If not, why not?
Its a pain hacving to export/import both ways between programs

Poser is not a modelling application it is advertised as a 3D art and Animation software

Poser is not a modelling application it is advertised as a 3D art and Animation software

Quote - If not, why not?
Its a pain hacving to export/import both ways between programs

well because poser is based on a premade content paradigm that allows user to create renders/animation of premade content if you truly desire a full 3D character/modeling/ etc. program there is blender  which is free and of course there are many many  $$paid $$options like Cinema4D  from Maxon,Luxology MODO etc.

cheers

Wings will work. Of course, it's not part of Poser, but it makes Poser content ;o). And as wolf359 suggested, so does Blender. If you're modeling clothes or making morphs, there's that size ratio thing, but if you're making props, all ya need to do is scale down when inside Poser.

Poser never did do 3D modeling, unless of course you are talking about assembling and making things with primitives inside Poser. Of course, you'd still need to export those out and back in unless you want all those parts separate ;o).

Laurie

All that said, when BB finishes off his virtual obj stuff, Poser may well have modelling capabilities.  :) 

Why does poser have no modeling tools...
well euhmm why cant my car fly .. its not made to do so ...

Wings is free so why not use that ...

Why doesn't you car fly?
exactly! Why doesn't your car fly?

I would prefer mine to fly - it would take up less room on the drive than a car and a helicopter, plus -  I wouldn't have to swap my travel blankets and child seats from one to the other all the time! I would also have a mode of transport suited to many more jobs than either one on its own. Of course, I'd take a while to learn how to use it - probably start by learning how to drive first, then work my way up to flying, trying increasingly more challenging, yet rewarding trips....
Have I taken the metaphor too far?

I am already using Wings3D, I like it, its simple to use, etc... but, as I said there is the fact that everything has to be imported/exported, and as someone else mentioned, there's the whole scaling issue.

I know that historically, Poser hasn't had this option, But I reckon they're missing a trick.

And I would guess that a $700 price tag would not deter you from purchasing. LOL

Well, you have me there - but would it really cost so much? Why not integrate a pre-existing program like  Wings 3D with Poser 8.5 and add £30 to the price for the developers? Or am I showing my ignorance of programming matters and development costs here?

probably that it would shift the focus away from what bestPoser does (put people and things together in temples with swords...;)

That being said, you can model with Poser's prmitives. Doc Geep has a goodly number of tutorials (including a 100pps+ 'how to build a house' program). If you want to go that route (even the good Doc has been seen in the Wings forum lately...;)

Any modeling program is going to have to import or export objects; not just Wings. However, once
you've made it into a figure/prop/character, you're done.

There are programs that try to do it all (blend...hrm...;) and have a menu for each to prove it...;) 
Many modern modeling programs can do a lot of the modeling, UVMapping, etc., while you're still in them. As long as you can deal with Poser's scaling.

So you can go either way, depending on how you feel..

Lol- love the 'swords and temples' comment!
I know what you mean, 'where would it stop', you could argue
I'ts just that its a little unwieldy to my ham-fisted early attempts at modelling. I guess I'll get better at transferring between the two.

Now I've another thread to start with another stupid Noob question...

Quote - Well, you have me there - but would it really cost so much?

It's not what it would actually cost in terms of labor to add these features, it's what Smith Micro would charge for it.  Look at the price tag on Poser 7 vs. Poser Pro for example.  Twice as much money for some rather marginal increase in value.

Quote - It's not what it would actually cost in terms of labor to add these features, it's what Smith Micro would charge for it.  Look at the price tag on Poser 7 vs. Poser Pro for example.  Twice as much money for some rather marginal increase in value.

I've been on the fence whether to invest in Poser Pro (now that a side-grade is only $150...) but have also been considering whether to invest that money in RAM: I only have 1 gig on this system and renders are quite long. I already have Poser 7 and Poser 8. I don't need to export content to professional apps: pretty much still a hobbyist. So, would the money be more wisely spent on RAM?
Sorry to hijack the thread... just had to ask.

I never saw any reason to fork over +100% cost for the feature differences for the current Poser Pro.  Haven't seen a feature list for Poser Por 2010 yet, dunno there.

Thanks, pjz99 - I value your judgment on this. GC I already do in material. Faster renders ostensibly I could get with more RAM. Not interested (perhaps because I don't understand) in any of the Pro features - I was going for Basic package. So, I might just put it towards RAM.
Thanks again.

Um, Saaaaaaanta.....

IMVHO they would be able to sell poser 9 for the same price as carrara pro ($549 american) if poser 9 had the same UV-mapping and modelling functions, since poser is more user-friendly in re: posing, morphs, runtimes et al., even tho carrara can handle poser files o.k. and has a better renderer.  however, they won't add modelling to poser 9, as most of the customer base isn't interested in modelling.

poser currently has limited vertex-modelling functions and limited UV-mapping functions, some avail. by script and not recommeded for gnl. users.  I'm guessing bill may sell his object-generation add-on as a 3rd-party item.  it's time he earned some cash for all his generous work here.

Quote - ...poser currently has limited vertex-modelling functions and limited UV-mapping functions, some avail. by script and not recommended for gnl. users.  I'm guessing bill may sell his object-generation add-on as a 3rd-party item.  it's time he earned some cash for all his generous work here.

Hear-hear!! I couldn't agree more. And the quality of anything of his is going to be absolutely incredible.

Modeling in Poser sounds to me like a complete nightmare. Having to use Poser's camera controls to constantly change angles, zoom in and out, change views is horrible, modeling isn't Poser's cup of tea at all.

It's made for creating scenes with ready made content and should focus on that. There's a lot that can be improved in that department. Instead of people trying to add modeling capacities to poser, they should focus on truly improving poser, not adding more gimmicks.

Quote - All that said, when BB finishes off his virtual obj stuff, Poser may well have modelling capabilities.  :)

After having used his p8 library I'm not exactly jumping up and down with excitement by such announcements.

Let poser do what it's made for and use a modeling application for modeling. Instead of trying to add modeling to Poser, time would be much better spent in updating and improving the import and export features to get a better and more reliable workflow.

Quote - After having used his p8 library I'm not exactly jumping up and down with excitement by such announcements.

I find that a bit mean-spirited. I use his Matmatic (single-developer) program all the time: it is clean, fast and intuitive, as well as VSS. I personally haven't had any problems with "his" Poser 8 library.

When you consider what he has done for this community - spending his time to educate and all his other contributions, I find that remark thoroughly uncalled-for and offensive.

Also, there was no indication that this scripted modeling facility was going to be included in a future version of Poser: as far as I could tell from the thread it was either going to be another freebie or (FINALLY!) a stand-alone ... as in, apart from Poser, not integrated like WWII ... application which I would purchase in a heart-beat knowing that what Bill makes just works.

Sheesh, this sort of attitude just boggles the mind. Do you actually use anything like VSS or Matmatic? Or are you basing this view purely on your experiences with the Poser 8 Library?

I wasn't meant mean-spirited, just my observation/opinion. I'm indeed basing this view purely on my experiences with the Poser 8 Library. The other items I don't use and haven't tried, it's not what I would need, we're not all after the same thing when it comes to using poser.

Sorry if my post came across offensive, that wasn't the idea at all.

Well - I'd certainly pay for Bill's add-on, I guess its a half-way house towards what I want anyway.
As to improving the import/export  features, as Aeikilma suggested - a good point.
I await the add-on eagerly...

It is ashame that there is no effort to standardize and cross integrate 3D applications for easier use and availability for everyone.  There are scaling issues, format issues, rigging issues, etc.  If there were a way to break down the 'communication' barriers between developers, then users could seamlessly migrate much more productively through the modelling process.

 I can completely understand the import/export headache you are feeling.. When I build props for Poser, I start out in Flux which is a freebie 3d modeling program that I believe you can get from: www.mediamachines.com/downloads.php (the Studio 2.1 NOT the player) then once its all built I need to convert it to a mesh object then I need to texture map it in there or it won't render properly in Poser. Then I need to export 3DS and open it in Max to do the material selection so it isn't necessary to texture each piece seperately (otherwise you might as well build with Poser primitives) then I export AGAIN as an OBJ file then import to Poser where I have to AGAIN select textures and re-size.

So as you can see.. I understand but due to how Poser works, I just suffer through :P

I don't jump through that many hoops: when I create an item for V4 in Blender (also free), I export to obj after UVmapping in Blender. Import into Poser, use Obj2Cr2 to make the item conform and voila: done.
Might add some morphs with Morphing clothes and do some textures with Stitch Witch and write a shader with Matmatic and apply it with VSS, if it's a complex item.

 The only reason I am obstinate about using Flux is because I'm familiar with the program. Its a newer version of Spazz3D which I've been using since 1999 and I'm almost a bit afraid to try out a new building tool... So I guess its my own fault I have to jump through so many hoops :P

It's all what you're used to, I guess. I started with Blender because I was poor (still sort-of am) and it's what I could afford. It's matured into a fairly decent product but there was a bit of a learning curve. People have been singing the praises of free programs like Wings3D and like that, but I couldn't quite get my head around Wings: I've been Blenderized, I suppose...
Blender is coming out with a new, more standardised interface, which should delight those who have found it a bit daunting before. As long as they keep all the hotkeys, I don't care. It took me years to learn them, and now that I know many of them, it's a fast clean program to use.

Quote -
I am already using Wings3D, I like it, its simple to use, etc... but, as I said there is the fact that everything has to be imported/exported, and as someone else mentioned, there's the whole scaling issue.

Wings allows you to set import/export scaling factor in the preferences, I think I used to use 100 Poser>Wings and 0.01 Wings>Poser. Let Wings  handle all scaling (uncheck any options in the poser I/O dialogs which affect scale). If you do it this way you never need to worry about scale again, you won't even know that wings and poser are working at 2 different scales.

"It is ashame that there is no effort to standardize and cross integrate 3D applications for easier use" 

That seems to be happening gradually with Collada though I think shaders may always be a problem unless everyone were perhaps to adopt Renderman. 

I think that each application should stick to its strengths. It takes resources for a company to develop uniformly high quality in every area and something usually suffers. Using 3rd party plugins has advantages but then you have the problem of plugins being late to update compatibility with new versions of the application.

It makes sense for apps like Poser and Daz Studio to have functionality for doing some degree of modification of the figure meshes, those are the main Raison d'être of those programs to begin with. True, you may place those figures in a room in a house but that does not IMO, call for (as an example) adding CAD functionality to the program. 

Some new features like hair and cloth make sense because they enhance the core purpose, rendering human figures and even at that they are probably underutilized. Rather than looking at modeling or fluid simulation or landscape generation etc., I'd think that soft body dynamics would be a much more relevant addition to a human figure program.

It also occurs to me, for modeling in particular, that as people are always pointing out, which one 'clicks' for you is a highly individual thing. The wealth of free and commercial modelers available lets everyone find their own. Add a modeler to the program means it would probably be one that only appealed to a fraction of the users who actually model (a minority in itself). 

Quote - > Quote -

I am already using Wings3D, I like it, its simple to use, etc... but, as I said there is the fact that everything has to be imported/exported, and as someone else mentioned, there's the whole scaling issue.

Wings allows you to set import/export scaling factor in the preferences, I think I used to use 100 Poser>Wings and 0.01 Wings>Poser. Let Wings  handle all scaling (uncheck any options in the poser I/O dialogs which affect scale). If you do it this way you never need to worry about scale again, you won't even know that wings and poser are working at 2 different scales.

That's a great tip!
thanks!