Modeling Characters in A7 (as Opposed to Older Versions)

[Thaeris]

First, allow me to thank the team that makes MH possible. This is really a great, free tool, and I'm not sure what else is out there that is similarly free and of comparable qualities...

However, being a hobbyist as far as character modeling goes (I typically play with aircraft and spacecraft), forming a character that met "presentable" standards was easier in older alphas, if only in my experience. I do think the newest alpha certainly allows for more possibilities than A5, which I was using last. BUT, I did find that getting features and shapes to where they started passing for approval to be a much lengthier process than in A5. I'm thinking that although the newest character may be more universal as far as forming any character goes, "it" is definately the ugliest character to date (at least with regards to the European physique).

This is by no means meant to be a complaint, I'm just wanting to know what other members may think of this sentiment. Or perhaps I'm just really bad at this. In any sense, again, thank you for MH.

[joepal]

Any chance you could exemplify with a few screenshots?

[brkurt]

I've brought this issue up several times. Here again is the expectation that one of the models should be the 1950's fashion magazine ideal of the Nordic (not just European) woman. And...the problem is that Makehuman is based on algorithms created by using real body scans, and then calculating a statistical norm. For example, the norm for a nose is not sharply chiselled, with a flair, but rounded.

What is probably necessary is a 'caveat' in the menu that describes what design choices were made.

Out there, it's still the World According to Barbie.

[Thaeris]

Heh, I can agree with that.

Unfortunately, when we produce characters, we typically aim to produce good-looking characters. I think the base-mesh a few alphas back might have been a more appealing subject for modeling, and easier to model as well. BUT, with that came other limitations as to what the modeler could do or not do. It all comes down to actually using the software with purpose, which I've not done much of. Again, my observation comes from putting the newest alpha through similarly light paces as I did the older ones, which due to their comparative limitations were faster to produce results with.

...That loss of speed ideally communicates the greater flexibility of A7, which after an hour or two immediately becomes apparent. Speaking of the speed loss, I wonder if having a library for typical facial configurations wouldn't be in order. This would make editing things such as the construction of the cheek bones and flesh, nose and nose bridge, and extension and angle of the upper jaw easier to manage than it is now.

And, sorry... I don't think screenshots are really in order right now.

[duststorm]

Hey Thaeris.

Thank you for your interesting and constructive critique.
I admit that we still have some ways to go to achieve good facial editing. While nothing definite is planned, thought has gone into partly automating the editing of facial features to help users to get a convincing and natural looking face when changing some parameters. I think either using this technique, or by provisioning a library of easy accessible and reusable face types we can help users quickly get a certain type of face.
Personally I would be most excited with an approach that would result in makehuman generating unique faces, instead of seeing the same face come back everytime.

If you have any more details about exactly which features you are not satisfied about (I assume you're mostly talking about the face), please share them with us.

[Sethren]

All we need is a type of multi point face reconstruction that reads the topography of a front face photograph and a side view in order to be aline the micro and macro points for a very close match to the custom face a user would want.

[Thaeris]

Here are some thoughts after a bit more work on a random character:

(a.) I've always liked the helpful manipulator toolbars, such as the head-shape controls and the feature shape controls. These are great and easy to use. But until you dump time into using the software, navigation about all the menus can be a slow process. It would be nice if there was an easier or more intuitive way of using those tools. Unfortunately, I don't really have a suggestion for improvement quite yet...

...What I think may be an easy fix is to add a symmetry tool for the feature controls. This would allow a user to adjust just one cheek or ear with the control toolbars rather than having to go back and adjust both. Basically, having the "micro" feature symmetry modifier added to the feature modifiers would be very much appreciated.

(b.) From everything I've read and done, one of the principal tools which an artist uses in designing a character are proportional relations. In this regard, it would be really useful to define constraints to body parts... (unless you can do that already and I simply happen to be unaware) For instance, the user may first define a net height. This height is then locked in as constant unless unlocked by the user. Because head heights are often used as relations to other body parts such as the torso (including the neck, possibly), arms and legs, a set of sliders may then allow the user to adjust these elements (as well as the head size) with respect to both a proportional factor (again, with respect to the head. For instance, the torso and neck might be around 2.5 times the head height.) as well as a numeric measurement. If this is an interesting concept, I could draw up a simple UI concept if necessary.