Superfly sucks, prove me wrong.



  • @eclark1849 could also be on the other side of the world, asleep. This is and international group.



  • @ghostship Granted, but I posted a short while after he first posted, so unless he made the post then immediately went to bed...



  • The OP is obviously needlessly provocative, but there are perhaps things to be learned from it.

    Nobody doubts that the tools are now at a level where people can make amazing things with it. However, for someone just starting out, there is a lot to learn, a lot to mess up, and not a whole lot in the way of hand-holding. Those with the training, experience and skill will always do well, but for those without it, navigating through third-party plug-ins, third-party shaders with little in the way of documentation which are available only on sites and forums that not even close to all users will be aware of puts them at a distinct disadvantage

    That Poser 11 introduced a whole new render engine and decided it wasn't needed to equip the product with dozens of material presets remains a most curious choice. That predictably led to many average (Com)Pose&Render-users (a group I am sure I am a part of) producing sub-standard results for many months after release - hurting the product.

    I'd encourage all new users to have a look at VinceBagna's impressive selection of Superfly shaders, available - ironically - at DAZ.



  • This post is deleted!


  • @adosity I have VinceBagna's Superfly shaders, and find them useful.



  • @ibr_remote said in Superfly sucks, prove me wrong.:

    @adosity I have VinceBagna's Superfly shaders, and find them useful.

    They are useful, but they're not really Superfly shaders as much as they are Cycles. I know that sounds like a distinction without a difference, but if you load one in loads as a Cycles shader. To me, the root node is the distinction.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    This post is deleted!

  • Poser Ambassadors

    Hello everyone; yes every single one . LOL.

    The material room, (any material room) be it in Poser, Blender, DS or whatever has the same task : What is the final outcome? ? ? ? A single RGB value for each pixel to be rendered. (If you are on Windows)

    Why do you think we have been calling the Material room "Math room" for more than a decade and a half. LOL.

    It all starts with a RBG for Diffuse, and all the rest, with whatever "Root node" one starts, how simple or complicated the setup might become? ? ? => The result is always the same => A single RGB value for each pixel to be rendered.

    All what comes in between is "a visualisation system" of what will be calculated in the render engine. => The Math engine.



  • @vilters And if that's all you do in the MATERIAL room, you get rubber blow up dolls that LOOK like rubber blow up dolls wearing rubber clothes.

    The MATERIAL room is a great deal more than math alone. It is math on the artistry of vendors who take the time to use resources like Deecey's fabric shaders.



  • @Glitterati3D said in Superfly sucks, prove me wrong.:

    The MATERIAL room is a great deal more than math alone. It is math on the artistry of vendors who take the time to use resources like Deecey's fabric shaders.

    Could you please explain more precisely what you mean by this?



  • @Glitterati3D said in Superfly sucks, prove me wrong.:

    And if that's all you do in the MATERIAL room, you get rubber blow up dolls that LOOK like rubber blow up dolls wearing rubber clothes.

    Sorry, I can't confirm that.
    None of my figures and clothes do blow up, nor do they look like rubber.

    I think it might be a good idea if some here tone down their speech a tad, just to stay friendly to each other.
    Don't you agree?

    "Being nice is just a smile away"

    Karina



  • @karina Ok, let's look at some history of figure creation........with V3 and older, we had "math" functions for skin. And they all looked like rubber blow up dolls. It's what made the early 3D figures instantly recognizable as 3D.

    Then, some of the vendors started using real skin MRs combined with the math to get more realistic figures.

    Then, the MR (merchant resources) got more advanced, and the vendors added more skills for even more realistic skin. And, then SSS and then PBR engines......but in all cases, you need a good merchant resource plus math to get a realistic texture on anything. Not just skin.

    A good product, whether props, or cars, or clothes or figures requires the use of good MRs and math to accomplish what is recognized today as good, commercial quality texutres.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @Glitterati3D
    Sorry Glitterati

    The Material room results are PURE Math calculations to come to those unique RGB values for each and every pixel to be rendered. All you get between the start and end are Math formula's to be calculated to be rendered out, and the Material room setup is simply a visualisation of what the chosen render engine will do at render time.

    At your comment :
    "Vendors came up with?"

    Vendors can come up with whatever they want.
    Each pixel, be it "pure", procedural, or photorealistic or PBR?
    Each pixel is a single RGB value.
    Just like an airplane engine does not care if it is flying over land or water.
    It does not care where the RGB value came from.

    If for an item (figure, prop or clothing), creators or vendors come with a Diffuse texture, a specular map, a bump map, a displacement map, a roughness, a transparency and a normal map?

    When all is said and done in the Material room?
    The end result is a SINGLE RGB value for each pixel to be rendered.



  • @vilters @Glitterati3D @karina you guys all took the baited trap the OP laid for you. You are all talking nonsense and fighting with each other.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @ghostship
    Not fighting at all but forum readers have the right to know the truth.
    A render engine is pure math, and a material room is the visualisation of what calculations will be performed for each pixel at render time.



  • @ghostship I am not fighting with anyone. I am simply making a point. A VALID point.

    Here.....one looks like a horse. The other looks like a blow up balloon you find in a parade. One has textures......the other uses MATH.

    One can create the best model in the world, but then ruin it with either of 2 things - a bad UV map or lousy textures.

    0_1531516745290_2horses.jpg



  • @Glitterati3D said in Superfly sucks, prove me wrong.:

    parade

    I like the one on the right better only because...im scared of horse and the one on the left (the realistic looking one) looks like he may bite me or kick me off,lol



  • @chk2033 ROFLMAO!


  • Poser Ambassadors

    0_1531520410903_Standard P4 horse.png
    Standard Poser4 horse from Poser 4 in 1999.
    Removed all textures. (Yeah, Glitter is right. At the time they where bad.)
    Replaced with Pure Procedurals in Physical Surface root node.
    Both have a more or less similar setup.
    Draft area render SuperFly at 6 samples.



  • @chk2033 said in Superfly sucks, prove me wrong.:

    @Glitterati3D said in Superfly sucks, prove me wrong.:

    parade

    I like the one on the right better only because...im scared of horse and the one on the left (the realistic looking one) looks like he may bite me or kick me off,lol

    Is this thread now about horses? I think it should now be about horses.

    I'm not afraid of horses at all, but let me tell you, you stare at one long enough and they begin to look so freaking evil. Hoof creatures with long bodies, long necks and long faces. If horses weren't a real animal I'd definitely expect to see them in Star Wars or the Hobbit movies.


Locked