ARGH! Vista!! genuflects

Laurie

Quote - > Quote - I guess this is an endless debate.

I still think that a "Poser compatible" product should pay attention to how it renders in Poser. 

Sort of, but not really.

The term "compatible" is the word to focus on. If I buy something software-wise that says "IBM Compatible" (anyone remember that term?), it means that it would load and perform the basics, and to not have any glaring bugs that are experienced across the spectrum.

OTOH, expecting perfection and the exact same results, on a computer that may not even have its monitor color-calibrated? Nope. It's like heating up a microwave dinner and expecting the same bountious over-flowing image of plump vegetables and salisbury steak... or are there still people who expect that? 

C'mon - it's the same story if you buy it from DAZ, Renderosity, Content Paradise, RDNA.

If an "IBM compatible" machine did not run a piece of IBM compatible software, the customers came screaming back to the dealer who in turn went crazy to the manufacturer. I know, I've been there up close.

I never said I wanted perfectly matched results - that is what you made up. I said I wanted to have POSER compatible results meaning not looking rubbish in any version of Poser.

I do not have these problems with Renderosity, RDNA  - they test the product they put in the store for Poser compatibily. Apparently DAZ does not do this and leaves it up to the vendor. Some do an excellent job and some do not even bother to render it.

Well I think it would be too much to ask that a product be fully functional in every version of Poser, because some features weren't available in the past and the shader system changed.  They should specify what version of Poser the content will run optimally on.  Remember when Poser Figure Artist was out?  It essentially was Poser 4 with a new name and vendors were making texture maps for it and the newer version of Poser.  What one ended up with was runtimes full of Poser 4 texture maps that did not look optimal.  At least the "light" version of Poser is now Poser Debut--which is essentially Poser 8 Stripped of the other Poser rom except for the Pose and Render tabs.  I would expect that any new product that Daz has available in it's Poser section would work well with the latest version of Poser--if it didn't I'd be dissapointed.

Quote -
If an "IBM compatible" machine did not run a piece of IBM compatible software, the customers came screaming back to the dealer who in turn went crazy to the manufacturer. I know, I've been there up close.

Not close enough, I'm afraid... the computer maker would blame the software author, the software author would blame Windows (and DOS before that), and/or the hardware (you didn't have enough RAM, your CPU isn't fast enough, you're using a Memory Stacker, your version of Windows or DOS was wrong, it's some TSR's** fault, etc). The OS maker would take a complete hands-off approach, and nobody would take responsibility. The only thing you could hope for would be the responsible party (whoever that was) to get a bad reputation and lose business.

By the way: Read a EULA (End User License Agreement) sometime... you'll still find it in there where software makers aren't responsible for anything but (maybe) a defective floppy or CD-ROM, which they would replace free of charge. 

**TSR = "Terminate and Stay Resident", or basically any application that rremained suspended in RAM when not directly called - common way before the age of multitasking and threading.

I've been in that particular biz for far too long, and I very much know better. ;)

Quote - I never said I wanted perfectly matched results - that is what you made up. I said I wanted to have POSER compatible results meaning not looking rubbish in any version of Poser.

Quick - define "not looking rubbish". Bad lighting can make a perfect mesh look like crap. Bad camera angles can destroy a certain facial expression.  Fact is, you cannot place an objective definition on compatibility beyond loading and being free from obvious defects (reversed normal, misaligned texture, etc).

Quote - I do not have these problems with Renderosity, RDNA

You may not, but others certainly have. I pointed out some rather famous examples a few years ago... the thread that did so was deleted outright here, a similar one managed to hang on for awhile at RDNA before getting locked, and the other, longest one may still be archived at the old PoserPros site. Many merchies went predictably ballistic. I received more than a few threats, flames, and other tear/rage-filled missives in reply. I also received a larger number of messages in encouragement, explaining that the problem was (at least back then) rather widespread. 

Funny thing is, I'm willing to wager that there are still examples today, and at all sites - just have to dig deep enough to find them. 

It's not really a "new Poser store" at DAZ. If you click on the Poser link, it simply performs a search that filters out non-Poser things like Genesis. It's the same Poser-compatible stuff that was always there. Some new Poser things are still coming out, but more slowly. About half of the new goods are for Genesis.

This, too, is not new. When a new product would come out -- Stephanie 4, Aiko 4, Hiro, Kids, whatever --  everything was about that product for awhile. I'm not into the carnival stuff, so it irked me to see almost nothing but carnival stuff for a couple weeks. The same when their Native American collection came out: all Indians, all the time. When they get their teeth into something, they and the vendors don't let go!

Genesis is a more signficant sea change, and it does signal a reduction in new Poser-compatible goods as their vendors focus on Genesis. I think it is permanent, but I don't think it is absolute. The market for V4, M4 is huge, and so is the Poser market. Their vendors won't let them change their business model to Genesis-only. The artists can't afford to live off selling only to Daz Studio users.

Quote - I've been in that particular biz for far too long, and I very much know better. ;)

I've been in that busines since 1978, so you don't need to educate me.

Quote - > Quote - I never said I wanted perfectly matched results - that is what you made up. I said I wanted to have POSER compatible results meaning not looking rubbish in any version of Poser.

Quick - define "not looking rubbish". Bad lighting can make a perfect mesh look like crap. Bad camera angles can destroy a certain facial expression.  Fact is, you cannot place an objective definition on compatibility beyond loading and being free from obvious defects (reversed normal, misaligned texture, etc).

I expect a limited form of quality where a render looks acceptable - this is nothing more than checking for reversed normals and misaligned textures. Acceptable means remotely looking like the promos

Quote - > Quote - I do not have these problems with Renderosity, RDNA

You may not, but others certainly have. I pointed out some rather famous examples a few years ago... the thread that did so was deleted outright here, a similar one managed to hang on for awhile at RDNA before getting locked, and the other, longest one may still be archived at the old PoserPros site. Many merchies went predictably ballistic. I received more than a few threats, flames, and other tear/rage-filled missives in reply. I also received a larger number of messages in encouragement, explaining that the problem was (at least back then) rather widespread. 

Funny thing is, I'm willing to wager that there are still examples today, and at all sites - just have to dig deep enough to find them. 

I am not interested in your personal feuds.

DAZ's quality for Poser content is getting lower which is not the case on the other sites

Well many 3D hobbiests wouldn't know the difference between a normal and a whole in the ground and paying good money for content expect it to work within the parameters that it was advertised to have worked with.  I've been doing 3D graphics for years and I don't want to have to do a lot of tweaking.  If I buy something I want to load it in my scene and have it be ok and be able to concentrate more on composition and lighting.  IF something does not work properly  the vendor and/or website should do an update for the product until it is up to specs.  Both Smith Micro and Daz advertise that using their software is intuitive and fun and something anyone can do, even a person with no 3D program experience.  I don't think that it's too much to ask for a product to work as advertised, especially since it seems that after years of declining prices (at least at Daz) that prices for content are starting to go up again. 

As to what wimvbd said:

"Daz's quality for Poser content is getting lowe which is not the case on the other sites"

Do you feel it's just the Poser specific content or would you include content created for Daz Studio as well?  I will give you that other webstie have higher quality merchandice than they used to have, and that's a good thing because it's good to have choices.

Quote - As to what wimvbd said:

"Daz's quality for Poser content is getting lowe which is not the case on the other sites"

Do you feel it's just the Poser specific content or would you include content created for Daz Studio as well?  I will give you that other webstie have higher quality merchandice than they used to have, and that's a good thing because it's good to have choices.

 

I can't say since I do not use Daz Studio, but at least the promos are rendered in Studio, so it should be better as the Poser version

I also have to add that there are many vendors at DAZ which do excellent work, it is just that it seems like DAZ is not testing it on Poser anymore

On Daz's Forums they're asking for Beta Testers, perhaps they lost some.

Quote - On Daz's Forums they're asking for Beta Testers, perhaps they lost some.

 

They are only looking for people who are knowledgeable Daz Studio users.....

Although I've tried all the version of Studio until this last one, that definitely is not me.

Quote - > Quote - I've been in that particular biz for far too long, and I very much know better. ;)

I've been in that busines since 1978, so you don't need to educate me.

Like I said - read any EULA on any piece of software and prove me wrong, even those reaching back to the earliest days of consumer computing if you like. The evidence alone is overwhelmingly in my favor.

Quote - > Quote - Quick - define "not looking rubbish". Bad lighting can make a perfect mesh look like crap. Bad camera angles can destroy a certain facial expression.  Fact is, you cannot place an objective definition on compatibility beyond loading and being free from obvious defects (reversed normal, misaligned texture, etc).

I expect a limited form of quality where a render looks acceptable - this is nothing more than checking for reversed normals and misaligned textures. Acceptable means remotely looking like the promos

So, now you just have to define "acceptable", or "remotely". 

Know that I hadn't even touched on differences caused by render settings, plugins/scripts, or many, many other individual factors. 

Quote - > Quote - Funny thing is, I'm willing to wager that there are still examples today, and at all sites - just have to dig deep enough to find them. 

I am not interested in your personal feuds.

It wasn't a personal feud. Nice try, though.

Quote - DAZ's quality for Poser content is getting lower which is not the case on the other sites

Now all you have to do is have some evidence to back up your assertion. Do you have any? 

Quote - Well many 3D hobbiests wouldn't know the difference between a normal and a whole in the ground and paying good money for content expect it to work within the parameters that it was advertised to have worked with.  I've been doing 3D graphics for years and I don't want to have to do a lot of tweaking.

Tweaking in what way, exactly? 

(...and trust me, a flipped normal is pretty frickin' obvious, even if the user didn't know what one was.)

Quote - I will give you that other webstie have higher quality merchandice than they used to have, and that's a good thing because it's good to have choices.

I can agree to this as well. Time has brought a few merchants up, and have eliminated most of those who didn't really know what they were doing.