No, that's not what I said. I agree that Poser is a work in progress. A lot of years have gone into it already, but we should all keep in mind that all early versions of 3D software were as limited by the computing power and architecture of the machine as it was by the elegance (or not) of the code. Some are clearly better than others, and Poser is a relatively cheap and relatively easily accessible piece of software with lots of commercial and free stuff to expand it so we don't have to do everything from scratch. Poser doesn't fail, but it could be better. Some of the issue is that Poser is not and has never been a part of the 'high end', but our expectations are moving faster than the software. Like others, I get a tad frustrated by people asking for the 'one button to make art' solution. You can't. Decades ago I studied commercial photography. 2 years playing with cameras, lights and chemicals. The one button solution equivalent is setting the camera to auto and letting it tell you whether you can take that picture or not. Such a function would be useful to some while they learn, and again I direct you to my first post; it is what I said... a proper simulation of a camera would be helpful with realtime lighting level indication.

My comment regarding the research were in response to the emphasis you put on spending 7 days on a question. 7 days is nothing. It was directed at your comment in particular, not the average Poser user. I think 56 hours of directed work on Poser would help someone understand it, and if that was the intent of your comment I agree with you. It was not how you expressed it. As to being paid, I'm fine. A few hundred an hour as a lecturer, a few grand a day as a consultant... I work on average 2 days a week and am comfortable. Lots of playtime for hobbies, and time to do my research. I have no shares in Smith Micro. No problem for me what you think of it, other than to question what you are doing here if you dislike it so...

I don't sugar coat either.