Shonner, Are you accusing the posters of this thread at being dishonest for voicing their displeasure at an iffy copy protection scheme? I certainly hope not. JDexter

The problem with your credit card example Spike is that the credit card stays with you. The code is not based on the current count of teeth in your head (or some other personal aspect of yourself) and has to be regenerated based on a tooth falling out. A very mismatched analogy. JDexter

Chris, it not about whether or not CL's will be a hassle or not, it's one more company that requires an over the top activation method. It's copy protection squared when all of them go that route. I know about Win2K but for the $50 US addon price to a new system it is worth keeping XP and an operating system my users all know and work well with. If it was more expensive to add on the OS I would consider it. And there are copy protection schemes out there that do as good a job (mind you, none is perfect and all can be cracked, including this one, regardless of how many scientists worked on it) but don't cause the user the grief involved with Activation codes that work off of hardware based items. If the activation code worked off of something that followed the user it would work, but hardware is too transient to be useful. JDexter

Windows XP Microsoft Office XP Microsoft Frontpage 2002 Microsoft Publisher 2002 Microsoft Project 2002 These were the products my company used on a regular basis. We had it installed on 26-30 machines and had each and every copy liscensed. Then the problem with the Activation Code (CL's Challenge code it sounds a lot like) started. Here is what happened when a machine was replaced. Installed Windows XP Go through Activation online Activation failed, call 1-800-xxx for Activation (CL I assume you will have an 800 support number?) Called 1-800-xxx and listened to an obnoxious computer as it descibes to me how to enter the number. Enter number Activation failed. Hold for Rep. Rep comes on (not always a long wait) Give code to Rep. Rep asks why this software is being reinstalled. Rep. makes comment about Activation scheme and how many times you have installed. Get Activation number from Rep. Hang up phone. Windows XP Installed, proceed to other Apps. All apps installed, all fail activation. Call Microsoft, speak to computer again and single Activation fails, speak to rep. Give rep number, get questioned, get number. Give rep other numbers for other products and go through the whole procedure to get all apps activated. Give computer to user. Umm, and that was for 1 single machine. All the while, the rep is calling me Mr. Roberts because I am on their files as the reqistered user for all the software. They have a complete ownership history at their fingertips, yet they still walk you through the whole thing. Now my company uses Windows XP only. And when we get a new machine, we have it preinstalled. We don't talk to Microsoft and we don't buy their products. Granted that is an extreme situation, but for a person who is willing to go through all that crap and now they have other software from other companies jumping on that awful copy protection scheme it is unreal. SO those who say this is not a big deal, you are wrong, it is a big deal because it is just not this one software, it is the acceptance of a flawed security system that instead of protecting the software makes users abandone software they have paid for. I hate that I feel guilty even challenging this scheme, because I am an honest user, but yet this whole thing makes me feel like I am doing something wrong. The more companies that adopt this method, the worse it will be. SO if you think that simply because CL is small and it only take x number of minutes then you are going to be suprised when every piece of software you own is like that and that x number of minutes equals 3 days of phone calls to various companies trying to activate something you legitimitly paid for. Meanwhile this same software will be passed out on P2P systems completely cracked and the downloader will be up and running in no time. That, my friends, is garbage. JDexter

There are other methods of copy protection just as effective(ineffective?) as this method, yet they are not as penalistic. This was the easy way out for them and the harder way out for the consumer. It's a bad move and does need to be re-examined. JDexter

All I know is I stopped using all Microsoft products (Except the OS) because of this registration scheme. I upgrade my machine once every quarter (Gotta love my job) and having to call Microsoft to activate the software every time because I had long since used up my 'grace' installs was a complete PITA. A 5 minute phone call might not mean much, but when you multiply it by 8 programs and being questioned like a criminal was too much. I'm sorry CL decided to go this method. I pre-ordered Poser 5 and I will let it go through, but the first time I have to call to re-register it, it won't be reinstalled. There were better methods of copy protection out there than this and this is a very poor mechanism to do it. BTW, people crack Microsoft products all the time now with their activation scheme. So much for this method working. JDexter

Yes, they seem to work well too. I agree about the smile morphs, that was the main reason why I tried Boris's morphs. I probably would use Roxanne, but I love Stephanie much more, so I pretty much only use her. BTW, I do use Boris on Michael as intended too, hehe. I think BOris has some great morphs. JDexter

I've transferred both the face and body morphs with great results. This Stephanie mesh with all the morphs is a bear to load though, hehe, but once I get the look I want I can remove morphs I don't need. JDexter

See it works so good it looks like it's right out of Poser, hehe! Actually I was working on this model to help me understand lighting better and I am starting to get the hang of it. I would like to have used GI, but as you said, it's a little broken at the moment. I turned the shadows down to about 25% on the 2 lights I did use. She was a test for me of a few things, lighting, a closeup with Grouper (which really did a great job in helping me with the shaders) and also on the Poser side, seeing how well Michaels morphs take on Stephanie. All in all I am very pleased by this lesson work I went through. JDexter Oh, I also used this same picture to see how to print to my new ink printer and how to calibrate it for the best color matching. Wow! I guess I did get a lot out of this little lady.

As a matter of fact, I specifically wanted some of those morphs for the brow, and they worked beautifully. The problem I was having was my lady was looking a little cranky. I was able to reshape with those morphs, now she looks like I wanted her to look. JDexter

Actually I transferred the Boris (Available in the Marketplace here) morphs to Stephanie with no problems. It opened up a lot of options for her and I am able to get looks I was not able to get before. Stephanie does take Michael head morph very nicely. If I was at home at the moment I would attach on of the hybrid faces I have been using. JDexter

Thanks Eric for the update =) Any new products in the future? I really get some use out of your products. JDexter

Look very good Hawk! I will try the setting you said, but I am pretty sury I did that too, the pieces of the eyes that intersect is what caused my black-eye syndrome, but maybe I did it backwards? Anyway, glad it worked for you. I use the same technique on the hait with good results. Patrick, I don't use GI for that reason, at least with Poser imports, I have P5 preordered and refresh my Carrara page daily waiting for the patch too =) JDexter P.S. I love Grouper BTW, that has helped me a whole bunch it is truly a great thing. Major kudos to the author!

I hope you can follow what I did, but if not, please ask, I will try harder to explain it better. JDexter