Quote - I have a similar issue that occurs between V4's figure parts, like shoulders/torso etc. It doesn't always happen with all parts, and not with all skins.. But can happen with skins that normally work fine.

If it's a bug of sort, it'd be nice to know what causes it.  The white lines in Becky's screenshot look very similar to some of the stuff I've been struggling with. (And eventually had to solve in PSP manually, later.)

It's not a bug, you just have to reduce the minimum shading rate in the render options.
An object farther away from the camera needs a lower value, where you can raise it if an object is closer.
The reason you either see or don't see those gaps in the textures depends on how the texture was applied to the UV  map, whether it overlapped the edges of were exactly to the edges. 

Poser is actually blameless on this one...
I think it might also have something to do with mipmapping, but that would only involve the OpenGL preview. If you see the gaps in the preview, you know you definitely need to reduce the minimum shading rate. By default it's at 1.0,  and anywhere between. .02-.05 seems to be pretty good, but that will always depend on how far your figures are from the camera.

Quote -

e.g. the 'big bang' theory.  the theorists exist in a culture dominated by religion, which is reflected
in their absurd ideations about how the universe was somehow created ex nihilo, and their concept
of linear time forces them to believe that the universe has a beginning and an end.

hence we might have a theoretical physicist apologising for his deficiencies: yes, the big bang implies
items in the universe are expanding away from each other, but we can observe galaxies colliding.
yes, we have a big bang and a universe consisting of various particles and forces, but we can't
account for 70 - 90% of what should be there.  so please give us another few billions of currency
units that might otherwise go to feeding the homeless, caring for the sick, or other trivia.

I would suggest you go and read up on the latest advances in physics before suggesting it's absurd that matter can be created out of nothing. It can and does.
It's not just "their concept of linear time" that makes them believe the universe has a beginning, it's what the evidence shows.
Galaxies are observed colliding because all galaxies exist in their own "local groups" of galaxies where local gravity can override the force of expansion and cause some to collide. The red shift that Hubble first observed does in fact prove all galaxies are moving away at a continuously accelerating rate though. No contradiction there.
They have accounted for all the matter in the universe - dark energy and dark matter. It's not just theoretical anymore, and it actually makes up the majority of the stuff in  the universe. Actual matter is only about 4% of the entire volume of the universe.

I don't know if you're religious or just have something against physicists, but if these are your assumptions upon which you base your beliefs, you might want to update your knowledge of the current state of physics.

Elwine and nruddock, I appreciate the info. :-)

Quote - I didn't write that part and don't know how to change it.

It could actually be tighter - look at the descender in Right Shoulder - plenty of extra space there.

This is a classic case of UI "usability" giving conflicting data. On the one hand, cramping menu items is considered poor usability. On the other, a list that is always long and can be made shorter is annoying. I think the implementors simply used the wxWidget menu as it behaves by default.

Personally, I don't use that to pick parts - I use the hierarchy window.

Thanks for the reply, BB, and I was afraid of that.
Yeah, I could use the hierarchy window, sure, but that gets cluttered with several figures and dozens of props in a scene. The drop down menus are at least isolated to the currently selected figure only.

Thank you too, Elfwine. Do you mean edit the actual Poser.exe file? I'm not sure I want to try that because what I'm doing right now has an ominously looming deadline and with my luck I'll screw something up and cause crashes right at the wrong time. ;-)
I wouldn't even know how to go about it anyway.

Okay and thanks again. :-)
I hope he sees this, meanwhile I'll mess around with it some.

I'd like to suggest maybe a bad RAM module.
I don't know at all how Mac deals with its hardware, but I once had a bad RAM module that only had certain memory addresses or sectors or whatever that were messed up. Windows failed to detect it and the only way I was able to figure out the problem was by running Memtest 86, using all the deep stress tests.
The symptoms were seen in inexplicable weirdness in programs using lots of RAM. Not Poser, but Zbrush and Softimage. I replaced the faulty RAM and all the problems stopped.

Might be worth looking into at least, if you can find a free Mac utility that does a deep stress test for RAM problems. In the case of my problem, the RAM wasn't maxing out, so it didn't matter if it was enough or not - it was only when it tried to use certain memory addresses I suppose.

Quote - that's the problem with particle physics dogma IMVHO: - big bang

• dark matter
• finite age of universe
• finite size of universe
• linear time

they've got to the point where they're starting to understand that it's an infinite loop,
e.g. black holes dump their matter/energy out of white holes, but they still cling to
the above as self-evident truths.

When you say "they" you imply all of them, as if the physicists were all in agreement with some standard. It's true that most of them seem to prefer clinging to basics... but then they frequently have to appear "mainstream" to keep the grant money flowing. ;-)

There are many though who are more than willing to totally dump their preconceived notions or their pet theories when confronted by new realities, so it will continue going forward.

Quote - Font is correct. The spacing is as expected.  If it were closer, letters that have decenders would appear cramped

Well okay I appreciate the answer. :-)
But I don't really care if they appear cramped, it would be better than having to scroll down all the time.
Is there a way to use a different font for just Poser without changing the whole system font?
Or even if not, a way to remove the spaces or force them all closer together?

Quote - font depends on country. mine is helvetica.  maybe you can put screen shot of list, can see from appearance if font is correct

Screenshot above in previous post. ;-)

Quote - I don't have such a large space in list of parts.  Maybe the font it is using has been corrupted somehow, or it has substituted some other font when not found.

It's a fresh install on Windows 7 x64, also a fairly recent install.
What font is it supposed to be using and how do I change it?

Okay thanks for the replies, guys.

Bagginsbill, I get what you're saying. Now I see why.
I'm using Pro 2010, and with the GC, yeah, it just doesn't work.

Sam Therapy, thanks for the suggestions. I don't know how to script, but I'll look into that shader spider thingie. Might be useful for other things anyway.

Edit-
Well it looks like Shader Spider only works with Poser 7, according to the DAZ page, but I appreciate the suggestion anyway.

Just so I don't look totally dumb about it, I imagine there's a good reason for it - or at least a reason that makes sense for Poser use, but I'm not seeing it.

I'm guessing there's some supposed "realism" aspect to the idea, but at the same time, if they're shooting for realism, I'd have to question the reasoning behind setting the diffuse value to 1 - Meaning if they're using that light blue in some attempt to make the skin look more real, then I would think they would also set the diffuse value lower while they're at it, since skin doesn't have 100% diffuse in reality - more like 70% or so.

Quote -

Does religion play a part there ? On a evidential level I'd seriously doubt it.  Though what it does does is provide comfort for those who need it/disbelive science/etc etc and if that helps them through the day, then fair play to the belivers..  

Major problem with religion though is it tends to get too powerful, like governments.
Of course that's the fault of those who run their various religions - the "prophets", the priests, all the various officials and administrators, and not to mention the nutcase fringe groups who create their own versions for the sake of some form of control.

So religion in and of itself isn't dangerous or bad and only can become so in the hands of leaders with their own agendas.

For many it provides comfort, but for many it provides the perfect justification for their anger and prejudices...

I personally have a serious problem with the fact that our not-so-distant ancestors allowed their religious leaders to become so powerful that they in effect set back our scientific progress by hundreds of years. The Roman Catholic Church imprisoned Galileo for telling the truth about what he saw in our solar system and set a precedent that scientists needed to be VERY  afraid of what they say.
Who knows how far along we  would be by now if it hadn't been for the organized and methodical suppression of knowledge that went on for centuries under the rule of The Church?

And now in the 21st century, with our massive radio telescopes, our Hubble space telescope, the Large Hadron Collider, and all our accumulated knowledge... it's payback time. ;-)

Quote - i hate to alienate those whose "side" i'm on but i have to mention something about science.

science boosters tend to have the opinion that science is proving things and talk about what science knows.  they're pretty secure in this position.  i think this is an error.  science is not about what is known.  science is an admission that things are unknown, and that even today's comfortable "facts" will become yesterday's misinformation or disproven scientific theory.

I agree mostly with what you said, but I didn't want a full page for a quote so I cut it. ;-)

RE what science knows and doesn't know, I was watching a lecture on teh interwebs by an astrophysicist from the University of Arizona (I think it was UA), and he was talking about how we came about our knowledge of the universe in terms of modern science and the history of astronomy and physics and all that.
Pretty interesting stuff if you're into all that. ;-)

So anyway, he said that 100 billion years from now, which will still be long before the universe has died from chronic entropy, all the galaxies of the universe will have moved so far apart, not even the strongest and best radio telescopes any civilization could ever have, will be able to see them.
Obviously Earth and its sun will have been long dead by that point, but any civilization anywhere will have this problem , since all the matter clusters (galaxies and galaxy clusters)of the universe have been all moving away from each other and accelerating since the Big Bang.

And the problem is that there will be a "wall" of impenetrable radiation between anybody's position anywhere in the universe and all the other galaxies which is what will make it impossible to see anything.

So, an astronomer on any planet anywhere in the universe 100 billion years from now will see only his own galaxy's stars and nothing else. Even his civilization's most powerful radio telescopes will show nothing but utter nothingness "out there". Their own galaxy will give them all they need in terms of observation and testing to determine all the basic laws of physics, and they will be able to speculate of course, but they will never be able to come to the Big Bang conclusion definitively - there will be no supporting evidence whatsoever about how the universe began or even IF  it ever had a beginning.

I thought that was all pretty interesting. If we were in that situation now, our universe would for all intents and purposes be utterly empty, aside from us and our own little galaxy, floating along in a vast sea of nothingness with no idea how large it is, and no idea how it began, and no way to determine it.

The religious people of the far far future will have a much easier time convincing people of their own versions of Creationism, and science won't ever be able to refute it. ;-)