a few days later than originally intended, due to life and failed hair experiment distractions. Where was I, oh, GA Namid.

Realy nice nail options, my filesystem screencaps just don't do justice to the maps, the promos show the patrons well enough.

I forgot there supposed to be gold-colored patrons, I just selected a random nail map in the surface tab and I thought that looked good like that. On the bright side, it would be super easy to set up any color you wanted for them nail patrons.

I did forget to fuss with the face makeup and lipstick options when making the above render, there is a nice set of included options as well.

I'll need to fuss with that a tad more in the future. I have a few others to look at as well, hopefully, sooner than later. I have a few changes to make to the scene first. As much as I appreciate the '#D' that Fisty made for me when I mentioned in passing that I liked a dance mix vid and was joking about recreating the studio that also apparently 'had' some other cool dance vids (no clue what they're saying). I am not involved with them, so that needs to be used sparingly and in good taste. after thinking about it some, I decided to attempt to create another emblem thing based on my name in 'Alteran'. It's only fitting considering I don't want this to be just about GypsiAngel despite her needing a new comp to continue making cool content.

Left is RS Salem (karyssa 8 ears) and right is (the artist formerly known as DES) DEJ Rosalind (mix of "ears elf long" and TJ8 ears1). cute elf ears aside, they include Iray&3delight settings preset maps and, "all there". it was about when placing the camera for rendering that scene I decided that wall text was a bit long, and decided to swap it out for just the initials, lol.

FWE Neiva is one that I made a mistake of ignorance about. Long ago I had looked at setting up some no-face-plant setup shaders for her, noticed there were a few maps not included, and tosed her in the use sparingly bin. I figured the appearance of full maps was just a trick of backing colors with SubSurface heavy OpenGL trickery in the viewport (they all look like glowing wax wads in the viewport when diffuse is not the dominant shader element). I never considered looking at UV mappings back then, apparently, she does use that alternate UVing for the equipment. If the torso maps are all ye needs for whatever stuff I don't fuss with, then she will be fine as is. I'm still posing and choreographing, so that will be all for the moment, more to come soon.

*Edit, I took a look in the install zip, and found that Neiva does indeed include the SB8 UV, so she is all there.

One more thing:

Hey, guys! As most of you may have seen, the PA sale starts tonight. We all know that this can be exciting, but at times confusing and we'll likely see glitches. Please help us help you.

If you encounter a problem, PLEASE post a screenshot of your cart. State what, if any, coupon code you're using, if we can't see it in your screenshot. Please read all the text instructions regarding the discounts, how they apply and to what they apply. Many times we see that if it states ONLY 3 items, you may have more items than that in the cart or if there is a specific group of items from which to choose, an item is added that was not in the grouping. The more clear you are in your explanation, the better chances we are of clearing it up quicker.

Please understand there may be times when these things cannot be cleared up until Daz is back in their offices (if it takes place after hours). Depending on the problem, we may point you to submitting a ticket. If you have laid everything out in the thread, you should be able to screenshot it for the ticket.

We hope you have a great time during the PA sale.

 

Wish you good luck and thanks for transferring the problems to DAZ it will be a hard month for you.

 

The Extra 45% OFF¥ These featured Genesis, Michael 4 and Victoria 4 Items from Featured Artist Catalogs above, seems to be a bit funny: 

One item (Nothing)

Shopping Cart

• 

  Major Cache For Michael 4

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $24.95

  $5.76

  77%

Two item:

Shopping Cart

• 

  Major Cache For Michael 4new

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $24.95

  $4.80

  81%

• 

  Jockey Setnew

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $24.95

  $4.80

  81%

The sale is missing if you buy 2 more then... It's not in the direct sale description, above it with line separeted there is a sale for "40% OFF SPECIAL FEATURED Items Get 50% OFF* when you buy 2 or more" so there shouldn't be a line.

 And it seems to be an additional 15-17% off? (4/23%) not 45% off

Just for testing I did throw some random carts together:

One more thing you could mix the categories like buying something from this sale and something from that and you will get a bonus. So the green lines meana it's in one sale offer, but the hard white line should separate sales...

Shopping Cart

• 

  Moon Goddess for Genesis 2 Female(s)new

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $24.95

  $6.12

  75%

• 

  Body Diversity Morphs for Genesis 3 Female(s)new

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $19.95

  $7.98

  60%

• 

  Genesis 3 Clones for Genesis Bundle

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $32.95

  $9.06

  73%

Extra 20% OFF¥ These featured Genesis 3 Items from Featured Artist Catalogs above   Seems to be 15% off ?

Extra 30% OFF¥ These featured Genesis 2 Items from Featured Artist Catalogs above Seems to be  17%?

Extra 45% OFF¥ These featured Genesis, Michael 4 and Victoria 4 Items from Featured Artist Catalogs above Seems to be 1/6 %

 

What about this should it work like this?

Of course they will eventually. Any prediction to the contrary isn't looking very closely at how technology of 3D graphics has changed radically. When I started in 3D graphics (35 years ago in 1984) we had to program all of our own tools. The idea of a "hobbiest" rendering tool like Poser or Daz Studio was almost laughable given how long even the simplest renders would take on our "blazing" 8Mhz Intel 286 CPUs with a whopping 4 MB of memory!

13 years ago, in 2006 when I started with Daz Studio, we were still mostly limited to biased rendering engines that required a great deal of dedication to get realistic approximations of real world lighting. Physically Based Rendering engines were mostly limited to some academics and industry leaders with access to high-end computing power. Nobody was ever going to be fooled by a 3Delight render of Victoria 3!

We're still on a pace where computing power is doubling every 2.5 - 3 years. To predict that technology will "never" be powerful enough to replace humans with virtual actors is likely to be proven false. There will certainly be a time when it is cheaper and faster to render an animation than to take an entire human film crew on location.

As for people not accepting CG replacements for "real" actors, I think that's innaccurate as well. Do you think kids (or adults for that matter) today care that Woody isn't "real"? Didn't we still tear up when Andy said goodbye to him? Did we really care that Gollum was a 3D generated character? If we can get past the "uncanny valley" stage of 3D animation and expression, I can easily see people becoming fans of specific CGI characters. I can forsee a time when the box office draw of "Victoria the 9th" is just as big as any human actress. Or, perhaps even more likely, when people don't care who the actor is anymore, they're going to movies to see the characters and the story, not the headliner.

I have re-watched "Alita Battle Angel" several times, mostly because the blending of CGI and live action is so good (to my eyes) that I'm amazed at the technology and skill of the movie making. I don't even know how many of the characters in that movie didn't have a real actor, just someone doing the voice. And, tbh, I don't really care. The characters and story are compelling enough for me to watch (and re-watch) the movie.

Characters and story.  #1 and #1.  And I liked Alita very much too.

The time will come, if not completely within my lifetime, certainly within my daughters. And I can see on the horizon a time when my grandkids don't even pay attention to "who" is playing the character anymore. The focus will shift completely to directors, writers, animation houses, and voice actors (until we can generate realistic, nuanced human speech then they'll be out of a job too).

But we're in an amazing time to be alive.  Just like how you can write, play, produce, publish, and distribute your own music album with just a laptop and a good audio/MIDI interface, we have the technology to make our own stories come to life.

There once was a day when EVERYBODY could tell stories around the campfire, or in the kitchen while peeling potatoes.  I for one am very happy to have the media industry cracked wide open for all.  Fresh minds, new ideas!

I have re-watched "Alita Battle Angel" several times, mostly because the blending of CGI and live action is so good (to my eyes) that I'm amazed at the technology and skill of the movie making

 

 

Every time I rewatch "Alita battleAngel" I get a little frustrated that this technology and style was not used for the "Ghost in the shell" remake.
 

I certainly would have preferred a stylized, CG Motoko Kusinaki over a real Scarlet Johansen any day.

For somebody like me who has zero knowledge of Motoko in the comics/anime/wherever, the Scarlet movie was fabulous.  It had interesting characters, a plot with twists, and overall told a GREAT story.  Putting Johansen in it was a stroke of genius.  And I say that not being a huge fan of her.

As for people not accepting CG replacements for "real" actors, I think that's innaccurate as well. Do you think kids (or adults for that matter) today care that Woody isn't "real"? Didn't we still tear up when Andy said goodbye to him? Did we really care that Gollum was a 3D generated character?

And although it's a bit of a trope, we all still cheered when Helen found a job and left Bob at home to take care of the kids and help with homework.  It was great moviemaking.  Bob, Helen, and the kids are ALL 3D based!

If we can get past the "uncanny valley" stage of 3D animation and expression, I can easily see people becoming fans of specific CGI characters. I can forsee a time when the box office draw of "Victoria the 9th" is just as big as any human actress. Or, perhaps even more likely, when people don't care who the actor is anymore, they're going to movies to see the characters and the story, not the headliner.

There still are real actors behind all these characters. If there was a regular human looking CG character with a real actor behind it doing the voice acting and motion capture, why not just use the real actor?

Because they introduce a huge amount of risk to an expensive project.  They get injured, they get sick.  They can die during production.  They can also quit on a whim which may require the reshooting of miles and miles of film (see what I did there?), they have schedule conflicts, they retire at 9 or at 39, suddenly and without warning. 

Also, human actors can and do let you down.  They get arrested for drug, sex, or violent crimes, they become alcoholic, get hooked on drugs.  Or they can make careless comments in social media, annoy a foreign government while on vacation, or just say something totally boneheaded, scaring off half of your audience even before opening day.  And then everybody has to apologize. 

Voice actors can be replaced, as evidenced by the voice of Po.  Jack Black in the movies, somebody else on TV.  In the original Avatar: The Last Airbender TV series, Mako, the voice of "Uncle Iroh" died.  Well damn.  But were they going to stop production because of the death of one of the central characters?  No, of course not.  They found a substitute that was more than passable.

Risk management.  That's why you might not want to hire "the real actors".

CG is great whenever there's a fantastical component or the actions of the character are impossible to do for a real actor (switching Keanu Reeves to CG when he's fighting 100 agents simultaneously), but using a CG character for your average character drama makes no sense and certainly won't save much money either.

It's not always about "saving money".  As I said above, managing risk may be even more important than being economical.

Unless that CG character is a completely autonomous AI that is essentially an actor in its own right. I could see that maybe be a novelty at some point in the future where such an AI could advance to stardom on its own. Even then I doubt this will lead to a complete replacement of real actors. Acting is an art and like other art forms I think these will be the last strongholds of humans even when most other jobs have been replaced by machines.

It is an art, yes indeed.  But actors are not God's gift to humanity and they certainly are not the only posessors of these art skills.

SIGGRAPH was in Los Angeles this year, so I went. I was quite surprised to note that what was cutting edge Virtual Reality type stuff is already considered soooo last year... "You say your company has a VR product? So what, buddy, who doesn't?"

The absolutely most mind-blownig thing I saw at SIGGRAPH was a presentation I attended on FACS. I thought it was going to be about how to construct better facial expressions using the Action Units defined by FACS. I was totally wrong.

Google "Mark Sagar Baby X", and I think you'll find a cut down version of the video he presented. Basically, researchers have modeled the physiological/chemical changes in the brain in certain scenarios, and discovered that they correspond to facial expressions. So they have a neural network that simulates this so when you talk to the baby, and say, it recognizes its own name, it makes a natural expression. If you say "spider" the baby acknowledges what you said but perhaps doesn't understand and the facial expression is what you would expect, a kind of "watchu talkin bout Willis?" but I you say "scary spider" the baby kind of freaks out, with appropriate expressions. It was not explicitly "programmed" to do any of that. Technological advances are not linear, they're exponential, and as such we can never act fast enough to predict the truly revolutionary ones.

I say it again, if you think this is not coming, and sooner rather than later, you are not paying attention.

Thank you for the reference.  I'll watch.

I have re-watched "Alita Battle Angel" several times, mostly because the blending of CGI and live action is so good (to my eyes) that I'm amazed at the technology and skill of the movie making

 

 

Every time I rewatch "Alita battleAngel" I get a little frustrated that this technology and style was not used for the "Ghost in the shell" remake.
 

I certainly would have preferred a stylized, CG Motoko Kusinaki over a real Scarlet Johansen any day.

Considering "Alita" was a 16 year old "passion project" for Cameron who has enough clout to "call the shots" as he wished resulted in the film we got (Which I ADORE!!!  I've craved this movie since Cameron first announced it in 2003.)  I suspect there was not the same kind of "drive" behind "Ghost in the Shell".

Sincerely,

Bill

Cameron also waited decades to do the first Avatar film.  He waited for the technology to get to a point where it would meet with his expectations for telling the story without pulling the viewer out of the story.

Is there a script that can transfer an animation sequence from Victoria 4.2 to Genesis 2,3 or 8? I have a lot of Generation 4 animations that I have collected and made over the years that I would like to convert.I have V4,M4 pose converter but that only copies single poses. Cheers

As for people not accepting CG replacements for "real" actors, I think that's innaccurate as well. Do you think kids (or adults for that matter) today care that Woody isn't "real"? Didn't we still tear up when Andy said goodbye to him? Did we really care that Gollum was a 3D generated character? If we can get past the "uncanny valley" stage of 3D animation and expression, I can easily see people becoming fans of specific CGI characters. I can forsee a time when the box office draw of "Victoria the 9th" is just as big as any human actress. Or, perhaps even more likely, when people don't care who the actor is anymore, they're going to movies to see the characters and the story, not the headliner.

There still are real actors behind all these characters. If there was a regular human looking CG character with a real actor behind it doing the voice acting and motion capture, why not just use the real actor? CG is great whenever there's a fantastical component or the actions of the character are impossible to do for a real actor (switching Keanu Reeves to CG when he's fighting 100 agents simultaneously), but using a CG character for your average character drama makes no sense and certainly won't save much money either. Unless that CG character is a completely autonomous AI that is essentially an actor in its own right. I could see that maybe be a novelty at some point in the future where such an AI could advance to stardom on its own. Even then I doubt this will lead to a complete replacement of real actors. Acting is an art and like other art forms I think these will be the last strongholds of humans even when most other jobs have been replaced by machines.

Hey, guys! As most of you may have seen, the PA sale starts tonight. We all know that this can be exciting, but at times confusing and we'll likely see glitches. Please help us help you.

If you encounter a problem, PLEASE post a screenshot of your cart. State what, if any, coupon code you're using, if we can't see it in your screenshot. Please read all the text instructions regarding the discounts, how they apply and to what they apply. Many times we see that if it states ONLY 3 items, you may have more items than that in the cart or if there is a specific group of items from which to choose, an item is added that was not in the grouping. The more clear you are in your explanation, the better chances we are of clearing it up quicker.

Please understand there may be times when these things cannot be cleared up until Daz is back in their offices (if it takes place after hours). Depending on the problem, we may point you to submitting a ticket. If you have laid everything out in the thread, you should be able to screenshot it for the ticket.

We hope you have a great time during the PA sale.

 

Wish you good luck and thanks for transferring the problems to DAZ it will be a hard month for you.

The Extra 45% OFF¥ These featured Genesis, Michael 4 and Victoria 4 Items from Featured Artist Catalogs above, seems to be a bit funny: 

One item (Nothing)

Shopping Cart

• 

  Major Cache For Michael 4

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $24.95

  $5.76

  77%

Two item:

Shopping Cart

• 

  Major Cache For Michael 4new

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $24.95

  $4.80

  81%

• 

  Jockey Setnew

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $24.95

  $4.80

  81%

The sale is missing if you buy 2 more then... It's not in the direct sale description, above it with line separeted there is a sale for "40% OFF SPECIAL FEATURED Items Get 50% OFF* when you buy 2 or more" so there shouldn't be a line.

 And it seems to be an additional 15-17% off? (4/23%) not 45% off

Just for testing I did throw some random carts together:

One more thing you could mix the categories like buying something from this sale and something from that and you will get a bonus. So the green lines meana it's in one sale offer, but the hard white line should separate sales...

Shopping Cart

• 

  Moon Goddess for Genesis 2 Female(s)new

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $24.95

  $6.12

  75%

• 

  Body Diversity Morphs for Genesis 3 Female(s)new

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $19.95

  $7.98

  60%

• 

  Genesis 3 Clones for Genesis Bundle

   Move to Wishlist Remove Item

  $32.95

  $9.06

  73%

Extra 20% OFF¥ These featured Genesis 3 Items from Featured Artist Catalogs above   Seems to be 15% off ?

Extra 30% OFF¥ These featured Genesis 2 Items from Featured Artist Catalogs above Seems to be  17%?

Extra 45% OFF¥ These featured Genesis, Michael 4 and Victoria 4 Items from Featured Artist Catalogs above Seems to be 1/6 %

Of course they will eventually. Any prediction to the contrary isn't looking very closely at how technology of 3D graphics has changed radically. When I started in 3D graphics (35 years ago in 1984) we had to program all of our own tools. The idea of a "hobbiest" rendering tool like Poser or Daz Studio was almost laughable given how long even the simplest renders would take on our "blazing" 8Mhz Intel 286 CPUs with a whopping 4 MB of memory!

13 years ago, in 2006 when I started with Daz Studio, we were still mostly limited to biased rendering engines that required a great deal of dedication to get realistic approximations of real world lighting. Physically Based Rendering engines were mostly limited to some academics and industry leaders with access to high-end computing power. Nobody was ever going to be fooled by a 3Delight render of Victoria 3!

We're still on a pace where computing power is doubling every 2.5 - 3 years. To predict that technology will "never" be powerful enough to replace humans with virtual actors is likely to be proven false. There will certainly be a time when it is cheaper and faster to render an animation than to take an entire human film crew on location.

As for people not accepting CG replacements for "real" actors, I think that's innaccurate as well. Do you think kids (or adults for that matter) today care that Woody isn't "real"? Didn't we still tear up when Andy said goodbye to him? Did we really care that Gollum was a 3D generated character? If we can get past the "uncanny valley" stage of 3D animation and expression, I can easily see people becoming fans of specific CGI characters. I can forsee a time when the box office draw of "Victoria the 9th" is just as big as any human actress. Or, perhaps even more likely, when people don't care who the actor is anymore, they're going to movies to see the characters and the story, not the headliner.

I have re-watched "Alita Battle Angel" several times, mostly because the blending of CGI and live action is so good (to my eyes) that I'm amazed at the technology and skill of the movie making. I don't even know how many of the characters in that movie didn't have a real actor, just someone doing the voice. And, tbh, I don't really care. The characters and story are compelling enough for me to watch (and re-watch) the movie.

The time will come, if not completely within my lifetime, certainly within my daughters. And I can see on the horizon a time when my grandkids don't even pay attention to "who" is playing the character anymore. The focus will shift completely to directors, writers, animation houses, and voice actors (until we can generate realistic, nuanced human speech then they'll be out of a job too).

WARNING: Have an understanding up front for rework. You give them an image and they say raise the arms, change the angle, etc. You can end up doing 5 different images for every 1 they purchase. That should be factored in as well.

This is very important, I think. For a while I was getting calls from various people who paid me to build websites for them. The pay was fairly good for a teenager, I think. But they would always tell me what they wanted and then ask how long it would take to be done. Suppose I told them three months. Almost every single time, about two and a half months into the project, I would have produced something that is exactly what they said they wanted. But it turns out they want something different. And they don't think you did anything. They are completely oblivious to server or client side scripting, search engine optimiztion, Photoshop, making things work with every web browser, and everything else. They think you typed this entire website in Microsoft Word with clip art and with a few mouse clicks, you can redo the whole thing. So they want to to do the whole thing over but somehow expect you to meet the original deadline. Or if you get this explained to them and set a new deadline, they want to pay you the original price, as if you haven't done two projects for them at this point. I could see the same thing happening with a DAZ Studio render. They're going to give you some model like Victoria 1 to use and when you're done, they're going to say the model is ugly and they were expecting it to look like Aiko 8. Or vice versa. Definitely discuss having to rework things if what they said they want is not what they actually want.

Also, as another person mentioned, it looks like they're "haggling". I've seen this many times on Wheeler Dealers before I stopped watching because they don't have Edd China. If you say 50 and they say 30 then you probably should agree on 40 or walk away. Especially if you don't need this gig.

You are exactly right. It is best to have everything possible in writing, an actual pencil sketch on paper in addition would be nice. My web designer sent me a color mockup of what he thought I wanted, along with a list of features. I made a couple of edits, sent them back, we negotiated a price, and I got a result that I was happy with. The more specific your proposal, the better for all.
My designer hated customers who used vague buzz words like "Make it snap!", by the way. Lots of web design forums out there discussing customers from hell.

I'm working with 4.11 Pro and I just checked and Victoria 4 is working fine for me. I have everything installed via DIM, you might try that. 

WARNING: Have an understanding up front for rework. You give them an image and they say raise the arms, change the angle, etc. You can end up doing 5 different images for every 1 they purchase. That should be factored in as well.

This is very important, I think. For a while I was getting calls from various people who paid me to build websites for them. The pay was fairly good for a teenager, I think. But they would always tell me what they wanted and then ask how long it would take to be done. Suppose I told them three months. Almost every single time, about two and a half months into the project, I would have produced something that is exactly what they said they wanted. But it turns out they want something different. And they don't think you did anything. They are completely oblivious to server or client side scripting, search engine optimiztion, Photoshop, making things work with every web browser, and everything else. They think you typed this entire website in Microsoft Word with clip art and with a few mouse clicks, you can redo the whole thing. So they want to to do the whole thing over but somehow expect you to meet the original deadline. Or if you get this explained to them and set a new deadline, they want to pay you the original price, as if you haven't done two projects for them at this point. I could see the same thing happening with a DAZ Studio render. They're going to give you some model like Victoria 1 to use and when you're done, they're going to say the model is ugly and they were expecting it to look like Aiko 8. Or vice versa. Definitely discuss having to rework things if what they said they want is not what they actually want.

Also, as another person mentioned, it looks like they're "haggling". I've seen this many times on Wheeler Dealers before I stopped watching because they don't have Edd China. If you say 50 and they say 30 then you probably should agree on 40 or walk away. Especially if you don't need this gig.

Some more supermodel bodies:

Christy Turlington 

Naomi Campbell

Cindy Crawford

One fairly recurring feature you may notice with supermodels: the transitions in the area going from the neck down the shoulders to the arms are generally very defined. Their shoulders are almost perfectly horizontal, and the transitions between these three areas are almost angular. Compare this area with, for example, an athlete, then you'll quickly notice the more developed muscle behind the collarbone (I believe it's the Trapezius), which (optically) shortens the neck and softens the contours.

What a great observation.  Yes, I see that; clearly defined "vertically oriented" neck lines, with de-emphasized trapezius muscles and/or de-emphasized anterior neck tendons.  Combined with level, equidistant shoulders, and horizontally-oriented shoulder lines.  Very observant.

Some work better than others.  It kind of depends on what your project is.  Victoria would be a good 1970s supermodel.  Some are the GND type of supermodel and some are more severe.  Here are a few suggestions.

https://www.daz3d.com/kerry-hd-for-victoria-7

https://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-zurie-hd-for-zelara-8 (Not the alien skin lol)

https://www.daz3d.com/sc-chloe-for-genesis-8-female (If you're looking for bustier)

https://www.daz3d.com/marigold-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/kande-and-musoke-for-genesis-3-and-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/bd-roula-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/botan-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/virginia-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/sahel-hd-signature-smile-hd-expression-for-genesis-8-female

Thank you!  I wasn't familiar with any of these characters.  SC Chloe looks pretty close to what I had in mind (with reduced bust).  I'm looking at a photo of Claudia Schiffer standing straight, in a bathing suit, which I can't link to because it's on Pinterest - but she has a strangely elongated body, and a smaller than normal head. 

Claudia also has a strabismus, as do Heidi Klum and Kate Moss. along with a few other icons of female beauty like Penelope Cruz.  On the one hand, it's a little unsettling, but it also adds to their character.  Every supermodel has something that makes her stand out, and is the reason she's not just another department store flyer model.  If you're doing supermodels, it's worth keeping in mind.

I doubt they actually have strabismus, having had a cousin that actually has it & seen the behavior of his eyes 1st hand. What people are noticing is normal asymmetry and normal eye dominance. Those are present in everyone but, well, much to the relieve of the general public (and myself really), I don't get the gawking and dropped jaws Heidi Klum, Claudia Schiffer, and those types get, such that every nuance of their asymmetry is noticed and remarked upon in public.

Yes, there is "normal asymmetry" and then there is strabismus.

Take any female figure, dial down her boobs and dial in some emaciated and maybe a little leg length. And bob's your uncle, you got a "supermodel".

This seems about right. I would add: enhance her cheek bones, lengthen her neck, and set her eyes slightly wider apart to make her look just a little alien.

 

I work in the fashion industry. I have little to do with models, but I do have a little bit of knowledge on the subject, for what it's worth.
(I only skimmed the thread, I hope I don't make too many points that have already been made...)

- It's worth mentioning that runway models have a different build than underwear/swimsuit models. The latter tend to have curves, the former tend to have a spindly build.

- You seem to differenciate between "supermodels" and "no-name models". Some models certainly are much more fameous than others, but the difference has little to do with their build. Just like a famous popstar isn't necessarily a better vocalist than a struggling singer. A lot of different things factor into fame: talent, luck, nepotism, "that certain something", etc. All fashion models, "super" or otherwise, have similar builds. When preparing for the runway the fashion houses make their entire collection in only one size and all runway models need to be able to wear that.

I will add to this that in every industry, in every line of work, and at every skill or experience level, there are people who are not in the proper role.  Some should be working at a higher level.  Many are in a higher level than their skills deserve.  So in addition to "talant, luck, nepotism", there is also "who you know", and it does not take that many people in positions of power or authority to change the culture.  If the power brokers at just 3 or 4 fashion houses decided to fire all thin-n-talls and hire only 4 foot 150 pounders, it would take less than a generation for all of the other fashion houses to do the same thing.

How do you think they got today's "reality TV" to include people voting each other off an island, trying to prove themselves at ballroom dancing or mining for gold or marrying complete strangers on first sight, or to convince people to live in a big fake house with roommates having nothing in common and cameras in every room?

All it took was a few people to fund a couple of endeavors, and then a few more the next year, and the next year and the year after that.  Before I knew it, "Bridezilla" was not just a cultural term, it was a thing you could tune into and pay for in your cable bill.

- Someone mentioned Marilyn Monroe. She did work as a model but that was more than half a century ago. Her build is nothing like what a fashion model in 2019 would look like.

This is absolutely true.

Some work better than others.  It kind of depends on what your project is.  Victoria would be a good 1970s supermodel.  Some are the GND type of supermodel and some are more severe.  Here are a few suggestions.

https://www.daz3d.com/kerry-hd-for-victoria-7

https://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-zurie-hd-for-zelara-8 (Not the alien skin lol)

https://www.daz3d.com/sc-chloe-for-genesis-8-female (If you're looking for bustier)

https://www.daz3d.com/marigold-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/kande-and-musoke-for-genesis-3-and-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/bd-roula-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/botan-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/virginia-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/sahel-hd-signature-smile-hd-expression-for-genesis-8-female

Thank you!  I wasn't familiar with any of these characters.  SC Chloe looks pretty close to what I had in mind (with reduced bust).  I'm looking at a photo of Claudia Schiffer standing straight, in a bathing suit, which I can't link to because it's on Pinterest - but she has a strangely elongated body, and a smaller than normal head. 

Claudia also has a strabismus, as do Heidi Klum and Kate Moss. along with a few other icons of female beauty like Penelope Cruz.  On the one hand, it's a little unsettling, but it also adds to their character.  Every supermodel has something that makes her stand out, and is the reason she's not just another department store flyer model.  If you're doing supermodels, it's worth keeping in mind.

I doubt they actually have strabismus, having had a cousin that actually has it & seen the behavior of his eyes 1st hand. What people are noticing is normal asymmetry and normal eye dominance. Those are present in everyone but, well, much to the relieve of the general public (and myself really), I don't get the gawking and dropped jaws Heidi Klum, Claudia Schiffer, and those types get, such that every nuance of their asymmetry is noticed and remarked upon in public.

Don't you get double vision if the eyes are statically asymmetric? 

So I have some experience in this area.  I have a strabismus, which is a mis-aiming of the eye due to muscle or tendon vagaries.  As far as I know, my skull is mostly symmetrical and my eyes are on the same horizontal plane and are equidistant from my nose.  I have a slight astigmatism, but not in the eye that strays. 

For the aiming thing, I did have corrective surgery for it over 45 years ago.  Before that, my left eye was almost permanently aimed maybe 15-20 degrees to the right.  I don't remember having vision problems when I was a kid.  I had no trouble riding a bike and I don't remember ever having difficulty catching, throwing, or avoiding getting hit in the head with a ball, frisbee, or squirt-guns.  Today, my left eye (the one I had surgery on) mostly tracks with my right eye except for when I am tired.  That's when I can feel my left eye drifting to the right and then I do see double until my brain compensates. 

I think the compensation is mostly that the brain defines the "correct view" as the image that mostly lines up with where the face is pointing, and learns to ignore the "incorrect" view.  Now, if there were vision problems with my right eye (or maybe an injury, etc), then maybe my brain would have ignored that one in favor of the off-alignment eye.  That would have been bad, I'm certain of it.

I'm convinced that the brain figures out how to separate and ignore certain things, and here are a few examples:

I wear bifocal glasses now.  I also wear contacts.  One is distance, the other is close-up.  For extended reading or fine detail work of any length, I still wear readers or even a pair of magnefiers.  But for most things, my brain figures out how I need to see and I don't need to make a conscious decision which eye to use.

Shooting a gun properly:  This one is very interesting.  If I'm shooting without the aid of a laser (that is to say, using the sights, not just "point-shooting"), then I need to be able to see my front sight.  Anybody shooting without seeing their front sight probably can't hit the broad side of a barn, and that's no joke.  As you might guess, the front sight, being on the end of the barrel, is seeable by one eye or the other depending on the length of the barrel and the length of my outstretched arm.  So if I'm shooting a handgun with a 2 to 4 inch barrel, I'll use my close-up eye.  Yes, this is the correct way to shoot a handgun. 

If I'm shooting a very long-barrelled handgun, a carbine, or a rifle, then the sight will be farther away and I'll automatically use my distance eye.  If I'm using my laser, then I'll use my distance eye, and of course I have a better aim with my laser, especially the big bright green one that can be seen plainly at night or during full daylight.  With a handgun, I shoot equally well with both hands (because I train that way).  No matter how I shoot, the brain automatically compensates, even considering that I have one eye that sometimes moves to the right and I'm wearing two different contact lenses! 

The brain really does figure things out pretty well.  If I'm looking at a scene IRL, let's say a fountain in full sunlight, my brain does not get confused by all the reflection and refraction going on in the scene.  But there's no doubt that there is a LOT of reflection and refraction going on, which might very well be visible and even distracting if I took a picture of the scene and showed to to somebody who has never seen that scene in real life.  Their brain now has to translate all these things from a picture with very little of the context that was available to my brain when I was standing in front of the fountain with my camera.

As for the eye-aming thing, I really only get into trouble when I overthink things and ignore that silent part of my brain that already knows how to do those things.  Or if I get a weeper in the eye that my brain really needs at that moment in time. 

Some work better than others.  It kind of depends on what your project is.  Victoria would be a good 1970s supermodel.  Some are the GND type of supermodel and some are more severe.  Here are a few suggestions.

https://www.daz3d.com/kerry-hd-for-victoria-7

https://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-zurie-hd-for-zelara-8 (Not the alien skin lol)

https://www.daz3d.com/sc-chloe-for-genesis-8-female (If you're looking for bustier)

https://www.daz3d.com/marigold-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/kande-and-musoke-for-genesis-3-and-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/bd-roula-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/botan-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/virginia-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/sahel-hd-signature-smile-hd-expression-for-genesis-8-female

Thank you!  I wasn't familiar with any of these characters.  SC Chloe looks pretty close to what I had in mind (with reduced bust).  I'm looking at a photo of Claudia Schiffer standing straight, in a bathing suit, which I can't link to because it's on Pinterest - but she has a strangely elongated body, and a smaller than normal head. 

Claudia also has a strabismus, as do Heidi Klum and Kate Moss. along with a few other icons of female beauty like Penelope Cruz.  On the one hand, it's a little unsettling, but it also adds to their character.  Every supermodel has something that makes her stand out, and is the reason she's not just another department store flyer model.  If you're doing supermodels, it's worth keeping in mind.

I doubt they actually have strabismus, having had a cousin that actually has it & seen the behavior of his eyes 1st hand. What people are noticing is normal asymmetry and normal eye dominance. Those are present in everyone but, well, much to the relieve of the general public (and myself really), I don't get the gawking and dropped jaws Heidi Klum, Claudia Schiffer, and those types get, such that every nuance of their asymmetry is noticed and remarked upon in public.

Don't you get double vision if the eyes are statically asymmetric? 

Not usually.  It's a neurological abnormality rather than a physical one.  Some people have surgery to look more "normal", but most of the time, their brains turn the eyes back to their original orientation.

Some work better than others.  It kind of depends on what your project is.  Victoria would be a good 1970s supermodel.  Some are the GND type of supermodel and some are more severe.  Here are a few suggestions.

https://www.daz3d.com/kerry-hd-for-victoria-7

https://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-zurie-hd-for-zelara-8 (Not the alien skin lol)

https://www.daz3d.com/sc-chloe-for-genesis-8-female (If you're looking for bustier)

https://www.daz3d.com/marigold-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/kande-and-musoke-for-genesis-3-and-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/bd-roula-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/botan-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/virginia-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/sahel-hd-signature-smile-hd-expression-for-genesis-8-female

Thank you!  I wasn't familiar with any of these characters.  SC Chloe looks pretty close to what I had in mind (with reduced bust).  I'm looking at a photo of Claudia Schiffer standing straight, in a bathing suit, which I can't link to because it's on Pinterest - but she has a strangely elongated body, and a smaller than normal head. 

Claudia also has a strabismus, as do Heidi Klum and Kate Moss. along with a few other icons of female beauty like Penelope Cruz.  On the one hand, it's a little unsettling, but it also adds to their character.  Every supermodel has something that makes her stand out, and is the reason she's not just another department store flyer model.  If you're doing supermodels, it's worth keeping in mind.

I doubt they actually have strabismus, having had a cousin that actually has it & seen the behavior of his eyes 1st hand. What people are noticing is normal asymmetry and normal eye dominance. Those are present in everyone but, well, much to the relieve of the general public (and myself really), I don't get the gawking and dropped jaws Heidi Klum, Claudia Schiffer, and those types get, such that every nuance of their asymmetry is noticed and remarked upon in public.

Don't you get double vision if the eyes are statically asymmetric? 

Some work better than others.  It kind of depends on what your project is.  Victoria would be a good 1970s supermodel.  Some are the GND type of supermodel and some are more severe.  Here are a few suggestions.

https://www.daz3d.com/kerry-hd-for-victoria-7

https://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-zurie-hd-for-zelara-8 (Not the alien skin lol)

https://www.daz3d.com/sc-chloe-for-genesis-8-female (If you're looking for bustier)

https://www.daz3d.com/marigold-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/kande-and-musoke-for-genesis-3-and-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/bd-roula-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/botan-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/virginia-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/sahel-hd-signature-smile-hd-expression-for-genesis-8-female

Thank you!  I wasn't familiar with any of these characters.  SC Chloe looks pretty close to what I had in mind (with reduced bust).  I'm looking at a photo of Claudia Schiffer standing straight, in a bathing suit, which I can't link to because it's on Pinterest - but she has a strangely elongated body, and a smaller than normal head. 

Claudia also has a strabismus, as do Heidi Klum and Kate Moss. along with a few other icons of female beauty like Penelope Cruz.  On the one hand, it's a little unsettling, but it also adds to their character.  Every supermodel has something that makes her stand out, and is the reason she's not just another department store flyer model.  If you're doing supermodels, it's worth keeping in mind.

I doubt they actually have strabismus, having had a cousin that actually has it & seen the behavior of his eyes 1st hand. What people are noticing is normal asymmetry and normal eye dominance. Those are present in everyone but, well, much to the relieve of the general public (and myself really), I don't get the gawking and dropped jaws Heidi Klum, Claudia Schiffer, and those types get, such that every nuance of their asymmetry is noticed and remarked upon in public.

Some work better than others.  It kind of depends on what your project is.  Victoria would be a good 1970s supermodel.  Some are the GND type of supermodel and some are more severe.  Here are a few suggestions.

https://www.daz3d.com/kerry-hd-for-victoria-7

https://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-zurie-hd-for-zelara-8 (Not the alien skin lol)

https://www.daz3d.com/sc-chloe-for-genesis-8-female (If you're looking for bustier)

https://www.daz3d.com/marigold-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/kande-and-musoke-for-genesis-3-and-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/bd-roula-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/botan-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/virginia-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/sahel-hd-signature-smile-hd-expression-for-genesis-8-female

Thank you!  I wasn't familiar with any of these characters.  SC Chloe looks pretty close to what I had in mind (with reduced bust).  I'm looking at a photo of Claudia Schiffer standing straight, in a bathing suit, which I can't link to because it's on Pinterest - but she has a strangely elongated body, and a smaller than normal head. 

Checkout SC Karen at Renderosity...
S.

This lass has real supermodel proportions: https://www.daz3d.com/glamorous-vicki-set-for-victoria-3-0

Shame it's a V3 based figure with all the joint limitations therein, but works without V3. She has chest size morphs based on bra sizes, AA to D, which I do think is a sensible idea that would benefit all subsequent iterations.

Regards,

Richard

I keep wondering when they will lower the price on that and the bundle it can also be contained in.

Does seem odd that the price is currently so high, I agree. Especially given the limitations of V3's joint movements. Got her in 2005, and rediscovered her when I restarted in March. For limited, standing poses with straight-ish limbs, she still holds her own against G8F.

This lass has real supermodel proportions: https://www.daz3d.com/glamorous-vicki-set-for-victoria-3-0

Shame it's a V3 based figure with all the joint limitations therein, but works without V3. She has chest size morphs based on bra sizes, AA to D, which I do think is a sensible idea that would benefit all subsequent iterations.

Regards,

Richard

I keep wondering when they will lower the price on that and the bundle it can also be contained in.

Some work better than others.  It kind of depends on what your project is.  Victoria would be a good 1970s supermodel.  Some are the GND type of supermodel and some are more severe.  Here are a few suggestions.

https://www.daz3d.com/kerry-hd-for-victoria-7

https://www.daz3d.com/fwsa-zurie-hd-for-zelara-8 (Not the alien skin lol)

https://www.daz3d.com/sc-chloe-for-genesis-8-female (If you're looking for bustier)

https://www.daz3d.com/marigold-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/kande-and-musoke-for-genesis-3-and-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/bd-roula-for-victoria-8

https://www.daz3d.com/botan-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/virginia-hd-for-genesis-8-female

https://www.daz3d.com/sahel-hd-signature-smile-hd-expression-for-genesis-8-female

Very nice list. Not sure I've seen any of these figures before.

Your best chances at "ideal" shapes would be with the Victoria 4 and Genesis 3 figures, Victoria 4 being the more stylized and glamourous variation, but with her it'll be a hassle to get her textured to iRay. Genesis 3 is also fairly idealized, and generally ready for iRay rendering, but not as stylized as V4.

For G3 specifically, I'd suggest Lilith 7 as a starting point. Skip the horror/goth/emo make-ups, and you have your regular supermodel.

have to disagree, lilith is way to big/fat/whatever for a supermodel type in general

Your best chances at "ideal" shapes would be with the Victoria 4 and Genesis 3 figures, Victoria 4 being the more stylized and glamourous variation, but with her it'll be a hassle to get her textured to iRay. Genesis 3 is also fairly idealized, and generally ready for iRay rendering, but not as stylized as V4.

For G3 specifically, I'd suggest Lilith 7 as a starting point. Skip the horror/goth/emo make-ups, and you have your regular supermodel.