Hiding a piece of the legs (or the arms)? Could it be this easy?
Shoes and boots are notorious for difficult refitting. You would want to make the feet and the part of the shins inside the boot's legs invisible but keep the shins visible from (just) inside the booth up.
Poke-thru on skirts and shorts can be nasty to fix. You would want to make the upper parts of the thighs invisible from (just) inside the shorts.
So, something like the below:
(I just wanted to show the partial transparncy and did not add clothing or shoes to show the effect)
A transmap cab do the trick nice but takes time to make.
I tinkered an easy solution that works without much fuss and gives continuously variable degree of visibility.
It works with a grayscale image and a few nodes in the Material Room.
I moves all the other stuff aside so the setting is more clear.
The grayscale has its variation along the length of the legs in the UV map. The image shows Pauline. Pauline's legs are more or less vertical in the UV map. I made the gray scale image with 2 grayscales following the main line of the legs.
From this grayscale two Step math nodes convert the grayscale into black-and-white areas. One determines the upper boundary of visibility of the leg (while = opaque) below so correct. The other 'Step' node determines the lower boundary of visibility. Here I needed to invert black and white.
Finally, the two limit branches are combined by multiplication: whitewhite = white. whiteblack=black; you get the idea, and the result is fed into the transparency channel.
The levels at which the visibility is toggled is set by the Value_2 inputs of the step nodes. For convenience I made them keyed, so they have a dial in the body.
The system worked immediately in the material room. To get the keyed dials have a response in the Pose room needed some time a move from the pose room to the material room vv, as if Poser needed a prompt to synch. When the figure is loaded with this system from the library, it works immediately. The feature therefore will work best when natively built-in in the the figure.
Skin does not normaly have a transparency set, so the branch could be implemented as a mat pose without messing up the shader. I am not sure if the keyed dials will work when loaded from a .mat file.
This could be improved, of course. With a 3D paint program I presume it would be possible to make a texture that is white at the centre of the body and black at the toes/fingers. I do not have a 3D paint programme so I cannot test this.
If you like it feel free to use as you see fit.
@F_Verbaas this is a technique I have used for a long time (not being an effective modeller of any worth) to turn bodysuit figures into shirts/pants/t-shirts/swimsuits/etc with just transmapping. The grayscale gradients can also be generated with the U and V texture coordinate nodes (including full-blown, arbitrary rotations, if required), so they are entirely procedural. You can have even have circular or elliptical cutouts with wave2d nodes, too.
I've found it an excellent prototyping tool for generating transmaps. I use it constantly to adjust leg and sleeve lengths with animated shaderNodeParms. As long as the material is saved to the library as .mc6 (Material Collection) files, they preserve any animated shaderNodeParms and valueOperations which might link multiple materials to a single dial (e.g. leg length dial might need to apply to thigh, shin, foot and even hip materials).
The only problem comes when the shader node complexity reaches a level where the texture preview runs out of memory or transmap limits, and then you stop being able to accurately preview the material. In SuperFly, this can be even worse, unless you're happy to rely on the Ray Trace Preview constantly updating.
Sure the graysscale map can be made with procedurals, in uv space or in xyz space, but because shader complexity is the killing point for the preview I thought I would present the lightest way while maintaining flexibility. The graphics card will determine the milage, right?
Pauline's legs, mapped vertical would probably need only a v- node to drive the gradient, but not all figures share that. If memory serves well V4 has the legs mapped along u-direction, staggered, and in opposite direction.
Presentation therefore was aimed at being (I hope) robust and versatile, and clear enough for anyone to use it.
But you are completely correct: using procedurals would be more elegant.
@fverbaas elegant, perhaps. As I mentioned, I'm a better coder than artist, so playing with nodes gets me faster results than painting gradients or transmaps in the first instance, but as long as you're not doing much animating of the parameters to make adjustments, or need something to remain maximally flexible or configurable, there comes a point where it's worth baking some of the procedural stuff out to image maps, and hence arrive at the very point you demonstrated first. That certainly removes a lot of load on the preview renderer, which is much faster with static maps.
V4's arms are the worst. One is along the U axis and the other on the V axis. No symmetry there at all. The legs are symmetrical, and predominantly V oriented.
I am with you there. My grayscale is a Poser square with a v-node plugged into the alt-diffuse, rendered without Gamma correction. My Paintshop skills were strained to their limits when I layered them onto a skin texture. LOL! I have no idea how to make a grayscale in PS.
The grayscale is base material. Nodes are for further refinement.
BTW The jaggy edges are noise in the .jpg. If I use a .png grayscale the edges are sharp.