the use of python scripting in figures is excessively annoying to me Name me one figure, just one, except for mine, that uses Python scripting. >and ERC in figure rigging creates more problems than it solves Ha ha ha. What ERC are you talking about. The only ERC I see in the figures available now is the full body morphs. And the ERC that allows both eyes to move together. And the ERC that allows the "grasp" dial to work. Why does that create more problems than it solves? You are going to hate my figures, lol, they are ERC'd to the MAXIMUM. >might create an advanced figure -- but one that I wouldn't support or use. If the figure is advanced, you won't support it. I don't understand the logic of that. Are you saying that if the converse was true, and it wasn't advanced, that you would support it? > 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. Um, that is fact. Run through the market place. The most successful models have the most add-on product. That is not an unsupported theory, that is basic common statistical research that anyone who can type "Vicky", "Mayadoll" and "Possette" into the search box in the marketplace can do. >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. Yep, if you read my post again, you will see that at the end I said that if there were enough people you could have two teams. And by logical extension, if there were enough people you could have ten teams. But I doubt that you will get more than two teams of people who would work on this and actually get a fully working, textured, usable model finished. (Please prove me wrong and get ten teams and ten models). >That's good. Trying to recreate what is already present? Ynsaen, you know a little of my working principles, and I can assure that I have never intended to recreate what is already present (not one of the products I have made has an equivalent existing product, and I have three completed products that I didn't release, because someone made a similar product before I finished mine). Every model I make has a new feature that has NEVER been done in Poser (hence we now have working tank tracks in Poser, etc). >In some vain hope of replacing it? No -- that is not forward momentum and growth. And I would never ever try to replace what is there. If a model has a purpose, such as standing naked in a temple, then why would I want to replace it. But if the naked model in the temple can't do yoga without breaking her legs, then I will make a model that can do yoga. This new model doesn't replace anything, it has different features and is meant for a different purpose.

Your specialist military, sci-fi, historical and real world site.