of an exporter to Octane/ Reality. I’m wondering if one of Fenrics plugins would export full animation, and mesh, to Octane?

As a Carrara and Octane user, I can tell you it's not as easy as that,. and it's probably not possible for many carrara scenes.
(IMO) It would be better to have Octane as a plug-in renderer, which could work within Carrara,.. (not sure if that's possible either)

Octane uses your Video card's GPU and RAM to load all of the models,. and all of the textures for those models.
This means that you're restricted to loading and rendering what the graphics card RAM can handle.

If you imagine a Carrara scene with some replicated grass, and some trees,. then think about the size of the resulting exported OBJ with hundreds or thousands of models,. plus all their texture maps,.. then you can easily get scenes which will take a long time to process and export from Carrara as a single OBJ file,. but may also result in an OBJ file which is larger than your available GPU ram.

I'm not saying that Octane is bad, or faulty in any way,.. I think it's a great renderer,. but your Video card's RAM limitation is one of the major drawbacks to using these new breed of unbiased GPU powered renderers.

Most 3D programs still use your CPU and RAM,. and you'll occasionally still get into situations where things start to slow down due to memory and processing power,. but it's much easier to create a scene which uses a few GB or ram, and still allows you to have thousands of figures or trees, or grass etc... and have them animated if you want,. all within Carrara.

If you're rendering for animation,. then the difference between a Carrara rendered sequence,. and an Octane rendered sequence becomes less visible when you're seeing 24 frames per second.

As far as the "Quality" of the rendered image,.. depending on your skill levels in creating and using shaders and lighting,. Carrara can produce images which are just as good as Octane,. and without the hassle of exporting and adjusting the shaders and lighting in Octane to look (almost) the same as your Carrara scene.

As for animation,. each frame would need to be a separate OBJ model.
that's why you're seeing very simplistic animations where the figure is repeating a 15 to 30 frame looped cycle

So,. the bottom line for me right now is that Octane can be used to render a high quality image of a static object.
Carrara can be used to produce a high quality image, or image sequence,.. of either static or animated objects and figures.

Octane has some great "cool" features and tools, and the material / shader creation and on-line sharing through a central database is a great idea,.. but the cool tools and almost instant feedback to adjustments in the scene are all reliant on your graphics card and GPU ram.

You can still create a much larger scene, with more objects and more detail in carrara, and render at High quality,. even on an older system with Win XP and a couple of GB of ram.

Graphics cards will obviously improve and get cheaper, but for something with several GB of ram and thousands of Cuda cores. .. It'll cost you.

Learn Carrara, it's got a fantastic render engine which blows the pants off of most other 3D programs, it's also fast, and has multi-pass options which can also help you get better images in post production.

Octane (stand alone) version 1 was only recently released, and while there's a lot of great features right now,.(octane now supports object instancing and placement, and Groups of objects) it'll get better with time,. and the price of Graphics cards with Multiple Gigabytes of high speed RAM and thousands of CUDA cores will continue to become more affordable,..

Perhaps it's a case of 3D tomorrow :)

Hope it helps :)

Ken OBanion said:

And, as the weekend approaches, and I'm looking for something to do (re-organizing the attic ain't even on the long list, even though I really need to do it...), here's another non-compete:
755 - Brute Force: RawArt Brute Bundle
79 - Earane Textures
484 - West Park Poses
631 - Central Park - Twilight
This should be easy. Man, where were pulls like this when they actually might have mattered!?

Also used:
DMR Lynette (head and texture)
Stahr-Mayden Hair (RDNA)
Ancient Prophecies
Andromeda's Legend for V4
Amaya Hair for V4
Amiel Hair (SP3)
Michael 4 (right out of the box - no morphs, textures or other fiddly-bits at all!)
M4 Urban Wear

Did you know that those V4 West Park poses work on Stephanie 3? Okay, the hands go a little spaz-a-tronic, but a V3 hand pose will fix that right up!

Title: "Say Hello To My Leetle Friend...!"
It was a simple rescue mission, that suddenly careened onto a decidedly 'Oh, S***!' trajectory....

I was wondering if they are any freebies (preferably for M4/V4/A4/H4 or Genesis) of huipil dresses: http://www.ihrivieramaya.com/blog/huipil1246.jpg

I am also on the lookout for Central Asian clothing such as this: http://www.thelovelyplanet.net/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/traditional_kyrgyz_dance_Go.Live_.Serve_..jpg

Thanks in advance!

DAZ Studio content management is giving me fits. I do not understand why it is (not) working the way it does, and it is frustrating to no end.

I have a fresh install of DS 4.5, and all but just a couple of products are installed courtesy the DIM. I want to be able to go to a category like "people" and find all of the people I have there, select one, and then go get the stuff for that person. This is the whole point of smart content, and I get that. I can't seem to find content that should be compatible in the smart content library and sometimes it doesn't want to join the scene when I DO find it.

I understand how a database works, and am very clear on how that makes file management in a system like this so much more efficient.

What I cannot seem to grasp is how to get the DAZ CMS to do anything. Smart content hair for genesis figures does not show up with genesis figure loaded, and my every attempt to edit the database has proven useless. I read tutorials and watch videos, but it just isn't sinking in, and I would like to sit down with a real person at this point.

So, if you are some kind of expert on this stuff and find yourself inside a triangle of Houston, Dallas, and San Antonio, drop me a forum PM and hopefully we can work something out.

And, as the weekend approaches, and I'm looking for something to do (re-organizing the attic ain't even on the long list, even though I really need to do it...), here's another non-compete:
755 - Brute Force: RawArt Brute Bundle
79 - Earane Textures
484 - West Park Poses
631 - Central Park - Twilight
This should be easy. Man, where were pulls like this when they actually might have mattered!?

Thanks for your input Frank. :)

So this weekend, I've been doing more work on the model.
It's meant having to strip it all down and re-build it from the ground up to tidy it all up and name all the components correctly.
I'm also doing what I mentioned earlier in the thread and am trying to make it as easy as possible to edit by not only grouping objects, but also to put groups into families so that for instance all the window frames can be selected at once by using the families selection for 'window frames' or all the lights can be turned on and off by choosing the 'lights' family.

Yes, now that the wireframe is neater, I've been able to insert a single light into each section of the central temple complex (hopefully this will tie in nicely with my other idea to supply several scene files with saved skies for night time, day time and sun set etc.)

I'm also adding more detail as I go so that the model can be used for close up work (though it certainly won't be highly detailed, it will look like more than some stacked boxes).