I find long diatribes like this utterly fascinating, and normally do not get involved in some of the more lengthy ones. However, I would like to point out that the good folks at DAZ (with whom I have no affiliation - except that they have consumed much of my plastic in the past)use LIGHTWAVE - not only for rendering, but also for animations. I have personally successfully used Poser 4 characters with and without animation in LW 7.5 on both PC and Mac and have written tutorials on how to do it. Get a copy of LW 5, 6, 6.5, 7, or 7.5 - the Poser->LW plug-in works fine with all of those versions. You don't import Poser figures saved as .obj, .dxf, .txt or whatever alphabet soup into LW - you open the .pz3 files, just like within Poser. LW, with the aid of the CL plug-in, translates the figures into native .lwo objects and .lws scenes. If you don't like the herky-jerky walk (which may smooth out in LW), design your own in LW and then animate. Ok, back to my hole under Middle Earth now... -scara

Attached Link: running man

Or you can use the WD and just use the proper number of frames for the animation. ;-)

There is no "proper " number of frames for a walk/ runcycle it s that stupid path thingy that screws up the animation in my opinion -wolf359 founding member of the "12 animators"-

nice run wolf, I'll have to try that, I guess I never really paid atention to the quirks of the walk designer before, because I always just figured it was my homemade characters that had to be tweaked to make the walk or run look smooth

This is for P5 but I suppose it is also related to P4: 1.)load Don 2.)create walk path 3.)straighten walk path so it's a straight line 4.)apply run at 80% The shins will jerk just like Tim's animation does. Now go back to the WD and change the number of frames from the default 120 to 80-90 frames. Your walk path length will have some effect on the number you need here. Apply it. The animation is now fine. No jerking shins or feet. Poser doesn't have any math logarithms to calculate path length and compare them to the preset cyles or the percentages you set them at. You have to be able to see that on your own and know whether to add or subtract total key frames so they match. ScottA

VirtualSite- Um, you use a Mac and you can't right click or use a wheel? Jeez, what OS are you using? I've been using right click, left click, wheel and a couple of other buttons that confused the hell out of my PC using wife (hey, so she has this one fault. So sue me!). While these functions don't work in Poser 4 in classic mode, until the Poser 5 comes out for OS X, these funcions are a bit irrelevant anyways.

By the way wolf. I hope that "you have to be able to see it" statement doesn't sound snooty. Sometimes I see my words and I realise they can be taken the wrong way. ScottA

Tim, As a software designer, I am glad to hear your rant. Helps me keep in perspective the "little" details that will drive some users nuts [may be different for different users]. Gradually, the industry is stumbling towards a future where those who create awesome raw abilities [such as posing characters] don't have to "embed" those abilities into a single application [whose interface will likely suck - at least for many users]. Instead, many different applications will be built, mixing and matching XML-based data formats, and powerful components [such as posing characters]. (If Kaleida Labs' ScriptX had survived to maturity, we'd be ten years closer to that nirvana, but that is another story...) Hang in there, and keep ranting :-) -- ToolmakerSteve

Well like all these posts it is pretty easy to spot the Daz3d and Curious Lab stooges No matter what they say the great unwashed masses out there will not buy it. My tip is by the early next year Curious Labs as we know it will be gone. The French /German owners will then send it to India or Malaysia and by the end of 2003 we will have a new version of Poser that works for around US$ 200.00

The cure to 90% of Poser's problems can prolly be fixed right here - go to it: www.python.org For the right price, I'll code the script myself (and I ain't cheap, either.) Otherwise, you may as well get to it, becuase 1) I don't got P5 yet, and 2) I prolly won't get around to any serious Python stuff until I have time to learn what changes have been made to P5, and how I can adapt my Python skills in Linux to Python skills in Win32/Poser (not sure how Macs handle it...) Personally - Poser has the best bang for the buck, period. If you want Animation Heaven with all the trimmings, then go get Messiah, Maya, or some other zillion-dollar proggie. Otherwise, either you can contribute code (the means are certainly there to do it), pay someone to write the code for you, or you can demand a refund. Not all that hard, is it? Y'know, Tim? Paul wants to coddle you... cool. (/me waves at Paul!) Me, I get paid to be patient and tolerant whilst educating the ignorant, ego- and pride-hampered, and/or the obstinate. Therefore, being a perfect bastard in the face of such things whilst off-duty comes rather natural to me, so in the spirit of the posts you have complained in, do bear with me. You want a zillion levels of Undo, great - Python can most likely plug into the UI dots and run a parallel undo tree...go write the script, kiddo. The 999 frame limit? same-same - get Python to double the counter - because here's an industrial-sized clue: No one is going to do it for you, no matter how big of a temper tantrum you throw! IOW: You have three choices in this natural world: 1) solve the problem yourself (yes, the tools are there.) 2) wait for CL to do it for you 3) go buy a real animation proggie or wait for one in your price range. ...and no amount of foot-stomping and screaming will change that. So... which is it? (incidentally, has anyone tried solving it by using the python walk scripts found at Poser ++?) /P

So what, if any, is the difference in the Poser Python vs. the regular Windows version-2.2.1 ? A question from a total stranger to Python....but, hey, I can't use P5 as it is, might as well learn to program in my spare time :)

For the record, I think people are giving tim a rough time. Every single one of us in this forum has, at some time or another, made a complete ass of ourself. Tim's a good guy, and has a lot of talent. So he got ticked off and ranted? SFW? I do it all the time, and people don't hang around the thread after the fact giving me hell... well... except Ironbear, but he's allowed to because of senority. So the problem's fixed. We got from point a to point c with a bit of bickering at point b. let's drop it and get on with life. And if anyone feels otherwise, remember that, at some point, you'll jump into a cause the wrong way, and look silly, and I'm sure you won't need the rest of us hanging around beating on your ego and dragging out the past after the fact. ;) Of the many people in this thread, I'm not the one who should be taking this position. There are many others here who have had to live down far more stupid rants than I have. Paul

I thought you bought goods or services that are supposed to work and not need at least 5 programs to make it more functional. Then you want to add Python scripts ?? A lot people in the software business have lost the plot. But should we be surprised when most seem to be nerds with limited life experiences I got a laugh the other day whilst watching NBR. A senior administration official was whinging about OPEC. What about the Bill Gates cartel and Windows. At least OPEC oil always did what it claimed to do.

Yea.... I've been bitten and chewed on several times... :) by the way....

Some other zillion dollar proggie. OK, can't resist that tempting little snippet. Messiah Animate 3.0 - 595 dollars (reduced intro price) Messiah Studio Advance - 1395 dollars Not badly priced considering the awesome array of tools and functionality you get. Poser 5 349 dollars (US shipping cost) Poser 5 upgrade 129, 179 or 209 dollars depending on which version you're stuck with. (US Shipping Cost) Different countries may vary for pricing. Remember, Poser 5 is acknowledged as being "broken" by Curious Labs, but that doesn't matter, they love you and will fix it just as soon as they can afford to hire their programmers back again. So. For another 200 dollars on the full version price you get an animation suite with far more power and capability and software compatibility and system compatibility than Poser provides. Or, for another 1000 dollars you get one of the most awesome animation and rendering suites available for budget oriented users. Considering how much people are claiming to have spent on their computers and in the store the price is not out of reach nor is it in the region of "zillions" which quite frankly is a ridiculous statement that reduces the credibility of the rest of that post. Hohum. Other software prices available on request and perhaps oddly, none of them equate to zillions of dollars. Perhaps someone is confused with the Space Program, or Vickie's underwear wardrobe? Just one last note. Maya 4.0, 4.2 and 4.5 was designed around the requests of the userbase - Alias are using that as a marketing gimmick, as are a couple other companies. Oh dear, looks like Curious failed to be unique again as certain people keep on claiming. Never mind, they are unique in one respect, but I'll let someone more capable of verbiage than me to explain it. On that note, it's late here. Goodnight all.

I dunno, tas... I'm just too used to the open-source world (but yeah, everything not marked "beta" or "unstable" works just fine.) In that world, you have the means to do something about problems. Yes, Poser has problems. But we still have a choice - we can always go buy something else, or save your cash for software that is 100% bug-free. :) /P

Questor - you're absolutely right. Seriously. There are alternatives out there... something that will get you accused of being a DAZ sympathizer (huh? heh.) Me, I'm a mercenary - I buy and use what works for me. If P5 turns out to be a turd on my machine, I'll cease to buy anything from Curious Labs... as I've mentioned elsewhere, my level of caring for CL or DAZ was the equivalent to the level of caring I showed for the local Jeep dealership when I got my Jeep... if there was a better deal, I was out uncovering it :) /P

save your cash for software that is 100% bug-free. :) We could retire :) or we may be retired by the time that may come about...nevertheless---the bank account would be bulging

"the time, and people don't hang around the thread after the fact giving me hell... well... except Ironbear, but he's allowed to because of senority." Hey! I'm not giving Tim hell. ;] Ummmm.... peers suspiciously at Paul Are you absolutely sure you meant "seniority" after "Ironbear". I kept reading that expecting to see "Senility". ;]p~~~~~ Remember: we measure seniority by geological age, which means that Jeff outranks us all.

I'm still using P4, but regarding the walk designer you gotta ask yourself is it the artist or the program? Part of the walk problem has some thing to do with how close to 0 the xyzs get. the closer to 0 the more problems you are likely to incur obviosly this is a design flaw but if you know the workarounds you can work with it. thanks wolf359 and SctttA for the info. I'll try to remember this thred if I have trouble with walk designer, - TJ

Tim, I am an animator. I animate "from scratch". No "walk designer" No coddling. No stick the body on the path and let the feet fall where some number-crunching machine tells them to fall. I've been in the computer games industry for 15 years starting with Kings Quest 4, moving through various adventure and rpg and puzzle games and then out onto the Internet... where the last 4 years' work has all vanished into pixel dust with the dotcom melt-down. Sigh. I've written articles in the professional tradezines protesting the stupidity and ignorance of those who mistake kinesmatics for animation, and then demonstrating what is necessary to bring a character to life. Numbers don't breathe personality into a figure. Computers can't animate. If you find that the Walk Designer is a crutch which slips in your grasp, why don't you throw the crutch away and rely instead upon your own talent and eye for movement? As for the rest of your complaints? Some of us LIKE the interface. Most of us are tired of your bitching in any case. Carolly

Jeez, what OS are you using 9.2. I'm sure that, if I gave it a serious chance, I'd find a wheel mouse with a right click useful, but right now, I'm perfectly happy with my dinosaurish single action clicker. :)

Tim, In a possibly vain attempt to bring this back to the points you were making in your original thread... Poser 5 was supposed to be recoded "from the ground up" Was it? So far as I can tell nobody at CL ever claimed this (it would have been stupid anyway). This was just a rumour that propogated through the community along with all the other completely unrealistic expectations of P5. You can't really blame CL for something they never said. The walk designer sucks. Sure, and no matter what CL do it always will, to some extent. The problem that the walk designer tries to solve (natural walking with a variety of skelotal structures) simply has too many variables to be definable as a finite (solvable) problem. Regardless of how much time and effort CL threw into it, the results will always require tweaking. While most of the other problems you have addressed are really more "wish list" issues, I do, however, have to agree with you that the failure to address many of the P4 bugs that have been reported over the last few years is inexcusable, and inexplicable. Bugs often help expose coding and design flaws, especially those that most immediately effect the users. The very first, and easiest, step towards improving a product is to address the outstanding problems. And for the users, what is the point of submitting bug reports if CL are not going to fix them when they have the most obvious opportunity (ie. a new product release)? And of course the existing bugs that have not been addressed added to to the new bugs help to detract further from the overall impression of P5. Bill

Entropic - "The lighting's simplistic, and lacks in some respects, but Poser users don't want Mental Ray lighting capabilities. Hell, people bitch about the speed now ( and it's still vastly faster than Bryce, Mental Ray, et. al. ), how do you think they'd feel waiting around for GI?"

Oh, I agree a lot of folks would be annoyed - and I totally agree CL didn't want to or even have a need to build in a rendering system with an "advanced" lighting model (these days most of us in my production pipeline consider GI to be a basic/minimum feature). What I find is hurting most is the lack of an easy way to get this stuff into a system with a high end rendering engine at this time. The hair I can live without... but the dynamic cloth shouldn't be a problem and basic support for the material room wouldn't be that hard.

**Entropic - ** "putting images together that will soon be Final Fantasy Movie level quality"

Let's not get crazy. Poser5 is good stuff... but it isn't that good :)

Individual stills from photograph based textures? Sure. Animated characters under diverse lighting conditions from procedural textures? No.

VirtualSite - "Multiple undos? Poser is a memory hog to begin with. Why would you burden it down with multiple undos that will just sop up more memory resources?"

There is no reason for multiple level undo to be an serious resource hog, but let's skip that and take just ONE level that actually does the right thing :)

I >LIKE< P5, but I think we need to keep a realistic eye on where it has limitations, either by accident or design.

Soulhuntre I must disagree, in priciple at least, with your low expectations of what Poser's renderer should be capable of. Especially, Firefly's big problem (or so it seems having read the responses) is that it is actually a pretty poor (re-)implementation of the Reyes renderer design, ie. exactly the rendering architecture that was used in FF. Implicit in this technology is the opportunity to handle many of the higher level features. Reyes is not actually a difficult (maybe not simple though) technology to implement (I've done some work on an alternative renderer for ProPack, so I know). The evidence that I have seen, however implies that CL pretty much ignored a major cornerstone of the Reyes design principles (locality) and possibly missed a few tricks in subdivision as well. They have therefore [apparently] ended up with an implementation that performs below expectations (and renderers in other applications) with less features, even when acknowledging that it improves on P4's basic scan line implementation. Whether this was due to a misunderstanding, or lack of experience, or whether CL believed (wrongly) that they could improve on the technology is moot. The fact is that, probably with less effort, they could have gone for a text book implementation and got a better result and one that would have compared more favourably with other apps. Bill

It's an unfortunate fact of life that many softcos follow Microsloth's lead and produce upgrades that tack on more new features but don't address outstanding issues in the basic program. This is because Marketing like to be able to put out stuff saying "Now has feature Y!!" rather than "Feature X now works properly!!". Never mind multiple undos, it's ridiculous in Poser 4 that moving the camera prevents the last undo to the figure, and that you can't undo an accidental deletion. If P5 has not fixed these quite basic issues, it's very sad.

Interesting example (figure deletion) Pantast, although I think it illustrates how non-trivial some simple ideas can be. Poser cannot rely on the original cr2 remaining intact, and during the course of the session, materials could have been customised and any number of morph targets (with new delta sets) could have added, or deleted using the hierarchy editor and deformers. All parameter setting would have saved as well across all animation frames. As a result, in order to provide a deletion undo function Poser would have to perform the equivalent of a single figure/object pz3 save (on memory or disk) every time a deletion was performed. This is not necessarily an impossibility (in fact it may be fairly trivial to implement if the existing "save" code was reused), but it would obviously have added a performance overhead. The counter argument is just to tell users to "save often", so they can control how the overhead affects them. Then again it could always be implemented as a switchable option. Bill

As a programmer myself, there is no reason for undo to impact performance, unless too many bits change to hold both versions in memory. Deleting a character should only change one pointer in memory. Applying a Photoshop filter to every pixel of a 2000x2000 image is another story ... However, re-arranging application code that didn't do undo right in the first place is a substantial effort that could introduce more bugs. I suspect they simply couldn't afford the time and the risk. Regardless of the reason, the end result is sad. I am hoping Poser 5 will attract a larger user base. Poser 5 has such cool new features. Now, if Curious Labs can just "get the basics right". For me that's: (undo; stability; being more responsive when user clicks cancel in the middle of a lengthy calculation). Any why are the parameter dials now part of a fat pop-up window that is constantly in my way? In Poser 4, I put the dials under the library pull-out to save screen space. No can do in Poser 5.

BTW, Thanks for the Walk Designer tips.

FWIW, I've never had a BVH file work perfectly either and inevitably have to tweak them. I have 100 percent confidence that I will also have to tweak Mimic output as well.

Considering the difference between the binary logic of computers and the Fuzzy logic of the human brain (some of us more fuzzy than others) I don't expect any consumer software to be able to automate animation completely. Heck, even Pixar has to have humans tweak things although they - if anyone - have the most sophisticated software available.

At this stage in the evolution of software, I'm glad just to get closer to the ballpark.

I adapt. Whether I'm working on PC or Mac. Regardless of the software. I adapt. I've never found a software that did everything exactly the way I wanted. I adapt. Even the software packages I love the most, I've had to adapt.

Sometimes it's not easy. But anything made by humans is subject to flaws, bugs, built-in obsolescence, or simple differences of subjective preferences. Therefore I adapt. If it's not worth the effort, I use something else. Or adapt the project to accomodate the limitations that I have right now. Regardless, I adapt.

I am the pine tree that bends in the storm but doesn't break under the winds' pressure (like the mighty oak).

• basic concept of the style of Karate I used to study.

Geez, this software really isn't ready for prime time. I just had the Cloth Room turn Don into a wad of polygons. All I did was load Casual Don, a Hi-Res square, and a Wind Force; position the square and Wind, then pose Don's arm, fiddle with parameters, then run a simulation. I had bumped Collision Offset and Collision Depth up to 5. And I was using "Drape Frames". But those settings should influence the clothified square, not Don. NOTE: Ctrl-A [Restore All] recovered him fine. Looks like a new situation that further exposes Poser's long-standing problems with wadding up figures. -- ToolmakerSteve

Clarification: "long-standing problems with wadding up figures" - I'm referring to rotation dial on body, or messing with joint parameters on a body part, and having some body part go haywire - to have the WHOLE FIGURE wad up so easily surprised me.

Hi Steve Deleting a character should only change one pointer in memory The problem with that approach is the character still consumes (in Poser's case) a vast amount of system resources and would also require a lot more than one pointer change to disconnect it from the current scene. Each individual body part (actor) in fact has a semi-independent existance in the overall poser scene. Hence (at least) dumping the character data to the file system would probably be desireable and still require a lot of work other than a reference switch, likewise reconnecting the figure correctly. This is what I was implying. My reference to the pz3 save was for the convenience of demonstrating (apart from reformatting in ASCII) how much information must be temporarily saved, either in memory or on file. Bill

Ok, I have to step up here (just in general, not to any specific person/post) Some have slapped Tim for his frustration. Where Tim may have appeared to many as childish or whatever, I have to say that I agree with him. Most people on the list are Still-Render people, some of us are animators - two different disciplines for sure.

Now let's look at what's going on. Tim is trying to create with a package he has loved in the past. The new version of this software is filled with promise. He spends his hard earned money on this new version. What is he met with? He sees glitches that should not be there. Aside from people's preferences for interfaces or whatever there is undeniably a trust violation. All who have hammered Tim for bitching are missing a key point. People have said "do it this way" or "here's a work around" or suggest that Tim write python or XML or animate every move from scratch or redesign the interface. None of this is relevant. This is not the enduser's resonsibility. The user should not in anyway have to "work around" anything. There is a difference between a "Trick" and a "Work around". Tricks are getting extra functionalty that a system was not specifically designed for. Work arounds are attempts to recover broken functionality. Tim was promised a rewrite from the ground up. In my little software development world, this is known as an SLA. Service Level Agreement. This sets user expectations for what is to be promised and delivered. Regardless of all the other bugs withnew functionality, CL has clearly NOT rewritten it.

Now I have to say that I think CL does care about the product and that the money issues are certainly a factor. I am sure there was pressure to deliver this software way before it was ready. This is the fault of the example set by Microsoft - that pushes garbage out and has people burning internet bandwith pulling down patches.

I have to say also that I too feel betrayed by CL. I am not at all happy with this release. There are plenty of great ideas here like the face room and such. But look at Tims example of the manual:

"Widget Temporal Analysis Toggle: Toggles the Widget's Temporal Analysis"

He's absolutely correct in this regard. There is so much that is good and yet so much that is bad with this release.

Here are examples:

Good: New Render Engine
Bad: Slash-your-wrists-slow

Good:Nodes and shaders etc.
Bad:The manual is lame in explaining use.

Good:Support the most popular model on the planet(VICTORIA)
Bad:Have to manually rework your bump maps which no matter what, you use will lose some quality. -Or- you are forced to use the old render engine.

(an interesting move don't you think? Inclusion of the old engine is self-evidence that CL knew it had problems. To thier credit, they were thoughtful enough to include it but I would have prefered a fast new render engine that supports the new stuff as well as natively worked with Victoria as is, without having to do any content conversion)

Good:New Models

Bad:They suck. Not having a V2 level model is kin to a war crime. No one can tell me that CL is ignorant of Victoria. It is Victoria and Michael that made Poser seriously usable. Anybody want to argue that?

Good:Face room.
Bad:At least for the love of god, let me use V2 head a the basis. The face room morphs are about as flexible as a cereal box.

Well I could keep going but I will work myself up into a frenzy....and that is the point.... it shouldn't be this way.

I am waiting for the patches... I need the patches.... I must have the patches.

I personally have gone back to P4 to work. I have P5 still installed to play and learn (plus I dare not uninstall it for that security big brother crap).

Bottom line:

I have P5. I can't wait until I can use it when it gets stable. If it wasn't for the people at CL I'd probably uninstall it and ask for a refund. I love the package (P4) but I am hugely disappointed by P5. I will extend my trust 1 more time. Should CL not step up for this I'll have to bail and save money for an alternative. I don't want to but....I may have to. I have seen a few posts from CL answering quick questions as of late but I am concearned that Steve has not stepped up to face the family on these issues. There are issues... you can not argue that point. There ARE issues. You may be more or less tolerant/patient than others but there are people like Tim/Me who are deeply passionate about what we try to do in our escape from Corporate America at the end of each day. If P5 was your living wouldn't you be even more concearned? The tool needs correction and it needs it now.

My Wish list:

Stability!!!!

Speed!!!

A better manual

Better Models or the ability to use V2 level heads in face room

I'd like a native way of dragging in V2 and other models and have the system do all the remapping for me... I shouldn't have to.

Better on screen or even hardware based posing.

Volumetrics

Particles

And Most of all some word from CL about what is going on.

TalleyJC - Animator X

Since the release of the propack4 and the LW,C4D,MAX plugins I have accepted that poser is and always will be just a character animation plugin for bringing those hi quality DAZ CG humnoids into a REAL program. ;-) When i have animated poser figures in Cinema4DXL I have Open GL hardware acceleration and batch rendering.mutilprocessor support, particles ,volumetrics and radiosity.etc. etc.same for LW and MAX users Most poser users are strictly still render, photoshop/PSP artist, and Dont care about all this highend stuff Yes the walk designer should work by now and this business of room panels bleeding over into each other in P5 is terrible!!! :-/ but poser was NEVER meant to be a full fledged immersive CG program. And if i may offer My opinion to animators and aspiring Desktop filmakers,its really time to stop asking CL for these highend features and treat this $300 program as a plugin and start saving for a REAL program that will import your DAZ models from poserpro4 (LW, C4DXl ,MAX ,Vue). And to Timoteo1 :I feel your pain brother :-) a while back i posted a similar angry rant over at the Cinema4DXl forum at creativecow.net about this $500 Dynamics plugin for cinema4DXl. a plugin whos manual is 95% general physics theory and 5% instructions for us users of the plugin!!!! :-/ within minutes I had three sample files emailed to me that I reversed engineered to get the basic dynamics settings and start doing cloth simulations.in C4D (it helped that my diatribe was replete with references to the superiority of lightwaves built in collision dynamics) So a full on rant from time to time can get you results.

I would just like to add my 2 cents. Timoteo1 is a godsend. We (we being the people very unhappy with a buggy and tempermental Poser 5) need someone to keep the pressure on Curious Labs to give us the program they promised. I have watched the "support" that CL has given here in the forum and on the rare occasions that they do respond, it's usually with a "you're the problem, not Poser" attitude. If the pressure is let up, the problems will fall to the wayside, like many of the problems that have been around since Poser 3. Those problems will never be fixed, and if the new crop aren't delt with now, they never will be either. I'm not trying to say CL is doing this deliberately, it's just the nature of the business. So Timoteo1, I applaud you.

Hi Bill, (I wrote a Paint and Animation program back when memory and disks were much smaller and slower than they are today.) One wouldn't keep deleted character data in RAM for a long time, consuming valuable resources, but that isn't what is needed for undo. Rather, the "deleted" data can be kept around until the next time the user does something that needs a bunch of memory - at which point, the "deleted" data is "really" deleted so that the user can proceed. For a single-level undo, this is a non-issue, as ANY operation after the delete will quietly toss the old "deleted" data. Even for a multi-level undo, it is easy to cache hundreds of small undo-steps, plus one huge undo-step. In my experience, "Undo" never needs to be a performance OR memory-hog problem. -- ToolmakerSteve

TalleyJC, "a native way of dragging in V2 and other models and have the system do all the remapping for me..." What are you describing? Oh- is that another comment about the Face Room (I haven't been there yet)? -- ToolmakerSteve

"At least for the love of god, let me use V2 head a the basis. The face room morphs are about as flexible as a cereal box." That is a Daz issue. If Daz decided not to support Poser 5 or install it, then CL can't do much about that. Keep it relevant. Q

Hi Steve I did say that its not impossible, but there would, in the the first instance need to be major improvements to Poser's memory/resource management, and that would be, in itself, a far more significant improvement in Poser's functionality that the undo function itself. Bill

Bill, I agree :) Steve P.S. I've now been using Poser 5 enough to see Undo work in a fair number of situations. This gives me hope that the problems we're seeing may be part of the bugginess of this release, rather than a fundamental software design problem. Fingers Crossed that they can fix Undo!

First of all, the interface is XML and SKINNABLE. Wow, this is excellent news! The Walk Designer doesn't work that great, there are no levels of Undo, there is no right-mouse support, and there are numerous "focus" issues but you can change the color of the application. Sorry for the sarcasm, but changing the interface color is just "icing" and "window dressing"- the application itself should work flawlessly before they start working on the ability to "skin" the interface! Hello, some of us are still on Macs and use only one mouse click. Hello, some of us are Windows users, and the last I checked, Poser 5 is a Windows application. That means that it should provide some level of right-mouse support (and possibly center-wheel scrolling). This was made part of "Windows Standards" with Windows 95... SEVEN years ago! If they want Windows users to use a "Mac" application, they should be consistent: don't install a shortcut on the Start Menu, don't write to the Registry, don't use the 3-letter file "extension" (.cr2, .pp2, .pz2), etc. This is actually being discussed in another thread, but it's past time that CL starts to develop Poser as a WINDOWS application. It doesn't matter if was created on an Apple, a Mac, or an IBM, the fact is that it is now running on Windows and it should conform to Windows Standards for User Interface design. I'd much rather have a buggy app than no app at all. NO, NO, NO!!! It is this attitude that encourages companies to release buggy software in the first place. Our attitude (as consumers) should be- NO BUGGY SOFTWARE! If it takes software companies an extra year to remove the bugs and they loses sales, that's their fault. If I receive a buggy program from a big-name company such as CL, will I even bother to get the upgrade? Will I purchase another one of their products, knowing full well that their last product was buggy? But, let's consider this statement: is it better to have a bug in an app that deletes a folder instead of a figure than to not have the app at all? Is it better to be able to switch from the Face Room back to the Pose Room, but have Poser crash (due to a bug) than to not have a Face Room at all? Another point to consider is- how many issues were brought over from P4 that were not corrected? Did CL ever actually claim that they were re-writing the code? Is P5 actually just P4 with some new "bells & whistles"? --John

Hey guys! Listen up! Sheee-whillikers!! Anybody who has EVER purchased a piece of software knows that the first version out the door is buggy. Period. Whether it is a crash-worthy bug or a minor glitch or a bad case of stutters in a sub-routine, I doubt if anything more complicated than a mouse-driver has come out error-free (and, BTW, Microsoft refuses to support their own mice, 2 bad ones in a year: I've only bought Logitech for the last decade). And they can afford a thousand beta-testers if any company can. Therefore, if you are a congenital complainer, and you know who you are, because the rest of us surely know your names, I have a suggestion. Please, for the sake of your stomach lining and our eyes and ears, PLEASE don't buy any software during the first 6 months after release. Wait until the patches and updates start coming. Saying that something "sucks" isn't constructive criticism, either. A proper bug report stating what happens, when it happens, and your system configuration (and any other helpful information) emailed to tech support will do more to getting the problem fixed... unless your goal is simply to vent in a public forum. Most of the complaints mentioned above have been a matter of personal choice and design preference rather than flaws in performance. The product has been out for 2 weeks. It may take a while to discover what shortcomings lie with the software and what lie with the users... just as it takes a while to discover the strengths of each. Carolly

Ohhhhhhh! Boy I have a dozzy here. Ahem how do I start this off. Mad at Curious labs is an understatement. Let's just say it totally trashed my computer system or my copy of IE 6. I just rebuilt from a bad motherboard and after two weeks to get it up and running again I installed poser 5 excitedly hoping to check out this new great program. This is my experience. One I had to enter my code to get it activated, which of course transported me to the poser 5 web site. I then had to enter my previous poser 4 serial no. but instead of getting a your cleared......yes you have an original poser verified installation enjoy your new program I got a....their is a problem with the verification please contact tech support. I then went back to the program to check it out and found it 20 times slower than poser 4 at rendering and did not like the interface at all. The file garbage has to go! I finally gave up and went to or tried to go to renderosity only to find out that I can now no longer get into renderosity. I keep getting a Error including template."/home/poser/public_html/gallery.ez". I can go anywhere on the web it seems but not renderosity.... What has Curious labs done to my access to renderosity? I am typing this out on my other machine that thank god doesn't have the latest version of poser on it. I have uninstalled IE 6 back to 5 and reinstalled IE 6 only to find out I still have the same problem. Hmm a total system reinstall after all this work just to get it back up and running.......Grrrrrrrrr. So as a warning to anyone running windows 2000 beware! And to you beta testers.....shame on you I was under the asumption you had this version checked out and yet you none of you ran into any problems of this magnitude! I don't like my system being toy'd with. My system is dual 1 ghz proc's .....1 gig of ram and the latest 3d labs graphics card. It did not come cheap and I don't appreciate curious labs messing with it! To whomever I read about comparing Curious Labs Poser to the programs used creating Final Fantasy........please give me a break. It costs over $300 and it doesn't work ok......! Final Fantasy worked but they went bankrupt right where I see Curious Labs Going. Following the footsteps of Final Fantasy....except Final Fantasy actually worked. And where is the freakin phone no at curious labs......been disconnected? They trash my browser trying to register the darn program and leave me with no way to contact them besides e mail or fax...Which by from what I have been reading from other forums they don't even answer anyway! So I'm back to poser 4 and stickin with DAZ and I just would like to say Meta Creations Great product wish you hadn't went away........! Oh and has anyone noticed that Curious Labs has not done any upgrades with poser since the buyout from Meta Creations and now this trash they call no 5!...............Yeah I'm pissed!

Carolly * Anybody who has EVER purchased a piece of software knows that the first version out the door is buggy * Sorry, but while its true, its also a platitude. The real problem here is the overall perception of customers and many applications are perceived as stable on first release, even if they're not bug free. P5 certainly doesn't seem to fall into this catagory. * A proper bug report stating what happens, when it happens, and your system configuration (and any other helpful information) emailed to tech support will do more to getting the problem fixed... * If you had read many of the posts in this thread you would realise that many complaints this time around are regarding P4 bugs that have been reported, some over three years ago, but still haven't been fixed. What exactly is the point of reporting a bug to CL's tech support if it will be ignored? Many people seem to think, and I sympathise here, that the only recourse remaining, is complaining loudly in a public forum. Alternately people could boycott P5 and CL (which almost certainly needs every sale it can get) can go bust. And that would be a tragedy for all. Bill

"Hey guys! Listen up! Sheee-whillikers!! Anybody who has EVER purchased a piece of software knows that the first version out the door is buggy. " Uh yeah... but this is VERSION 5. Says so on the box. g

• Anybody who has EVER purchased a piece of software knows that the first version out the door is buggy * Fine, whether this should be accepted by the buying public as normal or not is debateable, personally I think it's a crock of s**t but it should be remembered that Poser 5 is NOT a first release of new software, it's the third release of Poser from the CL team and their fifth release of related software. Cooper and others have often claimed that the Metacreations team responsible for Poser were kept together... so, first version? Hardly.

Well let me just reply to this long winded suck it in your shorts buddy reply. One I have ample experience with bugs. I beta tested MSN many years ago when I was one of the first members. I also have a top admin in networking in NY State checking out my system. This so called bug your referring to is deep coded in the heart of the windows system. Not your typical bug. Bugs don't normally trash your code so bad that you have to reinstall the entire system just to get back to square one. Also the bug originated from me having to go through their stupid registration process to protect their superior product full of bugs! Which of course did not even go though...after 4 tries. Hello! Are we on the same planet! Also this is a Meta Creations Product.. Curious labs has done no upgrades except to linking to their site Ok.. This is the first upgrade and I have never had one so unstable. And I have owned Version 1, 2, 3 and 4. Never had bugs like this before......! Yeah I'm upset I just spent big bucks getting my system back online only to have it trashed with one program in less than an hour. Oh by the way Bill do you have their phone no.... If anyone wants to go through this hell just to check out a version of poser that is totally inferior to the older product well then go for it that's all I'm going to say. Anyone else that want's to trash my knowledge and call me a cry baby and that I should accept a program that demands me to get a key code just to use it and then find out it wreaks my system hey go for it. I shouldn't be the only one suffering on this one lol. Oh yeah I don't have any Poser 4 Bugs either........! It works fine. And man does it render fast. I'm not trying to be to overly critical here but shoot it trashed my entire software ok...... I think that this so called bug is major and the program should not have been released period. If they wanted money than they could have asked the art community for help/..Hell I would have gave them some just to keep going. I just feel like they took on a program that they were not capable of handling and now we all suffer for it.

Ironbear * I just feel like they took on a program that they were not capable of handling and now we all suffer for it * Spot on, IMHO. Despite the admission that P5 had to be released in such a hurry because the company was running out of funds, project management is the end of the day a matter of balancing funds/time against the amount of work to be done, and like all equations that has two sides. Bill

Sorry ironbear, I quoting from the wrong post. DemolitionMan - not sure who your last post was aimed at, since I was the only person mentioned by name even though I none of my previous post was in any way responding to any of your own. As it stands, while I may have misunderstood the intention (apologies if that is the case), I think you will find that we are broadly in agreement. Bill