well, just cause I don't want to miss peeping my head in and saying it all over again, I'm posting here, lol. however, it was already said :( "So using the full potential of the simple Poser rigging system CAN result in very good figures. It's just that most common figures are not rigged optimally. Not a fault of the rigging system, a fault of the riggers." Less simply put, and inclusive of muscular deformation, an effectively rigged figure using the poser system is capable of bending the same way as a weight mapped figure, and at a lower system overhead cost and easier end user alteration capability. It is not possible with the generic, simplistic rigging currently prevalent in the figures commercially available at present. Weight mapping came about before the poser system, and is actually more archaic. It is, however, a markedly different system, that requires a greater level of effort, time, and attention to utilize effectively than the poser system, which is much simpler to learn and provides more time (and cost-) effective results. "The question is, will a future Poser X that can produce similar quality pics like Max or Maya also become as hard to learn as Max or Maya ? It better should not, as otherwise it would loose a lot of its market to an entry level D|S. How many of the average users are using all of Poser 6 advanced features right now ? And dont forget that Poser characters usually have only one set of JointParemeters that have to handle all posing. If you readjust the Joints for more extreme poses the results will get much better." Weight mapping, by the nature of its methodology, is more complex to perform, requires greater complexity in programming, and a greater knowledge on the part of the user. So, yeah, it'll be a more complex method. Which will affect conforming anything, making clothing more complicated to use and to make unless a shift to dynamic is used. The P6 rigging enhancement already in place aren't used by even the "big" name riggers at this point, and the center of mass element is esentially ignored by most folks, which creates a dramatically more involved capability in posing that's not being paid attention to. If joint paramaters, right now and as they are, are so difficult to understand for most people, then what the hell will they do when they have to start making the weight and zone set up to create an effective weight mapped rig, which are roghly double in number per joint and are tied to the mesh itself, which the poser format is not. weight mapping is a good thing. But it is not better by default. Being an industry standard doesn't make you better -- it just makes you used more widely. Sorta like Windows. Or postwork. add in joint controlled morphs and erc factors to poser's rigging, and the capability to match is suddenly present both easier and more directly. ya just can't port it over to competitive high end applications. Big wah. Am I the only one that remembers when they all used the poser system themselves, but chose to change in part becuase it looked like poser was going to die off? OR that maya (which is the industry standard, again)had seven different rigging methods for a couple versions there? Its a matter of personal taste and need. While I recognize that some people want to move poser figures into other applications, it's my opinion that they should simply drop poser and import the raw models and do the rigging themselves, which is the industry standard practice -- each character has a custom rig. Most have multiple rigs for different purposes within any given project. Sully had seven rigs, for example. Last I saw, shrek had 19. ah, what the hell. I'm crazy anyway, and what does a girl know... ;)

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)