jww1960 opened this issue on Mar 16, 2004 ยท 66 posts
jww1960 posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 4:51 AM
I did a quick test and it appears that the shadow mapping problem is fixed.
Jeff
randym77 posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 9:07 AM
Interesting. I noticed the SR4.1 text last night, but the filename was the same as SR4. I tried DLing it anyway, and it was a few kbs different in size. Tried installing it, and it didn't fix the shadow map problem for me. Maybe I DLed too soon. I'll try again tonight.
Tyger_purr posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 9:41 AM
downloaded and installed rendered an image that previously didnt work. No shadows. sent lights to library set then reset them in the scene. No shadows. set the lights to the set that i sent to library and renamed in the light file (see pre 4.1 workaround for shadows). shadows worked changed to a diffrent light set (Cyclorama set). shadows work created a new light, rendered. shadows work.
My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 9:59 AM
DL'd, installed TWICE and the version number is not what the "important notes" said it should be. I'm still getting a version 5.0.4.323.
Tyger_purr posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 10:34 AM
Ok, maybe Im nuts... Actually its a distinct possibility that has no relation to poser....but anyway. Mine says 5.0.4.323 and seems to be working.
My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 10:52 AM
randym77 posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 11:09 AM
Well, at least it's not just me. I tried applying it twice, just in case. Didn't think to check the version number; will do that tonight. I tried deleting all the lights in a scene, adding lights from a RDNA light set, and rendering. Still no shadows. Sigh.
Aeneas posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 11:09 AM
so does mine...323, not 325... and at CL they say that: "Poser 5 SR4.1 will update your Poser to version 5.0.4.325" There is no mentioning of 4.1, only 4. they also removed the anti-piracy control, but once again, mine wants to go on the Internet... ???
I have tried prudent planning long enough. From now I'll be mad. (Rumi)
Jacksmyname posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 11:38 AM
Hi all. Just a thought: how are you checking the version number? Sometimes an update won't change the version number on the "about" screen. Try checking the executable: right click on the executable, then properties. Check the "version" tab. I don't have Poser installed at the moment, so I can't chek it here.
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 11:41 AM
Right click on the exe and still 5.0.4.323, but it was a good suggestion.
dirk5027 posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 11:50 AM
5.0.4.323 same here
geep posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 12:34 PM
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
ceba posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 1:09 PM
Just downloaded and installed the patch. poser reports 5.0.4.325 Are you sure the patch is upgrading the correct install of poser? I have a P5 install I run and a copy of the directory structure and files for quick restore. Perhaps the patch as in past cases isn't seeing the correct exe to update??
Koda posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 1:25 PM
Where on there site is it I can't find the link today Thanks Koda
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 1:28 PM
What's going on? CL no longer has the "news" of SR4.1 on the front page and I can't find any SR's in the P5 download area. Why do I have the feeling that I've been "punked"?
cyberchrome posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 1:34 PM
same for me i download the sr4.1 five or six hours ago, version 5.0.4.323 after update... now the sr4.1 is gone in CL download page...
wipe posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 1:40 PM
Seems like it's just SR4 again! Maybe my idea for an infinite amount of monkey programmers wasn't so stupid after all!
Jackson posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 1:42 PM
I installed SR4 (not 4.1) a while ago and my file version shows 5.0.4.321.
randym77 posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 1:47 PM
OMG, you're right. SR4.1 has vanished. In fact, all the SRs seem to have vanished from the CL web site. Things are getting worser...
EdW posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 1:51 PM
My version number is the same as Jackson's (5.0.4.321). I downloaded it right after SR4 was announced. So there must have been an update to SR4 that wasn't announced. Ed
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 2:13 PM
randym77 posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 2:30 PM
I'm still not seeing any SRs at all at the CL site. I tried clearing my cache and everything.
And how strange, if they're going back to the original SR4. From v5.0.4.321, to v5.0.4.323, to v5.0.4.325, back to v5.0.4.321?
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 2:39 PM
OK. 4.1 is back! What is going on?
randym77 posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 2:45 PM
I'm seeing SR4.1 now, too. It wasn't there a minute ago, I swear. Weirdness!
diolma posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 2:55 PM
Hmm. Think I'll wait til tomorrow..
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 3:10 PM
Monkey programmers...? Hmmm... I don't think so. Monkeys are intelligent creatures --they learn from the mistakes they make. :) Oh, what a laugh I would have the day CL tries to sell me a version 6, or 5.5, or 5.**!!!!
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
geep posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 3:20 PM
Is it possible ... just possible ... that ...
CL had an update and thought it was ok ...
... and posted it.
Then ... found ... um, er, ... a couple of "problems" with the update?
... and pulled it?
Just a thought.
I think I'll wait until I get an "official" announcement from NaySayGuy. Then I will know its OK! (ha, ha) ;=]
cheers,
dr geep
;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
geep posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 3:25 PM
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 3:32 PM
hahaha.... I agree, Doc! I'll also wait until NaySayGuy gives the OK... :)
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 3:33 PM
... or maybe they're having a party and are all sitting around laughing at the day-long "chain yanking" and those of us who are still hopeful for a fully functional version of Poser. I think the doctors diagnosis is probably correct. I would call an announcement on the CL homepage as "official" as I would expect. Just some gas. Visque
geep posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 3:50 PM
FYI- Doc has never seen a piece of software that was "fully functional" ... That is, 100% bug free. SW is getting more and more complex and to expect it to be 100% may be unrealistic. Having worked in the "industry" for over 20 years, I know that management is constantly faced with the dilemma of testing, testing, testing, test ..., etc, etc. and then needing to make a decision to "release" it. It's called "real life." ;=]
P.S. I wrote a piece of "perfect" sw once ... it was a subroutine with only 20 lines of code. It was "perfect!" Then, I found a spelling error in one of the comment lines. Did I recompile it? Nope! ;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
ockham posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 3:56 PM
Indeed software is a complex product. This particular complex product needs a complex label to describe it: 5.0 + j4.1
Tyger_purr posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 3:57 PM
I downloaded it, installed it, see the 325 in the "about" and shadows in a file that didnt have them before.
My Homepage - Free stuff and Galleries
Aeneas posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 4:05 PM
Well, soon we'll get an update that updates the updater, and all we will bge fine. SP4.1.A.I.a.1.new.etc... Let's hope we don't have to do a complete reinstall...
I have tried prudent planning long enough. From now I'll be mad. (Rumi)
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 4:16 PM
Strive for mediocrity, thats my motto. You'll never be disappointed.
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 4:50 PM
Accept nothing but perfection. You'll always be disappointed.
geep posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 4:55 PM
Tried that ... could only get to 99.999999999999999% ;=[
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
geep posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 4:55 PM
... and ...
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
geep posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 4:56 PM
I was dissapointed ! ;=[
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
visque posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:15 PM
Me too
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:17 PM
Me three.
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:23 PM
Me four.
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:29 PM
Com'on, people......we can keep this goin' all night......
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:30 PM
At least for as many active members as RR has.....
Treewarden posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:36 PM
I downloaded it and concur with Tyger purr that my test file now renders properly (map shadows working), with 325 in the version.
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:36 PM
Not to mention that we are running the risk to be found off topic...:)
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
geep posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:42 PM
FYI -
You might want to READ THIS.
cheers,
dr geep
;=]
Remember ... "With Poser, all things are possible, and poseable!"
cheers,
dr geep ... :o]
edited 10/5/2019
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:42 PM
That's always a risk. I'll download the patch later tonight, and try it out.
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 5:51 PM
Thanks, Doc... this is very interesting indeed... I quote: "...it is always the "safest" method for those with concerns - to apply the updater to a clean install of the application." Meaning: Start with a fresh installation, otherwise the updater could create havoc! Question: But, in this case, what sort of "updater" is this? Imagine Windows asking you to start with a "fresh installation" every time a service release becomes available!!!!! What kind of joke is this?
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
Jackson posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 6:01 PM
I don't get it either. I've run countless of patches on various programs over the years and it was never suggested, requested, or even hinted that I should do a fresh install of the program before applying the patch. The only requirement should be that the program not be running at the time.
Curious_Labs posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 6:33 PM
In my original post, I may have given the impression that a clean install would be highly recommended. We do not expect anyone to need to install SR4.1 through a clean installation method. Our statement on the clean install is only a precautionary statement for those who make modifications to Posers default installation as it may offer in inconsistent state which could possibly result in unexpected behavior. With this in mind, our instructions and expectations are for SR4.1 to successfully be installed to the existing installation.
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 6:42 PM
"Our statement on the clean install is only a precautionary statement for those who make modifications to Posers default installation as it may offer in inconsistent state which could possibly result in unexpected behavior." Sorry, but I found the above rather vague. What modifications are we talking about. Adding an item to a library IS a modification. Altering the structure of a library IS a modification. Changing the "factory set" defaults IS a modification. In other words, we all work with installations that have been modified.
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
Curious_Labs posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 6:48 PM
Hi Panko, We're talking about significant modifications that some may create so this does not pertain to the description you've offered. Please go ahead and install SR4.1 to your existing installation. Kind regards, Katherine
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 6:57 PM
That's better... Thank you, Katherine, you are always so kind... But I'd rather wait for SR4.2, or even better for SR4.3 ......... :)
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
sandoppe posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 7:44 PM
I have 4 different runtimes.....removed judy, don, etc. a long ago, modified to eliminate "content parasite", etc., etc. I suspect mine qualifies as a "significant modification". I note that someone mentioned SR4 got rid of the anti-piracy control, but still wants to access the internet?? The anti-piracy thingee was suppose to have been eliminated with SR2.....then I read that SR3 was suppose to get rid of it. I suspect if it's not gone by now, it's taken on a life of it's own and is virtually indestructable!! It took me nearly a year to update to SR3.....looks like a similar period of time will pass before I jump on this band wagon! :)
uli_k posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 8:07 PM
Poser 5 with SR4 does not access the internet unless you connect to Content Paradise. Other than that, what your personal firewall might denote as a connection to internet is the network serial check that was introduced with Poser 4.0.3 four years ago. It is a broadcast, and broadcasts are per definition local - no router or gateway would ever forward broadcast traffic, therefore this is not a connection to the internet. In addition, most personal firewalls check the integrity of programs by creating a hash or checksum over the entire executable. If you update an application (for example through SR4), this checksum is different, because the program code has changed. Then, personal firewalls often discard the previously set rules and ask what to do. I assume this is the reason for the repeated discussion of this topic after each update. As far as bypassing the anti-piracy measurements is concerned, this was done as part of SR2. Since the Service Releases are cumulative patches, and SR3 and SR4 carry all SR2 modifications, it is justified to say that also SR3 and SR4 bypass those anti-piracy measurements, even though the logic hasn't been changed since SR2. Makes sense?
sandoppe posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 8:18 PM
As much sense as anything else here uli k!! :)
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 8:26 PM
uli k, your explanation is a good one, but I wonder why my firewall doesn't behave this way when I update, say my browser, or Windows, or any other program? Just curious. :)
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
sandoppe posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 8:38 PM
Maybe because your browser, Windows and other programs are not made by Curious Labs???? :)
panko posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 8:49 PM
hahahahahaha......... well said!... (Windows are made by Microsoft though... which is the next best thing!!!........:)
"That's another fine mess you got me in to!" -- Oliver Hardy
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 10:19 PM
Nahhh.....Microsoft knows how to get around your firewall, so that you are not aware of their watching your every move. All of the data on your PC has been personally reviewed by Bill Gates. After all, he's got nothing better to do with his time.
XENOPHONZ posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 10:22 PM
Curious Labs just doesn't have as much expertise -- yet. But 4.1 corrects that. Now, CL can download all of your data, too. And fool your firewall in the process. No one is safe. They are watching.........
randym77 posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 10:30 PM
Most software doesn't try to connect to the Internet. Or even to the local network. If it does, the same thing happens when you update. At least, if you have Zone Alarm it does. For example, when I updated my e-mail program (Pegasus), Zone Alarm suddenly started blocking it, until I permitted it through again. Because it recognized that it had changed. Similarly, I had to go over to a friend's house to adjust her settings because she upgraded to a new version of WS_FTP, her firewall was blocking it, and she couldn't figure out how to let it through.
sandoppe posted Tue, 16 March 2004 at 11:35 PM
Norton Security does that automatically.......sort of a "firewall for dummies" (which is what I need most of the time!) It knows when changes are made, and if it's not sure permissions should be granted, will pop up and ask if you want it permitted or blocked and gives you the option to select if it's just this time or always. That's what it did the first time it saw Poser 5 trying to "cruise the net". I set it to "block it....always" :)
bip77 posted Wed, 17 March 2004 at 5:26 AM
Except of using the content room Poser 5 is not trying to connect to the internet. As already mentioned it sends and listens to broadcasts on the local net looking for a copy with the same serial number. If you block Poser in esp. ZoneAlarm it slows down a lot! I did so once and everything (starting/loading/rendering) was a lot slower, maybe because it consumes so much CPU time trying to connect anyway. So IMHO it's a bad advice to block Poser.
randym77 posted Wed, 17 March 2004 at 5:41 AM
Zone Alarm gives you pop ups up, too. But not all firewalls do. The one that's built into Windows XP doesn't, which is a real pain. Software just doesn't work, and you're left to guess what's wrong. (I'm not sure if the XP firewall blocks Poser or not, since I've long since disabled it. It really is a firewall for dummies - it comes set to allow certain programs through automatically, while it blocks others automatically.)
But Bip's right - don't block Poser. It will needlessly chew up system resources. Poser will constantly try to connect to the network if you block it. Not just when you start it, but constantly. You're better off setting your firewall to "always allow" Poser to connect. If you do that, Poser will check once, and be done with it. It will free up system resources and should speed things up. Feel free to remove Content Parasite if you don't want Poser connecting to the Internet. I did. :-)