Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2024 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Exactly. For most users the most efficient means is making a normal map. As Josh mentioned, it's very quick to export the map from zbrush than the 3 versions of a morph for the HD tool. Users already have the tools to make what they need without the pitfalls that need to be watched out for when using the HD tool. If you can't make a low poly morph with a normal map, you certainly won't be able to use the tool as it requires that first big step of making that low poly morph. While there are results that people see from using the tool, with all the issues that needs to be watched out for, it's not ready for mainstream use by most users and certainly not set up that way.
I see several issues with what you're saying here. First of all, PAs put a lot of time and effort into their products, not to mention the rigorous QA testing that DAZ puts these products through before they hit the market place for you all to enjoy. You are free to purchase them at your own discretion, how many or how little as you would like.
Second, if you're going to take the time to "edit" someone else's product, why not just make one of your own?
In the end, you're paying artists to make this stuff for you so that you can make your own art in return. Of course, it's impossible to fill every request that folks who are not vendors have, but given the extreme and wide variety of products available here in the DAZ marketplace, it seems to me that the possibilites are just about endless as to what could be done with them given a bit of thought and imagination.
Many users eventually become vendors themselves over this very issue. Myself included. There was a time when I felt that the marketplace was void of the kind of creatures I wanted to see, that in turn led me to want to create my own.
Just some food for thought.
/updated and edited the post several times to phrase it more precisely.
To be more precise on my motivations:
My goal is to create images.
I need to edit stock models in order to make the content look unique.
That does not mean that the licensed content looks bad or that the published artists did not do a great job. (!)
Licensed content in many cases just does not look exactly like the customer or the clients wants it to look.
Therefore licensed content is a work in progess that then is edited to create an image.
The whole idea why I spend money on licensed content is to save time so I do not have to do everything from scratch.
-> I do not share the notion of some other Zbrush users that you do need to create everything from scratch.
I find creating 3D images is a team effort. Everyone has their own speciality. The work of each person is part of the final image. I feel comfortable editing licensed 3d content of other artists who did a great job.
- - -
Then why is DAZ 3D limiting my creativity instead of fostering it by making sure DAZ Studio is updated with more tools to edit content?
Art communities used to be about creativity and sharing ideas and tools so everyone can improve.
Currently DAZ 3D does exactly the opposite.
It divides the community between customers who simply pay for products and artists who have access to all tools to create.
1) How are customers supposed to improve their art if they do not have access to the same tools?
Creating content is not the same as creating images.
If I understand it correctly even if I would join DAZ 3D and create products as a published artist I would not be allowed to use the existing PA only "HD morph tool" for any commercial image projects.
Or are DAZ 3D published artists actually allowed to use the "HD morph tool" for commercial image projects?
It seems wrong from an ethical point of view to force customers to join the DAZ3D artists team just to get access to all the necessary tools to create images in the best possible quality.
- - -
In any case the original poster asked for
- greater ZBrush compatibility
or alternatively
- similar shaping tools directly inside DAZ Studio.
Updating the software on a regular basis to grant the paying customers more options to edit content should be a core responsibility of any software provider.
- - -
This is a crucial point:
The published artists got paid by the customers.
The customers have the right given by the EULA to edit the content as they please for the purpose of creating two dimensional works.
http://www.daz3d.com/eula
If for any reason published artists do not want customers to edit their licensed content they should not submit it to DAZ3D.
- - -
- - -
The underlying questions:
In all posts in which paying customers are asking for better solutions to edit licensed content official DAZ3D published artists show up and tell the customers that they are wrong asking for such tools.
-> 2) Why would DAZ 3D published artists who got paid to use their licensed content not want customers to add details with dedicated tools?
-> 3) Why do you care if customers get access to tools to make the licensed content look more like it is the vision of the customers or client?
-> 4) What is your motivation to keep arguing with customers who desperately are asking for tools so they can work the same way as you allready can?
-> 5) Can you understand the notion that some customers may actually feel insulted if you tell them that they are not allowed access to the tools because it is "too complicated" for them?
There a lot there, but as far as editing content: You mean you can't export the HD obj, make the edit and save as a normal map then load it back in? The EULA issue is solved if that's what your concern is, because you already have the tools to do what you wish, as mentioned before.
The point is with every topic is that you can't have access to the tool if you aren't a PA, and all your issues are solved effiently by using normal maps to achieve detail rather than asking for a tool that you don't know how it works, just only the fact that you don't have it.
Normal maps are what the end users need to use rather than argue for tools not ready for the general public. You are already able to add detail to your figures efficiently and quickly using the normal map method.
+1
Normal maps are really a LOT more powerful than you are giving them credit for. You can do anything in zbrush, bake it to a normal and have a fantastic looking product!!!
I read your posts.
I answered your questions.
I tried to stick to the topic of this thread as much as I can.
I posted examples about the benefits of using morphs aka blend-shapes in another thread:
http://www.daz3d.com/forums/discussion/comment/2004886/#Comment_2004886
- - -
I am still interested to actually get answers to the five questions asked in my last post.
Without those answers I would need to resort to speculation . And that is not welcome here.
- - -
-> I will wait and see
- if anyone is every going to give an honest answer about the true motivations affecting the decisions made behind the scenes
- if DAZ3D will be able and willing to provide a solution for improved Zbrush support or adding similar tools to DAZ Studio directly in the form of a plugin
- - -
The answer to those five questions is simply this: The forum is a place to share information so that customers can use content sold here the best way possible. We've offered solutions to your questions to how to add detail to your content in addition to examples on how to accomplish it. We've also said how you don't need a tool that you don't have access to add detail to your art and it's false to think that this tool is the only way that you need to do it and misleading to others to argue that if you don't have access to the tool you simply can't work. You can, and many times you have been told that you can get do this without some tool that you don't have any information about. You do have information on how to do this, without speculation. PAs have been making morphs on low poly figures before the HD tool even existed, as well as other people using other programs such as Maya or Zbrush. It seems that more people are arguing for something they don't have when they've had information on how to do this for years.
Normals are your only option for the forseeable future and the information that has been given multiple times is where you should start. That's why this information is repeatedly presented to you on a forum meant to share information on how to use DAZ content. People want to know how to add detail to figures, the answer on how to do that has been given multiple times and is the best way for end users to do it efficiently.
That's why we answer and that's the information you should work from so you can get details in your content now and not wait longer than you need to.
Hope that answers your question and you finally begin to incorporate normal maps into your work flow. This is to encourage you and others to learn to use industry standard techniques that's been proven for years and share this information so you can use the content in the most efficient way possible.
It answers my question in so far...
If there are now further questions I will leave it to others.
I use normal maps for objects in the background to save VRAM.
But as long as normal maps are not casting proper shadows I will not use them for any clearly visible objects in the foreground with GPU render engines.
Based on my own experiments since 2013 better suited for objects in the visible foreground are:
-> actual modeled geometry
-> displacement maps for static objects
-> high subdivision level morphs for human figures
Sometimes you can even get away with using a bump map in a displacement slot. (!)
We are currently right in the middle of the process of figuring out which shader setups and what kind of maps work best for GPU render engines.
At the moment of writing developers are working on improving displacement in GPU render engines.
-> When you create content you also need to consider how you are going to render it!
- - -
Given the issues and pitfalls using the HD tool (and there are issues using HD Morphs themselves), normal maps are what the end user is going to have to work with. I know you don't agree but it is acceptable and that's what you'll have to use. Or you'll have to make sure you have enough resources to use displacement or use a different figure that has higher polys. The HD tool isn't part of the solution for you right now. It is what it is. Or you use low poly and that's it.
By the way, correct me if I'm wrong but the OP said
But that' already possible? You just can't reimport the highres mesh back in. Maybe that's what he implicitly meant but at first glance it seems the whole debate here is beside the point a bit.
We are indeed so far offtopic by now. And I realize that I did not help the matter...
Since we are allready down that rabbit hole...
Does this mean DAZ3D will stop releasing HD add ons?
I was actually under the impression that which ever person was doing the HD Add-On was getting better at it.
Darius 7 HD Add - On is a huge leap forward.
http://www.daz3d.com/darius-7-hd-add-on
As have other figure shapes and Add - Ons that have been released lately...
Yes that's possible, that's how you would make the normal map.
No, there will be more HD addons, because as I said, they know the pitfalls to do it correctly. Letting go into the wild would create the prolems.
Thank you. That is great news!
I have sort of skimmed through much of this discussion but I see a lot of people asking for more customization options. The base morphs add a lot of those. You want to make a limb shorter, that morph is in the body morph set, you want to make someone heavy, that morph is there. Same for trying to create someone that is x, or y, or whatever. Yes, the additional characters are cool and can create a complete package but the dials that are provided in those initial sets can create a very wide variety of people in a short period of time.
Keep in mind when I say that I'm not being specific, just DAZ will most likely keep using the tool inhouse since they know the pitfalls on how to use it to make products, as well as PAs using the tools in their products as well (and it going through QA to make sure there are no issues). This isn't a new development.
I think the issue is that certain types of morphs don't exist, or aren't detailed enough for some people if they do. Certain folks out there believe that the level of detail that they want requires working with a more detailed mesh to start with or they can't get what they would like to see. Others feel that thoae details need to be there, even if they normally won't be seen.
This is true. But, most of the time, the HD morph is not needed. I am not saying it isn't awesome to be able to do that, but most times it is not needed. You don't need capability to do a shorter limb. Dial spins can get you a huge portion of the way and, often, you can dial in a little bit of another character HD to make it what you want.
When sculpting, it is usual to start at low resolution, and gradually increase the resolution as it is required; if you do it too quickly, you need to start again; or spend a lot of time trying to fix, and then invariably: starting again.
Depends on what tool you're using; zBrush has this nifty feature called "dynamic subdivision" that gives you the look of a subdivided mesh, buy not the actual point/polygon count of one.
If i understand what it does correctly, in affect, that is what it does.
Yes, but also, as this applies to HD morphs in particular, the mesh will expand, so often time you'll have to go back and fix parts of the HD morph after it's already frozen in place. This is the kind of stuff that a pedestrian user if DS would have a difficult time dealing with, and that's why it's not out there in the wild for anyone to use or buy.
Hi Josh,
You say that "the mesh will expand", could you clarify that statement. Are you saying that using sub division makes the mesh larger in x,y,z coordinates?
Josh meant exactly that and happens for each HD morph and is additive. This is why HD isn't a one step process and it's quicker for hobbyists to use normal maps as they don't intersect clothing and props. This is also why you start with a low polygon mesh and learn how to sculpt low polygons.
Male-M3dia, You wrote "This is also why you start with a low polygon mesh and learn how to sculpt low polygons.". Could you explain why working with a low polygon mesh would result in no or less problem with an expanding (X,Y,Z axis) mesh.
To me, it seems that the issue of learning good sculpting skills in low or high poly meshes is a separate one from dealing with the technical issue that going through a particular workflow results in an artifact such as an expanding mesh which then has to be corrected or accounted for in some way. Granted, if you don't have both good sculpting skills and know how to correct the technical artifact you will have a problem, but the two issues seem to be separate. Maybe some clever programmer will find a way to automatically correct or eliminate the technical artifact, but sculpting skills cannot be provided by a programmer.
The low resolution mesh is the base and cage for subdivision, so the mesh doesn't expand. Subdivision adds polygons and move the mesh outward with each subsequent level. Subd 1 moves the mesh but not so much that you need corrections, and clothing fits Genesis. When you get to subs 3 the mesh will expand to the point you will need to manually go over the entire mesh to make sure it's not poking through. Thus you need the base mesh as a guide to get them morph working. You have to make you low poly morph first otherwise it will not work; you can't start with a high poly mesh. So you are going through the same steps but it's easier for the hobbyist to make the normal maps as that quickly gets you started and you don't have to deal with issues such as this.
What Male-M3dia is saying applies to anything you make, not just character morphs; I've seen it firsthand making clothing meshes in zBrush, since the best way to get good details in clothing is to work at high resolution and remesh to lower resolution.
I wouldn't remesh to lower resolution as the prociess woudl thange the mesh from the previous version., then generate your normal maps. I would make your lower level mesh first then subdivide to add the detail in the fgure.
True, but don't forget that it tends to complain if you don't drop back at least one level before making the normals and any other detail maps you want. Also, for fabric clothing items, you actually want some asymmetric details.
But those still need to be done when the low poly morph is finished. asymmetric details are done in your base mesh before you subdivide for detail.