That is entirely up to them. Nobody can force them to add it in. If they feel it will add value they would, if not, well maybe they have an alternative solution.

Somehow I don't think it will happen. Not for any business reasons, but probably the simple fact that they would probably view it more as defeat to DAZ than anything else. It would explain trying to accept any figure that loads natively, even if it isn't human looking or have severe rigging or mesh issues. (and shouting down those that disagree) These threads have been more about emotions than any actual logic or business sense anyway. Meanwhile, people will continue to create countless threads over the same thing,  either vaguely bashing DAZ or looking for that figure "that will work natively in Poser and take full advantage of all its available features.", though I don't think they really understand any of what that means as it's really vague...  "Breathes new life" probably has the same effect.

 I am going to ask a stupid question because I really don't know.  What is the industry standard format for 3d content files and who controls how it is defined?

I'd feel a whole lot sorrier for them if I didn't remember all those times I bought products who's shaders were only worked with you-know-what, or used python scripts, or... well you get the picture.  At this point Smith Micro is going to have to come up with reasons why you should continue paying for its software when there are other options where you don't.  That doesn't mean you just have to be equal, you have to excel.  So at the very least they are going to have to foster a community that can use the abilities of the program to make viable content, while keeping their core product's abilities above that of their competition.  The problem is, that doesn't appear to be happening, and with their monetary condition, isn't likely to turn around. 

There are lot's of industry standard formats - FBX and Collada, U3D, Alembic, MDD.... However, in this case I think "industry standard" is referring not to formats but to technologies - weight-mapping, especially single-skin weight-mapping, is industry standard; unfortunately TriAx weight-mapping (or the Poser equivalent) aren't. Dual Quaternion weight-maps are industry standard; bulges on joints aren't. UDIMs are industry-standard(ish), stacked UVs aren't.

 No, I meant exactly what I said, "industry standard format".  What is it and who controls it?

Any format that's widely used - often, but not always, an open format defined by some kind of professional or standards body - can be said to be "industry-standard". Though not everyone will agree. It's not a formal term with a defined meaning, it's just a broadly understood term which means a similar range of things to most users.

 Well... I am not the smartest, but it seems to me that any company looking to dump their old format would be wanting to adopt the industry standard format and build their program around that.  If one doesn't exist, it would seem prudent to design one with all the technologies that are currently needed, leaving room for potential development in the future, and make it an open standard so that the industry can look at it and see if it is worth adopting themselves.  Ideally the standard would be developed between the various members of the industry and open to improvement by them all.  What do I know, though.

 No, I meant exactly what I said, "industry standard format".  What is it and who controls it?

Alter, usually if you have standards though it is decided by a group of interested parties who agree on it.  CSS3 and HTML5 for example.  Anyway, here are some places to start if you are interested in the subject:  http://www.web3d.org/  and http://www.siggraph.org/ and https://www.khronos.org/

I'm not sure what you are addressing, but if you mean the DSON format its specification has been published.

Somehow I don't think it will happen. Not for any business reasons, but probably the simple fact that they would probably view it more as defeat to DAZ than anything else.

I hghly doubt as I have said before that these decisions are based on emotions, and by market pressure I meant their customers. If enough of them scream loud enough SM might add support. It just makes so much business sense.

Somehow I don't think it will happen. Not for any business reasons, but probably the simple fact that they would probably view it more as defeat to DAZ than anything else.

I hghly doubt as I have said before that these decisions are based on emotions, and by market pressure I meant their customers. If enough of them scream loud enough SM might add support. It just makes so much business sense.

The problem is SM has been listening to the wrong people for a while now, namely those that have been emotional. Until only recently has SM released a survey for their customers, however it was released a link in the forums, rather than sending it to them via email address that customers used to register their products (if they left any). So, their results are going to have the same skewed results from the wrong people rather than a true cross section of customers. So if you don't get a true cross section of your customers, you're not really going to know what features you should be targeting.

 Not talking about DSON, it is more of a translation format than one used for creating figures and such.  I could be wrong, but does anyone create natively used content in the DSON format?

 I am just pretending I am a company and looking to change what I am doing.  What would make the best sense for me, the company, and my users?  Everything seems to boil down to having a program that can create, edit, and work with content written in a format that is flexible, robust, stable, open, and supporting all the features needed by the users to do the things they want.  In general, that is usually the industry standard format, even if it is not given an official seal of approval by the industry.  The company that develops that format is going to be the one that wins out.

I hghly doubt as I have said before that these decisions are based on emotions, and by market pressure I meant their customers. If enough of them scream loud enough SM might add support. It just makes so much business sense.

Until only recently has SM released a survey for their customers, however it was released a link in the forums, ... So if you don't get a true cross section of your customers, you're not really going to know what features you should be targeting.

Well, I can see how that can be a problem if you truly want to know what the professional user wants as well. Those who don't spend their time on the forums defending their maniacal love for their favorite tools.

An example, from DAZ forums, of what V7 + Iray can do.

Wow mate, thats one hell of an excellent render. 

Nice one chaecuna :)

Not mine, mind you, I am just reposting.

It is the most realistic render of a digital human I ever saw outside of the professional arena.

A good example of how groundbreaking is the Studio 4.8 Genesis 3 combo.

Not mine, mind you, I am just reposting.

It is the most realistic render of a digital human I ever saw outside of the professional arena.

A good example of how groundbreaking is the Studio 4.8 Genesis 3 combo.

There are plenty of photoreal Poser and DAZ Studio renders around. I am talking about real photoreal, not the many Reality/LuxRender renders you see around with melted butter looking hair and skin so glossy that it looks like PVC plastic. I myself have a full length photoreal nude render that I did that is among the most realistic ones I ever did. I called it Hanging Fruits Portrait. The model is not looking directly at the camera, something I was criticized for. Apparently you can't be your own creative muse, you have to do portraits based on someone else's muse.

http://www.beammeup.net/nudes/2012/01/25/hanging-fruits-portrait/

There are plenty of photoreal Poser and DAZ Studio renders around. I am talking about real photoreal, not the many Reality/LuxRender renders you see around with melted butter looking hair and skin so glossy that it looks like PVC plastic.

I wasn't talking about Poser/DAZ Studio "photoreal" (with quotes), I was talking about GCSociety (without quotes) photoreal.

There are plenty of photoreal Poser and DAZ Studio renders around. I am talking about real photoreal, not the many Reality/LuxRender renders you see around with melted butter looking hair and skin so glossy that it looks like PVC plastic.

I wasn't talking about Poser/DAZ Studio "photoreal" (with quotes), I was talking about GCSociety (without quotes) photoreal.

If this is the best DAZ/Poser photoreal image you've seen you should browse around more. That's all I meant. Are you telling us you haven't even seen MEC4D's latest iRay renders. Her Maya iRay 2015 test render alone is a great photoreal piece, so is her Luis iRay 2015. In the end it depends on the skill of the artist.

There are plenty of photoreal Poser and DAZ Studio renders around. I am talking about real photoreal, not the many Reality/LuxRender renders you see around with melted butter looking hair and skin so glossy that it looks like PVC plastic.

I wasn't talking about Poser/DAZ Studio "photoreal" (with quotes), I was talking about GCSociety (without quotes) photoreal.

If this is the best DAZ/Poser photoreal image you've seen you should browse around more. That's all I meant. Are you telling us you haven't even seen MEC4D's latest iRay renders. Her Maya iRay 2015 test render alone is a great photoreal piece, so is her Luis iRay 2015.
In the end it depends on the skill of the artist.

Maya Iray 2015

Maya Iray 2015

Maya Iray 2015

It certainly down to the skill of the artist which is why individual renders do not say a great deal about the figure other than what is possible by a skillful artist.  It also does help to have a top class rig such as MEC4D's so that you can generate such renders in a reasonable time.  I doubt I could create a render like that, no matter what figure or computer I used to create it.

There are plenty of photoreal Poser and DAZ Studio renders around. I am talking about real photoreal, not the many Reality/LuxRender renders you see around with melted butter looking hair and skin so glossy that it looks like PVC plastic.

I wasn't talking about Poser/DAZ Studio "photoreal" (with quotes), I was talking about GCSociety (without quotes) photoreal.

If this is the best DAZ/Poser photoreal image you've seen you should browse around more. That's all I meant. Are you telling us you haven't even seen MEC4D's latest iRay renders. Her Maya iRay 2015 test render alone is a great photoreal piece, so is her Luis iRay 2015.
In the end it depends on the skill of the artist.

Maya Iray 2015

Maya Iray 2015

Maya Iray 2015

It certainly down to the skill of the artist which is why individual renders do not say a great deal about the figure other than what is possible by a skillful artist.  It also does help to have a top class rig such as MEC4D's so that you can generate such renders in a reasonable time.  I doubt I could create a render like that, no matter what figure or computer I used to create it.

On the other side of the coin, with Iray and Victoria 7, it is easier to get there. Yes, some skill is required, but, for photorealistic, less than with 3Delight or Firefly. 

There are plenty of photoreal Poser and DAZ Studio renders around. I am talking about real photoreal, not the many Reality/LuxRender renders you see around with melted butter looking hair and skin so glossy that it looks like PVC plastic.

I wasn't talking about Poser/DAZ Studio "photoreal" (with quotes), I was talking about GCSociety (without quotes) photoreal.

If this is the best DAZ/Poser photoreal image you've seen you should browse around more. That's all I meant. Are you telling us you haven't even seen MEC4D's latest iRay renders. Her Maya iRay 2015 test render alone is a great photoreal piece, so is her Luis iRay 2015.
In the end it depends on the skill of the artist.

Maya Iray 2015

Maya Iray 2015

Maya Iray 2015

It certainly down to the skill of the artist which is why individual renders do not say a great deal about the figure other than what is possible by a skillful artist.  It also does help to have a top class rig such as MEC4D's so that you can generate such renders in a reasonable time.  I doubt I could create a render like that, no matter what figure or computer I used to create it.

On the other side of the coin, with Iray and Victoria 7, it is easier to get there. Yes, some skill is required, but, for photorealistic, less than with 3Delight or Firefly. 

That depends so much on where you skills and experience lie, what render engine the materials were built for, and if you were after photorealistic in the first place.

There are plenty of photoreal Poser and DAZ Studio renders around. I am talking about real photoreal, not the many Reality/LuxRender renders you see around with melted butter looking hair and skin so glossy that it looks like PVC plastic.

I wasn't talking about Poser/DAZ Studio "photoreal" (with quotes), I was talking about GCSociety (without quotes) photoreal.

If this is the best DAZ/Poser photoreal image you've seen you should browse around more. That's all I meant. Are you telling us you haven't even seen MEC4D's latest iRay renders. Her Maya iRay 2015 test render alone is a great photoreal piece, so is her Luis iRay 2015.
In the end it depends on the skill of the artist.

Maya Iray 2015

Maya Iray 2015

Maya Iray 2015

It certainly down to the skill of the artist which is why individual renders do not say a great deal about the figure other than what is possible by a skillful artist.  It also does help to have a top class rig such as MEC4D's so that you can generate such renders in a reasonable time.  I doubt I could create a render like that, no matter what figure or computer I used to create it.

On the other side of the coin, with Iray and Victoria 7, it is easier to get there. Yes, some skill is required, but, for photorealistic, less than with 3Delight or Firefly. 

That depends so much on where you skills and experience lie, what render engine the materials were built for, and if you were after photorealistic in the first place.

One of us is confused.

The conversation I commented on was about photoreal. Victoria 7 comes with Iray shaders (plus 3Delight) and is better designed for realistic poses and expressions. 

What did I get wrong?

I wish Poser would pick up the slack on this one and make it so that V7 worked fully compatible with Poser, but my confidence is low.

Male_M3dia posted at 8:15PM Mon, 07 September 2015 - #4211573

Somehow I don't think it will happen. Not for any business reasons, but probably the simple fact that they would probably view it more as defeat to DAZ than anything else.

I hghly doubt as I have said before that these decisions are based on emotions, and by market pressure I meant their customers. If enough of them scream loud enough SM might add support. It just makes so much business sense.

The problem is SM has been listening to the wrong people for a while now, namely those that have been emotional. Until only recently has SM released a survey for their customers, however it was released a link in the forums, rather than sending it to them via email address that customers used to register their products (if they left any). So, their results are going to have the same skewed results from the wrong people rather than a true cross section of customers. So if you don't get a true cross section of your customers, you're not really going to know what features you should be targeting.

THIS, this right here!^ SM took nearly 10 years to implement a camera that can orbit a separate body part, mostly because the user base is of the generation now, that is firmly entrenched in the, if it ain't broke, don't fix it mentality, which is pointless in this industry...Really, I wish these folks would just dump V4 and go back to Posette and poser vers 3!....Just like the same curmudgeons that yammered on, and on about Victoria 1, until no one made anything for that archaic figure anymore...Y' know, it's quite ironic that people are yammering on incessantly about V4's relevance, when I can still use v4's clothing and morphs even though I only use genesis 1-3 and haven't really used V4 in years..

The simple fact is that DAZ3D has always been the chief provider of Poser content. Most sites or stores that provide Poser or DAZ Studio content are centered around DAZ3D content. (Michael, Victoria, etc.) I doubt that will change.

The problem is that Poser has not evolved so it can handle the newest content provided by DAZ3D. The stores that continue to rely on Victoria 4 are fighting a losing battle.

Here's thing, there are many who choose and want to continue to use Poser over Daz Studio, I am one of them and because of the new Daz figures and Props I no longer purchase from Daz because I don't use DS I don't like DS and never will so because neither Daz or Poser will get their crap together and work together and make these figures and props compatible for both programs many of us will suffer from that which now limits Poser users only to poser figures and Props and the early versions of Daz Figure and props, for an industry as big as Poser and daz they should do all they can to appeal to all. In my opinion both Daz and poser are being a real pain in the ass!

I'm going to make a guess this post is merely here to start an argument, you have resurrected a really old thread. We now have the Genesis 4 range emerging with Victoria 8 and Olympia 8.

Agreed. After two years of this thread being dead, there really isn't much to add beyond what has been said. After this many years of back and forth, it's time to stop beating the dead horse. Each program has its own features now and if you're happy with your program, you'll have to learn to make do with with that programs offers. That said, if you're looking at the Poser forum there are figures that are hopefully coming out on the horizon that need customer support to succeed; so there's no need to rehash these old threads with negativity.