Garee, I can get P7 to look like that. What I meant was the side by side above your post. The PPro render in that post looks more faded and washed out than the P7 one.

Can you put a non-tweaked P7 render next to a non-tweaked (and that includes photoshop) render of them next to each other?
You cannot tell the difference if it's just one pic, know what I mean? Saying the render quality is better is all very well - but is it? Or is it only better because of the gamma correction - which, quite frankly - I can do in Photoshop. That doesn't justify a $200 upgrade pricetag for me, but if it is significantly better than P7 (I don't see how it can be - same engine as far as I know) without the gamma correction then it might be worth it.

So far nothing I've seen tempts me. I run on 32 bit windows, so the 64bit does squat for me, I don't network render, so that's a "shrug" as well. I don't run Maya / 3D Max / C4D, so the Collada stuff leaves me somewhere sub-arctic. (Besides, if I did use Maya, I would probably not bother with Poser at all, lets face facts lol), I don't have the foggiest idea what they mean with a "Normal Map" so I would likely not use it, and the "Professional Content" is pretty laughable from what I've seen of those figures.

What pisses me off is how VAGUE they are in their details about PPro. You'd think if it is so PRO, they'd be shouting the differences to P7 from the rooftops.

Ergo -- what exactly is there for a P7 owner who doesn't have Maya/3DMax/C4D to entice them?
I guess the answer is "Nothing" since the base of P7 doesn't appear to have changed, they just added plugins, effectively.
And if they updated the render engine... Then P7 should be updated to it since that indicates that there is a problem in P7 then.

Silke