Daz 3D is part of 
Connect
DAZ Productions, Inc.
7533 S Center View Ct #4664
West Jordan, UT 84084
Licensing Agreement | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy | EULA
© 2025 Daz Productions Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Comments
Colorization and overlay (again, Multiply, 50% opacity on top one to see details through better).
But my question is: do they still give a difference in your overlays on this resolution?
Also, if I am to do a closer close-up I will have to change a pose, as both knees don't fit in the same screenshot with any bigger close-up on knees. Is that fine with you?
Your at it again. Very interesting thread and very interesting to see just how similar the shapes are when they are matched with morphs. I personally can't see any difference.
But my question is: do they still give a difference in your overlays on this resolution?
Also, if I am to do a closer close-up I will have to change a pose, as both knees don't fit in the same screenshot with any bigger close-up on knees. Is that fine with you?
Check my post before. I've updated with some images.
Me neither but I guess I'll have to do some more closeups for people to check ^_^. Again, I can just lay my carry over process for this morph if people want to repeat the experiments themselves.
Check my post before. I've updated with some images.
May I ask if you used orthogonal cameras for renders? Front/left side/right/back?
And if both images have differences, it is quite possible that setup isn't precise as one of the morphs on my pictures _is_ G2M native Thin morph and logically it should have matched with your native G2M Thin morph in at least one of two pictures under same setup. May I ask if you matched the resolution/subdivision/collision as well?
Well, it's as close as I can make it since the figure in your image is so far away (hard to lineup the mesh at that distance).
I use the Base resolution, no subD, no smoothing. Orthogonal Left camera. Preview render.
If you want more height with viewport screenshots, rotate your screen (should give you something like 1800 pixels height). Choose a round aspect ratio (9:16) and let DS figure out the resolution needed. If you want a pixel by pixel comparison, dial in both morphs, choose the angle, select the figure, reset zoom and the zoom again.
For renders, just dial down all diffuse/specular strength to zero and ambient all the way up.
Will do although I don't see how I can select the angle in orthogonal cameras (they just front/back/left/right, 90 degree predefined). I think I'll also give coordinates for positions of all figures, so you can move your own figure to the same spot on the scene if you so wish. As we both use orthogonal cameras, the camera distance and other parameters should be preset and don't change.
Please excuse my thickness, but are you saying that G2F Thin has the same deltas as G2M Thin, yet somehow they look different when applied to G2M? If so, what causes the difference?
That's really scientific method. Why not put exported morphed geometry into some 3d app onto different layers and have a look at meshes in wireframe mode? The vertex positions difference like of 1.2546073 e-21 is entirely calculations error.
My mind since the G2M sales started all the G2F corresponding morphs are most likely dead rabbit ears.
how was i supposed to know that morphs are based on delta? I know when I'm not wanted. Bye
Did not mean to offend. But cannot believe you never had a look at what the installer was putting into the Runtime folder. Just something like this: \Runtime\libraries\!DAZ\Victoria 3\Body\Deltas\...
No, I'm saying that if Thin morphs is carried over to G2M it looks and behaves in the exactly same way as a native G2M Thin morph. This might not be the case with other morphs that have complex influences upon them but Thin, in both G2F and G2M doesn't have any other influences I could discover to influence its shape and behaviour. If resulting shape is the same (which it is, as delta is the same and base in both cases is the same G2M base) and influences are the same (which they are, as there is nothing that additionally influences either morph, i.e. no bone adjustment, ERC Freezes, additional controllers or scaling that affects rigging or weightmaps) the result of shape + influences will be the same. Therefore I fully believe, until proved otherwise, that differences between wowie's pictures and mine are due to differences in setups or jpg compressions, or something like that, and if she/he to compare carry over G2F Thin and native G2M Thin morphs directly, the results would be more precise. But I'm keeping open mind about it. There might be an influence I didn't notice even if I searched through full G2M/G2F data folders, including insides of the all files, to see if any of them links or being linked to Thin morph in any possible way.
In any case it doesn't give anything in a way of distortions, and idea that "things will be quite messy." in clothes doesn't seem to be true.
Okay, thank you. That's what I would expect.
Before I go ahead with knees and chest and hips for FBMThin, I want to post side-by-side comparison between G2F Breast Shapes 01-08 from G2F Body Morphs and V5 BreastShapes 1-8 from Genesis I wanted to make yesterday. Front camera, XOffset of one of the figures -50, preview lights, same material, zero specularity (thanks, wowie, it really works better this way).
ArmsDown is dialed same say on both figures to give more compacted view.
G2F is one figure, Genesis with transferred G2F shape is another, and then boobs from BreastShapes 01-08 (from G2F Body Morphs pack) and V5 Breast Shape 1-8 (from V5 pack) dialed on each respectively to 100%.
Just to note: it is a different test from FBM Thin tests to answer a different question (about boobs between Genesis and G2F) so please don't use it as an argument in G2F/G2M delta comparison, this test isn't from that area at all. As another note, deltas here are obviously different (those are two different meshes), G2F shape on Genesis (being a transferred, through transfer utility, shape, unlike carried over morph) might lack a a bit of definition, so morphs won't look 100% same even in the best case. Also, V5 morphs weren't obviously made to work flawlessly with G2F transferred shape on Genesis (as none of such officially exist), so there are some roughness on Genesis side. Still, the rendered appearance of native G2F + Breast morphs 01-08 and G2F transfer on Genesis + V5 BreastMorphs 1-8 is strangely similar at my opinion.
(I don't know in which order those pictures will appear, but first one is supposed to be Genesis with G2F transfer and G2F itself with zero other morphs to show how default G2F shapes look like)
(continuation from the previous post)
I have never rendered that many naked boobs in my life ^_^" Oh, sacrifices we have to make for science...
Please remember to keep this discussion within the forum ToS, specifically bullet point #2
ThankyouBut sacrifice you must all in the name of science. :-)
But sacrifice you must all in the name of science. :-)
All? But-but-but... even my bottle caps collection? O_o
Edited to add: due to some stuff IRL I'm unable to make second-run test renders for FBM Thin with proper specifications. My apologies, I'll try to make them tomorrow.
I have another method for precision checking of differences between images. Invert colors on one, and overlay with 50% opacity. If a pixel is identical in both images, the result will be neutral gray. Any other color indicates a difference.
Attached is a sample showing the difference between base G2M and G2M with Fitness Details at 1.00. (Default T-pose, front view, shaded wireframe)
I see, it is also an interesting method. I'll try it as well.
I should apologies again, for the delay on promised pictures: I didn't forget but I don't have an opportunity today either to sit and quietly do all necessary screenshots -_- Hopefully Saturday will be less hectic.