Hmm guess its too late here, and Im getting bleary, for some reason I cant repeat that result but definately you are right about the flipping.

I think you are on the right track with the reason for this bug, try this with steph petite on the right shin bend, rotate the inner sphere Z rotate from 180 to 0 now do a symmetry from right to left, this flips the zrotate from 0 to 180  on the left leg but also this snaps the falloffs into alignment in poser. the key is that both the X and Z rotations were on or close to 180 degrees in one sphere which is bad, this causes the gimble lock issue.

yep its a bug in the poser rigging system which has been a problem since at least Poser 5 and probably earlier, and as patorak states has to do with the fact that the tools are so sensitive to gimble lock. this issue also accounts for the strange crazy spinning of spherical falloff fields when rotation angles approach 90 degrees (or multiples thereof) the only way I have found of avoiding it is to zero the rotations of both falloff zones and try a different rotation to get the same basic shape.

Quote - Thanks for the replies.
I'd like to ask you something else:I'd like to conform some boots I've made to Michael 4,he has bent feet in zeroed position,hod do I conform? 

the boots should be built and rigged in the zeroed position to get them to conform properly. its not as easy as building them as if the feet are flat on the ground but its the best way to get them to move with the foot properly.

Quote - my point is that they don't have a common API (scripting and add-ons comment) at the moment.  and if they aren't in the same language, the programming teams couldn't share code (might not be able to even they were).  a common API at this point wouldn't really matter, would it?  because a common API would only mean new things might be shared.  it wouldn't mean (for example) that D|S could acquire cloth dynamics from Poser and Poser could get D|S's GI or SSS.  a  shared API would only work if it were based on common capabilities. 

i guess on the off chance that the common capabilities were actually the complete source of a capability particular to one or the other, you might be able to share existing features.  but i'm not sure there's even a single capability like that.  hence my statement about not being sure it's possible without re-writing one or the other.

but maybe i'm missing something.

You are, Gareee was talking about emulating features and abilities not sharing code, like perhaps poser can do this and SM can help studio programmers to figure out the best way to support the feature or Studio can do that and DAZ can help SM programmers figure out how to support that feature. in the process improving capabilities on both sides. but ultimately idle speculation based on a marketing decision is all that we have right now, nothing more than that.

OOPS I just reread your first post and saw that it was for V4, sorry. I have considered doing new versions of those outfits for M4 and V4 but havn't gotten around to it yet.

and for what figure? I did a couple of skater outfits for Luke and Laura www.daz3d.com/i/3d-models/0/thrashers-2-skater  www.daz3d.com/i/3d-models/-/thrashers-skater-kid

not same old same old exactly, becouse as a morph of V4 her morphs can also be mixed with V4 and A4 morphs.

if you have full body morphs with multiple bodyparts you want the tool collection by Dimension 3d it has a brilliant morph loader app which will do what you want.

yep it happens with other figures as well in later versions of the SreeD display(I dont recall it happening in P4 or P5. its a display bug only.

yeah that all looks right. I was thinking perhaps you used apply after joint bending(which I havn't found a lot of use for yet) and poser wasn't reading that. other than that I can't think of why it wouldn't work.

how did you create your jcm? using the reverse deformations feature of Morph loader pro? if so what options did you use?

not seeing how you are disagreeing, I said smoothing can remove some of the blockyness. I dont find high smoothing angles ideal for all situations though due to some of the wierd self shading issues that happens occasionally, thats why I say some rather than all.

well the flip side of that is that low poly meshes are rougher with more visible edges, so you loose detail in the surface, this tends to be particularly noticable around the edges of the figure. the best texture in the world won't fix a blocky figure though it might mask some of the evidence. There are ways to smooth meshes to some extent, smoothing in Poser can get rid of some of the blockyness, Sub-D in Studio can get rid of it completely though with that you are actually subdividing the mesh at rendertime so you will still get a hit on render time.