Argoforg C4d is set up primarily as a modeller, it does come with an excellent built in render engine but as Stewer mentions, the "real" power is in the Advanced Render module. You can get a lot more information from the Maxon website regarding the additional features added on by the module. Thus far I bought the base pack and Advanced Render on release, followed by Shave and Haircut, Mocca, Thinking Particles and Pyrocluster as module expansions just before christmas, next purchase will be the Dynamics module. Having said that, my next purchase might have to be the 8.5 upgrade, they've done some interesting things to the material dialogues and interface that look like fun to play with and the new sub-surface scattering for character models looks like glorious fun. If you have a penchant for outdoor scenes you might want to consider X-Frog for trees and plants and the Ozone plugin for skies. Cinema has it's own terrain generator so unless you have terragen you shouldn't need much of anything there. PZ3 import doesn't exist (as such) for Cinema 8 or 8.5. The plugin (somewhat broken) from CL is for the version 7 release IIRC, but there is a workaround to make it function in 8. There is however an excellent import utility (free) that actually works from Amazones - I have the url somewhere if you ever need it). I highly recommend this plugin for use with Cinema 8 as it works properly with poser objects, mat files and other things. Other than that I could go on for hours singing the praises of Cinema, I love the program even if I am incapable of doing much with it yet. :)

Actually no, I think you might have a point. Two people I know who have Studio are completely different in results. One hasn't had a single crash and is having a blast playing with it, the other one can't get the thing to work properly at all. Asking them the difference between the two is - one has a GeForce MX4 AGP card, the other has an Nvidia MX2 built into the motherboard and they can barely run the program and have a lot of problems with it. While that's not conclusive proof, it's something to consider.

LOL. Be nice if Maxon made it easier, Mocca is a very daunting plugin and while it's powerful as all hell, the learning curve is so steep it's an overhang.

Manually reading an obj file has advantages for hand editing, and temporary watermarking or signing, but... normally this would be for editing points or materials etc. Using software like 3DExplorer or whatever it's currently called allows you to edit the material settings, part naming, and other things for several file formats. The primary advantage of an editable format like obj is bypassed by that facility. Same with the .mtl file generated by wavefront object format, it's a handy way to edit material settings seperate from the actual geometry file, again the need is bypassed by utilities like 3DExplorer. About the only advantage that obj now has over other formats is the facility to hand edit vertex and vertice, even writing your own object if you have the patience to bother these days. Unfortunately as a text form rather than binary the file size becomes hugely bloated with complex models and that's a disadvantage because of the amount of ram eaten by it (still an issue for some computers). And of course programs like Poser that choke on the refresh rate. Unfortunately not having Lightwave the facility it offers is unavailable to me, I threw my money at Maxon instead. :) Deep Exploration, that's what it's called now, and it looks like it's been improved considerably... damn my bank account has suffered enough lately... sigh

Not really, they both need to be able to read grouping and texture information, they both need to be able to set up relationships to the file parts, so it doesn't matter if it's imported or referenced there is still the file information that has to be utilised by whatever the system is. Mind, I think we're just dotting eyes and crossing tees here. :) I've tried a variety of converters for files and most of them mangle information in some form or another, I'll take a good look at the link you provided and see if that offers better facilities than I have at the moment.

Why not? Cinema4D imports lwo with grouping and texture information intact, it imports 3ds with grouping and texture information intact, C4d also imports and exports various other formats as well. It may not return the boning information but that's because it uses a different system to the other software types (for obvious reasons). So why Poser has to import the things as a solid grouped unusable object is quite beyond me. I don't have any problems using 3ds in poser, what I have a problem with is if I import a 3ds file all the texture information is lost or misinterpreted, the file is a single solid object with no animateable parts (unless I import piecemeal) and is non-functional in every aspect. I don't mean props here but characters and models that are animated in any other piece of software. I'd like to see that problem sorted in Studio or it'll just be another funky toy for a limited and bloated 3d format. I agree with you about the smoothing algorithm, it IS irritating, highly, and it would be great to be able to selectively turn it off for some parts.

Just don't assume the referenced geometry of newer figures will be in OBJ format Quite honestly I don't mind if it isn't. Most of the other formats are compressed by one routine or another making them far smaller, resulting in the ability to have much larger collections in a much smaller area. Quite frankly I much prefer 3ds or lwo format because they retain all the part information and are eminently animateable, obj is just too damned big sometimes. That in my opinion is where Poser fails dramatically. Being utterly incapable of reading grouping information from 3ds and other formats. I would have a hell of a lot more fun with 3DS models (smaller) as figures and we'd have a huge amount more variation in available characters because those from other applications could have been incorporated (by those who can afford them) possibly driving the development of the millenium folk further through that larger competition field. Studio obviously does and will support obj as a geometry reference, I /really/ don't mind if it branches out to other things, I have a huge amount of vehicles, characters and other things that I can't use in Poser because of the pain in converting the damn things.

http://www.unwrap3d.com Aside from price, there's quite a few things that are different. It's apparent from what I've read that the new version of UVmapper will be extremely impressive, but I suspect it will also have an impressive price tag. Aside from multiple projection and mapping utilities, unwrap3d will allow you to uvmap a variety of model formats. So, no more hard work converting 3ds to obj and praying the file size isn't crippling. Formats supported can be found http://www.unwrap3d.com/formats.html and a feature list http://www.unwrap3d.com/features.html Retailing at 39.95 US, it's quite a bargain, and gaining popularity and support rapidly.

Ahhh, I see, yes UVMapper does tend to do that sometimes. I can't help you there, mapping models or re-mapping them is a complete mystery to me, kind of like the Bermuda triangle. :) In answer to your point about studio. Studio still utilises a uvmap facility and operates with a Runtime directory. So the implication here is that it will still reference external geometry (seems to insist on it in fact). This means that you will be able to remap models precisely like you can now, without having to purchase expensive software (Unwrap3D is only 40 odd dollars and considerably more powerful than UVMapper) You shouldn't need to rebone from scratch or make new morphs. The primary difference is that Studio, judging on it's insistance for external geometry reference, won't use embedded morphs. So any morph will need to be in an external geometry file and dynamically referenced through the program. I have no idea how that's going to work until they actually implement it in the program and explain it. It appears that it will use a form of scripting engine that will call the morph when it's needed. All a bit of a puzzle there and until they get it to work in-house we won't have much of a clue out here. No, Daz doesn't pander to the erotica folks, this is true. Genitalia appears to be a bit of a no-no with them and in many ways I can understand their resistance to playing in that field. I very much doubt this will change any time in the future. I would find it extremely difficult to believe that any modifications you and the others do to figures would be non-functional in Studio. Regardless of Daz's apparent prudishness in this vein, you use "morphs" to detail anatomy. Morphs do work in studio (after a fashion at the moment) and will work properly later. The difference here is in the way those morphs are applied. It may even be that your option here will be to stick with Poser. It's impossible to judge until these functions are introduced to studio in order to compare them. I agree with you on the beta/vhs thing, betamax was far superior. We had the same thing with satellite broadcasting here in the UK.. BSB used a square receiver that wasn't affected by atmospheric conditions, SKY used a dish receiver that sucks. Sky won, BSB were bought out and we have BSkyB using mesh based dishes that get knocked out in a high wind, rain and several other weather conditions that never even phased the squarial. but I'm not sure if its going to be full featured enough for me to get a lot of use out of it That may be likely. Studio is quite obviously going to be plugin based and infitinately customisable as a result, but it won't hold the basic functionality that Poser does. Then again there's a difference between "Free base software" and a 300 dollar full program. It's even possible that Studio will never match your needs. Can't really judge that yet. *** because by now I believe only by it doing well, will we see more innovations on the Poser side of things.*** That's entirely likely. It's more than probable that one of the things that prevented Poser developing properly was it's complete lack of competition and the idleness of CL because of their market domination. If Studio makes the grade it will be a serious wake up call for the people who rested on their laurels for four years.

Sorry Bijou, I don't see what you're saying. Some of the functionality of Studio is limited at this time because it's a pre-beta release. So some figure functionality and morph manipulation capability is missing, and some of the figures come in looking odd. That (hopefully) will be fixed for the beta release and fully functional for the full release. Judging that now on a pre-release piece of software is mistaken. However, I agree completely with you about evaluating your own direction. Alpha software is "not" a judge of the final product, never has been, never will be. You should see the alpha versions of games and other software for a good clue here, they only represent the finished software in basic form. Most of the code is present, yes, but only a small amount is active. If the program won't run on your system then judging it as useless is again mistaken. It's not FINAL yet, it's an Alpha (does anybody actually understand what Alpha means?) Report the problem to Daz and explain what error message (if any) you get, your system spec and what precisely happens and what you do to cause the crash. They'll perhaps try to fix it, or manage to identify what causes the problem and explain it to you. As has been said in other threads here, Studio crashes can be caused by a variety of things, identifying that "thing" is the important part. If you are expecting to be able to work with Studio and use it in a production pipeline as part of your earnings now, then quite frankly anyone trying that trick is playing with fire. It's not ready for that yet, regardless of what a certain person is trying to beat into people. Your system not being a scrapheap is immaterial, something is conflicting. Same as with the release of Poser 5 there were massive conflicts for many people and a 2 ghz plus computer was seen as essential. I know someone running studio on a p3 500 quite happily and it's far more stable than Poser4, and yet another who can't even get the thing to install. It's test software, being tested to determine problems. If new figures are introduced for Studio (distinctly possible depending on the direction of the software) then yes, you need to evaluate whether you want or need to move up to these and spend yet more money. Thus far I've resisted the version 3 figures from Daz because I have no use for them. Same thing applies to any other models. If I don't "need" it, I won't buy it. Studio is no different. I won't buy figures or models I don't need and would hope to be able to use my existing libraries as best as possible - with a view to converting them if necessary. Free updates are distinctly possible. I know several vendors who updated their products for Poser 5, and several more who updated their products for the version 3 figures - releasing these updates as "free". Daz may or may not offer the same facility. Mostly though I should imagine that a new control figure (cr2 or in this case .daz) would be released rather than a new geometry model, because mostly we work from referenced geometry not imported geometry. Daz may already have plans in this regard and it wouldn't be the first time that they released an updated reference model using existing geometry. It's impossible to make those judgements at this stage of development because only parts of Studio are currently functional. The new dynamic morph system that Rob is talking about as a Studio replacement for inj morphs sounds fascinating, but it's not ready yet. Inj morphs still work the same, but studio employs them differently, dynamically. So there are changes there. I'm not trying to argue with you, just say that making assumptions about what will or won't work at this stage is like predicting the lottery numbers. The only people who know are the development team and the project co-ordinator. Weight mapping isn't uvmapping. Weight mapping is a joint control system that tells the software what polygons stretch and move, and which ones stay in place. So you wouldn't need to re-purchase clothing and textures all over again, your existing clothing would work and existing textures would apply to them because the uvmaps would be the same. What would change is the nature of the geometry being referenced and the information in the control file. Same as it is with Poser 5 dynamic cloth. You export an existing piece of clothing as a solid object. Import it to use in the cloth room, and wow, the uvmap is intact. Studio can work the same way. So there's no need to re-purchase anything. NEW models are a different matter all together, you will probably buy those for poser anyway - or studio if it eventually suits your work style - unless you're trying to say that you'll never buy clothing, figures or textures again, ever.

Maybe daz studio AND poser will both be successful well into the future I agree with you, it's distinctly possible. Poser has new owners and backers who aren't going to arbitrarily ditch it (yet), there's always a need for low priced introductory level 3D Apps and they'd be foolish to shelve it. Studio fills or will fill another much needed niche in several markets. There's no reason why they both can't evolve and succeed very much independant of each other. The presence of Vue didn't destroy Bryce (Corel did that all on their own). Lightwave hasn't hurt the Max market and XSI hasn't killed Maya. There's always space for applications and user preferences that will keep things going.

I'm sorry Xantor, other than weight mapping I don't honestly see what Studio can implement that can't apply to poser figures. Currently there is nothing offered by other applications - cloth, hair etc that I can't use on Poser models now. The only thing that becomes problematical and destroys poser models (that are cut as opposed to solid) is soft body dynamics. Trying to apply that to a default poser model is a nightmare in futility. Same with cloth dynamics on poser clothing, it must be a solid geometry or it self destructs (IIRC). I'm curious what extras you think (other than weight mapping and soft body) could be implemented that would make importing poser models pointless?

There's no reason at all to re-purchase everything, poser stuff works in Studio, that much is evidenced by the huge amount of posts detailing it. There are some problems that Daz will need to address but once that's done it should all work. The only differences that will occur will be with studio specific models that "may" use weight mapped jointing rather than cut zones like Poser. The simple fact here is that it's a far superior system to the current more familiar joints as it doesn't result in shattered body parts. Even so, it may not be necessary to repurchase anything. Converting an item from cutzones to single form is as simple as exporting from poser as a solid and then re-boning for Studio. If IF Daz introduce weight mapping properly to Studio. I'm fascinated where people get the idea that they'll have to purchase all their stuff again. Utter nonsense. It appears currently that the major problems with importing poser models is from three things. Path errors in the file, source errors (lights, geometry, etc), and model deformation caused by a poorly implemented filter (cut zones becoming obvious). All can be fixed.

It should be able to Anton, the displacement engine shouldn't need more than a tweak to make it work. Seems that they've got the levels of intensity crossed. The displacement currently does work, but it's set more to "strong bump map" than what it should be. If Daz are aware of that problem then it would serve them to fix it. The software is obviously capable, as is the renderer it's just not doing it yet. :) Whether it will be able to do the ZBrush thing is another matter, but one can hope.

It is usually used in the context of fussy interfering old maid. A "biddy" is elongated in English by "old biddy", thereby describing a grandmotherly type person who invariably looks like and acts like she's sucking lemons. It comes from the rural areas I believe following the "fussing and clucking" of a mother hen around her chicks. Nice derailment of a thread there, and just with a photo of a fat man in a red suit.