In view of the fact that there are more software packages that use content than just poser (DAZ, Carrara, Vue), it would be helpful if you made vendors tell users whether their content uses Mat Poses, or just provides material files for the poser material room.  This practice seems to be increasing, and I think users should know if the vendor is too lazy to provide Mat Poses.

Thanks for your consideration.

Klebnor

Hello,

Thank you very much for your suggestion and I will pass it along to the MarketPlace manager.

Have a wonderful day!

While i was reading you post i had the intention to explain how these things work 99% of the time..
And how its not just click click and done ...

But when you call people lazy just like that ...
Well lets say your right.... IM to LAZY to explain the things to you...

Such a pitty how some people act...

Chris

Quote - While i was reading you post i had the intention to explain how these things work 99% of the time..
And how its not just click click and done ...

But when you call people lazy just like that ...
Well lets say your right.... IM to LAZY to explain the things to you...

Such a pitty how some people act...

Chris

Thank you for not wasting both our time.

Klebnor

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, the Vendor's 'readme.txt' file lists all of the files included in their product. Luckily for all of us, there is a link right on the products page that will lead you to this illusive file so that anybody who wishes can view just how lazy a vendor truely is.

How dare those lazy vendors hide this information in plain sight like that. It's almost as maddening as those lazy car manufacturers not supplying us with 4 spare tires in the trunks of new cars.

There's an old saying - "if they're firing back, you must be over the target".

Thanks, but I don't care to parse through a readme.txt file to determine whether I'll be able to use a product.  I don't use poser and therefor don't use mat room files.  This may not be an issue for you, but it is for me.  Wanting to know whether a product uses the mat pose approach or the poser material room means the difference between a usable product and a waste of time and money.

4 spare tires?  Really?  No better analogy came to mind?  Auto manufacturers have never provided 4 spare tires, so this is not a change in behavior which would have to be relayed to the buying public.  Failing to provide mat poses is a major change, dictated by just one of several software packages which have historically used content interchangeably.

Obviously you don't like it but, yes, it is lazy not to include mat poses.  I don't particularly mind that vendor's choose to be lazy, I just don't want to buy their products.

The fact that 99% of all content I've purchased over the years, when such content had alternative textures, contains mat poses indicates that I'm not alone in this preference.

BTW - truly nice spelling.

You do realize of course that in Poser format using the material room is the "correct" way of offering MATs?  That creating Pose Library MAT files was a hack done during the Poser 4 era and has really been outdated since P5?  Heck I recall a time when many placed those MAT files in the Camera library because they were trying to cut down on how long the library listing was getting as it only saw xx number of folders.

In general perhaps vendors create Pose Library MAT files because A. The customers prefer it as they are used to it, and B. Perhaps they are too lazy to bother opening the Material room Tab.  Personally I work from inside the material room so it's irrelevant to me.

There are also items, props particularly, that can't use a Poser library MAT file.

As for using in a different software, that's great, but unless the product states it's compatible in something other than Poser then why are you expecting it to have or use outdated Poser hacks? 

A quick peek at the readme is in fact quite reasonable, and generally the file listing is at the bottom of the readme.  While I mark my products if they use the Material room (props), many don't simply because using the Material room is the correct way of handling it.

Lastly, if you are going to be snarky and rude you have to expect the same back or no response. To you to respond in a condescending manner to those responding to you is just flat out rude and implies that you simply feel you know best on the subject, which frankly makes your opening question rhetorical.

It may be an old saying but it's still true that you "catch more flies with honey."

Quote - You do realize of course that in Poser format using the material room is the "correct" way of offering MATs?  That creating Pose Library MAT files was a hack done during the Poser 4 era and has really been outdated since P5?  Heck I recall a time when many placed those MAT files in the Camera library because they were trying to cut down on how long the library listing was getting as it only saw xx number of folders.

In general perhaps vendors create Pose Library MAT files because A. The customers prefer it as they are used to it, and B. Perhaps they are too lazy to bother opening the Material room Tab.  Personally I work from inside the material room so it's irrelevant to me.

There are also items, props particularly, that can't use a Poser library MAT file.

As for using in a different software, that's great, but unless the product states it's compatible in something other than Poser then why are you expecting it to have or use outdated Poser hacks? 

A quick peek at the readme is in fact quite reasonable, and generally the file listing is at the bottom of the readme.  While I mark my products if they use the Material room (props), many don't simply because using the Material room is the correct way of handling it.

Lastly, if you are going to be snarky and rude you have to expect the same back or no response. To you to respond in a condescending manner to those responding to you is just flat out rude and implies that you simply feel you know best on the subject, which frankly makes your opening question rhetorical.

It may be an old saying but it's still true that you "catch more flies with honey."

The original post simply requested a method to filter products based on whether mat pose files are provided.  As stated this is due to the increasing tendency to provide alternate materials without such a pose to apply them.

Renderosity caters to users of other software than just Poser.  Much of the content sold here can be used in other programs.  Why is it so difficult to understand that some users would want to know whether mat poses are included?

Mat poses may be a hack, but they have been accepted very broadly, to judge by much of the content sold here.  That hack has been widely adopted, to the extent that other programs use it to apply textures and shaders.  Without the poser material room, one is left manually applying textures to shader zones.  For a hack that has been outdated for years, it gets an awful lot of play in current products.

Now who is using the term lazy in a pejorative manner?  Only poser  users have access to a material room tab.  I readily admit that I am too lazy to manually apply alternate textures to shader zones on an object.  This process is automated by the material room, and also for other users via the mat pose files which have been adopted by other software packages.  If a vendor creates mat poses for their alternate textures, then this work is done once by one person who benefits financially and does not have to be repeated every time a product is used by all its users.

The problem is that products are not required to specify that they are usable in poser only.  That would also be an acceptable approach.

I did not post this request in the poser forum (it was a request in the markeplace forum, not a rhetorical question)  because I would fully expect the snarky condescending responses that were tacked on here, had it been posted there.  Since it is in the proper forum, the responses are simply over sensitive reaction to one word ... which apparently hit a nerve.

As to the disclosure of all files in the readme.txt file, this is comparable to small print in a long contract.

Quote -
The problem is that products are not required to specify that they are usable in poser only.  That would also be an acceptable approach.

I did not post this request in the poser forum (it was a request in the markeplace forum, not a rhetorical question)  because I would fully expect the snarky condescending responses that were tacked on here, had it been posted there.  Since it is in the proper forum, the responses are simply over sensitive reaction to one word ... which apparently hit a nerve.

As to the disclosure of all files in the readme.txt file, this is comparable to small print in a long contract.

Products are required to specify what is required to use them, furthermore they are put in software related categories.

It isn't that your request is over the top, it's that you stated that not providing Poser Library MATS was due to laziness when some are simply purists who prefer to create their files based on how the software they are creating for is "supposed" to work.

No doubt you expected a reaction, you seem intelligent enough to know that using a derogatory remark in a "request" would get a reaction.  Stating others are oversensitive is ridiculous, you no doubt knew exactly what reaction you would get - regardless of where you posted it.

Furthermore, a readme file's disclosure is only akin to small print in a contract if it has further restrictions, apples & oranges really.  A listing of where the files are located is not required to describe a product.

As I said, I do state if my products have mc6 files, and I know several others do that as well. But if the product is stated to be for Poser than stating that shouldn't be a requirement. If however it states usability in other software it should state that.

Quote - > Quote -

The problem is that products are not required to specify that they are usable in poser only.  That would also be an acceptable approach.

I did not post this request in the poser forum (it was a request in the markeplace forum, not a rhetorical question)  because I would fully expect the snarky condescending responses that were tacked on here, had it been posted there.  Since it is in the proper forum, the responses are simply over sensitive reaction to one word ... which apparently hit a nerve.

As to the disclosure of all files in the readme.txt file, this is comparable to small print in a long contract.

Quote - Products are required to specify what is required to use them, furthermore they are put in software related categories.

The software related category is "Poser or DAZ".  Unfortunately, this does not help with this issue as DAZ does not have the poser material room.  I happen to use Carrara, which imports DAZ content (being a DAZ product) and has also been designed to use mat poses.

Quote - It isn't that your request is over the top, it's that you stated that not providing Poser Library MATS was due to laziness when some are simply purists who prefer to create their files based on how the software they are creating for is "supposed" to work.

I am perfectly willing to allow that the primary motivation for omitting mat poses may not be laziness.  I should no longer be surprised by the poser universe, and yet I am, constantly.  As a leisure user of 3d rendering software I find that my assumptions are frequently wrong.  In the workday world that I inhabit most of the time, sellers of product fall over themselves to determine what users want so that they can provide it.  This sort of customer focused marketing seems alien to the poser world.

If one had the mindset of a purist, I would think that one would be horrified to think that their product might be mistakenly purchased by one who couldn't use it.  A purist would likely welcome a labeling scheme which clarified this aspect for the potential purchaser, wouldn't they?

Quote - No doubt you expected a reaction, you seem intelligent enough to know that using a derogatory remark in a "request" would get a reaction.  Stating others are oversensitive is ridiculous, you no doubt knew exactly what reaction you would get - regardless of where you posted it.

Actually, I posed a request for consideration in the marketplace with no further agenda.  It was the uninvited replies which ratcheted up my responses.  I was perfectly content with the original response that it had been passed on.  I will readily admit to rising to the bait when kicked.

Quote - Furthermore, a readme file's disclosure is only akin to small print in a contract if it has further restrictions, apples & oranges really.  A listing of where the files are located is not required to describe a product.

I will put this down to differences in how one browses and purchases content.  I have almost never opened a readme.txt file when purchasing a product.  I am saddened at the thought that I will have to make this a routine part of what had been a pleasant pastime.

Quote - As I said, I do state if my products have mc6 files, and I know several others do that as well. But if the product is stated to be for Poser than stating that shouldn't be a requirement. If however it states usability in other software it should state that.

I suspect that this may be the final answer (if my request is even considered).  As things stand now, it appears to be up to the vendor to qualify their product as usable by various software packages.  The practices and methods of doing this don't seem terribly consistent.  This is somewhat understandable when one factors in all the versions which might have to be qualified.  I feel just as bad for a poser user who might buy a carrara shader package as it would be unusable to them.

To sum up ... I'm lazy, some vendors are lazy, and the world continues to spin on it's axis affording the splendor and pageantry of the changing seasons to all.

Cheers!

3-DArena,
Much respect in your direction. Thank you for your insight and approach to this matter.

Klebnor,
As for my analogy, yes, it could have been far better, and normally would have been so. I attribute my weak use of such to too many long hours at work, coupled with the onslaught of irritation brought on by your 'high and mighty' attitude. I am not normally drawn into conversing with the likes of ignorance as I found in your post, and hope to never again.
But seriously, to call these artists lazy simply because they don't include something that you would like, was more than I could stand at that moment.

Klebnor wrote:

Quote - Thanks, but I don't care to parse through a readme.txt file to determine whether I'll be able to use a product.

So it would seem that the laziness actually falls upon you. I've said all I shall on this matter.

L8tr

Aren't we clever.

Quote - Aren't we clever.

Not you mate.

Quote - > Quote - Aren't we clever.

Not you mate.

Nice.  Personal attack with no information whatsoever.

You might take a moment to read the TOS.

just out of curiosity, how does the lack of a MAT pose file stop a texture being usable outside of Poser ?
with Vue, you'd apply the texture in Poser (via MAT pose or the material room) and save as a PZ3 file.
for use in 3DS MAX you'd do much the same apart from export the file as .obj

That approach presupposes one has Poser to apply the texture and then save as a PZ3 file.  I don't know about 3DS MAX or Vue, but in Carrara if you don't have poser you have to open the shader, browse to the appropriate texture folder and replace the texture file.  If there are multiple shader zones in the object, you have to do this for each one.  This is the process which the mat pose file automates.  Even if I had poser, applying each texture and then saving out a separate PZ3 file say for every option on an item of clothing means I'd probably just ignore it and chalk it up to money poorly spent.  I have a hard time imagining that many poser user's don't feel the same way about manually applying textures when one click on a pose file does all the work.

Carrara has been designed to use pose files to apply the textures.  It works quite well.  Because shaders don't necessarily translate 100%, if they are procedural then one has other work to do altering brightness, changing bump strength.  Generally, you get used to the weaknesses and know what to adjust.

The funny thing is, some folks' objects import perfectly - I would say items by Stonemason, LukeA, and Danae & Maforno (to name a few) come in very nicely and require little or no adjustment.

As I said before, people who create content should do as they please, I'd just like to know how much work I'm getting myself into before I buy something.

Regards

Quote - > Quote - > Quote - Aren't we clever.

Not you mate.

Nice.  Personal attack with no information whatsoever.

You might take a moment to read the TOS.

I thought it was clear from all the other Statements why I said * Not you mate * 

You call Vendors lazy .
End off and have a good Day.

similar process in Vue/Max actually if you don't go via Poser.  Then again, it's no worse than when you make something from scratch - you still have to faff around with the materials.  I can see where it might be a pita in Cararra though (not software I actually use even though I got the freebie version from 3D World mag)

Quite.  It's not so much the pita, you're right about it being similar to other packages.  The hook is that Carrara is designed anticipating use of DAZ and poser content, and has been designed to apply mat poses.

Cheers.

Maybe you should ask DAZ to get the basic information out of material collections, too. After all they can even be hand edited to work the same as MAT poses...  Or just find someone who creates a converter ;-)

Quote - Even if I had poser, applying each texture and then saving out a separate PZ3 file say for every option on an item of clothing means I'd probably just ignore it and chalk it up to money poorly spent.  I have a hard time imagining that many poser user's don't feel the same way about manually applying textures when one click on a pose file does all the work.

Just an FYI, the Material Room MAT Poses don't require that you apply each item by hand, they are MAT Poses and as such apply just as MAT Pose file in the Pose library.  Difference is a Material room file can also be made to apply to any material if it's a seamless tile.  However, that is an .mt5 not an .mc6

I realize that you dislike doing extra work, however rather than chalk things up as money ill spent why not just batch edit?

Get  a free copy of Text Pad (http://www.textpad.com), open all the Material Room .mc6 files at a time using it.  Then use  "Replace", check the option to replace on "all documents" (it's right there in the replace window). 

Now set it to find mtlCollection and then set the replace to figure.   Click "Replace All".  And then save. 

Then all you need to do is change your extensions to .pz2 instead of .mc6 you can do this manually or by folder batch changing using the CKrename program.
(http://freewareapp.com/ckrename_download/)

While it may seem like a lot of work this all only takes a few moments.  I save my MAT poses for every product as an .mc6 file in the material room and convert to .pz2 MATs this way.  It literally takes me under a minute to do this for a large character pack full of options.

Anyhow, you'll probably hate the idea, but it's an alternative.

Not a bad idea.  Any way to get thumbnails associated with the pz2 files generated?

Thanks.

You could use the thumbnails already generated :)

Quote - Not a bad idea.  Any way to get thumbnails associated with the pz2 files generated?

Thanks.

Bea is right, the existing pngs will work as log as the names are the same.  When you copy the files into a pose folder (I have carrarra but haven't used it to be honest so I'm not sure how if it requires that as Poser does) just copy all the pngs with it.

Thanks all, this sounds like a helpful work around.  Time to resuscitate some old texture sets.

I am new so the material room MATs are all i know how to make. But even if MAT Poses aren't included, the textures should be (I know I include all textures and even OBJ's with my stuff)
So, even if you can't load the MAT file, couldn't you load the materials manually and then create your own Material File in whatever software you use?

And up until now, I thought MAT Pose and MAT File were the same thing. I guess now I shall specify more clearly what is included with my products.

I have a question for y ou.  If  you have MAt files for each little piece of a model.  eyes, torso ... etc.  how do you make a single MAT file that includes it all so you don't have to take an hour to customize each little piece th the Material room?  I'm bulding a mat file with shaders.  I don't want to do this each and every time.  I'm not lazy, I just don't want to waste time I don't need to. 
Boni

When you add a MAT to the library, you get the option for single material or collection. You can even select which ones are affected by selecting which ones are included in the collection.

BionicRooster:  Thank y ou so much.  That makes so much sence and is  so easy.  Sheesh.  I'm silly.  I've worked in Poser since P3 . .. but the Material room is a little daunting sometimes.  You aer a gem. 
Boni