Dawn 2.0 Underway

[Seliah (Childe of Fyre)]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. How does having a more generic figure make it easier to create characters?

Those of us who make characters generally want the characters to look unique. That means they should look like individuals. Having the "that's obviously Dawn!" visible in the character's shape is a HUGE headache for those of us who try very hard to make each character look like it's own person.

So yeah. Having a more generic shape helps immensely, as when we're spinning dials, it's a lot less about trying to get the obvious-Dawn look out of our shape presets.

Dawn has a nice look, and that's fine - but when you are making characters, you want your shape presets to each one look different from the others. Just like real people look different from each other.

For an example of what I mean, just go and look at Nataani. Look at the comparison of his SHAPE, with default Dusk. You don't see a lot of "Dusk" in Nataani's features, and Nataani would most definitely look like his own person if he were walking down the street or standing at a bus stop waiting for the bus.

THAT is why the generic shape benefits character creators. We make 3D people, not just faces.

 

[Chris]

Kobaltkween, you are a true gem! I think you're great, as I know many others here feel the same as I do. You're a great read, and always educational, with experience to back up your thought process and opinions.

As far as the morphs and what libraries they should go under, I will defer to Alisa and Paul. I know later on with Dawn the structure changed to be better for the customers from what I recall. I'm glad you've stated your case here, as this is a great place to refer back to in order to gain insights and direction.

As to the topology, mesh flow and edge loops, I believe you're going to be more than satisfied with our new Dawn 2.0 layout. As I've stated early in this thread, the density will be similar. More edge loops will be complete, and better looping will surround joint areas on Dawns improved mesh. When it comes to rigging, Paul has had challenges with some of my triangles and some weirdness with my mesh. I need to improve these areas for Paul as he adds weight maps to vertices.

I believe this new layout will improve grouping, weight mapping, and rigging in general. My goal is to also provide some meaningful edge loops and flows that will be great for body suits, or super suite type items. I still aim to have sufficient flow on her body to support solid morphing and shaping. I am not a proponent of a purely grid type of a mesh structure. Don't see the meaning in that. Seems like a very weak way to model a body, by just throwing a heavier grid mesh at it like some other figures. I believe Dawn 2.0 will work better with intelligently thought out design. We're just trying to improve on our early design.

I'm surprised how many folks have passed up on even trying our first iterations of Dawn based on hearsay, rumors and untruths that have been spread for years now. Even some in this thread are unaware of what Dawn SE is really capable of. She already is of a superior quality as you've mentioned here KK. We're not moving forward on Dawn 2.0 because of a few voices dictating what is seen as being superior. I am fried though with some major players in this community passing up on Dawn and our figure line up and casting them off as dross, instead of embracing them or at least giving them a run. We are using some of that as motivation to drive ahead with Dawn 2.0. Quite frankly it's time to get her going and out to market. Here's the thing too, we are still a small company and this new figure with be on par with the best in this community, but our voice will be challenged to elevate her to her rightful place of high use. That aside though, we're still going to create her, and those that are willing to try the latest and greatest will most likely gravitate toward our new girl.

 

[Chris]

Um ok, do you mind explaining how that works? Sorry not trying to be a pita just wanting to try and understand

No trouble at all. Dawn's existing UV layout will work for Dawn 2.0, or folks can try the new one that I'll work up specifically for her. Paul tells me he'll find a way to make sure the current works for her.

 

[Chris]

Those of us who make characters generally want the characters to look unique. That means they should look like individuals. Having the "that's obviously Dawn!" visible in the character's shape is a HUGE headache for those of us who try very hard to make each character look like it's own person.

So yeah. Having a more generic shape helps immensely, as when we're spinning dials, it's a lot less about trying to get the obvious-Dawn look out of our shape presets.

Dawn has a nice look, and that's fine - but when you are making characters, you want your shape presets to each one look different from the others. Just like real people look different from each other.

For an example of what I mean, just go and look at Nataani. Look at the comparison of his SHAPE, with default Dusk. You don't see a lot of "Dusk" in Nataani's features, and Nataani would most definitely look like his own person if he were walking down the street or standing at a bus stop waiting for the bus.

THAT is why the generic shape benefits character creators. We make 3D people, not just faces.

Well said.

Yeah, folks can take the Dawn or Dusk out of those figures for sure. Also think of Baby Luna, our Gorilla, Ruckus and Creature Heads are all morphs from one mesh. I don't see any Dawn in our Gorilla either.

 

[Chris]

Some generalizing or standardizing of Dawn 2.

Smoothing out the nose, philtrum, reshaping upper lip margins, softening jawline, rounding out chin, and taking down and softening prominence of clavicle.

Me likey.

 

[kobaltkween]

Oh, thanks so much for the kind words! I'm definitely looking forward to Dawn 2.0.

And yeah, I've seen a whole lot of FUD around Dawn, as well as other post-V4 Poser figures. I think by far _the_ most dangerous element of the Poser community specifically, and the content community in general, is our loss of the sense that we're all artists. People feel very free to bash products in ways they would _never_ post to a gallery image. That just discourages creativity and helps no one. I'm all for constructive criticism, and being honest, but I don't think anyone is helped by feedback with the words "ugly" or "crap."

Oh, and another very minor thing that I would find really helpful for dynamic clothes: a default pose A pose rather than a default T. Pants are easier to model with the legs a bit further apart (though Dawn is actually pretty good in that respect), but more importantly, shoulders for lots of clothes will behave much more accurately if they're modeled they way they're sewn, which is generally a little down. But that's really a rigging issue. While arms down poses are so much more prevalent than arms up that I could imagine an A default making more sense for optimal performance, I could totally see why T would just be better, too. I wouldn't be surprised if this was an impossible request. I just figure it can't hurt to ask, especially since I've recently seen more and more figures outside the content community use a default A pose.

 

[phdubrov]

Speaking of the rigging and latest and greatest:
what I really like in recent figures are face chips (Poser) and extensive PowerPose templates (DS). Both allow more fine-grain control and greatly reduce hunt-parameter-in-long-list-how-it-could-be-named time.
Next topic is more controversial - coordinated morphs for eyes and orbits included with LaFemme. (I include here bone translations that could be baked into morphs.) At least, I'd like to see something comparable as an MR morph pack from the start or near from the start. Ability to easy bring perfectly-symmetrical CGI face to life with a bit of a living beings asymmetry is just too good to be passed for me.

 

[Male-M3dia]

I'm trying to wrap my head around this. How does having a more generic figure make it easier to create characters?

To make unique characters, you have make your own shape and details; for a character that's already detailed means you have to remove all those details before you can start. A generic figure is an easier starting point as it reduces what you have to do before you start making characters. On my experiment on Dusk (that I posted in the Art forum) where I made a unique shape and head, I had to rip apart basically the whole mesh before I started. A generic base mesh makes a figure content creator-friendly, and I concur with 3D Universe to make the base more generic. Doesn't mean you don't have to have provide a character more detailed with the release. Also providing dials for end users to make the mouth, nose eyes, iris, pupils smaller, as moving them up and down would be helpful for end users. None of that was in the morphs for Dusk, so I had to do it manually in zbrush (with added cleanup) which was a pain.

Also reducing the number a material zones would make it content creator-friendly as well, there are way too many to work with now. Also I don't think you need add many polys to the figure, there's enough to make characters. If anything remove them from either the torso and definitely the ears; you could probably take polys from the ears and put them on the face if anything.

 

[Dreamer]

Also reducing the number a material zones would make it content creator-friendly as well, there are way too many to work with now.

I have to disagree with this, what we have now is fine in fact there are some zones I for one could wish to see added but I sure don't want to see any removed.

 

[Hornet3d]

Kobaltkween, you are a true gem! I think you're great, as I know many others here feel the same as I do. You're a great read, and always educational, with experience to back up your thought process and opinions.

As far as the morphs and what libraries they should go under, I will defer to Alisa and Paul. I know later on with Dawn the structure changed to be better for the customers from what I recall. I'm glad you've stated your case here, as this is a great place to refer back to in order to gain insights and direction.

As to the topology, mesh flow and edge loops, I believe you're going to be more than satisfied with our new Dawn 2.0 layout. As I've stated early in this thread, the density will be similar. More edge loops will be complete, and better looping will surround joint areas on Dawns improved mesh. When it comes to rigging, Paul has had challenges with some of my triangles and some weirdness with my mesh. I need to improve these areas for Paul as he adds weight maps to vertices.

I believe this new layout will improve grouping, weight mapping, and rigging in general. My goal is to also provide some meaningful edge loops and flows that will be great for body suits, or super suite type items. I still aim to have sufficient flow on her body to support solid morphing and shaping. I am not a proponent of a purely grid type of a mesh structure. Don't see the meaning in that. Seems like a very weak way to model a body, by just throwing a heavier grid mesh at it like some other figures. I believe Dawn 2.0 will work better with intelligently thought out design. We're just trying to improve on our early design.

I'm surprised how many folks have passed up on even trying our first iterations of Dawn based on hearsay, rumors and untruths that have been spread for years now. Even some in this thread are unaware of what Dawn SE is really capable of. She already is of a superior quality as you've mentioned here KK. We're not moving forward on Dawn 2.0 because of a few voices dictating what is seen as being superior. I am fried though with some major players in this community passing up on Dawn and our figure line up and casting them off as dross, instead of embracing them or at least giving them a run. We are using some of that as motivation to drive ahead with Dawn 2.0. Quite frankly it's time to get her going and out to market. Here's the thing too, we are still a small company and this new figure with be on par with the best in this community, but our voice will be challenged to elevate her to her rightful place of high use. That aside though, we're still going to create her, and those that are willing to try the latest and greatest will most likely gravitate toward our new girl.

I disliked Dawn on the first release, something I have made no secret about, but at least I did give the figure a try. Some of my discontent was to do with the initial lack of morphs and a face that was quite distinctive. When Dawn SE came out I gave that a try as well, despite the large number of people who were quick to dismiss all Dawn figures. It is almost a though Dawn SE was a completely new figure way better then anything I was using at the time.

I have some very limited skills but I was quickly able to create a figure that I suggest does not show her Dawn origins very much, if at all. The expressions were so much easier to create and far more realistic than I was producing at the time. I have been using Dawn SE since launch and still see posts today stating that she does not work in Poser and for that I feel markedly sad as there are many people missing out on the potential Dawn has.

Hivewire3D may be a small team but they produce some stunning figures, not only that, but as this thread shows there is a strong desire to improve but not throw away all that has gone before, the plans for the UV maps are an example of this. A great figure with long term commitment and a real interest to understand what users and vendors are looking for in a new figure, what is not to like.

I will follow this thread with interest and will certainly use Dawn 2 when launched but, while excited, I am not really impatient which is unusual for me. I think that is because I know the Hivewire team will only launch when it is ready and there is still so much I can do with Dawn SE that I do not have the usual sensation I am missing out.

Very best of luck to the team and I hope Dawn 2 gets the recognition she deserves.

 

[Male-M3dia]

I have to disagree with this, what we have now is fine in fact there are some zones I for one could wish to see added but I sure don't want to see any removed.

You're free to disagree, but as a content developer, it's far too many. You can reduce the number of material zones and still have areas for finger and toenails and lipstick. The collar does not need to be its own zone for example. That can be merged into either the arms or the torso.

 

[Chris]

To make unique characters, you have make your own shape and details; for a character that's already detailed means you have to remove all those details before you can start. A generic figure is an easier starting point as it reduces what you have to do before you start making characters. On my experiment on Dusk (that I posted in the Art forum) where I made a unique shape and head, I had to rip apart basically the whole mesh before I started. A generic base mesh makes a figure content creator-friendly, and I concur with 3D Universe to make the base more generic. Doesn't mean you don't have to have provide a character more detailed with the release. Also providing dials for end users to make the mouth, nose eyes, iris, pupils smaller, as moving them up and down would be helpful for end users. None of that was in the morphs for Dusk, so I had to do it manually in zbrush (with added cleanup) which was a pain.

Also reducing the number a material zones would make it content creator-friendly as well, there are way too many to work with now. Also I don't think you need add many polys to the figure, there's enough to make characters. If anything remove them from either the torso and definitely the ears; you could probably take polys from the ears and put them on the face if anything.

Yeah, good input. We definitely want to make her as friendly as we can for content creators. We want folks to be able to have a good predictable and solid experience in both Poser and DS. I really don't know what added bells and whistles we'll be able to incorporate as far as face rigging or chips or chunks, we'll definitely need Paul's input there.

I'll start redirecting and cutting up the mesh today. Don't think the face and head will change all that much, but more so in the body especially the torso. I'll just have to see what happens when I get to it.

 

[kobaltkween]

I have to disagree with this, what we have now is fine in fact there are some zones I for one could wish to see added but I sure don't want to see any removed.

You're free to disagree, but as a content developer, it's far too many. You can reduce the number of material zones and still have areas for finger and toenails and lipstick. The collar does not need to be its own zone for example. That can be merged into either the arms or the torso.

IMHO, if it uses the same UV map, unless it's really a different material (like nails and flesh or metal and leather), I don't see a benefit in material zone. Masks work much better for 2nd skin clothes and such, and 2nd skin clothes are typically about 100x's more rare than characters that require character creators to copy materials to two or more material zones. Even lips generally don't work well with sharp edges, and are mostly handled with maps and materials shared between face and lips. Most of the time, even the separate lip zone just wastes character creators' time. But that's just my vote. I can see both sides. Certainly more toony treatments might find the zones useful.

That said, I'd be more than willing to make and give away any kind of masks for Dawn 2.0 people ask for if it will mean just one mat zone per Dawn 1.0 material group. Production and testing would be significantly streamlined.

 

[carmen indorato]

We'll see what we can do. As far as the articulation that will be handled in our rigging. If you're looking for some Spinous processes to be apparent, we can do so much with the current mesh, otherwise that might be best handled with normal maps.

I like your thought process however. We'll certainly keep this in mind.

Thanks! Nice to know I contribute from time to time.. Sometimes I feel like a leech taking and giving nothing back. I guess asking good questions and/or good requests offers me some contributing presence.

 

[carmen indorato]

I may have missed and seems i did but how is this new girl going to map different than the original? Will anything I invest in for SE be useable for Dawn 2 (clothes, textures, morphs, etc.)? (to be honest I am not expecting a "YES" answer here just hoping!).

 

[Hornet3d]

I may have missed and seems i did but how is this new girl going to map different than the original? Will anything I invest in for SE be useable for Dawn 2 (clothes, textures, morphs, etc.)? (to be honest I am not expecting a "YES" answer here just hoping!).

Earlier Chris said that the existing UV layout will work on Dawn 2 so textures should be OK. It was also stated that there will be and SE morph so I think the answer to your question is that your investment will be safe, but I am open to be corrected as I would not like to mislead anyone.

 

[carmen indorato]

Thanks Hornet!

 

[Chris]

Oh, thanks so much for the kind words! I'm definitely looking forward to Dawn 2.0.

And yeah, I've seen a whole lot of FUD around Dawn, as well as other post-V4 Poser figures. I think by far _the_ most dangerous element of the Poser community specifically, and the content community in general, is our loss of the sense that we're all artists. People feel very free to bash products in ways they would _never_ post to a gallery image. That just discourages creativity and helps no one. I'm all for constructive criticism, and being honest, but I don't think anyone is helped by feedback with the words "ugly" or "crap."

Oh, and another very minor thing that I would find really helpful for dynamic clothes: a default pose A pose rather than a default T. Pants are easier to model with the legs a bit further apart (though Dawn is actually pretty good in that respect), but more importantly, shoulders for lots of clothes will behave much more accurately if they're modeled they way they're sewn, which is generally a little down. But that's really a rigging issue. While arms down poses are so much more prevalent than arms up that I could imagine an A default making more sense for optimal performance, I could totally see why T would just be better, too. I wouldn't be surprised if this was an impossible request. I just figure it can't hurt to ask, especially since I've recently seen more and more figures outside the content community use a default A pose.

Agreed, FUD stacked on top of more FUD. Ridiculous.

And yes, folks can get very brutal, and then say, hey I'm just being honest. Some of that subjective honesty is often better kept to oneself. After all, honesty is not necessarily truth. And since beauty is in the eye of the beholder, truth rarely enters into the equation. There are artists on several levels of learning, and creativity can be a very very fragile thing. So yeah, we should give each other some slack more often than not.

I've thought about the A pose also, and agree that most poses have arms down. But then, I believe we already have some standard expectations out there, in this market, and also with Reallusion's market, and I think conformity in this situation can only help us with adoption of Dawn and aid with conversion of content, don't you think?

 

[Chris]

Speaking of the rigging and latest and greatest:
what I really like in recent figures are face chips (Poser) and extensive PowerPose templates (DS). Both allow more fine-grain control and greatly reduce hunt-parameter-in-long-list-how-it-could-be-named time.
Next topic is more controversial - coordinated morphs for eyes and orbits included with LaFemme. (I include here bone translations that could be baked into morphs.) At least, I'd like to see something comparable as an MR morph pack from the start or near from the start. Ability to easy bring perfectly-symmetrical CGI face to life with a bit of a living beings asymmetry is just too good to be passed for me.

Again, solid input here. I personally know nothing about the face chip thing or even the Power pose templates for Studio. Having said that I know Paul does, so I'll defer to his input on how to handle that tech.

Asymmetry morphs would be a great addition for us.

 

[Chris]

I disliked Dawn on the first release, something I have made no secret about, but at least I did give the figure a try. Some of my discontent was to do with the initial lack of morphs and a face that was quite distinctive. When Dawn SE came out I gave that a try as well, despite the large number of people who were quick to dismiss all Dawn figures. It is almost a though Dawn SE was a completely new figure way better then anything I was using at the time.

I have some very limited skills but I was quickly able to create a figure that I suggest does not show her Dawn origins very much, if at all. The expressions were so much easier to create and far more realistic than I was producing at the time. I have been using Dawn SE since launch and still see posts today stating that she does not work in Poser and for that I feel markedly sad as there are many people missing out on the potential Dawn has.

Hivewire3D may be a small team but they produce some stunning figures, not only that, but as this thread shows there is a strong desire to improve but not throw away all that has gone before, the plans for the UV maps are an example of this. A great figure with long term commitment and a real interest to understand what users and vendors are looking for in a new figure, what is not to like.

I will follow this thread with interest and will certainly use Dawn 2 when launched but, while excited, I am not really impatient which is unusual for me. I think that is because I know the Hivewire team will only launch when it is ready and there is still so much I can do with Dawn SE that I do not have the usual sensation I am missing out.

Very best of luck to the team and I hope Dawn 2 gets the recognition she deserves.

Beautiful and encouraging things said here. We all appreciate those comments of support.

We'll certainly do our best with Dawn and unlike the first one we dont have to hide it to the public for fear of repercussions or what have you. This time it will most certainly be better with input from people who care enough to share, just like in our many other WIP threads.