I was just talking about this again with someone.  I know there are still some people who prefer to use P4 or PPP.  Some only use Poser 5 beacuse it was free though it is now four versions old. And I know some may use old Poser style MATs for d/s, though they are very crude in d/s.

1. Poser Pro
2. Poser 7
3. Poser 6
4. Poser 5
5. Poser Pro Pack
6. Poser 4

Anyone have any special reasons why they would still need an old style MAT? (Not refering to utility style .pz2's, etc)
 

I'm an old dinosaur who still uses PPP so I like my mats.

What exactly do you mean by old style mats?
(Sorry, I had poser 4, but didn't use it much) Can someone elaborate?
I gather we're not taking about MAT poses, or are we?

For support in just about every other 3D application (including D|S), Poser's shader nodes are useless as they don't translate - one problem with very procedural texturing.  Not even PoserFusion(Poser7Pro)/BodyStudio does this.  So, unfortunately, there is a reason to keep these limited materials available even if they can be circumvented within Poser itself.

For instance, when exporting to Wavefront OBJ, there is no analogous .mtl format that supports node-based texturing.  It is basically a parameter/image layout - as are many others.

This problem of interchange with a complex texturing format is going to plague us for some time to come.

Quote - What exactly do you mean by old style mats?
(Sorry, I had poser 4, but didn't use it much) Can someone elaborate?
I gather we're not taking about MAT poses, or are we?

Anton is talking about the material properties in Poser before Poser 5 added Pixels3D shader nodes.  Run Poser 4 (if installed) and note no nodes whatsoever. :)

Quote - > Quote - What exactly do you mean by old style mats?

(Sorry, I had poser 4, but didn't use it much) Can someone elaborate?
I gather we're not taking about MAT poses, or are we?

Anton is talking about the material properties in Poser before Poser 5 added Pixels3D shader nodes.  Run Poser 4 (if installed) and note no nodes whatsoever. :)

Thenks Kuroyume :)   I wouldn't know where to begin looking for my poser 4.... Probably at the bottom of some 'goodwill' labeled box in my garage :lol:
By the explanation, it sounds like it's not something I need to worry about. :)

The problem with the shader nodes is that one cannot expect, emphatically, the image texture to be directly attached to the root node.  There can be intervening procedural nodes that dramatically change/enhance it.  These would not be transmitted to other applications.

This isn't really a difference between MAT poses and the newer Materials/Material Collections as it is, between what can be done to replicate them in other applications.  Truly, even the archaic material system cannot be faithfully reproduced in other applications - but it involves less dependence upon procedural models than the shader node system.  The shader node system employs a more complex system.  The solution is better export/support from Poser - which doesn't exist!  Poser doesn't do any baking of the shader nodes so that the effects are transmitted.  Not even the official hosting.  The only solution, at this stage, would be a third-party 'baker' to crudely transmit the shader nodes to the targetted application.

That's all that I'm saying. :)

ETA: apparently the post to which I was responding went bye-bye.. :(

Yeah, wondered a few times what it would be like if one could bake a texture in poser.... when I make a nice material with poser node and would like to make it available to studio users, or even use it in max.

Every now and then I would make a plane, assign a texture to it and render it out, to get an image of the procedural and then use it on a texture map. Sort of a roundabout way of baking a procedural.

Either that or some sort of cross platform standardization of, at least, basic procedurals. (Okay, so I can have a pipe dream, can't I?)

Whilst you're right about the lack of trasference of procedural material nodes from Poser to other applicatoin, kuroyume, the same is true of almost every other modeler or 3d program I can think of. Short of baking the texture (which doesnt' really transfer the proecdurals, but merely flattens them down to a ne wtexture map), I can't think of any two 3d programs which allow you to share procedural systems - Maya and C4D wouldn't talk to one another, for example. So this is not so much a problem for Poser as it is simply a part of the 3D situation.

JonTheCelt

Quote - Whilst you're right about the lack of trasference of procedural material nodes from Poser to other applicatoin, kuroyume, the same is true of almost every other modeler or 3d program I can think of. Short of baking the texture (which doesnt' really transfer the proecdurals, but merely flattens them down to a ne wtexture map), I can't think of any two 3d programs which allow you to share procedural systems - Maya and C4D wouldn't talk to one another, for example. So this is not so much a problem for Poser as it is simply a part of the 3D situation.

JonTheCelt

I agree completely.   But many 3D applications have some form of texture baking whereas Poser has no such thing.   It would be great to have something like this available when doing any interchange but alas...

I still use Poser4, but I may be one of the last. I will not kick or scream if you discontinued support. I know that eventually all things must pass away. I'll deal with it. ; )

MAT poses for P4 were originally a hack, someting that Poser wasn't designed to do.
Poser 5 introduced the material room, where you could change one material at a time. Applying a collection of materials, however, still required a MAT pose.
Poser 6 introduced material collections which took over the functionality of MAT poses. MAT poses still work in Poser 6 and later, and I don't expect that the Poser development team will drop that functionality anytime soon - it would mean restricting the kinds of things that a pose file can do.
Actually, Poser 6 material collections use the same structure as MAT pose files, and a very simple edit (replace the word "mtlcollection" by "figure" and save as .pz2 file) will turn a material collection into a MAT pose file. The other way around should work too (never tried). 

It is not just about the procedural shaders, it's about the one-click solution to load a material or a collection of materials.

Should vendors drop the one-click solutions for Poser 4/Pro Pack/ 5 users?
I think it's time to move on, so, yes. Supporting a 10 year old application isn't needed. Supporting a 5 year old application, I'd say it's optional.

There's another thing: between Poser 5 and 6 the material room has been revamped, specifically, the math behind the nodes has been changed. So a Poser 5 material will behave differently in Poser 6. It is quite difficult to make matching P6 materials for existing P5 materials, and vice versa, while it seems that the math behind the nodes has remained the same from P6 until Poser Pro (not sure about that).

Quote - I still use Poser4, but I may be one of the last. I will not kick or scream if you discontinued support. I know that eventually all things must pass away. I'll deal with it. ; )

Actually, MAT files made to be compatible with Poser 5 or higher still begin with a "simple" section which can be used by Poser 4.  P4 just ignores the shader information.  You wouldn't be losing anything you could use anyway.

John

never know when you'll need one. They may not need any updating, but you can't have too many textures...;)

IMO if anyone at this point is still using poser4 it should be their responsibility to learn how to convert newer MATs to it.
this is the only program where people actually expect support for four versions back.. five if you count the new poser pro :(

that said, sometimes i still included a small zip with poser4 MATs if it doesnt take me too long to make them, but i clearly labeled it as unsupported - partly because i dont even have the program installed anymore. 
i wont be doing it anymore however, since i will be using my other file slots for more important content.

Quote - Actually, Poser 6 material collections use the same structure as MAT pose files, and a very simple edit (replace the word "mtlcollection" by "figure" and save as .pz2 file) will turn a material collection into a MAT pose file. The other way around should work too (never tried).

Poser 6 has a built in "backward compatibility". All you have to do is move the pz2 files to the material directory and change the extention from pz2 to mc6. No internal editing needed.

I would not advocate dropping the pz2 files for mc6 because, despite the fact that mc6 has been available for years, DAZ has not added mc6 support to DS or Carrara. Normally i would not advocate holding Poser to the limitations of other software but in this case DS may be a large part of the potential customer base. In addition, cutting off pz2 would cut off Poser 5 users, which (it is my understanding) makes up a significant portion of the Poser users.
But that was not the question.

I would say drop P4 and pp PZ2s and RSRs. The concern for "nodes not translating" i think is overblown. In my experience, very few people use anything beyond a texture map plugged into the diffused_color and specular_color.

Anton, I'm still not sure what you mean by a P4-only mat pose.  If the PZ2
contains nothing but the "pre-node" information, it's usable in all versions;
it's not a P4-only pose.  The only incompatibility I can think of: the later
versions plug a non-noded bump map into the Gradient Bump channel.

IMO omitting MAT poses could turn into a double-edged sword. With Poser being used world wide one doesn't know how many are using what version. Sure, there has been polls in thisforum in the past attempting to get an answer to that but realistically, not accurate. If the current trend is only support current version then it up to the creater of the package, whether freebie or commercial, to clearly state that the product won't work in early version. It would certainly save some people an unhappy experience getting a product only to find out it won't work on their version. Some people, myself included, really don't care for all of the new bells and whistles of the newer versions. Yes, I have 5, 6 and 7 and keep going back to PPP, it works.

Quote - Anton, I'm still not sure what you mean by a P4-only mat pose.  If the PZ2
contains nothing but the "pre-node" information, it's usable in all versions;
it's not a P4-only pose.  The only incompatibility I can think of: the later
versions plug a non-noded bump map into the Gradient Bump channel.

P4 mats use BUM files, RSR files, and do not apply ambient settings right (the color is applied, but the value is still 0).

Quote - IMO omitting MAT poses could turn into a double-edged sword. With Poser being used world wide one doesn't know how many are using what version. Sure, there has been polls in thisforum in the past attempting to get an answer to that but realistically, not accurate. If the current trend is only support current version then it up to the creater of the package, whether freebie or commercial, to clearly state that the product won't work in early version. It would certainly save some people an unhappy experience getting a product only to find out it won't work on their version. Some people, myself included, really don't care for all of the new bells and whistles of the newer versions. Yes, I have 5, 6 and 7 and keep going back to PPP, it works.

noone is saying support only the current version -- but surely merchants shouldnt be expected to support a release thats 4-5 full versions outdated. its enough of a PITA to produce poser content as is. poser 4 is a decade old and many merchants havent had it installed for 5 years.

if someone is still using poser4, they have had ample time to learn how to apply textures in the P4 material room and can therefore adapt any new content aside from dynamic cloth and hair.

poser 4 has been holding back poser content development for long enough. its time for merchants to officially let go and embrace new things such as firefly shaders, dynamic cloth, hair/fur, etc.

I agree about letting Poser 4 go, I haven't used that version for 10 years. PPP, now that is slightly different. I applaud the hard work a content maker puts into a product, I do make stuff for a very specialized figure so I know what is involved. So far, at least no one has complained, everything made to date works on any version, including D|S, and that app I don't support. Getting way off track so.. bye-bye

Daz dropped P4 suport back when they announced P5 was the new de facto poser support standard.. about a year ago. Even in PAs submit a product with P4 mats, they delete them anyway.

(Since Daz does it's own technical support of products purchased there, I guess it makes sense for them to only provide what they advertise supporting.)

my main concern with P4 support was that it was actually holding back poser product progression.

so many merchants feared to release dynamic clothing, or something with firefly shaders because 'the p4 users will complain'. we need to move on and start making more use of the potential of poser, and thats not going to happen with a minority expecting that everything should support P4.

i dont think that every single poser version released since poser 4 was worth upgrading to... however by now there have been so many improvements and features added to poser that an upgrade is long overdue.

Quote - Anton, I'm still not sure what you mean by a P4-only mat pose.  If the PZ2
contains nothing but the "pre-node" information, it's usable in all versions;
it's not a P4-only pose.  The only incompatibility I can think of: the later
versions plug a non-noded bump map into the Gradient Bump channel.

Hey there,

I didn't say "only, just Poser4 style MATs.  I was just curious if anyone felt there was any reason to continue making them aside from using P4 itself.

Awhile back that once the next version of Poser came out, I was not going to bother with them. At this point I prefer node based materials, both that use maps, and those that don't.

I still have P4 installed, and I still make P4 compatible content if I can - including properly made .BUM files (not the rubbish that results from letting P4 convert a JPEG). Bear in mind that as a freebie maker, I'm under even less obligation to do work that I don't have to do; I just want my stuff to be as useful as it can be. However I have dropped support for Poser 3. :) Sure, the later versions are better, although not always in proportion to their version numbers... That said, I don't see the point in scoffing at someone because they use the tools that get the job done for them. As the old L.L. Bean quote said, "Nobody ever won an argument with a customer."

Quote - MAT poses still work in Poser 6 and later, and I don't expect that the Poser development team will drop that functionality anytime soon - it would mean restricting the kinds of things that a pose file can do.

Not always true - I've had trouble with some partial MAT poses not working in Poser 6. The readme has this to say: > Quote - Please consult page 88 of the Reference Manual on how to convert MAT poses to Material Collections. Curious Labs does support MAT files included in your Poser 6 installation only.

Don't bother going to page 88, it's actually on page 90, but that's by-the-by. :D > Quote - Third-party Poser users invented MAT files, which are an advanced feature that has not been created or tested by Curious Labs.

Oooh. Hark at them.

Quote - Not always true - I've had trouble with some partial MAT poses not working in Poser 6.

Partial MATs don't work with nodes, which means they're not compatible with P5, P6, P7 or PPro.
A wacro (or some other script) needs to be used to achieve the same affect (which means P5 is much more difficult to work with in this respect, due to the lack of Python access to shader tree nodes).

At some point, you do have to let the past go.

Why?

I've noticed that some vendors no longer supporting P4 having moved onto Poser 5, 6, 7 and Daz|Studio.

Quote - Why?

Because anyone supporting 2 different  programs and 4 different  versions will never get anything completed anymore.

Now that may be true, depending on what type of support you are refefering to. the topicof the thrad pertains to mats PPP and P5 can use the saame pz2 files and even some of mine have worked in P7 so that sort of eliminate at least three out of the four version problem. Not being a merchant, just a happy hobbiest, the time involved is minuscule. There are enough scripts that can do it and if I read correctly in another thread P7 has that capabilty. Until my poor old copy of PPP doesn't do what I want I don't feel the need to purchase any other verson. does that put me at a disadvantage? So long as merchants clearly states the product takes advantge of the newer versions of Poser features I have no problems.

Nickedshield, the question is not whether P4 MATS will work in later versions of Poser (I see no reason why they wouldnt'), but whether it is worth merchants' (and freebie creators') time to create P4 MAYS specifically, since such a version is now ten years and several versions out of date.

JonTheCelt

Quote - Partial MATs don't work with nodes, which means they're not compatible with P5, P6, P7 or PPro. A wacro (or some other script) needs to be used to achieve the same affect (which means P5 is much more difficult to work with in this respect, due to the lack of Python access to shader tree nodes).

For what it's worth, I've had problems with nodeless (P4 style) partial MAT poses in P6, although the results aren't consistent. Restarting Poser sometimes makes them work again. I never did get to the bottom of that one, but CL's statement that since they didn't invent MAT poses they didn't have to avoid breaking them did get up my nose a little. > Quote - At some point, you do have to let the past go.

Yes you do - but the point at which you do so is a personal choice. There will always be those who have to have the latest thing no matter what, and there will always be those who will cling on blindly to whatever they last felt comfortable with. Insofar as they don't involve any thinking, both positions are misguided. > Quote - Because anyone supporting 2 different programs and 4 different versions will never get anything completed anymore.

For me, at least, the extra effort in making a few P4 MATs and a BUMp map is very small compared to the effort involved in the rest of a Poser content project. Different authors will have different viewpoints, and that was why Anton was asking for opinions, I think.

Quote - Nickedshield, the question is not whether P4 MATS will work in later versions of Poser (I see no reason why they wouldnt'), but whether it is worth merchants' (and freebie creators') time to create P4 MAYS specifically, since such a version is now ten years and several versions out of date.

JonTheCelt

As I stated ealier, I had agreed with Blackhearted about P4 being pretty much archaic. The version I prefer is PPP which isn't P4, close but not quite. IMO sometimes newer software isn't always the greatest. Then there the issue of "will my machine be able to handle it?" Money can be very tight.