And there we have it. :)

Ah there it is, thank you. :) And just because I don't do this often enough please let me just add:

We seem to have discovered a gap in the market, there are no cute cat/kitten beating a dead horse videos on YT although there might now be some confused photographers on shutterstock wondering why anyone would want such a picture.

RorrKonn posted at 10:36AM Fri, 18 November 2016 - #4290092

LaurieA posted at 1:18AM Tue, 15 November 2016 - #4290090

Takes no skill to do poses? Wow, then I should be cranking them out after all these years...which I don't btw. Wow. Just. Wow. Go and say that to i13 and Danie and Zeddicuss and FeralFey and..... Razor42 doesn't make just poses fwiw.

If poses took no skill, everyone would be making them, don't you think? o.O

Laurie

Modeling ,Sculpting ,Mapping, Texturing ,Rigging. Takes skills. Don't try to compare some one that makes poses to CGI Artist that can Model ,Sculpt ,Map, Texture ,Rig. you can't.

Im not really sure why its even relevant to compare these things. I make a lot of poses as well as other things. So can obviously only speak based on my own experience. But whether I make poses, figures or textures etc. you have different problems that you will have to deal with in the process. Some things are very easy to model and texture etc, whereas other might not. Most the stuff i make never make it to my store as its for personal use or might just be a small object of some sort and turning these into products and go through the whole required process take quite a long time. But most of these object are fairly easy to make and rarely takes a long time, I don't find doing that to be more special than for instant making a pose. I do agree that its easier to get started making poses than to model, texture, rigging etc. simply because those things requires more tools to be learned and have longer production and learning curve, whereas making a pose basically just requires the figure and one program. But making believable and useful poses and trying get the expression and feeling right in a single pose is not always easy. When i do poses, a single pose can take between 15 minutes to 1 hour to make and in lot of cases I might end up scrapping it in the end, because i don't feel it reflect what i had in mind.

For me at least, making a pose is like taking a snap shot out of an animation, so its not simply about placing a character in a random position which requires roughly no effort what so ever. But we as humans are especially good at seeing things that are wrong or out of touch with reality, some are better at this than others, so if you make a pose and certain things are not correct you will end up with a bad pose and you might not even know it. This could for instant be the wrong weight of the body. Which I my self have had certain discussions with Rendo testing crew about, where they wanted me to change some poses because they looked at the technical aspect of the mesh interaction (poke throughs) for instant, like if the arms are resting on the thighs and the weight of the upper body is applied to them, obviously some weight is transferred down the arms to the thighs. If such weight is not reflected in the pose you will get a doll like pose that looks very unnatural. Since 3D figures doesn't behave like humans and their thigh for instant wont react to the weight of other objects pressing on them, you have to take that into account and a lot of the poses I have at least, doesn't really do a good job at this, I think. Which is one of the reasons i decided to make my own and obviously because having access to a lot of poses really save you a lot of time, even if the pose doesn't match exactly what you need, having a huge library of them means that you can almost always find a good starting point for tweaking it to what you need.

So I wouldn't compare modeling, rigging etc with making poses simply because it makes little sense. Some are good at making animations and can capture a pose or expression very fast and with ease, others might be good at the technical side of rigging, some texturing etc others might not. If you have a hard time modeling obviously you are more impressed with people doing that, than something that you might find easy.

Personally im working on a new pose set of modern/casual dancing poses and im not a big dancer my self, but trust me it is not easy to make poses like that, because you are trying to capture this one moment in a motion that pretty much only make sense if seen in context of the rest of the dance.

ironsoul posted at 9:03PM Fri, 18 November 2016 - #4290334

We seem to have discovered a gap in the market, there are no cute cat/kitten beating a dead horse videos on YT although there might now be some confused photographers on shutterstock wondering why anyone would want such a picture.

There are no cute cat/kitten beating a dead horse bundles in the marketplace for Poser or Daz. Do I see a missed opportunity here?

3D-Mobster posted at 9:23AM Fri, 18 November 2016 - #4290337

Personally im working on a new pose set of modern/casual dancing poses and im not a big dancer my self, but trust me it is not easy to make poses like that, because you are trying to capture this one moment in a motion that pretty much only make sense if seen in context of the rest of the dance.

youtube n google has a lot of dancing

RorrKonn posted at 3:49PM Fri, 18 November 2016 - #4290345

3D-Mobster posted at 9:23AM Fri, 18 November 2016 - #4290337

Personally im working on a new pose set of modern/casual dancing poses and im not a big dancer my self, but trust me it is not easy to make poses like that, because you are trying to capture this one moment in a motion that pretty much only make sense if seen in context of the rest of the dance.

youtube n google has a lot of dancing

Yeah i know, Already been there :D But still for instant stopping the movie at some place and then getting that pose you think might be good recreated in Poser. Its not always really working out, I think. At least I find making those difficult or interaction poses where the figure have to use an object, cant be a pain as well, especially the hands as they are not as flexible as human hands. But anyway thanks for the tip.

Poser 11's still got a little life in it. This is what can be done with some time spent. Superfly render. low poly model+normal map. When you no longer have a gun to your head or deadlines to worry about you can achieve great things in Poser. Still need to tweak that gloss.

Reminds me of Richard O'Brien. Nice work.

Thanks

That is nice work, Teyon. In my personal opinion only, it needs a little facial hair. I'm curious though... if you were going to add it, would you choose to use Poser's hair room?

Heck no. One of the things everyone agreed about was that Poser's hair room needs serious work. Also, I'd want this to be able to easily transition into a game engine, so hair cards would be the way to go.

Teyon : Killer !!!

Lighting at that angle should be showing sub surface scattering on the ear.

Just a general comment as a Moderator. 1. Thank you for bringing this back OP and 2. there are a group of passionate, enthusiastic users who although very gifted and helpful for the most part tend to "push" each other's buttons and cause conflict. Try to recognize this guys and take it off site.

Razor42 posted at 6:38PM Mon, 20 March 2017 - #4299766

It's a nice render but the texture on the telly looks a bit off and the people need a bit more SSS.

Oh, and...

;)

Lighting's terrible, but the posing on the man looks so natural. Can't say that particular texture is working on the elephant for me though.

EClark1894 posted at 9:08PM Mon, 20 March 2017 - #4299785

Lighting's terrible, but the posing on the man looks so natural. Can't say that particular texture is working on the elephant for me though.

Don't understand. Why is the lightning terrible? Looks like a theater stage light set. I like it.

-Timberwolf- posted at 2:37PM Mon, 20 March 2017 - #4299791

EClark1894 posted at 9:08PM Mon, 20 March 2017 - #4299785

Lighting's terrible, but the posing on the man looks so natural. Can't say that particular texture is working on the elephant for me though.

Don't understand. Why is the lightning terrible? Looks like a theater stage light set. I like it.

Look at the lamp on the right and the ring of light it puts on the floor. 2 second fix, but it does throw the scene off a bit.

-Timberwolf- posted at 10:56PM Mon, 20 March 2017 - #4299791

EClark1894 posted at 9:08PM Mon, 20 March 2017 - #4299785

Lighting's terrible, but the posing on the man looks so natural. Can't say that particular texture is working on the elephant for me though.

Don't understand. Why is the lightning terrible? Looks like a theater stage light set. I like it.

It's a photo. We're taking the piss.

SamTherapy posted at 8:53AM Tue, 21 March 2017 - #4299830

-Timberwolf- posted at 10:56PM Mon, 20 March 2017 - #4299791

EClark1894 posted at 9:08PM Mon, 20 March 2017 - #4299785

Lighting's terrible, but the posing on the man looks so natural. Can't say that particular texture is working on the elephant for me though.

Don't understand. Why is the lightning terrible? Looks like a theater stage light set. I like it.

It's a photo. We're taking the piss.

It's probably best that no one addresses that elephant in the room anyway. It's been peaceful in this thread. (+1 to Samtherapy)

Male_M3dia posted at 2:11PM Tue, 21 March 2017 - #4299850

It's probably best that no one addresses that elephant in the room anyway. It's been peaceful in this thread. (+1 to Samtherapy)

I was going to mention the badly done motion blur on the trunk, too.

The elephant speaks, even!

(From SM forums:) "Hi Everyone,

I wanted to introduce myself to the product community. My name is Rafael Torres and I have recently joined Smith Micro as the new product manager for the Graphics Division. As I’m sure many of you are aware, Smith Micro has made considerable changes to its Graphics business in recent months. While change is always hard, it also presents opportunities for us to improve the products and add innovative, new functionalities. I want to personally assure you that Smith Micro is fully committed to its Graphics business and the continued improvement of widely popular titles such as Poser and Moho to meet your needs and expectations. We will keep you posted as product development continues throughout the year. Feel free to reach out to me and the rest of the Graphics Team with product suggestions for Poser (info.poser@smithmicro.com)."

Ah, so is it Mimic compatible?

Is the trunk Easy Pose? How about the tail?

The mapping is pretty good but there's a bit of stretching at the top of the legs.

OK, I'll give over now. The joke's probably gone on enough.

Metamorphosis is change ... and that isn't bad, it's growth. Let's see what happens. Speculation can go sideways way too quickly.

Dying or not, I tellya, Poser is killing me.

One of the updates for Poser 11 makes destructive changes to cr2 files which are processed through P11. That subdividing morph thing changes all the valueParms in Body to targetGeoms, to facilitate the storage of deltas for the different morph resolutions. Seems like a simple, harmless change. But it breaks a bunch of functionality in previous versions. Now any figure used with P11 is no longer fully compatible with earlier versions of Poser. I discovered this when I ran a few figures through P11. Fixing the problem is a time-consuming chore. They broke my figures.

I'm on the blanged Beta team, and I haven't used P11 for anything but bug testing, because of this problem. I kept waiting for them to fix it, so I could move to the new Poser for regular work, but it's still unfixed as of the latest, and perhaps final, update.

So, yeah. Poser may or may not be dying, but it's killing me.

(Note that I still love Poser. I just hate it when it has a case of the stupids.)

Boni posted at 9:26AM Thu, 23 March 2017 - #4300071

Metamorphosis is change ... and that isn't bad, it's growth.

Oh yeah? Tell that to Gregor Samsa.

SamTherapy posted at 11:18AM Thu, 23 March 2017 - #4300102

Boni posted at 9:26AM Thu, 23 March 2017 - #4300071

Metamorphosis is change ... and that isn't bad, it's growth.

Oh yeah? Tell that to Gregor Samsa.

Good Point

Cage posted at 2:24PM Mon, 27 March 2017 - #4300085

Dying or not, I tellya, Poser is killing me.

One of the updates for Poser 11 makes destructive changes to cr2 files which are processed through P11. That subdividing morph thing changes all the valueParms in Body to targetGeoms, to facilitate the storage of deltas for the different morph resolutions. Seems like a simple, harmless change. But it breaks a bunch of functionality in previous versions. Now any figure used with P11 is no longer fully compatible with earlier versions of Poser. I discovered this when I ran a few figures through P11. Fixing the problem is a time-consuming chore. They broke my figures.

I'm on the blanged Beta team, and I haven't used P11 for anything but bug testing, because of this problem. I kept waiting for them to fix it, so I could move to the new Poser for regular work, but it's still unfixed as of the latest, and perhaps final, update.

So, yeah. Poser may or may not be dying, but it's killing me.

(Note that I still love Poser. I just hate it when it has a case of the stupids.)

Are you for real Cage? That's an issue that more people should know about. I'd not heard it mentioned before.

Actually, that seems like it would be the natural case anyway for me. I didn't think Paul or Pauline would work in earlier versions anyway. And no earlier version would be able to handle anything changed to work in P11. So what am I missing?

Sorry for ya troubles Cage

Dieing app's ,ah ,lets talk about shooting ya self in the foot.

I think Poser,DAZ,Blender all shoot them selfs in the feets with these for ever n a day render engines .Oh God do I hate them n I hate the grainy renders also.

kodak films didn't worry about digital cameras cause they can't do as good as job but there good enough and FAST !!!

oh and rederosity shoot them self in the foot with the worthless bot ,why the forums died n is now a ghost town.

false1 posted at 7:26PM Wed, 29 March 2017 - #4300624

Are you for real Cage? That's an issue that more people should know about. I'd not heard it mentioned before.

Yeh. I've assumed the Poser Team considers it a bug, from the way it's referenced in the documentation for all of the later SR releases, but I don't know if they actually consider it to be one. The best way it's been explained to me is that the subdivision morphs belong not to an actor, but to BODY. As such, the most straightforward way to store them would be to convert the valueParm FBM control dials in BODY to targetGeom, where the deltas can be stored. That makes some sense, but... it's weird, and it breaks some features in previous versions. Weird, because valueParms were introduced to Poser to be control dials for FBMs. I suspect it's a feature that's here to stay.

The trouble being that one needs to clean up figures created in or just processed through P11, before they can be properly compatible with earlier versions. That affects anyone creating or modifying figures for distribution. All those targetGeoms in BODY need to be changed back into valueParms. That's not an easy modification. You can't just rename the dials, because targetGeoms contain 4-5 extra lines which, if present in a valueParm, cause Poser to refuse to load the renamed dial at all. The dials need to have their type names changed and those lines need to be removed, from each and every dial. It takes forever, editing by hand. I consider that a major design flaw. IMHO, if the Poser Team had to do it that sloppily, they weren't ready yet to introduce the new subdivision morph feature. They hadn't prepared an adequate cr2 design infrastructure for it. It needed a bit more work, before being built in.

So I've been grousing about it, instead of seeking a solution. I shouldn't do that. A few days ago, my brain started working and I contacted Dimension3D, to see if a batch file could be made for the Poser File Editor, to automate this cleanup process. Only a few hours later, he sent me the files. PFE cleans up the mess quickly and easily. I'm hoping he'll distribute those batch files with a future update for PFE.

I really shouldn't gripe about Poser like I do. They're going to kick me off the Beta Crew for disloyalty, or something. I gripe because I love the software and I want it to be better than it is. But the Poser Team really tries. I'm sure the new team will work as hard as the old one, to make Poser the best program possible.

EClark1894 posted at 7:47PM Wed, 29 March 2017 - #4300671

Actually, that seems like it would be the natural case anyway for me. I didn't think Paul or Pauline would work in earlier versions anyway. And no earlier version would be able to handle anything changed to work in P11. So what am I missing?

Not everyone uses Poser the way you do...? I use Antonia exclusively, and I like to hold open the possibility of sharing my figures in the future. There's nothing inherently preventing those figure from being used in any version of Poser from P9 (weight-mapping) forward. So this is a real flaw, for me.

Consider the Erogenesis figure, currently in development. Should it be for only Poser 11? The developer restricts his potential customer base, doing it that way. Retaining as much backwards compatibility as possible keeps options open for developers.

With most features they've introduced, the Poser Team has been very smart and careful about backwards compatibility. That's always been one of the nice things about Poser, in my opinion. I know others (Tony may pop in to offer counterpoints cough) disagree. I like being able to open old files from Poser 4 or 5, or any version between then and today, in my latest Poser. There's no point in breaking things unnecessarily. Here, Poser has casually broken something, without notifying the user base. We're accustomed to trusting a new version of Poser with our files, generally able to be sure that it won't break them. That isn't the case here, which is a bit annoying.

It's not a fatal flaw in Poser 11, by any means. It's just an unnecessary complication for users.

Say we want you to code a 3D app where the users don't know anything about boolean ,stich n sew ,extrude ,uvmap etc etc. or even wireframe n topology. My answer would have been .Are you insane ,Do you even know what 3D is ? Poser coders have a imposable job ,Think it be easier to make a rock fly ,with no anything else no rockets etc etc just a rock n get it to fly somehow. I do wish Poser worked like 3D app's n had all the tools. You wouldn't half to worry about backwards compatible. I know some care about it me not so much.

Cage posted at 11:32AM Thu, 30 March 2017 - #4300085

Dying or not, I tellya, Poser is killing me.

One of the updates for Poser 11 makes destructive changes to cr2 files which are processed through P11. That subdividing morph thing changes all the valueParms in Body to targetGeoms, to facilitate the storage of deltas for the different morph resolutions. Seems like a simple, harmless change. But it breaks a bunch of functionality in previous versions. Now any figure used with P11 is no longer fully compatible with earlier versions of Poser. I discovered this when I ran a few figures through P11. Fixing the problem is a time-consuming chore. They broke my figures.

I'm on the blanged Beta team, and I haven't used P11 for anything but bug testing, because of this problem. I kept waiting for them to fix it, so I could move to the new Poser for regular work, but it's still unfixed as of the latest, and perhaps final, update.

So, yeah. Poser may or may not be dying, but it's killing me.

(Note that I still love Poser. I just hate it when it has a case of the stupids.)

But if you are using a feature from the latest version (subdividing morphs) which only works with P11 and P11Pro, why would you expect it to work in older versions and then complain it doesn't? As it would only be compatible with P11, simply saving it as a P11 figure and leaving the pre P11 adjusted item alone solves that. If it needs the latest version, then people have to use the latest version or miss out. Otherwise there is no point developing software features.

Being able to open things from older versions in the latest versions is legacy compatibility, and that's fair enough, as people have lots of earlier stuff. But to have new features that are introduced to the latest software (and aren't in earlier versions) and then expecting those to work in earlier versions is silly.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I'm ranting, I'll get off my soapbox now! :)

raven posted at 7:45AM Thu, 30 March 2017 - #4300895

Cage posted at 11:32AM Thu, 30 March 2017 - #4300085

Dying or not, I tellya, Poser is killing me.

One of the updates for Poser 11 makes destructive changes to cr2 files which are processed through P11. That subdividing morph thing changes all the valueParms in Body to targetGeoms, to facilitate the storage of deltas for the different morph resolutions. Seems like a simple, harmless change. But it breaks a bunch of functionality in previous versions. Now any figure used with P11 is no longer fully compatible with earlier versions of Poser. I discovered this when I ran a few figures through P11. Fixing the problem is a time-consuming chore. They broke my figures.

I'm on the blanged Beta team, and I haven't used P11 for anything but bug testing, because of this problem. I kept waiting for them to fix it, so I could move to the new Poser for regular work, but it's still unfixed as of the latest, and perhaps final, update.

So, yeah. Poser may or may not be dying, but it's killing me.

(Note that I still love Poser. I just hate it when it has a case of the stupids.)

But if you are using a feature from the latest version (subdividing morphs) which only works with P11 and P11Pro, why would you expect it to work in older versions and then complain it doesn't? As it would only be compatible with P11, simply saving it as a P11 figure and leaving the pre P11 adjusted item alone solves that. If it needs the latest version, then people have to use the latest version or miss out. Otherwise there is no point developing software features.

Being able to open things from older versions in the latest versions is legacy compatibility, and that's fair enough, as people have lots of earlier stuff. But to have new features that are introduced to the latest software (and aren't in earlier versions) and then expecting those to work in earlier versions is silly.

Sorry, didn't mean to sound like I'm ranting, I'll get off my soapbox now! :)

Cage isn't using one of the latest features; he's merely saving a CR2 in the using tech that should be compatible in previous versions and Poser adds a new parameter in that save that should have been ignored in previous versions but it was written it a way that it breaks it instead. It should have been written to add that parameter when it was actually used, not putting it in the file by default. I believe Erogenesis ran into the same issue with Project E last year, and he had get help (and a few SM patches) to help fix that issue.

I took this part of his quote (bolded by me):

"One of the updates for Poser 11 makes destructive changes to cr2 files which are processed through P11. That subdividing morph thing changes all the valueParms in Body to targetGeoms, to facilitate the storage of deltas for the different morph resolutions."

to imply he is using one of the latest features, as in his post about different morph resolutions, which I took to be subdivision level morphs, which are only P11 and P11Pro. You can also only create them in Poser11Pro (and they are also read by P11 ) so again implying a latest feature. Perhaps in order to utilise that feature the .cr2 needs to be written differently. But as I said, if that's the case, leave the original for pre P11 versions and there's no problem. If I was wrong fair enough.

"Retaining as much backwards compatibility as possible keeps options open for developers."

I disagree..strongly. trying to maintaining "backward compatibility" at all costs, cripples development as it always PREVENTS implementation of features that take advantage of new & emerging technologies Imagine the sorry state of our creative& rendering software if devs insisted on keeping them "backwards compatible" with 32 bit winXp /win 95 or mac OS9.

While we are all free to use whatever old tech/software we prefer , commercial Developers have ZERO obligation to support our choice to do so.

With the Backwards compatible thing Posers " Damned if they do n Damned if they don't "

Just have Poser 1 thru 2017 on ya PC so ya can run what ever ya want on what ever version ya want.So we can render Vicky 2 and have the newest toys also. best of both worlds.

I don't see backwards compatibility issues with C4D ,zBrush.

I see backwards compatibility issues with games ,but compare 1980's games to 2017 games.

raven posted at 1:07PM Thu, 30 March 2017 - #4300901

I took this part of his quote (bolded by me):

"One of the updates for Poser 11 makes destructive changes to cr2 files which are processed through P11. That subdividing morph thing changes all the valueParms in Body to targetGeoms, to facilitate the storage of deltas for the different morph resolutions."

to imply he is using one of the latest features, as in his post about different morph resolutions, which I took to be subdivision level morphs, which are only P11 and P11Pro. You can also only create them in Poser11Pro (and they are also read by P11 ) so again implying a latest feature. Perhaps in order to utilise that feature the .cr2 needs to be written differently. But as I said, if that's the case, leave the original for pre P11 versions and there's no problem. If I was wrong fair enough.

That's just me, being unclear. Sorry. The changes introduced to P11 to support subdividing morphs affect every cr2 or pz3 passed through the software, whether that user activates subdividing morphs or not. We weren't warned about this, but it affects everyone and everything. I find that objectionable, but it may be one of those YMMV things.

wolf359 posted at 1:13PM Thu, 30 March 2017 - #4300902

"Retaining as much backwards compatibility as possible keeps options open for developers."

I disagree..strongly. trying to maintaining "backward compatibility" at all costs, cripples development as it always PREVENTS implementation of features that take advantage of new & emerging technologies Imagine the sorry state of our creative& rendering software if devs insisted on keeping them "backwards compatible" with 32 bit winXp /win 95 or mac OS9.

While we are all free to use whatever old tech/software we prefer , commercial Developers have ZERO obligation to support our choice to do so.

Fair enough. I remember the freakouts about the very idea of weight-mapping being introduced into Poser. Some of us wanted weight-mapped joints, others felt they were a worse option than Poser's traditional joints. None of us considered the possibility that we could have both types of rigging built into Poser. We all assumed it had to be one or the other, so we freaked out and argued about it.

That's sort of how the Poser Team was smart, most of the time, with Poser updates. Rarely did they disregard backwards compatibility as they added new features. They gave us the future and let us keep the past. They were really very good about this. Perhaps that has colored my responses and opinions. In the case of Poser, I anticipate that sort of careful regard for backwards compatibility. The subdivide-y morph-y thing is weirdly unlike them.

I'm not sure, but I think we may not be understanding one another. By "developers," I meant content developers, not the software developers themselves. I went back and re-read your post, and it puzzled me.

Cage, no problemo, I stand corrected :)

It's OK with my excellent grammar ;) no one ever knows what I'm rambling about.

Cage posted at 1:08PM Fri, 31 March 2017 - #4300926

raven posted at 1:07PM Thu, 30 March 2017 - #4300901

I took this part of his quote (bolded by me):

"One of the updates for Poser 11 makes destructive changes to cr2 files which are processed through P11. That subdividing morph thing changes all the valueParms in Body to targetGeoms, to facilitate the storage of deltas for the different morph resolutions."

to imply he is using one of the latest features, as in his post about different morph resolutions, which I took to be subdivision level morphs, which are only P11 and P11Pro. You can also only create them in Poser11Pro (and they are also read by P11 ) so again implying a latest feature. Perhaps in order to utilise that feature the .cr2 needs to be written differently. But as I said, if that's the case, leave the original for pre P11 versions and there's no problem. If I was wrong fair enough.

That's just me, being unclear. Sorry. The changes introduced to P11 to support subdividing morphs affect every cr2 or pz3 passed through the software, whether that user activates subdividing morphs or not. We weren't warned about this, but it affects everyone and everything. I find that objectionable, but it may be one of those YMMV things.

It sounds like you're saying that opening a figure such as M4 or prop in Poser 11 somehow changes the Cr2 saved on your HD to accommodate P11's new features. Then, when opening the same Cr2 in Poser 2014, it's no longer able to be read. If such were the case it would be fairly ridiculous. I'm not sure what you mean by "processed through" P11 though. If you mean that resaving a prop or figure or working file makes it incompatible with earlier versions that's not quite as bad, but worth noting.

Fair enough. Which is to say, I see your point. Umm.

Like fifteen years ago, my IQ was tested at 119. A decent, but not especially impressive intelligence. "I'm no Heifetz, but I get by."

Over the past couple of years, something has happened. I've shed maybe five, ten IQ points, in a functional sense. I can't express myself clearly, like I used to. It's harder to learn things, harder to teach myself. Freaky stuff, kind of troubling.

Which is the long away around to, "Dang! I'm explaining things like a two-day old baby roach, here! And by 'processed through', I mean 'opened into and then saved out of'. As in, you don't need to do anything to or with the figure, other than open and save. You don't need to activate subdividing morphs for the figure, in the scene, or at all. This just happens, in spite of you."

Cage posted at 2:17PM Fri, 31 March 2017 - #4301047

Fair enough. Which is to say, I see your point. Umm.

Like fifteen years ago, my IQ was tested at 119. A decent, but not especially impressive intelligence. "I'm no Heifetz, but I get by."

Over the past couple of years, something has happened. I've shed maybe five, ten IQ points, in a functional sense. I can't express myself clearly, like I used to. It's harder to learn things, harder to teach myself. Freaky stuff, kind of troubling.

Which is the long away around to, "Dang! I'm explaining things like a two-day old baby roach, here! And by 'processed through', I mean 'opened into and then saved out of'. As in, you don't need to do anything to or with the figure, other than open and save. You don't need to activate subdividing morphs for the figure, in the scene, or at all. This just happens, in spite of you."

LOL, don't worry Cage, I understood you the first time. And yes this is a problem, particularly if you make items that you want to make available for those that don't have the latest version of Poser and should work in previous versions as it contains no new features. The solution to this issue is to either make it twice in both versions, or just not use the latest version of Poser, which defeats the version of buying it to make content in the first place.

Hope that was clearer.

Male_M3dia posted at 1:34PM Fri, 31 March 2017 - #4301049

LOL, don't worry Cage, I understood you the first time. And yes this is a problem, particularly if you make items that you want to make available for those that don't have the latest version of Poser and should work in previous versions as it contains no new features. The solution to this issue is to either make it twice in both versions, or just not use the latest version of Poser, which defeats the version of buying it to make content in the first place.

Hope that was clearer.

Well, there is the Poser File Editor solution I mentioned. I don't think Dimension3D would mind, if I shared the batch files he sent me with anyone who needs them. I hope he'll include them with PFE in a future update.

The Poser Community has a long tradition of finding and implementing workarounds, often complicated and labor-intensive workarounds, for Poser's shortcomings. This workaround is at least quick and easy.

Cage posted at 7:54PM Fri, 31 March 2017 - #4301047

Fair enough. Which is to say, I see your point. Umm.

Like fifteen years ago, my IQ was tested at 119. A decent, but not especially impressive intelligence. "I'm no Heifetz, but I get by."

Over the past couple of years, something has happened. I've shed maybe five, ten IQ points, in a functional sense. I can't express myself clearly, like I used to. It's harder to learn things, harder to teach myself. Freaky stuff, kind of troubling.

Which is the long away around to, "Dang! I'm explaining things like a two-day old baby roach, here! And by 'processed through', I mean 'opened into and then saved out of'. As in, you don't need to do anything to or with the figure, other than open and save. You don't need to activate subdividing morphs for the figure, in the scene, or at all. This just happens, in spite of you."

119 is still above average. Even with a drop it's above average. If you're feeling ill or tired, that can also take its toll. My father narrowly missed genius level on Mensa's testing because he was recovering from heart surgery at the time. Sadly, he never got to retake it.

Ain't gonna mention mine.