Just for the sake of argument... what changes in Poser would make legacy stuff incompatible?

Isn't poser content kind of straight forward? What would become obsolete? The rigging? I imagine injecting new rigging information wouldn't be too difficult is some new standard is introduced. Shaders?

Would it not be possible to at least convert .pz3 with the proper runtime assets available into a basic textured .obj to be rendered by some different app. That is how I store my projects, as .pz3. I suppose you could even repose a .obj made from a .pz3 using grouping. The problem is texturing when different mesh share materials with the same name. I have tried to save out scenes as .obj and encountered this problem... to bad there is no automated way to rename material zones so you could for instance save a multi-figure construction as a single .obj file.

I have found I can save posed figures as a .obj and re-import it and turn it into a figure so I can still apply MATposes to it and restore transparency settings.

The reason we can't just run the old software is that it becomes difficult/impossible to find a platform. I have Painter 8 but I never use it. I like Painter 5 but to run it on a modern computer I have to use a very mysterious memory allocation patch. I have applications like Delta Toa's Monet and the original FutureWave Smart Sketch on floppy but I can't obtain a Mac with a floppy drive to run them on... really I would trade Poser and Painter and Photoshop just to have those two old apps back but my classic machine passed away and I can't find a replacement.

What would my dream be? Poser on a Linux box... I really did not want to have to buy a Windows machine but it seemed senseless to buy a Linux machine if I was going to have to run Windows on it to use Poser.

My problem is with idea that new stuff actually works better than old stuff. I still can't figure out how a huge Windows OS benefits me as a consumer... it has no obvious functional advantages over the old WinDOS GUI I used to use on my IBM XT that I can tell but it requires an expensive platform and is unstable.

I can't find any graphics app able to give me the functionality that Delta Toa's Monet did weighing in at 420KB. Some features of my $30 SmartSketch were integrated into Flash but at a price I can not afford and with an implementation that is far inferior. Every one talks about Moore's law but never about Parkinson's Law as it applies to computing... bloat usually overtakes functionality. Poser 7 is a rare instance of an apps late versions actually having usefull new functionalities.

It doesn't matter what changes might break older content - only that it is POSSIBLE that something might break, thus people fiercely resist any suggestion of major change (as I said, and as has been demonstrated).

Really though... what innovation /could/ break old Poser content? The old stuff was so straight forward, that is what was so cool about it. It was really hackable compared to say V4. I could see V4 becoming incompatible but not Posette or the P1/2 figures or even the Millennium 2 or 3 era content.

I know most Poser users are "end users" but still I think it is clear that much/most Poser popularity derives mainly from expert user hacks, mat poses and injection poses come to mind. What is cool about Poser is that historically it was very platform independent because of the text-file based content ... the fact that you can modify content using a simple text editor or a freeware modeling app.

I know most Poser users are "end users" but still I think it is clear that much/most Poser popularity derives mainly from expert user hacks like mat poses and injection poses for instance. What is cool about Poser is that historically it was very platform independent because of the text-file based content... the fact that you can modify content using a simple text editor. <<<

But try to take that "really cool and hackable" format into another 3D app, and that's where you start to see the challenges and limitations. A lot of the "breakage" could occur in making Poser more compatible in handshaking with the industry standards available in the  "big boy" apps. And that is where you start to see the points that Gareee addressed ... at what point does a developer draw the line between supporting the old, and moving on toward the new?

>> t doesn't matter what changes might break older content - only that it is POSSIBLE that something might break, thus people fiercely resist any suggestion of major change (as I said, and as has been demonstrated).

As usual, that's not answering the question, is it?

What is it about the legacy material that you find so confining? You keep saying this, but that's about all you say. Even now, you tap dance around the question with "well, all these other people are just dragging me dowwwwnnnnnnnnnnnnn!!!!!!!!!!" Yeah, well, wah, wah, wah. Get specific.

As I've written twice now, I have absolutely no issue with new technology. But let's make it solid, shall we? Nothing that requires the morass of instructions that come with A4, for example. In theory, things should get easier, not more and more geek-oriented.

>> I look to the past fondly, but I look to the future with anticipation of wonders (and yes, frustrations too) yet to explore.

As do I. But when it's tossed out there like so much rice at a Presbyterian wedding rather than fully thought out and (gosh) tested every once in a while, then it's not a wonder at all.

>> Sooner or later, poser will run into that same issue, and a lot of really older legacy content will be lost.. but odds are the majority of the poser users won't even notice it anyway.

It will, no doubt about it. And by then, it wont matter. People will be whining that MAT poses are too slow and INJ formats are too confining. That's only part of natural evolution.

But let's replace it with something meaningful, huh? Something that works. I've gotten a lttle tired of being a beta tester for half-baked Poser technology that requires more workarounds than the first dump of P5.

• Changes to improve rigging could break all sorts of stuff; Poser would need some flag built into a CR2 (a new flag) to help it distinguish between old-style rigging and new-style, and the new language introduced might cause Poser 4 or older to blow up
• Changes to the renderer might cause MAT poses to blow up (MAT poses are an old hack anyway, imo people shouldn't be using them any more, but it's established practice)
• Getting the numbers in the Hair Room to be more meaningful (because it appears to operate on a scale about 100,000 times larger than how scale is treated in other parts of Poser) might break all kinds of existing dynamic hair
• Getting away from REYES polygon smoothing to Catmull-Clark subdivision smoothing would break ALL KINDS of models that were designed and built specifically for REYES rendering

Quote - Just for the sake of argument... what changes in Poser would make legacy stuff incompatible?

Isn't poser content kind of straight forward? What would become obsolete? The rigging? I imagine injecting new rigging information wouldn't be too difficult is some new standard is introduced. Shaders?

Offhand? I can only think of a few (.rsr and .bum, mostly). I can see other oddball items going by the wayside as well, but things like .cr2 and .pz3 are ASCII, and can pretty much be read-in and beaten-up any way you want without having to worry (too much) about compatibility retention.

Quote - Would it not be possible to at least convert .pz3 with the proper runtime assets available into a basic textured .obj to be rendered by some different app.

Certainly - it's one of the best future-proofing methods around still. Collada is another (it can hold more info, and since it's industry-wide, it isn't likely to die anytime soon).

Quote - What would my dream be? Poser on a Linux box...

Ditto. If I had to take a healthy dump into Dan Farr's coffee mug in order to get Poser running native in Linux, I'd happily do it. Same with getting D|S onto Linux... Stewer's taste buds would be in mortal danger if the PTB decided that I had to poop in his coffee mug to get D|S going natively in Linux.

/P

Sean in case I was not clear, I don't care to talk with you because you're snotty and rude.  "Missy" is distinctly unfriendly and presumptive and you show no signs of improving your demeanor towards me, so I remain reluctant to talk with you.  Clear enough?  I mean I suppose I could just return your mode of conversation but I don't think you're a terrible person, just not someone I want to fence with in forum-based PVP.

Quote - So the next time I get new tires on the car, you're asserting that four chariot wheels will work just fine instead of Goodyear or Firestone?

Sean - are you even sure what you're arguing for anymore?

Yep, I sure do. If you seriously think that chariot wheels are even marginally close to Firestones, then I'm more on target that you'll ever hope to be. But that's not the issue, is it? Do you even understand the issue, Tom? Or is this another one of your hah hah jokes? I figure I need to ask just to make sure.

Quote - Again with the stupid either/or mentality... You do know that the concept of Yin and Yang weren't meant to be demarcations, but rather extremes of a continuum, right?

No, it was a serious question that merits more than the usual song and dance from you. You have made it plain over the past I dont know how many years how much you really dont like Poser. Hey, that's cool. No sweat off my brow. But when you make a nonstop stream of it, it truly makes me wonder what you're doing here aside from bashing the program that's the whole freaking point of this particular forum. I mean, you do realize where you are, dont you?

But instead, you choose to whine and moan that Poser cant cut it anymore with the Big Boys. Well, hey, go play with the Big Boys, Tommy. No one will mind. Trust me.

"...the fact that you can modify content using a simple text editor."

And that is what D|S has already broken.
Try editing a .ds file. You can't, unless you let Studio translate it back into cr2 format.
Problem is, D|S can't properly read cr2 files, that's why the MorphBrush doesn't work with it, so any translation will be not as good as the original Poser cr2 file.

Weightmapping would also break each and any existing  Poser content, unless you find a way to convert  all Poser rigging PERFECTLY into weightmapping.
And so far I haven't seen such an app that could do it.

And even IF you get a perfect weightmap for a former Poser mesh, will it be as easily editable as Poser joints are, or will it lock away joint editing to a few elite professionals, like V4 already did with her inane UV-mapping that can only be used with by those who can afford a proper 3d painting program ?

Quote -
(Sean)
Quote - "Now, having said that, if you - or MikeJ, who wants to burden Poser with a bunch of tools that would put the price point outside the range of 90+% of the users..."

Quote -
(Pengy)
You (IMHO rather ignorantly) assume that this is all an either/or proposition. The existence of a high-end Poser-like tool does not preclude the existence of a standard Poser-like tool. Carrara didn't wipe out DAZ|Studio, and the presence of Microsoft SQL Server didn't destroy MS Access.

This is true.
And I didn't once, not once say for my "Ultra Poser" to replace current Poser (what I called "standard" a couple of times in this thread), for the very reason that it would "put the price point outside the range of 90+% of the users...".
I went way out of my way to point that out on several occasions in this thread, and I even went so far as to say I wouldn't bitch and moan if it didn't happen.

I just wanted to set the record straight on that. Over the course of  just the last few months my feelings towards Poser as a program have changed somewhat, for various reasons, for the better. I also wrote earlier in this thread I've "even come to embrace it, flaws and all".
Strangely enough Sean, it was the last little flamefest you and I had here which was one of the contributing factors, because you were right - I had been pointlessly knocking the program and decided I needed to either find something good in it or give it and the Poser forums up for good.

Just don't tell people here things I'm not actually saying such as I want to "burden Poser with a bunch of tools..."

Understood. Mike.

And thank you. It's not often folks tell me I was actually right on something. :-)

In theory, I believe that the plans for "UltraPoser" are already in the works -- it's called Poser Pro.

Joe, I can't find a good lay explanation of Weight Mapping... can you make it simple for me? What I imagine is mesh selection based fall off zones in place of the spherical fall off zones... I am sure that isn't right but that is what comes to mind.

I wish there were real numbers on what people use.

My guess...

Software:
Poser 4 = 4%
Poser 5 = 11%
Poser 7 = 85%

Figures and Content:
Independent figures = 1%
Poser 4 figures = 2%
Millennium 2 figures = 2%
EF and other figures = 5%
Millennium 3 figures = 25%
Millennium 4 figures = 65%

I just made those numbers up completely.
I wonder what the actual figures are...

Weight mapping: there's a PoserPython function called GetVertexWeights(). I don't know enough of the internal Poser workings, but it may be possible that the joint parameter info gets transformed to vertex weights internally.
If this is the case, it woudn't be too difficult to translate the current joint parameter system into weight mapping. Yes, including the magnet based JCMs.
A weight map generated in this way then could be tweaked to improve the bending of the figure.
Then again, I don't know that much about weight mapping. What I've written in the previous paragraphs could be total rubbish.

What I do know is that relatively few users take the time and effort to dive into the possibilities of PoserPython. When they do, however, it can lead to fascinating and valuable products (think PoserPhysics, think PhilC, think face_off, think ockham) that greatly enhance the functionality and usability of Poser.

>> Sean in case I was not clear, I don't care to talk with you because you're snotty and rude.

And I will refer you to your own earlier post, in which you felt it necessary to tell us all how many paragraphs I had written, as though that were some kind of meaningful insight. If you wanted to get off on the wrong foot, that was certainly something that would clench the deal. Sorry, but if you want me to take you seriously, then post accordingly. Dont give me attitude because I will respond in kind. But if you have a point to be made, make it, and I'll answer with all good grace.

>> Millennium 3 figures = 25%
Millennium 4 figures = 65%

I'd reverse those last two. The M4 figures are too new in the market, and we're still seeing V3 used a great deal (not to mention "exclusively" when it comes to M3 :) ).

Guys... when software is updated, it's not that hard to leave 'legacy' functionality in there, so the software functions with 'old' and 'new' content.
It's pretty commonly done, to a point I wonder why there's so many people that thing the introduction of new and improved systems means that the 'old system' would be removed.

For whatever software house handles poser at the moment, it would be nuts to not allow legacy content to function in new software.
Much like some of P4 content functions in P5 or 6 or 7, but just doesn't take advantage of software improvements.

Even if they improve on rigging, it wouldn't be the only software out there that allows more then one way to rig things (Look at Max).

It doesn't have to be only one or the other. You CAN have both, and use whichever one makes you happy.

Quote - It doesn't have to be only one or the other. You CAN have both, and use whichever one makes you happy.

Poser already does this. The P4 rendering engine is still available in P7, although it hasn't been changed since Poser 5.

Quote - > Quote - It doesn't have to be only one or the other. You CAN have both, and use whichever one makes you happy.

Poser already does this. The P4 rendering engine is still available in P7, although it hasn't been changed since Poser 5.

Exactly!  Which is why this whole discussion about, oh, if things improve, the older stuff will be left behind is so odd to me! Little bit like argouning about sky falling.

Quote - Dont give me attitude because I will respond in kind.

Evidently it didn't penetrate.  Talk to the hand.

>> Evidently it didn't penetrate.  Talk to the hand.

Because clearly the brain stopped comprehending, correct? You give someone an opportunity to see the error of their attitudinal ways, and you get even more. What, were you raised by wolves?

Missy, if you wish to act like a twit, that's certainly your perogative. But do not expect me to take anything you say with a single grain of seriousness, not when you seem intent on acting ike a first-class a%%-hole.

Meanwhile, to folks with meaningful things to say about all this:

Little bit like argouning about sky falling.*

Well, granted, some things will eventually fall by the wayside. But I'm hoping they're replaced with systems and formats that make all this stuff slightly easier than the nonsense we had to tolerate surrounding the new DAZ installers and the nearly impenetrable weirdness that was V4.2, her "++" morphs, and the ensuing A4.

Quote - a%%-hole

Wow, you have anger management issues.

Quote - Well, granted, some things will eventually fall by the wayside. But I'm hoping they're replaced with systems and formats that make all this stuff slightly easier than the nonsense we had to tolerate surrounding the new DAZ installers and the nearly impenetrable weirdness that was V4.2, her "++" morphs, and the ensuing A4.

Easier is a very subjective term.

>> Wow, you have anger management issues.

And here I thought I was talking to the hand... :-) We can do this all night if you wish, but I was kinda under the impression you didnt want to hear from me anymore (whimper, sob). And yet you continue to respond to my posts, in some masochistic way. Well, hey, whatever....

And BTW: no anger here, pumpkin, just the simple truth. And the Truth is a very stern taskmistress.

>> Easier is a very subjective term.

True enough. But looking at what came down the pike with installation mess that was that particular product line, "easier" would mean, at least on the installation level, "click here, wait, then go for it and play". With all the turns and curves and swerves needed for DAZ's greatest and latest, there were moments when "ease" was off having a cigarette someplace.

Quote -
True enough. But looking at what came down the pike with installation mess that was that particular product line, "easier" would mean, at least on the installation level, "click here, wait, then go for it and play.

That's pretty much how it worked for me.  Unlike many other software...
Sometimes I think many Poserdom denizens are waaay too fickle

Quote - And here I thought I was talking to the hand... :-) We can do this all night if you wish, but I was kinda under the impression you didnt want to hear from me anymore (whimper, sob). And yet you continue to respond to my posts, in some masochistic way. Well, hey, whatever....

And BTW: no anger here, pumpkin, just the simple truth. And the Truth is a very stern taskmistress.

Perhaps a miss communication on your part... cause you do come across angry.
In that, I'm angry, but I'll try my best to look like I'm nawt, I'm nawt, I'm naaawt, kind of a way! 
At least to anyone who has been around forums longer then three and a half minutes.

So what exactly is it, you like to pick on girls?

I'm none too happy with the INJ/REM business.
Case in point: making ERC enabled conforming clothes for V4.0 was dead easy. But the ERC slaving breaks in V4.2, and I haven't found a way to reenable it yet.

If the .cr2/.pz2 file format evolves to make ERC possible again, chances are that it'll break stuff. Case in point: The Tailor 1.5. Throws a fit when it encounters a .cr2 entry it doesn't recognize.
Which is sloppy coding IMO - as long as the basic operation of Poser figure doesn't change, cr2 entries like visibleInRaytracing should just be ignored by The Tailor (but included again when the resulting cr2 is written out to disk again).

Future-proof programming requires some serious thought. It can be done, within limits, but it's not easy. Still, the fact that many utilities are NOT future-proof should not be a reason to stop development of the base application!

I've never seen Sean act like this in forums before, and I'm discouraged at seeing it.

I think Sean has "Ron's Disease"...LOL!

Uh, for the general edification: I'm a boy (not exactly a secret, 6000 people have downloaded my freebies and my proper name is in the readme).  But please don't hold that against me, I try not to let it cripple me too much.

I was afraid to get in on the discussion.

And fortunately a few of the saner minds have pointed out the fact that you don't have to throw out the old for the new to be implemented. Plus consider the fact that it's been proven repeatedly that there are functions in Poser that simply haven't been fully enabled (or were disabled due to release pressures). The animation layers was present in P6, for example, with a little editing of the files. Every version of Poser since 5 has had more and more of the Firefly renderer turned on. Since vertex weight call functions exist in PPython, the odds are that the foundation for weightmapping of some kind is already in place. And I have yet to see anything that says that rigging must be of one kind. Leave the vertex mapping for the legacy meshes, and add weightmapping for a new generation of figures. It wouldn't be long before someone(s) tinkered out how to use the two together, with cool results for the future.

Quote - In theory, I believe that the plans for "UltraPoser" are already in the works -- it's called Poser Pro.

Not quite. I take it you didn't read this completely. Can't say I blame you there.

What I'm referring to as "Ultra Poser" is far beyond the soon-to-be Poser Pro. Basically it's Maya with a LightWave understandability factor,  with some VRay, RealFlow, SyFlex, and Project:Messiah tossed in for good measure. Plus of course, Poser.
And don't come back and say nobody will buy it, or it'll price the hobbyists out because we've gone through all that already too. ;-)

Another thing that has happened in Posers evolution: MAT poses were a Poser 4 hack, and have been turned into a full fledged Poser feature in Poser 6 (material collections).
This may happen again. I'd love to see the INJ/REM hack turn into a fully supported feature, so that ERC doesn't break anymore. I'd love to see some external Python scripts (PRPC for example) turn into a full fledged Poser feature, enabling automation of Poser over a network. It may be that the network rendering in the upcoming Poser Pro provides such functionality, but well, we'll see.

  So what exactly is it, you like to pick on girls?

Nah. They got the wrong plumbing. :-)

Seriously? She (assuming that she is a she, given that no one really knows anymore about anyone) came into this with a smart-mouth attitude towards me that was unwarranted. Sorry, it was, period. She didnt like that I took all of five whole paragraphs to explain my position -- and I guess that was testing the limits of her reading capabilities. Sometimes you just cant let them off the hook that easily, lest they think they can pull that kind of BS again. And she definitely has issues all her very, very own, but we wont discuss those here. It wouldnt be polite, you see. :-)

>> Future-proof programming requires some serious thought. It can be done, within limits, but it's not easy. Still, the fact that many utilities are NOT future-proof should not be a reason to stop development of the base application!

Amen. Poser certainly deserves better in some respects from its developers, and it looks like the P7 team just might have carried that off, because unlike its two predecessors, it actually works and works well. The fact that we have a better hair generation room, a cloth dynamics room that actually starts to make sense, and an advanced materials room that's kick-ass fun to play in just demonstrates how far this little proggie has come. And for that we should be happy.

It's also worth noting that a lot of the advances like ERC came from outside the Poser development team, which suggests a part of a base that enjoys playing under the hood and an application amenable to having that happen. No doubt the coding issue you mention will be corrected by a gear-head user at some point in time. And that would be great: yet another tool in the Poser arsenal to play with.

But let's not pretend that this will ever be much more than a toy -- albeit a fun toy, and in the right hands capable of first class professional work. At the same time, there's absolutely nothing wrong with its being a toy, not  by a long shot. We get some pretty amaazing results out of this little toy of ours, without having to go through the headaches of working in the uber-serious programs like Maya. I love Maya, but it also drives me crazy. I'd rather that didnt happen with Poser, if it's all the same to everyone.

Quote - Joe, I can't find a good lay explanation of Weight Mapping... can you make it simple for me? What I imagine is mesh selection based fall off zones in place of the spherical fall off zones... I am sure that isn't right but that is what comes to mind.

That's actually pretty close.
Since I was the first to bring up weight mapping in this thread (I think), I'll 'splain it nutshell-like.
It's more or less internal information for how a group of polys or vertices will be "weighted" for an app's various functions. You can take a vertex group and apply a bone to it and the whole group will be affected equally. or you can apply a weight map to it, making the falloff however you like it and if the bone is "told" to apply itself according to the weight map instructions, it will move the 100% weighted area completely, while the other end of the spectrum, at 0% won't be affected. And everything in between.
This is why I said it's so much easier to rig a figure in LightWave than Poser. In Poser you draw the bones and there you go - everything within that bone's influence is affected. In LW you can assign a weight map to those bones very easily, simply by selecting the group and creating a weight map for it, then tell the bone, no matter how large, to only use the weighted groups.
Weigth maps also are frequently used in programs to customize falloffs for material groups as well, allowing for some extreme control over surfacing. Many other uses too.
Some programs allow you to actually "paint" a weight map as a vertex map, using color in place of percentages, for still more control. The color doesn't render of course, just acts as a set of instructions.

MikeJ - do you know how the weights are associated with the geometry? Does the weigth informatino get stored with the bone, or with the vertex, or with the polygon? Or is the storage application dependent? I'm a total noob when it comes to weight mapping.

Quote -
I love Maya, but it also drives me crazy. I'd rather that didnt happen with Poser, if it's all the same to everyone.

Really? I hate Maya, with a passion. I messed around with the PLE, but never actually accomplished much. Seems like they went way out of their way to make everything as convoluted as possible. The only way I learned anything was through some Gnomon video tutorials I bought.
Of course, the few things I did learn how to do had really really really good results, once past the ridiculous way of getting there... but I could never remember how to get back. ;-)
I had to uninstall it after I got my new Wacom Intuos 3 a few weeks ago, because for some reason it would crash my whole system when I so much as touched the pen with Maya open. 64 bit driver issue, I think.  And since I've become addicted now to my tablet and can't stand the thought of using my mouse for anything but games anymore, it was a no-brainer. Might give it a shot again when they offer a more recent release as a PLE.
I'd like to see the Maya features without the Maya headache.

Quote - MikeJ - do you know how the weights are associated with the geometry? Does the weigth informatino get stored with the bone, or with the vertex, or with the polygon? Or is the storage application dependent? I'm a total noob when it comes to weight mapping.

In LW you can select or create a vertex OR polygon group and assign a weight map to it, but I think it technically is only applied to vertices.
The bones are just bones, they don't have the weight info, but respond to the weight map you tell them to
When it comes to weighting materials however, naturally it's the polygons which are affected since points don't render.
But even there I believe it all comes down to vertices, which I think is what is actually being weighted, regardless of how it looks.
Everything comes back down to vertices, for that matter, except maybe for facet material information.
A weight map is essentially just a vertex map in the same way as a morph target or a UV map is.

Quote - Sean in case I was not clear, I don't care to talk with you because you're snotty and rude. 

No new news here...  I just ignore those.

--

Quote - > Quote - So the next time I get new tires on the car, you're asserting that four chariot wheels will work just fine instead of Goodyear or Firestone?

Sean - are you even sure what you're arguing for anymore?

Yep, I sure do. If you seriously think that chariot wheels are even marginally close to Firestones, then I'm more on target that you'll ever hope to be. But that's not the issue, is it?

You're asserting that because the concepts are the same, the results are as well. You also seem to be treading well beyond your depth here. We're talking about software... not what you want, demand, or desire... but the technical constraints of what's possible when developers try to balance between what is, what was, and what can be.

Quote - No, it was a serious question that merits more than the usual song and dance from you. You have made it plain over the past I dont know how many years how much you really dont like Poser. Hey, that's cool. No sweat off my brow.

I have my preferences, but that certainly doesn't mean that Poser cannot be improved, so kindly stop backpedaling away. Here's what you keep running from: You asserted (in no uncertain terms) that backwards compatibility must be maintained at all costs. Fact is, there are times and contexts where that's not possible, or even desirable. Sucks, but true.

(redacted some stuff - no need to pinch anyone's nose here...)

/P

Thanks for the info, Mike. A painted weight map, that sounds cool. First hack I can think of... painted influence zones for deformers!

Quote - If the .cr2/.pz2 file format evolves to make ERC possible again, chances are that it'll break stuff. Case in point: The Tailor 1.5. Throws a fit when it encounters a .cr2 entry it doesn't recognize.
Which is sloppy coding IMO - as long as the basic operation of Poser figure doesn't change, cr2 entries like visibleInRaytracing should just be ignored by The Tailor (but included again when the resulting cr2 is written out to disk again).

...that's because ERC (and all variants of it) is a kludge of the truest form. So are INJ/REM poses, and the never-used-anymore Subdividing Surfaces morph trick. They're all, quite simply, kludges - never intended to be used like that, but it works anyway (mostly).

Quote - Future-proof programming requires some serious thought.

It is impossible to perfectly do so w/o having complete control over the environment that you're programming for, unless you're writing "hello world" ;)

/P

Quote - Thanks for the info, Mike. A painted weight map, that sounds cool. First hack I can think of... painted influence zones for deformers!

No problem.
Yeah, that's the essence of their power - as a customized falloff you can create on your own to your exact needs. And what's better yet is you can have vertices as parts of more than one weight map, allowing for even more control. Plus of course, you can change up, simply by telling whatever tool you're using to use whichever map you want, if that particular tool supports it, that is.
That's just how it is in LW. Other programs have more advanced weight mapping to be used for more tools.
But in the end it's just a way of designing your own falloff zones, but in a highly intuitive way, since you visually see exactly what points you're using.
Being able to do that in Poser would allow for some amazingly easy customizing of joints and deformations.

"In Poser you draw the bones and there you go - everything within that bone's influence is affected."

Huh ?
Ever heard of spherical falloff zones ?

Sure, rigging in Poser from scratch isn't easy, but as long as a figure is at least remotely human, you just can apply another figures' rig in a few seconds.
Then all you have to do to modify that rig.

Again, rigging in Ppser is no 5min job. And looking at V4.2, It's obviously too hard to master even for the DAZ professionals.
But it's obviously a lot easier to implement than weightmapping, because otherwise the makers of Poser could have used THAT, instead of developing a completely new rigging system.

Found a YouTube video showing a simple rig created in Lightwave:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1dSIEgmMZA&feature=related

If it's so easy, why has none of the DAZ or Poser meshes been professionally weightmapped yet ?
Not those crude automated conversions, but a feature film quality weightmapped rig for V3 or V4 ?

Because noone NEEDS a weighmapped Vicky.
The Studios want to create new brands, so they need originality.
Do you really think that they will share royalties with DAZ or SmithMicro just so they don't have to pay a modeller to create an original mesh from scratch ?

Do you really think that a professional modeller who spent years to hone his skills all of a sudden says:
"Oh man, that Vicky 4 Girl sure is hawt and now she comes even pre-rigged for Max.
I can't wait to use her in my artwork so that it'll look exactly like those of every Dick, Jane and Harry who downloaded her for $1.99 from DAZ."

There is no market for premade stuff in the professional CGI world except for generic items like cars or houses or stuff.

Try to tell a songwriter that performing other people's music is on the same artistic level as composing a song note by note.
Poser artists are the Backstreet Boys and Spice Girls of CGI. (If they are lucky)
MAX and MAYA users are the Bob Dylans and Beatles.

How hard is it to grasp that "some" people have higher standards than others and "good" is just not "good enough" for them.
The professionals might use Poser for to cut some corners on a less important job, but for the real important stuff, they will do what they always did:
Create every single polygon from scratch so that they can make sure that everything works exactly like they want it to.

Anyway, I'm sure the Poser development team knows which side their bread is buttered on, and that it's not the wannabe professionals that'll pay their paycheck.
That's why we still have the P4 renderer, the "simple materials" option and the brilliant Kai Krause GUI.

Poser is the Volkswagen among the CGI apps.
A truly "Peoples Program" that gave CGI to the unwashed masses, constantly improved and refined, but resistent to changes just for changes sake so it not only becomes "new", but truly "better".

As I said, I'm all for a better Poser.
But don't spit on the people that made Poser what it is today: The hobbyist tinkerers and those who fill the galleries with kitschy NVIATWAS.

And yes, even devoloping a completely separate "über-Poser" will harm the "actual" Poser, because I somehow doubt Smith-Micro will pay two separate development teams.

Btw, I actually hope that the rift between D|S and Poser will manifest as soon as possible so that merchants HAVE to decide which side they take.

If a future Vicky becomes completely incompatible with Poser that would be the best chance to establish a non-DAZ mesh as the new standard.
So I actually hope that DAZ will implement a lot more new "features" and "improvements" into oh-so-modern Studio and adapts her latest V-chick accordingly.

The more often she crashes in Poser, the more pissed off Poser users get, the lower merchants sales will be, the faster we'll see truly accurate figures that can actually bend like a human being.

Quote -
Huh ?
Ever heard of spherical falloff zones ?

'course I have. I just don't like the way they work. PITA, far as I'm concerned. I've said everything in this thread in the context of how I see it. It's all been hypothetical. I don't expect any of this to happen.
Nevertheless it has been an interesting thread.

Quote -
Do you really think that a professional modeller who spent years to hone his skills all of a sudden says:
"Oh man, that Vicky 4 Girl sure is hawt and now she comes even pre-rigged for Max.

Nope. I also never said anything about it being prefab content dependent, but with the ability and the option to be able to have that if one wants.

Quote -
If it's so easy, why has none of the DAZ or Poser meshes been professionally weightmapped yet ?

Couldn't tell you why, but I suspect it's due to a lack of demand, not feasibility. It actually is quite easy to rig up a DAZ figure in LW, for example, and I'm sure in any other program. It's just a mesh, after all.

Quote -
And yes, even devoloping a completely separate "über-Poser" will harm the "actual" Poser, because I somehow doubt Smith-Micro will pay two separate development teams.

I actually said that already, a few pages back.

The more often she crashes in Poser, the more pissed off Poser users get, the lower merchants sales will be, the faster we'll see truly accurate figures that can actually bend like a human being. <<<

So, what about the G2 figures? Why hasn't anyone in the community (besides RDNA and a selected few others) taken the time to work on them?

"The more often she crashes in Poser, the more pissed off Poser users get, the lower merchants sales will be, the faster we'll see truly accurate figures that can actually bend like a human being."

I hope it will be soon!

My question that I can't guess at an answer for is why the unimesh is so robust at taking morphs and deformers while all the EF (and pre-curser) figures are so bad at taking morphs and deformers... I love the shape of the P4 figures, and the P5 figures, and the James 6 and Miki 1020 and even Jessie G2 but they just look absurd with the FBMs and fall apart when I try to make morphs for them with magnets. Why are they so brittle? They look much more real than Daz off the rack to me but they just can't morph... not even with the RDNA morph sets. V4 falls somewhere between the EF and the unimesh in brittleness IMO. What makes the difference... it doesn't seem to be mesh density. The only thing I have come up with is the base of the EFs being more ectomorph and the Daz 2 and Daz 3 being more mesomorph but that isn't it either.