Blackhearted, after beaten ye olde strawman some more, says: yes, onc ecould argue that there is no way to determine consent in a render,

one could?  blink.  damn straight.  it's a given.  consent cannot apply to digital meshes.  they cannot give it.  they cannot even understand the concept.  they are not people, they're not even animals; they have no central nervous system, they cannot think, they cannot feel pain, they're not real.  digital meshes are like fiction.  no mystery author gets put on trial for murdering their own fictional characters either. 

one might make a contrary argument about a mesh that is intended to be a real person's physical likeness -- i am distinctly uncomfortable with renders that do so even in a completely wholesome context because they go over my line of data privacy:  i believe all people should own the right to their own data (which includes their physical likeness), and usage by others should be very strictly regulated, much more so than it is now.  i dislike real-people fic and tabloids as well, and don't consume them.

as to people's fantasies -- spare me your thought police.  fantasies are not criminal.  they are, like written fiction, and like 3D renders, imaginary.  there is no punishment for thinking bad thoughts, and that's a good thing, or we'd probably all be in jail.

Keith, that image rocks my socks.  :)

the demo at this point specifies windows only.  guess mac people need to wait a little longer before they can try it for free.

great project!

Sealtm2, there are three different ways to get working URLs, if neither works for you (and you're sure you're doing it right), then your browser might be the problem, or a bug in rosity's forum code in failing to deal properly with your browser.

1. if you only have one URL to share, you can put it in the long text fields below the reply input itself, where it says Link Name & Url.  the URL goes in the bottom (make sure you only have one "http://" at the start), the text you want for it in the top -- you can also leave that empty, then the URL itself will be the text).  this one has worked for me in all browsers i've tried.

2. if you want to share more than one URL, and if your browser shows two rows of icons and dropdown menus directly above the reply input, type the text for the URL (or paste the URL itself if you don't care about the text), highlight it, and click the tiny earth with a chainlink in the 2nd row.  a dialogue box will appear, where you can paste the URL.  click ok, and watch as the link appears in your reply input.  this does not work in all browsers, though if it doesn't work, you shouldn't even get those top two rows.  for example opera doesn't do it.

3. in those browsers where option 2 doesn't work (i tested this in opera), you can use standard html to insert a link: text on which to click.

disclaimer:  this is how things were last week.  they might have changed.  if you can't get anything to work, i suggest to report it in the community forum, it's possibly a bug.

Blackhearted, who gives a flying duck?  the only one yabbering on about rosity's TOS here is you.  the rest of us were having a perfectly civil discussion of perceptions -- about erotica, about porn, about art.  until you came in with your arrogant eye-rolling and your know-it-all pronouncement of how obvious porn is, and how absurd discussing it all is (yeah, so absurd that it's been discussed by lots of smart people, including the supreme court of the US, with its well known penchant for absurdity).

now that you've managed to completely derail that oh-so-absurd discussion, would it be too much to suggest that you spare yourself, go away and roll your eyes at our absurdity in private?  surely it's an enormous waste of your time to step down from your exalted level and mingle with us idiots.  in private you can think some more about fine-tuning your assertions, such as that it becomes blindingly obvious why a mild fetish image is unacceptable to families with 10-year olds and your business contacts (who are all perfect clones of yourself?), but hundreds of scantily clad (if that), large-breasted women with come-hither poses are perfectly conducive to that wholesome family atmosphere.   i must be completely unobservant of my neighbours, being as i think they'd consider those child-unsafe.

oops, did i just mock your superior knowledge?  us uppity peons just don't know our place...

looks good already!  you have a real talent for modelling.

which modelling program?  are you one of the new hexagon converts?  if so, there is a great camera modelling tutorial at eovia3d.net that shows how to make a lot of fiddly detail.  i think that might teach you everything you need to create greater clothing detail.

pockets i would probably model, but not an actual zipper.  way too many polies.  Realmling is right, use displacement maps for that.

1. tell him to donate to a charity that has a good record for spending the vast majority of donated money on their causes instead of their administration.  there are various charity watchdogs that provide assessment of charities, such as charity navigator and american institute of philanthropy for US charities.

yay, hexagon!  it's a lovely modeller.  building your own paperroll is a great early project because its geometry is very simple, and so is the uvmapping.

it's also very educational to look at professional models and their uvmapping.

indeed.  because honourable people know that circumstances beyond their control can intervene.  they might have an accident incapacitating them, or worse, they might die.  without a properly signed contract it's near impossible to collect from an estate.

i don't have faith in human nature (because it encompasses everything, from pure altruism to horrific cruelty), but i do put faith in the honour of some individuals i know.  that means i expect them to keep their promises if generally possible.  it doesn't mean i expect them to wield their influence upon bureaucracies from the great beyond.  :)

glad you just had a good experience, Tunesy.

i won't have use for this one (yet), but i want to take the opportunity to thank you for all your marvelous seam guides!  they've saved me so much headache.

no, it ain't the truth.  witness that despite the bald assertion that even debating it is absurd, blackhearted is now up to his neck in precisely the same discussion that the rest of us have previously managed to have without throwing out malarkey such as that.  here's a thought:  if you think a discussion is absurd, don't participate.  i'm gonna stay out of this turn of the debate because it's just the same old stuff that i've heard a million times over (which doesn't imbue it with any more insight or truth).  it's hard to have a good discussion in forums that digs a little deeper, and i appreciate that several of you hung in here this long and tried to look at things from different points of view.  that was really interesting.

Bobasaur, you tried to define art as:
Self expression through some medium that is separate and distinct from the artist. (includes visual arts, sculpture, writing, music etc.)

why separate and distinct from the artist?  what about dance?  singing, for that matter?  spoken poetry?  acting?

and does "self expression" relate only to things intrinsic to the artist's personality (which is how i normally interpret that term)?  for me there is more to it than that -- i am almost more interested in expressing things that aren't part of me at all, but that affect me in some way.  are my ideas about the world still categorizable as "self expression"? 

hm.  allow me to inject a dose of realism.  if you can't find the time during the day, and don't want to invest much effort because you're too busy with the rest of your life (which is completely understandable), most software will remain a frustrating mystery to you.  it's not about you being a dummy (poser is not that hard; you can write and read, i am positive you can figure it out :), but it is about concentration, and anchoring beginner skills in your memory and your fingers.  creating art of any kind requires that one learn the skills, from the ground up.  even if you use no computer at all, if you were trying to learn oil painting the flowers in your neighbour's garden, you'd have to learn about how oil paint behaves, how to hold brushes, about colour mixing, and many other things.  putting hair and clothes on your first poser figure is the mere start; there is lots of learning yet to come if you want to create something you can be proud of, or at the very least can have fun with.

i suggest that you pick a time, 30-60 min every couple of days, when your kids are asleep, and you're done with chores, and give poser your undivided attention.  then try those beginner's tutorials which are giving you trouble now.  start at the very beginning; don't try to jump ahead.  i bet you'll find them pretty easy when you're not trying to do 10 different things at once.  later, when you've learned the basics, it'll be easier to fit poser into your busy day, but i've yet to meet anyone who can learn foundations well without a quiet environment in which one can concentrate.  give yourself that time, and you'll start enjoying poser instead of wanting to throw it against the wall and wondering whether DAZ studio is easier.  it, too, has a learning curve -- anything that has tutorials written for it does.  :)

yes, you can.  you need to select the head of the figure first.  then look at the parameter panel -- you will find various morphs there.  exactly what morphs there are depends on the figure, but the poser 5 and 6 people all come with basic head morphs which you can use to make them smile.

i highly recommend reading the manual that came with poser, and to follow the tutorials.  what is your native language?

saying that in a poser forum is ... odd.  maybe even ironic.  i mean, after all there are all those people out there too, why do we need digital ones?

yes, there is an actual sky out there (i enjoy it often, being as it's particularly interesting where i live), but it doesn't always conveniently look just the right way for our scenes.  and not everyone is a decent photographer, and has a huge collection of sky images so one can whip out just the right one.  i have a pretty big collection, but it's by no means comprehensive.

besides which, some people like the challenge of procedural shading.

i don't even get what's supposed to be sad about it.

what acadia said.  those you listed, except for nerd's, are overkill if all you want is display some image in the background.  nerd's is useful because it also gives you a seamless (flat) ground along with your backdrop, which tends to add to realism, but you need to prepare images for it if you want to use your own.  but if you consider buying nerd's, you might also look at RDNA's infinity cove 2.