If using WinZip, a file can be right-clicked to look at File Properties to see where it's installing.  Typos in names send things to wrong places that Poser won't see. Some zipped files aren't set up to unzip to the different folders and will dump everything into the location it's unzipping to, requiring manually putting everything in the correct Poser folders.

When unzipping, you should be unzipping to the main Poser directory (if you haven't created addiitonal runtime directories). Unzipping to a temporary directory, as mentioned above, is another way to get used to what goes where.  That means the directory you want to unzip to is Poser 6 (or 5 or whatever version you have).  If you unzip to any lower directory, it will create a Runtime folder under that directory folder and Poser won't find it.

It takes a while to get used to everything. I'd imagine if Poser's creators had ever imagined that there would be so much content created for the program that they'd have indexed the library differently, but they're now stuck with what they set up years ago.

Quote - Why is KP singled out for so much venom...?

Because normal adults consider child porn one of the most reprehensible acts any adult can force on a child. Is there any reason to not have strong animosity against the kind of people that sexually exploit children?

My only concern with child protection laws is that they are often being used as a screen to go after adult entertainment products that have nothing to do with exploiting children. The recently passed Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 has a rider being used to fund 12-16 teams of FBI agents going across the country to check paperwork of adult production companies to ensure that they have copies of drivers licenses to document the ages of all their performers. Instead of those dozens of agents protecting children from real predators, they're busy scanning documents, trying to catch somebody who didn't keep good documentation on their adult performers. It's very unlikely that child pornographers are checking for drivers licenses, and maintaining records, of their underaged victims.

Attached Link: Wikipedia - Protect Act

As I mentioned in an earlier post (and there's a whole lot to read, so there's nothing wrong with missing it), the US Supreme Court never said child porn was legal. They only said that a depiction, that did not involve harming actual children, did not deserve the more draconian punishments that were reserved for laws meant to protect real children from real physical sexual abuse. It's always dangerous to turn a decision 180 degrees and believe that the turn is true. It's akin to "not guilty" prouncements, in criminal cases, being equated to "innocence"--when lack of a guilty verdict only means that there was insufficent evidence to return a guilty verdict. Lack of guilt does not equal innocent. The defendent may still be guilty of a crime, but the court didn't prove it. Similarly, here, the Supreme Court only said that virtual depictions did not belong under the law they struck down. That is very different from saying that such images are legal.

If you look at the Wikipedia link, there's a link to the 2003 Protect Act law that criminalizes virtual child porn. Basically, a new law was created to criminalize virtual child porn rather than try to tack on the virtual stuff to existing child porn laws that the Supreme Court struck down. So far, the Supreme Court has not gone after the new law, probably because it does not have the precedences of the previous law. The previous law was designed to protect children, not computer similations. The new law creates new criminal penalties instead of tacking them onto a different law.

I found this info by doing Google searches, starting with
    law virtual child porn
    adding "amber alert" from the info the first search provided
That got me to the Protect Act which I looked up in Wikipedia for a summarization and a link to the actual text of the law.

It's always better looking up the facts than arguing about emotional things. Although the 2002 Supreme Court decision was old news, so was the 2003 Protect Act that flew under the radar of public perception. Similarly, other laws have had the same lack of public scrutiny and are quietly eroding our choices.

There's kind of an apples and oranges thing here. This particular ruling was a question of whether virtual images of children can fall under the tough child porn laws and the Supreme Court said, "no". Those laws are extremely harsh for good reason, but the Court decided that they should not be applied to situations where no children were harmed. Such images can and probably will be deemed obscene even if they are only of virtual characters. Such images are a violation of Visa's censorship rules (which can be more restrictive than the law, as can any site TOS) and would jeapordize the marketplace here.

This ruling did not legalize virtual images in any fashion or provide them any free speech protection. It just stopped them from being added to a more severe law. I seem to recall that another law had a rider that made such images illegal and cannot recall which one, but it seems to have been done in a way that did not contest the earlier Supreme Court ruling.

All of those types of dinosaurs are available at a number of sites like DAZ, ContentParadise, and Poserworks. Do a search for dinosaurs here because Scott (Adams?-can't remember the last name for sure) has offered a bunch of nicely modeled figures for free. RDNA has a number of primeval plants.

Attached Link: http://scifi3d.theforce.net/

The other trick to posing props is to add them to Poser figures in the default position and then resaving the prop as a smartprop. If you've already got a figure into a pose you want, just save that file, start a new one, load the figure, pose the prop, parent it to the figure's hand (or whatever body part it's associated with), and save it as a smartprop. Go back to the saved file, add the smartprop, and it should load right into the posed figure's hand.

It would be nice if Poser had a command that would zero an object's origin so that it wouldn't have to be modifed in the Joint Editor. I've tried moving origins in the Joint Editor and sometimes it's a breeze. Other times, moving one axis causes undesirable shifts in another axis and it becomes a time consuming trial and error effort to move it in place. It's often simpler to use the Direct Manipulation Tool (which should have a dials option to constrain motion to one axis).

Attached Link: http://www.snap3d.com/index.php

I have a friend who bought a 3D camera and had lenticular 3D photos developed at a little over a buck a photo. The company, that was doing the developing, went out of business and I don't think he's found an alternative service.

I did some Google searching and found Snap3D and it appears that an 8x10 print can be made for around $12. That might be worth looking into.

Below are some anaglyph tutorials (the kind of 3D prints using red and blue glasses for the 3D effect:

http://www.badco3d.com/ab3dp/NGExtras/Tutorials/Stereo/Stereo_Part1.html
http://www.daz3d.com/support/tutorial/tutorial.php?id=658

It's the kind of art where two images are superimposed such that shifting one's view changes which image is being seen. The Hulk Series One DVD set has that kind of cover where moving the box shifts the image from David Banner to the Hulk (and, yah, I know the comic character's name was "Bruce", but TV executives thought the name was too gay).

Yikes, I didn't realize that either and am using P5.  Now, I'll have to find MorphExchange.

That's not a good move on EF's front to ignore all their P4 & P5 customers. I haven't heard any great things about pmd files, so I don't know why they'd stiff customers who haven't upgraded. It's one less reason to want to pay for their figures and I haven't been incentivized enough to buy from them as it is.

I opened the hierarchy window and clicked on Show Parameters, but there are no check boxes to turn off some head features.

Do I need P6 to get the window in your screenshot? Is there something else I need to open. These are features I haven't played with, so I'm rather lost.

Do you know what the filename is for the Zombie texture because it's not listed in the add-ons to the M3/V3 Skeletons?

I don't know. I blew up the image and there is a texture to the skin.  It's not all gradients. The outline mode doesn't match all the color changes.

Corel's longtime Hedy Lamar box art was clearly vector art, but incredibly well done. Some of these may be a mix of Illustrator and Photoshop, but the most realistic don't appear to be standalone vector art. Without seeing an example showing the intermediate steps, I'm going to remain skeptical. Vector art, at its best, looks like airbrushed work. I haven't used a vector art program in a while, but getting photographic quality to the extent of this image isn't possible with its blurred distant hairs and bumped skin textures.

It also depends on what you're trying to do.

If you're using Wardrobe Wizard already, WW will convert to a morphed figure if you're just trying to get clothing on a supported customized figure. There's not much advantage to injecting a bunch of body morphs into a clothing item that you're using for yourself because it just bulks up the vertex count for the clothing figure and stresses Poser by eating up resources. If you're releasing the item for others to use, then adding morphs is useful because it adds flexibility to the clothing item for them without their needing WW or other programs.