So far I see zero difference between just useing the IBL lights and using them with Abient Occlusion. Why is it that they seem to have taken the time to rework some portions of Poser but still the lighting tool set is just as bad as all previous versions. Don't they know that thier tool set is crap compared to Truespace or MAX? Its far easier to place and manuver lights in those programs than its ever benn in Poser. Its clear the light tool set was an area where the Author had little common sense.

Check to make sure you have raytracing enabled in Firefly, because you need it for AO to work.

There's an obvious and distinct difference in how a render looks with and without AO (when it's used properly). So you are probably either doing something wrong, or perhaps just missing a simple step somewhere.

Message edited on: 06/10/2005 17:48

You cannot compare Max to Poser...'tis very unfair :)

yes, max is more than ten times the price of poser.

Message edited on: 06/11/2005 02:40

Yeah but the lighting system is as simple aas anything. Even Truespaces is superior. I'm not refering to the quality of the lighting. I'm refering to the actual tools and how you can handle them. Posers is amatuerishily designed. Thats all I mean. Rather than taking a que of the most common ways to design a light tool set. AS found in MAX, Truespace, Lightwave and countless others. The Author desided to make up his own. And that has prven to be a very bad idea

Well, some of us have been able to do wonderful things with Poser's horrible, awful lights, so they can't be all bad. :-)

Again. Im not talking about what the lights emmit. Im talking about the actual tool