what about a good old like Aiko3/Hiro3 technology type figure?  

male and female sharing uv maps

No, they aren't required  to be weight mapped;  you can still use A3, and you could still make a new figure which uses the old capsule/sphere falloff type rigging.  I used the old Poser 3 horse just a little while ago.

If you want the figure to work in earlier versions of Poser you would need a non-weight mapped figure.

What Seach said. In particular, machinery and insects and such wouldn't really require WMing. If you're composing static imagery with pre WM figures and are unhappy with certain deformations, you can always export the offending posed figure (export: weld body part seams, uncheck include existing groups/ import: weld identical vertices) to an external modeler, or use the morph brush, to fix any nastiness. Also, using a welded mannikin in your final composition, cuts down somewhat (or alot) on scene overhead... I usually just hide the original figure just in case I want to make some changes. Keep in mind you will have to reapply your figure materials to the mannikin, I just create a .mc6 prior for such purposes... the uv's and material groups are retained in the prop.

what about a good old like Aiko3/Hiro3 technology type figure?  

male and female sharing uv maps

Depends on how much work I would have to do to update the figure to a current version of Poser. I let Poser 6 go a long time ago.  I have no desire to go back to the bad old days.

forgot the product name, but the character for TY2 shows weightmaps can be injected.

Any old legacy figure could be weight mapped, including Aiko 3, if you wanted to do it.

Still a bone of contention that Poser introduces features long after they are standard in other applications, the "bad old days" are very subjective.

heard there is a fenric script to make poser wm figure compat with cararra.  haven't tried it yet though.

I think, better is , if it is possible, to have both versions, because weight mapping don't work in daz studio.

@ misty,

Nor I, although weighting figures created within Carrara isn't very difficult (ver. 8.1pro, here).

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=ASrUcbdiB3A

I think, better is , if it is possible, to have both versions, because weight mapping don't work in daz studio.

Yes, but this is the Poser Forum, and we're talking about figures for Poser.
So what's your point?

what does collada export do exactly?

Weight mapping can be introduced into any figure within PP2014.  You just need to WM paint the rough parts and double check the bending joints.

In reply to the original question:
"Do all new Poser figures HAVE to be weight mapped":

No they don't have to. Actually weight mapping every single joint (e.g. the fingers) would be kind of overkill.
The best solution i.m.o. would be to create "hybrid" figures, which use sphere zones where sufficient, and weight mapping where sphere zones don't give you satisfactory results.
Then (if necessary) create one or two JCM morphs for the details which you still can't achieve in either traditional rigging, or weight mapping, and you should get pretty good results.

One last thing(TM): ;D
When weight mapping, pay special attention to the BULGE maps; they can work real miracles if you get the grip on how they work!

Peter

Weight mapping can be introduced into any figure within PP2014. You just need to WM paint the rough parts and double check the bending joints.

It can be even easier than that:
Click "merge Zones To Weight map" in the Joint Editor. It will create a weight map according to the sphere zone, and you can work from this instead of painting a weight map from scratch.
Now you can delete the Sphere Zone, or set the Weight map to "Replace" mode - don't use "Multiply" or "Add" because it'll give you funny results.

Peter

pikesPit, I know, but you know, for sure, that weight map figures don't work in Poser 8 or oldest, so, it is better have , when you can, both systems for people don't have Poser 9 or later , althougt I think work with weight mapping, I am talking about making clothes now, it is better in any aspect.**
**

**
**

**Anyway, with the current Poser discounts,  I think every "poser lover" must update to poser 9 or later,if they can afford it, because well worth.
**

"It can be even easier than that: 

Click "merge Zones To Weight map" in the Joint Editor. It will create a weight map according to the sphere zone, and you can work from this instead of painting a weight map from scratch.
Now you can delete the Sphere Zone, or set the Weight map to "Replace" mode - don't use "Multiply" or "Add" because it'll give you funny results."

Ah, I wasn't aware of that point.  Excellent call; better than converting every joint unnecessarily.  Who needs weight-mapping on the figures anyway.

@ adh3d:
Maybe you have a point there, but I think it'll lead us nowhere. V IF we still would care for backwards compatibility at all cost, we'd all still be on DOS, running 8-Bit programs on black/amber screens.
However, this is Poser 10, and it's 2015.
So IF someone is still on Poser 8, or 6, whatever, then: fat chance! He can't use the figure!
But does that mean that we all >>have<< to ignore the great new Poser features, >>just<< because of those few odd people refusing to update??
IF so, then we should all revert to Poser 6, and live happily ever after...

To sum it up:
Staying behind just because of a few dicks who refuse to update results in stagnation, and leads us nowhere.
Do cars still have petroleum headlights, and do people expect to get a fill up at every gas station? ;)

Peter

Added to ignore... unless, that is, ratboy purchases me a new computer before I get around to it. SINCE we're resorting to insults once again, in your tunnel visionary arrogance I suppose it's too much for the amoeba, masquerading as a mind, floating about in the protoplasm in your head that there's a significant difference between "can't" and "won't".

What a fucking douche...

Well, what can I say? :O
Nothing at all, I think. It speaks for itself. And END OF THIS ISSUE.
Back to the thread's topic!
And I firmly stand up to my opinion as posted above, because I strongly believe that upholding backwards compatibility at all cost is like cutting our legs off because the "amebae" which we stem from had'nt these.
Peter

i like backwards compatibility.

There are many who can't afford to update software so when backwards compatibility is available it is very beneficial to them.

Now I must ask everyone to keep this thread on topic before it derails.

If you try to produce multiple versions for example both weight mapped and capsule then any supporting content, except for static props, will also need two versions. 

Note at no time did the OP state what the intention of an answer to this question was. If this is for personal use, then there is no reason to do both. If it is for commercial sale, then considerations need to be taken into account when it comes to commercial viability. Further nobody said this figure was to be for Poser only. 

Rigging itself is an art form and one of the most difficult things to get right throughout the CG Industry.This is not a simple undertaking if that is your intention. 

If you are looking to rig a figure I will point out that many of the most popular Published Artists that produce non-weightmapped poser figures do their rigging in DAZ Studio as they find the tools easier to use than Poser's for original figures and add-ons. (And that does include those that sell here and at RDNA.)

To answer the question directly. No all Poser figures do not have to be weight mapped. Weight mapping provides more control and flexibility than the old Poser Rigging so most new figures will be weight mapped.

Note that weight mapping takes more time and patience, because "with great power comes great responsibility."

I was gonna answer "YES." Every vertex has to be individually mapped. For V4 that would be 78.000 vertex to be individually mapped, one by one, but not on sundays. On sundays, you can only map a blue vertex, and they are rare. Even weeks are better then uneven weeks. The potato's are cheaper in uneven weeks, but vapor is more dense. OK, the correct answer is "NO". Rigging depends on the purpose of the joint. A lid, a door, can all be conventional. Weightmapping is "costly" in the cr2, so only weightmap joints that require weightmapping. When weightmapping do not forget the clean-up afterwards. You can delete the conventional rigging once the weightmap is complete.

Posting here realy has become a joke beyond belief.
Even returns are not recognised any more, and keyborad ramming has become a habbit for only the most masochistic die-harders between us. 

Sorry, guys and gals, but blue is thicker then red, and black is faster then white. (But only after Christmas day when Santa goes on vacation.
Jawadde, these letters realy seem to have a life on their own now.

Well, the master of the web is getting close to get me close to being closer to insane. (But only on dark wednesdays).

 The next return went bananas, close to oranges, but I prefer a lemon these days anyway.
Weep and cry, is all there is left to do in this forum now adays.
And the spelll checkerr is close to Sant who was on vacation remem-mem-berrrr.
Ach, let's hope that the plug getss pulled soon, as sooner is Always better then later,

Coffée anyone?
Ok, ready, set, go?

Where do we goto....

Ach, on vacation, that's where Mr Santa and Mrs Spelll ckecer wnet, so it must be gooooooo d dthere anyway,
Well only on yellow thuesdays, but that's anothet sdory.

all this good to know. But  for those who do not have experience on this wiaght mapping. Please, examples how they look or what is wieightmapping. put a tutorial like work on . Thanks