wow.. that's a bold and sweeping assumption as far as numbers go, especially when you attach words like "effective". 259 respondents are not nearly enough to even begin to guess at the version spread, especially since you only polled the "agressively active" user base.

Poser users should check out something like Silo. It's only $100 bucks and is very capable. It's not the modeler that you would find in Maya, Lightwave, etc, but if you have one of those applications it would be much smarter to animate and render in that package as well, rather than going back into Poser.

So could anyone tell me about an openGL app that shows a preview with >textures and transmaps, and doesn't bogs or slows down too much my >medium range computer ? There are many programs that use OpenGL previews very well, including Lightwave, Maya, XSI and Max. It's this level of live interaction, among many other things, that set these applications apart from the other 3D apps. Vue does such a horrible job with OpenGL I'm surprised they even claim to use it. Poser clearly has a user base, but it's a pretty niche market. Poser is in no shape to be used in most professional workflows, and to make it so would change it enough that it would no longer be an appealing tool to it's current users. This would be suicide for the product. I think whoever owns Poser now should focus on this current user base and it's needs, make the program easier to use, and rewrite it from scratch with solid and lean code so it functions smoother and quicker. Priority 2 would be to add highly functional tools for custom content creators. These are far more important than more half-ass attempts at new features.

Cinema 4D has a pretty decent poly reduction function built right in, as do many of the better 3D apps such as Lightwave, etc. That being said, most people who reduce models "professionally" do it by hand. Building LOD (level of detail) versions of game models, for instance. While some software will do a pretty good job reducing fairly regularly shaped objects, you will inevitably need to go in and do some tweaking by hand to get the best results. Best of luck

Yeah, I see what you mean. The program is generating Gothic arches rather than Roman type arches. While it would be "historically inaccurate" from an architectural perspective, a user could always simply paint in a central top keystone in a texture map.

It's good practice to set the default pose for a character to be neutral, meaning something in between the range of motions it will take. This gives an even range of deformation in all needed directions without pushing the mesh to an extreem. The default for a face would be "bored". I would suggest the mouth be only slightly open. Eye lids somewhere between "tired" and full open. Your mesh is looking really good around the eyes and forehead. I would suggest you work in some edge loops around the mouth though (like you did with the eyes). That sharp point at the corners of the mouth will give you problems later, when smoothing and deforming. Best of luck!

Real artists never speak ill of work of other artists as that`poor work by >other artist's work doesn't have any impact on theirs. While this would be wonderful, it sadly isn't true at all. Check out any history book from any time period, and we see fantastically talented people being pricks to each other. LOL! ; )

Sorry guys, the beonce one is ok, but I don't see the likeness in any of the other models.

I would suggest that you study Animation in general, not just in Poser. There is a wealth of knowledge out there. Especially go learn the basic principles of animation. If you want to be a good animator you can't simply learn a program, you have to learn animation, and then you can animate well using any tool (even a pencil and paper!).

Since the artwork wasn't created with a more >expensive program, it was deemed junk. The >online showcase was for 3D art, not Maya or >program specific art, and Poser is a 3D art program. You are missing the point here. A Poser artist can arguably produce some great looking work, but almost none of them actually create any of the figures, poses or textures they use. Thats fine for many purposes, and for arts sake, but if you have a gallery where people who consider character modeling a real craft, and come together to share that, Poser renders have no place. In fact, it is quite disrespectful to assume that spinning a few dials on a purchased character should somehow earn you respect from those people. Imagine a group of homebuilders who are sharing tips and tricks, and complementing each other on the work they have done, and you barge in and declare, I bought my house, can I hang with you guys? Its not about having a house, it is all about the process of building the house, and that makes all the difference. People spend a lot of time and effort learning to create 3D elements from scratch, and they truly enjoy it, so respecting them for that is a good place to start if you want some respect yourself for your own artwork. > You have a 20 page multi-panel web comic offer >and the client wants it ready in one week. You >gonna use Maya or 3DS and build every single >setting and detail and person in each scene and >then suffer the posing of every character in every >render with those slow bulky apps? slow bulky apps? Youve clearly never used either of those programs! LOL I challenge you to render a 20 page multi-panel web comic in one week using Poser. Or all the fx and animation for a weekly television show. Or even a daily pre-vis during story board development phases on any media project. Go ahead, give it a real try. Then cry when the client is pissed and fires you because your project is late, and because you used characters that everyone else has. Seriously, originality in art, even commercial art, is highly sought after. Do you think characters developed for games and movies receive so little consideration and forethought that any old character from any web store will do? No way. Companies put great effort into creating completely original characters and art assets in an effort to stand out, communicate specific messages and stories, and establish a long lasting franchise.

I can't believe so many people on that post are still clinging onto Bryce! Geez, let that dying turd of a program go already. LOL

Not all 3D programs have direct correlations between their lighting system and "real world" values. Frankly, it's just not important since 3D programs are intended to create "illusions of reality" rather than simulations of reality. I do know that Lightwave will let you choose color for a light based upon real world light "temperatures" such as Kelvin (among other lighting values) but that's not the same thing you are looking for. Actually, a real world accurate lighting system would be more of a limitation than a boon, since almost every well lit 3D scene requires lighting that would not be possible in the real world, such as certain lights that cast on only certain objects, or that cast no shadow at all. Another common example is the individual selection of shadow casting per object. This would also be tricky with virtual sunlight cast within programs such as Vue, because there would have to be some relative scale coupled with exact placements of light sources to emulate the vast distance between the earth and sun, and that sort of thing is just impracticle for the 3D artist. Best of luck!

Well, the whole image looks pretty evenly lit. I'm not seeing a lot of shadwos, etc. The only shadows I am seeing seem to be coming from a light source located mostly straight above. If that's what you are going for, then great! ; ) If you want a little more mood, you can try varying the lgihtsing. Create multiple light sources, add a little color to some of them, a touch of red would be nice on an image like that.

I think you should move the figure out of dead center. Use the "rule of thirds" to compose your shot. Also, something in the foreground would be very nice, like part of a rock, etc. That would give you the figure in the mid field, a rock in the fore and the rest of the scenery in the background, which would create a lot of depth to the image.

Ah. Right.