Forgive me for "hi-jacking" this thread, but it is a very closely related question I'm introducing, so it seems better placed in this thread than one of its own. If we look beneath the specific apps and tech stuff, I think all Poser users have two essential wishes : ease-of-use and realism. P5 increased the realism at the cost of ease-of-use, as a LOT of existing Poser stuff became less useful. A somewhat un-wise move, IMHO, much as I admire the Poser people. DAZ studio seems to be meant to rectify that situation, for obvious reasons. However, DAZ appears to have decided that this no-backwards-compatibility is nevertheless OK, as V3 seems to be less-than-compatible with much of the existing Poser stuff. Again, increased realism, at the cost of ease-of-use. It's none of my business to speculate on what I think CL and DAZ ought to have done, but I'd like to hear the opinion of all you Poser USERS out there. Both DAZ and CL have a fine track record of listening, so it's always worth one's while to express an opinion. So my general question is this : specific apps aside, what are your preferences? Would you like future Poser apps (DAZ, CL or any other) to be backwards-compatible first and foremost, even if it means that any new functionality must be built on top of the existing, sometimes problematic basic structure (such as only being able to pose dresses/cloaks/capes properly via extra handles and "ghost" bodyparts, and having to use much the same principle for trans-based, non-dynamic hair, etc.) ? Or would you prefer future Poser apps to incorporate totally new functionality, such as in P5, even if it means getting a whole new "fleet" of Poser figures and stuff to be able to use the new functionality ? As you've probably guessed, I'd prefer backward compatibility, even at the price of delayed new functionality. I think that existing Poser functionality could have been extended A LOT, as seen in the ground-breaking stuff made "within the envelope" by people like Anton, Hmann and others. New functionality would have to come at some point, but I'd have welcomed a focus on backwards-compatibility, and I'd like to push DAZ and CL towards that attitude as much as possible.