UV maps on Poser 7 Sydney G2

  • @Deecey Considering she's the one popular figure SM has, you'd think they'd jump at the chance to put her out again.

  • @Deecey while pondering the beauty of those renders, I wondered how other texture remapping ventures go about their business. If one has the ability to generate a mapping from the original UV texture vertices into the remapped UV texture vertices, then the placement of all pixels in between can be interpolated. Sufficient sub-pixel sampling can account for jaggies or other artifacts, I'm sure.

    There may be a market for in-Poser conversion of textures, if the mappings exist, of course...

    I suppose the face room works on the same principle, with the user providing the image and then assigning the avatar's specific mapping points to the image for re-wrapping onto the figure.

  • @eclark1849
    Exactly, which was why she was the first figure I took a serious look at for updating. Spent a LOT of time on fixing the mesh, creating new morphs and textures, etc. The potential is there, I just have to try to finish it.

    I'm not the best at weight mapping figures (clothing I can handle, figures are a different beast entirely), but I will give it the old college try.

  • @anomalaus
    Question is, how would one handle it if the polygon count is entirely different? I can see if the vertex count and vertex order was the same, but as soon as you start meddling with changing polygons the old UVs are toast.

    The original Sydney had somewhere around 100K polygons, now she's down to 62K.

  • @Deecey and yet the salient features are common to all human figures. How do cranial and orthopaedic surgeons go about accurately positioning their instruments for scanning and surgery? They find reliably identifiable features and make marks.

    My scripts are having to deal with non-one-to-one mappings between vertices and texture vertices (I'm in the middle of debugging why both of V3's eyes morph into the right eye socket, which doesn't happen on other figures which have separate UV vertices for each eye. The figure obviously loads correctly into Poser, so it's just a logic error in my script. The same thing was happening with Sydney's eyelashes, though I didn't comment on it earlier, because as soon as I work out why, the problem will go away.

    Similarly, if the logic exists for a human to determine (tedious, though that would be to do manually, as I once found out trying to make Blackhearted's GND4 perfectly bilaterally symmetric in Hexagon) which vertices should map to where, it may be possible to algorithmically encode that logic into a script, even if it requires manual generation of a table of known mapping points by a human to start with.

  • @anomalaus
    The body of the reworked Sydney is identical to the old one, in that case you might be able to use projection techniques to project the old texture onto the new one.

    However, the face, eyes, and inner mouth parts (if I remember correctly, it's been over a year since I looked at this) were reworked quite a bit as far as shape and polygon count. In that case, the results for projection won't be as good.

    UNLESS ... UNLESS I create a morph for the old Sydney that will fit her new face, eyes, and mouth to the old shape. Then you could dial the morph into the old Sydney, save that OBJ, and project the texture onto the new one with external software that does that type of stuff.

    I'll have to think about this a bit.

    The reworked Sydney will, as far as textures and morphs go, have to be treated as a new figure, even though she'd be able to fit in all the old clothing.

  • Old face and texture left; new face and texture right


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @Deecey - what about using RTencoderPY (free at Renderosity)? It should allow you to take the original OBJ, compare it against your new version & code the differences into a distributable file.

  • @caisson
    Hmmm. That's a possibility.

    Maybe I can convert it "as is" that way. Gawd I hate weight mapping! LOL

  • Poser Ambassadors

    Many people have redone Sydney, and it went no where.

    I redid her as well, and well, it didn't get real far either....

    The figure is basically done, uses parts of the original Sydney, and I can't distribute it either.....
    This version came about when I tried to weight map Sydney G2, and found that it is next to impossible to do so due to all the errors in the Sydney G2 mesh. Poser weight mapping needs a 100 percent symmetrical mesh to work properly, and Sydney G2 is so far from symmetrical, I gave up on it and made G3.

    It took me about 6 months to do it, and then things changed. So now it rots in my Runtime....

    0_1507138263358_Sydney G3 ssf.jpg

    0_1507138274285_Sydney G3 ss.jpg

    0_1507138848373_sydney g3 run.jpg

    As you can see, I have more than a few working versions of it.... Both G2 weight mapped, and G3...

  • @shvrdavid Maybe you and Deecey could work together. She's already said she fixed the asymmetry issue.

  • Poser Ambassadors

    @eclark1849 said in UV maps on Poser 7 Sydney G2:

    @shvrdavid Maybe you and Deecey could work together. She's already said she fixed the asymmetry issue.

    My version already is symmetrical, has two uv's (one works with the old uv's, one does not).

    Sm has not shown much interest in reviving old figures.

    So at this point, who knows how many versions of Sydney G3 are sitting on someones hard drives....

  • @shvrdavid
    Yeah she was a real bear to tame. Did you keep the original poly count or tone her down a bit?
    I also just noticed I used teeth and tongue rigging similar to Pauline's, that was the only change I did to the rigging.
    Since yours is pretty well done at this point that one makes more sense. That is, if the interest is there. 8-(

  • Poser Ambassadors

    The body poly count is a bit higher (I think, been a while). about 42k on the outside looking at the file save....
    The teeth, much, much, lower. lol....

  • @shvrdavid
    Those teeth were ginormous LMAO

  • Poser Ambassadors

    Great for dental school thou.... lol

  • Nerd told me once he was trying to get the legacy Poser figures under the same 'merchant resource' hood as Paul and Pauline are. Not sure how that went.
    Another proposal for people reworking legacy stuff was to make them available under the same lock as the original content is, so that if you have access to Poser 7 (or up) content, you would be eligible to download/buy? the derivatives of Poser 7 content.

  • Folks, I really appreciate your efforts and your enthousiasm.


    What do you think, how many people would actually use Sydney and the "wealth" of content available for her?
    Ah come on!

    I absolutely don't want to be a spoilsport here - but do you really think it's worth the time and effort?
    With not yet ANY of the newer Poser weight mapped figures being a real success, do you actually believe that people have just waited for an even older (and error-riddled) figure to be reanimated?

    Though - well, looking at it from a nostalgic viewpoint, and making this a project "à fonds perdu", I can understand.

    But in the end, I think it's better for Poser's future to support figures like Ero's "Project E" (which appears the most promising figure for Poser I've seen since V4 was released).


  • @karina Didn't you read my blog on Dynamic clothes being the future of Poser? :)

  • Yes I read it Earl.

    But in fact how many Poser newcomers can handle dynamic clothing? I've read many threads here on how tricky and frustrating it is to handle the cloth room even for advanced users.
    What do you think a newbie can handle?

    Sorry if I sound negative again; just playing the devil's advocate today (you should by now know that I'm actually a loyal Poser user, otherwise SASHA-16 wouldn't exist).

    But look at DAZ:
    Sure the DAZ users have to buy all that add-on stuff to make clothing fit, etc., and in the end they pay the same amount for their "free" software to get similar functionality as we have in Poser by default (less the fantastic Poser Morph Brush that is!).

    However, AFTER they bought all the expensive add-ons and fixes, it's "almost" the promised "one-click & make art" solution.
    While Poser users still have a lot to learn and of work to do (which isn't one-click at all!).

    I want to make this crystal clear:
    The one thing that I like most in Poser is that you can do almost every thing you want by simply hacking the Poser files which aren't encrypted like the ".duf" DAZ format.
    This leaves me with all options, and that's a great thing.
    Without that option I'ld rather quit the 3D world for good rather than moving to the "DAZ Walled Garden".

    But new Poser users know nothing about all this.

    They just want to load a figure with one click, apply a texture and a nice face with two more, some hair, and then render "make art".

    They don't give a shit for the internal workings, nor are they able to even understand all the workarounds and tricks we are discussing here.

    They've never heard of UV maps, mesh symmetry, poly counts, weight maps, etc. pp.
    And they don't care about it too!
    All they want is to have a nice render at the end of the day.

    If they can't achieve that In Poser, they'll move on to - well, you know: The bright shiny thing with the big promises!
    (let's not look at the price to be paid for that because people will only notice it after the umpteenth "add-on" and "figure update to G-222" bought and their CC bill going through the ceiling)!

    But long as we Poserites can't compete with that ease of use we're holding out on a hopeless position.
    Telling people "yes but you can tweak this and that, and read a hundred manuals how to get it working", isn't a good way to attract new users to Poser.

    Remember that most of them don't even know about the existense of these forums!

    Ahh! Rant finished!
    And tomorrow I'll be that nice guy again, as I am most of the time... :)

    Take care all :)