Submit Your Poser Suggestions to Smith Micro

  • I wish to have access to and be able to modify the VERTEX normals on geometriesiside Poser, if this can be programmed. Thanks.

  • @ibr_remote Alredy there. See Poser Python Manual -> Geometry Methodes -> Normales.

    And there is a demo script in ../Runtime/Python/poserScripts/GeomMods/

  • @adp OK thanks !!

  • @ibr_remote - oh... that's just a listing of normals but I need to selectively change their direction inside Poser.

  • From Poser Python Manual:

    Get a list of vertex normals. Each normal is a vertex object.

    Poser Python Vertex Objects do have a set methode.

    nrmls = actor.Geometry().Normals()

  • @ibr_remote Set Methode seems not to work for normales. Setting new values for normales does change the Python object, but re-reading the normal list returns the old values.
    Set[X|Y|Z] works fine for vertices. Seems to be a bug.

  • Just a tongue-in-cheek and probably redundant reminder to @ibr_remote and @adp that vertices in Poser can have exactly one normal, only. So single sided object like möbius strips and klein bottles can never have correct normals for all vertices. The best you can do is choose "Normals Forward" options whenever you see them, for such objects, unless you give them actual thickness.

    There's another caveat regarding normals in Poser, too. If the normals are absent from the OBJ definition (as they may be), Poser will derive them from the winding order of facets (right-hand-rule: fingers follow winding order and thumb points along normal), so normals get inextricably linked with facets, which flows into Poser's Grouping Tool, which allows one to reverse the normals on a per facet basis (which poser does by inverting the winding order of chosen facets, preventing you from reversing a single vertex normal by itself. Poser also, confusingly, gives the word "welding" two different meanings: merging adjacent pairs of vertices within a threshold distance into a single vertex, and unifying the normals of a pair of "welded" vertices split between two adjacent body parts (which may have been derived from a single vertex in the OBJ geometry, but shared by two body parts).

  • Not certain if requested already and explained why cannot have it, but here goes:

    Add bloom filter for rendering stills and/or animation.

  • Just an idea. Why not a "GoBlend"? Works like GoZ, only with Blender. Lots of Poser folk use Blender anyway.

  • @masterstroke ABSOLUTELY!!! I would love to have such a link!

  • You would think that something so simple, but essential would have already have been built into Poser by now, but How about adding a cloth naturalizer for both Cloth Physics and the Cloth Sims? Truth is, that a lot of Poser's setting can and should be automatic functions within the program. For the Hair room, the settings for Straight, curly, or even nappy hair should be built in. Press the button for the correct settings and then apply. Same thing for the Cloth Room and Bullet Physics. Denim, rubber, silk, nylon and satin should all have settings built in. No one says you can't still customize them, but they should have a common starting point.

  • Poser Ambassadors

    @masterstroke I remember others talking about this connection several years ago ... and the answer at the time was because of Blender's open source ... constant change made this practically impossible ... but I think there was a "stabilization" that might make this more possible now.

  • Poser Ambassadors

    Hi all.

    Unfortunately, and YES =>I filed an enhancement report to SMS for a "GoBlender" a couple of years ago already.

    See? Why not.

    • There are lots (thousands) of exiting add-ons for Blender 2.79.
    • Blender 2.8 is such a big internal change that each and every add-on has to be re-written or be doomed in history.

    Same as for Miss Grey Blob from a competing company, SMS and Poser can not depend on other figures, softwares or companies.

    Best regards all. Tony

  • @vilters said in Submit Your Poser Suggestions to Smith Micro:

    Miss Grey Blob

    Is that really necessary?
    You might not like that figure but there are plenty of people that do.

  • I was reviewing my humanoid animation options for Poser-friendly content last evening. I tried manually creating dance sequences using key-frames and steps learned from Dance Rush Stardom arcade system. I realise that a lot of BVH-related software is about 10 years old, now, and quite a number of stand-alones have slowly gone the way of the dinosaurs. Existing plug-n-play BVHs don't really work with various humanoid rigs because the bones and bone-naming conventions vary. Also, not all plug-n-play BVHs work correctly, even if bone-naming is friendly to Poser convention bone rigs. I can't even talk about Daz Studio character rigs because they're like a user-facing black box. I would love to be able to drag joints and have the figure physically accurately moved, as in Design Doll posing, or MikuMikuDance, or Vroid, or Bot3DEditor. Granted these are for anime-style chracters, but the underlying concepts of humanoid figure animation surely can be developed for a Poser-friendly system.

  • @eclark1849 I wish to have a Shadow Capture facility in Cycles Surface Nodes regime, just like the facility available in Blender3D Cycles, effective from Blender3D version 2.79. It can be used with the layers in the Material Room for shadow only effects on planes, similar to the function only available currently for Poser Surface Nodes.

  • @ibr_remote I think the solution would be a full-blown Cycles render engine within Poser. Make it so it can be updated easily when Blender gets updated. That would solve so many issues with SF. Could still have FF and SF in there but those of us that dig the Cycles thing could do that.

  • @ghostship But then you'll run into"Poserthink" people who believe everything in Poser has to be backward compatible. Frankly, I believe that Poser's belief in backwards compatibility is holding us back.

  • @eclark1849 That's why I say leave in FF and Superfly. Backward compatibility while looking to the future. From what the devs have said so far about SF is that it can't be easily updated so, fine, leave it and add the full blown cycles and make it so dev maintenance is minimal to update.

  • As much as I want so much to have some things that are available in Cycles for Poser - micromesh displacement, I'm STARING at you -, I don't think having a built-in port to send to Cycles would help vendors. We'd have to worry about compatibility with Firefly, Superfly AND Blender, and keeping in mind that most users stay in the comfortable zone of the program's basics (just look at how many people won't even use Superfly as it is, or won't touch dynamics), we could have a hard time trying to troubleshoot things with buyers not finding their way around Cycles.

    Mind you, I'm not complaining about wanting to stay in the comfortable zone - wanting what's easy and sweet is perfectly valid. We can't all be tinkerers LOL