"Hate to disallusion any of you whom do not agree, but some thoughts are just not acceptable as being 'normal' on the human front..." That is quite possibly the scariest statment I've ever heard. You can't even evaluate right and wrong if you can't think of "wrong". And who decides "NORMAL"? A few thousand years ago it was normal to take your first born to tample and watch a "preist" jab a dagger into their heart. Everyone did it and if you protested you weren't "NORMAL". In some countries a person reaches the "Age of Consent" at 13. Pretty sick my personal book, but "NORMAL" there. If we can't even reach a world wide agreement on "normal", how do you expect enforce your version of it. Even if it was possible to wipe out every image of child pornography, you won't end the cause. You'll just drive the afflicted into hiding making them harder to weed out. You're effectivly training every child sexual preditor on stealth. How do you think so many of them ended up as Catholic Preists? I say give them something that causes no one harm, and let them identify them selves by going after it. You don't get rid of "abnormaility" by trying to hide it. If anything, Zero tolerance to this level will cause people who MIGHT have gotten help to NOT to. In the mean team time, you're crippled any artist/storyteller from even creating cautionary tales that might give children a real advantage at avoiding these preditors, because the very subject matter is taboo. It a formular that can ONLY result in making super preditors and the perfect victums for them.

The fact that a millionair who was sent through a popularity contest paid for by billionairs, makes a rule for a group of special interests, or based on his own moral judgment, does not make that "Rule of Law" right. Claiming that Virtual Child Porn harms kids has no basis in fact. There has been NO study on kids who weren't hurt because pedofiles looked at virtual porn, and there for no numbers by wich to judge the non-detrimental effects. "If they expose themselves to pictures of <<>> it tends to create the impression that such activity is somehow "normal" and maybe even acceptable." This has been the excuse for a "moral" minority to force their will over groups for ages. Almost the exact same wording was used to condem Rock and Roll, Liberalism and Conservitism, and just about every religion, or lifestyle ever created. There is a very fine line between prtotection and persicusion. This is just the latest in a pattern of trying to censor the free speech of Americans. If a childs picture is "Morphed" to make it appear that child is in a sexual situation a CHILD is still used for the picture. In my opinion that is STILL hurting a child. If an adult is morphed to look like a child, it's still a consenting adult. No one thinks Andy Serkis is actually an evil creature who eat's fish and is obsessed with a ring because he was MORPHED into Golum. If the content is ALL 3D, the only person insvolved is the artist. No one was harmed in the creation of the art in any way. It's STILL not illegal have thoughts. Even bad ones. It's action that should be illegal. One of the links you posted mentions the "Slippery Slope", and points out that it exists on both sides of the issue. However it misses one important part of the argument. While every child has 2 parents somewhere who should be protecting them, we have no protection FROM the Law. As is stands now there are so many laws that it is immpossible to enforce them all. When law in any way becomes selectable enforcable, it becomes unjust. This "LAW" has tried, convicted and sentanced all of us because something we MIGHT do, might be misused. It's all fine and good to claim that you're protecting children, but are you? And at what cost? We might very well live long safe lives if we were rendered incapable of having bad thoughts, but would it be a life worth living? All these modern laws to "Protect Children" are making a world where ALL OF US only have the rights afforded to children. "Protect the Children" is the new sound bite to make anything they want to shove down your throat sound acceptable. After who (besides possibly me) would take the side of "NOT protecting the children?" Politic has become a game of social engeneering disguised as "democracy", and the law is the tool used by the government to control the people they should be "by, of, and for." In R'osity's defence, I can see why they would have no choice but implement such a rule. THey simply can't afford to be attacked even if they were opposed to it. It's our fault this happened for letting elitist bastard run our lives and make these irresponsible laws in the first place.

My last word on this subject. Child pornography is bad because it hurts children. "Virtual" Child pornography hurts NO ONE. They are not people. They are not even AI's. Banning Virtual Child porn HURTS CHILDREN! If there is some one with what ever mental problem causes them to sexually arounsed by thoughts and images of having sex with children, then in the United States we ALL know they are not going to get any help because we have a profit based medical system that frequetly tosses the violent mentally ill back on streets rather than spend a dim on caring for them, so some who hasn't hurt some one will go compleatly untreated. Without any way to get help, and with no "virtual" outlet for their sickness, eventually... IT MUST MANIFEST. That means that eventually this degenerate who might have spent the rest of his life quitely waking off in private WILL go after a real child, and when he does, his fustration and commitment will MORE than likely result in his doing anything necceassy to cover up his act. That means KILLING the child to keep them quiet. Conversly, does ANYONE truely belive some one would actually do such a thing BECAUSE they saw a 3D picture? No... the next step would be to get pictures of REAL children, not an actual child. That a line we can police and catch them at. Think about that the next time you see an Amber alert. A picture may be worth a thousand words, but one banned picture could be worth a child's life.

Attached Link: http://www.wewantyoursoul.com/

Also Dial in geometry swapping is not, and probably never will be, supported in DAZ|Studio. Which is a real shame in this case because those outfits are pretty cool. Maybe he'll do a DAZ version that has them as just seperate items.

Yay! How could you resist all that love? ;-) Look, I know I'm one of those who tends to bite back, and butt heads when I think some one or somthing has gone too far. And I know that can sometimes add to the tension around here. I don't think I've ever actually "started" a problem, and I never resort to personal attacks. But I to throw myself into harms way if I think something is truely unfair. I do it because I really belive, sometimes someone has to stand their ground for what's right. Even if I loose the fight, sometime it just matters that some one was willing to. But that fighting isn't worth squat if it's going drive off people like you. So I apologize for any part I've had in making things worse around here, or if my good intentions occasionally pave the road to hell. I would like to say I'll stop it all together, or even just try to, but that would be letting "Nothing" win to me. So what I will do is try to be a little more reasonable, and pick my words a little more carefully (But I'm not working on my spelling! Your just going to have to deal with that.) I just hope you all know that I do it with the best of intentions.

That sucks! Probably some dumb ass R'osity politics. I'm very sorry to see you go Lyrra.

D|S may make an attempt to load the light settings that come in a Poser Scene, but that doesn't mean those or the RIGHT settings. Same can be said for the surfaces, which by the way I've had D|S screw up on me so that surface names end up in funny places. Bug Report was filed. If you are lucky enough to get a scene to load into D|S, you should re light it and tweek the surfaces. DAZ|Studio's lights are an order of magnitude better than Posers, but you need to learn to work with them just like you needed to figure out Poser lights when you first loaded Poser. The Camera's also work a bit differently. And lastly... you are comparing an ALPHA release to products that have been out for a year or 4 in P4's case.

Don't make me whip out the dead horse people.

Actually I'll be REALLY WORRIED when software starts to read my mind.

Well, I'm only 35 and I remember all that stuff. I remeber bitching a blue streak when I had to pay $2.50 for single 8" floppy to use in my Commal class in High school. At the time 5.25 inch disks had dropped to under a buck each and I had just ordered 100 mixed color ones to split up with my friends. Everyone in the class looked at me like I talking Klingon. Today it's nearly impossible to 3.5" Double Density Disks, and my Palm can run all the Commodore programs I had back in the day. 64MB is HUGE when the program was designed to work in 64K. Hell, my first Hard drive was 40MB and cost $899 dollars!!!!! My Palm has a 256MB SD CARD that I could lick and stick on a letter and I got it for $60.

One thing to remeber. DAZ are primarily content providers. Narsil is hinting at the negitive aspect of this, but the positive side is that they will use D|S in house. That means and bug, glitch, or "this could be done better" is going to get immediate attention out pure motivated self interest. They NEED to use their program. I'm sure 90% of the stuff DAZ sells will be P4 compatible for the next 3 to 4 years. REASONS? 80% of the stuff DAZ sells is brokered and they are not going to cut into their own market unless they absolutly have to. Add to that the learning curve needed to make things "the DAZ way", and that DAZ isn't even at a 1.0 version yet, and you can bet that we will only see DAZ|Studio exclusive content when the object littereally won't work in any version of Poser. Here's a bet for you. The first items available only in D|S .DAZ format will be either a long dress, or folding wings. D|S might not be new when P6 comes out, but it will be updated and evolving. Something that P6 will probably not be 6 months after it's release.

I would say this will probably be a parting of the ways on one level. Up till now everything DAZ has made is Poser4 compatible, which means Poser5 should handle it. C-Labs didn't even bother to make Poser5 scenes PZ5, or CR5, to identify them. Even PZZ wans't really theirs. It's just a zipped version of the regular Poser files. Now that DAZ has their own format, it much more likely THEY will push the envelope. THe DAZ file evidently will include everything in the scene. No more trying to sort from various runtime folders to get your distribution together. If DAZ takes the same about of time to come out with Pluggins for the final released D|S as C-Labs take to make Poser6, where will I be? Same place. Figuring out my own work around for both programs. DAZ|Studio, right now in APLPHA release, had way better content management and user interface. That's why I'll use D|S over P5. DAZ has, if nothing else, shown a willing ness to make the tool I wanted. Even if they don't, or can't finish it. C-Labs with Poser has basically given me whatever they thought they could get away with. I REALLY hope C-Labs pulls their act together and that Poser 6 is a smart, original, and MODERN tool they promised us for Poser5.

Given Poser's history, I hope the Shade guys get them to do what C-Labs was never will to before. Make Poser a App that will integrate with high end 3D apps. If Poser just ends up being developed for SHADE integration, and they don't get back to supporting LW, and other apps. It will be the end of Poser for me.

I absolutly refuse to get Poser5. It wa s flakey bunch "stuff I don't need" crowbared into Poser4 Pro Pack, with no work flow or hardware upgrades. Poser 4 support from DAZ is fine with me. With weight mapping, and proper use of bones, you should be able to pull off conforming clothes with more details and options than dynamic cloth can ever dream of. I have never seen strand based hair that looked better than Transmapped IN POSER. All the strand hair I've seen looks like a wet Barbie doll. If I want strand hair, I'll use a real 3D package than knows how to render it right and treat it like hair. "Why reinvent the wheel?" Because the last wheel was Square.