Is Victoria 9 'Backwards compatible and will you make a muscular female morph

AmazonLover08

Hi Gang:

I'd first like to compliment and say GREAT WORK on V9.  She is stunning, funny, hot and DYNAMIC.  Good choice making her a CELTIC WARRIOR WOMAN!  I would just like to know can poses, expressions etc from the gen 8 females work on your new gal, and will you be creating a muscular gen 9 Female morph (PLEASE!).  Just curious after all if I am going to be getting 'Hooked again' on a new Gen series and shelling out A LOT of money it wouldn't hurt for you IVORY TOWER types to listen to us - your VALUED customers, nudge nudge wink wink. Cheers for now

Leana

FanBoy2022 said:

can poses, expressions etc from the gen 8 females work on your new gal,

Genesis 8 content won't work with Genesis 9 out of the box at all.

There's autofit for clothes, and at least one free conversion script for poses, and there will most likely be other converters for poses and morphs and legacy UVs for textures at some point.

Richard Haseltine

NMoved to product Suggestions as it is not a Daz Studuoi topic and the compatibility question has been asked and answered in other areas already.

richardandtracy

The poses for the rigged part of the character can be transferred using a G8->G9 script in the freebie forum. I am currently trying to find time to incorporate into that script another script offered to me that will convert the pose dials too ('Brow Up-Down Left' type of pose dial). That will be ready as soon as I can manage. Regards, Richard.

Drogo Nazhur

When I programmed, EVERYTHING had to be backward compatible. Half of our development time was spent ensuring that the new features were backward compatible. 

Richard Haseltine

Drogo Nazhur said:

When I programmed, EVERYTHING had to be backward compatible. Half of our development time was spent ensuring that the new features were backward compatible. 

Which must have limited what you could do? In any event, Genesis 9 is content not code (though it makes use of some new bits of code, but so could older figures now that they are there)

Gordig

Drogo Nazhur said:

When I programmed, EVERYTHING had to be backward compatible. Half of our development time was spent ensuring that the new features were backward compatible. 
 

I teach children as young as 3 how to play piano, but that tells us nothing about whether we should teach children as young as 3 how to drive cars. Context matters. 

Silent Winter

^My 4-year-old would totally get behind the wheel of a car if I let her. I'm thinking she'd end up seriously distorting the mesh 0_0 --- G9 can do a good job of wearing most clothes and hair (though older hair is best parented anyway). You can't advance the mesh while keeping everything compatible (morphs, textures, etc). Someone might be able to write a converter for some things (like the pose coverters coming) but that's best left to an addon anyway so as to keep the base cost down for those who don't need it. Just my 2¢

Silent Winter

Oh, but a specialized female muscular morph would be good (I haven't played with the current morphs pack yet to see if this can be done already)

Drogo Nazhur

Gordig said:

Drogo Nazhur said:

When I programmed, EVERYTHING had to be backward compatible. Half of our development time was spent ensuring that the new features were backward compatible. 
 

I teach children as young as 3 how to play piano, but that tells us nothing about whether we should teach children as young as 3 how to drive cars. Context matters. 

I don't understand the comparison. 

Drogo Nazhur

Richard Haseltine said:

Drogo Nazhur said:

When I programmed, EVERYTHING had to be backward compatible. Half of our development time was spent ensuring that the new features were backward compatible. 

Which must have limited what you could do? In any event, Genesis 9 is content not code (though it makes use of some new bits of code, but so could older figures now that they are there)

Everything is do'able. It just increased the complexity of the task. Things that could have been done in 10 lines of code, needed 50-100 lines to keep it backward compatible.  

Richard Haseltine

Drogo Nazhur said:

Richard Haseltine said:

Drogo Nazhur said:

When I programmed, EVERYTHING had to be backward compatible. Half of our development time was spent ensuring that the new features were backward compatible. 

Which must have limited what you could do? In any event, Genesis 9 is content not code (though it makes use of some new bits of code, but so could older figures now that they are there)

Everything is do'able. It just increased the complexity of the task. Things that could have been done in 10 lines of code, needed 50-100 lines to keep it backward compatible.  

Which would have performance impact, and in this case true comnpatibility would make it impossible to actually change anything. "Everything is doable" is just an ssertion, unless you can suggest a potentially workable way to do it or point to something that has done it (under similar constraints to DS).

Gordig

Drogo Nazhur said:

Gordig said:

Drogo Nazhur said:

When I programmed, EVERYTHING had to be backward compatible. Half of our development time was spent ensuring that the new features were backward compatible. 
 

I teach children as young as 3 how to play piano, but that tells us nothing about whether we should teach children as young as 3 how to drive cars. Context matters. 

I don't understand the comparison. 

It's a matter of applicability: are your experiences programming (whatever it is you programmed) at all applicable to 3D figures? How is backward compatibility achieved inthe context in which you were working, and how is it achieved in the Daz context? Do you even know enough about the mechanics of 3D figures or how DS works under the hood to answer those questions?

generalgameplaying

There is a lot of backwards-compatibility-potential in daz studio SO FAR, given that g2-g8.1 are pretty much usable. I hope they don't kill that, so i can still use my investments in g8 (g3) forever, be it with a little help from the third party. In theory they could of course keep best-effort compatibility for all kinds of wearables and so on, but i don't mind them skipping, as long as they don't PREVENT third party solutions.

Backwards compatibility is a deal and i assume the daz developers can tell some stories about it too. And yes, it both costs extra time, and it will impose some limits, as well as increase complexity of the resulting code in general, potentially leading to all sorts of issues like increased bug frequency or decreased performance, in theory, depending on what you're doing and how far (back) it reaches. No secrets here.

That being said, i had the impression, that the expressions of V9 are splendid, and surpass virtually/almost all i have seen (in terms of promo renders) from g8. I wonder why, but maybe this needed some "breakage", though with it being 'content', there will be products. Could be i just didn't tweak or check in-depth on g8 yet, still the promo renders often are exaggerated or "looks as if like" while g9 appears to "be like", if not...

Again, that being said, i rather wonder, how daz studio 5 (almost wrote '6') will affect things (wallets), with a transition of the QT version in the background. I have no idea about scripting yet, but i will have - will there be abstracted UI functions in Studio 5, so QT versions won't really matter anymore? Will there be multi-threading support (Iray astro chicken!) and means of suport for that?

richardandtracy

There will be, in time, ways of using G9 stuff on older generations too. It just takes a while to develop the skills, tools and techniques. There is so much G8 content that it will end up being used on/with/by G9 eventually. Regards, Richard.