New all-star Poser-only figure released!

[Miss B]

Speaking of LaFemme, here's the render I just finished, this time using the SSS w/Refracted Eyes materials.

Soooo, How Do I Look?

 

[Ken1171]

Speaking of LaFemme, here's the render I just finished, this time using the SSS w/Refracted Eyes materials.
Soooo, How Do I Look?

I think the dress suits her well. ^_____^

 

[DanaTA]

Nice work!

Dana

 

[Miss B]

Thanks Ken and Dana.

Yes Ken, it's the type of dress that would suit any really feminine looking gal. I have it for both V4 and Dawn, though in this case, the V4 dress fit a bit better before running it through the Cloth Room.

 

[Deleted member 325]

I have to say I find some of what I am reading fascinating. I was not planning to post in this thread for a number of reasons, but was sort of dragged into it. As some may recall I announced almost a year ago I was not actively supporting Poser 11 for a variety of reasons and may or may not support whatever comes next (Poor tech support from SM, The License Manager, Hostility in the community, etc...). I am glad to see that someone developing for Poser is at least trying to up the game and implement techniques that have been in the industrial/professional CGI world for a long time.

This is why I find it fascinating. The whole discussion on the facial rigging system of La Femme (Using Ghost Bones/Body Handles) is something I have advocated on figures for a very long time. I brought it up more than once back on various forums in '07-'12 (especially after the release of Star as she had similar techniques). I brought it up for Figures, Clothing, Hair...I have always loved the use of such extra bones for enhanced Posing, and this is common practice in high end game and cinematic 3D figure design (in fact it is Lightwave Rigging 102). Yet, for the last 12 years, every time I have brought it up, I have been shouted down, harangued, and decried as unacknowledged, overly complicating things, etc... In fact I have for the last several years consider this a technique lost to Poserdom as although it was popular with conforming Hair and Clothing for the Mil3 figures and part of the lifespan of Mil4, I have seen fewer and fewer vendors continue using it, and those I have asked have just basically stated it's too much effort (which I find a disturbing lack of pride in workmanship). Now, some of you can see how useful it is first hand, and consider this, a few more such handles not just on the face for expressions - but on the arms for Biceps and Legs for Quads, the chest for pecks... sure you can achieve some of the effects with morphs, but not as much and it ends up being more resource heavy than a ghost bone/body handle would. Perhaps if I ever get time to work and experiment again I will add such bones to a figure I like (Imagine Ruckus rigged with such facial and Body control bones...) but that might be a long time in coming (and I am not a great figure rigger so... there is that).

Essentially I have always looked at 3D figures as sort of "Digital Action Figures". If you have ever been an Action Figure or Anime Real Model collector, you will agree that more points of articulation is better. In fact, when I was still collecting real figures (before health issues led to disability and lack of funds) what always put the High Grade models worlds ahead of the cheap runoffs were how many points of articulation it had and how many accessories were available for it. My 2 biggest anime collections were Neon Genesis Evangelion, and Macross. For Evangelion I only had the Sega Real Models, but I had long wanted one of the ultra high end Kaiyodo figures with over 20 points of articulation (as opposed to the Real Model's 9 or so) however the Kaiyodo figures ranged from $60 to $100 back then and were import only, where as I could pick up the real models almost anywhere (even Walmart) at about $12 to $15 each. I know, you're thinking "he's off on a rant" but I am trying to illustrate a point that is generally easier to consider and grasp on real, solid objects and often not considered in 3D. Realistically, on any vertebrate animal, each vertebrae in the spine should be articulated with restricted movements for realistic bending, but I get that would be very time consuming and impractical (actually each vertebrae and each disk should be a separate control bone...but we would be in the super-High Detail $500 to $1000 model/figure range). My overall point though is that More Articulation is better. Collectors want it in their collectable action figures - so why does it seem that the majority of the 3D hobbyist community has been so resistant to it over the last decade?

I also find the discussion of Topology amusing for similar reasons - as it is another topic I have long been decried for voicing views over Poly usage versus Poly Count. Both are critical to a good figure, be it a human or a space ship. What few models I did sell back in the 90's to a catalog had very, very strict standards that at least 70-80% of the Poser content I have would have failed for improper topology or extraneous points/overlapping geometry/etc... I agree with Ken, topology should make sense and conform to major shapes and curves of the type of object - polygonal lines and layout should be clean and flow smoothly. Strict Grid Topology is wasteful and hurtful to resource use and overall functionality and versatility of a mesh. A strict grid topology will work for some things (boxes come to mind) but definitely not organics. This is a concept that is taught in introductory level modeling and 3D design college courses and used by high end industry pros such as Pixar - so I am shocked to see some content authors actually arguing the opposite of this. I get not all of us content authors can afford to go to high end 3D design schools or classes (heck when I learned it was developer course from manufacturers as it was not widely available in colleges near me...and it cost a small fortune at that) - but the information is out there in the common public market now and I urge anyone interested in modeling to look into it. The two things that make or break model quality is Topology and Detail. Details should be modeled to a good extent and not rely exclusively on Displacement, Bump, or Normal maps. I have often called for greater detail modeling and less reliance on Displacement and normal maps for some of what exists.

The only reasons not enough Cinema quality content exists for Poser is that not enough vendors are willing to invest that level of time and effort, and not enough end users are likely to pay what would be a fair price for it. It has nothing to do with limitations of the software - as the software is far more versatile than many know or will ever use. I simply wish I had more time and these days motivation to explore some of my experiments further and create some of the products I would like. It is hard to do with aging computers and slower machines lacking memory. Right now a lot of what I do is more for the sake of creating, and what modeling and rigging projects I am involved in are more for the art of it than a deadline or sale - but this is not true of most content authors - we all have bills to pay.

I hope La Femme is the beginning of the content market being taken into newer, more mature techniques and that it will inspire and flourish.

 

[phdubrov]

 

[carmen indorato]

interesting input kage, thanks.
though i have been a poser user since version 4 i am a hubyist and know just enough 3d to seem stupid so i avoid tech discourse. but there is enough of a desire to understand for me to read along.
things like topology and grids etc go beyond my brain matter i just want to be able to get a nce realistic model for a decent low price with a lot of functionality and support products to dress it up and make it viable and versatile and play. whatever or whomever does that for me is my hero....or heroine!
So is it the poser user community or the poser content creator community that has poopoo'd your plight for all these years?

 

[Deleted member 325]

interesting input kage, thanks.
though i have been a poser user since version 4 i am a hubyist and know just enough 3d to seem stupid so i avoid tech discourse. but there is enough of a desire to understand for me to read along.
things like topology and grids etc go beyond my brain matter i just want to be able to get a nce realistic model for a decent low price with a lot of functionality and support products to dress it up and make it viable and versatile and play. whatever or whomever does that for me is my hero....or heroine!

I understand, especially having limited resources. Though as vendor and user both I realize how much extra work some things involve and if a creator does not feel the market will pay a fair price they will likely not put in extra effort. A figure with all the extra articulation I am mentioning and with exceptional topology should easily be in the $50 to $100 range, but I do not see the market or community as it is supporting it.

So is it the poser user community or the poser content creator community that has poopoo'd your plight for all these years?

To be fair, it's been a mix.

 

[LisaB]

I went back and edited my "things I know to be true" post from the other day if you're interested.

New all-star Poser-only figure released!

Enjoy creating, everyone!

 

[Mythocentric]

A quick note for the content creators given that I am strictly a user rather than a modeller. I.E. The spirit is willing but the brain cells have decided they'd rather sit back and watch the world drift by. In addition to the Webinar, Charles Taylor (Nerd3D) has produced a series of tutorials for LaFemme over at Rendo. I think there are five so far. Hope you may find them helpful if you haven't already spotted them!

 

[phdubrov]

@Mythocentric thank you!

 

[Ken1171]

In addition to the Webinar, Charles Taylor (Nerd3D) has produced a series of tutorials for LaFemme over at Rendo.

That might come handy, thanks! ^^

 

[Mythocentric]

@Mythocentric thank you!

That might come handy, thanks! ^^

You are welcome! Actually, I would be interested to hear how she affects the creator's workflow, positive or negative, etc., given that she is a new and somewhat, unorthodox figure. I appreciate that it is early days yet but given that many people are looking to her as representing a sea-change in Poser's fortunes, it would be interesting to see things from all perspectives. Regards!

 

[Ken1171]

@Mythocentric I have posted a clothing conversion I did from V4 to LF earlier in this thread, commenting on the experience. In general it was good, but I have to try something bigger than a bikini.

 

[caisson]

Notes based on my experience as I can appreciate that there will be some unfamiliarity with Poser’s multi-resolution morphs, so this is for info in case anyone finds it useful.

The topology most suited to sculpt a mesh across multiple levels of subdivision is laid out in a square grid-like arrangement (as far as possible), with all faces as equal in area as possible, and an absolute minimum of poles*. This offers the greatest flexibility for sculpting by avoiding localised density changes which can make a mesh incredibly hard to work with after one or two levels of subD. So the less defined the starting topology, the better.

However, the topology most suited to a mesh built for articulation is one where the edge flow supports the required bending (and then bony landmarks followed by muscle detail) - so highly specific topology is better.

Poser supports multi-resolution morphing (I have a strong dislike of the term HD morphs for Poser, it seems meaningless to me). Given the way that Poser handles skinning (using polygon grouping to break a mesh internally for articulation) the best way that I know of is to use Zbrush and the GoZ link when creating multi-res morphs. Obviously this is not going to be something all creators or users will be able or willing to do, but choosing a strongly grid-like quad topology over a mesh with more specific cuts is the best option for this workflow - and from his posts, that’s the workflow that blackhearted uses.

I like both Dawn and La Femme, there are advantages and disadvantages to both - and both figures have a solid technical rationale for their topology. Whichever is ‘better’ though is going to depend on the user, their workflow and end use.

*Poles are used to change the direction or flow of edges within a mesh which is unavoidable (unless the mesh is a flat plane) but should be controlled as in a subD workflow any vertex with a valence (number of edges running into it) higher than 5 will cause serious problems at higher subD levels - including noticeable shading errors - due to localised pinching of the mesh.

--------

Actually, the ability to create morphs on higher subD levels combined with relatively non-specific topology could make it possible to create detailed skin tight clothing with the depth of actual geometry out of morphs and map overlays. No poke through, ever. Shoes would be even better, but that could be a little ambitious - one day I may even get round to trying it out


Quickie render - love OOT's Ammy hair too ...

 

[Miss B]

@Mythocentric I have posted a clothing conversion I did from V4 to LF earlier in this thread, commenting on the experience. In general it was good, but I have to try something bigger than a bikini.

For me, it's LF's glutes as Gabe's usual figure style has a very slim figure with a large butt, not that I'm complaining, as I have his Girl Next Door 4.2 for V4, and like her, but even in the Cloth Room the past couple of days, and getting dynamic cloth made for other characters to fit her, takes some work.

 

[Ken1171]

For me, it's LF's glutes as Gabe's usual figure style has a very slim figure with a large butt, not that I'm complaining, as I have his Girl Next Door 4.2 for V4, and like her, but even in the Cloth Room the past couple of days, and getting dynamic cloth made for other characters to fit her, takes some work.

That's the usual when going from one figure shape to another. For instance, you may noticed V4's "Bad Girl" high heels shoes in my render had the straps looking HUGE, probably because V4 has bigger feet.

Obviously this is not going to be something all creators or users will be able or willing to do, but choosing a strongly grid-like quad topology over a mesh with more specific cuts is the best option for this workflow - and from his posts, that’s the workflow that blackhearted uses.

Thanks for the info, Caisson! Finally an explanation for the grid-like topology on LF. Now I at least know why. I have posted my own sculpting experiment earlier in this thread, using just the base resolution with the Morphing Tool. I have tried to reproduce one of the body sculpts I did for my "Body Type" series for Dawn, and in good part it worked, but fine definition was lost. I would have to subdivide to be able to get the missing details, but Poser performance suffers considerably with that. It's better done in zBrush, like you said.

This is a good case-study because Dawn gets better sculpting definition without the need for subdivision or more expensive software, and that's thanks to her topology. Due to performance issues in Poser, I would prefer not to subdivide if I don't have to. That's why topology is important to me. Perhaps grid-like topology would make more sense in zBrush static sculptures than in a dynamic environment like Poser? I often start sculpting in zBrush out of a cube or sphere with uniform grid topology, but only because it makes sense in that program.

Nonetheless, it's good to finally understand the reason behind the decision for that. Thanks for sharing. ^^

 

[Mythocentric]

For me, it's LF's glutes as Gabe's usual figure style has a very slim figure with a large butt, not that I'm complaining, as I have his Girl Next Door 4.2 for V4, and like her, but even in the Cloth Room the past couple of days, and getting dynamic cloth made for other characters to fit her, takes some work.

A quick and easy workaround for dynamic clothing Miss B. I usually start with 30 frames with the final pose and figure morphs applied on frame 20 with 10 frames left for cloth settling. For LaFemme I just apply her Thin morph on frame 1 (to the base figure) which takes care of most poke-through issues with draping, particularly with V4 (who is a skinny figure anyway) clothing. For extreme cases, i.e., tight-fitting clothing I've had success setting x and y scales on her body to 70-73% on frame 1. In both cases, the simulation does most of the work and usually doesn't need any further work. In fact, the only problem I've had with clothing mesh breaking on dynamic cloth so far was on a dress actually designed for LaFemme but that was mostly down to me moving the clothing too far away from the parameters set by the vendor!

 

[Ken1171]

For LaFemme I just apply her Thin morph on frame 1 (to the base figure) which takes care of most poke-through issues with draping, particularly with V4 (who is a skinny figure anyway) clothing.

Oh yes, that's is a great idea! Another way is to simply scale the body part down using the individual ScaleX, ScaleY, and ScaleZ dials, depending on the body group. For any parts of the torso, it's just ScaleX and ScaleZ. For arms, it's ScaleY and ScaleZ. Those dials can be animated in the timeline to fit the clothing in 20 frames like you have suggested, without requiring any morphs, and can also be adjusted to scale as much as needed to fit inside the clothing.

Yet another way is to use the Morphing Tool to flatten the figure's poking areas, and then animate the morph back to zero on the last frame of the fitting. With this you only need to worry about the parts that poke through.

 

[Miss B]

A quick and easy workaround for dynamic clothing Miss B. I usually start with 30 frames with the final pose and figure morphs applied on frame 20 with 10 frames left for cloth settling. For LaFemme I just apply her Thin morph on frame 1 (to the base figure) which takes care of most poke-through issues with draping, particularly with V4 (who is a skinny figure anyway) clothing. For extreme cases, i.e., tight-fitting clothing I've had success setting x and y scales on her body to 70-73% on frame 1. In both cases, the simulation does most of the work and usually doesn't need any further work. In fact, the only problem I've had with clothing mesh breaking on dynamic cloth so far was on a dress actually designed for LaFemme but that was mostly down to me moving the clothing too far away from the parameters set by the vendor!

I like your ideas Mytho. I often set up my pose in frame 20 as well. Have you tried using drape frames? I've tried that too, though not for LF, and it sometimes helps with something that wasn't made for the character I'm trying to sim it to.