What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?



  • Yes, that is what I meant by allowing Poser to import Genesis figures so they work (ie, pose, animate ect) like they are designed to be....not just a static obj import. This would give Poser more life from a business stand point. I know there is a LOT of animosity toward Genesis and Daz, however if it allows the program you love to stay afloat wouldn't it be worth it. Also, if you don't like Genesis, then don't use it....its just that simple.

    Things like better cloth simulation, soft body physics, instancing and particles would be a push in the right direction. Allowing Superfly to support render passes would be a HUGE asset, still can't fathom why you can only do that in Firefly.

    I'm sure there are other things that artists and animators alike might want but those are a few of the things I can think of.



  • On Mojave O/S - That the render previews are in the correct sequence - Newest to oldest like they used to be before Mojave.



  • @lotharen said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    Yes, that is what I meant by allowing Poser to import Genesis figures so they work (ie, pose, animate ect) like they are designed to be....not just a static obj import. This would give Poser more life from a business stand point. I know there is a LOT of animosity toward Genesis and Daz, however if it allows the program you love to stay afloat wouldn't it be worth it. Also, if you don't like Genesis, then don't use it....its just that simple.

    Things like better cloth simulation, soft body physics, instancing and particles would be a push in the right direction. Allowing Superfly to support render passes would be a HUGE asset, still can't fathom why you can only do that in Firefly.

    I'm sure there are other things that artists and animators alike might want but those are a few of the things I can think of.

    Poser already has cloth simulation, and soft body physics. Have you even learned how to use them?
    I don't understand why people who keep claiming that Poser is dead or dying are still using it?



  • @eclark1849 said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    @lotharen said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    Yes, that is what I meant by allowing Poser to import Genesis figures so they work (ie, pose, animate ect) like they are designed to be....not just a static obj import. This would give Poser more life from a business stand point. I know there is a LOT of animosity toward Genesis and Daz, however if it allows the program you love to stay afloat wouldn't it be worth it. Also, if you don't like Genesis, then don't use it....its just that simple.

    Things like better cloth simulation, soft body physics, instancing and particles would be a push in the right direction. Allowing Superfly to support render passes would be a HUGE asset, still can't fathom why you can only do that in Firefly.

    I'm sure there are other things that artists and animators alike might want but those are a few of the things I can think of.

    Poser already has cloth simulation, and soft body physics. Have you even learned how to use them?
    I don't understand why people who keep claiming that Poser is dead or dying are still using it?

    Yes, I know....I did say 'better', not that they were absent



  • @lotharen said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    @eclark1849 said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    @lotharen said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    Yes, that is what I meant by allowing Poser to import Genesis figures so they work (ie, pose, animate ect) like they are designed to be....not just a static obj import. This would give Poser more life from a business stand point. I know there is a LOT of animosity toward Genesis and Daz, however if it allows the program you love to stay afloat wouldn't it be worth it. Also, if you don't like Genesis, then don't use it....its just that simple.

    Things like better cloth simulation, soft body physics, instancing and particles would be a push in the right direction. Allowing Superfly to support render passes would be a HUGE asset, still can't fathom why you can only do that in Firefly.

    I'm sure there are other things that artists and animators alike might want but those are a few of the things I can think of.

    Poser already has cloth simulation, and soft body physics. Have you even learned how to use them?
    I don't understand why people who keep claiming that Poser is dead or dying are still using it?

    Yes, I know....I did say 'better', not that they were absent

    Okay, but how do you define better?



  • @eclark1849
    What is the definition of the word "better"?
    You are kidding, right?
    Some of us wrote down in this thread what they want to be made better in and for Poser.
    Some are going into great detail about it.
    The only thing i hear from you is spiltting hairs, correcting people over gramma issues or simply saying Nee, thats not what i want.
    I have no idea where your behavior has its roots, but i for my part had have to much of it!
    Where i come from, we tread other people with kindness and respect.
    You should work very hard on both!
    You are not the only one who has spend time, money, sweat and tears in this.
    I don't no what you are trying to gain with statements like"if you not know the answer, shut up and go away"!
    This is not arrogant, thats rude and stupid.
    But go ahead, explain to me why you think you have the right to do so.



  • @marco The grammar thing was simply me having a little fun. I even put a little smiley face on it to show it was mostly a joke.
    But let's address some of the other points you're obviously perturbed with me about:
    "I don't no what you are trying to gain with statements like"if you not know the answer, shut up and go away"!"

    If you read the post in context, My statement is meant to keep people from making false statements, or just trying to start a fight or flame war. I was looking for an honest answer to a sincere question. That might come across as rude to you, but it certainly wasn't arrogant.

    What is the definition of the word "better"?
    You are kidding, right?
    Some of us wrote down in this thread what they want to be made better in and for Poser.

    This is the easy one to answer. It simply means how do you define making something better? For example earlier this week I said in the "submit your suggestions" thread that Poser should add material cloth pre-sets to the cloth Room. I think anytime someone says they want something made to be "better". they should at least clarify What and how they think something could be made better. Not everyone thinks alike, so something that may appear to be obvious to you . may go completely over my head. And no, I'm not arrogant enough to think I know everything, but brave enough to ask since I don't.



  • @eclark1849
    Let me get back to you, got familiy business to do.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    IMO the #1 problem with cloth room is presets will never work, and people think to keep asking for them. Presets don't work because the parameterization of the cloth room is always per vertex or per polygon, never per meter.

    If you could consistently get the same amount of sag, bend, or stretch from the same meter-wide cloth prop, regardless of whether that is 24 polygons or 2000 polygons, then your perception of how "hard" it is to control would largely go away and then the notion of presets would be possible but far less necessary.

    The density of polygons on a cloth prop should not so dramatically alter its behavior. Instead it should be only to increase the resolution of the bending or stretching or sagging - to make cloth that can follow a curve more closely. Instead, adding polygons alters what the cloth does which is wrong.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    Hi BB, this discussion remembers me about another one ; Quads or tris for the cloth room.

    Problem in this fast and furious speedy live we live in, is that people often choose the fast and easy way to solutions.
    That's why they ask for "pre-sets" to get "quick" results without having to tinker along with dozens of test-renders.

    The "drag-drop-render' population is outgrowing the slower technological test-population.
    Tja, most customers get home from work, open Poser as a hobby, and expect to go to bed an hr later with a finished stunning render.



  • @vilters said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    Hi BB, this discussion remembers me about another one ; Quads or tris for the cloth room.

    Problem in this fast and furious speedy live we live in, is that people often choose the fast and easy way to solutions.
    That's why they ask for "pre-sets" to get "quick" results without having to tinker along with dozens of test-renders.

    The "drag-drop-render' population is outgrowing the slower technological test-population.
    Tja, most customers get home from work, open Poser as a hobby, and expect to go to bed an hr later with a finished stunning render.

    Nothing wrong with that, Tony. While I'm not normally a render by numbers, person, there 's no rule I know of that says it is wrong to do so. To me, a preset is simply the next logical step. Look at a radio, for example. We flick from station to station at a press of the button. But those buttons are simply "presets" either set by the manufacturer or by the user. Not like the early days when you had to tune in each station by ear and hand.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    @eclark1849
    Hi Earl, did you read BB's post?
    Polygon density, => Low poly cloth or high poly cloth. Tris or quads (or a mix of those)?

    Both have a higher influence on how dynamic clothing behaves then the "cloth room pre-sets" everybody is asking for.

    For years I have been saying ; It all starts (or stops) with the quality of the obj file.

    • Low poly clothing over low poly figures.
    • Hi poly clothing over hi poly figures.
      The obj file mesh density has to be +/- the same (preferably a little denser) as the figure you are draping the clothing over.


  • @vilters said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    @eclark1849
    Hi Earl, did you read BB's post?

    Yeah, I did, Tony. And I actually agree with him. But, we're talking about content developers who should know how to build the type of mesh they want to work in the Cloth Room. I don't expect users to know how a silk dress or satin dress acts or how the mesh should be made, but I do expect the content developer to know. I don't do much clothing modeling anymore myself, but I think if I were to get back into it, I'd include the cloth room settings for the type of material the dress is supposed to be made of. I don't consider that any different from the math and math types BB includes when he does material settings.


  • Poser Ambassadors

    But the point I was trying to make is that a preset (or setting) for a dress FAILS on the same dress if you subdivide it. The subdivided version (with higher polygon density) will appear to be less stiff / more bendy than the original. That makes no sense. But that is how it behaves - if you double the number of vertices then you double the bendiness.

    By analogy it would be like I made a glass shader but it only worked correctly on the Poser low-res sphere and not on the poser high-res sphere where it would be less transparent. Such a "glass preset" would be useless if you had to redefine it for each geometry.



  • If the Poser cloth room does not correct for mesh size, I suggest you base any suggested settings to a 'reference' of 15 mm mesh size for a normal garment. Smaller mesh size quickly makes simulation slow. Larger mesh size tends to be too coarse with results looking rough.
    15 mm is a nice average, consistent with curves of that radius.



  • @bagginsbill Okay, so I'm having a "so?" moment. I understand WHAT you're saying just not WHY I would care? If I buy an outfit or dress made to be used in the Cloth room, with it's own material preset, why would I start changing the number of vertices and polygons? Everything supposed to be ready for me to use AS IS. At least, that's my way of thinking.



  • @bagginsbill said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    But the point I was trying to make is that a preset (or setting) for a dress FAILS on the same dress if you subdivide it. The subdivided version (with higher polygon density) will appear to be less stiff / more bendy than the original. That makes no sense. But that is how it behaves - if you double the number of vertices then you double the bendiness.

    Actually, it makes perfect sense why it does that.

    Just about every cloth simulator out there uses the normals as the pivot for the simulation.
    If you subdivide the mesh, it quadruples the total number of normals, but only doubles them in any given direction.

    If you have a 4 x 4 mesh and that area can bend 30 degrees, once it is subdivided to 8 x 8, it can now bend 60 using the same normals calculations.
    The same can be said for any of the parameters in the Cloth Room.
    Subdividing the mesh will basically double the effect.

    Could code be added to account for this? Yes, and no.
    If the faces are square, or acute, or right triangles, things double out evenly.
    If the are out of square, or obtuse triangles, it isn't so cut and dry to code for.
    Sometimes code to account for it would work, other times it wouldn't.
    Calculating it on the non subdivided, then transferring to the subdivided one, just creates more issues that it is worth.
    Cutting the values in half per subdivide, well, back to the square part on that....

    The only way I can think of addressing it, would be to add a few variables to the background code in the cloth room.
    Top of the list would be distance between normals, to account for exactly what we are talking about.
    There are a few others that would need added, depending on what direction you went from there.

    That goes for just about anything that is defined in a per face way, including the Cloth Room, Physics, etc.
    Changes in mesh density in a given area can mess up all sorts of things.



  • I was downloading all my old purchases from Content Paradise and came upon the Cloth Room Assistant, unfortunately written for Poser 8 . There is a video with it and the author is using several of the python calls for the cloth room that do not dials in the cloth room. At some point it would be nice to have dials in the room to adjust the hidden parameters, as it appears they could make the cloth room more usable. I know there has been discussions about some of the parameters I just don't remember where.



  • @eclark1849 said in What are you hoping for in Poser 11.1.1?:

    There is something I am curious about though. I always said that Daz should have just made a native Poser version of Genesis. But that idea has always been laughed at, and it was always SM's move to make Genesis work in Poser. So maybe someone who has more experience with Genesis can tell me, why is it that there are native files of Genesis to work in Maya and FBX?

    There aren't any "native" Genesis figures for Maya, Blender, etc. They all use some sort of importer, most relying on the FBX exporter from DAZ Studio. One of the DAZ to Maya plugins creates a full version of the Genesis figure for Maya, meaning is has the full rig (including the facial rig), and all of the morphs in the original figure (including all the JCM's) for the figure to function in Maya much like it functions in DS. This of course no doubt takes quite a bit of programming to read both the original duf file(s), export/import the fbx file with the proper settings, and convert everything into terms and parameters that Maya needs. The import functions for CC3 seem a bit different though, CC3 may actually be importing the Genesis figure shape to their own figure.

    Unlike what seems to be repeated over and over by some people here, Genesis figures can be used (i.e. imported) in other software without paying DAZ any sort of license fee (though you - the user - do need to have a valid license for the figure or content being imported). SM could easily do this if they wanted to. Genesis duf files are human readable just like Poser files, and rather easy to figure out. Blacksmith 3D actually reads the duf file to import Genesis figures (and of course uses the .obj referenced by the duf) with all of the morphs used on the imported figure.

    The bottom line here is that if SM wanted to make an importer for DAZ figures in Poser, they could do it, but so far have opted not to. With any new version of Genesis, they would only need to update their importer. So their base software, other than the importer, would not be tied in anyway to the development of DAZ Studio or Genesis, leaving them free to design what ever functionality they desire in Poser, that could then be applied to the imported Genesis figure (similar to what it looks like Reallusion has done with CC3). Obviously not as ideal as having native support though, which may be why it hasn't happened, or possibly never will happen.

    Keep in mind though, that when the figures are imported to Maya or Blender, a lot of the functionality that makes them so attractive to hobby users is lost (simple access to a huge wardrobe, props, environments, etc.).

    Sorry, I don't have anything to add to the 11.1.1 update discussion. I just thought I'd answer the question above since I was bored and reading forums while adding a hard drive and re-configuring things on my computer, so I couldn't use it for much more than a web browser for a while (a couple days). However Genesis support (import), and better integration of Cycles along with a nice base cycles shader library, including skin, would make it much more tempting. Woohoo, just finished copying all the data, so back to working instead of surfing the net!

    OK, I just have to add one snarky comment to respond to the snarky TGB moniker before I go away again :). Funny how TGB import is supported by, and seems to be a selling point for CC3, but the "wonderful" characters by SM aren't (but big props to Hivewire 3D for getting Dawn support in CC3).



  • Of course this all relies on DAZ not going back to encrypting their content again. Being as a couple of years ago this was their big selling point to content creators to protect them from illegal downloads. So since DAZ changes direction every couple of months it makes it really difficult to plan a system to import with doesn't it. And just because today they have stopped the encrypting can you guarantee they won't do it again or have something else with the same effect?

    And if they do start encrypting again how is a third party suppose to un-encrypt it without the code to do it with? And if DAZ was to allow someone else to have access to the code to de-crypt how do they prevent what happened to DVD encryption code that got out and now anyone can copy a DVD with a easy to get program.