um, as a customer, i actually tend to turn down many products because they don't take advantage of displacement. i can't tell you how many clothes i don't even look at because of the lack of wrinkles and folds that could be easily added with displacement. same goes for environments and scenes. yeah, i could do it myself, but frankly, advertising works. i look, i see a perfectly smooth mesh wrapping around a figure's body, and i just think "wow, that looks like plastic," and move on. i don't spend a lot of time trying to picture what products could be like. and since D|S supports displacement, i would think that would mean that making a D|S compatible version would be easier. as for the material room node stuff, yes, please. i mean, maybe people using p5 and p6 aren't making their own skin shaders. but isn't face_off still one of the top merchants here because of his products? and his last product came out in august. all the most photorealistic renders in the galleries here seem to mention either one of face_off's products or individually derived shader. so human textures don't need node work? i beg to differ. frankly, just adding ambient occulsion would be a nice addition to materials (face_off has posted that ao is better placed in the materials than the lights, in his forums if i remember correctly). using bitmap textures and using materials aren't at all mutually exclusive. in fact, they're best when they complement each other. i'd rather have a bunch of material settings to change hair color than a bunch of textures with their hue shifted in photoshop. i'd rather have stone that looks like actual bumpy or carved stone than fake looking bas-reliefs with no dimension or roughness. i'd much rather have properly reflective eyes. as for the hair, well, even the beautiful sapphire fox hair shows it's mapping, so to me, it's 6 of one, half dozen of the other. i still haven't seen any transmapped skull caps get as realistic as this render by Olivier at RDNA. frankly, since shader spider lite is now free and distributable, i've been hoping more merchants would make partial shaders, so that their special effects, tattoos and make-up could be applied to various textures. maybe i want that awesome dragon tattoo to be a mark of a gang, and all my characters need it. and then i wouldn't have to download and store an entire separate head or body texture just to have a small difference like a different color of eyeshadow. it just seems like so many problems could be solved with proper use of displacement, shader nodes and mesh smoothing. i mean, i'm not saying, "don't support the p4/ppp group." but i definitely feel that stuff doesn't need to be so resource intensive and less realistic just to cater to people still using software 5 or 6 years old. if the p4 version doesn't look as good, well, then they have a reason to upgrade. but how is releasing a product that just doesn't look as good as it could without the more advanced alternative better than offering the choice? but you tell me: outside of the rigging issues that anton mentioned, if you don't use only procedural textures, how hard is it to make a p6 product into a p4 "lite" version? i mean, i'm sure morris could sell a p4 version of the hyperreal texture, or of g.i. jill, and it would be popular even if it didn't look as good. it seems to me, as it is, there's also less pressure to upgrade because only a few of the experts show what can be _done. to be honest, i think most poser users assemble more than create from scratch. if only a few products make use of the new p5/p6 features, what incentive do p4 users have to upgrade? g.o.m. - didn't you say you were coming out with a new product for v3 using displacement? and isn't p5/p6 displacement and materials a selling point of your rogues for david (at daz)?