Ok Guys I am following this topic with great interest. I don't pretend to understand all of it yet (I hope I will when I have about 10 hours of straight un-interrupted time to open up the files and follow it step by step and do some testing of results - maybe make that 48 hours on reflection). However, can I make an observation that is both simple and I hope of some value. Would it be a good idea to ask Curious Labs to incorporate a new internalised cr2 editor in Poser 5 with a dedicated sub-editor for configuring channels in a similar fashion to the extant Hierachy and Joint editors? It strikes me that some of the joint morph controls and applications were anticipated - in part - in the full body morph option but, as usual, nothing compared to the level and depth that the informed users and real developers in the field really took them to. A JCM editor with many built in pre-configured options would help to take many more Poser characters to a new level, particularly if fully integrated with PPP. This is your coalface, is this a good idea or not? Sorry for diverting the flow, please respond and get back on track. STORM

STORM, Any reasonable way to lock a control figure for an ERC would be a big help. If the programer at CL who is dealing with these particular widgets understood what we are trying to do and can find a way to give us more control, it would do much to increase the practical capabilities of Poser 5. Right now, a user must really want it and be willing to take an extra step to two. Do you have an IN with CL? An editor to do or control ERC? It might be handy to be able to get at the rate value from within Poser, but the ERC itself is only 5 lines of text. Getting it in, is simple text editing. There is probably no way select the proper joint or the rate to use without practical experience and I doubt that a dedicated editor would substitute for this. You just must experience the: "Oh, so that's what happens when I do this." part on your own. After you make a couple of mistakes, you figure out what is needed. You just have to get grease under your nails. As Rob and I agree: just reading about it will turn your brain to mush (moosh). Jim, MTM will work on every part I have tried it on. I have had no cause to try any digits (but thumb:1) or Toes. The base for central groups - such as abdomen is simply that single group. The morph target to mirror or swap is also just the same group. (For central groups -ones with a R&L within the same group - the midline verts must be x=0.000 - it you pull them to one side by mistake, you must fix them. This rules out a lot of morphs made using Poser magnets.) The base for groups with two separate halves rCollar & lCollar is the pair of them, but only the pair of them. (I think some have tried rCollar-chest-lCollar and gotten a "not symmetry" message and given up. The trick is to leave chest out.) RDS and Carrara have a 'duplicate with symmetry' function also, but there is a glitch in the exact location for the duplicate, so there are trans effects included with the morph. For MTM none of this is needed. Now, I almost never do a morph on a single group. At the minimum if I was doing a breast morph, I would use rCollar-chest-lCollar, hide everything but the area of one side for the morph, save the mesh, open it in Compose, save just the two Collar parts and go into MTM. I then isolate the mirrored morph with a text editor. MTM has some quirks, but I can get the job done. For the elbows, I would have a rForeArm-rShldr-rCollar-chest-lShldr-lForeArm grouping - hide everything but the area around the right elbow - do the morph - save it - Compose - rForeArm-lForeArm - MTM - mirror &/or swap - EditPad = lForeArm morph. I save the right side morphs with Compose when I am doing the pairing for MTM as I have had blowback involving the original morph. Do the same with the r&lShldr. (My grouping for morphs on the arms always includes chest and hip for legs, but I think it is mostly superstition.) You just need to cut SMV into base groups for MTM. You will find your productivity will more than double - probably triple.

Much to my dismay, its obvious I didn't get back to this thread Thursday night like I hoped to. Reason: I'm currently in the process of rebuilding my workstation in a dual boot [98se/2K] configuration. I had been having major problems with 98's ability to accept 512MB of RAM in addition to the install of Win2K from the OEM CD. Anyone who builds their own systems and has had one of those completely uncooperative installs knows what my weekend consisted of... I've since remidied the problems, but will spend the next few days re-installing my software. Please forgive me for not answering as I stated I would. I will re-read a portion of this thread and respond as soon as I have my machine back in a state where I can verify any explanation I might offer. Thanks.

-Rob
rbtwhiz.com