simplified solution for modernisation of 10-15 year old content

• Vilters means well. But he is a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look it up.

ROFLMAO

• @ghostman Ghost yes. But I can not get away people with teaching others wrong stuff.
I am a scientists and therefore I have some important rules. When I am not sure about something, I keep my mouth closed or at last don't try to sell my theories as the only one right solution.

• I hear a LOT of talk, from people that have NO clue about what or how it works.

Again, and again, and again,
The procedure uses THE SAME TEXTURES YOU do.
The render output and realism is EXACTLY THE SAME

But Math Room work is simplified.

A lot of HARD comments from blindfolded people that never took the time to study.

Well, don't worry, there will be a video about LAFEMME, and it will contain the study part for you. (Unfortunately I am in bed with the flue.)

• If people know how Opengl and graphics cards handle non square textures, they would stop using them.

If you force mip mapping, the texture can get huge, and then has to be stored differently (square versus rectangle).
All Uv data on a non square image is in floating point. (Has to do with textel (floating) versus non textel (normalized).)
Filtering of non square is also limited, forcing it to be stored as square to do certain things to it.

If the program being used forces it to be stored as Square to do something to it, all advantages of the rectangle are lost.

And you can filter a non square image in Poser........

• Being labeled an elitist snob or similar, I stopped trying to promote realism to those who have no taste for it. And when presented with an argument that some technique that is far simpler than mine is more than good enough, that is the signal that I will not achieve anything by explaining it further.

I realized that you can't make them understand. It's not because realism fails to be better - it is better.

The problem is that when I'm trying to explain realism, and what it takes to get there, to someone who is happy with his own work, this is in fact a criticism of that individual, whether you intend it or not. To show a shader with 20 nodes is enough to implicitly say to this person: "Your shader is really bad". Even if I don't say that. So I stop showing.

Vilters means well. But he is a victim of the Dunning-Kruger effect. Look it up.

Hi BB, while I respect you , please take a look at the specular maps of LAFEMME.
=> So, you have spec on you belly, but no spec on your back. NONE, OK?
In the face specular map it goes from true BLACK to TRUE while in 5 cm.

Then they add a ton of nodes to overwrite the spec maps (PS the same for bump maps) and then they wonder why they can not get clean renders out of the thing.

Well let me tell you that a simple greyscaled Diffuse texture does the Job 10 times better. 'At least I have spec on my back without a thousand calculations to Rome and Back.

• ... anyone got any popcorn?

this is gonna go the distance.

• **No, it just got better then this.

LAFEMME does NOT load specular maps

Everything is build inside the advanced material room using a greyscaled Diffuse textures.

Don't believe me?
Open Poser
Do a collectsceneinventory and save to folder
See what you have in that folder.

They do EXACTLY what I do.**

Build everything from a greyscaled Diffuse texture and add some procedurals.

• **I think it's time for some of you to start apologising.

Next time, STUDY before making comments.**

• Well let me tell you that a simple greyscaled Diffuse texture does the Job 10 times better. 'At least I have spec on my back without a thousand calculations to Rome and Back.

I never spoke about any specific detail in this thread. I am simply saying that it is not helpful to argue with someone who is satisfied with his render.

To be more specific, I "bought" LaFemme and was horrified but I have not said a word against it.

And I have not said a word against YOUR lady either but every time I see her I cringe.

• This is what I consider decent.

• @vilters

Everything is build inside the advanced material room using a greyscaled Diffuse textures.

No.

• bump is purely procedural. No map used for it at all.
• specular is based on the red channel of the diffuse map (this is NOT a ’greyscaled Diffuse texture’) plus some procedural. I think this is done similar to EZskin.

They do EXACTLY what I do.

Nope, its is different.

But all that doesn’t matter. The first thing i did after loading LaFemme was to setup my own shaders for her ;-)

• Hi BB, you know what you are doing, you don't have to apologise.

But there will be a video for all others.

• I kinda like my method of creating a separate bump map a separate specular map a separate sss mask map and a separate sss bloodmap and painting the diffuse map aswell.

But yes it’s a lot of work, but imho it’s worth it. :)

• @biscuits
Completely agree with you.
Proper bump and spec maps are worth the extra effort, but with LAFEMME they are so good, they don't even load them.. LOL.

• And just to be fair. When you load the 'simple PBR' mats that come with LF all maps are used. Diffuse + bump and the specular map is transformed into a roughness map (haven’t checked how well that works).

• @nagra_00_ Yes, the Simple PBR maps are the only ones I've played with so far. I'll be trying the others as well. I just haven't gotten around to it . . . yet.

• @vilters

I hear a LOT of talk, from people that have NO clue about what or how it works

Now this is something. You want to tell here that all the people here have no clue how the material room works and you have found with your one material zone on a human figure ,and three nodes set up , the holy grail?
And than you ask people to apologize? People who study since years realism in Render's, watch webinars from Experts, read explanations from masters like BB ,Snarly, spent hours of hours ,over weeks, months, years with try and error to learn correct material zones creating, light study on different part of the skin , SSS set up and name all the nodes.
Now you come and set up three nodes ,merge materials together and present this as the real deal?

Nope, from my side no apologies.

• @bagginsbill How did you set up your shader here? Could you please share the set up?

• @bagginsbill Absolut fantastique .

• @vilters You do realize that with that skin setup, as I mentioned to you years ago, you are completely unable to have a 3D figure who can show some basic human variations? I recall you said at the time, and still do, that having separate textures for each eye is a waste of time, but that means you can't make a figure who looks like this:

or this:

or this:

There's no retouching of the eye colours: David Bowie, Mila Kunis, and Jane Seymour all have heterochromia. Others include Kate Bosworth (she usually wears contacts to even them out when acting), Henry Cavill (one blue, the other tinged with some brown), Alice Eve, Simon Pegg, Dan Ackroyd, Christopher Walken...

And, of course, you're unable to show a character with one eye different due to physical damage, or a character such as this who is supposed to have an artificial eye:

So it's not just realism that setup is bad for, it's bad for science fiction and fantasy.