I thought the All-Stars were the hightops? Guess not...But to respond, no, haven't seen anything close. I could dig some hightop ones though....

Attached Link: http://digitalbabes2.com/tutorial/hair.html

It's hard to tell with all of the rain, but I'm guessing it's all about textures. I've not messed with facial hair much, but I know I've seen some people do it with their textures and it looks real nice. Get in there and start playing with it pixel by pixel. Otherwise, looking good so far.

How interesting. Makes you wonder a bit...but what about that $30 "processing" charge?

I looked at Nerd's page again and read closely the tutorial I passed over. It's the one that talks about this stuff, and it would appear my initial understanding about how it works is how it works (meaning, no magnets, conforms to the morphs of the body). Spiffy stuff. I think I'll look into giving it a whirl Thursday or Friday when I have several hours to waste by ripping out my hair trying to do something I probably shouldn't be attempting. :) Wish me luck! Thanks for putting me back on the right track, JKeller.

I'm guessing that tutorial isn't what I'm looking for. If you go into the free stuff directory, do a search for "halter." Item #5 should be Nerd's super conforming (EMC, whatever that is) halter top. What it does is it automatically morphs when you turn the dials on P4NW's chest. So if you turn the "small" or "large" dial up/down, the halter top automatically morphs to fit (within reason of course). What I'm looking for is how to do this. I haven't found anything on it yet, and Nerd's tutorials don't really cover this. I was wondering if perhaps anyone else had covered it or at least knew how to do it, or even how hard it is. It's a major pain to make the clothing "fit" right over small breasts using magnets, but this does a pretty good job (of course editing the actual mesh seems like the best way, but that's probably way out of my league, and possibly price range, depending on what programs would have to be used). Hope that explains it. Will check back in a bit and hope someone knows what I'm talking about. :)

I don't have Vicky now, but I may have to think about getting her when 2.0 is done. I missed the sale on everything for the grand opening, so I hope they do some sort of sale on her again.

Gotta agree completely on holding off. Been getting a little tired of it all because it's such a mess right now. We should have a better understanding once they get a chance to compile the FAQ and are themselves prepared to answer questions. Maybe some cooler heads will prevail anyhow. darchangel, gotta take you to task (sorry, can't help it). This system won't work. Why? No system is faultless. Even Microsoft knows their security in XP will be cracked (which is very similar). Here's a quote that I'll let do the talking for me: "Weve determined that a crack will be out for this method of activation within one week after RTM, but this is not to stop those guys. This is to stop the casual piracy of Windows, and I think it will be a viable solution. Bottom line is you should pay for the software you use."

Ok, first, clothing. A lot of the clothing doesn't like extreme bends, or in some cases, not so extreme bends. About the only thing I've been able to do is patch it up in post work (or change the scaling just a little bit, but be careful you don't make things TOO big). Perhaps someone more experienced knows a better way.... For trans maps, I'm not sure what you mean by "both files," but here's the quick and dirty: select your trans map, set your transparency level (max to 100%, min to 100% if you want but don't have to, and falloff to 0), and set the highlight and ambient to black. That's pretty much it. If, however, by "both files" you mean you're loading a regular texture as well, then you want to set the object color to white, otherwise you may not get the results you wanted with the regular texture. Hope it helps!

If you're going with something like a "Joe Smith: Activation Code - 1234567890" for a record, that'd be more tolerable and far less intrusive. But you still run into the problem that some people don't like companies knowing anything about them, plus it goes back to the whole asking for permission to reinstall. If the intention is to use this type of system, there's no real way around the whole permission thing. That stinks. Oh well I guess, have to wait and see how it turns out.

Ok, for everyone that's supported the idea of the proposed change, there seems to be this general ignoring of a certain point: it's the principle! This is compromising privacy, conveniency, and is generally annoying. We don't want to have to go through this hassle, and yes, like some, I don't have those expensive programs that hassle you. I can't afford them, I'll be the first to admit it, but it's the principle here that makes me not like this system (on top of potential problems). All of these door analogies are driving the point home, but CL doesn't seem to see the point, or at least don't agree with it. This isn't a $5000 piece of software, this is a $200 one, and well, this is quite a security measure for its price range, especially considering that it won't work. No security is infallible. It may delay warez copies, but it won't prevent them. Besides, would those people have bought it anyway? I don't want to jump through hoops. I don't want a program hiding information on my computer. I don't want a program keeping tabs on what I do to my comptuer. I don't want my privacy to be compromised. I REALLY don't want to have to get permission to reinstall if I change my system around "more [times] than is reasonable" (and I do). That amounts to looking for another solution for my hobby. It's that simple, although I wish it wasn't, since I really like the product. And to anyone wondering about my Cooper reference, read Mark Twain's criticisms on James Fenimore Cooper. It's a riot! (Although, it helps to have read Cooper first. :))

"The purchaser should have some sort of unique identifier that is traceable or verifiable somehow...." That almost sounds something like installing a little "spy" program that sends its information (however limited to Poser) out to a central server, and I know that won't go over well with people based on what I've read. Many people have already expressed how wary they are of having any sort of identifier on their computer since they are seeing it as a security risk for their own system. Whether that's a legitimate argument or not, based on what I've read, it's not practical if you don't want to anger/worry/upset the end user. I think the point I've been worrying about and trying to find out is that regardless of what they do for protection, it will be broken. The best coders out there are hackers and crackers, and well, that's frightening. CL has all right to enjoy sales from their program and should not have to worry about their programs being mass distributed, but again, reality has to step in at some point. This system will not stop piracy, it might delay it a bit, but the end user who bought it is going to have to deal with potential (I think that's a key word here, potential) problems with this security. Some may get it and never have a problem with it, while those of us who replace hardware (hard drives in this case, especially crashed ones or newer and bigger ones), are going to have to deal with talking with someone to be allowed to install a product we own. That's inconvenient. Someone used an analogy of a bank account and all of the trouble of identifying yourself for it, and while that's a fine argument, it's not realistic. When a person sits down in front of a computer, by my experience, they have different expectations. And those expectations right now don't allow for security measures that make things difficult for them when they're used to things going smoothly and easily. When they have to go through new processes, especially those that aren't computer savy, they get upset right quick. New features are great, but new hoops are not. Again, I may be entirely wrong here, and I hope I am, but I see this stuff all of the time. I work with people, and the majority do NOT like it when things chang, and are apt to express it in no uncertain terms.

"We do know that other companies using this type of protection have been very successful." Steve, which other programs using a "similar" (read: hardware coded serial key) are out there that have proven successful at stopping piracy (or at least reducing it)? The only thing I know of right now using this type of protection is Windows XP and Office XP, and it's a bit early to say anything about their success (or lack thereof). I'm more knowledgable about OSes and such since Poser is more of a hobby, but I really don't want to jump through hoops to use it. That's also why I won't get XP anything. Windows 2000, although expensive, didn't make me jump through hoops to use. Thanks for taking the time to be involved on here, I know we all appreciate it.

Well, I tried the magnets you suggested GrayMare and they were ok, but I decided to give it a whirl one more time with my own. 4 magnets (2 per) and a good chunk of time later and I have a pretty generic magnet set that's working well (so far) on a couple of different pieces of clothing. There's still a little more tweaking to be done I'm sure, but they're not too bad considering how badly I stink with magnets (leaving the clothing a bit lumpy, but not atrociously so). At any rate, all of the stuff suggested so far is appreciated, and seeing others' magnets was a help in getting me to get off my rear end and try making my own. :) Nance, thanks for the suggestions, and well, I'll see how far I get with my magnets and then maybe I'll look those up. :) Thanks again folks.

It's been said that regardless of what they do, it will be broken (security, of course). I may be entirely wrong with what sort of pirate they're trying to stop, but they're not going to stop those that know what they're doing and know how to get it out. Don't believe me? Windows XP is doing something similar and I bet it gets cracked. Software protection seems more geared towards stopping the casual pirate. SecureROM, SafeDisc, and similar methods stop average people from copying CDs, while you have dongles for preventing installation/usage, which are harder for the common person to get around I would wager (depending on how it is implemented). I don't know entirely where I stand. They should have the right to make and sell a good product without the hassle (and cost of designing and implenting) of creating a security system, but that's not being realistic. However, a system this complex is bound to anger more than one person, not to mention cost a lot of time, money, and effort in development that could be spent on adding/fixing features for the program. Maybe those who make a living using the program will be more inclined to continue supporting CL, but for the people like me who just do it for fun and for a creative outlet with no personal gains other than enjoyment, will we put up with the hassle? I don't know about others, but I know that now I'm going to look around and see what else is available, or maybe I'll just keep what I have now and not worry about getting the next version if it means dealing with hardware codes on a computer that is constantly having hardware upgraded. Higher security at the cost of alienating users, or lower security and allowing the casual pirate (who in many cases wouldn't buy it anyway) to use it. Tough call, especially when you don't have billions of dollars to draw from. Wish them the best, but I hope they're not naive enough to think they're going to stop all piracy. That's just a challenge that's bound to get you in trouble. Don't believe me? Ask Microsoft.