Quote - > Quote - I guess this is an endless debate.

I still think that a "Poser compatible" product should pay attention to how it renders in Poser. 

Sort of, but not really.

The term "compatible" is the word to focus on. If I buy something software-wise that says "IBM Compatible" (anyone remember that term?), it means that it would load and perform the basics, and to not have any glaring bugs that are experienced across the spectrum.

OTOH, expecting perfection and the exact same results, on a computer that may not even have its monitor color-calibrated? Nope. It's like heating up a microwave dinner and expecting the same bountious over-flowing image of plump vegetables and salisbury steak... or are there still people who expect that? 

C'mon - it's the same story if you buy it from DAZ, Renderosity, Content Paradise, RDNA.

If an "IBM compatible" machine did not run a piece of IBM compatible software, the customers came screaming back to the dealer who in turn went crazy to the manufacturer. I know, I've been there up close.

I never said I wanted perfectly matched results - that is what you made up. I said I wanted to have POSER compatible results meaning not looking rubbish in any version of Poser.

I do not have these problems with Renderosity, RDNA  - they test the product they put in the store for Poser compatibily. Apparently DAZ does not do this and leaves it up to the vendor. Some do an excellent job and some do not even bother to render it.