Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=925552

A quick (for me, anyway) .02: I've written elsewhere that CL took on a very difficult task in positioning P5 as a "prosumer" app, equally appealing to hobbyist/trad artist and pro alike. I agree that we should not have heroes, and that P5's new features would be more appealing if there was a better learning curve. OTOH, I haven't seen many apps in the current price range with these features that are much simpler in terms of usability. I'm not saying that arrogantly or sarcastically; if somebody knows of such an app, I would be interested. HASH certainly isn't it. Maybe DAZ will produce that app.

That "being" should be "buying." And if you're wondering why I didn't preview my post, it's because doing so sometimes causes the loss of my post, and I'm too long-winded to retype things;-)

It might surprise him (though it shouldn't now), I would like to defend one or two of the points Jack has made. If DAZ has posted that they have not bought P5 (I haven't read it yet), there are good reasons to believe it. First, I have no proof to the contrary. Second, my dealings with DAZ as a customer have been good. Third, Jack's point about not being P5 helps DAZ defend against any charge that DAZ disassembled it to work on a competing app is entirely correct. Otherwise, DAZ would have to construct elaborate protocols for keeping the disassemblers and reverse engineers separate from the programmers, whether one calls such protocols a "chinese wall" or a "clean room." It could be done in theory, but it's not easy, and not at all easy to explain to a jury. And since the initial P5 EULA (haven't looked to see whether there's a new one yet) contained language that would encompass DAZ's apparent efforts, passing on P5 would be the prudent move for DAZ.

Timeless...as demonstrated by the fact that I see more of the new Mini Coopers almost every day on my 20 minute walk to work.

The water droplet app should be at (or near) the FurFur link above.

If I remember correctly, there's also an undocumented type of light.

Hosting Poser scenes in Lightwave etc. is certainly a major feature of ProPack, but whether it is the main feature depends on usage. Animators might view the simultaneous multi-view, motion blur, and character setup features as equally important...and those features are in P5. As to whether CL is good at marketing, I would say they have generally been very good at staying in touch with forums like this one, but in moving to position Poser as equally valuable to pros as hobbyists, they've undertaken a difficult task that is difficult to market. Certainly some of the complaints about P5 (though not all) are from hobbyists who didn't understand that a firefly render was going to take a lot longer than a P4 render and that you can't just leave all of the maps set to their P4 settings and expect a quality result. kupa did a good job of getting everyone hereexcited about all of the new P5 features, but he may not have stressed the learning curve sufficiently, which only added to their current PR problems. You asked: "Perhaps you would like to disclose your involvement and where you get your information from for the public scrutiny of the community?" I apologize if that was not meant as an attack on my credibility. However, my point was that people who want to launch an attack ought to be able to back it up...in what way does my involvement or sources of information matter to that point? It was in the context of that question in my mind that led me, perhaps erroneously, to believe that you were looking for a motive. Jack, on the other hand, neither wants to apologize or even discuss what he has written. As for whether Jack's story is related to information obtained under an NDA, or the scope of said NDA, I must confess that I have no idea; you were the one who brought up the NDA. Jack wrote that "he gave [his] word to Mr. Cooper that I would not share or disclose any of that [insider] information." Regardless of whether he's referring to an NDA signed as a beta tester, the principle is the same: if you promise not to disclose information, should you then write a story, then mention that you have such information in the course of attempting to justify yourself? As for attacking Jack's character and motivations, it might help you to actually read what I have written. In post 29, I specifically state that I never formed an opinion regarding some of the prior controversies with which he is involved, and did not have a probem when he took this site commercial. I did write that I was baffled that he would want to stir the pot after having been more conciliatory recently, but my "involvement in the community" is sufficiently long that I can state without fear of contradiction that there was a ton of flaming and venom when he originally took the helm here all those years ago. I didn't say that he was solely responsible for it, but I think it is beyond dispute that it existed. In post 51 I wrote nothing that could be viewed as attacking Jack's character or motive. To the contrary, I attempted to repeat to Jackson that such was not intended in post 29. Post 54 is much the same, again not criticizing Jack so much as pointing out that he has no facts backing up his veiled critique of CL's business strategy. In post 58, I wrote: "I would submit that if Jack had any inside info, he would be sharing it. Jack has been called many things over the years; "shy" is not one of them. Yet he has presented nothing (and, I note, chosen to disappear from this thread)." Again, my main point. And I think it is beyond dispute that Jack has been called many things over the years, though never by me, I would note. I don't consider not being shy to be an attack; I consider that a compliment. And when I wrote, it was true that Jack had chosen not to contribute to the thread. In post 62 I criticize Jack's response, not Jack. And I think that criticism is entirely valid. He does not want to state the basis for his opinions, or even discuss his opinions. Jack wrote that he wants to express his opinions and move on. However, in those past controversies that I am not supposed to mention, I distinctly recall Jack being willing to respond to attacks that he thought were unfair, so he should not be surprised that I and others have responded as we have. Until Jack started posting these more recent messages, I had thought that perhaps he would respond as he had in the past and we all could have learned something, but no such luck. Rest assured, if Jack comes after CyberStretch, I will respect his wishes and not ask Jack to support whatever mud he wants to sling.

On the conversion issue: If you read through the entire SI site, I think it is fair to conclude that the conversion is not all that simple. The SI method is based on having taken scans of a number of real world heads and averaged them to create a base head, and the morphs applied to it are quite different from what Poser users would be used to (based on the facegen demo, anyway). The problems P5 users initially had (and complainst some still have) with the operation of the Face Room demonstrate the difficulty of interfacing the 2 technologies. Moreover, the $1450 quoted by SI is the cost of taking a mesh (for evample Vicky) and making it compatible so that SI's proprietary .fg files can be applied to create new faces and exported as part of a commercial product like a videogame. It is not a quote for taking a mesh and mapping it so that you can empower a potentially limitless number of people to do the same, and have direct access to that mesh, and potentially create third-party products based on it, which is what you would be doing with P5. Finally, I too wish that CL and DAZ would play nicer. However, since DAZ is apparently developing a competing app to Poser, I suspect the prospects on that front are not good.

What good is Britney Spears? Depends on what function you think she serves;-)

e-mail Congress; they're working on it;-)

"Incorrect presumption. A .x release is a minor release and not a new product. Since the only value added was a few features needed mostly by Professionals (hence the PRO in Pro Pack), CL could not have gotten away with stating that the Pro Pack was anywhere near a new release nor even applicable for their larger hobbyist user base." First, it you scroll back to post #54, you'll see the little ;-) emoticon at the end of the paragraph, which ought to be a tip-off that I was kidding in that paragraph. That being said, I agree that it's generally true that .x release is a minor release, but if you take a look at reviews for 2 of Adobe's flagships, Photoshop and Premiere, you'll find complaints that PS7 is not really a major release, and raves for the major additions mad in Premiere 6.5. Moreover, the release of P5 demonstrates that CL is trying to position Poser as an app for hobbyist and pro alike. Accordingly, issuing ProPack as P4.5 would have been consistent with that strategy. And if you want to argue that even a minor release would have sold more than a product expressly marketed as unnecessary to most of the customer base (despite the fact that P5 ultimately incorporated may ProPack features), be my guest. "Jack has admitted to being one of the beta testers, like many others. To presume he has "inside information" would be a likely case; ignoring the fact that he has a history in the community to base his convictions, opinions, etc, off as well. Just like the presumption that he is bound by the NDA, as the rest of them are, not to disclose certain information would be logical to presume. Most NDAs' "authority" ends when the product has been released. Yet, it would seem CL took extra measures to ensure that "silence is golden" even after release." If you care to search this very forum, you'll find beta testers stating on the record that they didn't see any of the major problems some users have experienced. And since Jack has been typing out of both sides of his keyboard in this very thread -- it's just a story, no, wait, it's my conviction, no, wait, it's my legal duty -- his claim rings hollow. If Jack has some smoking gun based on inside info, he'll do the community a favor by becoming the named plaintiff in a class action against CL by P5 users, rather than claim to be bound by an NDA, then write "stories" that he apparently believes violate that NDA, which is why he then retreats back to th "only a story" defense. I will certainly agree that Jack has a history in the community, though Jackson certainly didn't want me to discuss it. "Perhaps you would like to disclose your involvement and where you get your information from for the public scrutiny of the community?" Ah, yes, I was waiting for the unsupported attack on my credibility. For the record, I have no connection to CL or any of it's employees, other than as a customer. In fact, my only communication with CL in years was to e-mail them that Airborne failed to deliver my copy of P5 on time. They promptly and more than adequately addressed that complaint, even though Airborne was primarily at fault. That would be the extent of my bias. As for where I get my information, I get it from many sources which are publicly available. In this post, the Photoshop review I believe can be found at zdnet.com, the Premiere review at creativepro.com, and the comments of the beta testers are here at R'osity. Again, one of my major points, should you bother to read my posts, is that people should base their opinions on what they know, and if they want to go public with their opinions, they should expect that people might ask for the basis of those opinions. My posts are not intended to defend CL as much as they are to request that people who want to criticize or attack CL state their reasons. For example, if you go back to read this thread, you will find that Jackson and I have a number of areas of agreement, because Jackson can actually identify the facts that back up his criticisms. If Jack's opinion is based on information gained under an NDA, he probably shouldn't be writing thinly veiled screeds against CL based on that information, should he?

That would be "opinions." Sorry I missed that.

Of course, Jack did just say that he was just writing a story, and that it wasn't about Poser, so I guess I'm wondering how convictions and opinons came into it.

The only point I have been making throughout this thread is that people are free to have beliefs and convictions and be set on them, but if they want to express them publicly, they can expect to be asked about the basis for them. Many people like to have beliefs, convictions and opinions that have no factual basis, and in such cases, Jack is absolutely right, it is a waste of time to debate them.