I know you can pick other locations for the installation path- I'm happier with installing stuff in the default- it keeps everything together, and I know where it all is. It can't get deleted by mistake.

The UAC actually doesn't bother me at all now I've switched it off. I only get the odd question if I've installed a program correctly when I'm installing the .exe for Poser stuff.

I'm using a PC with Windows 7 64-Bit (mentioned in my first post)

The main program files for Poser Pro 2010 are installed in both:

Program Files>Smith Micro & Program Files (x86)>Smith Micro. Just like any other program that you installed, everything gets dumped into one of these two folders.

Yes. It was going to the same destination.

I kept at it this afternoon and managed to get everything installed, more or less smoothly. I was having issues with EvilInnocence freebies, but I think they too are sorted.

Poser is massive! It's a huge learning curve away from DAZ.

Quote - Be careful here asking questions, they'll jump down your throat for not looking for prior threads on the subject. Please check the sticky above on most asked Poser questions.

I searched the forum last night at 2AM but found nothing useful. I decided to post my question before I went to bed, so hopefully there was a useful solution by the time I woke. I do apologise if this offends anyone, but I am on a tight time-frame to get Poser up and running.

The link that I was directed to look at, "Most Asked questions" was only fractionally helpful as it has explained why I am getting an error, but it isn't making installation any easier.

Quote - Create a Poser.exe file using a text-editor program and place it in your PP2010 folder.  PP2010 does not use this convention, that is why your installer is causing an error.

I have done this - actually I just copied and pasted the PoserPro.exe and renamed it to Poser.exe and Victoria 4.2 has installed correctly. But I am unable to get V4 Morphs++ to install. I either get the same error, or I get a "dependancy error" and the entire installaiton process quits out.

Yes, I think I will do that- now I've figured out what I'm doing in post-work with the moon, I'll play a little more with the clouds.

I have played around with many skies and waters, and so far haven't found the magic combination to give me something light enough to post-work the hell out of it, and still keep the moon. But for now, I like this final result.

Thanks to everyone who helped me out. And especially thanks to orbital and grafikeer for their input - and for grafikeer sending me the full moon preset. (It seems to be my favourite sky right now because I know it works :) )

Thanks, Corrie!

I'm doing my best working this program out- I am really pleased to see how everything is finally starting to click together. I don't think I will be making anything but night scenes for a while. Each time I start fresh, I get a completely different result. I'm learning a lot about this new program :)

Wow!!! That is an incredible recreation... I love it! With making the layout portrait, you really get a sense of scale and distance.

There is an easier method to get the spotlight lined up with the moon/sun- just line the spotlight up with the asterisk that marks where the sun/moon are in the image. Of course it didn't help really when I moved the mountains back away from the camera - a different image to the one I posted - but I'll have another crack at it today.

This is what I am closing with tonight and I think it's really looking good. I was trying to place a spotlight to reflect off the tops of the icebergs at the back, but that was proving very difficult to get it positioned properly and if I don't stop I'll be still at it at 3 in the morning.

But the iceberg in the foreground does have a light. What messed up the background ones was that I moved them further from the camera, to open up the scene a bit so everything wasn't crowded around the front but now I can't seem to get the light to touch them.

Oh well.

Tell me what you think of this one :)

Heh, thanks Corrie. Clouds aren't a top priority just yet... but I am pleased with how it's coming along

Just for the sake of simplicity, I have left out the mountains until I get the sky right.

I'll keep at it. I will get there eventually with this picture :)

I probably really don't need to do this, but just playing, this is what I got by merging the two together.

I toggle between Directors Camera, Camera view and Top view- Top view is mainly for the hills and such, moving those away from the camera.

I will check out that link right away. Thanks, orbital!

I'll keep the files I have so far but I think I will start again and follow grafikeer's approach and see how I go. (I might not get such freaky results with the colour with guidelines to follow instead of just going off on my own)

The blue is pretty... but the last time I checked, on planet Earth, water doesn't get that bright at night, hehe.

@Orbital - I don't mind that you're picking my work apart. You're pointing out what can be done better, and offering suggestions of what I can try to get the effect I'm after. It probably helps you to guide me in the right direction because you've seen what I'm aiming towards, instead of just a vague "I have this idea and it won't work".

I know getting everything placed and the camera moved around is my weak spot. The images I posted, the basic concept is there, but it just needs fine tuning. The sense of distance isn't really achieved when there are massive waves/ripples at the base of the image.

And while a big moon probably isn't going to be realistic, the moon is the focal point of the image- the image is built around the moon and the moonlight, so for that point I want to keep it as large as possible but without it taking up 80% of the image.

@grafikeer - site mail on it's way. Thanks!!!!

Back to Bryce I go and see how big a mess of this I can make today grins