I was a beta tester and I can verify that. from what I saw during the beta program, we beta users did not have these problems. there were no known show-stopper bugs in the software when it shipped. Sorry Reise, I have to disagree with you. Though we were on the same beta team (you and I), and are stuck under NDA, I only wished I was fully able to get into specifics or have the ability to properly do a Review on Poser 5 that I would like to for the members that visit our sites. Forunately there are some magazine companies already stating the same facts that people are already hearing in this forum and some of what I'd like to say. At least they weren't bound by an NDA in which to do so. Jack

I think this should be water on the bridge right now. I really DONT CARE what went on behind closed doors before Poser's release. Nor people's opinions on such whether testers or not. Poser 5 was a mess on release, much more so than Poser 5. BUT it's been a few weeks now. One patch out another almost here. Things are beginning to look up. The only important thing left to consider is remembering this time three years or so hence for the advent of Poser 6. All other speculation and posturing and blaming and hinting is just oh so boring, petty, and self serving and won't change a thing.

"Poser 5 was a mess on release, much more so than Poser 5. BUT it's been a few weeks now. One patch out another almost here. Things are beginning to look up." here, here. "The only important thing left to consider is remembering this time three years or so hence for the advent of Poser 6." The only reason that it took 3 years was because the company started at metacreations with p4 and had to forma new company for p5. It's not going to take that long for p6

it's hard to believe that 80 + bugs that were detected only weeks after the release weren't spot by beta testers before. either there were really not enough of you doing the job (and that means that cl wanted to do de-facto public beta test), or there were enough of beta testers involved, but cl didn't want to fix the bugs (and that means knowingly releasing faulty product). - four weeks after the release came sr1 - problems with downloads and cl's isp - problems with sr1 - sr1.1 released - four weeks later comes sr2 now that doesn't make one thinks that cl handles all this very professionally... soulhuntre, would you still have the same opinion if you had to install p5 & patch half a dozen times, get bsod every now and then and had problems to register?

"soulhuntre, would you still have the same opinion if you had to install P5 & patch half a dozen times, get bsod every now and then and had problems to register?" That would depend on WHY it happened. For instance, several of those who had to re-install after the patch had to do so because they ignored the instructions that came with the patch. if I was one of those then I would not be very upset at CL about it - for instance. Would I be upset? Sure. Would I think that it was a universal problem? No, becuase there are enough people for whome it works finer to realize that it is a compatability bug. I would be annoyed, and I would either work through the problem in order to get it fixed or I would return the product. To be honest, though obviously people don't want to hear it, if you had to re-install more than once you were doing something horribly wrong... like not uninstalling it completely. Granted, I have been working on these machines my whole adult life (ok, since I was 12) and writing code for money since I was 16 ... so maybe I do a lot of things by reflex to avoid some problems because trust me, I have been bitten on the a** with some of this before. For instance, I ALWAYS go delete the folder after I uninstall a program... thee usually leave settings behind. This is a good idea for them... but especially if I am re-installign the same software I want it >gone<. Computers are deterministic. A bug may well need you to re-install.... but if you need to re-install more than once you didn;t re-install right. If you had to do it six times then you are missig something. People here are VERY defensive about all this, but the answer is that the P5 "uproar" is composed of BOTH technical problems and a whole bunch of user confusion.

definitely. but remember that there are lots of pc-nubies around who are still searching for the "any key". installation and patching has to be fool-proof. stopping in the middle of the process or not even comencing it with some cryptical error isn't very nice.

Not taking sides, but as a beta tester and community manager for a lot of MMORPGs, every time something is released with bugs the beta testers always get the blame for not finding xxx bug. I will use the same quote that every Dev has used in response (because it is very true) "50,000 players will most certainly find bugs that the 1000 beta testers could not. It is virtually impossible to account for 50,000 different configurations and systems. Please do not blame the beta testers, they did everything that they were able to do." JDexter

(boring analagy:) I remember a presidential race some time back where the polls indicated a certain win. But it didn't happen. The polls were wrong. Why? Because, as it turns out, the polsters did it by telephone and got a biased result... because only the "rich" people had telephones as that time. I certainly don't have all the information I need to make this remark, but beta-testor choices seem to be the ones who are the "greats". The skilled ones. The ones likely NOT to make "general" mistakes. The ones with the most powerful PCs. So, IMHO, the beta-testing results would be flawed from the beginning. i.e., NOT representing the general purchasing crowd. Like the presidential poll I referred to. NDA (Non-Disclosure-Agreement). What shit! I realize it is boilerplate stuff, but it's like lobbyists choosing elected officials...they KNOW they are there to do the "employer's" bidding. And because the "company" (CL in this case) has complete control of what a testor says. If other business was done like this, then district attorneys would be able to choose ALL the jurors and KNOW how they were going to vote ahead of time. Side notes: Not that I have a DB of companys who made patches to programs, but I don't think I have EVER seen 2 patches THIS fast. That should tell you something right away. CL made a miscalculation. It assumed it had the resources and "power" (skill) to produce a complicated 3d tool. They misjudged and "bit off more than they could chew." Like the Nielson "familys". Has anyone EVER known one? Who the hell ARE these people that catapault crap to the TV lineup anyway? Where IS the list of betatestors? Not that it matters...they are NOT free to divulge any damaging information anyway. I agree with Ironbear. Not that he needs MY support...he speaks well enough by himself. I only dillute what he says.

All that discussion about the security code and safety...way back when. Who'd want it? It's like discovering one can download an unprotected copy of some Partridge Family movie. Or Attack of the Killer Tomatoes. Sheesh!

Well, look at Microsoft if you want to see patches fast and furious. If I am not mistaken, they had a patch for Win XP a couple of days before it was released. Then every few days, there is another patch. IF CL had the resources, I am sure things would have been done a little more diligantly. The part that encourages me is the fact that they are trying to fix it. They could hold off releasing a patch until they fix every known bug, but they aren't. They seem to want to get bugs fixed as fast as possible. They may not succeed in squashing every bug with the next patch; but they will hopefully get there.

Just as a side note, I was Nielson "family" 'round about '93 or so. And I kept it tuned to CNN or MTV the whole time (back then, they actually showed music videos) he he he

Well, JCleaver...I think SR1 for XP came out MUCH later than the first patch for P5. If there was anything else in between, I missed it.

You are right, Service Release 1, which is a collection of previously released patches and other enhancements, did come out quite a bit later; and then mainly only to comply with a court order. In the meantime, ever notice the little globe in the system tray? That is the update icon which will dl the latest patch. The install process of Win XP itself will dl the lastest patches before it is completely installed if possible.

Yes, that is true, JC. But, to tell the truth, I click on them and get them over with without much thought. LOL, I think a most of them have to do with Explorer, though, Microslop's most updated piece of software. If you are on Windows, I know you understand...hehe.

Yea, I do. And I'll admit, I'm getting tired of having to update every other day! If that ever happens with Poser we will know a couple of things : 1. CL is doing OK financially. After all, how could they pay for all the programmers necessary to issue an update every other day? 2. CL doesn't have competent programmers if they can't get a stable release after a few patches. I figure that four patches should be adequate. But what is the magic number? Hopefully less than that.

why compare to the worst?

Has Microsoft released SR2 for XP yet? I guess I have to go do some updates. :0) === The fact that two SR-level patches (and patches to the patches) have been required after the release of P5, within approximately a month and a half, is indicative of issues that CL knew about prior to or shortly thereafter the release of P5 and the general "sloppiness" of the development and/or QA process. I recall that kupa stated that no "critical" bugs were in the initial release, but what the definition of "critical" is to CL may be different than that expected by the users. What, exactly, is a "critical" bug from the POV of the developer? * BSOD? * Code errors during the use of P5? * Functionality issues? * Interface problems? * Installation issues? * Incompatibility issues with "usual" drivers/hardware/software? * Rendering issues? * Texture issues? All of these, and more, have been reported by the users shortly after the release of P5. So, wherein lies the true meaning of "critical"?

"or if the clamor for P5 hadn't reached deafening levels? " The pre release publicity had a lot to do with that clamor reaching deafening levels. Admittedly, good marketing practice - you want to build up a demand for the product prior to release - but in this case, premature and it's backfiring on them. "What, exactly, is a "critical" bug from the POV of the developer?" The computer explodes and the user catches on fire? ;] Anything less is definately non-critical. snicker Although... I seem to recall a number of P5 buyers installing it and immediately bursting into flames in here...

I took all the bug reports. Printed them out. Feed them to my dog. Then I told Steve Cooper. Hey everything is working great. No bugs at all. Lets ship this sucka! ScottA

Feeding bug reports to your dog... Wait until PETA catches wind of this. Didn't Steve wonder why you were spending so much time at the vets? (LOL) Visque

Oh yeah. Almost forgot. I made sure the program would run only on my PC. And not on anyone elses.

Adobe Illustrator 9 was very slow and unstable on many systems, took two patches to get it stable. Adobe made such a mess of the first Windows patch for AI10 that they pulled it and later issued a 10.02 patch. There have been many complaints about Photoshop 7 and about the .01 patch. Painter 6 took three patches from Metacreations to become reasonably stable, then Corel bought it and issued a 6.1 patch that wiped your desktop if you had a shortcut to Painter there. CL is not alone, and is not necessarily grossly incompetent or malicious.

I do not think that my question merited any "jests" in response, it is a serious enough question. What is CLs' (or any other software developers') definition of "critical"? Seems to me it is a logical question to be asked and answered, if the answer is known; given that kupa did state that P5 was released with known issues, but none that were "critical". I think that the mindset of the developer vs the end user is a definite factor in this fiasco. Only by understanding the POVs from both vantage points can this be addressed. I would also postulate that those who experienced less problems are, most likely, the more experienced/technical users vs the average hobbyist that uses Poser for "recreation" vs commercial interests.

ScottA, Thanks for coming clean. I'm sure a great weight has been lifted from your shoulders. Would you be interested in selling your PC? Visque

ChuckEvans wrote: "NDA (Non-Disclosure-Agreement). What shit! I realize it is boilerplate stuff, but it's like lobbyists choosing elected officials...they KNOW they are there to do the "employer's" bidding." What employee of what business is NOT expected to do their employer's bidding? What has that to do with NDAs? NDAs are in most cases necessary for the protection of interests, and there is nothing at all sinister or dishonest about that. Do you think that people who don't lock their front doors are the only honest people? In today's world, their trust is actually stupidity, I'm sure you'd agree. In the case of NDAs signed by beta testers, which is what I believe you're criticizing, the NDAs help ensure the interity of the beta process and help prevent needless trash talking (or for that matter, premature hype) outside of the company. They prevent the compromise of proprietary data, assets. They most certainly don't ensure that an NDA-bound employee will only say what they think the company wants to hear. Any decent software company wants it beta testers to accurately report flaws, not to kiss butt. "And because the "company" (CL in this case) has complete control of what a testor says." I'm sorry, but that sounds like groundless conspiracy theory, and is very wrong in my experience. You're accusing CL of dishonest manipulation of its beta team's feedback, which I assume you were never privvy to. Have you ever been a beta tester? If so, and if that was your experience, the company wasn't worth beans. I've beta tested for one of the biggest media conglomerates in the world. They wanted nothing more than to hear about what they were doing wrong. They wanted us to find flaws which could be fixed prior to launching their product. Brown-nosers, pardon the term, weren't wanted, weren't appreciated, and were no help at all. Neither were they rewarded for their goody-goodiness. I don't mean to be grumpy, and I sincerely don't mean to pick on Chuck in a personal manner. Legitimate criticims of an apparently flawed product are a healthy and necessary thing. P5 appears to be very criticizable, but I've read so many unfounded, speculative things said (as if they were fact) about employees and beta testers at CL that are IMO way over the line. Jackson wrote: "I'd just stay away from blanket statements that people find offensive and stating an opinion as a fact." Words of wisdom.

Cyberstretch, it is hard to give an answer. I am a developer, though not for CL. I would assume that all but one of your list would be considered critical at some point. For instance, rendering issues would depend on what the issues were. Didn't render at all? Critical. Render being slow? Not critical. The one I have a problem with is compatability to "usual software/drivers/hardware". And that is because no one can say what is usual. It could be a problem only in certain combinations. Maybe any of the three by itself would cause no problem at all, but two or three together do. There is not enough resources for any company, including Micosoft, to test every possible combination. During an Alpha Test one tests it on bare machines, at least that has been the practice my company employs. Then we go to a Closed Beta Test, where the employees run the software on machines that have other software installed. Then during an open Beta Test, meaning outsiders to the company, you start to see problems with compatibility with other drivers/software/hardware that wasn't caught during the closed Beta-Test. Hopefully you stamp out those problems before releasing. Even with doing this, there are still going to be issues that need to be addressed since all of the Beta-Testers still wouldn't have tested every combination. I do not know how CL handles beta-tests. I suspect it is similar.

"The one I have a problem with is compatability to 'usual software/drivers/hardware'."

Ok, that was vague. But you merely have to look at new "pre-fab" systems to determine the 'usual'.

===

Software:

• Anti-Virus: Anyone not running one would certainly be remiss in this day and age. All basically function the same, with differences usually in the reference files and, possibly, the AV engines that drive them.

• Browsers: Only two major contenders - IE and Netscape. Since Poser is not a browser, there should be little to no issues.

• Firewalls: Anyone connected for a majority of the time would be remiss not having one, from dialup to Broadband. BlackICE (although this is "intruder detection" vs a real firewall last I checked), Tiny Personal Forewall, and ZoneAlarm being the major players; except MS XP's firewall which, I believe, has to be turned on.

• IMs (AOL, ICQ, MSN, Trillian, Yahoo): Most Internet-connected have one or more of the above, so they should be considered.

• MS Office/Works: Standardized bundle on most system purchases.

• Norton/Symantec: Norton definitely has a large enough marketshare with their software and utilities, and their products should be considered.

• OS: Poser 5 users are Windows users (until they release the MAC version), so that includes all Windows OSes back to 98, since the other versions are no longer supported. Plus the usual "Microsoft Fluff" that comes with their OSes.

===

Drivers: Could be tricky depending upon the system configuration (ie, manufacturer, chipsets, components, etc). However, there are many chipsets, for example, that are widely used across many manufacturer's motherboards (ie, SIS, VIA, etc). It should be easy to determine if you have an adequate cross-section of the populace based upon the beta testers' and internal testers' system specs; which I presume would be recorded and taken into account.

===

Hardware falls into a "generalized" category. Most systems have:

• CD/DVD: Pretty much the same in functionality except one can play DVD-encoded files. Many use Microsoft provided drivers.

• CD-R(W)/DVD-RAM: Could pose a problem based off variety, but generally (for install purposes) act like CD/DVD drives unless you are burning disks.

• Floppy Drives: Standard in all systems and predominantly uses Microsoft drivers.

• Hard Drives: Usually use Microsoft IDE drivers, USB and Firewire externals generally relegated to the "early adopters", and SCSI for some serious usually tech savvy users' systems. On some occasions, you may run into "overlay" software to make older systems function properly, but that is becoming less the norm.

• Memory: Due to the variety available, this could be a problem, but usually not other than amount. Type (ie, SIMM, DIMM, PC100, PC2700, etc), and other factors hardly seems to account for much incompatibility in my experience.

• Monitor: Most are driven by .inf files, basically giving instructions to the OS/Video adapter on the capabilities of the particular monitor (ie, refresh rates, resolutions, etc).

• Motherboards: See above in drivers.

• Processor(s): Intel and AMD the most prominent. For most intents and purposes core functionality is compatible, with the exception of some added instructions sets depending upon model, etc.

• Video Cards: Most that I have seen people using are nVidia or RIVA based cards. However, Poser does not use anything but basic functionality, so this would rule out any "advanced features" of the cards Poser does not use.

Then you have the peripheral devices that should not generally interfere with the overall functionality of the system unless being used at the same time.

Most companies, at least the ones I have worked for, have mass purchasing agreements with the major system manufacturers (ie, Compaq, Dell, Gateway, etc). Therefore, most internal testing is, most likely, done on very similar systems; unless users are allowed to "customize" their workstation - which is a major no-no in most companies due to security and other reasons.

So, although there are a myriad of configurations, the vast majority of the hardware is "standardized" to some degree; and some seem to have no relation whatsoever to a 3D application. I have not seen any posts claiming any extraordinary system specs or software that would preclude an all-purpose 3D application not to run across the board. Most of the posts with problems have had fairly "plain vanilla" installs with nothing out of the ordinary that would draw attention away from Poser being the source of the problem(s). Likewise, the vast majority have used previous versions of Poser, so the systems must have been compatible to that extent, without system-based issues.

Given the fact that many problem posts state that Poser is the only application that exacerbates or exhibits these problems, it further presents that Poser seems to be the common denominator.

So Cyberstretch, your contention from your last post seems to be that all systems these days are standardized enough and pre-fab so an application should just "work"' "Given the fact that many problem posts state that Poser is the only application that exacerbates or exhibits these problems, it further presents that Poser seems to be the common denominator. " Poser's the new App, and doesn't have patches based on wide release yet. Most applications (even out of the ones you list!) have incompatability issues when they're first released, and need to be patched after their first release. This is especially true for apps involving graphics. No one (me included) is saying that the current Poser 5 doesn't have problems. Just that there are a lot of users out there, and every exact configuration is unique to the persons computer because we all have different configurations, unless you work at a company that doesn;t let you store any files on the host computer and has a network drive for users directory. Most of these are standard enough that no difference is made. But the difference could be in normal items that create an unpredictable situation when all factors are brought together. "Most of the posts with problems have had fairly "plain vanilla" installs with nothing out of the ordinary that would draw attention away from Poser " I haven't seen enough information in the majority of posts as to a full posting of which processes are or are not running from msconfig, and what versions all the drivers are. You're making a blanket statement here. "Therefore, most internal testing is, most likely, done on very similar systems; unless users are allowed to "customize" their workstation " well, most poser users are individuals who can (and do!) add all the custom software they want, and are not administrated by a central IT department. which is why the testing that was done on standard systems,a nd users systems does not always catch all the bugs that are out there. And hardware does fall into general catagories, but I think it's a little unreasonable to say that since all computers have video cards, then a program should definitely work on all configurations if it's been tested with nvidia/riva. There's a lot of other video cards that does not cover. I think it leaves out the other biggest player, ATi! and all the other major players. Poser's a graphic app, and does a lot more work in the interface than something like MSword, or office.

One of the biggest culprits I have found is Internet Explorer. It adds and updates .dlls that are used by other programs that have absolutely nothing to do with the internet. My company doesn't use those .dlls that I am aware of, but many do. If Poser is not a browser, how do you explain Content Paradise? I know it isn't up yet, but the room is there waiting for the server. The problem isn't testing against any one of the variables, it is testing every single possible configuration of variables. It can't be done. If Poser was only used in a corporate environment, then I believe there wouldn't be as many problems due to standardization. However, I suspect that most Poser users aren't running it in a controlled environment. Who knows what is running in the background? Even the end-user may not know of everything running.

The current hardware "standards" are too wide to mean anything useful. What makes you come to the conclusion that because of the current standards. All machines act the same way under the same conditions if the hardware companies themselves aren't happy about the lack of standards? I thought you were in Tech support? How can someone in Tech support make a statement like that? Are you basing this theory that all parts are created equal through "standards" because Poser5 is the only software you've heard of that won't run on some machines? I just installed P5 on my old PII 266mhz. machine to see if it would do anything strange. The system: PII266mhz cpu 64meg. RAM 4meg. Video card 2Gig HD OS WIN 98SE The program installed and runs perfectly (although extremely slow). Everything from the rendering to the walk designer to the hair and cloth works without a hitch. But so slow it's not much fun. If the hardware standards are so fantastic. Why are people with ten times this machine not even able to launch poser without it crashing? Current hardware standards suck. They always have. Who are you? Better not let your boss here you say things like that. ;-) ScottA

Poser 5 was created for high-end users with top of the line computers running 3DS Max and other apps. That's who they pick to do beta testing, not the wee folks with computers that just meet the minimum requirements. And this is one of the problems with Poser 5. Computers with lots of GHz and GB's can be more forgiving when it comes to bugs than those without. I posted a message earlier regarding this, but it either didn't post or got deleted. My Poser 5 CD came with all the tool windows out of reach in each room telling me that somebody was using a mega-size monitor. Other people said they didn't notice this until the patch, which tells me very clearly that there might have been different versions of the initial release, or everyone has a large monitor. And as far as NDA's, I've beta tested a number of products including one owned by the software company everyone hates, and we were always released from the NDA after the program shipped. That BS about not being able to disclose anything is just that--BS! Unless we're still in testing mode and all of us just paid to beta test for CL.

"Poser 5 was created for high-end users with top of the line computers running 3DS Max and other apps. That's who they pick to do beta testing, not the wee folks with computers that just meet the minimum requirements." the post just above you shows that it runs on a machine waaay below spec, so it's probably something else. cheers, -J

Just curious, but are any of you poser5 users running any other heavyweight 3D programs like MAX Lightwave etc. if so how is your hardware handling these programs( crashes BSOD etc.) compared to poser5??.

What I am getting at is that the vast majority of software produced commercially runs without the major hitches that P5 has seemingly caused. I have a theory as to what the problem really is: P5 seems to be "Frankenstein's Software", of sorts, between P4 code and the add-ons provided by "Pixels Digital, Inc., Singular Inversions, Inc., Size8 Software, Inc., Runtime DNA, and DAZ Productions", (direct from the EULA), add to that Interlok's security scheme and you have a lot of hands in the pot. What I suspect the real cause of the majority of the issues is stems from the way that all of those "parts" either have been put together and/or how they interact with one another. The general consensus seems to be that P5 and CL are not at fault, with minor exceptions. It seems like the finger is always pointed elsewhere in the majority of the cases. So far, I think we can rule out many of the hardware, software, and driver arguments due to the fact that so many affected systems are so varied. Also, user experience and intelligence seems to be ruled out, based on the varied number of users that have been adversely affected. There has not been any "common denominator" that I have noticed so far, other than P5. So, whether anyone likes it or not, Poser 5 seems to be the cause; either directly or indirectly. Now, the matter has to be sorted as to whether or not the problems are manifested in CL's, Pixels Digital's, Singular Inversions', Size8 Software's, Runtime DNA's, Interlok's, and/or DAZ Productions' portion of the P5 "Frankenstein", or any combination of the above. In fact, it could be certain combinations of steps that venture into the different parts of the "monster" that are to blame. I firmly believe that the software is the major culprit. Whether anyone else does is their right. However, to date, there is no logical connection to any commonality other than P5. At the end of the day, if P5 ever does get straightened out to the point the vast majority of users have no issues with it, I would be willing to bet that the software (or the combination of the parts thereof) is proven to be the main aggressor in these issues. Then, and only then, will the correct diagnostics, troubleshooting, and opinions be justified. My bet is also that CL will never divulge what the root cause was, because to do so would be a very bitter pill to swallow; considering it was their sole decision to meld these technologies together. As for the apparent "pissing matches" that seem to have cropped up, I will not participate in them because they are counter-productive and, IMHO, not even closely relevant to the discussion at hand. Think of me and/or my qualifications to formulate my opinions as you so desire.

"If Poser is not a browser, how do you explain Content Paradise?" CLs has already stated that CP is merely an invocation of IE to get from within the P5 application to the CP web site, if it ever sees the light of day. Many programs already use this functionality without any major problems, even XML-based preferences.

I run Lightwave 7.5 and Maya 3.0 Unlimited... no crashes, no rendering problems. Have P5. Wont install it. Did the FULL beta test and that was enough for me, I am waiting till the BUGS and EULA issues are addressed. Plain and simple. And for the record... WinXP Pro 1.8 Ghrz 2.0 Gig RAM 260 Gigs of Free Space Normal % of System Operation with background tasks (aol Messenger, Virus and Firewall, P3DO Explorer) Running: Maya - CPU usage 32-43% Lightwave - CPU usage 21-36% Poser 4 - CPU usage 46-89% Poser 5 (beta)- CPU usage 32-100% I can't speak about the cough release version of P5 or the SR-1 service patches since I have removed all Beta versions (prior to EULA information) of Poser 5 and refuse to comply to the terms of the License Agreement. Jack -This figures represent my current operating system only and "MAY" not meet the figures represented by parties not running on my current system.

"What I am getting at is that the vast majority of software produced commercially runs without the major hitches that P5 has seemingly caused. " LOL! not at first, the first versions of Maya on the PC (only 2-3 years ago) was only authorized to work with 1 yes ONE video card. and then by the release there were something like a few video cards from a company or 2 (INTERGRAPH). "The general consensus seems to be that P5 and CL are not at fault, with minor exceptions. It seems like the finger is always pointed elsewhere in the majority of the cases." I think that you might have missed some of the point in what we're saying. I didn't mean to attack what you were saying, or to imply that this wasn't a problem that could be fixed inside Poser 5, as opposed to saying that the blame should be placed on other software, or that you should have to permanently remove other software to use p5. What I have been saying (and maybe I didn't explain well enough) is that I choose to understand that new software can have unforseen problems when everyone first pounds on it, and instead of just flapping the wings (which never fixes the problem) I try to see if I can find useful information about why I would see this problem that was unseen, and deliver that information to someone who can fix the problem for the software I'm using. then the problem's over, and I can work :)

"Maya - CPU usage 32-43% Lightwave - CPU usage 21-36% Poser 4 - CPU usage 46-89% Poser 5 (beta)- CPU usage 32-100% " Heya, the reason for this is that poser does all it's viewport rendering in software. This keeps Poser available to all the people who don't have the high-end 3D cards that are required to run Maya. (yeah I want to see hardware accelleration for Poser also. I'm sure it will come)

"The pre release publicity had a lot to do with that clamor reaching deafening levels..." Must be my encroaching senility. I seem to recall people clamoring for hardware specs, feature lists, screenshots, etc. because CL wasn't releasing any of the above. As they say, be careful what you wish for. I remember Orson Welles solemly stating that Gallo would release no wine before it's time. If that were true it would mean there was a right time for Ripple and Thunderbird to be unleashed on the world - perhaps the apocalypse?

"If that were true it would mean there was a right time for Ripple and Thunderbird to be unleashed on the world " Hey, when's the wrong time! oh yeah, poser and ripple, it's a saturday ;]

"not at first, the first versions of Maya on the PC (only 2-3 years ago) was only authorized to work with 1 yes ONE video card. and then by the release there were something like a few video cards from a company or 2 (INTERGRAPH)." And one example is indicative of the entire software industry, even if it is only limited to 3D software? I have tried a myriad of freeware, shareware, alpha, beta, commercial, non-commercial, and cracked/warezed (I was responsible for being a "Software Nazi" for a company) applications on my system all at the same time and I can confidently state that none have caused the widespread problems that P5 has, none. Your justification that one application had a singlular excluisive requirement is nothing but that, a singular instance. "I think that you might have missed some of the point in what we're saying." I think you are taking my comments too personally. Review the threads again and you will notice a trend that it is generally stated that it is the fault of nearly everything but Poser, including user error, that is the underlying cause of the issues. I offer the fact that the patch (after it was patched itself) solved many of the issues, but not all, that exists within P5 as proof positive that Poser is at the heart of the problem; unless the patches addressed the multitude of other supposed causes of the P5 issues, including user error. Plus, the fact that a second SR patch is due in under two months would further implicate Poser as the root cause, or else all issues would have been resolved with SR-1 patch. The "pissing match" statement was not geared toward you in particular reiss. So do not take that personally either.

no prob, didn't take the "match" statement towards me :) "I think you are taking my comments too personally. Review the threads again and you will notice a trend that it is generally stated that it is the fault of nearly everything but Poser, including user error, that is the underlying cause of the issues." I guess that's my point, please take a look back through the thread and you'll see that people have been posting that they have no problems with poser in some cases but they're not implying that this means it's not Poser's fault. It means that they're saying CL probably had the same OK results that they have, and did not see these problems until the wide release. Now that CL's seeing them, they're fixing them.

Even seasoned oenophile's disagree, reiss-studio. For me, The classic TJ Swan Easy Nights was the high point of flavored alcoholic grape juice. A superior vintage. Perhaps the Poser 5 programming team's choice was Mad Dog 20/20. Bound to cause a few flipped bits on a Monday morning.

Hmmm... I don't have a highend graphics card (that's about the only thing that I don't have LOL) I got the standard graphic card that came with my HP... it does the job and pretty fast, expecially with Maya. But a 3D software application not utilizing 3D Acceleration... isn't that kinda odd for such an application? Considering the fact that Poser 5 requires reads the box at least a 500Mhrz (though 700 or greater is recommended) 128MB of RAM (256MB Recommended) 24 bit color display, 1024x768 resolution... A machine of that nature usually comes standard with a 32MB graphic acceleration card (used widely by video games)... baring that in mind... why not utilize it? They are already requiring people to update their systems to run the software, so why not use the graphic acceleration card? Considering the fact that they want to hit a more professional market, one would think that they'd understand that professionals don't want to wait 45+ minutes for a render and hope that it turns out or doesn't need to be redone. IBM before they got their start in the industry once said: "The reason why we dress and act like our company is worth a million dollars, is so that we can one day become a company that is worth a million dollars and if people don't see us that way now... we'll never reach that status." If you want to reach a professional market and expand your company's growth (and the product's growth), you have to act professional and "knownly" release a professional-like product. Somehow, I believe, someone seriously missed the mark on this and it torques me off because I wanted to see CL succeed with this (both personally and professionally). sighs Jack

The lack of acceleration is a puzzle. I can understand that the remaining P4 & perhaps earlier) code may have precluded it except for the fact that FireFly is supposedly new. Having it be software only is strange. They couldn't use Direct 3D since it's Windows only but I assume Open GL is available on the Mac as well. It's probably one of those decisions we'll never know the reason for.

Open GL is avalable for the MAC and very well implemented In MAYA Lightwave And Cinema4DXL under OSX CL Said that they didnt implement it in poser because it would require a major software re-write of poser5.

IIRC, P5 was supposed to be a major re-write; from the ground up, that was one of the promises. Lack of hardware acceleration (or any other major improvement) is not a mystery to me. Again, it seems CL did very little of their own work on P5.

"What I suspect the real cause of the majority of the issues is stems from the way that all of those "parts" either have been put together and/or how they interact with one another." Taddaaaaa! Houston........we have comprehension. Now I could say. If we had good hardware standards. It wouldn't matter how parts are used together. But I won't poke the bear. ;-) We basically agree. We just say it differently. ScottA

"Again, it seems CL did very little of their own work on P5." Could be, but a complete rewrite would require less familiarity with the old codebase. Contract coders should be able to do that just fine given the specs. Maybe FireFly was already written by someone else (without HW assist) and they just bought it. Maybe Bush and Sadam are secret lovers, I don't care much about that either at this point.

You recall correctly Jackson, that is what Mr. Cooper said they were doing, although framework and ground are similar in interpretation they could be taken to mean different things - such as "we're working from the Poser 4 framework and bolting things onto it." Whatever, there are lots of things said in this very forum by certain personalities that have since transpired to be, shall we say, transient and inaccurate.

http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=439015

Steve Cooper:
It may have been 2+ years since Poser's last release, but from the very start Curious Labs has always been about Poser and putting systems in place to develop and deliver the product. We do have to create other products though, one (as cool as Poser is) won't carry us. That said, we've been working on that next release of Poser for a long time, from the framework up, and in the process, stoking a few other irons in the fire so we aren't a one-trick publishing pony.