I notice a very interesting quote on one of the images there. "I made her smile just for fun, but it turned out to be a very difficult process." Are these static or rigged-for-posing meshes you're showing us? Because I'm pretty sure you can get something far more detailed if it's static than if it has to move and look good from all angles in as many combinations as possible. I don't know which they are, which is why I'm asking. There's no question that they're gorgeous, obviously. I'm not seeing extreme poses in those images like those shown for both Miki and Vicki in this thread; there is no means to compare that capability. There's obviously a lot more modeled detail, but no indication of how well that would translate to the level of flexibility that is expected out of a Poser figure. Would it be nice to have a figure that has that level of (adjustable to different body types and ethnicities and so on) detail and poses brilliantly? Well, that's a big 'duh' right there. To treat anything else like rat poison and insist that the only worthy pursuit is "as close to real as possible" is, IMHO, forgetting a lot about art in general as not all art is even approaching realistic. I can be impressed with technical prowess. I can be impressed by imagination and expression. The two don't necessarily both hit at once. I've seen a number of things that make me think, "Wow, that's some really impressive skill with the software!" that aren't great compositions or aren't otherwise interesting to me in any way, for example. "Look at the level of my technical skill" is not a substitute for "here is a compelling expression of my idea". The current tools may be imperfect and improveable, but seriously... they are tools and they can be worked with. What one does with them is substantially more relevant.

-D
---
It's all fun and games until someone loses an eye texture.