I'm asking becuase I keep seeing this over and over and over agian, and I want to know. I've looked over the spec for OpenGL and while it's not too bad for games or modelling, it doesn't have the features that Poser's current display method has, and it's hardware dependent. So I'm looking for explanations. I'm generally against it, but I'm not sure I have all the information. In general, what I've gathered so far is that folks want it becuase it's faster -- but I will not accept the only tangible gain of speed in exchange for my various shading modes and my hardware independence. So I'm dying to know -- what benefits do I gain from a switch to openGL?

Poser doesn`t use openGL and so it wont speed it up any if you use it on your computer.

I am also against Open GL in Poser. I have Vue and I think that the preview modes in Poser are better than Vue. I have also dabbled in game engines and yes, Open GL is brilliant in real time games where speed is essential, but the preview modes in Poser are fine for everything except transparencies. I hope that if Curious Labs do introduce Open GL they still give you the option of working without it, like Vue does.

I think it is basically to improve transparancies etc so you can tell what is going on instead of "what are these little dots that are above my characters head? I want hair" :)

Open GL is a standard for using the video card to do some of the work, instead of relying soley on the computer's CPU. That means computer memory and horsepower is freed up, while the video card, that is designed for fast rendering, does much of the work. Most 3D programs are being developed using Open GL to take advatage of the speed increase in display and rendering. Some are already available. Howver, Poser 4 and Poser 5 do not use Open GL. Daz Studio does. Curious Labs hasn't committed to any design changes in P6 yet (if there is one). So, your statement about Open GL being better for preview in Poser is incorrect. If you have a computer purchased in the last couple of years, you probably already have Open GL. I don't know of any being sold now that don't have it.

For me, really the selling point of OpenGL is transparency preview, and another preview that showed transparency would make me just as happy. Speed isn't a big issue to me. I believe DAZ|Studio uses OpenGL for the preview, and I don't know how much of this is OpenGL and how much is 3Delight, but in it, I have to make my scenes insanely dark for the rendered image's light level to be reasonable, so I'm obviously not to happy with that...

Just remember, Open GL is not really neccesary to veiw transparencies. The current preview modes can be upgraded without Open GL to show transparencies. All computer games don't run on Open GL, and they can still support transparency. Open GL is only one formatt of rendering, there are many others that are not hardware dependant. If anyone here has Vue you will know what a problem hardware dependent Open GL can cause. You need specific hardware for it to work, whereas Poser's preview mode at the moment will work on any machine.

I think she's referring to the continual bawl for GL implementation.... There could be a couple of benefits; it would permit realtime transparency rendering, and more sophisticated previewing of light sources. It could be used to speed up the work area redraw, and alleviate some of the jerkiness you can get in the dials, for instance. That said, it also opens up a =HUGE= can of worms. Open GL was at one time a solid, cross platform API. What was GL for one was GL for all. Them days is long gone, as each game card vendor twists the standard to suit their cards and chip design. Parts of the API have been changed to squish in the pixel and vertex shader technology. Things that used to work simply don't anymore. They try and compensate for that with trickery in the drivers, and that leads to the current mish-mash of driver roulette. Gamers tend to save copies of drivers that work for them, simply because the next driver upgrade could easily break what was a perfectly stable system. The big apps use GL quite successfully....but they also code to the GL standard that exists in things like the Oxygen series of cards, which in a straight Open Gl bench test would wipe the floor with -all- the gaming cards. The scanline renderer is old. But it also is independant of the video hardware; it will run on a GeForce FX or a 4 meg Trident ISA card from 10 years ago.

hmmm, I apparently worded this improperly. Dale_B is dead on with what I'm saying. Thank you pdxjims for that explanation -- it was a tad clearer than the specs for it were, lol, and it will help with folks who read and don't know what it is. I am indeed referring to the continual request -- nigh on a demand -- for OpenGL. Every single thread about where poser is going from here (and there will be a poser 6 -- the when is the question that no one can answer, lol) or about feature requests or just general griping about Poser 5 and 4 contains at least one, and usually more, requests for OpenGL! "Poser sucks without OpenGL!" is essentially the thought, and I cannot, for the life me, figure out why folks think that. And I'm not saying that OpenGL is bad, nor that the current preview engine in P4/P5 is all that great -- what I am saying is that I cannot see, given the limitations inherent in the spec for OpenGL (assuming one actually follows spec) regarding providing the same 12 (15) viewing options already present and being hardware independent, how anyone can think that this would be an improvement. even more specifically, I'm looking for someone to change my mind. I'm open to that possibility, running on the assumption that I don't understand the rationales behind it effectively. A good, clear, well thought out explanation may be a stretch for some, but there's enough folks here that are capable of it ;)

The reason you will hear OpenGL mentioned in my posts for the future of Poser6 is NOT because I think it would be an improvement, but because I think it is going to happen anyway (for no good reason). My feeling is that Poser users are screaming for OpenGL because they spent a mint on their gaming cards and they feel that should make Poser "better" as well. My fear is that Curious will bow to public demand and destroy the effective preview system Poser currently has in favor for a hacked version of OpenGL that only supports a handful of high-end cards -- basically shutting out half the users and condemning the rest to an endless round of driver updates and mysterious crashes.

I think if CL does add Open GL to Poser it should just be an additional option in the preview styles, with the option to disable it like Vue has. Has anyone tested Shade? What preview system does that use, because it is conceivable that CL might take some of the Shade technology for Poser 6.

numanoid - Shade uses a software preview system similar to Poser's. That's an excellent suggestion, and given the wisdom at CL of late, if they do implement OpenGL, it will likely be in that format. nomuse -- that's actually behind part of my reason to understand this. While I think the current group of folks at CL are far smarter than that, there is always that chance. lol However, as you noted, there is a very large chunk of folks who do not have graphics cards, and many of the younger, newer users won't have much more than a handme down system. one of the more interesting responses I got when talking about this elsewhere was what triggered this post. The response was "well, 'cause that's what I read in the rosity forums. If folks want it there, it must be good, right?". Given that, I sorta have to bring it up. CL does read stuff like this. Bringing it out into the open (and asking the right questions) is vital. Thanks for the replies so far!

OpenGL is only a specification, is a good specification, but the bigger problem is how is implemented, the same as for DirectX. The current implementation of OpenGl and DirectX is so badly done on Windows that is very and very slow that you will need a powerful graphic card processor to help with the speed. With the current CPUs any well written software rendering engine will be very much better and faster than any super video card with OpenGL or DirectX, but today nobody does it anymore. This was the reason why I've created my own engine (PropViewer and ArcMaker in freestuff/marketplace).

"I'm asking becuase I keep seeing this over and over and over agian, and I want to know." The reason I would want to see OpenGL over the current shading preview mode is for real-time visualization. You can get a much better approximation of how a scene will look when rendered with OpenGL than you can with Poser's current shader preview, and therefore reduce dramatically the wasted time you spend "test rendering" a scene. That's why I use it in other applications, and that's why I'd like to see it in Poser. Of course there are drawbacks to using OpenGL as previously mentioned. Depends on your needs. ;-)

The main reason is because with OpenGL you get a faster preview, meaning that complex scenes will (should) be live updated without going to wireframe or so. There is also the option of dualplanes which means that only the elements that have changed are updated whilst pixels that haven't aren't touched. This speeds up even more. Yet, unfortunately, only the real pro cards support it fully. Others, the better "gamer's cards" also support it, but to a limited extent which means that there usually are some issues, annoyances. Yes, the companies say: full support, but when you use the drivers of a FireGL on a 9800Pro, you'll notice the difference. Word goes that you can easily change your Radeon into a FireGL, but I didn't try, and take no responability for those who do so. My opinion is that people always want tings that are implemented in the pro-apps, whilst Poser needs desperately a lot of other things that I consider more important than OpenGL. Like an object manager for example, multiple undo and a polygon room where you would be able to work with points, edges and polys (magnets are only a first step). Now that P has split in a "fun" version and a "pro" app, the pro app must be freed from metacreations/KaiKrause restants like the outdated interface, the content room and the face room should be made to include the Daz Millenium unimesh people. So OpenGL? As it does not influence render times, but only makes the live-update quicker: for me, not directly. First build a good foundation for your mansion before you start thinking about the furniture. my 2 Eurocents

I agree with what no muse said if you don`t have a great graphics card then the open gl might be a bad thing. I like the poser preview, it is fast and has never crashed my computer when open gl stuff has crashed it.

Message edited on: 06/16/2004 06:47

hmmm. Starting to see some light here - gaining an understanding of the why. Maxxxmodelz notes it depends on your needs. I can understand that for certain -- but I understand more the greater need for Poser to work across a greater number of platforms -- including those without the hardware to support OpenGL. But even he notes it's not a better solution in such a case. Still need more info, though. Thanks again (and Kawecki -- nice engine on the prop viewer..)

For what it's worth, the current preview uses Sree3D, written by Sree Kotay specifically for Metacreations products. It's still used in Bryce and was used in some versions of Raydream. I'd bet that adding OGL to Poser would cuase the same types of problems Vue/MJW has with"noncompliant" OGL video cards. Best; Dan

To add to my previous post, basically when I've said "I want OpenGL!", what I'm actually trying to say is "I want real-time transparency preview! (Or a more complete real-time preview in general)", and I say OpenGL because it's what I've been told will do that. Reading this thread, I can see that that's not a well-informed way to say it, but I wonder how many people are doing the same thing...

I find the debate a little strange. I'm a trueSpace user. version 4.3 to be exact, which was released in 1998. It has DX and OpenGL support, both of which are stable as well as it's own internal gfx support. so, we have a program thats old. very old infact ;) that has better display capabilites than poser's own. yet we debate this fact. what the pros and cons are. personal prefrences etc. it's simple you know. we get CL to add DX and OpenGL support.. AS well as the standard and then they add a switch. use what you want in the program. as I said tS4.3 has DX and OpenGL... but I model 100% of the time in Wireframe....

I find rendering in Poser painfully slow. If it even renders at all. I'd like for my video card to take some of the load. I think for most people these days, it seems very odd that having a spiffy new video card with 256 Mb of RAM, etc., doesn't do squat for Poser. Seems like something's being wasted. :-)

Personally, I love the way Vue renders. I haven't had any trouble at all, even with really huge scenes. Stuff I wouldn't even try with Poser renders very quickly in Vue.

I also understand completely the idea of having a faster update, especially on a complex scene, and most especially if you could work real-time texture and lighting approximations into it. OpenGL seems a good choice for this, as it takes the burden off the processor...but ONLY if it is OPTIONAL. Making it the default is what I fear. As a reference; both Bryce and Carrara offer several different engines for workspace preview. My experience has been that the engine written by the same software engineers (aka, Eovia render) will work pretty good though sometimes slow, one of the other modes will have a few things it can do well (but everything else badly), and the third will lock up the program and crash my computer. Still, this seems a good direction for Poser. Parrellel "curious preview render" and OpenGL, with the user able to change on the fly. I do worry, though, with the small number of programmers they have they might just put all their effort into optimizing the latter and ignore or even remove the former.

I have a Matrox G400 with 32 meg o' ram. Hardly a "high-end" card, yet it works fine with the openGL apps I have. I'll take anything that'll speed Poser's previews up and ease those jerking cameras and dials.

I think it is worth adding OpenGL preview as an alternative to the SreeD software renderer, but people should keep in mind a few limitations. First, this would be a realtime preview system, and would not affect final render times. Rendering engines for final images are nearly always software engines. Graphics cards are not architected for doing things like raytracing. Although there are some experiments out there in trying to offload some raytracing math onto GPUs, there isn't much beyond experimentation happening on this front. OpenGL cards could probably generate a render as good as the P4 scanline renderer, but its not going to do everything that firefly or another hybrid raytracer is going to do. Also, regarding speeding up the preview display, OpenGL acceleration will speed up rotation, translation, etc., of fixed meshes, and certainly camera view changes. However, posing (where you are actually changing the displayed meshes) will probably not see as large of a speed boost. All that said, I think it's still a good thing to add as an optional display mode.

OpenGL support is a necessity IMHO for 3D apps. As models get more and more heavy polygon wise (M3 and V3 are good examples) everything slows down on the screen when you try to move stuff around. And if you work in shaded mode it's worse. OpenGL is better for previewing lighting and transparencies and textures in general. There is a reason why professionnal apps support it. Nothing will bring a machine down on it's knees faster than a 3d application It only makes sense to download some of the cpu's load to the video card. I have a good video card on my system, and I can easily swing around huge polygon models in Lightwave, it makes a big difference when you are working.

So it is strictly for the preview speed in turning, and the changes in transparency. And you are willing to give up (possibly) your various alternative shading modes? Although they are not used properly (or at all) by many folks, they can make a huge difference in usability. Not everyone operates in wireframe (not a dig -- I usually work in a combination myself, with terrains in cartoon with line, plants and buildings in outline, figures in flat shaded, and then the thing I'm working with that moment in Textured). Randym77 -- We're not talking about the final render -- we're talking about what you see in the screen as you are working. Rendering engines themselves pretty much fall into the really expensive ones that are hardware specific (meaning, you have to have this card for it to work properly) and then software engines. Software engines are the entirely based in CPU, and some of them produce results which will cause your eyes to pop out but take four hours to render a 91 pixel thumbnail. Game engines (hardware based) are not capable of producing the quality of images produced by software engines. They are getting there, but it's still not quite close. This is why the movies are rendered using software engines. hmm. Now, as for complications of mesh, the Poser implementation of the Sree3D seems to me to be severly hampered -- Bryce can handle considerably more complex objects and a great many more of them without slowing down -- since licensing of that engine is already in CL's hands, perhaps a shift towards the freedom that provides would be more in order? IE -- if the poser preview operated with the same speed as the Bryce preview?

All I want is faster "preview" renders. I'm willing to wait for the final render. The annoying thing is when you want to check how something looks rendered, and you have to wait so damn long. It's a real interruption in the work flow; that's what I find aggravating.

I want fast and real previews, I don't care about anti-alliasing in preview, but I need real lights and shadows!

This may be old hat, but last I heard, Poser was so wedded to it's rendering backend that if you wanted to OpenGL the thing you'd have to completely re-write it, ground up. Which come P5 simply wasn't ecconomic. So from that point of view retooling Poser (a program you have to pay for) to compete with D|S (a program you don't have to pay for) is a losing proposition. It's the same problem services like iTunes face, they aren't competing with record shops, they're competing with pirates. Cheap vs "free" However I still feel that the real "problem" with poser is the fact that it's old tech. Modern games are capable of comparable results in realtime, you only have to look at HalfLife2, Sims2, or even Halo2, (on the feature restricted Xbox platform) for evidence of this. The new Sims2 bodyshop program is very similar in many ways to what poser has to offer, and this is for creating 3D content that will go into a game. An OpenGL poser would be nice, but I wouldn't hold your breath. later jb

Well, the rendering backend for Poser isn't so wedded that they couldn't introduce a new rendering back end (firefly - the P4 renderer in P5 isn't actually the original render, either), so it seems like you were right in the old hat dept. ;) iTunes is actually succeeding enormously well, proving that pirates will pay for something if the price is right and the threat of lawsuits against 12 year olds is valid. Modern games are not capable of comparable results in real time -- the rendering engines in current games don't even stand up to the quality level of the P4 renderer for the work that is commonly done in Poser 4 by the more artistically capable. Also, modern games work with meshes that are much lower in resolution than most poser models, and were you to try you'd choke them. Game engines do look good -- on the surface. Side by side, they don't stack up. Knowing the methods by which the games produce some of thier effects, however, can be very useful to users of Poser and other higher end rendering systems. Game designers use these tricks frequently to overcome the shortcomings of the engines, while in translation they can be used to reduce rendering times. THe technology currently in Poser is "old" only in some respects. Firefly isn't. The hair and cloth simulations aren't. The preview rendering engine is. The question here is whether or not it should be replaced with OpenGL, or should CL simply update and improve the current engine. Thanks for your response! :)

There was an old game, "Land of Lore II" that was done for DOS, later was done a new episode, "Land of Lore III", this time it was for Windows 95 and DirectX, the visual appearence was the same and nothing new was added to the graphics, but the game was very much slower. So the proprietary software renderer running under DOS was very much faster than the other renderer using DirectX running under Windows, and the computer was only a 486!

Attached Link: http://www.fileplanet.com/files/140000/140731.shtml

"isn't so wedded" eh? Oh but it is... You'd have to search the archives, but somewhere in there many months, (around the release of P5) ago, you will find a response from CL to me, on this exact question. "Firely" is a straight plugin, I forget the name, but it's a commercial product bought by CL and integrated, just like the hair and cloth stuff. P5 is and remains a cludge. I've been here a while, (though not of late) and I pre-ordered P5, I was here for the debacle that was the launch, and the coup detat that followed. Trust me when I say this, poser is that rare animal in the modern 3D world, a completely unnacelerated software only renderer. At the time P5 was released I had, (still have) a P4 2Ghz that I pought for P5, I bought a Radeon 9700pro and 1Gb of fast memory trying to speed the thing up, nothing worked. People who had overclocked PC's (one running at 3Ghz I think) suffered the same fate. The only thing that will make poser run faster, is a faster CPU, period. I will admit that I have all but given up on poser5, and when I had to sacrifice a partiton when XP died last time, it was the poser one that went. Poser is still not re-installed. I bear CL no ill will, I hope there is a P6, I honestly like the program, and the community that surrounds it, but I'd stake cash and body parts on the fact that it won't be a ground up re-write it'll need to be to benefit from today's fast video cards. The actual "posing" part of poser (the preview part) is integrated deeply with the rendering backend. To the point where they can no longer be seperated. Which is why CL plugged the "firefly" engine into the codebase, rather than replacing the old renderer with the new. "Modern games are not capable of comparable results in real time" Yes, they are. Watch the source (HL2) demo, or better yet, the UT3 engine demo (link) or this: http://www.gamespot.com/xbox/action/halo2/screens.html?page=88 Which is a multiplayer shot. It's a lowres mesh (lower res than the original halo mesh) that's beefed up by displacement maps to deform the mesh to make it look higher res than it actually is. Another new method I doubt will ever be used by poser. As for this "Game engines do look good -- on the surface." you should check this: http://www.usc.edu/dept/engineering/news/2004_stories/2004_06_15_desbrun.html "Experts in the field are giving this work high praise and imply that is will be immediately applicable to 3D modeling in games, movies, CAD and more." The rest of the world is moving on in leaps and bounds, we're the one's being left behind. Poser is not a "high end rendering system" and never will be, I doubt it will ever support stuff like HDRI (www.debevec.org) which the UT3 demo does, it's not capable of photon mapping (used to simulate sub surface light scattering) to provide translucent skin effects, etc. nor is it capable of "faking it" (http://www.ati.com/developer/gdc_video.html) I know this is a site for CL fanboys, and I'm not trying to knock poser, it's very good at what it does, I know I use it too. But the fact remains that poser simply cannot cut it with the big boys anymore. It's a hobbyist market, using an old program for the most part. But the Artisticly accomplished do postwork, which isn't something you do in realtime. As for DirectX, of course it looked the same, DX is backward compatible, which is why old games still run on even the latest version of DX9, they just don't use any of the advanced features. Though it is a good analogy, P5 was very much slower too. I don't want to rain on your parade but OpenGL is unlikely to ever see the light of day with Poser. later jb

uh oh. lol ;) My intention in this thread is to examine why it is so many folks are calling for the inclusion of OpenGL in Poser, when I can see no noticeable benefit given that Poser needs to remain independent of hardware. I'm against doing so -- I don't find that OpenGL is any adequate asolution to the problem than the current one is. What I've gleaned so far is that the major rationale for it is to speed up being able to turn the camera in large, complex scenes. Which seems a bit odd to me given that the tradeoffs are going to be much greater. OpenGL, per spec as published, does not have the feature set that the current display renderer does. It strikes me as cutting off the nose to spite the face. So while the cool stuff is neat to talk about, it's sorta off base, lol. That said: "Another new method I doubt will ever be used by poser." (re: displacemet mapping) Check out the stats on Firefly, hon. It's primary strength is in displacement. This feature of the engine is about 80% exposed, as well (possibly fully -- would have to check with Stewer to be sure). It's in use now. Witht he new displacement mapping capabilities of zBrush, we'll start seeing some impressive stuff coming out using it as both the renderer and the program are explored further. Firefly also supports HDRI and IBL -- and IBL is partially exposed to the end user at this time. It does posess sub surface scattering -- the skin shader node within P5 it is a partial implementation of it, as well. It fakes it better. The original Sree3D engine that drives the preview system is still present, and I won't argue that it's so heavily built into the core code that it would take an untoward effort. It's what drives the Preview system in Poser and Bryce, and used to drive in Carrara as well. But I will stand by my statements that Poser 5's current rendering engine can, in the right hands, produce finer renders than and hardware based game system in use at present. The link to the article on Desbrun's algorithm is a nice one, and while it could be immediately applicable, what's the licensing structure on it, and did you not notice it's primary focus is in polygon reduction for 3D scanners, with an aim towards real world applicaitons? While game systems will tke advantage of it and eventually modelers will enjoy it, it's applicability towards rendering capability outside of speed is marginal at best. Nor am I saying that poser can cut it with the "big boys" -- which are light years of game rendering systems. And the top of the line ones are tied to specific cards because they combine functions and are designed specifically with the card in mind. I am decidedly not a CL fanboy. Absolutely not. Although my escape there comes from being a girl. Also, I've been here easily as long as you, though the name has been changed from my more innocent days. (three or four times, I think) Software renderers with hardware assitance in general are out of the price range of the casual hobby user, or even most starving artists. The gist of this thread, though, isn't the features of the final rendering agent, but rather the benefit of OpenGL in the realtime preview screen instead of the current one. and good responses, btw. Thanks!

For final renders with quality and raytracing forget any graphic card, DirectX, OpenGL, the only way that can be done is by software, better spend your money in a faster CPU. What can work is group of computers working together.

If anyone needs a preview of their picture using shadows and so on then render a small 320x320 version of your picture but don`t use antialiasing. You will get a slightly rougher and smaller version of your finished render with the shadows in it. As I said before, in another thread, poser was originally made to be a tool to make poseable people for OTHER 3d programs like lightwave, cinema 4d etc that is why up to poser 4 the renderer was pretty basic. It was actually supposed to be just a preview till you put your figures into another 3d program. That is something curious labs could have done more of, importers for poser for other programs, they did lightwave and 3dsmax but they could have made others too.

"OpenGL, per spec as published, does not have the feature set that the current display renderer does. It strikes me as cutting off the nose to spite the face." 'cept modern cards support Opengl and accelerate it.. the current does not.. so, how does it have a better spec? it does not support transperency properly, lighting effects, modern speeds or lightening the load on the CPU for what is really a secondary task, eg, the preview, when teh CPU coulf be gainfully employed with other tasks. please explain why you think a backwards step is a good one?

This will end up an argument where someone says opengl is great and someone else says it is not needed ad nauseum.

That's true, Xantor :) Khai -- I didn't say it was better, hon. What I said is that it doesn't have the current systems feature set, according to the spec, as published. And yes, Modern cards do support it -- to varying degrees and with various additions that are not spec, sometimes inhibiting performance of the platform. OpenGL does not support the full range of shading options for the preview render window as I understand it at this time -- and I may be wrong there -- but haven't seen that capability. The thread does contain some debate in it over the merits of various rendering solutions, but the point of the thread is, and remains, why? Why is OpenGL superior to the current system for Previewing? The drawbacks that I see are that it does not support the current Preview modes that are available, and it is hardware dependent. The current preview modes are an underutilized strength of Poser, and provide a versatility that OpenGL requires extensions to employ, and those extnsions are handled differently by different cards, meaning the user experience is not stable -- everybody gets a different result. Hardware dependency is still a drawback -- many current and potential users do not have systems capable of supporting hardware accelleration. In a year or so, that may not be the case, but it's still a concern. Once again, I am not saying that OpenGL is bad. I am saying that it does not appear to be a suitable replacement in my opinion, and therefore I'm looking for explanations of what makes it more capable. Change my mind, in other words. It's fairly easy to do.

Why OpenGL? Probably becasue it's a "standard" and well understood. That added to the fact that you can accelereate it with hardware is I guess the real reason. I guess this is the whole US/UK coding style thing of 3D right? :P For as long ago as the first read 3D games appeared on computers there were two ways of doing things. Americans relied in the main, on better hardware to speed up their code. The Brits, slaving in thier bedrooms, denied better hardware, wrote tighter code. Which, given access to better hardware, ran even faster. "a rising tide moves all ships" etc. Though for the sake of disclosure, "I am a Brit" :) I won't deny that a software renderer is usually better, but if you take an off the shelf OpenGL implementation for the preview code then the rest is so much easier to do. Take a look at D|S if you don't believe me. It's slick, fast and light. Now I have the benefit of a fast card. which makes it slicker, but compared to the new cards, it's now a little long in the tooth. What at one time was "the fastest GFX card in the world" is now commodity hardware. You can find more advanced cards in laptops... From my point of view, the transition from a PIII 700 laptop to a 2Ghz P4 made poser4 fly. The preview window fully textured was in real time. P5 made it crawl again. After all the service packs, it was on a par or slightly faster than my PIII laptop, but having seen P4 at 2Ghz, it was that that I returned too. I guess it's just a matter of people casting about the rest of the 3D world and seeing OpenGL everywhere and wanting it. This may be a hobbyist market, but the same set of people still like the look and heft of the weightier programs, even if they could never use/afford them. People "Aspire" :) The commodity argument could also be leveled against CPU's of course, the faster they get, the faster poser gets, which is something people are more likely to buy than a tricked out GFX card. I think OpenGL is quite good at what it does, however I think it works better when it's moving (so to speak) and Poser would use it for still previews :) I guess the real issue is speed. "why isn't my program that fast?" I guess that's the reason for "Why OpenGL?" later jb

The openGL is about the only slick thing about daz studio. It is like using a 3d program in an emulator. I tried speeding it up by putting off the openGL and to my surprise it was still dead slow, so the openGL in daz studio IS fast.

That's been the thrust of what I've been getting, as well. Essentially, folks are upset with the response time of the on screeen preview and dislike the transparency display method. My chief personal comparisons for the implementation of OpenGL are Lightwave 7 and D|S. Both are faster in textured preview mode, but both are slower on my base system (2GHz with 384 RAM and an older Nvidia Ti) than Poser with my usual shading options set on the same scene. If I shift them into alternate display modes -- which are more limited, they do indeed speed up. Ok, So the core reasons for it are certainly based in speed, and, seeing as these particular users don't rely on things other than textured preview, there is a willingness to discard the old shading options. Alright. Now, in general, the addition of OpenGL to Poser likely wouldn't come with P6. If it were to go ahead and be included, it would most likely hit with Poser 7. Seeing as how that will likely be competing with D|S 2, and it's at that time that the seriousness of the alternative will be in force, I think it likely we'll see some significant changes between what we use now and what will be present in that version. And by that time, as well, odds are pretty good that system architectures will have changed significantly enough that this debate will be moot, lol

P5 is definitely suffering from under documentation; that is some interesting tidbits about what Firefly has under the hood. Wonder how much hassle it would be to uncover all the HDRI and subsurface scatter functions? Might be a nice little gift to the user base....as well as a hard lesson on horsepower requirements for the higher end functions... >:)

Another thing people should be considering are Microsoft's future plans; if they ever get the Longhorn OS out the barn door, that little 'gem' will =require= hardware acceleration for the desktop itself. What that will do with available acceleration for other apps, and resources, is unknown. I like shiny and new as well....but not at the expense of functionality. Hence my current Athlon 64 3000 and my 'old' GF4-TI4400....which there still isn't a game out there capable of bringing it to its knees (maybe Doom 3 or Half Life 2, but I'm betting not....).

Firefly has the same core engine as Pixels 3D, Dale_B. Stewer pointed me towards some of the more interesting features of it and then I sorta dug from there. Firefly is pretty surprising, overall. The catch is tha tyou have to learn to use the material room to pull out al those fancy tricks, lol. And, as Some of us are learning at RDNA, you can dedicate some pretty endless threads to that single purpose all by itself, lol. As for exposing more of the renderer -- that's a certainty, long term. It was actually pretty smart to release only a couple of the functions, and to make folks work for them at first -- it will mean that by the time they are released, folks will have a good strong familiarity with the material room settings. Of course, now we're talking changing them, lol As for MS & Longhorn, well, delayed again isn't bad news anywhere except in boardrooms. The one after that, with it's proposed 3D worldspace, though? Can you say eeek? I dun wanna learn to use my computer again....