Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
You can. Just ask any of the free AIs (such as the one from Google search) to guide you with step by step instructions and handhold you in case of issues. You can even create a shortcut in the menus to invoke the script on demand.
Are the seams appearing on the default A-pose or after posing a character?
If they are appearing after posing, then it could be triggered by character specific JCMs or other morphs that cannot propagate/influence the geograft.
If they are appearing before posing, then gradually dial the character's body morph dial, starting from 0, to isolate the offending morph.
There is "PropertyController.dsa" script that you can find from the links here that can show all loaded morphs on a figure. If you cannot find the script there, then try searching with the script name. Run it both before and after posing the figure.
I haven't used the sculpt tool so can't say for sure what's happening in the background. But there a few instances where the vendor has resorted to their own proprietary activation mechanism instead of just using Daz serial numbers. For example, see this old product called Look At My Hair where the vendor handled the activation on their own site. It is possible that something similar was planned here as well, or may be just a scaffolding for a yet to be implemented feature, or just a remnant of an abandoned idea, that only the author can say.
Or, it could be just be collecting and sending benign analytics data on feature usage, or worse, auditing unique installations to check piracy by comparing against reported sales numbers.
Most of the reputed marketplaces like app stores and plugin stores have rules requiring the developers to disclose what information they collect. Not sure if Daz mandates the vendors to disclose such information.
For the debug port check, I think it's trying to check if a memory scanner/injector is trying to interfere with it, probably as an anti-piracy measure. All I can suggest is to monitor the traffic using a network/packet sniffer and report any transmission of suspicious/encrypted data.
A more relevant question to ask, or approaching the concern from a different perspective would be to discuss the cost of producing comparable 2D content catering to the same market/audience using Daz vs AI workflows.
Would a professional artist proficient in Daz and owning licensed copies of content be able to charge less than someone proficient in AI tools workflows for generating similar professional quality output for the same consumer?
IMO, the economy of production at scale (once the quality threshold is surpassed) is going to be a major factor that will shape the market moving forward.
Also, the fact that there are plenty of requests here for converting G9 characters to G8, by itself proves that it is possible to achieve the same level of quality, may be even surpass the bar of G8. I get that some folks here are too consumed with their sunken cost fallacy and would go to great lengths at criticizing the limitations of G9. Let it be known to those folks, that each time someone makes a request/post for a G9 to G8 conversion here, they are being proven wrong.
G9 has both male and female base morphs. It's a different issue why some PAs ignore using them as base. Old workflow habits or reluctance to adapt, perhaps.
Ah yes, 7 years ago, someone indulged in the ultimate “guilty pleasure” of eating a bat, and naturally, the entire world had to shut down.
C O N S E Q U E N C E S
Iirc, SickleYield's hat and hair helpers are available since Genesis 2. In the past, I have had decent success by fitting G8 hair onto her G3 wearable prop and then using the prop's morphs to adjust any unwanted clippings or gaps. Since I do not use dforce, I cannot confirm if dforce would function properly when backported using this method. Note that while this may work for short hairs, long hairs that have morphs or additional bones may cause issues.
There were some earlier efforts in a similar direction. For example, https://github.com/edolstra/dhdm .
@eelgoo I suggest creating a pinned thread for Open Source Tools and Utilities. It would go a long way in preserving these efforts and make it easier for those who intend to build upon these.Google (or cloudflare) triggers additional verifications depending upon the trust and reputation of the IP address and location (besides other factors) from where the request is being made. Github, for example, goes as far as to check the location of the students to verify if they are applying from inside their campus, while attempting to avail student discounted offers. There is, of course, more to it, but you get the idea.
If you are working in the offices of a major company, chances are that the IP subnet leased to them by their ISP (or ASN) are trusted, at least better than residential IPs, and far better than the ones VPN providers use. I use uceprotect to check reputation. Then there are methods that can easily detect whether the originating IP is being used as VPN.
There are also phone number providers that can provide you a temporary phone number for a fee for the purpose of receiving SMS, but chances are, those phone numbers are already black listed. This could be a reason why Google is requiring the QR scan instead of just the SMS OTP.
In short, you need to create your account using the internet service provided by a reputed institution, then may be, you stand a chance to avoid being 'challenged'.
The AI may have some better examples in the ecosystems of Qt, cloud computing and JavaScript frameworks, but those are not the hills I wanna die on 😉 Also, I cited the examples of Eclipse and Azureus, since Azureus is built on top of Eclipse SWT to provide consistent look-n-feel across multiple platforms, like Qt, but using Java.
That's why I think it's important to distinguish between ownership and control. A CLA may determine who has the legal right to commercialize or relicense future contributions, but an open-source license like the GPL ensures that released code can't simply be taken away. Azureus becoming Vuze and later being forked into BiglyBT is a good example: the maintainers controlled the project's commercial future, but they couldn't prevent the community from continuing the open-source codebase.
Azureus is a real-world example of how this can play out (and since many of us here may have used it in the past). Azureus started as a GPL open-source BitTorrent client developed primarily by a small group of maintainers. Over time, the company behind it shifted its focus toward commercialization, rebranded it as Vuze, added proprietary features, bundled advertising and content services, and the community gradually became less enthusiastic about the project's direction.
The important point is that the original GPL code didn't disappear. Because it had been released under the GPL, anyone could fork the last GPL version and continue development. That's exactly what eventually happened with BiglyBT, which continues as a community-driven open-source project without the commercial baggage that accumulated around Vuze.
So, in a sense, both sides of the open-source model worked exactly as intended. The original maintainers were free to pursue a commercial strategy, and the community was equally free to continue the open-source codebase in a different direction.
Did Azureus use a CLA for accepting contributions? Did sourceforge support CLAs back then? Did BiglyBT achieve the same heights of popularity and success as it's parent Azureus? Well, these are questions for another day.
Disclaimer: as before.
Who's 'in charge'? Who 'owns' the assets? Who makes the decisions?
So after all the free coding and artwork by others, the 'foundation' boys could walk away with the prize. Sort of like vibe-coding, but with humans instead of AI.
The answer to those questions is usually hidden in the project's CLA (Contributor License Agreement). Some founders (using your term) go to great lengths to legally "sanitize" third-party contributions before they're merged into the codebase. That often means requiring contributors to sign a CLA that gives the project certain rights over those contributions.
The interesting part is what rights the CLA actually grants. If the founders intend to keep the project under a single open-source license indefinitely, they may not need much more than a DCO (like the linux kernel) or a fairly limited CLA. But if they want the flexibility to dual-license the project, change the license later, or incorporate community contributions into commercial products, the CLA will often grant them those additional rights. That's why it's worth reading before contributing.
GitHub supports CLA workflows through various bots and integrations, so the mechanics are fairly straightforward. The legal substance, however, comes entirely from whatever terms the project chooses to put in its CLA.
A good example of a mature contributor agreement is the Eclipse Foundation's. Eclipse hosts projects under several different licenses (including the EPL and GPL, depending on the project), and its contributor agreements are designed to accommodate those differences. The Eclipse Public License itself is a weak copyleft license: modifications to EPL-covered code generally remain under the EPL, but independent modules can remain proprietary. That's one reason Eclipse has been widely adopted for commercial development while still remaining an open-source ecosystem. It also gives you an idea of how much legal thought can go into a well-designed CLA.
Disclaimer: I took some feedback from chatgpt to validate my statements (since we are talking about licenses) and fix the language (since english is not my native). Otherwise, the content, examples and explanation are entirely mine.
I am not thrilled about it being open-source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_formerly_open-source_or_free_software
