Perhaps I was mis-understood. I DO like Poser5. If i hadn't I would have given up on it several days after getting it. I have not had very problems really, Or I should say I understand why the problems happened. I can even say I have had some good results with the firefly engine. Many of the rooms I have tried had had good result as well. My system I use poser on is a leading edge system with 1G processor and memory. Well above the required spec CL says. My major point is this, It seems to me only, that CL has added knobs and switches and sliders to a shovel. They are nice, and most work. But the simple is gone. And that is what made poser an application fun. Yes, Now I can "Compete" with other Ultimate 3D figure solutions, But what if I never wanted to do that? True Doc, complaints are easy, and I can say I have a few. i can also say as a consumer that I have reported Items I saw that appeared as fails to CL so they may better understand what is going on in the field, and decide what they need , or want to correct. As I said, I DO like Poser5 and there are many things that make it cool, and I understand that all the poser4 content needs to be made fully compatable (User settings and trans maps and bumps) All I really would ask, is that they better explain the material room and nodes and how they interrelate to the mesh and to the textures and to how poser4 did it. Explain to me why I now need three maps to reflect somthing, where I used need one? Assume for a moment I'm not a rocket scientist, and a simple explaination will do. CL is way smarter than me, they need not prove it by making the manual a math lesson.