P4 is still alive - and a lot of us are still using it. It's the easiest, most friendly poser version made.

Yes, we have P5 and P6 but it's so convoluted...  P4 is fast, and is so easy to import into other programs. Especially Vue and Bryce.

Keep us in mind and we'll keep purchasing your works of art.

Thanking you in advance,

BillyGoat

My products are for Poser 4+ - so i definately havent forgotten you :-)

Everything I make works in Poser Pro Pack (therefore it works in P4) because that's what I work in :)

I put all my stuff together in Poser 4.03. My Poser path says 'Metacreations' still.

I also, whenever I include any bumpmaps, include both P4 and PP+ versions without need for conversion of anything.

Everything sold at Vanishing Point will work perfectly in P4. So do all my freebies.

Guess you might also like to know that I'm currently working on a free illustraed FAQ/tutorial that shows merchants (of any stores) in simple 1-2-3-stages how to convert a lot of stuff to P4. 

None of my stuff will support P4. It's not worth my time. :-)

Oh, don't get too upset. It’s not like I’m much of a merchant. I mostly make things i need and give them away for free. even at that i don't think they are all that great. I imagine some of my stuff will work in p4 but I have no way to test it.

I am kinda supprised at the amout of support p4 is still getting considering how small the market is. I suppose they can spend their time as they like. i just hope they support the current version... and by support the current version i dont just mean pluging the bump map into the right place :-P

To me p4 support will only mean i will have files to delete when i install their products.

Unless it's dynamic clothes or hair I can usually get things made in and for P6 to work in PP.

I'm not a merchant (yet). but what I'm working on is optimized for poser 5/6, As far as textures are  concerned. Sorry. But otherwise, the work I do would not come out the way it was intended.

Besides P5 is free! Even if it is almost impossible to download, get it now and download later. This is Posers way of saying you can't upgrade to P7 from 4, Period!

"I am kinda supprised at the amout of support p4 is still getting considering how small the market is."

Yea, totally, it's only 60% of the whole market....

(Yes that was irony)

Quote - "I am kinda supprised at the amout of support p4 is still getting considering how small the market is."

Yea, totally, it's only 60% of the whole market....

(Yes that was irony)

where do you get 60%?

the only survey information i'v seen puts it at around 7%.

I've almost completely stopped buying any products for P4 or Pro Pack.  It's now two versions old and I don't prefer how they render in P6.  I understand there are still many P4 users about, but the variety of options in the material room for customizing textures, etc., IMO, is much more conducive to the types of effects I'm after.

Ever wonder why P5 is for free while P4 is still being sold? Maybe for the same reason P5 is gathering dust on my shelf, except for a few bells and whistles i can live without it is a slow, clunky piece of crap. P6 is only a revamped and repaired P5, but still agonisingly slow and way overcomplecated to use with ease. If P7 is yet another nailed together mishmash of half baked 'oooo that sounds good' ideas then i'll be sticking with P4 still.

For me, Poser is just a tool for rendering 3D scenes to an acceptable level before postworking the result into something i can call MINE.... hmmm, wasn't that the original intention of the programme? Shrugs Anyway, a hybrid Poser/Photoshop is something that would make me prick up my ears, not another 'done on the cheap/promise everything and deliver nothing' rendering app that has more bugs than my granny's basement.

Jack

I've nothing against Poser 4, other than I don't have it. My products are made using Poser 6. I don;t mind changing the version number, but since I don;t have the program I'm not going to make P4 specific bump maps or .rsr files I can't even check. As I state on my product pages, you are more than welcome to make any converrsions you want to make them work in earlier versions but since I don;t own those versions I am not going to attempt to provide tecnical support (how can you support a program if you can't test the problems in it to develop solutions?).

mike

If you go for realism and want to make the most out of the stuff you buy you should go for the more advanced versions 5 and 6. I can see that if you just want to render a nude figure to have a base for painting than PP may be your solution (although you can use the P4 render engine in P5/P6 as well and it's still quick).

Yes, I know, getting started with something new is always frustrating in the beginning but what the heck? Do you want good images or quick results? I think the poser-merchants are the only one's in the whole software market that support a seven year old version and there are still a lot of new products each day that work with PP. Now that so many people own P5 (or will download it during the nexts days/week) I don't see any reson to stick on the very limited P4/PP with it's primitive material "room".

Is it really so much easier to import poser work from P4? If so: Good point! But as far as I know, the free DazStudio does the same - and it's free! And off of that I had never any problems to import P6 scenes to let's say C4D.

Sorry if I sound harsh in any way. But I heard too many times things like "Nice image, how did you do it? Ahh... 3 hours to set the whole scene up... okay... WHAT?? 3 hours to render it? No, thanks, I stay with my old tools and render more images in a shorter time!". I think the question is what you want: A software and tools that are able to render a flawless image that needs no or very few touchups or a toy for "the quick fun in between".
I've nothing against Poser 4, other than I don't have it.

...and if someone has it and really wants to make his products compatible and perfect for all versions it means making a bundle of mat-poses for each version, maybe adding .bum-files, caring for P4/PP that is not able to handle subfolders, testing in all versions , finding testers for all versions and, if you are very honest, making promos with all versions. I did this one time and produced a very large product (although I didn't make promos with PP). But after all I see that this was useless effort, as this product doesn't sell better or worse than "P6 only" or "P5/P6".

poser 7 is coming out soon. there is a poser 6, and poser 5. poser 4 is nearly 4 generations outdated (counting PP). no other community in the world has such rediculously unrealistic compatibility expectations.

it requires vastly different packaging and  product considerations to support poser 4, propack, and the poser 5/6 families. these are three distinctly different groups with 3 different packaging requirements. now merchants are automatically expected to support daz|studio as well, and dont forget the mac platform.
poser 4 is obsolete software. with e-frontier giving away poser 5 for free last week, people now have no excuse to use poser 4 or propack any longer. 'more user friendly' is nonsense, the core application has not changed in poser 5 or 6. sure some of the 'rooms' are more complex, but you do not have to use them. aside from a few extra buttons in your interface there is nothing daunting about P5. once you become familiar with it, every single change only gives you the opportunity to vastly improve your renders and characters.

how much longer do people expect merchants to keep supporting poser 4? when P7 comes out? P8? PX? its absolutely rediculous. perhaps people dont understand how much time poser packaging, testing and compatibility takes... it currently makes up at least 1/3 of my workflow.

i think that if people insist on still using poser 4, then it should be their responsibility to learn  how to convert poser 5/6 products by now. i will not be doing it any longer, ive had enough.

there is so much potential in poser products using the new dynamic cloth, sub-poly displacement mapping, complex shader nodes, etc and it has all been bloody wasted for the last several years because people refuse to let go of poser 4. 90% of the content in the marketplace is currently 'dumbed down' to a poser 4 level, when it could actually be twice the product if it inccorporated some of the newer technologies.... yet merchants, especially newer ones, are afraid to leave out P4 support because they think they will lose sales if they stop supporting it.

the free giveaway of poser 5 last week did it for me - it was the last nail in the P4 cofffin, the last little push i needed. i would rather lose a handful of P4 sales than water down my products any longer: all of my future products make heavy use of P5/6 shaders, displacement  mapping, dynamic cloth, etc.

let poser 4 go. it is obsolete. people expecting merchants, or even just asking merchants, to devote countless hours to catering to obsolete software and releasing products that are nowhere near realizing their true potential because they themselves do not want to invest the time to learn the current version of the software is extremely unfair, and only in the poser community could such an outlandish notion even be considered.

sorry if this post sounded harsh but this is a very sore point for me, and its been building up for several years now. not because of the time and effort invested by merchants over the years supporting obsolete software, but because there are so many excellent new features in P5/6 that have been vastly underused for the sake of P4 compatibility. the average marketplace product, and consequently the average gallery render, would be far superior today if people just accepted the fact tthat P4 is dead.

Humm, I just read Blackhearted's post and I have to agree with most of it. I think the biggest problem is that NO_ONE is using P6 to it's full potential! Even the company that makes/sells it doesn;t!

THe P6 figures, sadly, should showcase P6's features but don't. They have excess mesh density where it's not needed. Not one takes advantage of the displacement mapping capability and the SS features. You;d think the company making the software would be the first to make use of these, not the last, leaving it to hobbiests to figure how to impliment them. Tese features should be, by now, fully documented and implemented, not just being explored after all this time.

Basically what I';m trying to say is that the biggest reason, in my opinion, that people are still stuck in the older versions, is that they don't realize just what they are missing, and that is largely the fault of the company making the porgram!

mike

let poser 4 go. it is obsolete.
Thanks!
Basically what I';m trying to say is that the biggest reason, in my opinion, that people are still stuck in the older versions, is that they don't realize just what they are missing, and that is largely the fault of the company making the porgram!
...and thanks!
and I go a step beyond and claim that many people stuck on an old-fashinoned and limited software because they refuse to learn something new, because they don't like to mess around with some new buttons, because they are afraid.
But this is nonsense. In fact you do not even have to enter the material room, most products still contain the mat-poses so all you have to do is click here and there and yourfigure is fully textured ready to pose.
Until last week there was the good and correct argument "I can't afford a better version". But this argument is out of date now.

The reproach to efrontier is fair, I think. It's a pity that the figures that come with P6 don't make use of it's features. And even as worse is the fact that P5 and P6 where released with so many bugs that it was indeed frustrating to use them until the first serial release came out. As far as I remember I couldn't use P6 at all until I got SR1. This makes people angry and it is understanable that they go back to the older version. And P7, fine, yes, I'd like to have it. But I wait with pleasure for another year and more if the developer is able to sell a fully working P7 - in other words: I really badly want that serial releases would be enhancements instead of massive bugfixes.
But however: I do not understand that someone buys a software for his hardly earned money, finds that it is buggy and puts it away forever. If you don't like it at all then ask for a refund. If you would like it without bugs then complain and ask for a bugfix. But why putting something in the shelf and forgetting about it when you have payed for it?! If you do the same with cars, refrigerators, coffee machines you'll need a lot of room to store your purchases - and you need a lot of money!

Quote - how can you support a program if you can't test the problems in it to develop solutions?

Well, seeing as every store out there requires you to have things beta tested by a third party, it's not terribly hard to get a third party to test them in P4.

As for making a green bumpmap, I have a photoshop action that does a better job than Poser anyway -- and if that green stuff is saved as a JPEG it can be referred to in the CR2 or PZ2 just the same, but smaller.

No, not terribly hard - but as it's not done with any someone but you have to look for a poser user that really has a clue of what he is testing and what to look for it's not as easy as looking through the gallery and picking any artist that works with P4 (by the way: I do only know PP-users).

Quote - let poser 4 go. it is obsolete.

No, Poser Artist still very much sells.

Quote - where do you get 60%?

Privately run survey about 5 months ago put P6 use at around 20%, P5 use at around 20%, and P4/ProPack/Poser Artist at around 60%.

This survey was a little more specific than the average survey. See, most surveys that have been run leave it at 'What's the highest version of Poser that you have?' This is a misleading figure. You don't even want to [i]ask[/i] what the highest version of Poser I have is. But what do I use on a regular basis? Metacreations Poser 4.03.

Why? Simple. All versions of Poser that I have seen and used and can talk about are unstable to some extent somewhere. Load too many things into P5, boom. Crash. Twist the abdomen exactly n degrees and get the weird geometry crack-out in P6, then try to render the geometry crack-out, boom. Crash. It's expected that no piece of software can handle every possible circumstance it faces.

But Poser 4 seems to crash for me less than other versions, so I prefer it. It also seems to run faster, so I prefer it. Seeing as in P5 and later versions I can load the same runtime l there's no reason to worry about having more than one installed at a time. Seeing as I can share my Runtime out over my LAN to myself and mount it on the Mac, I can even load the P4 runtime on the PC in P6 on the Mac.

And as long as I save every single time I make a JP adjustment just in case the joint editor freezes up -- an issue which seems to affect all of the releases of Poser -- I'm pretty safe. The only drawback's deleting those geometry RSRs.

BTW, if the program still runs, still makes pictures, and so on, it can't be obsolete. It runs and runs well. I will continue to support it.

Content creators who refuse to take the few minutes per product to make P4 compatible versions are LAZY. Period. L-A-Z-Y.

Just make the little tweaks you know you have to make and support everybody and stop whining about how they haven't 'upgraded' to the version you'd prefer. And stop being such a whiny, lazy little child.

XFX3d

I'm sure I COULD have it tested in P4 by my beta testers. That's not what I mean however... Suppose so-and-so emails me and says "the bump map doesn't look the same as in your promos, how can I get that look in P4!" What am I supposed to say? or some other question about setting up the product in P4? With out the software I can;t experiment to get the best advantage or to answer such questions, and that isn;t the Beta tester's job, thier job is to test the work I do to see that it works as advertised.

I test and check and make setting adjustments to my own texture maps and bump maps. I don't think using a photoshop action to change the colors and then change the extension without the ability to test it in the target software and make needed adjustments is fair to the customers.

mike

Oh and PS as to you last post XFX3d... I'm not calling anyone names, nor putting them down for their views, well with the exception of E-frontier for not fully implimenting their product. I find it somewaht telling that you must resort to that sort of thing to "support" your point of view rather than keeping the discussion at an adult level and on the merits of the software!

mike

Just make the little tweaks...

Okay, let's see what we can do:
First step: Make Miki and Jessi P4 compatible...
Second step: delete all these built in ambient occlusion nodes, detach the displacement, attach the bump to the new channel and adjust it, delete the glossy nodes, delete the anitrosophic shaders, adjust the transparancies, delete nearly every node from the eye-materials until it's dull and lifeless as a wood-eye.
Third step: make a good coffe and ponder about the best answer to
"the bump map doesn't look the same as in your promos, how can I get that look in P4!"
Lazy? Been there, done this. It took me another week because it was a character with many, many options. Did it pay off? Nope! Because no one wants to pay for the work you invest into a version that the customer doesn't use. Or do you like to pay for the extra-settings, bumps/displacements, for Subsurface scattering when you don't use the software that is able to handle them?
Why not split up the whole thing? Yes, that may be a solution but it leads back to the question "I saw an image with your product and there is this sheen/gloss/shadow. I want this too but the version I bought seems not to have this feature... can you help me?!".

I'm not whining at all - I only dare to say that I indeed forgot about P4. Insolent? I don't think so. I have a claim on the quality of my products and the products that I buy myself. If you are able to build... let's say a really realistic fur for an animal. Would you make it flat and dull instead because some customers cling to a software that doesn't support your fur? And more than this: If you sell a flat and dull version, too, how do you deal with those that complain "But I wanted that fur I saw in the galleries...".

BTW don't get me wrong -- if you're making somehting that canot be done in P4, such as something that relies on displacement mapping, or a dynamic clothing set, then by all means, make it P5 only. That's perfectly reasonable.

I'm talking about when the only bloody reasons something has to be P4 incompatible is the bumpmaps and version number (which honestly you can just take OUT of the CR2/PZ2/whatever file and it works fine -- it's only needed for version control to keep lower versions from using it), then just take the necessary steps and support all your curtomers instead of whining about how they should upgrade. That's THEIR decision to make, not yours.

Quote - XFX3d

I'm sure I COULD have it tested in P4 by my beta testers. That's not what I mean however... Suppose so-and-so emails me and says "the bump map doesn't look the same as in your promos, how can I get that look in P4!" What am I supposed to say? or some other question about setting up the product in P4? With out the software I can;t experiment to get the best advantage or to answer such questions, and that isn;t the Beta tester's job, thier job is to test the work I do to see that it works as advertised.

I test and check and make setting adjustments to my own texture maps and bump maps. I don't think using a photoshop action to change the colors and then change the extension without the ability to test it in the target software and make needed adjustments is fair to the customers.

mike

 

First off, here's the action so there's no question about how:
http://www.xfx3d.net/photoshop/poserstuff.atn

Second off, save the greenscale file as a BUM and load it into the AlternateBump node in P5+ and just test it.

Third, save the same thing as a JPEG, refer to it in the CR2, and have a P4 tester test it.

I thought that this is what we are talking about here. I'm trying my best to make my stuff at least P5 compatible (as far as possible). And I think that is what Blackhearted meant, too. Why work for weeks if not months on morphs and high quality textures when not for getting the most out of it and equip it with all the little features that breathes life into them?! I took some older textures out of their box again and used them together with face_off's tools - what a difference!
That's THEIR decision to make, not yours.
I prefer to say clearly: for P5/P6 P6 only meanwhile instead of selling several settings for all versions with the end result, that the P4/PP version MAY look good as a stand-alone but in fact looks poor by comparison when you browse the galleries.

Quote - Oh and PS as to you last post XFX3d... I'm not calling anyone names, nor putting them down for their views, well with the exception of E-frontier for not fully implimenting their product. I find it somewaht telling that you must resort to that sort of thing to "support" your point of view rather than keeping the discussion at an adult level and on the merits of the software!

I didn't say anything about E-Frontier not fully implementing their software. Since I didn't mention it or refer to it, and only referred to the fact that they were still selling P4 (as Poser Artist), then I don't see how I could have resorted to such a thing to refer to my point of view.

I also do not think the merits of the software are a valid point of discussion.

I do think the laziness of some content creators is a valid point of discussion, and that when some content creators actually yell at potential customers for not using hte version the content creator would prefer, any possibility of an 'adult level' has already flown out the window.

I also find that when people use arguments such as 'you didn't argue the way I want and are thus immature' to be rather pathetic tactics. Give up on that crap, please. I'm not immature because I didn't argue the way you wanted me to, and if I wanted to argue immaturity I might say something about shouting what effectively amounts to 'No fair! Baby!' when things don't go your way.

3DSMax 8 is far superior, after all. Should I only rig my content for it because I have it and it's better and they should go buy a copy?

Blender has superior functionality, too, and has animation extensions and some hella free rendering engines, and is free itself, along with a few other animation engines, so I can nip the pricetag issue in the bud there ahead of time.

If a merchant wants to be lazy, then whatever, do so. Don't list the stuff outside of the P5+ categories, though and clearly mark it such. But I still think it's lazy. If a merchant is that concerned with doing the P4 development him or herself, go buy a copy of Poser Artist. It's not particularly expensive and it's a development investment, thus it comes off your taxes.

But again, what it comes down to is that a merchant has no right to demand the market bend tto their whims and any merchant who thinks so is living in a dreamworld.

Quote - I thought that this is what we are talking about here.

Ahh, no, not at all. Sorry for the misunderstanding. I'm talking about when someone releases a texture for a figure or a new figure or a clothing conformer or whatever and it doens't use dynamic hair, dynamic cloth, displacement mapping, etc, and the seller doesn't make the modicum of effort to make it P4 compatible, such as generating some RSR thumbnails and doing somehting about the version control number.

There's a grey area there, too, for instance if a merchant makes a suit of 'shining armour' and makes use of raytrace reflection materials to get a specific bright-shiny-steel effect and then has to say 'I have no clue how these materials will come out in P4' -- I can see and understand that, too, though it'd be nice to see an effort made to get as close as possible in P4.

For any potential customers who use P4 but bought something for P5 and above (or even who bought something for ProPack and only have 4.03) -- open the library files and delete the whole block that says:

version
    {
    number X
    }

it's unnecesary and will at least get rid of those annoying 'This content was made in a higher version of Poser. Poser will attemot to read it anyway' messages. Then see if the rest of it works.

Oh, for the record, when Poser 4 encounters P5 material nodes, it happily ignores them as it doesn't kow what the hell they are. Therefore it doesn't hurt to have those nodes in a P4 file.

As All my current Products, such as they are, are all Dynamic Hair or Dynamic clothing. I'm afraid Poser 4 isn't quite my market yet. When I finish some of my morph packs it'll be a different story.

XFX3d,

I do change the version numbers, I do not convert the bump files nor the .png files so as not to mis-lead the customer , and I do specifically state that my products can (so I've been told) be easily converted to P4, however I DO NOT SUPPORT such conversions. My refusal is to provide tech SUPPORT for a program I don;t have! Sure I can probably find a dozen "work-arounds" to make something P4 compatable but that isn;t (and even you can't convince me it is!) the same as having the software to check it in! Particularly if asked to answeer specific questions about it!

I WILL NOT claim something I can;t test myself, nor provide support for.

Yes, I personally LIKE the added features in P6 and have a hard time understanding why others don't. I do think that those added features haven;t been use enough for others to see their merit, and blame E-Frontier for that!

If that makes me lazy well then I guess I am. I'm NOT a WHINY CHILD about it but I also don't think I should be MADE to support a program I don;t have. That is my stand on this. If you don;t like it, well, that's your problem, bub, not mine.

mike

@XFX3D: I know, I use Quickmat to write my mats and it takes care of these things. I've enclosed some tips for P4/PP users with my upcoming product users about how to make use of it - anyway, as this product produces real looking cloth surfaces with displacements and such the result will be poor regarding the original. So I will not tell anything like "P4 and upwards".

Quote -

Quote - where do you get 60%?

Privately run survey about 5 months ago put P6 use at around 20%, P5 use at around 20%, and P4/ProPack/Poser Artist at around 60%. This survey was a little more specific than the average survey. See, most surveys that have been run leave it at 'What's the highest version of Poser that you have?' This is a misleading figure. You don't even want to [i]ask[/i] what the highest version of Poser I have is. But what do I use on a regular basis? Metacreations Poser 4.03.

not the surveys i have seen. the two i specificly remember asked which you use.

they showed P4 (in all its variations) always under 20% (somewhere around the same as D|S) with P6 dominating substantialy.

Quote - @XFX3D: I know, I use Quickmat to write my mats and it takes care of these things. I've enclosed some tips for P4/PP users with my upcoming product users about how to make use of it - anyway, as this product produces real looking cloth surfaces with displacements and such the result will be poor regarding the original. So I will not tell anything like "P4 and upwards".

Yup, and those displacements are somehting P4 can't do (unless you render in some other app), which makes it perfectly reasonable to make those P5 and above. The fact that you try to give as much P4 support as you can should be applauded (and is, by me)!

Quote - Yes, I personally LIKE the added features in P6 and have a hard time understanding why others don't. I do think that those added features haven;t been use enough for others to see their merit, and blame E-Frontier for that! If that makes me lazy well then I guess I am. I'm NOT a WHINY CHILD about it but I also don't think I should be MADE to support a program I don;t have. That is my stand on this. If you don;t like it, well, that's your problem, bub, not mine.

For the record, I like those added features, too. I also know that some people think there are too many controls to fiddle with, such that they need to be sorted into seperate 'rooms'. And I do think that products which use those features are good and will encourage people to move on.

As I said, I have nothing against coercing people to move on by tempting them with cool stuff. Honestly I think that Stonemason's many displacement-based sets have probably done more in this way all by themselves than anything else, really.

But there's a difference between offering amazing stuff that only works in P5 because it uses P5 capabilities that P4 lacks (thus enticing people to use it), and stoming one's feet and demanding people use a different version if they don't want to.

In all honesty, if someone really doesn't want to support P4 as a merchant, they lose that chunk of sales, and it's automatic karma, regardless of the percentage. Fine.

However, coming into a thread where some user has gone to the effort of posting his desires to see P4 support continue and telling him why he shouldn't and why he's hopelessly behind the times and so on is downright rude, and if I seem annoyed it's because I am.

The original poster of this request asked for P4 support, and since it was the PS forum also (perhaps unwittingly) provided an opportunity for those merchants of us who DO choose to continue to support a perfectly good and (via Poser Artist) officially concurrent, if limited program (even if it lacks certain coolnesses that P5 and up have) to say so, which is helpful to said poster because he can find those of us who do provide the support he seeks.

The fact that some people effectively flamed him for asking, and others felt a need to jump in defending why they didn't want to provide the support he asked for is not good customer service. I do find it Ironic that I, who have a rep for pissing people including potential customers off, am the one recognising that scolding a P4 user for not upgrading to the merchant's preference is rather low and terrible customer service. Honestly, in this particular thread, if certain merchants weren't willing to support P4, they should have just kept quiet about it because this was obviously aimed at the merchants who either do and wanted to be found for such, or who were willing to.

I was the most impressed by the poster above who basically stated they had been doing P5 content, but when they get to morph sets and such they plan to include P4 support because with products like that because they can. That's good customer service, and polite.

BTW, even at the 20% mark, I'd rather not cut out 20% of my sales. There have been times that that would have been like throwing away over $200 a month.

Quote - BTW, even at the 20% mark, I'd rather not cut out 20% of my sales. There have been times that that would have been like throwing away over $200 a month.

but would you really be loosing 20%? we know many of those who choose p4/pp also own p5 and or p6 so they may be persuaded to buy the product anyway :)

Quote - > Quote - BTW, even at the 20% mark, I'd rather not cut out 20% of my sales. There have been times that that would have been like throwing away over $200 a month.

but would you really be loosing 20%? we know many of those who choose p4/pp also own p5 and or p6 so they may be persuaded to buy the product anyway :)

And they may not. You'd lose 20% of your potential sales, either way.

every new product i am creating is being created from the ground up with poser 5/6 features in mind, and from my perspective this is the best thing i can do for my customers -- even if some of them havent realised it yet. ive hung in there for nearly 4 years, and have done my part in teaching people about the firefly renderer and helping customers with questions. but ive decided to move on.

dodger, how about you keep making items without disp maps, dynamic cloth, shader nodes, etc.
think about it... if, as you say, all of us merchants no longer supporting poser4 are losing 20% of our sales, then that entire market will be yours... youll be rich! youll also be busily working on P4 products as opposed to twisting peoples words in a forum.

cheerio,
-gabriel

XFX3d

you continue to Quote me at the top of your posts, inferring that they are directed at me, personally, which is why I feel compelled to answer..

However...

But there's a difference between offering amazing stuff that only works in P5 because it uses P5 capabilities that P4 lacks (thus enticing people to use it), and stoming one's feet and demanding people use a different version if they don't want to.

Nowhere, in any of my posts do I stomp my feet or demand anyone change their progaming preference, I simply state my reasons for NOT offer MY products for P4. I feel my reasons are valid, you apparently do not.

However, coming into a thread where some user has gone to the effort of posting his desires to see P4 support continue and telling him why he shouldn't and why he's hopelessly behind the times and so on is downright rude, and if I seem annoyed it's because I am.

I will admit to saying I agreed with Blackhearted on many of his points. Perhaps that was misunderstood, I was speaking of the techical advancements of P6 over P4. I, personally think P4 is outmoded, but I can't see where I was rude about it.

The fact that some people effectively flamed him for asking, and others felt a need to jump in defending why they didn't want to provide the support he asked for is not good customer service. I do find it Ironic that I, who have a rep for pissing people including potential customers off, am the one recognising that scolding a P4 user for not upgrading to the merchant's preference is rather low and terrible customer service. Honestly, in this particular thread, if certain merchants weren't willing to support P4, they should have just kept quiet about it because this was obviously aimed at the merchants who either do and wanted to be found for such, or who were willing to.

I see nowhere wher I even remotely could be concidered "flaming" the original poster, I simply made a short statment of my postion.

Following that I've spent far too much time responding to you, after being called names and other unpleasant references to my postings. I do agree with you on one point, I should have kept quiet rather than to waste so much time wallowing at you level. This is advice I think I WILL follow.

mike

And just for the record. I did edit my post after realising that it was getting more caustic than I really care to. Apparently XFX3d, you read it before the changes, so I want to be sure every one know I said some things in ways I REGRETTED and made an effort to change them.  I didn;t edit the post as a cover up. Just did it cause I didn;t allow enought time after reading your previous post, but I guess I was too late.

mike

Quote - And just for the record. I did edit my post after realising that it was getting more caustic than I really care to. Apparently XFX3d, you read it before the changes, so I want to be sure every one know I said some things in ways I REGRETTED and made an effort to change them.  I didn;t edit the post as a cover up. Just did it cause I didn;t allow enought time after reading your previous post, but I guess I was too late.

No worries and no hard feelings. Like I said, things weren't specifically directed at yo but I can see why you would think that after the quotes I did respond to. Sorry about the misunderstanding there. It's all good.

Well that didnt take long. :blink:

I'm going to lock this one since its going into the gutter pretty fast.

I'll also be deleting posts that are not relevant to the topic.