Ahhh, I see, yes UVMapper does tend to do that sometimes. I can't help you there, mapping models or re-mapping them is a complete mystery to me, kind of like the Bermuda triangle. :) In answer to your point about studio. Studio still utilises a uvmap facility and operates with a Runtime directory. So the implication here is that it will still reference external geometry (seems to insist on it in fact). This means that you will be able to remap models precisely like you can now, without having to purchase expensive software (Unwrap3D is only 40 odd dollars and considerably more powerful than UVMapper) You shouldn't need to rebone from scratch or make new morphs. The primary difference is that Studio, judging on it's insistance for external geometry reference, won't use embedded morphs. So any morph will need to be in an external geometry file and dynamically referenced through the program. I have no idea how that's going to work until they actually implement it in the program and explain it. It appears that it will use a form of scripting engine that will call the morph when it's needed. All a bit of a puzzle there and until they get it to work in-house we won't have much of a clue out here. No, Daz doesn't pander to the erotica folks, this is true. Genitalia appears to be a bit of a no-no with them and in many ways I can understand their resistance to playing in that field. I very much doubt this will change any time in the future. I would find it extremely difficult to believe that any modifications you and the others do to figures would be non-functional in Studio. Regardless of Daz's apparent prudishness in this vein, you use "morphs" to detail anatomy. Morphs do work in studio (after a fashion at the moment) and will work properly later. The difference here is in the way those morphs are applied. It may even be that your option here will be to stick with Poser. It's impossible to judge until these functions are introduced to studio in order to compare them. I agree with you on the beta/vhs thing, betamax was far superior. We had the same thing with satellite broadcasting here in the UK.. BSB used a square receiver that wasn't affected by atmospheric conditions, SKY used a dish receiver that sucks. Sky won, BSB were bought out and we have BSkyB using mesh based dishes that get knocked out in a high wind, rain and several other weather conditions that never even phased the squarial. but I'm not sure if its going to be full featured enough for me to get a lot of use out of it That may be likely. Studio is quite obviously going to be plugin based and infitinately customisable as a result, but it won't hold the basic functionality that Poser does. Then again there's a difference between "Free base software" and a 300 dollar full program. It's even possible that Studio will never match your needs. Can't really judge that yet. *** because by now I believe only by it doing well, will we see more innovations on the Poser side of things.*** That's entirely likely. It's more than probable that one of the things that prevented Poser developing properly was it's complete lack of competition and the idleness of CL because of their market domination. If Studio makes the grade it will be a serious wake up call for the people who rested on their laurels for four years.