Well probably not but it could cause a lot of reluctant people to start using it and make Curious Labs some money. First to remind everyone that its just an idea and I am climbing into my fireproof overalls as I speak. If implemented it will keep us occupied so that CL can get on with the important thing. Poser 5 Lite If you do not need ALL the facilities of the application then one could purchase a cheaper limited feature version. That way any problem with eg the Face Room and Content Paradise wont undo the whole thingie. For me it would be the Cloth, the Gravity and the Collision Detection, and maybe the hair. I cant see myself using the Face Room more than two or four times, and unless theres something diabolical in CP maybe never. When the other bits are working they can be purchased as plugins. P5L could be just the very basic application and the various bits supplied as modules. If people already have it, SR3 then could convert it TO the modular version. Then if certain problems disappear with particular items not running could it clue CL in to where the bugs are in the complete version? Also, as well as maybe running on older and lower spec computers they may get round to fixing that other problem with P5 (now what was that?).

Whereas, ironically, I would have been happy to dump the hair and cloth for a rewrite of the core code, better and far more sensible resource usage, a strong plugin architecture and (as the only new functionality) a working Firefly renderer and shader room at the first release. The ability to subsequently add hair, cloth and faceroom functionality and extend the program even further could, and should, have been implementable through a good plugin architecture. This would have allowed CL to concentrate on the core code from the outset (with much less inter-module compatibility issues to confuse things), then market (for additional profit, and a long term business plan) additional plugins to those who wanted specific features. Bill

I like both of the ideas. I don't think I'll ever use the Face Room, but collision detection and dynamic cloth would be fine. I'd like the program more stable, though. I think plug-ins would be a great way to do it if their integration wouldn't slow down the program too much. It'd given each user the ability to customize the ap for their uses.

Agree with Bill. Some of the best products in history have succeeded because they used "plug-in architecture". The Ford Model T and the original IBM PC are classic examples. Each came from the factory with just the -barest- essentials for running, but was designed so that all kinds of accessories could be built by others and installed later. Poser gained -some- of that openness when it added Python, but the Python connection doesn't go deep enough to make many useful plugins possible from that direction. Python itself (with TKinter) is powerful enough to make things like material rooms and cloth rooms, with any kind of desired variations, but because most of the needed connections (APIs) are unavailable, it can't do everything it needs to do.

Now that's a capital idea! I think a basic Poser with room for expansion as needed would be an ideal solution. Have you proposed that to CL? I'm still on P4 because of all I've read about P5's bad performance. I don't have the stamina to survive the frustrations others are having. I would like the collision detection, cloth, and hair, but not the face room. I doubt I'd use it. Also, since the complicated registration security system has already been proved useless (some yahoo has already pirated it), remove that, and you've got a sale here! A customizable Poser 5 would be great for those who have budget problems. We could buy just what we can afford and add on more later as money becomes available. Hey, Curious Labs, you listening to this? Melanie

I look in this way, what is a basic poser ? P4 ? I don't use near 90% of the modles that come with P4. So do they have a poser that with only a few modles? And I don't think everyone will use wind, reflection , hair or many other things in every render, so every of these becoming a plugin? I do think that the face room is not offent use, I still don't know how to make a face that I want, but if it is a plugin, how many people will buy it? May be the small number of demand will make CL stop developing that. A customizable Poser 5 is really a good idea, not just poser , but I think all software should be that too. But everyone has a difernet idea, it is really hard to findout what is the basic.

the advantage of plug in's to the manufacturer is that they create a stream of revenue, as opposed to the bunching of income with large upgrades.

The ability to subsequently add hair, cloth and faceroom functionality (at a later date) Not to mention the steep learing curve. I just am working on the material room and pose room at the moment. Reflections and Firefly were enough for me to learn for now.

The idea of a modular based system is a great idea, but unless its planned that way from the start, it isn't easy to isolate the code and interface. It'd be a great idea for P6, but don't expect it as an update for P5. If CL had done it that way, they could have sold the base for the upgrade price, and each module as an add-on for $100 each. Good business idea. It'd also help isolate the problems in testing and performance. Scenario: Base system including conforming cloth, FireFly and P4 renderer, Content Paradise. Add-ons: Hair room, Setup room, Wind dynamics, Atmoshere. So CL would have made $150 for the basic upgrade, then up to $400 for all of the add-ons (released later, with less bugs). hmmm.... that'd increase the profit margin.

This was expressed during the pre-release "EULA discussions" (or some time thereabouts) by several people. Many felt that the "modular" approach would have led to more problems than it solved. I, for one, believe that this would have been the most sensible approach; given the overall complexity of P5 with all the additional functions and features. Add to that the fact that many features would probably be used by a small subset of users, a completely customizable approach would have allowed, say, 6 month development time per room allowing for enough extensive testing to ensure the greatest compatibility. It would have also given CLs' the ability to extend their financial stream over a longer period of time, possibly allowing them the financial stability they seem to require.

I would rather have a stable, responsive, efficient program with a well-designed interface than any number of extra features tacked on the side. But I don't see THAT happening!

Actually, pdxjims, the upgrade price for the whole thing now costs $129. I think your idea is good, though. If the basic skeleton program (full-program) cost $150 and maybe $95 (upgrade), then charge $75 for each module (I'm sure CL could think of new ones to add along the way, too), they would still make more on the program than they're now making. Non-upgrade (full-program) Skeleton (cloth, Firefly/P4 renderer, Content Paradise): $150 Add-on Elements (hair, setup, wind, atmosphere): $75 ea. Total: $450 Upgrade from earlier versions Skeleton (cloth, Firefly/P4 rederer, Content Paradise): $95 Add-on Elements: $75 ea. Total: $395 That's more than they're bringing in now. And I believe a lot more people will buy it. Look at how many of us now haven't bought it yet for various reasons. This may bring in more sales. (I hope CL is reading this thread.) For those of us who can't afford all the elements at one time, it would be less, but most people will eventually pick up the other elements along the way as funds allow or the need for the element arises. As an afterthought, it might also help alleviate a little of the piracy problem, too. Naturally, it wouldn't cure it, and there are always those idiots who want everything in life handed to them for free, even if they can afford it, but maybe some will be able to buy it who couldn't before. xvcoffee, I really love your idea. Melanie

PS: Maybe the extra sales they would stand to make from this idea, might make up for the lost revenue from piracy that's already occurred, even with the registration security system, which has already proven to be a failure. Melanie

Just to protect myself from any unwarrented allegations regarding this thread, I think I should come clean about my personal interest in these issues. As those who have been keeping their ears to ground may be aware, since shortly after the release of P5 I've been working on an Open Source 'scene and figure animation program' of my own with a lot of the features that I personally would have preferred to see in P5. Plug-in support has, from the outset, been one of corner-stones of the design, and, in fact, rather than creating additional work, I've found that accomodating this requirement actually adds a great deal of clarity and strength to the architecture. A lot of suggestions in the OT wishlist thread on this forum have also had a very positive impact on the design. The design capabilities look like they going to be able to knock the socks off P5. One big step has been the identification of the Mozilla Public License (in preference to GPL) as the open source model for the project. This, in effect, will allow anyone to utilise the published designs and code (including CL and DAZ), the only requirements being the obligatory credit and publishing any actual open source files that have been altered (propriatry files do not need to be published). For this reason I don't see any conflict of interest in continuing to participate in Poser related topics such as this. In fact, it is my hope that something to come out of this project will also find its way into future commercial products. At the moment the code itself is pure vapourware, but the final drafts of a pretty extensive requirements and design description document are currently under review by couple of associates. This should be publishable, along with the manifesto etc. within the next week or so, and I'll put up a temporary site to host it. Bill

Sounds interesting :-)

Ive imED Nosfiratu about this. A problem is this might make the final product more expensive once you get all the bits, unless CL do a 3 for 2 deal.

Walks in. Takes a few notes. Grins slightly and moves on. Dan Farr

Hmmm... And I thought DAZ were going to try to keep a cap on speculative teasers until they were ready for the big release. Sounds promising though... Bill

Gee, before Dan Farr's post, I was going to speculate that this thread sounded more like a discussion of what DAZ's product should be / was likely to be. I am greatly encouraged that he's paying attention. -- Steve S.

As with all these situations, DAZ is, of course, in an advantageous position of being able to benefit from the experiences of those who have previously trodden the path. And it has been an encouraging sign that they have demonstrated, even before this thread, an active interest in some of the ideas and discussions mooted. No criticism of CL there for being the pioneers in this area, but circumstances dictate that they really must work hard, and stay on their toes, to keep ahead, now that they are facing the prospect of an imminent and serious competitive threat. Hopefully, the users will win either way. Bill (Taking a brief break from trying to find a common ground on Renderman, PovRay and Poser shading)

I have suggested the idea in the thread started Curious Labs some days ago (got no answer...) I have not changed my mind since : modular plug ins would certainly sell a lot. But this means that the program must be constructed to accept them, and that any free lance progammer must be allowed to develop a plug in. I don't know anything about the first item, and the first version of the EULA did not let me think that the second was in the air. The only proble with modular plug ins is that at some point you may get incompatibilities. To be continued ?

Sometime after this discussion thread, Dan Farr mentioned that DAZ Studio would support plugin's and later clarified that the plugin architecture would be 'open', ie. available for third party developers. There may have been a suugestion that this functionality wouldn't be immediately available in the first release, howvever. Bill

Sounds corporate enough to chill me to the bones. WHy would be the reason not to open this functionality in the first release ? But this may be too early to speculate about what DAZ studio might be. Compiler