No, it's all based on the original post and ramifications of the situation that the subject line presents. If you want the short answer it's "No - that doesn't affect the question at all presently". c1rcle: I suspect the main reason that 3D applications tend not to offload the work to the graphics chip is - which one to support? It's not only the speed that varies across the many 3D chips and versions of OpenGL and DirectX, but also the quality. When it's a glossy game that requires "pretty" then a variable "pretty" combined with fast is probably good enough, but the application engineers have comparatively little control over the quality of the final output if they leave it to the "graphics accelerator" abilities of each PC. Imagine if you will that they develop Poser 9 to use OpenGL exclusively, and leave all the processing to the OS (and hopefully to a hardware chip on the video card). There COULD be vastly different "final quality" images across the range of PC's, from an ageing 2GHz Pentium III with a non-accelerating PC (so the OS does all the OpenGL math) to a "modern" PC with super-duper hardware what supports features that the software-only OpenGL won't even attempt. So, as far as I'm aware, it's the desire to avoid trying to support an infinite number of video cards whilst losing control of consistency in final renders that is the only real reason that 3D accelerated is used for "preview" or "working" quality but final renders are pushed through the CPU. The way it's done now (Poser or Daz Studio - among others) the 3D app. authors can predict the quality of final output regardless of the underlying PC (in theory). Cheers, Cliff