The wood is a texture set, not procedural.

Looking real good those renders

Ah, I see. Interesting how the varnish saturates the colors as opposed to the unvarnished, as in life. I'm assuming it's the same image based texture on both.

[quote Wolf359] Can you at least post an actual poser figure with a decent skin & IBL out in broad daylight so people can see how much better cycles is than the old firefly that  it is presumably replacing??? [/quote]

More reveals in due time. :-)

[quote Nerd] Poser 11 will include it's own PBR as well, giving you, the artist yet another choice in production rendering. Our new render engine is based on the Cycles engine of Blender fame. Don't worry; the familiar FireFly render engine is still going to be there. We're just giving you another rendering option.

 Among other things, Poser's integration of Cycles (currently code named SuperFly) is going to give you a much-requested feature: rendered caustics. SuperFly will use the same material room you already know from FireFly. You won't need to learn a new material interface. [/quote]

@Teyon
Thanks for getting back to me, and yup, I meant those circles at the node connection points.  I thought they might change colour depending on the rendering mode you were in, something to indicate whether the connection will work with that specific render mode.  Preferably though, I hope they've made it so that only the relevant nodes are displayed depending on the render mode chosen, cause if not, it's going to cause masses of unnecessary frustration and slow the uptake of SuperFly.  I hope they do that before release if they haven't implemented such a thing yet.  It would be really annoying to play around with SuperFly and have FireFly-Only nodes visible in SuperFly mode.

BTW, thanks for posting more renders :-)

[edited]

@Wolf
I was just about to say that woman of yours looks a bit ugly, but that might come across as negative.  And fact is, I kinda like her (ugly can be beautiful), and I imagine her in a tight black leather bodysuit, carrying a gun!

@Baggins
Fancy you not being on the Poser Beta team, you must be mad!

Um. I cannot confirm or deny that I am on the beta team. If there was a(n) NDA, I would not be permitted to mention it.

:mentally translates cryptospeak: Nuff said. ;-)

@Baggins
Hah, you'd only be under an NDA if you were on the Beta, and from some of your replies here, it seems like you're not.  But if you are, good, it means you could ensure there is a way to scale bokeh/defocus horizontally and vertically using the nodes, cause it's a big omission that is in the current system.  It only took Otoy a few minutes to add it to Octane Render's nodes when I mentioned Anamorphics to them, so I have faith in the Baggins to ensure that these things can also be adjusted in the new Poser (if you're on the Beta I mean) :-P

I might even go back on my word and buy Poser 11 if it has the ability to do Anamorphic (and by adding that nodal ability, it will), cause I honestly don't have the enthusiasm to bother with any 3D renderer that cannot do it - it's the first thing I want to know with every renderer I show interest in now - does it do Anamorphic - and if not - f@ck it - it's 2015 and Anamorphic lenses have been around since before I was a sperm!

Standard rendered defocus always looks like a crappy, fakey, gaussian blur to me - whereas Anamorphic defocus looks grand and impressive!

The wood is a texture set, not procedural.

Just confirming this. The only thing that is remotely procedural is the tiling effect. :) I built this texture through a combination of Substance Designer, Bitmap 2 Material and Quixel Suite. The bare wood tiles a little better than the varnished one right now. When I have some time I will go back and edit the varnish so that a dark scratch that noticeably repeats doesn't anymore.  I do have a procedural wood texture I made loosely following a tutorial for Cycles on You Tube. That's the wood in the wine image I posted earlier.

I have been following this thread waiting for more reveals, but it seems nothing else to wet the appetite is forthcoming yet...

Nerd3D/Charles:

If you are still watching this thread, I am looking forward to more reveals.  But, in the meantime, I hope it isn't wrong of me to post a wish I have for one of your reveals to be; I am hoping you guys finally licensed the other half of the Stitch cloth suite module, and are going to give us "GarmentMaker" ability with the Cloth Room, or are working on your own incorporated module to add full functionality for creators.

I'm fine with Poser Pro 2014, and plan on using it for the next several years without update, but if you guys include that little piece of the 3D puzzle into the mix, I will be upgrading most definitely.

"and from some of your replies here, it seems like you're not."

Well some of what I wrote was weeks ago, before the beta testing started, and all we had to go on was this thread.

Ted the tease
You aim to please
So now for Anamorphics please

Ok, not quite Roxie standard, but at least it rhymes!

Hopefully this doesn't start anymore bs, but will Genesis 3 be natively supported in this version? My apologies if it has already been answered.

Ted the tease
You aim to please
So now for Anamorphics please

Ok, not quite Roxie standard, but at least it rhymes!

I can only ask, not change the code. I'm pretty much a tester, although perhaps with a bit more influence than some. I do know that Cycles can actually do anamorphic bokeh, as well as show the blades of the aperture diaphragm. I have put in a request to expose these features in Superfly. Meanwhile -  (I'm probably not supposed to show this) but I managed to literally shoot a picture through an anamorphic lens and then stretch it afterwards to wide screen format, just like how real film is used. Here is the result:

Compare to this "normal" bokeh:

Hopefully this doesn't start anymore bs, but will Genesis 3 be natively supported in this version? My apologies if it has already been answered.

Trying to be positive and not ruin the thread I think it has been discussed in one of the threads Poser 11 related threads (there are two here and two at RDNA), and the consensus appears to be that is is doubtful.  I am not sure of the actual threads and again, without wanting to be negative, I really don't want to read them all over again. They might be worth a look though if you are interested why people think it is doubtful. That said, very few people know for certain and those that do would not be allowed to say anything at this point.  

"Supported" depends on what you mean.

The only thing Genesis 3 has, at least in terms of the base figure, that Poser can't do right now is the dual quaternion bending, which isn't exclusive to DAZ, and the ability to read the file format. That's it, really, and that second one is a minor issue. Pretty much everything else such as the bones for use in facial expressions has been possible to use  in Poser for years.

@Baggins
Seriously, don't get any ideas, but man, I could kiss you right now - that looks absolutely bloody fantastic!!!!!!!!!
You see what I mean though, how Anamorphic bokeh just looks way more like it was shot through actual glass?

I'm shocked how long it is taking the mainstream renderers to do this, it just totally transforms a scene, in fact I don't need to say that now, I mean wow, your own demonstration speaks volumes.  I hope your influence works on SM, and put it this way, how many renderers do you know of who are advertising Anamorphic rendering abilities?  By exposing those nodes for you, they have another selling point to shift more copies of Poser 11.  The difference is like night and day, no matter what I see rendered in a comparison, Anamorphic always looks better - so some side-by-side images to help sell it would work wonders for sales of Poser 11 I reckon - cause everyone who uses Poser, renders.

Can't fail with Anamorphic lenses, I'm totally in love with the look, always have been even way back when I didn't realise what it was I was seeing in the image.  Anamorphic is the true look of cinema, and cinema just isn't the same without it, and whether it be real or rendered, the effect just looks amazing compared to standard lenses.

You're the man, Ted, thank you so much for doing that :-)

...everyone who uses Poser, renders.

Not since they added the advanced OpenGL :-) My viewport looks significantly better than a lot of the full renders in the gallery here.

Note that I am actually excited about Superfly/Cycles coming to Poser 11, but it will need to have an interactive mode in order to be useful for me. I also hope they change their mind about GPU rendering (or at least add it to the next Poser Pro)

I just spent the better part of my early evening today going through the 15 pages of "Poser 11 Sneak Peak."  I like the parts where I learn about what is happening and I would like to see more about Poser 11.  I am appreciative of Nerd for posting.

[edited for reference to deleted posts]

So far I have learned that Poser 11 is proposing a new renderer which is not faster but supposedly better than the existing Firefly. I have learned that I should take a look at my video board to see if for a hundred or two hundred dollars I  can potentially make a BIG increase in my rendering time and quality.   I learned that Blender, which people used to dis as awkward and painful to learn, is challenging both Daz and Smith Micro on certain fronts. I learned that Firefly, with some tweaks, can be made good enough to have quality approaching that of the proposed Renderer, but that it doesn't move things forward to put much effort in that direction.  I did not learn about any deficiences that DAz has that poser is blowing by them with - since what Poser is implementing can apparently also be had as add-ons from reality and Octane if I read things accurately.

In the details of knowing the quality of the renderings posted here the people of this forum surpass me. I don't see the things that many of you do, such as in the gun stock that was rendered, this despite having some reasonable knowledge assessing quality of images in the graphics industry.  I personally got a "new" computer finally about a year ago now and have spent my time exalted in the luxury of creating renders that I don't have to do overnight (I think I am finally in the camp where most everything I do can be done in 15 minutes or less) and in being able to work with A/O and focus distances and in motion blurs. I am only now looking at shaders.  If you had asked me before this thread whether I wanted a new Renderer that would slow me down again, I would probably have said it was not a priority. But it is you all, into the details like this, who push this forward.

My question is, what else does Poser 11 potentially have?? 

One thing I would like is on the heirarchy tab to be able to check off multiple boxes then execute all the checks at once. I find it really annoying for the program to have to execute one check box at a time and wait for it. Corel back in Version 5 or 8 or so recognized a similar problem and corrected it. They're at version X7 now I think (17). I don't really like it that the material room is ALMOST the same yet works differently than all the other functions attached to the Pose room (Char, Pose, Prop, Lights, Camera, etc).  and re-alters the location of my library pull down and properties pull down which I typically have open everytime I switch from, say, a prop or a camera to the material icon.  I'd like to see some improved physics. Someone (I think RDNA) mentioned a 'Rope Room' Concept along with a way to create tied knots that would be neat. This could be tied in to a better way to do IK perhaps.  I'd like to be able to drop things down onto a surface - they way they do on the ground plane - and not have characters plummet through through chairs and stairs and second floors like ghosts. I don't like it when I import a scene or character and the imported scene overwrites the lights for the scene I have been working on.

I have knowledge in some of these areas and big holes, too. Some I may be living with just because I haven't learned enough yet.

I can say that when I went to Poser Pro 2014, one of the things that had been new for me was the search engine to find things in the runtime libraries. At the time I was as enthusiastic then as I am about a new, slower renderer now. But after having it and using it,  I would not give it up for the world and go back to earlier versions that did not have it.

But, in the end, after 15 pages I ask, other than the proposed new Renderer, what else is happening?

Simply: A lot. Not everything we hoped would, but still a lot. I can't say more than that yet. More will be revealed as time progresses and some of these things get to stages we can publicly show. The render engine is probably the easiest thing to show off because of the immediacy of it. You hit render, you get an image. Other stuff takes a bit more testing before it's ready for public consumption but rest assured, there are other things to be excited about. Just can't talk about them yet.

Thanks, Teyon. Perhaps I'm naive, but still crossing my fingers that the team has listened to the requests for serious upgrades in the hair creation department (i.e. serious improvements to the existing Hair Room, or a viable replacement/alternative). That combined with the new render engine would probably sell me on the new version.

Note that I am actually excited about Superfly/Cycles coming to Poser 11, but it will need to have an interactive mode in order to be useful for me. I also hope they change their mind about GPU rendering (or at least add it to the next Poser Pro)

So which group of people do you want them to shortchange? The ATI people or the NVIDIA people? (Both of whom, incidentally, get shortchanged compared to people using the CPU renderer, although the NVIDIA group slightly less so).

Note that I am actually excited about Superfly/Cycles coming to Poser 11, but it will need to have an interactive mode in order to be useful for me. I also hope they change their mind about GPU rendering (or at least add it to the next Poser Pro)

So which group of people do you want them to shortchange? The ATI people or the NVIDIA people? (Both of whom, incidentally, get shortchanged compared to people using the CPU renderer, although the NVIDIA group slightly less so).

Cycles can use both Nvidia and ATI GPU's, or your CPU. In an ideal implementation, the user would have the ability to choose what they wanted to use for rendering, with an error checking routine that would force Cycles to use the CPU (ideally with a warning) if the scene would not fit into GPU RAM, or if features not supported by GPU rendering were used. This would give everyone the ability to use Cycles (SuperFly) at the maximum possible speed for their system regardless of their hardware (just like Blender users can do now).

The problem is that Cycles isn't implemented equally in all three forms. If you want the simplest solution with the most features for the greatest number of users, you go with the CPU.

Another thing to bear in mind is which features are available. In the most recent released version of Cycles, subsurface scattering is only implemented in CPU, experimental on NVIDIA cards (and may not work) and unavailable for ATI cards. Poser still, primarily, deals with figures. That have skin. Which has subsurface scattering. Having a "realistic" rendering engine, which Cycles is supposed to be for, that can't do realistic skin is kind of counterproductive.

Well, it's kind of counterproductive having real skin and no new realistic figures to apply it to. Just saying.... I hope there is, because in a PBR engine, old meshes with bending and rigging issues will stand out and will be more noticeable with realistic lighting.

The problem is that Cycles isn't implemented equally in all three forms. If you want the simplest solution with the most features for the greatest number of users, you go with the CPU.

Another thing to bear in mind is which features are available. In the most recent released version of Cycles, subsurface scattering is only implemented in CPU, experimental on NVIDIA cards (and may not work) and unavailable for ATI cards. Poser still, primarily, deals with figures. That have skin. Which has subsurface scattering. Having a "realistic" rendering engine, which Cycles is supposed to be for, that can't do realistic skin is kind of counterproductive.

True, CPU does provide the safest option for all, but it would be nice if GPU was available for those who are a bit more adventurous or experienced. I've seen some great examples of SSS done with GPU rendering in Cycles, though SSS on gpu isn't a lot faster. I guess to get GPU based rending in Poser, I'll need to get the Octane plugin (or maybe Paolo will have GPU support with the next version of Reality). It would just be nice to have it available in "Superfly" since I already have GPU based PBR rendering in DS and Carrara. It will be interesting to see if there will be any "must have" features for Poser11. I'm really glad that P11 will have cycles included as I really enjoy using PBR render engines. I'm not trying to be negative here, but for me, without GPU support it isn't nearly as attractive. There are other PBR alternatives available for Poser that for me are less expensive than what the PP2016 upgrade will probably be.

I've spent years developing Firefly shaders and settings that give me great results, BUT FAST.

So the only reason I'd have for using another render engine would be if it would give me the same, or better results, EVEN FASTER.

Without GPU support, all the PBR renderers are glacially slow, including Cycles.

So, even IF I'd buy PP-2016 (A very big "IF", given the information I currently have), I'd never use a "crippled" Cycles anyway.

Like I never used that "Fitting room" in PP-2014. (I do all my cloth conversions manually for maximum quality)

Besides, why the heck would people want to use a PHYSICALLY BASED RENDERER that was explicitely built to achieve PHOTOREALISTIC results when there is no PHOTOREALISTIC FIGURE in sight to use it on?

All those shortcomings and poor workmanship of the current Poser and older DAZ figures will stand out even more.

Actually, I don't think even Vicky 7 is photorealistic enough to be subjected to the harsh realism of a PBR renderer.

So, again, the only reason I can see for a new renderer, given the style of semi/quasi realistic renders most people prefer, would be MORE SPEED.

Or a set of photogrammetry based figures with such realistic shapes and rigging, that they'd be actually "worthy" of a PBR renderer.

(But even then MORE SPEED would not hurt. Not in a world where we can have photorealistic realtime graphics in games now)

In other words, after full Genesis compatibility, professional quality native Poser figures, real instancing for outside scenes, much improved transparency handling to at least better "fake" outdoor scenes, a better hair engine and better rigging tools, a "recycled" PBR render engine that is crippled right from the start, is pretty much the least attractive new "feature" I could think of that would make me want to invest my $$$ into Poser again.

Oh, and btw, I would be careful advertising this "new" render engine as "Superfly".

Not if NIKE is already using it that term:

Nike's Superfly

Besides, there is only one true Superfly, anyway:

The one and only...

:-)

Then it seems like a good idea for SM to concentrate on the CPU side of Cycles if the GPU side is not ready for the mainstream, even in Blender.

...it raises the question, how good will Superfly be at non-photoreal renders?

"Well, it's kind of counterproductive having real skin and no new realistic figures to apply it to. Just saying.... I hope there is, because in a PBR engine, old meshes with bending and rigging issues will stand out and will be more noticeable with realistic lighting.".........."Besides, why the heck would people want to use a PHYSICALLY BASED RENDERER that was explicitely built to achieve PHOTOREALISTIC results when there is no PHOTOREALISTIC FIGURE in sight to use it on?"

Lets be honest 

that has not deterred people from using LUX
or Octane with "problematic" figures like sydney,Roxie etc.

I dont know of many people who buy poser to render shiny chess peices and other generic "3D objects" like the one's showcased in this thread.

that has not deterred people from using LUX
or Octane with "problematic" figures like sydney,Roxie etc.

Nope it hasn't, but it all depends on the level of the artist, and what type of results they want to achieve. For some those figures simply do not cut it, even when using a non PBR render engine.

"For some those figures simply do not cut it, even when using a non PBR render engine."

I agree.

Hopefully SM hasn't forgotten the Preview rendering aspects of Poser. It seems like a natural progression after adding the comic book preview that perhaps some of the wireframe previews get some attention. An occluded smooth shaded lined preview would be nifty. Not sure how occlusion distance would be determined in something like that or even if the tech exists for speedy user controlled options. Just thinking along the lines of something possible with C4d's sketch and toon and Carrara's wireframe pro plug in. I've always thought that Poser's various preview styles were very well executed.

I've spent years developing Firefly shaders and settings that give me great results, BUT FAST.

So the only reason I'd have for using another render engine would be if it would give me the same, or better results, EVEN FASTER.

Without GPU support, all the PBR renderers are glacially slow, including Cycles.

So, even IF I'd buy PP-2016 (A very big "IF", given the information I currently have), I'd never use a "crippled" Cycles anyway.

Like I never used that "Fitting room" in PP-2014. (I do all my cloth conversions manually for maximum quality)

Besides, why the heck would people want to use a PHYSICALLY BASED RENDERER that was explicitely built to achieve PHOTOREALISTIC results when there is no PHOTOREALISTIC FIGURE in sight to use it on?

All those shortcomings and poor workmanship of the current Poser and older DAZ figures will stand out even more.

Actually, I don't think even Vicky 7 is photorealistic enough to be subjected to the harsh realism of a PBR renderer.

So, again, the only reason I can see for a new renderer, given the style of semi/quasi realistic renders most people prefer, would be MORE SPEED.

Or a set of photogrammetry based figures with such realistic shapes and rigging, that they'd be actually "worthy" of a PBR renderer.

(But even then MORE SPEED would not hurt. Not in a world where we can have photorealistic realtime graphics in games now)

In other words, after full Genesis compatibility, professional quality native Poser figures, real instancing for outside scenes, much improved transparency handling to at least better "fake" outdoor scenes, a better hair engine and better rigging tools, a "recycled" PBR render engine that is crippled right from the start, is pretty much the least attractive new "feature" I could think of that would make me want to invest my $$$ into Poser again.

You know, Joe...Pixar and DreamWorks use PBR in a lot of their films. Last I checked, they don't do photorealistic characters. Just sayin'. Don't mean to pick a fight but being a creative person I would think other creative people would find more than just one use for the render engine.

Agreed wholeheartedly Teyon, although I don't see too many images of naked people lined up against gradients or with their legs wrapped around their heads coming out of pixar. Must not be their thing.

And this...

"Nope it hasn't, but it all depends on the level of the artist."

Ummm do you mean like 10d fireball or the level of an artist who's work is dependant on the appropriation and recontextualization of pre existing assets in order to create illustrations that may or may not acceptably fulfill their role of conveying an idea, and the importance of said level outside a narrow subcultural niche relative to the wider lexicon of art making or visual conceptualization? And skill thereof comparatively, or just within that narrow subculture? And possibly disregarding the importance of conceptual aspect and relying solely on surface visual qualities to determine the quantity of level?

...or maybe he was talking about booty fixes?

You know, Joe...Pixar and DreamWorks use PBR in a lot of their films. Last I checked, they don't do photorealistic characters. Just sayin'. Don't mean to pick a fight but being a creative person I would think other creative people would find more than just one use for the render engine.

How true, Pixar, Dreamworks, Disney, and others are all using ray tracing (and are/have moved away from faked GI) and relying more and more on physically based workflows now (lighting and materials) for the improved efficiency the provide (even though render times are longer). This was done with Iray, and it isn't "photo-realistic" at all, but to me it does look 3D. For me, lighting and materials in a PBR are much easier than in Firefly. I don't strive for photo-realism (what ever that really is), but I do want my images to look like real 3D. Could this had been done equally as well with FireFly or insert your favorite non- PBR renderer here? Yes, I would say it could. But for me, using either Iray or Octane is so much easier that I avoid using non-PBR render engines now, of course your mileage may vary.

Hopefully SM hasn't forgotten the Preview rendering aspects of Poser. It seems like a natural progression after adding the comic book preview that perhaps some of the wireframe previews get some attention. An occluded smooth shaded lined preview would be nifty. Not sure how occlusion distance would be determined in something like that or even if the tech exists for speedy user controlled options. Just thinking along the lines of something possible with C4d's sketch and toon and Carrara's wireframe pro plug in. I've always thought that Poser's various preview styles were very well executed.

Agreed 100%. As much as a love Poser's advanced OpenGL preview, it does need some improvements - most notably the preview of shadows for point lights is still unusable and some form of realtime reflection map functionality (this is absolutely possible, as I can get a pseudo realtime reflection map by using fresnel nodes in Poser Pro 2014). Also, shadows through transparency mapped objects are ugly, since the transparency map is ignored.
@Teyon, are you able to say anything about advanced OpenGL improvements yet? Even if you can't give specifics, it would be nice to know if there are improvements in this area or not.

There's a couple of things that you're going to notice with the preview, one being a new shading mode for the scene. Beyond that, no I can't talk about it.

How Cycles (the render engine in Blender and the engine behind "Superfly") stacks up against some other render engines. For the curious...

http://www.blenderguru.com/articles/render-engine-comparison-cycles-vs-giants/

Funny thing is...I don't care what Pixar or anybody else of "The industry" with access to multimilion $$$ renderfarms use.

I only care what works best on my old ACER laptop.

I never understood people using badly rigged figures clothed with garment devoid of any folds that look like they were cut out of styrofoam for their art, but otoh they let their poor machines rattle on overnight at 99% CPU, just so they can say the other day when they post their highly compressed .jpg on a forum that they rendered it with a real PBR renderer, JUST LIKE PIXAR !!!!1111.

The right tool for the right job, and for your typical badly lit still renderer of V4 in a "come hither" pose, a PBR is simply overkill.

As were most "must have" render features that were introduced in the last years. (Which, btw, despite a myriad of SRs, still don't work as flawlessly as they were actually advertised)

How many times had Bagginsbill retract his original statements and admit that this or that "perfectly realistic" shader that anyone "must use or you are a poopyhead forevah!" just doesn't work in Poser.

Don't get me wrong, he's certainly a genius, but he doesn't care about efficiency.

And without "realistic figures", any hope for a "realistic" render is blown out of the water before you even can say "gamma correction".

My point is: Given Poser's track record with "new and exiting features", I see years of "public beta" and confusion and hair pulling ahead of us with a "new" render engine instead of a general improvement of Poser art for the masses.

[edited for quoting deleted post]

that is the problem with any rules, new or old they need to be applied consistently and fairly.

Everyone has their viewpoint and I can understand some of the comments, even if some are a little harsh.  This is after all an very limited look at one new Poser feature that is a work in progress.  We have no idea the full extent of the capability of the new render engine in Poser and this is just one feature.   The only time we will be able to judge Poser 11/2016 is when we have the possibility to use it on our machines and see what we can do with it.  In the mean time I am happy to see a glimpse of what might be included and decide later if there is enough for me to reach for my credit card, since Poser 5 there has been enough for me to upgrade and for me to be happy with the purchase.

How Cycles (the render engine in Blender and the engine behind "Superfly") stacks up against some other render engines. For the curious...

http://www.blenderguru.com/articles/render-engine-comparison-cycles-vs-giants/

Thanks for the link, a very interesting article. One thing to note though, he used a GTX 650 for his Octane tests. I'm guessing this due to it's relatively slow GPU performance, he states that  "it performs very similarly to the Intel i7 3770" (or maybe it's because that's what he had in his machine). IMHO that introduced a bit of a bias into the comparison, as you can see from the attached screen grabs below (from: http://www.videocardbenchmark.net/high_end_gpus.html), even an old GTX 480 would give over 2X the performance of the GTX 650. So when looking at the results just keep in mind that the speeds for Octane are rather slow compared to what can be achieve with a newer card in the $200.00 range, for example a GTX 960 which would provide approximately 3x the speeds of the GTX 650. If he had used a GTX 960, his Octane render times would have easily been about 1/3 the times he posted, making Octane the clear leader in rendering speed.

I also think that the huge difference in the quality of the hair renders is mainly due to his inexperience the different render engines. They should all be capable of producing hair of the same visual quality as the Maxwell Render example.

It was really interesting to see how Cycles (and the new Lux) compared both in visual quality and speed to Maxwell and Vray. Thanks again for posting the link!

GTX 650 performance (near bottom of list)

Top end GPU performance

i had to dispute my credit card charge on Poser Pro 2014 because the password didn't work and I really wanted a 64 bit Poser. I hope i don't have to jump through hoops on Poser 11  just to get a program to start that i pay a lot of money for. i'm going to do my part to pay the money for Poser 11. do your part and make the thing at least start correctly. otherwise I'm stuck with 32 bit poser 7 which by the way I really have enjoyed for the last 8 years. 

i had to dispute my credit card charge on Poser Pro 2014 because the password didn't work and I really wanted a 64 bit Poser. I hope i don't have to jump through hoops on Poser 11  just to get a program to start that i pay a lot of money for. i'm going to do my part to pay the money for Poser 11. do your part and make the thing at least start correctly. otherwise I'm stuck with 32 bit poser 7 which by the way I really have enjoyed for the last 8 years. 

I am not sure on the issue as described but I have had no problems with Poser 2014 just install and put in the serial number.  There have been a couple of issues with Game Dev which are related to the activation but that system is not used in Poser 2014.  From what I have seen on the forums this is not a common problem with Poser 2014 and it is a shame if you have to go to Poser 11 instead as I feel the extra for 64bit is well worth it.

Because it's still very new. The new Iray engine hasn't even been made available for most apps yet so it hasn't really been reviewed.

What is my benefit with that Cycles renderer? I was quite happy with the Octane for Poser plug-in before.

Basically the benefit is that Cycles is integrated inside Poser and you don't need to leave the app and open up anything else externally. How well it will work via that integration is still to be seen, in terms of how simple it is to use and how easy existing content will work with it. How beneficial will Cycles be? That cannot be answered until we actually play with it ourselves.

How Cycles (the render engine in Blender and the engine behind "Superfly") stacks up against some other render engines. For the curious...

http://www.blenderguru.com/articles/render-engine-comparison-cycles-vs-giants/

LOL, that's pretty funny.  The DAZ render engine isn't even on the list.  Not a "giant" I guess.

As far as I know, there is no plugin for Iray for Blender and therefore the author of the article didn't test it in Blender. That's as "funny" as it gets.
Also, it is posts like this that make people angry at all the DS/Poser bashing. Everyone else is behaving themselves. Please do the same. I posted the article as something people might want to read. Nothing more.

Laurie

So, I won't need any shader conversions, I will have some cycles ready shader presets in my runtime?