morrisonmp said:

von Hobo said:

morrisonmp said:

Wonderland said:

morrisonmp said:

I have been experimenting with Genesis 9 characters (Michael, Minerva, Victoria, and a couple others) and while the textures are good and the facial improvements are excellent... I still hate the bodies. Gen9 is weirdly doughy and roundy and the proportions just "feel" wrong. I have not been able to make a G9 character yet (and I bought several of the morph sets as well) that I actually like having in a scene. And to me, YMMV, they don't fit well in scenes with G8/G8.1 models because the entire approach to making them just feels so very different.

I'd love to see some new sculpts using the G9 innovations that are not so odd-bodied.

Sorry for the rant... but the G9s just feel super weird to me.
 

I agree. G9/V9 is a bit too pudgy and short for my taste and the arms seem too long and legs too short. Some characters seem to have the head too small for the body.  I know I can change all that but if I want to use stock poses it's extra work to make them work with proportions I use. I already make most G8 characters taller with longer legs and G9 needs even a bigger stretch. The only advantage I see now are the eyes and quick load time because I have very few G9 characters. It is kind of fun creating more characters from scratch though with G9 because I often get lazy mixing several G8 characters together rather than work on individual morphs. G9 will take longer to morph/pose but I'll probably be more creative doing it. 

 

That's something I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on yet... The legs. I can't unsee it now. The legs are too short. I was just looking at the new muscle morphs pack images (on the store today) and I was like... yep, the legs feel wrong. 

DAZ says on their Genesis 9 promo page that the proportions for G9 are "realistic human measurements". 

• "Genesis 9 figure measurements have been meticulously crafted to match real-world averages."

I have noticed the same thing, but is it possible that we are so used to G8 (and older generation) proportions, that when we see more accurate, real-world proportions on G9 we tend to think it looks unnatural? Could it be that G9 is indeed more accurate than older generations and we just need to adjust our expectations from what we have been used to seeing?

In my opinion, the approach DAZ is taking to real-world averages is a good one. The figures that the PA's produce can then diverge from this to create a model with longer legs, etc. if that is what appeals to a purchaser.

It's kind of like Instagram is not really what most people look like in everyday life, but that's what people are drawn to on Instagram (airbrushed models). 

 

I find them oddly doughy and off-putting with all the attention on creating wonderful faces and the bodies looking like odd. 

Given that Daz's direction with G9 is to present us with a more realistically proportioned base kit, this statement can be taken to mean that poeple in the real world are are also seen to be oddly doughy and off-putting as well. Le'sigh.  

I've embraced G9 and am enjoying working with it. As others have already said, you can easily adjust the length of the legs or the arms or the size of the head. 

And as an afterthought...I've always thought the legs on G8 were ridiculously too long out of the box...probably because the majority of characters were borrowed from V8...who was obviously an Amazon. 

SofaCitizen said:

I would also like to see something like that added to the QA process - it would be quite simple to set up an automated validation process on submission where it does some of the simple checks such as:

• Reject submission if any duf files contain "//Runtime" in the relative URL values
• Reject submission if any files linked to in the DSX file do not exist in the package
• Reject submission if any files have a double-period in the filename
• Reject submission if any stupid "Unique ID" values are used - this one would be a bit more open to interpretation but at the very least make sure that they are of a certain length to provide a good chance that they would not clash with other products. For example a unique ID of "03" should absolutely be rejected and not be allowed through the QA process.

That's far from perfect but would be so very easy to automate and sort out some of the more obvious product bugs I have seen recently.

Unfortunately, I am not sure that is likely to happen :(

I would add to this script checking for:

• poses that change character facial expressions
• poses that transform the character *ZAP* across the room!
• poses that change character scale
• character definition files that are saved with non-zero default values for the morph that override base character shaping.  this one's been causing pain for years

All this stuff should be caught when a PA submits to DAZ, and summarily rejected on day one of acceptance testing.  Perhaps the script could be made available to PAs, as well, so they wouldn't submit cr** like this.

 I know there is at least one product for confining the morphs to load, but AFAIK, it needs manual tweaking and might not load all morphs needed under certain circumstances. Maybe this has been asked before.

So not only to speed up loading, but also to simplify exporting, i'd like to suggest "lazy morph loading" as a feature of DAZ Stuido. I can imagine two main routes that could lead there:

- Scripting/plugin API provide hooks to enable the feature, so scripts/plugins get called when it's relevant.

- It gets built into Studio (preferred).

 

So basically this should be a switch for a project, or a Studio session, or just global, to only load morphs, if they are actually used, but still be able to load on demand, if used/desired. I also envision options to still show the sliders and the names greyed out, even when not in use, so you could click on it to load it, but maybe also deactivate it. Upon deactivation i don't expect the morph to be unloaded, though, it would be enough, if it doesn't get exported (auto exclude) and for instance after saving a scene, won't load the next time. (Going complicated, you could still remember the last set value, or allow to save/load all unused values in an extra file or with a scene.)

If this was so simple, it probably would be there already. Of course both loading time would improve, as well as efficiency on exporting. 

Cool features would then still be..

- Always load certain morphs (incdividual, from a product, from a saved favorite list, ...). It probably would be best to have them still be deactivated in terms of greyed out, but loaded into memory then. This would mean three meta states (used and loaded as is now, deactivated and not loaded, deactivated and loaded, the latter probably being possible to express better by another word than 'deactivated'). 

- Dynamic switch to deactivate all unused morphs. E.g. for saving/exporting, and having more efficiency for next load or further use.

- (Deactivating a used morph would mean dialing it back, if it's reversible.)

 

Does this make sense? Will it be in Studio 5?

If you do/would make the head morph possible to be dialed in seperately, using the different bodies with each of the different heads are/would be a great benefit for Your customers

von Hobo said:

morrisonmp said:

Wonderland said:

morrisonmp said:

I have been experimenting with Genesis 9 characters (Michael, Minerva, Victoria, and a couple others) and while the textures are good and the facial improvements are excellent... I still hate the bodies. Gen9 is weirdly doughy and roundy and the proportions just "feel" wrong. I have not been able to make a G9 character yet (and I bought several of the morph sets as well) that I actually like having in a scene. And to me, YMMV, they don't fit well in scenes with G8/G8.1 models because the entire approach to making them just feels so very different.

I'd love to see some new sculpts using the G9 innovations that are not so odd-bodied.

Sorry for the rant... but the G9s just feel super weird to me.
 

I agree. G9/V9 is a bit too pudgy and short for my taste and the arms seem too long and legs too short. Some characters seem to have the head too small for the body.  I know I can change all that but if I want to use stock poses it's extra work to make them work with proportions I use. I already make most G8 characters taller with longer legs and G9 needs even a bigger stretch. The only advantage I see now are the eyes and quick load time because I have very few G9 characters. It is kind of fun creating more characters from scratch though with G9 because I often get lazy mixing several G8 characters together rather than work on individual morphs. G9 will take longer to morph/pose but I'll probably be more creative doing it. 

 

That's something I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on yet... The legs. I can't unsee it now. The legs are too short. I was just looking at the new muscle morphs pack images (on the store today) and I was like... yep, the legs feel wrong. 

DAZ says on their Genesis 9 promo page that the proportions for G9 are "realistic human measurements". 

• "Genesis 9 figure measurements have been meticulously crafted to match real-world averages."

I have noticed the same thing, but is it possible that we are so used to G8 (and older generation) proportions, that when we see more accurate, real-world proportions on G9 we tend to think it looks unnatural? Could it be that G9 is indeed more accurate than older generations and we just need to adjust our expectations from what we have been used to seeing?

In my opinion, the approach DAZ is taking to real-world averages is a good one. The figures that the PA's produce can then diverge from this to create a model with longer legs, etc. if that is what appeals to a purchaser.

It's kind of like Instagram is not really what most people look like in everyday life, but that's what people are drawn to on Instagram (airbrushed models). 

 

 I don't think it's about adjusting out perceptions. I think it's about what we like. I fell in love with the G8/G8.1 style of models and I think they look great. The G9's whether they are more real-to-life than older generations is not really the issue. I find them oddly doughy and off-putting with all the attention on creating wonderful faces and the bodies looking like odd. It's really a preference thing. And I'll keep using G8/8.1 for a long time, I'm sure. As has been pointed out in the past, there is no shortage of options for G8. I would like to see a utility for converting the new g9 clothes and hairs back to g8. That would be a nice item. But other than that... yeah, I think it just comes down to preference. I'm sure as G9 evolves, we'll see more variety in the creations.

morrisonmp said:

Wonderland said:

morrisonmp said:

I have been experimenting with Genesis 9 characters (Michael, Minerva, Victoria, and a couple others) and while the textures are good and the facial improvements are excellent... I still hate the bodies. Gen9 is weirdly doughy and roundy and the proportions just "feel" wrong. I have not been able to make a G9 character yet (and I bought several of the morph sets as well) that I actually like having in a scene. And to me, YMMV, they don't fit well in scenes with G8/G8.1 models because the entire approach to making them just feels so very different.

I'd love to see some new sculpts using the G9 innovations that are not so odd-bodied.

Sorry for the rant... but the G9s just feel super weird to me.
 

I agree. G9/V9 is a bit too pudgy and short for my taste and the arms seem too long and legs too short. Some characters seem to have the head too small for the body.  I know I can change all that but if I want to use stock poses it's extra work to make them work with proportions I use. I already make most G8 characters taller with longer legs and G9 needs even a bigger stretch. The only advantage I see now are the eyes and quick load time because I have very few G9 characters. It is kind of fun creating more characters from scratch though with G9 because I often get lazy mixing several G8 characters together rather than work on individual morphs. G9 will take longer to morph/pose but I'll probably be more creative doing it. 

 

That's something I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on yet... The legs. I can't unsee it now. The legs are too short. I was just looking at the new muscle morphs pack images (on the store today) and I was like... yep, the legs feel wrong. 

DAZ says on their Genesis 9 promo page that the proportions for G9 are "realistic human measurements". 

• "Genesis 9 figure measurements have been meticulously crafted to match real-world averages."

I have noticed the same thing, but is it possible that we are so used to G8 (and older generation) proportions, that when we see more accurate, real-world proportions on G9 we tend to think it looks unnatural? Could it be that G9 is indeed more accurate than older generations and we just need to adjust our expectations from what we have been used to seeing?

In my opinion, the approach DAZ is taking to real-world averages is a good one. The figures that the PA's produce can then diverge from this to create a model with longer legs, etc. if that is what appeals to a purchaser.

It's kind of like Instagram is not really what most people look like in everyday life, but that's what people are drawn to on Instagram (airbrushed models). 

 

Morph "destroying" the body could also be a case of vertex order not beeing kept when creating the morph. That would result in a mess when importing the morph.

That certainly would cause problems when one PA links to another PAs morphs that duplicated a morph name/ID from another product.

Obviously, the earlier you can catch this sort of thing the better.

A tool that PAs can use during product build time would be ideal as the issues would be caught before the product was even finished.

Once customers are seeing the warnings while loading a character it's a bit late.

 

One could have that warning also trigger a message to the PAs that cause the mess.

They can fix it and submit an update before being allowed to submit any more products.

Taking time off current projects to be forced to fix the broken ones that are already in the store should be incentive to be more careful.

 

A user level tool for 3rd party sites like rendo would be nice to have.

 

You can add the detail, load a second copy of the model at base resolution and withbthe morph applied, and bake to displacement - but of course that will not show in Daz Studio without rendering or using Iray Drawstyle.

Wonderland said:

morrisonmp said:

I have been experimenting with Genesis 9 characters (Michael, Minerva, Victoria, and a couple others) and while the textures are good and the facial improvements are excellent... I still hate the bodies. Gen9 is weirdly doughy and roundy and the proportions just "feel" wrong. I have not been able to make a G9 character yet (and I bought several of the morph sets as well) that I actually like having in a scene. And to me, YMMV, they don't fit well in scenes with G8/G8.1 models because the entire approach to making them just feels so very different.

I'd love to see some new sculpts using the G9 innovations that are not so odd-bodied.

Sorry for the rant... but the G9s just feel super weird to me.
 

I agree. G9/V9 is a bit too pudgy and short for my taste and the arms seem too long and legs too short. Some characters seem to have the head too small for the body.  I know I can change all that but if I want to use stock poses it's extra work to make them work with proportions I use. I already make most G8 characters taller with longer legs and G9 needs even a bigger stretch. The only advantage I see now are the eyes and quick load time because I have very few G9 characters. It is kind of fun creating more characters from scratch though with G9 because I often get lazy mixing several G8 characters together rather than work on individual morphs. G9 will take longer to morph/pose but I'll probably be more creative doing it. 

 

That's something I hadn't quite been able to put my finger on yet... The legs. I can't unsee it now. The legs are too short. I was just looking at the new muscle morphs pack images (on the store today) and I was like... yep, the legs feel wrong. 

How did the morph destroy the body? Most likelyIt could be that the scaling and axis settings are not correct (and were on the old system). Is Transfer Utility giving an error or is it just producing bad resuilts.

I'm 3ds Max 2016 user and always editing morph using 3ds max 2016 and export to daz. In the previous version i' ve always succeed using transfer utility and load morph pro.Life looks so easy But after upgrading last version daz studio 4.21 64 bit everything seems downgrade. Transfer utility and load morph pro totally failed. The object morph like destroyed body that i've never met before.Transfer utility for cloth object always unsuccessfull That's really disappointing thats upgrade destroying not help anyway.

Thank you so much barbult for testing this. You were correct in assuming I am inexperienced with the dforce. I am..but I have been watching tutorials, as the one you mentioned,

and I couldnt get the dress to behave as it should. I do not know what a "Transfer Utility" is? I will look for it tho. Thank you again for you reassuance! 

Thank you Wendy. It looks also good. Will add it to my wish list. Otherwise I need to play with the Genesis doll morph I got from Mythcons some years back. But this doll is a bit human like and I like the toy look more. Want to use it in a country style room on a bed or a rocking chair as display. Well, something like that.

Example configuration:

something like the below or similar:

• CPU: Intel Core i7-13700KF ~ £ 420 (or similar from AMD)
• Mainboard: MSI Pro Z690-A WiFi DDR4 ~ £ 220
• RAM: 32 GB DDR4 Ram: ~ £ 120
• Storage: M.2 ssd 2 TB: ~ £ 200
• GPU: RTX 3060 12 GB: ~ £ 390
• PSU min. 700 watt: ~ £ 100

Total: ~ £ 1450 (I have taken middle prices from idealo not the cheepest ones - a few weeks ago)

CPU fan: ~ £ 50
(a high end model like the Noctua NH-D15 would be ~ £ 100)

plus case, case fans etc.

Notes:

CPU:
The i7-13700KF is extremely fast, has 18 cores and offers max. 24 threads. I use it in my new build and can say it is a lot faster in daily operation than the AMD Threadripper 3960x I used before. If you don't need the build-in GPU you can go with the i7-13700K (not ...KF) which comes without gpu and is a bit cheeper. Alternatively an Intel i7-13600K or KF is a bit slower, has a few cores less but is cheeper.
Regarding the build-in GPU. If you attach the monitor to that one, and use a current Windows 10 build you save a few 100 MB of vram. The latest Windows 10 interations do not reserve as much vram in general anymore but on top they reserve even less, if no display is attached to the gpu.

Mainboard:
It is a DDR4 not DDR5 board and has one lan port 2.5 GB speed. If you need two lan ports or 10GB speed, expect higher board prices (as I wanted a 10GB connection to my NAS, I simply bought a 10 GB lan card for 87 € and put it in a free PCI slot - this was way cheeper than to go for a board that comes with 10 GB build-in).
DDR4 ram is expected to depricate in the next years. So, if you go with DDR4 (Ryzen 5 is also DDR4) buy the needed ram timely to not get hit by limited supply in the future. Alternatively go with Ryzen 7000 series or buy an intel board with DDR5 support (e.g. MSI PRO Z790-A WIFI DDR5). But board and ram will be more expensive.

Regarding the Intel LGA-1700 socket: Rumors say, the 13th gen of Intel CPUs is the last one to use the LGA-1700. It is expected that the next gen of Intel CPUs will require a new mainboard with a new socket.

AMD: Same situation with AMD. Ryzen 5000 series uses socket AM4. The new Ryzen 7000 series uses socket AM5. So, if you buy a Ryzen 5000 CPU now you can't just replace the CPU with a Ryzen 7000 in the future. You need to replace the mainboard as well.

If you prefer to have a simple upgrade path (just replace CPU) it might be better to go with Ryzen 7000 and not Intel 13000 or AMD 5000. Ryzen 7000 uses AM5 socket and AMD wrote they will support AM5 at least until 2025 with new CPUs. Disadvantage is, that Ryzen 7000 needs the more expensive DDR5 ram and the AM5 mainboards are also more expensive than the older DDR4 boards with socket AM4.

RAM:
min. 32 GB and see mainboard

Storage:
If you want to use it for many years you might want to read about experience with long term use before buying something. I personally have good experience with Samsung and Crucial SSDs and M.2s but that was just luck maybe.

GPU:
The RTX 3060 12 GB is considered the sweet spot of processing speed, vram and price theese days. Alternatively there is the RTX 3060 Ti. It is faster but has less vram and costs more. In case of a decision I suggest to always go for more vram instead of more speed. Or better: try to get a used 3090 with 24 GB of vram (I use this one and it is hell of fast and has plenty of vram - good for DS and stable-diffusion).
Or wait for the lower end RTX 4xxx GPUs.

PSU:
Don't go for the cheepest models. The most simple models tend to fail more early than higher end products and they could struggle with power demand peeks form the PC (CPU and GPU can request way higher watteges from the PSU than their official TDP values suggest - those peaks are only lasting a few milliseconds but very simple PSUs might cause a PC shutdown or blue screen because of it - it is rare, but it happens). Some vendors offer extended warranty for their higher end models. E.g. I got a 10 years warranty for a Corsair AX1600i PSU.

Power cosumption and cooling:
The 13700KF at default settings in my board and at a high load (Cinebench R25 benchmark) consumed nearly 250 watt. That creates is a lot heat to be handled by the CPU cooler. But, those CPUs (Intel and AMD) and mainboards are set to very high voltage values at stock. In my case I just went into the MSI bios and lowerd the "CPU lite load" setting. As a result the CPU is now at 194 watt under Cinebench R25 with no reduction in speed and stability. Temps went down from around 90 degree C to around 75 degree C (watercooled system).
The RTX 3090 is similar to this regard. Default was 330 watt in Iray rendering at around 1950 MHz clock speed. I lowered the clock curve to a max. of 1800 MHz and reduced the allowed voltage quite a bit (can simply be done with the MSI afterburner tool). Result: before around 330 watt, after 245 watt. Speed wise it does not make a relevant difference in DS.

If you go the intel route with LGA-1700 socket and build the system yourself, google for "LGA 1700 bending issue" before doing so. A lot of overheating, throtteling, bluescreen issues have to do with it (it's about a bend of the CPU when attached to the board so that the cooling plate does not have good contact the CPU die - this causes bad heat transfer to the cooler and results in overheating of those CPU areas that are not well covered). I had this issue and got above 100 degree C in my first Cinebench run because of it.

P.S. this post is partly a copy from another post I wrote in another forum for another software :-)

Here is better way to fix the bad KuJ Medieval Drerss Under. Run it through the Transfer Utility with the Dress Long Loose template, and save it ias a Figure/Prop Asset. Then always use your saved version instead of the version that came with the product.Now you can leave the Genesis 9 Base Joint Corrrectives on and get proper shape to G9 shoulders, etc.

 

thanks after redoing everything and setting reverse deformation it all works I think I had keep vert order and poly morph off when I first tried reverse deformation but now everythings working fine.

lilweep said:

weird, why didnt you just set reverse deformations to Yes like someone suggested earlier

(youre probably not importing your morph on top of the default base shape so you have to turn this option to Yes to reverse out the existing changes you already have on the base shape.  Alternatively, load your morph onto the base shape with no other morphs applied.)

 

I tried reverse deformations and it just did the opossite. the body got bigger the head got thinner and I'm importing to the same base shape I exported

Also since you might not know this: remember to 'adjust rigging to shape' for your new morph so that the rigging gets realigned with any changes your morph introduces.  If you dont adjust rigging, you might get some weird posing/expression issues when using your morph.  You can bake the rigging changes to your morph dial by using ERC freeze - this will link the rigging change to the morph so dialling the morph will also dial in the changed rigging.

 

weird, why didnt you just set reverse deformations to Yes like someone suggested earlier

(youre probably not importing your morph on top of the default base shape so you have to turn this option to Yes to reverse out the existing changes you already have on the base shape.  Alternatively, load your morph onto the base shape with no other morphs applied.)