Yes, it should be noted that the main Poser executable is still a single threaded 32-bit application. You need to go to the preferences and make sure that the Separate Process box is checked to make use of multi-threading and 64-bit instructions.

For the same reason, doing an Area Render will take just as long on a 64-bit multicore system because Poser still handles Area Renders internally and won't make use of the external renderer.

And yeah, Adobe is slow to adopt new technology. They've put off 64-bit and multi-threading for a long time.

That's completely untrue. Sounds like you need to find a new "computer guy" because this one doesn't have a clue.

Both Windows XP Pro 64-bit and Vista x64 can still run 32-bit applications just fine. There were some hardware issues when Vista first came out, but those have either been resolved or the hardware in question is so old that either most people likely aren't using it anymore/it died from old age/it should probably be replaced anyway.

As for having both a 32-bit and a 64-bit operating system installed at the same time, there's no need for it. If you have either XP Pro 64-bit or Vista x64 installed, you'll no longer need the 32-bit version. 64-bit operating systems can do everything that 32-bit OSs can. Think of it as going from a three string instrument to six strings. It can play all the same songs with the same notes, but now it can play more complex chords as well.

That said, if and when you upgrade from whatever version of Windows you currently have to either XP Pro 64-bit or Vista 64-bit, you will need to reinstall just about all of your software. Unlike upgrading from XP to Vista, you can't go from 32-bit to 64-bit without doing a fresh installation of Windows and thus most of your applications will need to be reinstalled.

Quote - lol @ Shorterbus , i agree totally. but now the weekend has arrived i can get back to what i love,
i will be putting in some serious poser time on monday, tomorow is family day... so all have a good sunday and see you back here for more mud

So it's been about three months. Did you make any further progress on the mud shader?

Quote - Hmmm, I don't mean to sound "catty", but I've often wondered how some women make it to "supermodel" status and others don't.  To me Sasha is very ordinary looking and not someone I'd look at and think "She should be a model."  

Most fashion models don't look like what you'd call "attractive" . That's not the intent. They're supposed to fit some warped aesthetic that the designers want. It's the same reason why they're almost all anorexic. They're not going for beauty or sex appeal.

For instance, Kate Moss is not that pretty. She's actually kinda weird looking because her eyes are set so far apart. The next so-called "top model", Agyness Deyn, is even less pretty and even weirder looking. I cannot fathom why they're so popular in the fashion world.

Also quite important is that the renderer in Poser Pro is truly multi-threaded, so if you have two or four cores, you will see a significant improvement over Poser 7. Combine that with the potential for 64-bit support and there is a large performance advantage in favor of Poser Pro.

And then, of course, there's the fact that Poser Pro has a Gamma Correction function. Bagginsbill showed why that's such an important feature in this thread. It really makes a huge difference in realism.

Quote - @**cobaltdream

I sent you sitemail.

****JWFokker,
No, I am not using any GC as GC is in the shader tree (VSS prop) already if I'm not mistaken. I did not reduce the intensity ,as in the preview window (with the default settings), her skin looked dark and I figured it would get darker with less light/intensity.
**

Okay, that rules out the possibility that you were simply applying GC twice, but you will definitely want to try reducing the light intensity because the Preview window is not at all representative of the final render when it comes to light. In fact, the Preview window is so much darker than the render that I generally use an extra IBL light at 100% intensity or higher to light the scene while I'm posing it, and then turn it off when I need to render the scene. Reduce the light intensities by 1/3 or 1/2 and then do a render. The results should be quite different, but not what you'd call too dark. You'll likely have a richer image because the colors won't be so washed out. If that turns out not to be the case, then I'd go back to my first suggestion, which was that the Shine values need to be adjusted for darker/browner skintones.

Quote - > Quote - actually... i think it's not too shiny.  it's too desaturated, and your hightlights are too grey and don't show enough sss.  google image search for references with the skin tone and lighting you want.

I'd like her skintone to look the same as in her promo...only VSS-ified. LOL

Are you using any form of gamma correction, either Poser Pro's integrated GC function or Bagginsbill's Artistic Lens method?

Did you reduce the intensity of the BB Indoor lights? Those light sets were released for use with VSS 1, and later version of VSS don't need lights that bright.

In my opinion, her skin is reflecting too much light which makes her look too shiny, almost like plastic. I've had that problem with certain skins for V4 too, particularly with black characters. In fact, it may be only really noticeable on black skin. You could turn up the IBL intensity and lower the Infinite light intensity, or the better solution may be to adjust the various Shine values in the VSS prop.

Quote - > Quote - The hundreds of thousands who are newly unemployed each week are near the bottom in terms of income to begin with.

that's not quite true.  again, the jobs i know of that have been cut in my parents area are all middle to upper middle class jobs.  in fact, one person i know of who was laid off was making 15,000 a month.  before bonuses.

It's called a generalization. Obviously there have been some who lost their jobs who were making several hundreds of thousands a year or more and even a handful of executives making much more than that, but the VAST majority who face the near-term prospect of unemployment or are currently unemployed are or were below the average gross income in the US. The small percentage who have been laid off who were above the average gross income are still few enough that they don't bear mentioning.

Quote - I saw an interesting thread today about the economy. Is the economic crisis real or hyped? I read with horror all the stories about people losing jobs, hocking tools to pay utilities, stuff like that.

...

It looks to me like there is a HUGE number of people who have no problem with the economy. So I don't know what to think, really. Looks like normal around here.

Oh well.

The majority haven't experienced any problems yet, and the higher you are above the average income level, the longer it will be before you feel the effect of the current economic downturn. The hundreds of thousands who are newly unemployed each week are near the bottom in terms of income to begin with. These are people who are earning minimum wage or just above (retail employees, non-union factory workers, etc).  Because they're considered the "least valuable" in the eyes of executives and shareholders, they'll get cut first. But they couldn't afford to go skiing (or take any sort of vacation for that matter), so the majority of job cuts going on right now won't be visible in places like ski resorts. When highly trained individuals in technical or developmental positions start getting cut, you'll have seen it coming for quite some time because the company will have been in bad shape for a while.

Remember that this recession has only been going on for about a year now. It wasn't actually recognized as such until nearly halfway through 2008. Many companies are trying to just scrape by for a few quarters and not cut whole projects or make other significant long term changes. They think the economy is going to start to turn around by Q3/Q4 2009. I wouldn't count on it. Even you might be feeling the squeeze by then.

It's probably worth posting what you have Irradiance Caching and AO Bias set to.

Quote - Enjoy your vacation. Looks great.

About the economy crisis - I work in a german loan and savings bank as database admin. It looks frightening real from  here. There are still some risks which aren't resolved, which means that the trust between the banks isn't going to return soon. The next wave will most probably be started by the credit card companies, when more and more people aren't able to repay their depts. In January alone, more than 500.000 people lost their job and won't be able to spend a lot of money any more. (source: http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.nr0.htm ) How many will it be in February? In March? Noone nows, no prediction I know came even close to the real numbers. 

And then, there is ALG, the next major problem. Another case of "too big to fail", whith about 300 billions of dollars at risk. I would love to see a sign that it's a hype, but from what I have seen, it isn't. 

Don't forget the huge number of Alt-A and Option ARM loans that are going to be resetting over the next two years. Just as the subprime loans are running out, the Alt-A and Option ARM loan resets are now are ramping up and they won't be done until the middle of 2012.

Quote - JWF:

In the screen shot of the template, you cut off the top so I can't see which template zone that is.

Why does this matter?

Because you show me a PR3 shader in a template, but on your figure is the PR2 shader. That means the template you screen shoted is not being copied to the figure. I'd know better what is happening if you went to the figure and loaded a non-VSS shader first. Then you could find out which is the case: 1) not changing the figure at all, or 2) changing the figure to some other template than the one you think it is.

• You've accidentally loaded the PR3 skin shader onto some template zone that is NOT Template Skin. In which case, the shader it is copying is not the one you think it is.

It's clear to me you didn't notice the significance of the fact that those two shaders look nothing like each other. VSS copies the nodes exactly into the target, including all the PM: nodes. Since they're not there its clear that the PR3 shader is not being copied. I just don't know why you have a PR2 shader on the figure. You didn't say what the initial state of the figure was before you tried to Synchronize.

You're right. I did not realize the significance of it.

Evidently I missed the crucial step of specifically applying the PR3 MAT file to the Template Skin sub-section of the VSS PR2 control prop. This entire time I've been simply selecting the VSS prop in the Materials Room and immediately applying the PR3 MAT file, which must have been applying it only to the Preview area. So I've been using PR2 these past few weeks without realizing it. Serves me right for not reading the instructions completely I suppose.

I noticed that Math Functions 2 still shows 2.2, which I assume to be the gamma correction parameter.

Also, either Math Functions 6 or Math Functions 11 look to be the Shine Spread parameter, but they do not change from 0.7 when I change the Shine Spread parameter on the VSS prop and Synchronize.

It turns out that they aren't (at least with certain textures) and I don't know why.

Here are my VSS prop settings (AO removed in favor of full scene light based AO). I have Poser Pro, so I changed the VSS Gamma Correction from 2.2 to 1.