While I am the first person to admit this release coudl have been handled better - and no doubt P5 still has it's share of bugs, including some apparently fatal ones on some systems, I just couldn't avoid commenting on some of this.

Dark_Raven - "Actually EricfSD that is what I mean by CL using bad programming practices when you creat a program you dont program it for the most powerful system you deleveop it for the weakest possiable because you have to realize with as fast as computer technology changes it is almost impossiable to anticpate what computers will be able to do while your developing the program so if CL programmed it in that fashion maybe they should start by reading there programming 101 books again"

Ummm... no :)

For some types of programs the lowest common denominator is a good idea - but for many types of programs it is simply irrelevant. Poser5 is a system that demands high end hardware... the nature of ray tracing and cloth/hair simulation are going to set a lower boundary of what is useable and there isn't much point in wasting time below that.

For instance, it would be silly of them to try and cram this into a 128meg P3 at 200mhz/ Even though many P3 machines are still in use.

• When you develop software you look at several factors to decide this:
• What machine does the majority of your target audience have?
• What machine will that audience be willing to upgrade to?
• What can you do to accommodate lower machines without sacrificing core features that will define the product in the marketplace.

Many games, for example, have very demanding requirements. While they would have more eligible users with less ambitious hardware needs they would also sacrifice too many features to be commercially successful.

With 900+mhz machines way, way under 600$ these days it is not a critical issue to try and make multi hundred dollar software that caters to out of date hardware. The vast majority of those who will spend the money for Poser5 also have machines that can run it.

** Dark_Raven - "If I told you I could develop a 3d game such as Quake III in Visual Basic rather then c++ you probably think Im full of St well guess what? It can be done VB can be use to develop High Speed 3D games compariable to any game created in C++ and here is why? Windows API Function can speed up any type of program this being said to say CL cant program p5 to work on less then high tech systems is full of crap im assuming they did it in C++ or actually C cause very few programmers actually use the "++" part of C for verious reason which would be to long to explain anyways"

No, I wouldn't think you were full of it (well, OK, I probably would) - but you also wouldn't be telling the entire truth. Yes, you can write a game that runs fast in Visual Basic - because all you are doing is calling functions that do the actual math for you that were written in C++, C and ASM. That's what OpenGL, DirectX and Direct3D do for you ... heck, you could possibly write a fairly fast game in the macros inside word.

So yeah, you could do it in Visual Basic, with the help of a 150,000$ game engine (the UT engine, Quake engine or Lithtech... maybe NetImmerse). I don;t think at that point your use of Visual Basic is much of a factor in top of all that C++ and C code. Of course, Visual Basic.NET is a whole different story, compiling nicely the same way C# does.

Now, to extrapolate from there to the idea that "Windows API Function" can speed up "any program" is a bit of a mis-statement in many respects.

1. All windows programs use substantial portions of the Windows API - including poser
2. There is NO Windows API function for ray tracing, hair simulation and mesh deformation in wither the Win32 api or the .NET api.  If you can find one... by all means let us know.
3. Even pretending for a minute that there WAS an API for mesh deformation, that wouldn't make it magically run fast on older hardware.

I am a little confused about your assertion that "few" programmers use C++ as it is currently the most uses development language for large projects. Including games.

JHoagland - Why doesn't Poser support DirectX or OpenGL? Every other professional-level 3-D software does. This alone could cut down on Poser's memory usage AND speed up render time.

I agree, Poser absolutely SHOULD give us a DirexctX/OpenGL mode for the preview window. This would really help and is a tremendous option in software like Max. As the cards get better and better the DirectX preview can do lighting, shaders and bump mapping.

It would not, however, speed up render times at all.

who3d - So - if CL do go "legs in the air" anyone left holding a copy of P5 will be able to use it for as long as the hard drive they're using is both functional and in their computer. so no hasty upgrading, y'hear?

Well, since there is a crack available for Poser5 I find it hard to get very worried about being "stuck" without the ability to use Poser5 in the future.

A lot of people are angry and upset - and many of them probably have good reason. Poser5 could have been a unmitigated success for CL and it has turned into a moderately successful release that has caused it's own share of problems. I am sure no one is more upset about that than the folks at CL.

But, some things are true:

• Poser5 has some important features that many of us are finding very useful and a definite improvement.
• Poser5 is stable and reliable on the majority of users machines
• Dynamic cloth, hair and the shader have dramatically opened up what can be created in Poser5 and as freestuff and vendor items catch up with the abilities we will see some really outstanding things
• At it's price point, Poser is the most efficient way to create, render and modify characters

Am I "blindly loyal" to CL? Hell no.
Do I think Poser5 is perfect? Hell no.

But neither of those things means I shouldn't comment on rampant speculation and inaccuracies about technology or software.