Either that or being Bryce 5 specific it has no function after the 30 day trial of Bryce. Unfortunately I'm waiting for a replacement cd as mine was cracked. Damn postman.

As a side note. Studio export fixes a lot of object import problems people previously experienced importing poser stuff into Bryce. There's also a new version of Grouper which used to be the "must have" utility for poser to bryce.

Bryce doesn't import pz3 like Vue but that's not really an issue as the pz3 is just a bloated object carrier anyway. :)

Grouper is avalable from
http://www.castironflamingo.com/tutorial/grouper/index.html

Just in case you feel like experimenting and having no time or life at all. :)

Message edited on: 11/10/2004 08:54

Well, Bryce 4 on the cd is a full version. All Bryce 5 introduces is different light setups (soft shadows etc, extending render times) the tree lab which I'm not overly impressed by and a revised interface (silver with less icons). I like 5 for some of the toys but version 4 is still a good solid renderer and scenic generator. Not much to learn either. It's a fairly simple interface and you should be up and flying in a few minutes, after that it gets deeper and you can play a lot with things. Check out Pinhead's stuff along with Gevidal and Harrison2 at 3DCommune for an example of what you can do with Bryce. Some amazing work in there. Yeah, I confess, I like Bryce. I don't use it much these days but couldn't put it down for three years when I was using it. It's a fun toy and has a very good (if slow) scanline renderer.

No idea. If it's anything like the Corel demo it will be 30 day and save disabled but otherwise fully functional.

With the current beta of Studio (0.9.8.5), demo of Bryce 5 and full version Bryce 4. In case nobody has that yet, and the Studio content thingie along with 31 models (max, dxf) to create a tutorial scene in Bryce.

Most of the clothing available is "conforming" clothes. This means they'll match the figure position but not always the shape - if you've changed it with morphs. In order to get that to happen automatically select the hip of the figure you want to clothe, then load the clothing figure and it should conform to that model. If it doesn't (and once in a while it won't) Select the clothing model in the scene listing (one of the menus on the side) then in the Properties pallete scroll down until you see a bar saying "Fit To", click on that and select the figure you want the clothing to belong to from the drop down box. You might have some, what is called, "poke through". This unfortunately is often unavoidable and sometimes you'll need to make a body part invisible to hide it. That can be done in the properties window as well after selecting the body part. This will be more noticeable in poses that stretch or bend limbs beyond minimal movement parameters - such as sitting, kneeling, stretching. That's a limitation in the way joints are set up inside most files. Hopefully (one day) that will get fixed by having a more modern and logical or at least versatile joint system.

As far as I know all of the character kits from Wyrmmaster use magnets. Studio does not recognise poser magnets at this time and may never use them. As for Poser all the stuff you mention should work fine unless you don't have the full victoria 3 from Daz (http://www.daz3d.com) The version of Victoria that comes with Studio is the RR (Reduced Resolution) version and only textures/clothes will work with that model. For victoria 3 characters and morphs to work you will need the full version and the two morph packs that go with it - around 60 dollars investment. If you already have the victoria 3 model (not the RR version) then you just need the head and body morph packs as almost all the characters available use those rather than original morphs.

Just as a FYI on the standard rifle model. There are three basic configurations of the Galil, all available in calibers 5.56mm NATO or 7.62mm NATO: The ARM is equipped with a bipod, wooden handguard and carrying handle. It is intended for use as an assault rifle and squad automatic weapon. The AR is equipped with a high-impact-plastic handguard without a bipod or carrying handle. The barrel length of both, in caliber 5.56mm NATO, is 18.5 inches with the flash suppressor (and 21.0 inches for the 7.62mm NATO models). Both are available in semiauto-only and selective-fire versions. The SAR is a short-barreled version of the AR model. It has a barrel length of only 13.5 inches in 5.56mm (15.8 inches in the 7.62mm version) and, as a consequence, is available in the United States as a selective-fire weapon only. Its gas tube and piston are 1 1/8 inches shorter than the other models. The 5.56mm NATO Galils all have six-groove barrels with a right-hand 1:12-inch twist for the M193 ball projectile. All three are normally issued with a folding stock, although a wooden buttstock is an available option.

Image shows the sniper configuration available in 7.62 (edited to add) You can find out a bit more about the Galil at IMI http://www.imi-israel.com/ and specifically the Galil here... http://www.imi-israel.com/imi/doa_iis.dll/Serve/item/English/1.1.2.12.2.2.html You'll note the first image in the rack is the sniper version. :)

Message edited on: 11/02/2004 03:07

snicker Funny, the poser manual has a lot of bugs in it too, mostly a massive lack of particularly useful information. Strangely, it's written by the same fellow writing the Studio manual. I wonder if there's a trend? :) The Studio manual will need to pay particular attention to the interface - accurately - because there's a lot of functions and tools buried behind the sliders and panels, things that are not intuitive for people to find. They've been working on the beta for a while, it certainly has a while to go yet. One can only hope they won't follow the dead chicken cargo cult programming methods and release it "mostly working", it'd be nice to see "fully functional" software for a change. :)

Actually there were links in that thread. I posted them. To a group vocal in opposition to the law and to the government bills themselves. They weren't clickable links but they were there. Perhaps one of the hall monitors here thought I'd secretly posted a link to the site in question, or perhaps they just thought the risk of the clues presented in the first post were too clear. I do think Archangel was right to post what he did because it alerts people to what's happening. Plus it helps to outline to those who are quite vocal in disclaiming that poser or it's models are used to create hard core porn. It's unfortunate they deleted the thread, but, I can understand why. I've had more than one clash with people who were, erm. extremely hostile to the suggestion that poser is used to create porn, and that the kiddie models are used in that production. Things like the original post highlight that fact and alert people to the real problem that has little or nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with perversion. Another problem with the original post, above and beyond exposing people to whatever was on that site is a little more subtle. As I've found from my own server logs. People clicking a link, or leaving rosity following a link, leave a source header at the visiting server. This, if the site in question has (and it's pretty certain they will) any kind of browser interrogator on their server, means that they know where a bunch of people came from. Last thing rendo needs is a trackback from a CP site and a bunch of curious perverts poking about. There are multiple ways to get that information but the most common apparently is from browser history. What's more worrisome (as I found a while back) is that session key and data is left with that header information - if people move straight from the thread to that site they may have left login info. That's another discussion though... Secondary to all that would be the risk of warning the site in question that they've been spotted and what's being done about it. If one of the people from that site, followed a server trackback here... noticed that post and the information within it, they'd have advance warning of incoming problems, completely defeating anything that might be done against them. so what would the fbi be able to do about it? Simple. Implication. If these people have created digital porn of that nature, then there is an extremely good chance they're traders in it. This might lead to either a ring or a single large scale trader in the real stuff. Just because virtual isn't illegal yet doesn't mean these people aren't quietly trading in real cp under the surface. The virtual site attracts those who want that sort of thing, leading to discussion, conversation, deals, trading... The FBI have every right to be informed and to investigate the site in question. They might just stumble onto something else and it's that something else which is still illegal. Personally I could care less about the faeries, cg CP should be made illegal irrelevant of the poor little souls screaming for their whatever ammendment rights.

There's a s***load of information out on the web regarding the CDA, you could start here http://www.epic.org/free_speech/CDA/ The referenced FCC Telecommunications Act http://www.fcc.gov/telecom.html Just drop Communications Decency Act into any search engine, you'll have lots to keep you busy for a few weeks. If you're interested in the government bills. 1/ http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:1:./temp/~c108gbexuO:: 2/ http://rs9.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?c108:2:./temp/~c108gbexuO:: These don't just cover imagery but a variety of other things as well, you'll have to search through. I came up with about 50 bills all from the 108th Congress, so you can see how extensive this is. Anyway, that should get you started.

So who bit who's hand? Not sure what you mean by that statement, rather erroneous as well considering that whatever was bitten has been healed and moved on. I seem to recall from that time that it was CL biting everything and everyone around them - in the ass mostly... Oh well, that's the beauty of history, we can change it all we like with a couple well placed and completely innocent words. One small correction though. Daz weren't battling with Poser (anymore than any other user of that software anyway), they had a licensing disagreement with Curious Labs and had some reservations about paying large sums of money for CL to make Vickie/Mike compatible with the face room. Studio was also announced "after" it all hit the fan, though they'd been in the design stages before P5 fell over and choked. It has been two years, yes it has. Almost a whole year of beta for Studio as well. Gosh, I guess writing a rather complex graphics and mesh manipulation program must be difficult, y'think? Perhaps they should have just written a new winzip app, maybe that would have been quicker. :) How dare they actually take time to do something instead of rushing it out of the door filled with bugs, dysfunctional security shite that lives in the drive root and incomplete plugged in extras. Be more traditional wouldn't it? Then they could release a bunch of updates to fix what's broken. Yeah, much more traditional... On that note, I'm looking forward to the next release of Studio, hopefully that one won't bug-out on something not running a radeon and I'll be able to use it again. ;)

As a counterpoint example to this, Softimage XSI has just been reduced to 495 USD. I find it more than interesting that I can buy that at a comparative rate in the UK (about 10 dollars difference). That applies to a lot of other software also, which rather makes me wonder what plane of fantasy CL inhabit. I'm sure people can guess where my money will be going. With a Free app to pose in and something far superior to Poser to render and model in at a comparative price, I reckon I'll be happy with that deal.

Similar problem here in the UK. Poser 5 in America is 169 USD (average from listed price of 299 USD). In the UK it's 349 UKP, at current exchange rate that's about 572 USD. Quite why it's so freaking bloated over here is anybody's guess. Far as I'm concerned CL can go f... erm stuff themselves and their software. You can't beat free and I'll not whine about bugs or as yet unrealised features in BETA software like Studio - only when they're included in, held over and deliberately retained in release software. ;)