Jackson: Perhaps I am more cynical than most, but I was under the impression that the CL crew working on P5 was largely the same crew that worked on P4, so it didn't surprise me that some of the things that bug me about P4 (some of which I would classify as bugs, some not) reappeared in the first P5 release, whether they reused code or just the coders. I would agree with you as far as stability issues go. Reusing code in itself wouldn't bother me in the slightest...to the extent that it works. I am not (and have not been) sure what you mean about an "outdated" interface; klunky I understand as meaning not easy to work with, and that can be a matter of taste. I also have a hard time reconciling the "pretty blanket" metaphor with the complaints about the interface, unless you're referring to the box art. However, the complaints you mention are only a part of what Jack was driving at, which was a broad critique of CL's business plan. And it is that sort of critique, absent any detailed knowledge of the situation, to which my original post was addressed. In thinking about the recent tumult, it occurred to me that if CL had called ProPack Poser 4.5, they could have decreased the anticipation level for P5 and increased CL's profits. With additional bucks from P4.5, they could have spent more time on P5. I'll bet just about every CL employee has had that thought in the last month or two...but now I'm the one second guessing CL's business strategy. Must be catching;-)

xoconostle, We need all the moderation we can get... given the number of unthinking idiots following marshlights into the swamps or jumping off battlements whenever an irresponsible firebrand craves attention. I especially savor the complaints from people who haven't even seen the program, much less had their hands on it. :shrug one shoulder: Clemens was a story-teller, but he didn't pose as a cynic for cynicism's sake or tell a story to enlarge himself in the eyes of his audience or raise a controversy just to be embroiled in the middle of yet another storm. I used to own 21 of the 25 volumes of the collected Mark Twain, and enjoyed reading most of them. Tales about the human condition, such as he told, require a dry wit and light hand to do well. Fables, parables, and sermons succeed when they are humorous and fail when they are too didactic. Some of us don't like preaching no matter how it's packaged. Carolly

kblade: If they didn't reuse code, then the coders rewrote multiplying magnets, the same lousy memory management, and many other P4 problems. No matter though, it still isn't what was promised. Outdated interface=out of sheer laziness or ineptness, keeping the old P4 interface and not using the Windows api. Yes, I know the bugs are only part of the story, I was just responding to your first response to my response to you :) I don't know how much "inside information" Jack has but his story--to me--appears to mirror what's happened to Poser and CL.

Was P4PP not a separate purchase and gave CL additional cash inflow? Therefore, calling it P4.5 or whatever would not have accomplished much more than what it did.

Jackson: I might prefer that CL used the Windows API, but that was just as true of P4 as it is of P5. And while I would tend to put that more in the "klunky" category, than the "outdated" category (since the Windows API was always there to be used), my understanding is that historically, this has to do with cross-platform issues. Also, your last msg makes my point. You don't know what, if anything Jack knows about the stiuation. I would submit that if Jack had any inside info, he would be sharing it. Jack has been called many things over the years; "shy" is not one of them. Yet he has presented nothing (and, I note, chosen to disappear from this thread). Again, I agree with some of your complaints, and I think reasonable people can differ over some of the others. But Jack taking a cutesy shot at CL's business plan when he doesn't even know what it was or is, strikes me as cheap. His story "looks" true to you; I already posted a very different version that could be true. I try to base my opinions on evidence; others are free not to, and often do. CyberStretch: "Was P4PP not a separate purchase and gave CL additional cash inflow? Therefore, calling it P4.5 or whatever would not have accomplished much more than what it did." No, if CL had marketed it as P4.5, more people would have bought it, as demonstrated in part by the greater sales of P5 in relation to Pro Pack. Marketing something as an optional add-on simply will not generate the volume of sales you would get marketing it as the new base product. Had CL treated ProPack as P4.5, they could have charged everyone more to upgrade to P5, because the P4PP people had to get a deal since they subsidized the development of a number of the new features in P5. Alternatively, CL could have charged more for people who did not buy P4.5 to upgrade to P5 on the ground that you were really buying 2 upgrades. Plus, the expectation level would not have been as high, because everyone wouldn't have waited as long for the new version of Poser. The product cycle would have looked much more like the regular, incremental upgrading that so many other apps (Photoshop, for example) go through. The only reason I even dipped my toe in the pool of second guessing was to point out that one of the implied theses of Jack's parable -- that CL was eager to put out these other products (at the expense of Poser) "just to make more money" -- is readily disprovable. If CL had treated ProPack as P4.5, Jack's whole analogy falls apart, because then the man isn't neglecting the horse.

What I've done is shared a story, nothing more, nothing less. People are able to interpret that story however they see fit. Whether it is about a horse, a car, a coffee maker or Poser. I don't feel the need to have to defend my story, or opinion or provide to anyone my reason or desire for writing said story. My opinions regarding CL and Poser 5 are my own and are not subject for debate and I have the ability to state those opinions, if I so desired too, in whatever form that I felt necessary, as clearly as anyone else is allowed in this thread. In regard to CL... I HIGHLY and SINCERELY doubt that myself, Steve Cooper, Egi-Sys and the entire staff at CL would like to see me post publicly whatever "insider" information that I have. I gave my word to Mr. Cooper that I would not share or disclose any of that information and I sincerely hope that he appreciates the fact that I WILL NOT do so, even despite whatever displeasure I may have. I gave my word and I intend to keep that word. For all you know, my story could hold meaning for any given situation or subject in my own life and my desire to share it in the Poser Forum was because that is where all of my friends hang out. It could've been about my car, my family life, my trouble with rediscovering my Muse, or, yes, it could even about Poser 5. Only I know the true reason behind my writting this story, and I find it very interesting to see how people digest it, debate it and even find parallels to subjects that matter to the reader and not just the writer. You can feel free to debate the nature of my artwork (this story) here, however, any opinion that I might've had regarding the reason for this story is not open for debate and nor is my focus or opinion expressed in this story going to change. Jack

"What I've done is shared a story, nothing more, nothing less. People are able to interpret that story however they see fit. Whether it is about a horse, a car, a coffee maker or Poser." Semi cop out :) Now I agree your opinion is your own to share, but you cannot say that the story itself was not intended as an editorial comment about Poser5... because it clearly was. "art" does not exist in a vacuum, it exists in a context - and the context of posting it here and now when taken witht he context of your other comments makes the story deliberately suitable for a specific parralel to be drawn. So i defend your right to an opinion, but don't pretend any Poser5 editorializing were only int he mind of the reader... because it simply isn't true. You know it, and we know it :)

Legume........... I liked your story much better.

Yeah, I liked Legume's better also... but then again, I usually do. And Jack's response is not a semi-cop-out, it's a total cop-out. And note that Jack now claims to have inside information, but says he promised kupa he wouldn't reveal it... it's a very convenient position. But it is why he's now trying to pretend the story wasn't about CL, because the implication is that the story is based on this information that he is sworn not to reveal. So why write the story and put it in this forum in the first place? There are plenty of other sites that cater to fiction writers. There is even a writer's forum at this site, but Jack chose to put it here. But I thank Jack for his evasive non-defense of his cheap innuendo, for he has revealed it as such more effectively than I could have by myself. Which, incidentally, is why I noted his disappearance in my prior msg...I suspected he would rise to the bait.

Perhaps the reason why I've refrained from responding to this post that I've made is because I choose to believe that the people that read these forums and visit these sites are intelligent enough to make their own decisions or formulate their opinions about things that matter to them. Why waste my time coming into this thread and having a huge debate with you Kbade? What would it solve or for what purpose? Obviously, I've my own opinion and you've got your's. What point would it be for me to sit here and waste my time arguing with you or trying to change your opinion? Other than a waste of time, what would it serve? Unlike you, I'd prefer to credit the individuals who read these threads capable to make their own decision about whatever matters to them and they don't need any poking and proding from me to make those decisions. Nor do they need me to sit there and try to argue my own beliefs or convictions (whatever they may be) with them to try and "convert" them to my way of thinking. I have my opinions, whether you agree with them or not, based on situations that have, do or will affect me, now, in the past or future. The knowledge that I have helps to establish that belief and none of you need me sharing any of that with you, for you to make your own assumptions or opinions. My opinion may be right, or your's may be. Hell, both of our opinions may be right... for ourselves. Why waste my time debating something that I am set on? Why waste your time? Why sit there and try to find ways to try and "provoke" me to explain my beliefs or opinions. I am not out to change anyone's opinion... I am just out to express my opinion and move on. Jack

The only point I have been making throughout this thread is that people are free to have beliefs and convictions and be set on them, but if they want to express them publicly, they can expect to be asked about the basis for them. Many people like to have beliefs, convictions and opinions that have no factual basis, and in such cases, Jack is absolutely right, it is a waste of time to debate them.

Of course, Jack did just say that he was just writing a story, and that it wasn't about Poser, so I guess I'm wondering how convictions and opinons came into it.

That would be "opinions." Sorry I missed that.

Attached Link: interesting reading on the new p5 eula

"No, if CL had marketed it as P4.5, more people would have bought it, as demonstrated in part by the greater sales of P5 in relation to Pro Pack." Incorrect presumption. A .x release is a minor release and not a new product. Since the only value added was a few features needed mostly by Professionals (hence the PRO in Pro Pack), CL could not have gotten away with stating that the Pro Pack was anywhere near a new release nor even applicable for their larger hobbyist user base. Jack has admitted to being one of the beta testers, like many others. To presume he has "inside information" would be a likely case; ignoring the fact that he has a history in the community to base his convictions, opinions, etc, off as well. Just like the presumption that he is bound by the NDA, as the rest of them are, not to disclose certain information would be logical to presume. Most NDAs' "authority" ends when the product has been released. Yet, it would seem CL took extra measures to ensure that "silence is golden" even after release. Perhaps you would like to disclose your involvement and where you get your information from for the public scrutiny of the community? He who is without sin be the first to cast a stone. - Paraphrased from a major religious text.

Jack. If you thought: "I choose to believe that the people that read these forums and visit these sites are intelligent enough to make their own decisions or formulate their opinions about things" Then why post that antagonistically written nightmare you call a "STORY"? And proceed to insult our "intelligence". After all....we're intelligent enough to know when someone is ranting. Even if it's 10 paragraphs long. You just said so yourself. Can't you visit these places without stirring up trouble? This is a software forum. It's not the school playground. ScottA

This is a software forum. It's not the school playground. ROTFLMAO Looks around.. scratches head snicker wanders off to find something that doesn't resemble a school playground. :)

"Then why post that antagonistically written nightmare you call a "STORY"? " Why not? wanders off after Questor

Hehe, bye Questor and Ironbear. See ya later, when you are back. ;)

"Why not?" "This is a software forum. It's not the school playground." I hate to repeat myself. ;-)

This is a software forum. It's not the school playground Erm.... heheh... Naaaahhhhh. wanders off and tries to figure out which turn brought him back here... damn playground, too many corners. smirk

"Incorrect presumption. A .x release is a minor release and not a new product. Since the only value added was a few features needed mostly by Professionals (hence the PRO in Pro Pack), CL could not have gotten away with stating that the Pro Pack was anywhere near a new release nor even applicable for their larger hobbyist user base." First, it you scroll back to post #54, you'll see the little ;-) emoticon at the end of the paragraph, which ought to be a tip-off that I was kidding in that paragraph. That being said, I agree that it's generally true that .x release is a minor release, but if you take a look at reviews for 2 of Adobe's flagships, Photoshop and Premiere, you'll find complaints that PS7 is not really a major release, and raves for the major additions mad in Premiere 6.5. Moreover, the release of P5 demonstrates that CL is trying to position Poser as an app for hobbyist and pro alike. Accordingly, issuing ProPack as P4.5 would have been consistent with that strategy. And if you want to argue that even a minor release would have sold more than a product expressly marketed as unnecessary to most of the customer base (despite the fact that P5 ultimately incorporated may ProPack features), be my guest. "Jack has admitted to being one of the beta testers, like many others. To presume he has "inside information" would be a likely case; ignoring the fact that he has a history in the community to base his convictions, opinions, etc, off as well. Just like the presumption that he is bound by the NDA, as the rest of them are, not to disclose certain information would be logical to presume. Most NDAs' "authority" ends when the product has been released. Yet, it would seem CL took extra measures to ensure that "silence is golden" even after release." If you care to search this very forum, you'll find beta testers stating on the record that they didn't see any of the major problems some users have experienced. And since Jack has been typing out of both sides of his keyboard in this very thread -- it's just a story, no, wait, it's my conviction, no, wait, it's my legal duty -- his claim rings hollow. If Jack has some smoking gun based on inside info, he'll do the community a favor by becoming the named plaintiff in a class action against CL by P5 users, rather than claim to be bound by an NDA, then write "stories" that he apparently believes violate that NDA, which is why he then retreats back to th "only a story" defense. I will certainly agree that Jack has a history in the community, though Jackson certainly didn't want me to discuss it. "Perhaps you would like to disclose your involvement and where you get your information from for the public scrutiny of the community?" Ah, yes, I was waiting for the unsupported attack on my credibility. For the record, I have no connection to CL or any of it's employees, other than as a customer. In fact, my only communication with CL in years was to e-mail them that Airborne failed to deliver my copy of P5 on time. They promptly and more than adequately addressed that complaint, even though Airborne was primarily at fault. That would be the extent of my bias. As for where I get my information, I get it from many sources which are publicly available. In this post, the Photoshop review I believe can be found at zdnet.com, the Premiere review at creativepro.com, and the comments of the beta testers are here at R'osity. Again, one of my major points, should you bother to read my posts, is that people should base their opinions on what they know, and if they want to go public with their opinions, they should expect that people might ask for the basis of those opinions. My posts are not intended to defend CL as much as they are to request that people who want to criticize or attack CL state their reasons. For example, if you go back to read this thread, you will find that Jackson and I have a number of areas of agreement, because Jackson can actually identify the facts that back up his criticisms. If Jack's opinion is based on information gained under an NDA, he probably shouldn't be writing thinly veiled screeds against CL based on that information, should he?

with a full cast of weasels...what can we expect next? the longest thread in poser history? wouldn't THAT be special? cl f'cked up in their strategy. they waited too long, then, promised too much before they could rationally deliver. as for jack's thread...well, hey, now...if any of us poser peons had posted a similar thread, here at our ever-so-caring renderosity....it would have been sent to the o.t. forum before your head could spin around 4 times, exorcist style....why did jack get special treatment...'cause he's from the bad old days. that gets deference. is p5 gonna bring poser into the "serious applications"..."professional applcations"? hell, no. check out some of the "real" modellers on the market.

'cause he's from the bad old days. that gets deference ROTFLMAO I'm sorry Poppi, but I reckon you're wrong there. I know of several people who would be more than joyous to see Jack kidnapped by aliens and removed permanently from the face of the planet. The only deference he gets here and at other sites is that he's not shy of saying "Oi, that's not fair." :) Wow, special deference for Jack at 'rosity. I'll bet the owners are spinning in horror at that one. LOL

Yeah.....stupid moderators........Dog pile on the moderators!!!! Hey over here! This person knows one of the programmers....I'll hold him down...... You Get Him!! Steve Cooper was last reported boarding a plane to Germany with nothing but brief cases for luggage.....Get his flight number so we can nail him at the airport! Crazy pills for everyone. On me! No need for pushing and shoving. Theres Plenty to go around. Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!

. I'll bet the owners are spinning in horror at that one. LOL ya think??? i'd love a render of that. Crazy pills for everyone. On me! oh, wow...and, free, even...i'll take many, thank you. :*)

e-mail Congress; they're working on it;-)

:D

"And if you want to argue that even a minor release would have sold more than a product expressly marketed as unnecessary to most of the customer base (despite the fact that P5 ultimately incorporated may ProPack features), be my guest." If P4PP was more of an "upgrade" than an add-on, I am sure that it would have been marketed as such. Say anything you wish about CL, but their marketing skills seem to be well above par, regardless of the failures in other areas. P5 does not incorporate the main consideration (and most likely, the biggest push) for purchasing P4PP - import and export, from what I have been reading. Although that is forthcoming, CL did not state that they would not release that as P5PP or offer it as a "patch" to the general populace of P5 users. "Ah, yes, I was waiting for the unsupported attack on my credibility." No attack on your credibility, supported or not. Basically, you are asking Jack to defend himself and the statements, opinions, etc, in his posts. However, I would surmise that neither you nor Jack personally know one another, yet you continually attack his character and motivations. So, is this a case of "pot calling the kettle black"? "Again, one of my major points, should you bother to read my posts, is that people should base their opinions on what they know, and if they want to go public with their opinions, they should expect that people might ask for the basis of those opinions." And get labelled as "unsupported[ly] attack[ing] [someone's] credibility" when you ask them to clarify? To me, it seems your keyboard has two outputs as well. "If Jack's opinion is based on information gained under an NDA, he probably shouldn't be writing thinly veiled screeds against CL based on that information, should he?" That presumes his post was entirely concieved and written based upon what he learned by way of agreeing to the NDA; which his long involvement with Poser and the community would dispute. Also, it depends on the verbiage and intent of the NDA. As a lawyer (or so I gather from your EULA posts), you should know that any agreement has inherent loopholes, which lawyers and certain individuals can use to their advantage until they are patched. If people can circumvent the laws legally, why not a simple NDA; if that is the case at all?

.

The dino getting confused with all the twisted words and implications? :0)

Hosting Poser scenes in Lightwave etc. is certainly a major feature of ProPack, but whether it is the main feature depends on usage. Animators might view the simultaneous multi-view, motion blur, and character setup features as equally important...and those features are in P5. As to whether CL is good at marketing, I would say they have generally been very good at staying in touch with forums like this one, but in moving to position Poser as equally valuable to pros as hobbyists, they've undertaken a difficult task that is difficult to market. Certainly some of the complaints about P5 (though not all) are from hobbyists who didn't understand that a firefly render was going to take a lot longer than a P4 render and that you can't just leave all of the maps set to their P4 settings and expect a quality result. kupa did a good job of getting everyone hereexcited about all of the new P5 features, but he may not have stressed the learning curve sufficiently, which only added to their current PR problems. You asked: "Perhaps you would like to disclose your involvement and where you get your information from for the public scrutiny of the community?" I apologize if that was not meant as an attack on my credibility. However, my point was that people who want to launch an attack ought to be able to back it up...in what way does my involvement or sources of information matter to that point? It was in the context of that question in my mind that led me, perhaps erroneously, to believe that you were looking for a motive. Jack, on the other hand, neither wants to apologize or even discuss what he has written. As for whether Jack's story is related to information obtained under an NDA, or the scope of said NDA, I must confess that I have no idea; you were the one who brought up the NDA. Jack wrote that "he gave [his] word to Mr. Cooper that I would not share or disclose any of that [insider] information." Regardless of whether he's referring to an NDA signed as a beta tester, the principle is the same: if you promise not to disclose information, should you then write a story, then mention that you have such information in the course of attempting to justify yourself? As for attacking Jack's character and motivations, it might help you to actually read what I have written. In post 29, I specifically state that I never formed an opinion regarding some of the prior controversies with which he is involved, and did not have a probem when he took this site commercial. I did write that I was baffled that he would want to stir the pot after having been more conciliatory recently, but my "involvement in the community" is sufficiently long that I can state without fear of contradiction that there was a ton of flaming and venom when he originally took the helm here all those years ago. I didn't say that he was solely responsible for it, but I think it is beyond dispute that it existed. In post 51 I wrote nothing that could be viewed as attacking Jack's character or motive. To the contrary, I attempted to repeat to Jackson that such was not intended in post 29. Post 54 is much the same, again not criticizing Jack so much as pointing out that he has no facts backing up his veiled critique of CL's business strategy. In post 58, I wrote: "I would submit that if Jack had any inside info, he would be sharing it. Jack has been called many things over the years; "shy" is not one of them. Yet he has presented nothing (and, I note, chosen to disappear from this thread)." Again, my main point. And I think it is beyond dispute that Jack has been called many things over the years, though never by me, I would note. I don't consider not being shy to be an attack; I consider that a compliment. And when I wrote, it was true that Jack had chosen not to contribute to the thread. In post 62 I criticize Jack's response, not Jack. And I think that criticism is entirely valid. He does not want to state the basis for his opinions, or even discuss his opinions. Jack wrote that he wants to express his opinions and move on. However, in those past controversies that I am not supposed to mention, I distinctly recall Jack being willing to respond to attacks that he thought were unfair, so he should not be surprised that I and others have responded as we have. Until Jack started posting these more recent messages, I had thought that perhaps he would respond as he had in the past and we all could have learned something, but no such luck. Rest assured, if Jack comes after CyberStretch, I will respect his wishes and not ask Jack to support whatever mud he wants to sling.

kbade, Just so you do not think I am avoiding the questions, I think this line of discussion is only leading into personal grounds which would be inappropriate. My point is that if you also contribute to the discussion, your involvement lends itself to scrutiny as well. Expecting one thing from one member and not the same from others is hardly equitable; even of the "other" is you (meaning the person making the post). You can only beat a dead horse for so long before there is nothing left to swing at.

You know, KBade made a very good point when he sat there and said: "Jack has been called many things over the years; "shy" is not one of them." KBade is right, I have always taken great measure to inform the Community about things that affect them to the best of my ability, whether Community members agree with what I say or what the companies may think. I used to be very free and honest with the Community about my feelings on issues that I thought were important, despite whatever harm it might cause me. For some reason, I've been very (gun)shy lately and I guess it kinda really hinders my ability to be honest with myself and with the Community. So with that said, I will be preparing a statement in the next couple of days as to my feelings/Experience with CL and Poser 5. I will probably get hammered on for doing so, but I really think it is time someone speaks up without fear of no longer being supported by Curious Labs... and since they hate me now and no longer support me, I guess it is up to me. Be prepared, though, it wont be pretty. Jack

Just make sure it conforms to the TOS, and it should probably be put in the OT forum, since it will be moved there anyway. :0)

It wont be posted here on Renderosity. Since I am not a part of Renderosity outside of just being a member. I will, however, post the relative link to my statement at the various websites so that those interested can partake in it, without it reflecting on Renderosity or any other website that is heavily supportive of or controlled by CL. Jack

"or controlled by CL" Which sites are controlled by CL, Jack? -JH.

Content Paradise would be one. Though it isn't a forum based website or even open yet. So none as of yet, but that could always change, couldn't it Jeff?? Jack

"A politician wants police to ban sweets in the shape of penises from Blackpool's seafront. Councillor Mary Smith says Blackpool should copy Southport and launch a crackdown on obscene confectionery sold in shops. Sweet shop bosses in Southport were furious after police ordered them to remove the rude sweets from public view. The manager of the Southport Rock Shop, who did not wish to be named, told the Blackpool Evening Gazette: "Two male officers came in here and ordered me to take all the rock willies out of the window. "They said the rock boobs could stay because they hadn't received any complaints about them." "I am absolutely fuming. I can't believe, with all the youth crime and shoplifting that goes on here, the police are choosing to spend their time worrying about rock willies." The Evening Gazette says several seafront shops in Blackpool sell the same saucy rock shapes. Councillor Smith is calling for the police to take the same stance as their Southport counterparts. She said: "These items are disgusting and give the town a bad image. Who wants to see this sort of thing when they are walking along the promenade with their children? It's OK for the stag and hen parties but it's putting the families off. "If the police can do this in Southport why can't they do it here? I have already spoken to the chief executive about this. If we have got to get a byelaw to do this then let's get one." If you outlaw candied penises, only outlaws will have candied penises. I have NO idea why I thought that fit here, but with all the dicking around lately in these forums, it seemed singularly appropriate...

LOL...right now, I'm picturing Chuck Heston with a candied penis: "From my cold, dead, hands!!!"

snicker Or Chuck Heston standing on a beach looking at one screaming "Damn you! You Did it! You bastards! You blew it all up!"

That leaves "The Ten Commandments," and I can't bring myself to do a "behold his mighty hand" joke... so I'll leave it with "In this world, we will not spank the monkeys; the monkeys will spank us!" - Jay, in "Jay & Silent Bob Strike Back."