The future of Poser is the Fitting Room



  • @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.



  • @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.

    @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.

    And everyone doesn't stay a beginner forever. At some point, we have to let go of the Poser 4 workflow.



  • @ssgbryan This has NOTHING to do with Poser 4. Good GAWD, can you be any more insulting for no reason?



  • @ssgbryan said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.

    @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.

    And everyone doesn't stay a beginner forever. At some point, we have to let go of the Poser 4 workflow.

    This doesn't really have to do with sticking with a Poser 4 workflow, though. (Dynamics were introduced in Poser 5). So allow me to ask this question. If you are using dynamic clothing and don't have the buttons on, I'm assuming you are working with stills. You simulate the clothing and then add your buttons to the final rendered frame.

    But suppose you are doing an animation. How would you handle the buttons in that case? It seems to me that each one would HAVE to be a smart prop, and each button would have to be a separate smart prop so that it could move individually. That can get pretty hairy, IMO.



  • hopefully, with a improved Fitting Room (and Copy Morphs function) this button example wouldn't have to be an issue. But yeah there are many workarounds. Fix the morphs manually, run it through the clothsim with the right groupings specified, or indeed just spawn a prop out of it using the group editor, if you're ok with manually moving it around, then definitely do so. I sometimes spawn props from figures, like glasses, or bracelets, or even guns, sometimes purely to get rid of a figure hierarchy of about 5 entries. But it also depends on the purpose and the scope of this button, and how much it is in focus, and how much work it needs... if the button played a central role in one of my comics, I might actually do the same and convert it into a prop. For the rest would just leave it as part of the clothing, and post work it if I need to.



  • @Deecey said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.

    @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.

    And everyone doesn't stay a beginner forever. At some point, we have to let go of the Poser 4 workflow.

    This doesn't really have to do with sticking with a Poser 4 workflow, though. So allow me to ask this question. If you are using dynamic clothing and don't have the buttons on, I'm assuming you are working with stills. You simulate the clothing and then add your buttons to the final rendered frame.

    But suppose you are doing an animation. How would you handle the buttons in that case? It seems to me that each one would HAVE to be a smart prop, and each button would have to be a separate smart prop so that it could move individually. That can get pretty hairy, IMO.

    Parent them to the item.

    I hate smart props with a passion - they are fantastic, if the vendor has thought of every possible use for it.

    Unfortunately, 90% of my smart props are parented to the right hand only.



  • @ssgbryan said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @Deecey said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.

    @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @ssgbryan Because not everyone is you. Not everyone understands how to use the cloth room effectively. Not all brokerages would accept such sloppy rigging.

    The reasons are numerous and as diverse as your reasons for what you do and how you do it.

    And, no, smart props do not obey morphs.

    And everyone doesn't stay a beginner forever. At some point, we have to let go of the Poser 4 workflow.

    This doesn't really have to do with sticking with a Poser 4 workflow, though. So allow me to ask this question. If you are using dynamic clothing and don't have the buttons on, I'm assuming you are working with stills. You simulate the clothing and then add your buttons to the final rendered frame.

    But suppose you are doing an animation. How would you handle the buttons in that case? It seems to me that each one would HAVE to be a smart prop, and each button would have to be a separate smart prop so that it could move individually. That can get pretty hairy, IMO.

    Parent them to the item.

    I hate smart props with a passion - they are fantastic, if the vendor has thought of every possible use for it.

    Unfortunately, 90% of my smart props are parented to the right hand only.

    That would make logical sense, but the way things stand now, this won't work with dynamic clothing.

    You want to parent the clothing to the figure.
    You want to parent the buttons to the clothing.
    To test this, I added a sphere to a scene. Scaled it down, and positioned it where the buttons on the pants are. Parented the sphere to the pants (which is as it should be, because the buttons need to follow the flow of the dynamic clothing). Then ran the simulation.

    Original position of the sphere on left. After simulation on right. No go. The prop didn't follow the rotation of the hip of the figure, because it's not parented to the figure. It's parented to the clothing, which is not really "rotating" like a conformer would. So the ball seems to stay at the original point of origin. As I suspected, you'd have to animate each button individually and that wouldn't be fun. Plus it sort of defeats the purpose of using dynamic clothing in the first place.

    0_1502826431337_sim.png



  • @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @Deecey I know that. The problem is that most cloth room users don't know that.

    Are you talking about the end user's use of the Cloth Room Traci? I would assume (and that's assume with a capital "A") the creator/vendor would know to set buttons to Rigid Decorated. Of course, I suppose, that's not always the case.

    I, for one, always check to see if there are Soft or Rigid Decorations set, but then I beta test for folks who create dynamic clothing, so it's ingrained for me. Most end users wouldn't know the difference, but a vendor should.



  • @Deecey; @erogenesis
    We would need a 'prop (=button) follow a facet of garment (where it is stitched to)' function. An add-on triggerd on scene redraw could easily do that.
    Is any of the Python gurus following this discussion?



  • Sorry if I sound stupid, but this is a thing I had on my mind for a long time already:

    How about telling a prop (like the button) to "Stay attached to vertex #xxx and follow it's movements"?
    Technically it would just need to automatically re-adjust the relative origin of the prop according to the movement of that assigned vertex. Like this the button would stay in place.

    I think such a function might solve a lot of the problems described here, and also would be useful for a lot of other purposes (think body jewelry like piercings, etc.)

    Not sure though how this could work in a dynamics sim; but it should be possible in a simple situation like following a morph (open pants etc.)

    Just thinking (or maybe not?) :/

    Karina



  • @karina said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    Sorry if I sound stupid, but this is a thing I had on my mind for a long time already:

    How about telling a prop (like the button) to "Stay attached to vertex #xxx and follow it's movements"?
    Technically it would just need to automatically re-adjust the relative origin of the prop according to the movement of that assigned vertex. Like this the button would stay in place.

    I think such a function might solve a lot of the problems described here, and also would be useful for a lot of other purposes (think body jewelry like piercings, etc.)

    Not sure though how this could work in a dynamics sim; but it should be possible in a simple situation like following a morph (open pants etc.)

    Just thinking (or maybe not?) :/

    Karina

    Karina (and F_Verbass), yeah a solution like that could work, but I think it would almost HAVE to be a facet (or maybe a facet selection). Because if you just snap to a single vertex it won't take into account the direction that the normals are facing when it's animated.



  • Deecey, that's a very good idea and would improve the function a lot:

    Just an idea how this could work in practical use:

    Select the prop, then click the new button: "Assign to facet".
    Change the selection tool to work similar to the "select facet" in the Grouping Tool.
    Click the facet underneath the prop.
    Voilà! the prop now will follow every movement of the selected facet.

    Hmmm. A wagonload of scenarios where such a function would be useful come to my mind.



  • @karina said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    Deecey, that's a very good idea and would improve the function a lot:

    Just an idea how this could look in practical use:

    Select the prop, then click the "NEW" button "Assign to facet".
    Change the cursor to work similar to the "select facet" in the Grouping Tool.
    Click the facet underneath the prop (ideally reposition the prop before, centered to that facet).
    Voilà! the prop now will follow every movement of the selected facet.

    Hmmm. A wagonload of scenarios where such a function would be useful come to my mind.

    T'weren't my idea, it was F_Verbaas. I was just giving it a thumbs up! LOL



  • @Miss-B Yeah, Miss B. But you have the good fortune to work with some really good dynamic cloth vendors. Not all of them are that good.

    And, then, when the buttons melt, the person you finally got to use the cloth room, after months of convincing them it's really not hard, they freak out when you try to tell them to set Rigid Decorations!

    Sad, but true.



  • @Deecey said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    Karina (and F_Verbass), yeah a solution like that could work, but I think it would almost HAVE to be a facet (or maybe a facet selection). Because if you just snap to a single vertex it won't take into account the direction that the normals are facing when it's animated.

    @karina said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    Deecey, that's a very good idea and would improve the function a lot:

    Just an idea how this could work in practical use:

    Select the prop, then click the new button: "Assign to facet".
    Change the selection tool to work similar to the "select facet" in the Grouping Tool.
    Click the facet underneath the prop.
    Voilà! the prop now will follow every movement of the selected facet.

    Hmmm. A wagonload of scenarios where such a function would be useful come to my mind.

    Yes. I've read this idea mentioned before elsewhere by several folks, and letting a particular polygon guide it is indeed a good idea. Things like body piercings could also work better this way, like navel piercings. I sincerely hope the @Poser-Team are taking notes here!


  • Poser Ambassadors

    The biggest issues I have found are actually very simple : Welding.

    Buttons, pockets and other stuff are often "loose, individual, and unwelded geometry".
    Build them welded-in, give them a material or vertex group, and handle them as such.
    Often selection by vertex group or by mat zone bring the solution.
    Night-night all, bed time over here.



  • @Glitterati3D said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    @Miss-B Yeah, Miss B. But you have the good fortune to work with some really good dynamic cloth vendors. Not all of them are that good.

    And, then, when the buttons melt, the person you finally got to use the cloth room, after months of convincing them it's really not hard, they freak out when you try to tell them to set Rigid Decorations!

    Sad, but true.

    That is unfortunate, and you're right, I learned how to work with dynamics this past year thanks to vendors who know what they're doing. I had never ventured into the Cloth Room before, and now I don't shudder every time I think about it.



  • I see two missing features that prevent any serious attempt at user provided solutions within Poser's own framework, without having to resort to iterations through external applications like Blender. These are:

    Poser's python API provides no means to directly assign vertices to polygon groups. No one wants to have to use the grouping tool by hand to do something that could simply be done with a python script. The only conceivable workaround for this is to have the script fully compose a grouped .obj file, write it to temporary storage and reload it to the scene. Riddiculus! and Bloody Frustrating!! I am going to have to resort to this workaround in my script to load .DUF props, poses (and eventually figures) directly into Poser without resorting to DSON Loader. It's pretty obvious that DSON Loader itself has to resort to creating temporary files and then loading them to get around this piece of in{substitute UUID for deleted expletives}ardry, ahem! [hwhk, ptang] (The script is, so far, able to load G3F poses and convert and apply them to V4 figures (at least as close as their different proportions allows) or DSON loaded G3F figures and load props and figure base meshes without grouping)

    Material room UV gradient nodes do not work consistently or accurately (dPdU, dNdV, etc.). These nodes should conceivably be usable to correct morph deformations of UV mapping. Compress a figure's cleavage, but want the circular T-Shirt logo to remain circular? Should be possible if the positional UV derivative nodes could tell you how much your morphs had distorted the UV mapping and be subsequently compensated for.



  • @anomalaus said in The future of Poser is the Fitting Room:

    I see two missing features that prevent any serious attempt at user provided solutions within Poser's own framework, without having to resort to iterations through external applications like Blender. These are:

    Poser's python API provides no means to directly assign vertices to polygon groups. No one wants to have to use the grouping tool by hand to do something that could simply be done with a python script.

    OK how about this. You click to select one vertex, and you provide an adjustable setting that expands by x number of vertices around the vertex you clicked. Sort of like a feathered selection.



  • @Deecey heh, absolutely not. I have no personal aversion to using the grouping tool, I use it constantly when I want to limit Morphing Tool influence. That's not the problem. The problem is manual use of a GUI tool has absolutely no place in the workflow of a python script whose sole object is to import a user selected, UV mapped prop in another application's internal format, create the prop in the poser scene and assign the appropriate materials to what ever vertex and material groups the prop previously had. The information is there. The script has access to it, but the script can't drive the GUI of the Grouping Tool to select potentially thousands of not-necessarily contiguous polygons.

    Even the Poser supplied sample scripts geom_bucky.py and geom_genmesh.py can't create UV mapped props with more than a single, default material group, because there is no Python API method to assign the vertices to the group!

    ...

    [Sigh] I shall tone down the heat I am injecting into my comments. I've just been reading the background saga of how Poser's early design decisions may have long hindered easy implementation of new features, due to the probable necessity of investing human-years of coding into a core structure re-write. Which, I guess, explains completely why we haven't previously had dual-quaterion, [insert neato/kewl feature everyone wants] and be clamouring for the next techno-babble-gewgaw alpha demoed at the latest trade-show.