"when you make a texture, for which one of the 50 UV maps will your texture be for" Either the one you prefer or your own version -- that's the point. IT is the standardization of figures that is the flaw and the limitation. We don't want standardization. We want an ever increasing diversity. "if you make clothes, for which CR2 will they be made." SO we work with structures that are anathema to our particular viewpoint? WHile you and I share some elements in common, the use of python scripting in figures is excessively annoying to me -- and ERC in figure rigging creates more problems than it solves, by me. A community apporach such as you suggest might create an advanced figure -- but one that I wouldn't support or use. Through my concept, the market will decide which adaptations and variants are most popular -- and note the plural. Not a single figure -- which is against the fundamental concept of as many as possible -- but a variety of them. " That means these models will have very little standardised product, and you and I both know that a model without product to support it is a dead model that will never take off." I do not know this. It is not fact, it is theory. Unsupported theory with weaknesses in the fundamental assertions that underlie it. We have a "standardized" product already. The objective is to stop that. Standardization is a limiting factor -- in nature, in business, and in life. By doing it openly, one could suggest that several teams do exactly what you describe, creating variants of the figures that each appeal to differnt segments of the marketplace. That's good. Trying to recreate what is already present? In some vain hope of replacing it? No -- that is not forward momentum and growth. And as for dead -- if a merchant has a figure they love and understand -- something they've put hard work into -- they will support it. And support is all it takes to make a figure usable. So no -- it's not dead. Indeed, it's more alive than ever.

thou and I, my friend, can, in the most flunkey world, make, each of us, one non-flunkey, one hero, if we like: that will be two heroes to begin with. (Carlyle)