Looks awesome. Thanks a lot!

I made a similar experience as SnowSultan. I do the "This is great" show quite often, and I don't feel ashamed about it. I only do it when I really like an image or when I see that someone's making good progress. Quite often I find it hard to be more specific. And if I like an image, it's as with people I like: I tend not to see their flaws. :-) I also occasionaly point out things I don't like about an image or try to make helpful suggestions. I try to be gentle and friendly and start with what I like before I blurt out my criticism. If I don't find anything positive to say, it's probably not worth it to say anything, so I don't. I've never ever had anyone complain about my comments, but quite frequently people thanked me for pointing things out. The funny thing is, those were usually the people with the most skill (my personal, subjective judgement). So, either these guys have enough self-confidence alright to admit making a mistake or the reason they got so good is that they embraced criticism and really worked hard to get better. Which one do you think it is. ;-)

"Since art is a communication skill and if your image isn't communicating what you wanted to say to the audience then the comments should provide feedback on how to improve it so the audience can get the message you wanted to convey better." That's a good approach for any critic, but I don't think having the artist write an essay first on what they where trying to achieve is very practical. That's why I tend to comment on images that "speak to me" anyway. There's a certain chance in those cases that the communication might be actually working. Of course, technical or beginner's questions are a different story. These are fairly easy to express and most of the time as easy to answer.

Oops! Sorry for my spelling. Not a native writer, here. :-)

Wow! Thanks a lot! I think it's amazing.

Thanks a lot, indeed! I loved using the Gargoyle head, looking forward to try out the new morphs.

Thanks for the examples. Looks pretty nasty there. I've noticed that the sky shines through the hair in the P6 SR1 example, so you must have turned the backside suppression feature, or whatever it's called, on. Could that be causing the refraction problem?

That's a very instructive example. Thanks, Jeff01! Incidentally, does anyone know how refraction is computed in Firefly? I mean, is it physically correct in the sense that both the front and back face change the direction of the light? If so, what if an object only had a front face? I just had that crazy thought that maybe the transparent white sphere might be taken as an object with a different refractive index. I don't think, however, that the problem with transparent objects is necessarily related to the bump map problem. I will try the scaling approach richardson proposed to see if it solves that issue and post my findings here.

Yeah, it's called the "instant monster" effect and it's of course a feature, not a bug.

Hmm, this all reminds the of the "Buffy" episode I just watched: the invisible girl (=lens) setting out to destroy the face of the beauty queen (=James). Better not risk putting V3 in danger here, or something dreadful might happen. Alas, there was no mentioning of bitchmaps.

Reminds me, of course.

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=2276481

Poser models lame? As of Poser 6, I'm no longer convinced of that. James looks phantastic. Jessi's defaults may be a little weird, but no Vickie has been looking great out of the box, either. With the DAZ morphs, it's really hard to obtain any interesting characters, except aliens, monkeys and such. Jessi with RDNA morphs is already pretty versatile, although there are few special effects morphs. It's true, the rigging doesn't work very well, and CL is thus to blame for having released a seriously defficient product. Hopefully, it's just that and no underlying mesh problems. Anyway, for me Jessi clearly beats both V2 and V3. I haven't used Michael, so I can't say how he compares to James. In the end, it's probably a matter of taste. If Vickie 4 comes with a low poly-count, some really good rigging and decent morphs for such things as finetuning the eye and nose shapes, then we're talking again.

This is outstanding. Great idea! Now we need someone to write a Python program for converting formulae into shader networks and vice versa. Oh, or maybe a math shader node which accepts a formula. HINT - HINT - SR2 - HINT - HINT :-)