Ok, I've finally had it. I haven't been able to run P5 since I got the upgrade. I thought to myself, fine - I'm not the only one, I'll wait for the patch. I installed the patch, still no dice. I disable my firewall, anti-virus, diconnect USB devices and try again - BSOD. After my second request, CL responds and begins trying to fix the problem. Tonight, they throw up their hands and say it's my fault for having a P3-450. I'm sorry but a processor that's only 50MHz below their spec (everything else is as their stated minimums require if not better) is hardly a reason to tell a paying customer (since V3) that "Your machine sucks, you're on your own." (okay I'm paraphrasing, but you know what? I'm REALLY P***ed off.) I have NEVER had a company pull this kind of crap with one of their products. It's obvious to anyone that the resource usage of this program is sub-standard (as evidenced by the fact I can run 4 other 3D applications with no problems whatsoever. This program should at LEAST run!!! No if's and's or freakin but's - IT SHOULD RUN. That's what we're paying for. Think twice about this program - there are many people that have no problems (wish I were one of you), but there are just as many that have had problem after problem. I wish you the best of luck. Cheers, Bonzai Gopher p.s. If you made it this far, sorry for the rant but I figure it might save someone the trouble I've had with this program.

that really sucks. I have the program on my work computer. But since it's so new,( new computer) I'm too scared to run the patch even, after all I've read.

Love is Grandchildren.

BG, Not to worry. With all the problems that CL/P5 has had with this release, I seriously doubt if they made enough "numbers" to continue on for too long. I just hope that when it does happen (and it will by the looks of it) Poser gets picked up by someone who will have enough programmers, QA staff, and finances to attend to all of the issues. === In a recent e-mail to one of my friends about Poser 5, I identified 10 areas in which I believe that CL blew this release: 1. CL over-hyped the release of P5 by providing too many promises, positive posts, and assurances prior to release; despite the fact they knew the release would be buggy; causing unrealistic expectations from the users about the capabilities of P5. 2. CL included the registration scheme; despite the community's prior adversity to such an idea; causing the community to revisit a heated discussion which, most likely, cost CL customers the first time around - as well as the second. 3. CL accepted pre-order funds before the product shipped; despite the precedent by most companies of withholding payment until the product is shipped; causing users to question their financial stability, which proved to be unstable per admission by CL. 4. CL included a very ambiguous and restrictive EULA; despite the fact that most of the protection they wish to achieve is already covered by law; causing far too much controversy over the EULA detracting from the release, decreasing P5's initial sales, and much needed merchant/vendor support. 5. CL failed to address many known bugs in P4 and P4PP within the release of P5; despite many P4/P4PP bug reports from users; causing users to surmise that the new features were merely add-ons over and above the P4/P4PP code base. 6. CL released a "beta quality" software package; despite the fact that many problems were known to exist with the software prior to release (as evidenced by the huge list of fixes in the first patch); causing users to question whether CL could actually deliver upon its promises. 7. CL failed to adequately prepare for the onslaught of registration problems that the consumers had; despite many admonitions from the more technical savvy users prior to release; causing additional "Registration Frustration" by the users who already had a bad taste from having to register at all. 8. CL failed to have Content Paradise up and functional by the time that P5 shipped; despite the fact that it was touted as being a "feature" of P5; causing a lost opportunity to reveal CP, losing the initial push for encouraging use of CP, and causing vendors/merchants/stores from questioning the viability of CP as a venue for sales. 9. CL staff publicly criticized users for posting problems to the fora vs sending bug reports, etc, directly to CL; despite the fact they knew the community already had high expectations for the release and the community is overly willing to share experiences - both good and bad; causing further frustration by the users who had legitimate issues and were assured it was "user error" vs technical in nature. 10. CL released a bug-ridden patch within 30 days of shipment; despite the fact that the initial software had many bugs already creating issues on users' systems; causing even more users to question whether CL has sufficient development, managerial, and support staff to handle such an ambitious release. Some in the community will agree to them, some will vehemently oppose them, and others simply will not care. I think that CL was counting on this release to be their "saving grace". If that is the case, then it will be interesting to see how long CL controls Poser.

I have a P3/500 and have no problems yet. I also have 512Meg RAM and 12Gig HD. I did, however, had to wait for 5 hours 8 minutes and 3 seconds for the 48.944Meg SR1 patch to be downloaded into my laptop. I think it was my 26.4k DUN modem connection.

That is VERY bad customer service if that is indeed what they did. While it's not necessary, it would be nice of them to at least offer you a refund. Something I recall with morbid bemusement. Sometime when Kupa was parading out P5 before the release, someone specifically asked if it would run on a 450. He said it'd be slow, but it should run. 500 was the mark where the slowdown was enough to be annoying. In other words, it may be mind-numbingly slow, but at the very least it should RUN on your system. Myself, the toys look fun, but I don't plan to invest in P5 until they get the thing working stablely. If things continue as they've been going, I suspect it will be at their going-out-of-business sale (after they release their rescue plan for the challenge code).

I'm with you on this rant, Gopher. When was the last time you've seen a program get a full service release within 2 weeks of being released? I'm running a machine that's WAY over the required specs and when I try to run P5 I'm lucky if the program simply drops to the desktop rather than crashing my whole system (which is a new trick the so-called patch taught it). CL tech support was a joke, and basically amounted to "Try turning off everything your PC is running... didn't work? Well, um, we'll get right back to you on that..." That was three weeks ago. Guess what? Still waiting. Never have I had such a miserable experience with a software company (barring Micro$oft, which has convinced me to reserve a special place for Bill Gates in Hell). To anyone wondering whether to buy P5, all I have to say is roll the dice and hope you have an extra few hundred dollars you won't miss if the program won't work for you.

Win ME specs are for a minimum of a 150mhz processor. Oddly enough, when trying to run ME on a pentium 120, the install halts and says the processor does not meet minimum specs. That's the first time I've ever seen software not install on machines below minimums. In most cases, the software can be installed, but the performance is so bad that its not recommened (or supported). I guess we got used to stuffing 10 pounds of potatoes in 5 pound bags and finding ways to make it work. Maybe that's a bad habit in this new age of high end machines and graphics software. Times are changing. Minimum specs ought to be adhered to methinks, especially when published in advance. I'm looking at the manual page 7. Says 500 min, 700 recommended.

Sorry to hear of your problems Bonzai and I agree with you, the program should run. But unless people are finally waking up, some will be in here telling you to upgrade your machine and saying stuff like, "well at least they tried to help, not like insert big software company name here." CyberStretch: EXCELLENT post! I'm becoming more and more convinced that a lot of the problems would go away if CL would just strip that damned protection out. But they won't.

Does anyone know if the Windows 98/ME memory problem is helped by the software referred to on the Curious Labs website: Cacheman: http://www.outertech.com/product.php?product=3&PHPSESSID=4b9a2ac8da23d4fbba721ec6c9a83399? I know I saw mention of it on the forum and now I wish I had bookmarked where. I got Rambooster but it doesn't really seemed to have made any difference. I'm thinking Cacheman, if it works, might be a help here too. I did, finally get Poser 5 and the patch to work, but I still can't render with Firefly.

"I'm looking at the manual page 7. Says 500 min, 700 recommended" True enough Eric, but what really is the diff between a 450 and a 500? Not much in my book. Like I said, I wasn't expecting a blazing performance, but I think the players should at least make an appearance on stage. What about all the people with "decent" machines that can't run it? I'm a developer by trade and I've never seen this before with any software.

FWIW, I've tried Cacheman, but haven't had any luck. Anyone else?

I feel for ya Bonzai.... Must say, however, that, IMO, Poser 5 needs a pretty powerful system to work decently...unless my system is just plain crap, but everything else runs fine on it.....rendering is kinda slow...libraries open kinda slow, the program even opens slow.... Its without doubt the doggiest program I own...even with the SR-1 installed. I'm on an AMD XP1800+ 512 meg ram Win XP I do like the new scrolling mouse feature, though...but that's slow too...doesn't support rapid scroll, so its faster to just grab the scroll bar and drag, just like before...

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

Attached Link: FreeMem Pro

Most of the "memory managers", from what I understand, basically push code from the system memory (physical RAM) into the swap file (virtual memory). However, the big performance hit is when the system has to swap code from the system memory to the swap file. Many memory-intensive applications (ie, Poser) and those that do not properly free the memory upon closing, can easily cause your system to continually swap code between the physical memory and the swap file. One thing you can do to improve performance somewhat, is to limit the number of TSR (Terminate and Stay Resident) type applications. Many of these, nowadays, place icons in your system tray near the clock; some show in the task list after pressing CTRL+ALT+DEL. Another "performance boost" would be to use "msconfig" and uncheck stuff in the Startup tab that is unnecessary. (You can do a Google Search for "startup programs" to see many sites that list what programs may/may not be ok to stop.) I use FreeMem Pro (Ref the link) and have been for several years under W98SE without any problems.

Dave, this is exactly the problem I'm talking about! A 1.8GHz machine should be able to have this program singing! Forget the problems I'm having - my PC is borderline - but there's no justification for the trouble you're having! Like I've said before, I run 4 other 3D apps (that work) on my machine with NO problems. Sure, some of the higher end options (like GI and caustics) are a bit slow, but they WORK. I really feel for people that want to use this for commercial work - for their livelihood and can't.

3. CL accepted pre-order funds before the product shipped; despite the precedent by most companies of withholding payment until the product is shipped; causing users to question their financial stability, which proved to be unstable per admission by CL.<< I agree with this one and I was surprised there was little comment about this when everyone was pre-ordering. I inquired with CL about this and never got a response. By the way, very well-written argument. My laptop has 512MB memory (the max for this system) and 1GHz processor (P3), and Poser5 crashes every time I try to load it. My desktop (also a P3) runs it fine when it wants to, but I have the problem of the layout being set for someone who has a very large monitor and the tools are off the screen. If I set the screen resolution to 1024x768, everything is too small on my monitor. I know this was a problem with the patch (which I don't have), but it was a problem with my original Poser5. I don't have the patch loaded because my modem speeds are too slow and I'm waiting for CL to send it to me on CD. I've contacted CL twice by email regarding this supposed "getting the patch on CD" if you can't download it. I've yet to hear a response from either of my emails which makes me wonder if they got them. Terrible customer service. Did they fire everyone after this release? I've gone back to Poser4 since it runs just fine on my system, and the Poser5 content works okay with it. I only bought Poser5 because I was especially interested in the Face Room, but found its comparable to that piece of crap that MetaCreations put out: Canoma! I'll stick with Poser4. If they concentrated more on enhancing 4 instead of making 5 more complicated, I think they would have fewer complaints.

Poser 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Pro 2014, 11, 11 Pro

Hiya whbos, There are preference files that are supposed to fix a problem with resolution on the CL website, but I thought that was in response to a problem with the first patch - the second patch isn't supposed to have this problem. The people I've spoken to in customer support have tried to be helpful, but I think they're swamped right now. One question I'd like answered is "Why is Poser5 grabbing so many resources just to start the program????" (maybe it's all that registration and piracy prevention code they've added) ;)

just read this thread im glade I stuck with p4 propack now after all the problems I read, and this includes my programmer instructer during our break time him and I both agree that CL has alot of programmer issues to realease a product that is so unuser friendly anyways im not too sure about the specs on running the program now granted I dont use P5 but with my P4 propack I run on a very weak system a home buitl intel celeron 333mhz with only 160 Ram and P4 propack works fine on my system, I also use 3d studio max and bryce 5 on the same system and have no problems so again I still question the honesty of CL it dose appear to be going down the tubes fast, but this is just a rumor that MS will be coming out with a 3d program along the lines of Poser type, if this be the case weather CL gets the problem fixed or not if MS realses a program most likely CL will be gone or bought out by them just by MS track record of dominating the software industry, but then again as I said this was a rumor I heard so take as you will anyways good luck p5 people I hope you get your problems solved Dark_Raven

Bonzai, what's the difference between a 450 and 500? Maybe a lot. The amd 500 tbird for example accesses memory in a very different way from the old conventional bus systems that a 450 would belong to. The differences may have less to do with a 50 mhz speed gap and more to do with MB archetecture. But all that aside, I do wonder if there is something else with your system that is causing the errors. A custom driver? Custom DLL? Who knows. And since its below specs and soon to become a dinosaur, why bother to find out? Don't take me wrong. My laptop is a 450 and I'm not at all excited about having to replace it. Its just that computers are becoming more and more powerful and many companies writing software are starting to take that into account.

Actually EricfSD that is what I mean by CL using bad programming practices when you creat a program you dont program it for the most powerful system you deleveop it for the weakest possiable because you have to realize with as fast as computer technology changes it is almost impossiable to anticpate what computers will be able to do while your developing the program so if CL programmed it in that fashion maybe they should start by reading there programming 101 books again Dark_Raven

sorry but having been in tech support, and having had to say, ''your system doesn't meet minimum requirements, so we can't help" I'd have to say your sol too. They stated minimum requirements and saying I don't have enough but it should run is bs. No matter what one person says, if it don't say it on the box don't get it for that. Do you know how many calls, email etc any tech support gets? 90% are either user error or people calling up to ask how to install what they've got or what time will it snow in Colorado. I'm not j/k. I feel for those having problems. But some just bring it on themselves. I still doubt its all CL, why you ask? xp home, p4 1.4 512 mb nivida 32 card and P5 runs smooth and the interface fast with the full patch which I downloaded on my 56k modem running at 42k.

Tirjasdyn
http://michellejnorton.com

It's too late to go back in time but I wonder if they would have been better off to have a phased in approach.....versions with less options for computers with less power but still could do more than Poser 4 + the Power Pack. I can easily live without the Firefly Renderer, for example (I do live without it because I can't get it to work). I wouldn't mind having a smaller, cheaper program without Firefly that I could use on my computer. I haven't done much with the dynamic hair or cloth, but I suspect I could live without the hair. Whatever it is that bogs Poser 5 down in slower machines seems like should have been taken away so that the program would work. It's not realistic to expect all of us to run out and replace our computers. Mine works fine except for this. But it's too late now...both for us and for Curious Labs. I think it would be a shame if the company went bankrupt over this. The idea is a good one. It's the execution that has been the real problem.

Well, sort of in defense for CL, with processors reaching 3+GHz and the newer hardware/software architectures for 3D, it is hardly realistic to presume that a 450MHz would be the lowest common denominator for its user base. If the "programming to the least powerful system" methodology was adhered to, we would still all applications could run on, say, 286s vs the powerful systems that are available today. (Not that this would be a bad thing, but it is unrealistic in light of the technology that exists today.) However, if the Minimum System Requirements (MSRs)list 500MHz, etc, then Poser should run at full tilt on that system. I do not believe that CL is alone in claiming ridiculously low MSRs. In a way though, its almost become a fraudulent act for software developers to include MSRs that, when used, are highly inadequate for even the minimal software usage. IMHO, if the Recommended System Requirements (RSRs) list 700MHz, etc, then anything with that spec on up should run the software flawlessly. However, this, too, is hardly the case. My general rule of thumb is to double the RSRs, which would bring Poser to a 1.4GHz system. Given the complaints of users with this spec and above, I would conclude that CL does need to seriously look at its developmental processes and procedures and revamp them so they can release a viable product.

My Poser 5 runs good on my 1Ghz, Pentium 3, with 128MB SDRAM. However, I just can't use dynamic cloth, or hair, and expect quick results. I was amazed how quick the Bryce engine seemed when rendering a landscape animation, after not using it for a while. And since I'm planning on making a full-length movie, with the hub of the movie rendered in Poser 5, I need this thing to crank out some animations, and I just can't do it captain with my system specs, if I want Dynamic cloth and hair. I need a dual Intel Xeon Processor, 2.8 Ghz, with 1Ghz ram, and a NVidia Card. This is what I want to get, I just need to save up a whole lot of money!

Hiya Eric, You're right, I am thinking about replacing my PC - but the fact remains there are a number of people like Dave that have a perfectly reasonable machine that can't run it properly either. This has to be more than simply a bad DLL. His performance sounds like P5 is using bad memory management. My machine just can't begin to cope like Dave's. Suppose we do upgrade our machines, are we gonna need - dual Xeons and 1GB of RAM to make this thing work? (Dave has a 1.8GHz with 512MB!!!) This is quite a bit higher than the recommended specs posted on their website. Cheers, Bonzai Gopher

Trust me its very possiable to run powerful programs on old systems if programmed correctly for example If I told you I could develop a 3d game such as Quake III in Visual Basic rather then c++ you probably think Im full of S**t well guess what? It can be done VB can be use to develop High Speed 3D games compariable to any game created in C++ and here is why? Windows API Function can speed up any type of program this being said to say CL cant program p5 to work on less then high tech systems is full of crap im assuming they did it in C++ or actually C cause very few programmers actually use the "++" part of C for verious reason which would be to long to explain anyways I think CL again didnt take into account what systems their consumers will be using, they just assumed everyone has money to spend 2000 + dollars on powerful systems then another 500 every 6 months to update the system or spend more money to buy the latest system just so they can use P5. Also a side note most games, or application you buy now days exception of graphic programs the specs still require a pentium 200mhz on atleast believe it or not windows 95, so again I believe all the problems go back to the programming practices of CL so we atleast agree on that point. To sum it up I think CL just like MS dose often is try to realease products before they are ready the diffrence is MS is much bigger then CL will ever be and can fix there problems faster. Lets face it there will be bugs in every program release but as Programmer its your responsablity never the user for bugs you know that will happen in the program, if you say oh well we fix that if it becomes an issue is very poor programming and more importantly bad business. Dark Raven

" It's too late to go back in time but I wonder if they would have been better off to have a phased in approach.....versions with less options for computers with less power but still could do more than Poser 4 + the Power Pack." P5, from what I have read in the manual, is a very ambitious application, especially when compared to P4PP. From what I have gathered in the fora, the majority of the users are hobbyists who have other lives, jobs, families, etc that need attending to first before introducing a new "learning curve" into their hobby. I suspect the declining sales in P4 and the dire financial situation CL was in was the deciding factor to rushing P5 to market. I also wonder why EGI.SYS did not help or other sources of financial income (ie, loans, venture capital, etc) were not sought in order to produce a more stable product? If this was done, I wonder why the financing never came through? There would have to be reasons "Yay or Nay" as to why they got it/did not get the financing they needed. If CL fixed the bugs in P4PP they could have released P5 as a new version with, say, an optimized FireFly rendering engine as 5.0. This would have allowed CLs' developers to concentrate on integrating FireFly to its best possible implememnation and new revenue for P5. I think that most of the users would have accepted this as a successor to P4PP. As time goes by, just like with Pro Pack, CL could have added additional functionality (ie, the different "rooms"), after having had a chance to fully optimize each for use with the initial code base. They could have done this either separately or in one fell swoop. CL has been silent regarding the details of what went on inside the company, other than to admit that they had financial troubles and even went to eight (8) employees at one point. (To tell you the truth, unless it was postive, I would be reluctant, too.) So, it is hard to determine exactly what went wrong and where. Unfortunately, it does seem that CL is under severe financial pressure and considering the lost sales and fallout from the P5 issues, they may very well be headed for some tight if not impossibly tough times trying to recoup. There is a possibility that they can pull out of the slump, but to date they have shown the contrary, IMHO.

To play devil's advocate here, "minimum system requirements" is a greatly misunderstood phrase... It is not the minimum that a piece of software will work under, it is the minimum it was tested on and that tech support are supposed to help people with... According to that, the moment the support guy found out that you were trying to run Poser 5 on a machine that was 50 Mhz slower than the minimum, he/she was most likely required to cut you off...
As for everything that CyberStretch pointed out... I don't even know where to start with all that, and am curious how CL is going to spin it...

Well... I was going to be the control in this experiment and wait for final patches. I caved and installed them. Win98 1ghz P3 512mg ram (with Cacheman) Radeon 9000 pro video 120gig 7200rpm Western Digital HD. I had no problems with the install, registration or update.... however - once installed p5, was so unstable it was unusable (prior to patch). The patch is in and I haven't crashed the face room like I was but I wouldn't call it fixed either. The patch addressed the huge face room problem I was having but now its those c execptions in the materials room. Firefly (giggle giggle... which I lovingly refer to as super-mega-colosus-renderer: hey why not really work the hype) renders insanely slowly. There is no way I can use this for animation anymore. I don't have children to inherit my projects and continue the family rendering legacy. Plus it makes my beloved Victoria look like bovine fecal material. The bump maps and eyelashes transparency look like doo-doo no matter what I try. The coolest transmapped ponytail (kozaburo/Yamato) on the planet (the one that I use on V2 as a standard) shows the transparency over her face like she was an X wing pilot with her visor down. Yeah, Yeah.... Talley use the FORCE....let go. Bullshit. BESIDES that did I mention its slow? I mean slash-your-wrists-slow?.... oh yes.... moving on. I wanted most from this, the face room - I thought that would be great as I know plenty of people that would like to be digitized for my silly films or as a talking head on their private webpages.... I took careful pics of my girl and she'd come in and see me working on it and almost killed me for how poorly she was represented. This is not due to my skill. This is a face I could sculpt from clay while blind folded in an abandoned coal mine. Nor is she way outside the curve for a "too normal". I chose her as my first attempt because her bone structure is fabulous (As she is Cherokee, Picture the V2 supermodel head with a slightly more rounded head and and stronger nose.) she should have been the easiest face to fit on to a model. It looks like the most work that was done on P5 was the materials and the cloth/collison thing. The materials room when it doesn't C out is kind of cool but not a priority for me because I KNOW how to use photoshop. As an animator I am very very patient and I could model cloth without the do-dads .... yes it takes an insane amount of time but I can tell you that I could probably complete a sequence in P4 and magnets (without using the p5 tools) and render it about three days before P5 finished rendering it. Before I get attacked by the blindly faithful for my blasphemy.... I am one of you. I love this damned little package and would probably punch a lightwave guy in a bar over it... (well depends on how big he was...hehehehe and Don't scream LW people... I hope to save the money for it too one day). This package is VERY personal to me. But CL really really let me down. Every time I play in p5 I have to go to p4 and play for twice as long to make myself feel better again..... ....sob ...................Oh the humanity..... TalleyJC - P4 Animator X

If you can't get it to run, the problem is not CPU speed, and probably not memory management issues. The problem is most likely either (1) drivers, or (2) how the installer manipulates the Windows registry. I've had other programs have problems because of how the installer changed the registry. For example, in some cases, if you don't install in the recommended directory, the registry can't find the program (it hard wires the pointer to a non-existent file in a non-existent registry) and things don't run. These problems are a pain in the ass, but can be overcome. --Scot

To be fair, it could also be the software code that is causing the problem; especially in instances when all other installed software runs and functions normally except one application. If I was a betting person, I would say that the use of the Interlock protection scheme has probably caused more issues than it has fixed. So much for the "team of scientists" that developed it. :o)

Bear with them and give them a chance. Service Release 1 is a big improvement performance-wise, just stay away from the Firefly Renderer (improved, but still slow). Performance with dynamic hair has improved, so maybe I can start learning... Dynamic Cloth is another thing I want to get into. They could really improve things performance-wise by implementing OpenGL Hardware-based Rendering. We could get a few frames per second instead of a frame every few minutes. Their Tech Support has indicated to me that they will consider it. They really need a better looking P5 woman, better female textures, and a set of Female Faces for the face room. Until then, I will stick with Victoria.

Just a quick thought I had. Most software companies grant an 'upgrade' price. CL's P5 is MORE than what P4 originally cost, and no upgrade pricing. You have to pay the full price. From the quick release of Poser Pro Pack and P5, I'd say that this is code that was heaped upon P4, and not a complete re-write as the version number suggests. Also the fact that there are LOTS of bugs is another indication of new code conflicting with existing code. If P5 had been written from the ground up, the development would have taken two to three years. Its obvious that CL paid a premium price to aquire Poser and is squeezing its users for the maximum amount of cash. Why do you tolerate it?

 Don't sweat the petty things, and don't pet the sweaty things!  ; )

What are you talking about "no upgrade" pricing? I got mine at an upgrade price of only $129 or thereabouts (I have P4 and ProPack to get that price). Have they changed something on the order page?

I asked Kupa about DirectX support, and he said "I can't comment on that" So I doubt OpenGL will make it under the wire, at least untill the next release, if there is a next release. Given the speed of the patch's release I wouldn't be surprised if they started work on it as soon as P5 was mastered to CD, I guess the proof in the pudding will be the arrival date of any subsequent patch. Though I seem to recal somebody opining that CL would have to hire back the programmers to code the patch. So it's an open question as to how many coders they actually have at present. I've got a 2Ghz P4 with 768Mb of memory and a 64Mb Nvidia GeForce4 440MX, running XP pro, P5 runs like a dog, my main complaint is that "fast tracking" is no faster than "full tracking" which renders the dials useless with two fully textured characters with hair. I've not used Judy or Don to be honest, Just as I never really used the Poser4 defaults once I got Mike & Vick, but we were assured they would all work. Which they do, but you have to click on the dial and enter a number to move anything, as "click & drag" simply doesn't work. I've got SP1b, but I've also got a new 20Gb USB drive (cost the same as the upgrade) and if my OS is going to become unstable after I've installed it, (as at least one other person has reported) then I'll wait. I can't imagine that given the load tech support are under at present, adding my problem to thier load is going to do anything but frustrate me, as I wait for a reply... later jb

Hi I'm sorry to hear that. I did have problems getting the patch to run. I Uninstalled poser 5 and re-did everthing and then it worked. It's working fine since then. hope that helps

For anyone unable to run SR-1 at all - I was in that boat until I restored my system and applied the (then received) registration response (spit, snarl). Curiously enough, once registered I can apply SR-1(b) and Poser5 does load... ...still as slow as a slug carrying an elephant, but it loads. Mayhap I can learn a bit about how it's supposed to work... but I'm devastated that the program doesn't use hardware acceleration for previews - and a quick MIMIC test suggests that P4 was way faster at previews :(

Hi,
On a few occassions with previous PCs I ran into BSOD errors because my BIOS and/or Graphical memory addresses were being shadowed. Sometimes I ran into conflicts with MMedia drivers, on other ocasions into graphical problems. The use of this shadowing mostly was to get as much low memory free as possible and to make the memory usage run faster.

In simple terms shadowing means: make a copy of a range of addresses (BIOS, Graphic pointer etc.), put them somewhere else in memory and tell the PC to make use of those copies instead of the originals.

You can find info on whether your BIOS etc. is being shadowed in your BIOS Setup. When you boot up the PC you have got the option of hitting F1 (on my PC) or another key to enter Setup. Search for shadowing options in the Setup, probably in some Advanced Options. Should you have such options, write down their settings (NEVER forget that!!!). Disable enabled options, save the settings and reboot.

If the PC runs fine, test P5. If P5 runs (hopefully), get back into your BIOS Setup and enable the options you disabled one by one. Each time reboot and test P5. You finally will find the booger harrassing you all this time.

If the PC does NOT run fine, reboot and get back to your BIOS Setup and enable the settings you disabled one by one, reboot and keep doing this step until your PC runs fine again. As a last resort, use the BIOS reset option of the BIOS Setup.

IMPORTANT: when you are totally unfamiliar with BIOS and BIOS Setup, have someone with more knowledge do it for you, we don`t want to mess up your PC, do we?

Hope this helps you further, mail me at maxxarcher@hotmail.com if you need more info.
MaxxArcher

It's been some time now since I last posted here, nobody seems very interested in any other topic but Poser 5 complaints. Tonite I feel like adding my feelings ,well you guessed it! I didn't rush out and buy P5 as I probably would need a new computer too, knowing of all the freezing and other gliches in P4 that were never successfully fixed by CL, I wasn't in a big rush to lay out big bucks on a new system and software, prefering to wait for other opinions and hopefully some good reports. After a month of reading the gripes here I'm now convinced I don't need P5 plus I also need a way to make some real money from my computer which I can't see happening no matter how good you are with Poser. There is more to life than stressing over this expensive, badly constructed and bug-ridden program which is supposed to provide recreation and satisfy our creative urges.
I'll stick with my P4 despite its temprament but I've now spent the P5 and new system bucks on a vinyl sign cutting machine that I know will have a decent chance of earning me a few dollars.
Tommy.

They could really improve things performance-wise by implementing OpenGL Hardware-based Rendering. We could get a few frames per second instead of a frame every few minutes. Their Tech Support has indicated to me that they will consider it. I wouldn't hold my breath. They've been "considering" it for years now. You know, to put another POV on that, I got Poser 3 and Bryce3D together in a package in 1998 or so. Bryce3D had OpenGL preview. Poser still doesn't. If P5 had been written from the ground up, the development would have taken two to three years. Actually, P5 development did take two or three years. Hey, I seem to recall Kupa promising to come in and tell us what the heck they were DOING for the past 3 years. Did I miss it, or did that never happen?

This is a first for me...CyberStretch, I agree with every point you made. ;)

I have stayed with P4 (although I bought P5) because my new machine (2.53Pent) finally runs P4 at an enjoyable speed. P5, aside from bugs, demands hardware that won't be available for another year or so. Does anyone remember whether there were complaints when P4 came out about slow rendering speeds?

despite the fact they knew the release would be buggy I would suggest that they not only knew there were bugs in the shipping copy, but planned for it- how else can you explain them releasing a patch two weeks after Poser 5 shipped. That is barely enough time to collect feedback from the users, let alone fix existing bugs, fox things submitted by users, test and debug the new code, and "package" it for download. I suspect that they knew full-well that Poser 5 would ship "unfinished", but hoped everyone would overlook it long enough for them to get the patch ready. (Either that or the testers lost their job before they could finish- how else can you explain missing content from CD2?? You would think that someone would put the finished CD into a drive and check every single thing before it shipped out the door.) And, don't forget, the first patch had bugs as well! It took a second patch to fix the bugs in the first patch which fixed SOME of the bugs in P5. (Some things are still not fixed, like pressing a shortcut key, while on the paramter dial palette, to switch to the main camera.) CL released a bug-ridden patch within 30 days of shipment Actually, weren't the releases about 15 days apart? P5 shipped around Sept 15, the patch was supposed to be released Sept 30, then pushed back to Oct 3, then pulled, then re-released on Oct 4. CL failed to have Content Paradise up and functional by the time that P5 shipped Has anyone checked to see if this "Contest Paradise" is working yet... nearly a MONTH after the release of Poser 5? When will it be ready? And will anyone even use it- if you try using a feature and it doesn't work, how long does it take before you never use that feature? Why doesn't Poser support DirectX or OpenGL? Every other professional-level 3-D software does. This alone could cut down on Poser's memory usage AND speed up render time. How about multiple levels of Undo (or an Undo that works properly)? Nope, not yet. And people wonder why Poser is still considered a "toy" when compared to the other 3-D programs out there...

VanishingPoint... Advanced 3D Modeling Solutions

Cyberstretch: A little late in reading this, but I agree. "Team of scientists" indeed! The same 'team' whose interlok drivers made floppy drives disappear by usurping an almost 'set-in-stone' IRQ, an IRQ used by floppy drives for how many millenia? without even checking to see if, well, it was already being used! "Gaggle of idiots" seems to be more appropriate. Kuroyume

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Do you guys really believe the protection scheme is what is causing all the problems with P5 ???? Please elaborate on why and how this is proven to be the case. I'm not trying to cause an uproar...I want to know if this is the cause of my problems, and if so, contact CL to change or remove it.

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

One of the posts above stated they do not use the Firefly renderer.... doesn't that then exclude many of the new features, such as the strand hair ???? So why even bother to run it at all....everything takes so much longer to do in P5..I think I would just uninstall it and go back to P4.

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

When P5 first came out, I was definitly POd...and still am... I did write to their sales/customer service and requested my money back for a defective, poorly released product. We had dialog concerning this, and I agreed to wait for the patch...which I have installed. It has fixed some of my problems, didn't fix some, and introduced others.... This is beyond what I wanted to say, however..... I received an email yesterday from Tori, inquiring if the patch rectified my problems or not....this , in itself, is a great act of customer service....it doesn't happen often, if at all....at least they were concerned enough to ask. Maybe it is a good idea to make the vocal ones happy, however :) The bottom line, IMO, with P5..there is still much work to be done...unfortunately, those of us with P5 might be the ones suffering if CL does fold...and with the problems that have transpired with this release, I'm sure the sales are way off from what they could have been if this release went as it should have. At this point, I'm still very reluctant to hold on to this product. It really doesn't do what I want in a timeframe I'm willing to give it. Scene setup is very slow...materials room is a PITA in my opinion....yes, it is probably much more powerful from what we had in P4, but I like simplicity. Waiting for the FF to render in production mode is very painful....I can't imagine trying to render an animation in Firefly...it would take days to do a 1 minute animation. Memory requirements are extremely steep. Even a 50meg scene is totally rendering on the hard drive....using upwards of 900meg to render...which means you really need 1.5gig of ram so there is some space. Can/will this stuff get fixed??? I still cannot understand how you guys with lesser systems can be running this product without problems...or are you just not saying anything ???

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=898306

Dave, IMHO many ppl with problems aren't posting them here because, A: they're not members here; or B: They're affraid of being labeled "whiners;" or C: They are amoungst the blindly loyal to CL group. As far as the protection causing the trouble, I asked the same question to CL a few days ago. (see link) Still no answer. I was going to re-post the question Monday, but haven't finished researching yet. At the moment, I believe it's a combination of the protection and ineptness and/or laziness. (I too am waiting for the explanation of the wasted three years.)

Well i guess im gonna stick with poser 4 with my new system i ordered.........and use the money i have for poser 5 for another program or even some models ...wouldnt mind getting a decent 3d modeling program.....we will see......but ive made my decession from looking at the posts in the past month ......and the cons about the program outweigh the pros .....and plus for me to get the program shipped here would end up costing me 400 canadian bucks (the shipping and duty and taxes is what kills it for me)compared to the 129 U.S. price tag......which makes me wonder why canada is considered as international to the the states ...thats retarded ...sorry for goin off topic abit...... nnuu

The irony is that I seem to remember that when CL were saying absolutely nothing about when P5 would be out, the official word was that "it won't be released until it's ready". Err ... I have no way of knowing whether the copy protection is the root cause of many of the problems, but if it is, it certainly won't be the first time. There's a long history of "smart" copy protection screwing up the whole program for at least some users. In which case you would have the irony of CL expending considerable trouble and resources, and generating significant ill-will in the Poser community, with the net effect of breaking the product, and without (in all probability) actually improving sales. Have rifle, see foot ...

Attached Link: Content Paradise

"Hey, I seem to recall Kupa promising to come in and tell us what the heck they were DOING for the past 3 years. Did I miss it, or did that never happen?" Not to my knowledge, but, then again, CL staff has a tendency to ignore my posts - or so it would seem. I actually take that as a compliment, meaning that I ask questions that they would rather not answer, at least publicly. :o) "Actually, weren't the releases about 15 days apart?" CL actually released P5 on Sep 6, IIRC, vs Sep 15. It seems to me they could have seriously used the extra few 9 days to address some of the problems. "Has anyone checked to see if this "Contest Paradise" is working yet... nearly a MONTH after the release of Poser 5?" I check it everytime before I post that it is still "Coming Soon". EGISYS slated the "Grand Opening" in August, it is now nearing mid-October. I would imagine that there is some force behind it not opening, probably the same force that has produced the code base for P5. Quite possibly, it could be the presumed "low numbers" for P5 that is delaying CP if there is a determination that it will not provide enough benefit to justify the cost. Perhaps, the number of vendor/merchants that have signed up for CP is insufficent as well. Only an insider really knows. "Do you guys really believe the protection scheme is what is causing all the problems with P5 ????" IIRC, Larry Weinberg made a post, either here or at PoserPros, stating that they were contacting PACE to see why the Interlock system was causing problems and users had to revert to a previous version of the DLL to get it functioning properly. That is evidence enough for me that the protection is part of the problem. So far, TTBOMK, there has been no update regarding this either. It may not be causing *all* of the problems, but for a CEO to get involved, it must be serious enough.

Copy-protection schemes do not prevent piracy or (I STRONGLY suspect) improve sales, any more than anti-virus products have put virus-writing to death. People with coding (and de-coding) ability will produce a crack for almost anything, and people who won't pay for the products WILL either do without them or get cracked versions. Copy-protection schemes (and I've seen a few come and go over the years) almost invariably infuriate a significant proportion of the users, and make vendors who haven't thought through the consequences feel smugly safer in thehopes that they won't lose sales. You don't lose real sales through piracy - thos eof us who are going to pay for a product will do so or have done so. So restrict the usage of a program to a single computer containing the hard drive at time of original installation negates many upgrades and indeed hardware failures, even if the copy protection scheme has no other ill-effect. From the documentation I've just been reading it looks like the entire program MAY be being slowed down by having copy-protection checking for legitimacy at uknown intervals (continuously?). As for the hardware accelleration that I think many of us were hopin g(or even, in this day and age, expecting) that wouldn't help render speeds - but it'd sure help the actual preview/working speed tons. If you want to maximise sales, there's a far better way of doing it. Produce a well-written (rare now but still possible, I think) comparatively reliable and fast product, and release it (when finished) at a reasonable cost. Reasonable people are willing to pay a reasonable cost for a good product.

Jackson..interesting thread on the protection... As far a cracks...I don't usually use them myself, but I sometimes wonder what diff it really makes if you own the software anyway... if it makes it work better, or in many instances, defeats the CD in tray scheme, etc...why not ?

Humankind has not woven the web of life. We are but one thread within it.
Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves. All things are bound together.
All things connect......Chief Seattle, 1854

Looks like a pretty concise analysis, CyberStretch. Nice job. "1. CL over-hyped the release of P5 by providing too many promises, positive posts, and assurances prior to release; despite the fact they knew the release would be buggy; causing unrealistic expectations from the users about the capabilities of P5." Of course they did. Going by the posts that Kupa made [The "we had to release, we had employees sleeping on couches and working unpaid" etc posts], they obviously felt that they had no choice financially except to release now after hyping to generate as many sales as possible. Never mind what it would do to their customer base, and never mind that it wasn't precisely equitable treatment of loyal customers... "We need the money, so we'll get all the sales we can regardless of the condition of the release" syndrome. So much for community relations. I suspect the timing of the promotional threads had as much to do with deterioating relations between CL and Daz and a desire to spike Daz 3D as much as hyping Poser 5, but I'm a cynic. "2. CL included the registration scheme; despite the community's prior adversity to such an idea; causing the community to revisit a heated discussion which, most likely, cost CL customers the first time around - as well as the second." Ah. But you forget... they had a "team of scientists" designing an uncrackable scheme, and accountants pursuing x amount of dollars lost to warez. What are disgruntled customers in the face of that? ;] "3. CL accepted pre-order funds before the product shipped; despite the precedent by most companies of withholding payment until the product is shipped; causing users to question their financial stability, which proved to be unstable per admission by CL." Reffer to "1)". Actually, CL admitted to that financial instability during the Poser 4 Amnesty threads, a number of months back. No indication was ever given that they'd progressed to a less unstable financial condition in the intervening time, nor any reason to believe they had. "5. CL failed to address many known bugs in P4 and P4PP within the release of P5; despite many P4/P4PP bug reports from users; causing users to surmise that the new features were merely add-ons over and above the P4/P4PP code base." They failed to address those bugs adequately in the 3 years following the poser 4 release, "working ful time on redesigning Poser 5 from the ground up" cited as the reason. The new features being add-ons to the basic Poser 4 codes is not a surmise: a look at P5, and a read of the 3rd party software contributors confirms that the render engine, material nodes, face room, and cloth rooms are 3rd party add-ons from Pixels 3D, Size8 Software, and Face-Gen. Lisenced plugin modules, not "new coding".

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

TalleyJC... "eyelashes transparency look like doo-doo no matter what I try. The coolest transmapped ponytail (kozaburo/Yamato) on the planet (the one that I use on V2 as a standard) shows the transparency over her face like she was an X wing pilot with her visor down." ...I'm not sure what you've been trying as a fix, but it's pretty straight forward... On anything that uses a transmap, make sure that 'Transparency Edge' (used to be labeled 'Tansparency Min') is set to 1.0. In P4, you only had to set the Max value, so many old MAT files only set that.

Cinema4D Plugins (Home of Riptide, Riptide Pro, Undertow, Morph Mill, KyamaSlide and I/Ogre plugins) Poser products Freelance Modelling, Poser Rigging, UV-mapping work for hire.

"The new features being add-ons to the basic Poser 4 codes is not a surmise..." The reason that I stated it was a "surmise" is that I do not have P5 and could not verify it personally. We seem to have some programmers within the community that could, possibly, check the code to see if there is a substantial amount of the base code that exists within both P4 and P5. The reappearance of P4 bugs strongly suggests, if not proves, this to be true without proper investigation.

Re: CL financial stability, and the dough many of us have shelled out for P5 AND the copy-protection... I had a quick peek at Pace's site. Aside from stating that in no way with their copy-protection scheme ever cause any problems, even when different programs use different versions of the scheme (honest!) their FAQ's do have the occasional interesting comment. E.G. How do I unlock PACE protected software produced by an apparently defunct software company? While PACE Anti-Piracy does provide companies with copy protection tools and the ability to authorize customers, it does not have the customer databases of these companies to validate End User (the consumer) authenticity, nor does it have the legal right to distribute authorization codes for the products of these companies. Furthermore, while the copy protection implemented is made with its tools, PACE Anti-Piracy does not have the codes to unlock products for the End User. If you have bought a product in a box, we suggest returning it to the place of purchase for a refund. Copy protection is a topic that is fervently, almost religiously, debated. PACE Anti-Piracy provides tools to software publishers to protect software from theft, and these tools have successfully serviced many happy clients. The tools help software companies to stay healthy by allowing these companies to concentrate on their core products; however, it is the duty of these companies to stay in business and support their customers by providing authorizations. PACE works diligently to qualify our customers as healthy and able software vendors and do our best to advise them of how to best use our products. We are sorry that we can not be more of a help, but hopefully this helps to explain our position in these matters. So - if CL do go "legs in the air" anyone left holding a copy of P5 will be able to use it for as long as the hard drive they're using is both functional and in their computer. so no hasty upgrading, y'hear?

While I am the first person to admit this release coudl have been handled better - and no doubt P5 still has it's share of bugs, including some apparently fatal ones on some systems, I just couldn't avoid commenting on some of this.

Dark_Raven - "Actually EricfSD that is what I mean by CL using bad programming practices when you creat a program you dont program it for the most powerful system you deleveop it for the weakest possiable because you have to realize with as fast as computer technology changes it is almost impossiable to anticpate what computers will be able to do while your developing the program so if CL programmed it in that fashion maybe they should start by reading there programming 101 books again"

Ummm... no :)

For some types of programs the lowest common denominator is a good idea - but for many types of programs it is simply irrelevant. Poser5 is a system that demands high end hardware... the nature of ray tracing and cloth/hair simulation are going to set a lower boundary of what is useable and there isn't much point in wasting time below that.

For instance, it would be silly of them to try and cram this into a 128meg P3 at 200mhz/ Even though many P3 machines are still in use.

• When you develop software you look at several factors to decide this:
• What machine does the majority of your target audience have?
• What machine will that audience be willing to upgrade to?
• What can you do to accommodate lower machines without sacrificing core features that will define the product in the marketplace.

Many games, for example, have very demanding requirements. While they would have more eligible users with less ambitious hardware needs they would also sacrifice too many features to be commercially successful.

With 900+mhz machines way, way under 600$ these days it is not a critical issue to try and make multi hundred dollar software that caters to out of date hardware. The vast majority of those who will spend the money for Poser5 also have machines that can run it.

** Dark_Raven - "If I told you I could develop a 3d game such as Quake III in Visual Basic rather then c++ you probably think Im full of St well guess what? It can be done VB can be use to develop High Speed 3D games compariable to any game created in C++ and here is why? Windows API Function can speed up any type of program this being said to say CL cant program p5 to work on less then high tech systems is full of crap im assuming they did it in C++ or actually C cause very few programmers actually use the "++" part of C for verious reason which would be to long to explain anyways"

No, I wouldn't think you were full of it (well, OK, I probably would) - but you also wouldn't be telling the entire truth. Yes, you can write a game that runs fast in Visual Basic - because all you are doing is calling functions that do the actual math for you that were written in C++, C and ASM. That's what OpenGL, DirectX and Direct3D do for you ... heck, you could possibly write a fairly fast game in the macros inside word.

So yeah, you could do it in Visual Basic, with the help of a 150,000$ game engine (the UT engine, Quake engine or Lithtech... maybe NetImmerse). I don;t think at that point your use of Visual Basic is much of a factor in top of all that C++ and C code. Of course, Visual Basic.NET is a whole different story, compiling nicely the same way C# does.

Now, to extrapolate from there to the idea that "Windows API Function" can speed up "any program" is a bit of a mis-statement in many respects.

1. All windows programs use substantial portions of the Windows API - including poser
2. There is NO Windows API function for ray tracing, hair simulation and mesh deformation in wither the Win32 api or the .NET api.  If you can find one... by all means let us know.
3. Even pretending for a minute that there WAS an API for mesh deformation, that wouldn't make it magically run fast on older hardware.

I am a little confused about your assertion that "few" programmers use C++ as it is currently the most uses development language for large projects. Including games.

JHoagland - Why doesn't Poser support DirectX or OpenGL? Every other professional-level 3-D software does. This alone could cut down on Poser's memory usage AND speed up render time.

I agree, Poser absolutely SHOULD give us a DirexctX/OpenGL mode for the preview window. This would really help and is a tremendous option in software like Max. As the cards get better and better the DirectX preview can do lighting, shaders and bump mapping.

It would not, however, speed up render times at all.

who3d - So - if CL do go "legs in the air" anyone left holding a copy of P5 will be able to use it for as long as the hard drive they're using is both functional and in their computer. so no hasty upgrading, y'hear?

Well, since there is a crack available for Poser5 I find it hard to get very worried about being "stuck" without the ability to use Poser5 in the future.

A lot of people are angry and upset - and many of them probably have good reason. Poser5 could have been a unmitigated success for CL and it has turned into a moderately successful release that has caused it's own share of problems. I am sure no one is more upset about that than the folks at CL.

But, some things are true:

• Poser5 has some important features that many of us are finding very useful and a definite improvement.
• Poser5 is stable and reliable on the majority of users machines
• Dynamic cloth, hair and the shader have dramatically opened up what can be created in Poser5 and as freestuff and vendor items catch up with the abilities we will see some really outstanding things
• At it's price point, Poser is the most efficient way to create, render and modify characters

Am I "blindly loyal" to CL? Hell no.
Do I think Poser5 is perfect? Hell no.

But neither of those things means I shouldn't comment on rampant speculation and inaccuracies about technology or software.

.

Soulhunter, I agree with 3 of your 4 points. Where do you get your information for the 2nd bullet? I highly doubt its accuracy. And here are some other truths: 1. CL has been lying to us for years. 2. CL did almost nothing to improve the core Poser program. 3. The small improvements that were made (i.e. the Library system) could have and should have been made available to P4 users years ago. But instead CL kept it from us so it would be another incentive to buy Poser 5. 4. CL knew (or should have known) that the Pace protection scheme is known throughout the industry to cause problems for end users. But they used it anyway.

I think people here have forgotten one very important thing.

The features that were added to Poser 5 (licensed or not) were requested by "US" the poser community.

They went over the top IMO to give us what we asked for:

Raytracing
Material Shaders
Hair
Cloth
Dynamics

So don't say that CL doesn't care about what we want because they've already proven that they DO.

-JH.

I don't see the problem. Software can be Processor specific with regards to type e.g. Pentium/Pentium II/III or IV or whatever. The actual clock speed of your processor should effect only that. The speed. I use audio production software which places far heavier demands on the processor than any 3D app ever could because everything has to happen real time or you can't work. The same does not apply to rendering in the least. I use a PIII running soft synths, a sequencer and an audio editor simultaneously with no hastle at all. Of course a software publisher may recommend a minimum speed it feels will be acceptably efficient to it's licensees, but you shouldn't have any trouble at all using P5. I'd like to recommend a new forum topic specifically for P5 'drama', the pro and con rantings of which seem to have drowned out the purpose of this one.

dialyn: Good suggestion! They could have had a Poser5 Light Edition with enhancements and fixes for Poser4, but without all the hoopla they added to Poser5. For instance, improved animations with multiple cameras used in one scene, improved standard characters (Don, Judy, etc.), and not have the face, hair, cloth and other rooms. Or even better, the Light Edition would be an improved Poser 4, and its companion CD would be like the Pro Pack that includes all the extra features that Poser 5 has. The Poser 5 Room Pack would be for people with higher systems, and those without can stick to the Enhanced Poser 4 version. And it would be available for both MAC and PC.

Poser 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, Pro 2014, 11, 11 Pro

Soulhunter, Im sorry I think you miss my point but in away you kinda of explained it better first off about programming for weaker systems you kinda of stated what I was trying to point out that you program for the weakest system possible meaning how old of a system can you use with out compermising the purpose of the program. also I believe I stated in another post about not sure what type of progamming language they actually used, and the fact that a program for 3d graphics proabably demands a little more performance power then other application but still you do have to take into account what type of system you average user will be using Second of all all your right yuou still have to use direct X direct 3d, direct Draw with Visual Basic as the same with C++, but the common factor that brings visual basic up to C++ is the windows API, they both have the ability to use those functions, and they dont really do any math they just allow you to call the function that were use to design windows program since you using windows those function are avaiable to you and dosent have to search as hard for them as it would if you were using standeerd Active X function, anyways this all klnda of minute point since logically Poser 5 was not done in visual basic and since I read it dosent use direct x anyways to clearify my point about c++ What I meant was people that program in C++ dont use the ++ part of C++ meaning basicly they are still programming in C and the reason why is once you start to use the ++ part of C++ you run the risk of slowing down your programs speed that is what I meant as far ss Visual Basic.Net for now that program kinda of in the same catagory as Poser 5 to many bugs and problems with it most companies refuse to switch to using visual basic.net but I better hold my tongue on that one cause it seems they will be adding it to my classes for my bachlars degree so looks like Im going to have an additional 10 weeks of school tact on to my degree anyways now that I ramble on for a bit again I have one question that seems to bother me now so basicly I have a very good video card dose this mean its worthless when using Poser, as far as the direct x and open gl ability?

Afraid so, pretty much. I'm running an Accel Eclipse on my main workstation [a premium card in it's day], and it's worthless for poser use re: direct x and ogl. It shines however in apps like Studio VIZ and others that take advantage of it's features.

"I am a good person now and it feels... well, pretty much the same as I felt before (except that the headaches have gone away now that I'm not wearing control top pantyhose on my head anymore)"

• Monkeysmell

Dark Raven, I have to agree with you on the C++ part. Even I, a veteran C programmer, learned C++ many years ago and quickly put it to disuse. :) The problem with C++ is it is too much a mish-mosh of typical old-school programming language and OOP language which just makes using one or the other a tiresome business while degrading performance in the latter case. For real OOP support, I use Java and more recently Python. Conversely, one would hope that CL has alot of assembly language in their code for speed. Although highly optimized C (good algorithms, hand optimization, and possibly compiler optimizations (not recommended)) can be nearly as fast, it will never be as fast as well-written assembly code, bless the little programmers who can master coding in it. This may be a reason for a declaration of minimum support: compiler options or directives that are only supported by certain processors (in age and configuration). Nonetheless, OpenGL and DirectX have been around for some time, almost every 3D accelerated graphics card utilizes one, the other, or both, and are well supported in every major OS. So why couldn't CL, while "recoding from scratch" (eh-humm) add this support? It would not bar too many users and would increase performance beyond belief making it worth the effort. Kuroyume

C makes it easy to shoot yourself in the foot. C++ makes it harder, but when you do, you blow your whole leg off.

 -- Bjarne Stroustrup

Contact Me | Kuroyume's DevelopmentZone

Actually I tend to regard the "lowest common denominator" issue as an ethnocentric one (US-UK) for almost as long as there has been computer generated 3D stuff in games, the Brits have historically lacked access to hardware acceleration, (starting with cheap Sinclair computers.) So they built tight code instead, which benefited them when hardware got better. The Americans by contrast, always had access to better hardware, so they used that, which lead to the great progammer exodus of the 80's, as it became cheaper to write better code than build new hardware. This worried the UK government so much they refused to let you go if you got a "free" university education from the state. Europe yes, America no. I had a mate that took an embalming course to get around it :) "Wing Commander 3" famously had two reviews in the UK at time of release. it got 90% if you had a "cutting egde" P133 and 64Mb of memory, but only 60% if you had a more normal '486 DX4 and 32Mb. These days, while the processor continues to creep forward, the GFX cards are bounding ahead. The chip on the ATI Radeon 9700 is twice the size of the latest AMD processor and requires a seperate power source as the AGP slot doesn't supply enough juice :) Even hardware constrained games consoles, long the preserve of the tight loop, are powered by the latest GFX hardware, my cube has a "Powered by ATI" sticker on the front, and rival Nvidia powers my Xbox. But Poser? It has remained stubbornly single threaded and memory intensive, using a GFX card soley as a display device through the OS. Some people here have actually made poser faster by turning hardware GFX acceration off! Yes folks, our beloved software is an anachronism! :) later jb

The only reason why I can think of why CL dose not support Direct X and open gl is because so many other programs, like 3d studio max; which im having problems with this plug in which i posted about a few min ago on another topic, allow you to import poser things into those other programs so maybe CL figures if they want to use open gl or direct x let them export there work from poser into those programs and use it that way...who knows im just glade I didnt buy poser 5 it looks good on its screen shots and even in the last issue of renderosity magaizine but after all this I think im going to stay with my Poser 4 Propack after all I have only had it for a year so maybe time I get to be an expert CL or who ever they might be by then will have all this mess fixed up and I will consider buying there product. Dont get me wrong I think they have a good product they just dropped the ball so to speak on this one it happens to the best of them think about Bill Gates when he was demostrating Windows 98 in front of 1000 of people talking about how stable it was and what happened during his demostration the system crashed but they recovered from this and eventually I think CL wil as well Dark_Raven

-- They could really improve things performance-wise by implementing OpenGL Hardware-based Rendering. We could get a few frames per second instead of a frame every few minutes. Their Tech Support has indicated to me that they will consider it. -- I wouldn't hold my breath. They've been "considering" it for years now. Holding our breath may be our only hope now, however Firefly has been a tremendous help in increasing our lung capacity.

Jinkies, I've created a monster!!! I've been reading for 40 minutes (starting at around post #30 from last night)! I'd like to thank everyone for the support and ideas (MaxxArcher - I'll look into the shadow bios idea). The info regarding the anti-piracy protection was interesting reading also. If it's as unstable as some have said, maybe it's a good thing I couldn't get P5 to run as far as registration! ;) I guess I should have followed a friend's rule regarding software - Never buy a ".0" release; at least not right away. I'll be adopting a "wait and see attitude now - if people are having problems with 1.8GHz+ PCs, there's no point in me rushing out to get a new machine (I'll get my stereo for now). I wish you all the best with P5 and here's to hoping CL can fix things up so we can get back to what it is we're all really here for... Cheers, Bonzai Gopher

Soulhunter - good points and very good grammar etc. (better than my posts anyway). although I feel Dark_Raven has some excelent points too, I must admit that I'm actually mostly in favour of P5 (despite the hassle it's caused me so far) and hope it continues to behave itself now I've registered. The one point I would raise against your post is that I don't want to rely on or even have a crack for P5 in order to use it in future - I want to be able to use the program until I choose not to (or not to be able to). This might be down to the installation of Windows XS 2006 (historically OS' have occasionally "broken" old applications) or my giving up on 3D/Poser/whatever... but I want to be able to choose to run a legal instance of the program I've paid for or not, regardless of CL's finances. If a hardware failure alone (death of a hard drive - or maybe even re-partitioning??) can/could prevent me from running a legal copy in the future, and be forced to try and find and use this crack, then I'm not a happy bunny on that aspect.

Dark_Raven - "What I meant was people that program in C++ dont use the ++ part of C++ meaning basicly they are still programming in C and the reason why is once you start to use the ++ part of C++ you run the risk of slowing down your programs speed"

We have radically different industry experiences you and I :) I have found that every non trivial project makes fairly heavy use of the object features of C++. There are dramatic gains to be had from a good OOP architecture .. and there are no random slowdowns to consider, C++ can be a very deterministic language speed wise.

kuroyume0161 - "Conversely, one would hope that CL has alot of assembly language in their code for speed. Although highly optimized C (good algorithms, hand optimization, and possibly compiler optimizations (not recommended)) can be nearly as fast, it will never be as fast as well-written assembly code, bless the little programmers who can master coding in it."

This was true for a while, a fairly long time ago IMHO:)

Modern processor systems use complex pipelines and the optimizations for them are extremely complex. It is a rare thing these days for any code to be run as it was written... the processor re-orders instructions, profiles that code and speculatively runs future code for branch prediction. This will only get worse as hyperthreading becomes more common.

While it is theoretically possible for a human to make the appropriate optimizations in ASM for short (very short) loops - overall the compiler will do a much better job of it than humans will ... and it will do that job best when given the additional information provided by higher level language syntaxes.

(unknown author) "They could really improve things performance-wise by implementing OpenGL Hardware-based Rendering. We could get a few frames per second instead of a frame every few minutes. Their Tech Support has indicated to me that they will consider it."

Actually, the render times for full frames would be completely unaffected.

who3d - "If a hardware failure alone (death of a hard drive - or maybe even re-partitioning??) can/could prevent me from running a legal copy in the future, and be forced to try and find and use this crack, then I'm not a happy bunny on that aspect."

I do understand the concern. I guess for me, by the time any of that happens there will be something else available to me and Poser5 will have redeemed it's price for my uses.

Jackson - Soulhunter, I agree with 3 of your 4 points. Where do you get your information for the 2nd bullet? I highly doubt its accuracy.

I got it from the various forums for Poser I frequent and from discussions with others I work with on 3D and animation projects as well as discussions with some of those who beta tested Poser5. It is a personal opinion arrived at from anecdotal evidence... just like he opinion that Poser is unstable in the majority.

Jackson - "The small improvements that were made (i.e. the Library system) could have and should have been made available to P4 users years ago. But instead CL kept it from us so it would be another incentive to buy Poser 5."

I doubt it - I think once CL decided to work on a new version a lot of these things were added to the feature list in planning... as part of a new release. I doubt they existed in stand alone form.