Poser is naughty with temp files, it doesn't put them in the temp directory which may be why some people haven't seen them, you are looking in the wrong place. Follow the tip posted by Mondaxjake and let us know how many you find.

Does anyone know if this could work in Paint Shop Pro?

I don't have Poser 5 handy, so I'm going to do this from memory. Hopefully someone will fix any gaps I may leave.... 1. Click the material tab -you probably knew that :0) 2. Click on the object list twistie (that's the triangle next to the word object in the top left of the material window). 3. Select Background <<<- relying on memory here, maybe another word that means Background. 4. Now you should see the node (that's a smaller window within the material window) that represents the background picture. 5. You can either modify the node so it shows no picture or delete it. If you can't see the node, check it's not outside the window by using the scroll bars. It's just like MS Windows but the graphics are different. If you still can't find the node, work your way through every material in every object till you find the culprit node and amend/delete it. I used to get a similar problem (frequently) in Poser 4 and the only way to fix it was to manually edit the PZ3 file. Good luck & let us know what happens.

I find this hard to believe, I've rendered 900+ images in one go for animations. The time taken per render remains the same and surely my PC would run out of memory if this were true. Show us the proof!

Use the material editor to modify the background. You'll see the texture there & you can remove it.

"Duh! Poser 5 has a 4MB memory leak per render." - layingBack Not on my machine! You must be a W98 user.

I misread the thread as Vampire Feet! :0) To answer the question, you could try creating a morph target for the teeth using a 3D modelling Application, tricky when it's in the mouth. I've only used Amorphium 1.0 and I couldn't select a tooth with that. If you create a sharp tooth and parent a couple to to the head, I don't believe it will move with the mouth.

You could add morph targets to twist the hood left and right so the user could fix the problem manually. If you are working in Poser 5, converting it to the Cloth Room could be the solution.

I'm using Windows XP Pro and I get that message nearly every time I render. I just close the window and it renders fine! Windows can be a bit of a whinger. :0)

"The problem is that so much of the Poser code doesn't work." Are you talking P4 or P5. If Poser is that bad, how come so many of us use it. This is one of the most popular forums in Renderosity which covers a lot of apps. Poser is relatively cheap and it does the job most of the time. There are small bugs and I agree that Curious Labs don't provide good support. I'm hoping a bit of competition will change Curious Labs attitude here and we see some healthy competition between the two.

praxis22 makes a good point. It's much easier to rewrite an application than to create it from scratch. You have a near perfect specification to work from. Curious Labs have the more difficult decision of enhancing the original or doing a re-write. The obvious advantage of enhancing the original is that you have code that works and you can bolt on the new features. How easy this is depends not just how modular the original code is, but how that code fits in with where you want to take the application. The commercial advantage of enhancing the original is that it should take less development time and, hence, will be cheaper. When Curious Labs made the decision to make Poser 5 they presumably knew they had some financial problems, they didn't have any direct competitors and Poser 4 was the most pirated 3d application (so I read in 3D world), so it was obviously a popular and relatively easy application to use. So it doesn't seem strange to me that they went for the enhancement option with increased copy security rather than a complete rewrite. The copy security was bought in and was a disaster. It's obvious that the pre-release testing was not done with this security feature in place. I have to wonder how much of Poser 5's current problems was due to the copy security and I imagine the solicitors of each company are still working on this case! I haven't checked how much memory Poser 5 takes when it's initialised compared to Poser 4, but I guess it's a lot. It appears to load up a lot of extra features instead of loading them in as needed. The majority of Poser's customers are enthusiasts on a tight budget, so we are not going to have the best machines. W98 struggled with Poser 4, I'm amazed some have got Poser 5 to work with it. To be fair, those of us that have a working Poser 5, find that most of the bugs in Poser 4 have been fixed and we have some new features. If your OS and machine can handle Poser 5 and you only do the things Poser 4 does, it does them better than Poser 4. But, the new features are really badly documented. For example, the material editor is great when you suss it, but the manual covers it appallingly! DAZ Studio have taken the second option, well they didn't have a choice did they! They have gone for a modular design, the long term option which they can build on. They are building in the capabilities of Graphics Cards. They are already in the Poser communities eye with their excellent products, customer support reputation and a very good web site on which to sell their product. Their product won't have all the capabilities of Poser 4 when it is released, but, if they get the shell right , it shouldn't take too long for them to match first Poser 4 and then Poser 5. If they allow other companies to write plug-ins, this process will be even quicker. If DAZ give the basic shell and renderer free, then most of us could be using DAZ Studio along side Poser. As DAZ Studio functionality increases, Posers share of CPU time would decrease -assuming we can afford and want to purchase the new modules. Curious Labs have the market now and I'm sure they have a cunning plan to stay in business, be it an SR4 release, Poser 6 or writing modules for DAZ Studio. :0)

Yes, yes, yes. We all know that the best way to stop anyone copying your art work is to hide it under your bed and not let anyone look at it. This thread is about how we can make it more difficult. Do you leave the doors to your houses wide open as the burglers could just break the windows if they wanted to?

Old browsers would be unable to see the image as the applet would un-encrypt and display it.

nukem, I was thinking of a flashframe technique but applied all over the picture in small squares. If each square flashed so quickly that the viewer was not aware of it but at any one fraction of a moment in time there were say ten of these squares visible, it would show on a screen print. Difficult to do with animated gifs and, as you say, quality would be decreased. Maybe an applet reading an encrypted file could display the picture with this technique?

...but what if each of those jigsaw piece images was like an animated gif which very briefly flashed something else. If all the images very briefly flashed out of sequence you might be able to prevent a screen grab capturing the whole image. If every time you screen grabbed the image, ten random pieces of the jigsaw were say, a randomly multicoloured square, then it could make getting the image so tedious most perpetrators would give up. I don't know if you could flash the squares quickly enough to prevent it ruining the image to the observer. I know, I know, probably not worth the effort but the idea stimulated my little grey cells.