I've shaped th head of P4 NW with a lot of MT. Now I would create a new figure in the library palette with the P4 NW body and my new head but without the great number of parameter dials that I've used to shape it. It's possible to do it ?

Yes......combine the morphs by selecting "Spawn morph target" from the menu (Poser) and naming it, save the figure to the library, open it using Morph Manager, select the head, find the morph target, right click and save as an external morph target(OBJ). This object can then be applied to a default figure recreating all of the separate morph settings in a single morph...... Krel

Easier way = save the cr2 with the morphs set - make a list of the morphs used. Open the CR2 in MM4. Select head right click on morph targets select combine morphs in the list - select the morphs used type in a name and click on combine. You can now delete the construction morphs. If you load the geometry , you can right click on the new morph and isolate it for sahring (export to obj). Save the CR2 - with a new name unless you are a gambler.

Export WaveFront .OBJ format. Deselect Universe then select Head. Assuming you have the 4.03 patch (unlike the previous posts), you'll get a dialog box with several options. Select all except "Weld". Close your figure and open a new one. Select the head and go to the Object> Load Morph Target... menu option. Load the morph you just created. Set its dial to 1.0 and save THAT figure to your library. If you do not have the 4.03 patch, go to CuriousLabs and get it.

Correct, you don't need MM to do this. Like duanemoody says, just export as obj, select only the head and save as a Moprh Target. You can use MM to delete the old MTs that you used to create the final one to clean up those dials. I know of no way in poser to do that directly.

...we can do better than that! In Poser... 1. Use "Spawn Morph target" to create a your new morph. 2. Open the Hierarchy window and select, "Show Properties" 3. Select and delete any and all morph targets you wish. 4. Save your new character to the library! simple, no?

That should be "Show Parameters" not "Show Properties" (sorry)

Isn't Poser a cool program, that there are so many ways we can all accomplish the exact same thing? I personally use the Morph Manager method that Jaager described, merely because it feels right to me, since quite often I am deleting morphs, combining morphs, and otherwise fiddling around with a body part that may have as many as 100 or more morphs on it at once. I find it just a little easier to see them all, and read the morph name that way, than inside Poser's interface, but that is me. It is so easy to combine what you need into one morph, then grab and delete what you no longer need in Morph Manager too :) There is no real right or wrong way, so much as what your work habits are, and what you have learned to do from those you may have learned from :)

What drives me nuts is downloading a cr2 that's huge simply because the creator forgot to delete extra morph targets, and or included textures in bmp or uncompressed tif format. -SMT

SMT: You are being kind. I doubt "forgot" is the issue. "Did not know any better" is probably more to the point. There are no guidelines for character or prop submissions - not even suggestions. There is not sufficient attention being paid to bandwidth issues and the space providers are starting to tighten the screws - Props Guild just being the most visible. Bump - *bum.BUM vs *bum.jpg - means that the author thinks a few minutes time saved in opening the figure the first time in Poser is more valuble than the additional bandwidth it costs. TIF - a TIF will compress in a zip to about the size of the comparable PNG. This is a HD space issue. A JPG is usually smaller than a zipped TIF but unless the JPG is at 100% quality there is a price paid for the conversion. And with Poser - the quality of the texture effects the quality of the render. Personally, I like the TIF versions for important textures. There probably ought to be guidelines for submissions, but (here's a dig) we would run a danger of coming off looking like a Sunday school like over at PFO. Duayne: I did not mean to take a dump in your church. I never said MM4 was "needed". Is this a Mac thing? If I am going against some Methods Of Doing Things set by a Board of Elders that I am unware of, then I will just let those who are privey to this Knowledge answer the questions from now on. I admit it - I am prejudiced against using Poser for anything to do with morph targets but applying them to a figure. May be, the last upgrade fixed the problems, but I am still so pissed off because of what it did before that I am not going to trust it. There are so many threads in Poser that I could go into brain lock if I think about all of them at once. If I find a quick and fool proof method, I tend to stick with it. I did not/do not feel like exploring just what the result of checking or unchecking the various choices in OBJ export means. You would need a matrix or exponential equation just to figure out how many possible combinatons are possible. I did discover what one of the obj export options meant last night. I was playing with converting a dress to full conforming and checked everything but the morph target option and it turned 'g hip' to 'g PWdressJa1 hip'. I had to text edit every 'g ' entry. I guess this is "add character name to group names" or whatever. I do not know why this option is even needed - it is a solution to a problem that I do not see. Grouping tool - I can not get the grouping tool to do anything to a figure, just a prop. RDS reversed the normals on the chest and abdomen on the dress and since the tools for this are a bit sparse in RDS, I found that Poser can fix it without messing up the materials assignments. Open it as figure = grouping tool = nada Import OBJ (uncheck everything but group normals consistant) = grouping tool = can select each group - reverse normals - export prop and put this into Geometries.

Jaager: no offense taken. I'm not trying to set a standard, I'm just a fan of solutions which don't require outside software (e.g. my tutorial on life modeling from photos instead of using a utility like stilltoreal), esp. if they help me get a better grip on pushing Poser's envelope. BTW, I think there are six checkable options in the .OBJ export, so the number of permutations is only 2^6 = 32. The only guideline I'd like to see for submissions has to do with embedding ownership/terms of use comment lines into uploads, but there's no way of browsing those in Poser. I've mentioned this to Larry at CuriousLabs, and the only thing that kept them from integrating this as a feature in the past was the murky issue of who owns what in a combined figure and the potential for fraud. Personally, I think they should bite the bullet. If Photoshop has this feature, so should Poser. What were the problems generating morphs in Poser before 4?

We have differing priorities. One does it all vs a whole lot of tools = might that not have someting to do with our respective choices of Mac vs PC ? On Export - I find nothing intuitive about the choices and it is confusing - especially since I tend to 'fly by the seat of my pants'. RTFM only after it gets balled up and with Poser that is not much of an answer anyway. AND Import - I am really annoyed with the Suit who set the defaults to the least helpful of choices. It took me months before I was told how to get a prop to take a morph. Poser moved groups on export, so that the morphs were ....functioning imporperly?

I'm unclear on the Mac/PC concept... I use NT 4.0 and MacOS 9.0.4 every day, in pretty much the same way. Some things I do with only one application, others I do with the most appropriate tool for the job. Many of the applications I use I have on both platforms, or equivalents. I'd call it pragmatism, not OS preference.

Way back when: there was Apple and IBM PC , but the IBM guys produced something that could be and was cloned by other manufacturers. It was wild West time and it was chaotic but there were many sources for PC stuff and many systems for the programs as well as quite a few programs for every task and each had a different way to do the program. Apple was mostly single source - take it or leave it - more efficient , programs were more systematic, but I saw a potential for monopoly type behavior. (Although IBM would dearly have loved to have had that power.) In 15 years, Apple has opened up and the PC world has tightened up, so it is not the same. What those who chose Apple saw as a strength, I saw as a threat. I was speculating that there might be something more basic in general approach to things. It is value neutral, neither is more valid than the other, but it might be an IS. It looked like from your header above, that you saw the morph path as some kind of contest, I am saying that it is not that simple.