Loading...
> >

why does 8 look like 3? why lower poly, when we had the decimator?

2»

Comments

  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 3,581
    edited June 2017
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Remember that part of the reduction is the removal of the lash and tear geometry

    A valid point Richard, but it doesn't answer the question of why is there a move towards less geometry (available to the normal user) rather than more. Computing power via GPU's has increased dramatically in recent years, easily able to cope with doubling the number of polygons, or trippling it to bring the Genesis figures back to the level of V4. Our computers coped with V4/M4 well enough back when V4/M4 were new. Modern computers would easily cope. I don't dispute that sub-division on the fly is a more efficient method than fixed polygon figures, but I find this unacceptable when it comes at the cost of the vast majority of users not having access to sub-division when it comes to making their own morphs. One can hardly be blamed for thinking that DAZ are creating a two tier system. The normal user who has to make do with an ever deminishing base resolution and the elite users (PAs) who have access to as much sub-division as they want or feel is necessary.

    An advantage is that it is possible to get better bends by deforming a lower polygon mesh and then SubDing it, compared to working with a higher rsolution base mesh - for example, it avoids crunching on the inside of a bend.

    Yes, that's great. I like that kind of improvement, but not when it comes at the cost of reducing the ability of the average user to create high resolution morphs by sculpting the mesh, using his/her prefered technique. What is the point of making morphs work better, if you can't make as nice morphs.

    My general point is; by all means reduce the base rez, but if you are going to do so, then allow ALL users the ability to sculpt morphs at the resolution they wish to use. I understand that the actual difference between G8 polycount and G3 polycount is small, but what concerns me is the constant downward trend combined with no access to sub-division of the hobbyist to sculpt morphs.

     

    Again, no one sculpts at high resolution; we all sculpt at low resolution and add details to that. That low poly cage drives everything in genesis so you can't bypass it. This argument advocates for a beginning step that no one that works with genesis does or is able to do. I'm working on a project now and i'm only making those morphs using the low poly mesh because that's what Genesis will accept for morphs without triggering a vertex error.

    Post edited by Male-M3dia on
  • GenerationXGenerationX Posts: 56

    WalkIt v2 is better you only seen V1 maybe, theres a gap left at top to fit a drop down box for animation which is not programmed, you may see what you ask for one day! there will be no rag doll simulation effect though.. 

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 100,733
    wolf359 said:
    Both G3&G8 are quite easy to animate in external programs

    however neither figure will accept their own BVH motions
    imported back to studio.
    and once exported to FBX you Lose Both HD resolution and JCM's

    Not an issue for those of us who render in external programs via MDDor Alembic
    but the matter of better bends is largely moot for Daz studio users needing to import
    Character motion from outside source to G3/G8.

    I thought we had already pointed you in the diection of the change log noting that work is being done on the BVH importer http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log#4_10_0_21 This isn't released yet, of course, but it is clearly ebing worked on.

  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 3,827
    edited July 2017
    Richard Haseltine said:
    wolf359 said:
    Both G3&G8 are quite easy to animate in external programs

    however neither figure will accept their own BVH motions
    imported back to studio.
    and once exported to FBX you Lose Both HD resolution and JCM's

    Not an issue for those of us who render in external programs via MDDor Alembic
    but the matter of better bends is largely moot for Daz studio users needing to import
    Character motion from outside source to G3/G8.

    I thought we had already pointed you in the diection of the change log noting that work is being done on the BVH importer http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log#4_10_0_21 This isn't released yet, of course, but it is clearly ebing worked on.

     

    Source maintenance Merged changes to Trunk (4.9.4.x) Added a “Limit Translations to Hip” option to the BVH Importer Options dialog BVH import now first attempts to match node names explicitly to seed the node map; if more than one name does not match (e.g., figure root), node map seeding reverts to the previous behavior Added a “Copy Weight From Figure…” action; Node Weight Map Brush tool Context Menu >

     

     

     

    Hi this is very cryptic. I see no mention of the BVH import templates recognizing the additional twist bones of G3/G8 can you clarify the meaning of "reverts to previous behaviour" ???

    Post edited by wolf359 on
  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 3,827
    GenerationX said:

    WalkIt v2 is better you only seen V1 maybe, theres a gap left at top to fit a drop down box for animation which is not programmed, you may see what you ask for one day! there will be no rag doll simulation effect though.. 

    . Yes you have a great walk maker. I use iclone & endorphin to create dynamic motion for Genesis. 1/2. They accept their imported motion........G3/G8. Does not as of June 30 2017
  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 100,733
    wolf359 said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    wolf359 said:
    Both G3&G8 are quite easy to animate in external programs

    however neither figure will accept their own BVH motions
    imported back to studio.
    and once exported to FBX you Lose Both HD resolution and JCM's

    Not an issue for those of us who render in external programs via MDDor Alembic
    but the matter of better bends is largely moot for Daz studio users needing to import
    Character motion from outside source to G3/G8.

    I thought we had already pointed you in the diection of the change log noting that work is being done on the BVH importer http://docs.daz3d.com/doku.php/public/software/dazstudio/4/change_log#4_10_0_21 This isn't released yet, of course, but it is clearly ebing worked on.

     

    Source maintenance Merged changes to Trunk (4.9.4.x) Added a “Limit Translations to Hip” option to the BVH Importer Options dialog BVH import now first attempts to match node names explicitly to seed the node map; if more than one name does not match (e.g., figure root), node map seeding reverts to the previous behavior Added a “Copy Weight From Figure…” action; Node Weight Map Brush tool Context Menu > Hi this is very cryptic. I see no mention of the BVH import templates recognizing the additional twist bones of G3/G8 can you clarify the meaning of "reverts to previous behaviour" ???

    There are, however, two chnages listed - one of which, bone mapping, seems clearly relevant to your concerns.

  • wolf359wolf359 Posts: 3,827

    "There are, however, two chnages listed - one
     of which, bone mapping,
     seems clearly relevant to your concerns."

    It remains to be seen if the changes are relevant
    to the specific issue of the G3/G8 extra twist bone being properly
    recognized.
    The language seems intentionally vague  so we shall see.angel

    Until then I shall continue to warn aspiring animators
    to avoid the G3/G8 figures if they have any plans to import
    externally generated motion data into studio to use on G3/G8

  • Richard HaseltineRichard Haseltine Posts: 100,733
    wolf359 said:

    "There are, however, two chnages listed - one
     of which, bone mapping,
     seems clearly relevant to your concerns."

    It remains to be seen if the changes are relevant
    to the specific issue of the G3/G8 extra twist bone being properly
    recognized.
    The language seems intentionally vague  so we shall see.angel

    Until then I shall continue to warn aspiring animators
    to avoid the G3/G8 figures if they have any plans to import
    externally generated motion data into studio to use on G3/G8

    Well, since the chnage is in the way that bones are mapped to the BVH file it does suggest that the curent system is different, so that may well account for why roun-dripping like this (where the bone names should carry over) is failing now and will hopefully work post-change.

  • attbock01attbock01 Posts: 4

    its the same mesh without nailbeds and lashes.because this G8 have a few lower poligons. but no compatibility to G3.

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    attbock01 said:

    its the same mesh without nailbeds and lashes.because this G8 have a few lower poligons. but no compatibility to G3.

    The only thing from G3 that isn't compatible is the figure morphs; everything else either works without changes, like skin textures and shaders, or minor changes like clothing. And figure morphs have NEVER been directly compatible; that why the late Dimension3D created GenerationX in the first place. The only other thing that I know of that doesn't work with G8 that does with G3 is scripts, and that is because they haven't been updated yet to recognize it.

  • IsaacNewtonIsaacNewton Posts: 1,300
    Male-M3dia said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Remember that part of the reduction is the removal of the lash and tear geometry

    A valid point Richard, but it doesn't answer the question of why is there a move towards less geometry (available to the normal user) rather than more. Computing power via GPU's has increased dramatically in recent years, easily able to cope with doubling the number of polygons, or trippling it to bring the Genesis figures back to the level of V4. Our computers coped with V4/M4 well enough back when V4/M4 were new. Modern computers would easily cope. I don't dispute that sub-division on the fly is a more efficient method than fixed polygon figures, but I find this unacceptable when it comes at the cost of the vast majority of users not having access to sub-division when it comes to making their own morphs. One can hardly be blamed for thinking that DAZ are creating a two tier system. The normal user who has to make do with an ever deminishing base resolution and the elite users (PAs) who have access to as much sub-division as they want or feel is necessary.

    An advantage is that it is possible to get better bends by deforming a lower polygon mesh and then SubDing it, compared to working with a higher rsolution base mesh - for example, it avoids crunching on the inside of a bend.

    Yes, that's great. I like that kind of improvement, but not when it comes at the cost of reducing the ability of the average user to create high resolution morphs by sculpting the mesh, using his/her prefered technique. What is the point of making morphs work better, if you can't make as nice morphs.

    My general point is; by all means reduce the base rez, but if you are going to do so, then allow ALL users the ability to sculpt morphs at the resolution they wish to use. I understand that the actual difference between G8 polycount and G3 polycount is small, but what concerns me is the constant downward trend combined with no access to sub-division of the hobbyist to sculpt morphs.

     

    Again, no one sculpts at high resolution; we all sculpt at low resolution and add details to that. That low poly cage drives everything in genesis so you can't bypass it. This argument advocates for a beginning step that no one that works with genesis does or is able to do. I'm working on a project now and i'm only making those morphs using the low poly mesh because that's what Genesis will accept for morphs without triggering a vertex error.

    My goodness, that's a sweeping statement. "..no one.." I assume you have asked everyone on the planet then. "...we all.." who are we? Your argument seems to suggest that sculpting at low rez is always better than high rez, in any and all situations. Do you recommend sculpting a cube to get the most realistic figure shape? I fully understand that sculpting the base rez character is where to start, but apparently you fail to understand that sculpting at higher rez is useful for adding details and getting subtle curves and shapes not possible at base rez. I understand that details may also be added via displacement maps but you seem to be unable to accept that not everyone prefers that workflow. Are you suggesting that art and creativity must always follow the same fixed route, that there is only one way to produce art? I would say that was a recipe for stagnation.

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    IsaacNewton said:
    Male-M3dia said:

    Again, no one sculpts at high resolution; we all sculpt at low resolution and add details to that. That low poly cage drives everything in genesis so you can't bypass it. This argument advocates for a beginning step that no one that works with genesis does or is able to do. I'm working on a project now and i'm only making those morphs using the low poly mesh because that's what Genesis will accept for morphs without triggering a vertex error.

    My goodness, that's a sweeping statement. "..no one.." I assume you have asked everyone on the planet then. "...we all.." who are we? Your argument seems to suggest that sculpting at low rez is always better than high rez, in any and all situations. Do you recommend sculpting a cube to get the most realistic figure shape? I fully understand that sculpting the base rez character is where to start, but apparently you fail to understand that sculpting at higher rez is useful for adding details and getting subtle curves and shapes not possible at base rez. I understand that details may also be added via displacement maps but you seem to be unable to accept that not everyone prefers that workflow. Are you suggesting that art and creativity must always follow the same fixed route, that there is only one way to produce art? I would say that was a recipe for stagnation.

    It should be obvious who he means, but it seems to have gone right over your head; no PA (or whatever term is used by a particular store for those that broker there) works exclusively with high subdivision meshes when creating content for the Genesis figures. Those with access to the HD Tool know that they need the base mesh to have a foundation for the rest of the work they do on an HD character, since even that tool needs to have an idea of how the mesh has been altered compared to the default mesh before the added details (which don't have to be sculpted at super high subdivision levels) can be considered.

  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 3,581
    edited July 2017
    IsaacNewton said:
    Male-M3dia said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Remember that part of the reduction is the removal of the lash and tear geometry

    A valid point Richard, but it doesn't answer the question of why is there a move towards less geometry (available to the normal user) rather than more. Computing power via GPU's has increased dramatically in recent years, easily able to cope with doubling the number of polygons, or trippling it to bring the Genesis figures back to the level of V4. Our computers coped with V4/M4 well enough back when V4/M4 were new. Modern computers would easily cope. I don't dispute that sub-division on the fly is a more efficient method than fixed polygon figures, but I find this unacceptable when it comes at the cost of the vast majority of users not having access to sub-division when it comes to making their own morphs. One can hardly be blamed for thinking that DAZ are creating a two tier system. The normal user who has to make do with an ever deminishing base resolution and the elite users (PAs) who have access to as much sub-division as they want or feel is necessary.

    An advantage is that it is possible to get better bends by deforming a lower polygon mesh and then SubDing it, compared to working with a higher rsolution base mesh - for example, it avoids crunching on the inside of a bend.

    Yes, that's great. I like that kind of improvement, but not when it comes at the cost of reducing the ability of the average user to create high resolution morphs by sculpting the mesh, using his/her prefered technique. What is the point of making morphs work better, if you can't make as nice morphs.

    My general point is; by all means reduce the base rez, but if you are going to do so, then allow ALL users the ability to sculpt morphs at the resolution they wish to use. I understand that the actual difference between G8 polycount and G3 polycount is small, but what concerns me is the constant downward trend combined with no access to sub-division of the hobbyist to sculpt morphs.

     

    Again, no one sculpts at high resolution; we all sculpt at low resolution and add details to that. That low poly cage drives everything in genesis so you can't bypass it. This argument advocates for a beginning step that no one that works with genesis does or is able to do. I'm working on a project now and i'm only making those morphs using the low poly mesh because that's what Genesis will accept for morphs without triggering a vertex error.

    My goodness, that's a sweeping statement. "..no one.." I assume you have asked everyone on the planet then. "...we all.." who are we? Your argument seems to suggest that sculpting at low rez is always better than high rez, in any and all situations. Do you recommend sculpting a cube to get the most realistic figure shape? I fully understand that sculpting the base rez character is where to start, but apparently you fail to understand that sculpting at higher rez is useful for adding details and getting subtle curves and shapes not possible at base rez. I understand that details may also be added via displacement maps but you seem to be unable to accept that not everyone prefers that workflow. Are you suggesting that art and creativity must always follow the same fixed route, that there is only one way to produce art? I would say that was a recipe for stagnation.

    My statement comes for the topic at hand: Sculpting morphs for genesis. And that's exactly what the PAs and DAZ3D does. You're talking about sculpting details in high poly, but that comes AFTER you make your base morph in LOW poly because that's the steps to do it in genesis. You may not prefer to do that, but that's the ONLY way it's done in genesis. There is no scuplting high poly first in Genesis, there is only a detail step afterwards, so your learning starts there. Most zbrush tutorials on making characters always start with a low poly mesh to get the base done then they switch to high poly for the details afterwards yet their creativity stays intact. Even artists in traditional mediums have a followed workflow to translate their creativity into a desired result. This is no different, except for this is software and it requires specific steps to get started otherwise you get errors, not creativity.

    Post edited by Male-M3dia on
  • IsaacNewtonIsaacNewton Posts: 1,300
    Male-M3dia said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Male-M3dia said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Remember that part of the reduction is the removal of the lash and tear geometry

    A valid point Richard, but it doesn't answer the question of why is there a move towards less geometry (available to the normal user) rather than more. Computing power via GPU's has increased dramatically in recent years, easily able to cope with doubling the number of polygons, or trippling it to bring the Genesis figures back to the level of V4. Our computers coped with V4/M4 well enough back when V4/M4 were new. Modern computers would easily cope. I don't dispute that sub-division on the fly is a more efficient method than fixed polygon figures, but I find this unacceptable when it comes at the cost of the vast majority of users not having access to sub-division when it comes to making their own morphs. One can hardly be blamed for thinking that DAZ are creating a two tier system. The normal user who has to make do with an ever deminishing base resolution and the elite users (PAs) who have access to as much sub-division as they want or feel is necessary.

    An advantage is that it is possible to get better bends by deforming a lower polygon mesh and then SubDing it, compared to working with a higher rsolution base mesh - for example, it avoids crunching on the inside of a bend.

    Yes, that's great. I like that kind of improvement, but not when it comes at the cost of reducing the ability of the average user to create high resolution morphs by sculpting the mesh, using his/her prefered technique. What is the point of making morphs work better, if you can't make as nice morphs.

    My general point is; by all means reduce the base rez, but if you are going to do so, then allow ALL users the ability to sculpt morphs at the resolution they wish to use. I understand that the actual difference between G8 polycount and G3 polycount is small, but what concerns me is the constant downward trend combined with no access to sub-division of the hobbyist to sculpt morphs.

     

    Again, no one sculpts at high resolution; we all sculpt at low resolution and add details to that. That low poly cage drives everything in genesis so you can't bypass it. This argument advocates for a beginning step that no one that works with genesis does or is able to do. I'm working on a project now and i'm only making those morphs using the low poly mesh because that's what Genesis will accept for morphs without triggering a vertex error.

    My goodness, that's a sweeping statement. "..no one.." I assume you have asked everyone on the planet then. "...we all.." who are we? Your argument seems to suggest that sculpting at low rez is always better than high rez, in any and all situations. Do you recommend sculpting a cube to get the most realistic figure shape? I fully understand that sculpting the base rez character is where to start, but apparently you fail to understand that sculpting at higher rez is useful for adding details and getting subtle curves and shapes not possible at base rez. I understand that details may also be added via displacement maps but you seem to be unable to accept that not everyone prefers that workflow. Are you suggesting that art and creativity must always follow the same fixed route, that there is only one way to produce art? I would say that was a recipe for stagnation.

    My statement comes for the topic at hand: Sculpting morphs for genesis. And that's exactly what the PAs and DAZ3D does. You're talking about sculpting details in high poly, but that comes AFTER you make your base morph in LOW poly because that's the steps to do it in genesis. You may not prefer to do that, but that's the ONLY way it's done in genesis. There is no scuplting high poly first in Genesis, there is only a detail step afterwards, so your learning starts there. Most zbrush tutorials on making characters always start with a low poly mesh to get the base done then they switch to high poly for the details afterwards yet their creativity stays intact. Even artists in traditional mediums have a followed workflow to translate their creativity into a desired result. This is no different, except for this is software and it requires specific steps to get started otherwise you get errors, not creativity.

    "..but that's the ONLY way it's done in genesis. There is no scuplting high poly first in Genesis.." That is a business model choice not an artistic one or even primarily a technical one.

  • Daywalker DesignsDaywalker Designs Posts: 3,586
    IsaacNewton said:
    Male-M3dia said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Male-M3dia said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Remember that part of the reduction is the removal of the lash and tear geometry

    A valid point Richard, but it doesn't answer the question of why is there a move towards less geometry (available to the normal user) rather than more. Computing power via GPU's has increased dramatically in recent years, easily able to cope with doubling the number of polygons, or trippling it to bring the Genesis figures back to the level of V4. Our computers coped with V4/M4 well enough back when V4/M4 were new. Modern computers would easily cope. I don't dispute that sub-division on the fly is a more efficient method than fixed polygon figures, but I find this unacceptable when it comes at the cost of the vast majority of users not having access to sub-division when it comes to making their own morphs. One can hardly be blamed for thinking that DAZ are creating a two tier system. The normal user who has to make do with an ever deminishing base resolution and the elite users (PAs) who have access to as much sub-division as they want or feel is necessary.

    An advantage is that it is possible to get better bends by deforming a lower polygon mesh and then SubDing it, compared to working with a higher rsolution base mesh - for example, it avoids crunching on the inside of a bend.

    Yes, that's great. I like that kind of improvement, but not when it comes at the cost of reducing the ability of the average user to create high resolution morphs by sculpting the mesh, using his/her prefered technique. What is the point of making morphs work better, if you can't make as nice morphs.

    My general point is; by all means reduce the base rez, but if you are going to do so, then allow ALL users the ability to sculpt morphs at the resolution they wish to use. I understand that the actual difference between G8 polycount and G3 polycount is small, but what concerns me is the constant downward trend combined with no access to sub-division of the hobbyist to sculpt morphs.

     

    Again, no one sculpts at high resolution; we all sculpt at low resolution and add details to that. That low poly cage drives everything in genesis so you can't bypass it. This argument advocates for a beginning step that no one that works with genesis does or is able to do. I'm working on a project now and i'm only making those morphs using the low poly mesh because that's what Genesis will accept for morphs without triggering a vertex error.

    My goodness, that's a sweeping statement. "..no one.." I assume you have asked everyone on the planet then. "...we all.." who are we? Your argument seems to suggest that sculpting at low rez is always better than high rez, in any and all situations. Do you recommend sculpting a cube to get the most realistic figure shape? I fully understand that sculpting the base rez character is where to start, but apparently you fail to understand that sculpting at higher rez is useful for adding details and getting subtle curves and shapes not possible at base rez. I understand that details may also be added via displacement maps but you seem to be unable to accept that not everyone prefers that workflow. Are you suggesting that art and creativity must always follow the same fixed route, that there is only one way to produce art? I would say that was a recipe for stagnation.

    My statement comes for the topic at hand: Sculpting morphs for genesis. And that's exactly what the PAs and DAZ3D does. You're talking about sculpting details in high poly, but that comes AFTER you make your base morph in LOW poly because that's the steps to do it in genesis. You may not prefer to do that, but that's the ONLY way it's done in genesis. There is no scuplting high poly first in Genesis, there is only a detail step afterwards, so your learning starts there. Most zbrush tutorials on making characters always start with a low poly mesh to get the base done then they switch to high poly for the details afterwards yet their creativity stays intact. Even artists in traditional mediums have a followed workflow to translate their creativity into a desired result. This is no different, except for this is software and it requires specific steps to get started otherwise you get errors, not creativity.

    "..but that's the ONLY way it's done in genesis. There is no scuplting high poly first in Genesis.." That is a business model choice not an artistic one or even primarily a technical one.

    Even the best zBrush artists I've seen on YouTube almost without exception start with a very basic model before making it more detailed; most times they add polygons without adding subdivision and if they do apply that, it's usually only long enough to see how the mesh looks and they go back to a lower poly-count to work. It's only once they are satisfied with everything at low poly that they move up.

  • Male-M3diaMale-M3dia Posts: 3,581
    edited July 2017
    IsaacNewton said:
    Male-M3dia said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Male-M3dia said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:
    IsaacNewton said:
    Richard Haseltine said:

    Remember that part of the reduction is the removal of the lash and tear geometry

    A valid point Richard, but it doesn't answer the question of why is there a move towards less geometry (available to the normal user) rather than more. Computing power via GPU's has increased dramatically in recent years, easily able to cope with doubling the number of polygons, or trippling it to bring the Genesis figures back to the level of V4. Our computers coped with V4/M4 well enough back when V4/M4 were new. Modern computers would easily cope. I don't dispute that sub-division on the fly is a more efficient method than fixed polygon figures, but I find this unacceptable when it comes at the cost of the vast majority of users not having access to sub-division when it comes to making their own morphs. One can hardly be blamed for thinking that DAZ are creating a two tier system. The normal user who has to make do with an ever deminishing base resolution and the elite users (PAs) who have access to as much sub-division as they want or feel is necessary.

    An advantage is that it is possible to get better bends by deforming a lower polygon mesh and then SubDing it, compared to working with a higher rsolution base mesh - for example, it avoids crunching on the inside of a bend.

    Yes, that's great. I like that kind of improvement, but not when it comes at the cost of reducing the ability of the average user to create high resolution morphs by sculpting the mesh, using his/her prefered technique. What is the point of making morphs work better, if you can't make as nice morphs.

    My general point is; by all means reduce the base rez, but if you are going to do so, then allow ALL users the ability to sculpt morphs at the resolution they wish to use. I understand that the actual difference between G8 polycount and G3 polycount is small, but what concerns me is the constant downward trend combined with no access to sub-division of the hobbyist to sculpt morphs.

     

    Again, no one sculpts at high resolution; we all sculpt at low resolution and add details to that. That low poly cage drives everything in genesis so you can't bypass it. This argument advocates for a beginning step that no one that works with genesis does or is able to do. I'm working on a project now and i'm only making those morphs using the low poly mesh because that's what Genesis will accept for morphs without triggering a vertex error.

    My goodness, that's a sweeping statement. "..no one.." I assume you have asked everyone on the planet then. "...we all.." who are we? Your argument seems to suggest that sculpting at low rez is always better than high rez, in any and all situations. Do you recommend sculpting a cube to get the most realistic figure shape? I fully understand that sculpting the base rez character is where to start, but apparently you fail to understand that sculpting at higher rez is useful for adding details and getting subtle curves and shapes not possible at base rez. I understand that details may also be added via displacement maps but you seem to be unable to accept that not everyone prefers that workflow. Are you suggesting that art and creativity must always follow the same fixed route, that there is only one way to produce art? I would say that was a recipe for stagnation.

    My statement comes for the topic at hand: Sculpting morphs for genesis. And that's exactly what the PAs and DAZ3D does. You're talking about sculpting details in high poly, but that comes AFTER you make your base morph in LOW poly because that's the steps to do it in genesis. You may not prefer to do that, but that's the ONLY way it's done in genesis. There is no scuplting high poly first in Genesis, there is only a detail step afterwards, so your learning starts there. Most zbrush tutorials on making characters always start with a low poly mesh to get the base done then they switch to high poly for the details afterwards yet their creativity stays intact. Even artists in traditional mediums have a followed workflow to translate their creativity into a desired result. This is no different, except for this is software and it requires specific steps to get started otherwise you get errors, not creativity.

    "..but that's the ONLY way it's done in genesis. There is no scuplting high poly first in Genesis.." That is a business model choice not an artistic one or even primarily a technical one.

    Sorry that's incorrect, feel free to look at the hundreds of videos and tutorials and professionals doing this very same method. Claiming otherwise is terribly misinformed, but if you want to believe otherwise that's your choice. You simply can't complain when your efforts don't work when you could have spent that time doing it as it's supposed to be done. To think about it, what do you think everyone was doing when Genesis 1 and 2 were released? There was not a high poly sculpt to be found in figures and the characters and creatures that were released with displacement maps, yet the store was filled with products and the poly counts are about 1K more. There was no HD tool back then.

    Good luck again with it.

    Post edited by Male-M3dia on
  • rokkrrokkr Posts: 160

    Cris Palomino said:

    G4 = 17020 (with lashes)

    G3F = 17418 (approximately)

    That's vertices.  G3F is 17K polys which is what we normally go by.  I already stated what G8F is (there is no G4).

    Of course there is G4... It's the shorthand for The Girl 4. And also can be an alias for Generation 4 or 4th Generation in general (V4, M4, &c.). This could have been one of the main reasons -- which was a smart one IMHO -- Daz jumped from Genesis 3 to Genesis 8... Genesis 4 would be confusing since they were already using G4 as a shorthand for The Girl 4. I only think they should have rebaptized the older Genesis to match their Victorias and we don't have all this confusion about Victoria 7 being Genesis 3 and so on...

     

     

  • GordigGordig Posts: 10,046

    rokkr said:

    Cris Palomino said:

    G4 = 17020 (with lashes)

    G3F = 17418 (approximately)

    That's vertices.  G3F is 17K polys which is what we normally go by.  I already stated what G8F is (there is no G4).

    Of course there is G4... It's the shorthand for The Girl 4. And also can be an alias for Generation 4 or 4th Generation in general (V4, M4, &c.). This could have been one of the main reasons -- which was a smart one IMHO -- Daz jumped from Genesis 3 to Genesis 8... Genesis 4 would be confusing since they were already using G4 as a shorthand for The Girl 4. I only think they should have rebaptized the older Genesis to match their Victorias and we don't have all this confusion about Victoria 7 being Genesis 3 and so on...

    The last post in this thread was over five years ago.

Sign In or Register to comment.