Genesis 8.1 / Victoria 8.1

1424345474859

Comments

  • TaozTaoz Posts: 9,973
    edited January 2021

    OK, thanks @PerttiA and @Wonderland !

    Post edited by Taoz on
  • Matt_CastleMatt_Castle Posts: 2,654

    Wonderland said:

    It baffles me why Daz purposely hid those

    My best guess remains that Daz did not want PAs creating characters for G8.1 to have to support corrective morphs for both sets of expression controls, as would have had to have been the case if those controls were officially supported.

    (Also, as noted, there is a minor conflict between the sets, as both sets have controls labelled "Mouth Smile" and "Mouth Frown" that will merge into one slider on default DS settings, although that is not fundamentally something that had to be an issue and can be resolved by editing the files to change the labels, which should not affect presets, as those use the internal naming to set their values).

  • LeanaLeana Posts: 11,822
    edited January 2021

    Taoz said:

    I don't want to install any 8.1 content right now as I'm not sure what it does to the old 8 content.

    Nothing. Your 8 content is still there and won't be modified (at least for the content from starter essentials).

    Post edited by Leana on
  • TaozTaoz Posts: 9,973

    Leana said:

    Taoz said:

    I don't want to install any 8.1 content right now as I'm not sure what it does to the old 8 content.

    Nothing. Your 8 content is still there and won't be modified (at least for the content from starter essentials).

    OK, thanks - I think I saw posts from people who had some things mixed up but maybe that was with Victoria 8.1.  

  • brimstoneomega said:

    scheusal242 said:

     

    AllenArt said:

    Petra said:

    AllenArt said:

    Petra said:

    My first render with Victoria 8.1.

    I think she is very cute.

     

    She is cute, but gahhhh....those tattoos. Urgh. 

    Not too much of a fan either. The Skin is amazing though and I wish they had made a realistic-looking tattoo to match it. 

    Agreed. Love your image tho ;) 

    screwy,  it doesn't look like a tattoo but more like an airbrush painting 

    The problem is that tattoos aren't decals. Tattoos sit underthe skin, not on top of it. LIE sits on top of your character's skin. Tattoos tend to fade into the skin, too, and these look very crisp. Like she went in and got all these tattoos the same day, and that was a week ago. 

    Pretty sure that's why it looks so unnatural to people. The images themselves look very nice, and it's really cool how they (Daz) got them though!

    then LIE shouldn't be so colorful 

  • jestmartjestmart Posts: 4,449

    Create another layer above the tattoo layer.  Copy and paste the skin layer to the new layer and adjust the opicity to 5-10%, now LIE isn't so colorful.

  • Mustakettu85Mustakettu85 Posts: 2,933

    takezo_3001 said:

    Most definitely they need to be in the translucency channel, I was pretty much showcasing the functions of the makeup toggle for folks... I'll do a render for the translucency channel now.

    EDIT: It works great with spectral rendering mode turned off and the translucency turned down to 60-80% but the only tattoo solution that would work for me is to use the makeup toggle/channel; so for the SSS effect to show up properly with spectral rendering turned on, the translucency has to be at 100% which will end up making the tattoo no different than the default setting... And no, I don't render my artwork without the spectral rendering mode.

    And what about the "smudge" effect that happens to maps in the translucency channel? Is there none of it going on in the spectral mode when you need to use 100% translucency? 

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024

    Matt_Castle said:

    Wonderland said:

    It baffles me why Daz purposely hid those

    My best guess remains that Daz did not want PAs creating characters for G8.1 to have to support corrective morphs for both sets of expression controls, as would have had to have been the case if those controls were officially supported.

    (Also, as noted, there is a minor conflict between the sets, as both sets have controls labelled "Mouth Smile" and "Mouth Frown" that will merge into one slider on default DS settings, although that is not fundamentally something that had to be an issue and can be resolved by editing the files to change the labels, which should not affect presets, as those use the internal naming to set their values).

    On the other hand... The way they did it is interesting, maybe giving the user too a way to block G8 morphs from loading on G8.1 - You don't want/need the BimboBumpers on G8.1, just write a similar placeholder file in the corresponding G8.1 morphfolder and it doesn't load.

    I have not tested this, but I think the same rules would be followed. 

  • scheusal242 said:

    brimstoneomega said:

    scheusal242 said:

     

    AllenArt said:

    Petra said:

    AllenArt said:

    Petra said:

    My first render with Victoria 8.1.

    I think she is very cute.

     

    She is cute, but gahhhh....those tattoos. Urgh. 

    Not too much of a fan either. The Skin is amazing though and I wish they had made a realistic-looking tattoo to match it. 

    Agreed. Love your image tho ;) 

    screwy,  it doesn't look like a tattoo but more like an airbrush painting 

    The problem is that tattoos aren't decals. Tattoos sit underthe skin, not on top of it. LIE sits on top of your character's skin. Tattoos tend to fade into the skin, too, and these look very crisp. Like she went in and got all these tattoos the same day, and that was a week ago. 

    Pretty sure that's why it looks so unnatural to people. The images themselves look very nice, and it's really cool how they (Daz) got them though!

    then LIE shouldn't be so colorful 

    Just playing around with the PBRSkin and it occurs to me that one way of making the over-bright tattoos look (and act) more like the real thing is not to place them above the skin like paint but perhaps include them in the Translucency Color channel - use the LIE to add the tattoo image to the body part that's already used in that channel, perhaps dial down the opacity a bit and it seems to produce an effect when rendered that is more faded and 'under the skin' rather than on top of it. This might warrant some further exploration... 

  • PhloxPhlox Posts: 95
    edited January 2021

    So nice to finally have realistic eyes, thank you Daz! V8.1 HD with some morph mixing.

    Wood elf dark.jpg
    1623 x 1623 - 2M
    Post edited by Chohole on
  • RoseRender said:

    Richard Haseltine said:

    RoseRender said:

    Hi all! 
    my experiences so far with Gen 8.1:

    - The face module with all its arrows keeps crashing after seconds of use (DAZ crashes). No chance to use it so I really hope this will be fixed in the near future especially because there are other users with the same problem.

    - I like the new expressions and the new eyes. Much more realistic. Can't tell about the skin as I don't own Victoria. 
     

    - how in the hell can you use the "old" geoshell clothes like underwear and stockings etc. which are not "real" clothes. Everytime when applied to the new Gen 8.1 my character looks like a white albino and nothing works. Is there a workaround?

    Besides that, I really like 8.1. thank you DAZ! 

    You can hide the unwanted surface groups in the parameters pane - there are on/off switches for all polygon groups in the Geometry Shell property group. If you need to apply materials to the new groups then it's probably going to work best to apply the base shader and then copy/paste the settings from the Genesis 8 Torso surface.

    thank you! I will try it! 

    Just a summary of what others have said:

    Using G8 geoshell based clothing on G8.1 likely requires G8 (source) figure and G8.1 (target) figure side-by-side.   UVs are not relevant in this case: both geoshells can use the Base Female UV.  Surfaces are the issue and, provided you use Base Female UV on the geoshell, and with the G8 figure’s geoshell having a ‘torso’ surface and G8.1 figure’s geoshell having a ‘body’ and ‘head’ surface, you can copy and paste ‘torso’ surface to ‘body’ and ‘neck’ surfaces.  This works equally well using G3 geoshell based clothing on G8 or G8.1.  For geoshell based clothing this is simple, repeatable and reliable.  Not quick (if you have many styles/MATs for each product and many products. . . ).   

    These later facts might point to an opportunity for automation but that would be beyond me.  BTW the body suit is G8 geoshell on G8 and G8.1 and the bottom bruises are G3 geoshell on G8 and G8.1.

    G8.1 geoshells.png
    563 x 800 - 537K
  • jbowler said:

    ChangelingChick said:

    s_j_gregory said:

    My experience differs but I may not understand.  I can make LIE based tattoo products that cross the neck region, that work on perfectly well on G8, work on G8.1 provided I am using a Base 8 UV Map and a G8 skin.  If I use G8.1 out of the box (with the Base 8.1 UV) and apply a tattoo that includes the neck region it will not work.  (Because the tattoo does not know what to do with the 'neck' surface.)  (I can change the UV after, certainly, but then the skin is wrong.)   Could be that the devil is in the detail . . .   

    Yes, LIE is UV dependent. It always has been. Existing G8 LIE products work on G8.1 on existing G8 UV skins. What I meant was that if you have a G8 UV skin and apply an existing LIE preset, it will work. 

     

    s_j_gregory said:

    I'd be quite interested in knowing how you are making out as my experience is entirely the oppisite: none of the grafts I have tried so far work;

    Not working on G8.1: NGV8 (don't load); 3feetwolf HD nipples (don't load); breastacular (loads but MAT copy script does not work); futalicious (loads but MAT copy script does not work); gauged ears (don't load); golden palace (loads but MAT copy script does not work); headlights (loads but MAT copy script does not work); high res nipples (loads but MAT copy script does not work); lickalicious (loads but MAT copy script does not work); lifelike nipple graft (loads but MAT copy script does not work). 

    The problems seem to be of two types: when the graft does not load at all it could be because the figure it looks for is G8.  When the MAT copy script does not work it is looking for the 'torso' surface.  There might be a way to 'trick' the graft (in some cases) and fit it from G8 to G8.1, then edit the scene ID and prefered base and save it as a wearable (after making any associated geoshells).  In the second case and, if not encripted, you might be able to edit the graft and or the MAT copy scripts to substitute 'body' for 'torso' (genesis8female for genesis8_1female etc) but you'll likely need cases for Iray Uber shader and PBRskin shader if desired (and you may end up with a mix of shaders because of the cutout opacity not being present in the PBRskin shader... and it being used extensively in the geoshells...).

    In any event, I would be interested if someone has an easier way or is otherwise being successful.  Not being a novice software engineer, I would have to say the grafts, I have tried, don't work.       

    Geografts work without issue if they were made correctly in the first place. Scripts don't necessarily. My suspicion is that those other stores are using scripts to apply geografts for some reason. And if they use geoshells for coverage on certain zones, that's an issue with geoshells, not geografts. Daz has no dominion over how other brokerages allow things to be made. Any geograft you get here will work other than scripts for copying materials or geoshells. 

    Quick work-round for @s_j_gregory:

    Instead of using the MAT copy script (or, indeed, as well as, because it doesn't do anything) select the G8.1F, find the "Body" surface in the surfaces tab, select it, right-click "Copy Selected Surfaces...", click on the geograft (it will also be displaced in the surfaces tab) and right-click "Paste to Selected Surfaces".  In general copy the surface to which the geograft is attached, though I'm not sure what happens with things like tongues.  I can't see any reason why this wouldn't work with the new PBRSkin shader too, although maybe the shader itself has to be set in addition to the copy.

    The products I'm familiar with in the above list are based on straight-forward geografts; the products above that fail in the "MAT Copy" script.  They are exactly like the Daz geografts; they only apply to one figure (G8M or G8F etc) and the geografts don't have materials.

    The difference is in how the missing materials are supplied.  In the DAZ approach the author of the skin has to supply materials for the specific geografts, so to add suppport for the new geograft which adds differently shaped anatomical elements to G8F and G8.1F skin authors will have to add new materials; indeed two separate materials because the geograft has an on/off toggle for a shape change and that shape change results in quite significant differences in the texture maps.

    In the products with "MAT Copy" scripts the authors simply copy the G8F/M "Torso" surface onto the geograft; I don't think the script does anything else, however it is encrypted so I don't really know.  The Torso surface has been removed in G8.1F (at least), but the new "Body" surface has textures in the correct place for at least some of the products; this is why my "copy" work round works.  Of course the copied torso/body gets stretched over the whole geograft so at best looks somewhat flat.  To provide real textures the products use a geoshell and apply textures supplied with the product to that shell (not to the geograft); the approach should just work with G8.1F though the shaders will be whatever the product uses, not PBRSkin.

    To compare with the new Daz G8F add-on that add-on has just one surface with relatively simple geometry (which is probably why the shape change needs a whole new set of materials) whereas the other product I checked has seven separate surfaces with geometry morphs which accomodate the toggle in the Daz product without a texture map change.  Personally I prefer the texture-copy approach even though the geoshell can cause inconvenient poke-through when partially exposed (i.e. when it can't simply be turned off).  Maybe a better approach would be to use some sort of LIE on the geograft surfaces after the material copy but that is probably quite difficult to get right.

    Thanks so much for this. Appreciate it.  I have used the 'trick' of changing the ID and preferred base to overcome the 'won't install' problem in a trial case (so that needs to be checked more broadly perhaps) and have found an instance where the MAT copy script was not encrypted and at least in that case can confirm what you suggest above that a manual copy paste will work/is equivalent (provided shaders match).  It is more complicated with the PBRskin as it doesn't have all the same channels so some layers (shells) will end up with different shaders and UVs: not unheard of.  

    You mention the new DAZ G8F addon - is this with V8.1.  

    Thanks again. 

  • takezo_3001takezo_3001 Posts: 1,997
    edited January 2021

    Mustakettu85 said:

    takezo_3001 said:

    Most definitely they need to be in the translucency channel, I was pretty much showcasing the functions of the makeup toggle for folks... I'll do a render for the translucency channel now.

    EDIT: It works great with spectral rendering mode turned off and the translucency turned down to 60-80% but the only tattoo solution that would work for me is to use the makeup toggle/channel; so for the SSS effect to show up properly with spectral rendering turned on, the translucency has to be at 100% which will end up making the tattoo no different than the default setting... And no, I don't render my artwork without the spectral rendering mode.

    And what about the "smudge" effect that happens to maps in the translucency channel? Is there none of it going on in the spectral mode when you need to use 100% translucency? 

    Nope as the SSS effect in the spectral-mode is muted due to it being based on real-world lighting, plus I use both a customized default SSS that uses the chromatic channel instead of mono such as with the default old default iray uber shader...

    Here are some renders I did to compare the default Uber shaders with my own with spec rendering on and off, note: I replaced the default SSS maps with the diffuse mats and changed the translucency color to white so you can better see the underlying texture, I left the arms/legs at the default for comparison...

    I also turned the translucency down to 0.25% for use when the spec rendering mode is turned off, also note that you can add color to the diffuse and translucency setting to make the character darker, see my second to last portrait pic!

    Also, lastly, my SSS shaders that were based on this guide!

    EDIT: My mistake, I posted the wrong custom setting!

    EDIT 2 STUPID FORUM DELETED MY PICS WHEN EDITING!

    DEFAULT UBER SPC MODE OFF.png
    2509 x 945 - 1M
    DEFAULT UBER SPC MODE OFF2.png
    2506 x 908 - 1M
    DEFAULT UBER SPC MODE ON.png
    2512 x 953 - 1M
    CUSTOM UBER SPC MODE OFF.png
    2528 x 958 - 1M
    CUSTOM UBER SPC MODE OFF 2.png
    2525 x 999 - 1M
    CUSTOM UBER SPC MODE OFF 3.png
    2506 x 959 - 1M
    CUSTOM UBER SPC MODE ON.png
    2515 x 957 - 1M
    CUST UBER SETTINGS 1.png
    800 x 1047 - 149K
    CUST UBER SETTINGS 2.png
    785 x 988 - 128K
    Post edited by takezo_3001 on
  • Old morphs from genesis 8 works amazing on 8.1,only thing that dont work are 3rd party genitals,products like Golden Palace and New Genitalia for V8,does anyone have luck with this,applying it to G 8.1 figure?

  • PerttiAPerttiA Posts: 10,024
    edited January 2021

    grimreaperalphax said:

    Old morphs from genesis 8 works amazing on 8.1,only thing that dont work are 3rd party genitals,products like Golden Palace and New Genitalia for V8,does anyone have luck with this,applying it to G 8.1 figure?

    What happens if you first load those to G8.0, load the G8.1 and move them over (Fit to G8.1) after you have applied the G8.0 materials to G8.1 first?

    Post edited by PerttiA on
  • WonderlandWonderland Posts: 7,027
    edited January 2021

    Matt_Castle said:

    Wonderland said:

    It baffles me why Daz purposely hid those

    My best guess remains that Daz did not want PAs creating characters for G8.1 to have to support corrective morphs for both sets of expression controls, as would have had to have been the case if those controls were officially supported.

    (Also, as noted, there is a minor conflict between the sets, as both sets have controls labelled "Mouth Smile" and "Mouth Frown" that will merge into one slider on default DS settings, although that is not fundamentally something that had to be an issue and can be resolved by editing the files to change the labels, which should not affect presets, as those use the internal naming to set their values).

    Yes, now I see that there are duplicates of many like Eyes Squint vs Eye Squint.. Next time I open G8 I'll screenshot the G8 controllers to see which ones are for it and not G.81 They could have labeled things Eye Squint 2.0 or something though.

    Parameters Combined.JPG
    664 x 1871 - 179K
    Post edited by Wonderland on
  • A couple of quickly thrown-together renders using base G8.1 but with V8.1 skin and tattoos applied. The only difference is that in the second after applying the tattoos I have used the Layered Image Editor to strip them out of the Diffuse channel - I hadn't realised but when you apply these tattoos from the materials menu it also adds them to the map in the Translucency Color channel, so I didn't need to add anything else. The result is more faded inking - closer to the real thing, I think - than the default and obviously can be further adjusted either by changing opacity in the LIE or the translucency strength (although that will also affect overall skin tone as well).

    pbr-tatt-01.png
    939 x 2813 - 2M
    pbr-tatt-02.png
    1044 x 2813 - 1M
  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 1,385

    Wonderland said:

    Not everyone needs realism. I end up painting over skin most of the time in Photoshop to make it look more arty. I’m not even sure what total realism is used for. Even movie posters, magazines, and most people on social media use filters or whatever. I’m not sure why everyone wants to see pores and wrinkles and vellus hair when most photography doesn’t even show that. 

    What are we missing?, maybe we are overthinking how humans must be rendered. 

  • bluejauntebluejaunte Posts: 1,922

    Zilvergrafix said:

    Wonderland said:

    Not everyone needs realism. I end up painting over skin most of the time in Photoshop to make it look more arty. I’m not even sure what total realism is used for. Even movie posters, magazines, and most people on social media use filters or whatever. I’m not sure why everyone wants to see pores and wrinkles and vellus hair when most photography doesn’t even show that. 

    What are we missing?, maybe we are overthinking how humans must be rendered. 

    I'd love to see your reaction to a human that actually didn't have SSS and specular. These photos have all of that, I assure you smiley

  • WonderlandWonderland Posts: 7,027
    edited January 2021

    Ok, this time I think I'm using only the new controllers, but there's a learning curve to get the look you want. I think this is like my 15th try and with G8 I could do expressions I like in a few minutes. Still on the fence about the benefits of G8.1 but I'll still try experimenting to see if it's worth switching. Does this look OK? I can't even tell anymore LOL.

    G8.1 test 9.JPG
    1412 x 1754 - 431K
    Post edited by Wonderland on
  • takezo_3001takezo_3001 Posts: 1,997

    Wonderland said:

    Not everyone needs realism. I end up painting over skin most of the time in Photoshop to make it look more arty. I’m not even sure what total realism is used for. Even movie posters, magazines, and most people on social media use filters or whatever. I’m not sure why everyone wants to see pores and wrinkles and vellus hair when most photography doesn’t even show that. 

    Because there are artists that want to actually create their own pores, wrinkles, and vellus hair and photography/renders do show that as well as stylized renders, the examples you gave are from a cheap camera shot far away... if artists didn't strive for realism we'd still be rendering with posette, or stick with naked Vicky in a temple!

    If you want to create stylistic art that's absolutely fine and great as that really shows the effort and freedom of creating much more than realism, which mimics real life, I started out and still draw stylized art, but to stifle those striving for realism in the place of stylistic art alone is not what this industry is about, it's about artists striving for realism, and also for highly detailed stylized art!

    There is plenty of enough room for both realistic and stylized artists alike!

  • jnwggsjnwggs Posts: 89

    Leonides02 said:

    I have to say, I'm not super impressed with the new PBR shader. 

    Bluejaunte's characters (for instance) have just as much detail and aren't "waxy." 

    The eyes and mouth are definitely better, but that's about all.

    Well I'm impressed. Overall there are huge improvements.Have you check out her teeth? This 8.1 is something to be grateful for...

     

  • jbowlerjbowler Posts: 798

    s_j_gregory said:

    You mention the new DAZ G8F addon - is this with V8.1.  

    No, it's an update to the G8M anatomical elements pseudo-product.  If you have that product the update will include a new geograft which will apply to G8F Basic Female.  It doesn't show up in Smart Content Anatomy/External for a G8F; it seems to be marked as G8.1F specific, but it does seem to apply just fine.  I assume there will be a similar update to the G8F anatomical elements when G8.1M appears.  The "MAT copy" approach doesn't work with the new add-on because it has a single surface; for the MAT copy to work there have to be one or more surfaces designed to place the copied torso (or body) texture maps in the right place.

  • WonderlandWonderland Posts: 7,027
    edited January 2021

    takezo_3001 said:

    Wonderland said:

    Not everyone needs realism. I end up painting over skin most of the time in Photoshop to make it look more arty. I’m not even sure what total realism is used for. Even movie posters, magazines, and most people on social media use filters or whatever. I’m not sure why everyone wants to see pores and wrinkles and vellus hair when most photography doesn’t even show that. 

    Because there are artists that want to actually create their own pores, wrinkles, and vellus hair and photography/renders do show that as well as stylized renders, the examples you gave are from a cheap camera shot far away... if artists didn't strive for realism we'd still be rendering with posette, or stick with naked Vicky in a temple!

    If you want to create stylistic art that's absolutely fine and great as that really shows the effort and freedom of creating much more than realism, which mimics real life, I started out and still draw stylized art, but to stifle those striving for realism in the place of stylistic art alone is not what this industry is about, it's about artists striving for realism, and also for highly detailed stylized art!

    There is plenty of enough room for both realistic and stylized artists alike!

    Those were not my examples. My response was to someone who said if you don't use total realism with pores and vellus hair you are "wrong." Of course all shaders are good, even for non-realistic renders.

    I guess because I've done work touching up actual photos to remove wrinkles and pores and skin imperfections. And professional photographers usually try to minimize that unless they are papparazzi trying to purposely make someone look unattractive. Most people find it unflattering. I've never even actually seen a woman with vellus hair on her nose... I suppose it depends on whether your goal is to make characters attractive or not. I guess I was thinking commercially, where it's the norm to make people look attractive or for artists who just use renders as a base for something like comic books, book covers, movie posters, children's art or wall art. In those cases, pores, vellus hair are not needed. The OP made it sound like there is no use for unrealistic renders at all.I still like V4 a lot and the MANY expressions and morphs I've collected for her face (mostly from Rendo). Although she is in most cases not as realistic as G8, her face is still good for beauty images not meant to be photoreal.I've had art I created with V4 in art galleries and magazines.I am working on more photoreal images now as well, but more beauty oriented which does not require pores and vellus hair. The OP literally insulted me because I don't use that kind of realism.

    Post edited by Wonderland on
  • Gr00vusGr00vus Posts: 372

    Looks like an improvement. Can you please post the surface settings you used on the eye surfaces? 

    Rev2019 said:

    Ok you can get realistic eyes for the first time with 8.1 but not from the default mess

    i did some changes to the eye shaders and also textures.

    let put it this way. this character just woke up from an bad hangover ;)

     

    Issues with Default 8.1 Eyes are

    Way too Dark eyes (shaders and textures are the problem)

    Doesnt reflect the enviroment as much as they should.

    Bump and details are not realistic and is increased too much (eyes doesnt look like level 10 for sandpaper right)

     

     

  • I have a question. In the 8.1 page, the new "skin hair" is advertised. Exactly where is this? Even tough I apply PBR Skin shader manually to G8.1 skin, nothing there. Is it enabled somewhere or?

  • WonderlandWonderland Posts: 7,027

    felix_nukem said:

    I have a question. In the 8.1 page, the new "skin hair" is advertised. Exactly where is this? Even tough I apply PBR Skin shader manually to G8.1 skin, nothing there. Is it enabled somewhere or?

    I believe the vellus hair is only included in V8.1 not G8.1

  • takezo_3001takezo_3001 Posts: 1,997

    Wonderland said:

    takezo_3001 said:

    Wonderland said:

    Not everyone needs realism. I end up painting over skin most of the time in Photoshop to make it look more arty. I’m not even sure what total realism is used for. Even movie posters, magazines, and most people on social media use filters or whatever. I’m not sure why everyone wants to see pores and wrinkles and vellus hair when most photography doesn’t even show that. 

    Because there are artists that want to actually create their own pores, wrinkles, and vellus hair and photography/renders do show that as well as stylized renders, the examples you gave are from a cheap camera shot far away... if artists didn't strive for realism we'd still be rendering with posette, or stick with naked Vicky in a temple!

    If you want to create stylistic art that's absolutely fine and great as that really shows the effort and freedom of creating much more than realism, which mimics real life, I started out and still draw stylized art, but to stifle those striving for realism in the place of stylistic art alone is not what this industry is about, it's about artists striving for realism, and also for highly detailed stylized art!

    There is plenty of enough room for both realistic and stylized artists alike!

    Those were not my examples. My response was to someone who said if you don't use total realism with pores and vellus hair you are "wrong." Of course all shaders are good, even for non-realistic renders.

    I guess because I've done work touching up actual photos to remove wrinkles and pores and skin imperfections. And professional photographers usually try to minimize that unless they are papparazzi trying to purposely make someone look unattractive. Most people find it unflattering. I've never even actually seen a woman with vellus hair on her nose... I suppose it depends on whether your goal is to make characters attractive or not. I guess I was thinking commercially, where it's the norm to make people look attractive or for artists who just use renders as a base for something like comic books, book covers, movie posters, children's art or wall art. In those cases, pores, vellus hair are not needed. The OP made it sound like there is no use for unrealistic renders at all.I still like V4 a lot and the MANY expressions and morphs I've collected for her face (mostly from Rendo). Although she is in most cases not as realistic as G8, her face is still good for beauty images not meant to be photoreal.I've had art I created with V4 in art galleries and magazines.I am working on more photoreal images now as well, but more beauty oriented which does not require pores and vellus hair. The OP literally insulted me because I don't use that kind of realism.

    Oops my mistake, I was quoting/snipped the wrong post...

    As for insulting you for not using realism exclusively, that is the antithesis of being an artist... forget that guy, as I've said, there's enough room in our hobby to go both routes, realistic and/or stylized, and anyone that spurns other artists due to taking either route cannot rightfully call themselves an artist!

     

  • jbowlerjbowler Posts: 798

    felix_nukem said:

    I have a question. In the 8.1 page, the new "skin hair" is advertised. Exactly where is this? Even tough I apply PBR Skin shader manually to G8.1 skin, nothing there. Is it enabled somewhere or?

    It seems to be a pseudo-product like the anatomical elements; here is the "Description" from the product library page:

    This is meant to be distributed with every pro bundle like the anatomical elements are.

    Vellus hair page does not go live

    It's in the "University" bundle, as that comment implies, but it is also listed as part of the bare Victoria 8.1 product.  It consists of "all", "body" and "face" wearables which load specific hairs for "Abdominal" (zip line down the front), "Sacral" (zip line down the back), then on the head "cheeks", "ears", "mouth" and "nose".  If it were exactly like the anatomical elements there would be one vellus hair set for G8F, one for G8M and then each skin author will have to provide materials however the vellus hair doesn't have the geograft seam issues of the anatomical elements and the F product does ship with a range of MATs - "default", "more natural" and "whiter".

  • ZilvergrafixZilvergrafix Posts: 1,385

    bluejaunte said:

    Zilvergrafix said:

    Wonderland said:

    Not everyone needs realism. I end up painting over skin most of the time in Photoshop to make it look more arty. I’m not even sure what total realism is used for. Even movie posters, magazines, and most people on social media use filters or whatever. I’m not sure why everyone wants to see pores and wrinkles and vellus hair when most photography doesn’t even show that. 

    What are we missing?, maybe we are overthinking how humans must be rendered. 

    I'd love to see your reaction to a human that actually didn't have SSS and specular. These photos have all of that, I assure you smiley

    I know that, I've made a reference in how we trying to emulate so much than in real life is not so visible or important. 

Sign In or Register to comment.