just for curiosity: why are normal maps expected to have benefits over bump maps - in Poser renders, that is.

In my understanding (so please tell me where I go wrong)

 * bump maps represent some displacement (without doing the displacement itself), and are easy for further / user manipulation (add, multiply, brightness/contrast enhance)
 * from that, normal distortions at the object surface are derived via complex calculations
 * then those distortions are applied

while for normal maps the first two steps are performed in a seperate program, saved in a normal map, and then the third step is derived from that map. That is why using normal maps just require far less calculation efforts at render time, therefor they are preferred in the gaming environment with high FPS rates. But normal maps themselves are not suit for further / user manipulation anymore. 

Support for normal maps in Poser is for this reason: when you've got a model from a gaming area, including its textures and normal map, you can import it into Poser and thanks to Posers ability to deal with the normal map, you can render it out with decent results. But normal maps were never seen as the next step to bump mapping. In my view that is. 

- - - - - 

Usually I'm wrong. But to be effective and efficient, I don't need to be correct or accurate.

visit www.aRtBeeWeb.nl (works) or Missing Manuals (tutorials & reviews) - both need an update though