Wish List

[Manuel]

Add here, briefly, the feature you wish. If possible, use images to illustrate what you mean (in example, about targets).
This is not a discussion, just a list. You can replies to add info about a requested feature, but
off topic posts will be deleted.
thx,

Manuel

[chuck_starchaser]

Okay, here's some wishes for new controls:

Chin elliptic (female) (versus polygonal for male):


Top eyelid leaning in (or out):


Bottom eyelid flat:


Mona Lisa eye smile:


Eye brow extension (needs texture manipulation):


Eye brow curvature:


Eye brow bang:


Also, eyebrow thinner/thicker.

Lower lip parabolicity (EDIT: more like "hyperbolicity"):


Move mouth down (or up):


Size of ball of the nose:


Hour glass nose:


Smile... (Or, call it "smilish comissures" to distinguish from smile gesture.)


A few wishes on the usability side:
1) better lighting. Light(s) position(s) fixed relative to screen; as you turn the model, light direction changes relative to the model
2) Ability to pin down the model. Right now, every time I click on the eye or nose or mouth area dots, there's an automatic zooming
and rotation that puts the model out of the position I set it to match the model; and it takes some work to get the same view again.
Would be nice to be able to control the model's transparency, so as to compare with a background image.
3) For the face: Expressions being separate from physiotypes. Right now, specially with the mouth, a lot of physionomical controls
are actually mouth expressions like pursing lips and stuff. That should be on a separate category.
4)This is probably a hard request, but there should be a male-female control for the face. Right now the face is always male, no
matter what you do. For a female face, everything is smoother (less muscle, more smoothing fat under the skin). The female face
looks more ovoid around the chin and cheeks, the nose looks more stylized, the mouth smaller, the eyes not so deep-set, the eye-
-brows thinner and more rounded, etceteras. And maybe there should be separate textures for male and female.
5) There are problems with eye controls, that sometimes the eyeballs show through the eyelids; unless it's a z-buffer glitch.

Archetypal female face:

[xpundx]

2) Ability to pin down the model. Right now, every time I click on the eye or nose or mouth area dots, there's an automatic zooming
and rotation that puts the model out of the position I set it to match the model; and it takes some work to get the same view again.

You can remove the ".camera" files from the target directories to disable auto zooming. (Save them in another directory in case you need them back)

Tim

[chuck_starchaser]

You can remove the ".camera" files from the target directories to disable auto zooming. (Save them in another directory in case you need them back)

That worked like a charm, Tim; thanks! (Actually easier than moving, renamed them to (whatever)._camera_.)

[cicca]

Okay, here's some wishes for new controls (chuck_starchaser)

All these asked head target ------- Yet Done

Cicca

[chuck_starchaser]

All these asked head target ------- Yet Done

Sorry, Cicca; I don't understand your post at all

[cicca]

I mean

targets you asked are alredy done.

or

good news ,there are a lot of new head targets already done.

By the way

(some head female BS whithout new targets)(zip)

[chuck_starchaser]

Well, some of those heads "could" be considered female, but could also be considered male. The bulging lips could belong to an african female. I found no way to get a caucasian-looking female nose, either. Trying to make the nose thinner, you ended up having a pointy nose that looks like some monstruosity from a horror movie, just like I did, I can see.

For a soft female face first of all you need the cheeks and chin to integrate into a sort of single ovoid shape. Currently there seems to be no way to get rid of the "prominent cheek-bones and sucked in cheeks below them" -paradigm.

Secondly, you need that same, integrated ovoid shape to continue around the rest of the head. Soft forhead lines. Right now there's no way to get a soft forehead.

The eyes need to be less recessed, relative to the eyebrows; but I couldn't find a way to move the eyes forward or the eyebrows back; you're stuck with the neanderthal female look.

targets you asked are alredy done. ... there are a lot of new head targets already done

Good news!; can't wait.


EDIT:
Come to think of it, I'm beginning to doubt the whole androgyn paradigm can ever work, though.

That's NEVER going to work; and I'll tell you why: Scientifically speaking, the male gender is a modification of the female gender; NOT the other
way around. The male and female genders are not modifications of some "androgyn middle", either. Wrong mental model, guys.

The "ground state" or "default" of human physionomy is the female physionomy:

When a woman is pregnant with a female baby, there are no special, hormonal duties for her body to perform. Female baby pregnancies
are "much less work" for the mothers to be.

When a woman is pregnant with a male baby, on the other hand, her body has to produce copious amounts of testosterone and inject them
into the placenta. To whatever extent, for nutritional, or whatever other reasons, she's unable to produce testosterone, at some point in
time during the fetus' development, to that extent, whatever organs were developing at that time, will develop in a female way. Which
is why some babies are born with wrong genitalia vis-a-vis chromosomes. (In fact, male gayness results when the levels of testosterone in
the placenta are insufficient at the time the brain tissues responsible for "opposite sex" recognition are developing; --a well known fact in
science circles, but which is never written about in public media for political reasons.) (AND, before you ask, real female gayness is rare,
and in the vast majority of cases it occurs to females with male twins; --their mother's body having injected male hormones into the
placenta trying to suit the development of the male fetus, causing parts of the body or brain of the female fetus developing in a male way.)

But yeah, I think you guys had better consider starting again, from a female model.
Sorry to break it to you so hard, but I don't think you'll ever be able to make a female out of a male OR "androgyn" model.
Never. It's hopeless.

For comparison, imagine this was some MT (Make Terrain) project, and there was a slider to go from flat plains to high mountains.
Whould you start from a "medium mountains" model and then have a control to decrease the height of each individual mountain separately
for when people want a flat plain? That would be absurd, wouldn't it?

But that is exactly what you're doing. You'll never get a smooth, ovoid chin as you need for a female face by tweaking the polygonal-looking
chin of a male --or even androgyn-- model. Never!

You need to start from a "flat plain", and have features that modify it to make something else; --i.e.: your basic model should be the softest
female body, head and face, humanity ever produced; and then male features would be modifiers of that; the way our biology actually works.

EDIT 2:
For a mathematical visualization of a true female-male physionomy paradigm, you need to put the female at the zero end of the scale, and
then consider "degree of maleness" as a logarithmic control. From a "soft male" to a hairy viking you probably go through like an order of
magnitude or two in 'amount of maleness'. Thus, there is no such thing as an "androgyn". If you were to average a female with a viking male
you'd get a middle that is much more male than most males, in other words.
Which in other words means that "androgyn" is something that doesn't exist because the concept itself is ill-conceived.

It's like when someone said to me that the "spiritual center" of the solar system was not where the sun is, but the center of the ellipses of the
planetary orbits. I had to break it to her that for each planet, the orbital ellipse has a different center from that of any other planet's orbital
ellipse.
Similarly here, there's no such thing as a "center" between male and female, because males are like a family of ellipses, where femaleness is
like a circle.

More to the point, female forms have less "harmonics". Their "curves" approximate more transcendental functions. The sine wave is named
after some of those curves.
Maleness adds harmonics, varying in intensity and frequency cutoff by like orders of magnitude.

I'm really sorry to be the messenger of bad news, but I have a duty to tell you: you're going down a blind alley. Better turn around now, before
you invest too much more time and effort on the wrong paradigm.

EDIT 3:
Or if you like a sound analogy: The original Moog sythesizers made their limited repertoire of sounds by starting from 3 waveforms: Pure
sinewave, square wave, and saw-tooth, mixing them and filtering them. In sound synthesis, that's called "synthesis by subtraction", and
it was terribly limited.
Synthsis by addition was the best, but very "expensive" to produce.
FM synthesis was a sort of clever trick to produce something like synthesis by addition but more cheaply and with less controlling parms.

What you're doing right now is like "synthesis by subtraction": To get to female forms from "androgyn" is like trying to subtract harmonics.
It's NEVER going to work.

EDIT 4:
I'm mostly talking about faces, in case my writing wasn't clear.
The body approach of MH seems to be working pretty well. For faces, however, there absolutely NEEDS to be a female-male slider.
Trying to get to a female face piece-meal by tweaking targets from an "androgyn" face is what I'm saying will never work.

[cicca]

Hi

it looks to me that you think at make human as a new genetic way to create a person.

but
MH is just a matter of triangle/quod's vertices (Sorry ,I don't know your knoledge in 3D world)

I.e.
take a look at make target ...you can transform that starting mesh in everything you like. (modelling).
(for sure ,if MH team change the base mesh in a female base mesh ,as you would like,it will be just the same base-"androgyn"-mesh modelled in base-"female"-shape/ same vertices and same quod).

Changing that shape with targets never comes with "everything you like" or we need milions of targets.

some of those heads "could" be considered female, but could also be considered male.

In real life every man and every woman (face speaking ) may look as less male /more male ...less female/more female.
The girl you drown could be a boy (just changing some colour and the hair cut.)
As caucasian male living in Italy I can't really support "The" Caucasian female nose (there are many kind of femele nose).
And even if we speak about a top-model beautiness (face speaking) things don't change.
Googling you will find this variety.


....by the way googling ,right now i found this head (zip)(very similar)....

For faces, however, there absolutely NEEDS to be a female-male slider.

I hope not.
I hope no slider for head .
Just many Male/female BodySetting heads (and a slider for every BS head , so you can slide from zero to one and have some intermedial faces from every BS head)
But I don't know where MH developers will go.
This is in the Manuel Brain.

ciao

Cicca

[chuck_starchaser]

Hi

it looks to me that you think at make human as a new genetic way to create a person.

No I don't.

but
MH is just a matter of triangle/quod's vertices (Sorry ,I don't know your knoledge in 3D world)

What's this? Some kind of insult or challenge? Here's some of my models:










...you could say I've seen what a triangle looks like. How much do you know about the 3D world?

I.e.
take a look at make target ...you can transform that starting mesh in everything you like. (modelling).
(for sure ,if MH team change the base mesh in a female base mesh ,as you would like,it will be just the same base-"androgyn"-mesh modelled in base-"female"-shape/ same vertices and same quod).

Changing that shape with targets never comes with "everything you like" or we need milions of targets.

What is it you don't understand when I say that 'there is no such thing as androgyn, because male is to female
what an ellipse is to a circle', paraphrasing myself? You don't understand what I was trying to say? You've been
thinking about male-female as a symmetrical continuum. No, this is probably too abstract for you; now you're
going to accuse me of implying that you said male and female are mirror images or something. Well, I can't say it in
a less abstract way, so to hell with it. Male and female are not a symmetrical continuum. There's vast degrees of
maleness, and probably types of maleness; whereas femaleness is like a ground state. This is so not just genetically
but anatomically. I think I made clear the level of abstraction I meant, but you're talking about triangles and stuff.
The fact that you use triangles to represent form is a matter of convenience and the way videocards work.
I'm talking about anatomy.

So, yes, I repeat, and contradict you: Having targets to modify female to get male is correct. But having targets to
modify "androgyn" to get male and female from it is NOT. It can never succeed because you can never define
androgyn. There is no such thing. (Male+Female)/2 is like like (Apple+Banana)/2, where the types of bananas
outnumber the types of apples 7:1.

Well, in theory you could make a model of a dog, and get to male or female humans by using targets, but in
programming you always want to model things the way they actually are; the way they work. Doing otherwise
always leads to trouble. You guys are going down a troubled path. Don't want to listen to me? Then don't. I'm kind
of used to people telling me I was right ten years after I say something. Starting from an androgyn model is
wrong, because it's really no different from starting with a male model. The average between a circle and an
ellipse is another ellipse. (Male+Female)/2 => Male. NOT androgyn. Androgyn doesn't exist.