Why do the developers sometimes ignore the users?
I know the title sounds antagonistic, but it's not really meant to be. But I've noticed that there are certain features that are asked for in almost every version of Poser, and yet almost each time these features are either ignored or not explained satisfactorily away. I'd really like to have Charles, or better yet one of the actual developers explain their thinking on the issue? Case in point, the Hierarchy editor. It seems to be asked for since at least version 8, when I first started paying attention, that the editor be collapsed upon opening. Personally, it doesn't bother me, but it seems like such a minor thing, why not just give the users what they ask for? At least, and what I would prefer is to give them the option to choose which way to have it in the General Preferences?
Please don't get me wrong guys, I understand there are priorities involved. I'd much rather have instances added, or particles, than having the Hierarchy editor collapsed. But I'd really like to know at least that some things we request aren't just being ignored, either.
Allow a quick answer till the "big boys" wake up.
There were too many official or semi official forums in the past, some "randomly" visited by SM staff "ter info".
Want to have something done? => File a seriously motivated and documented report as to "what" and "how" and "when" into the official SM reporting system.
Manhrs are expensive, and logically the team goes for the most "bang" for the "buck". => Critical Bugs and critical reports come first.
All I can say from personal experience is : WHAW!
When filing a justified report? The fix is there in less then a week, sometimes the next day.
But? LOL. When I file an "enhancement report" => I know I might, or might not get, it "someday". LOL.
mr_phoenyxx last edited by
To me though this seems like a bug, not a feature request. I mean why do you think the Library opens collapsed? Because that is proper interface programming. You don't open a potentially long list expanded by default, because that causes unnecessary scrolling to find the one item you are looking for.
So clearly they understand that, since the library was done correctly. So why do the exact opposite, and incorrect thing, on the hierarchy editor?
It's a bug and it is long overdue to be fixed.
Jan19 last edited by
People have been asking for enhancements to the Cloth Room for a long time. Those would be SO welcomed!
There are very few good cloth simulators out there -- that I've found anyway. And some are too expensive to touch. The Cloth Room could be a tremendous strength for Poser. Well, it is already a strength for Poser. But it could be a stronger one, with a few enhancements, like preset materials. (Leather, silk, velvet, etc.)
@mr_phoenyxx The reason I don't consider it a bug, or a feature request for that matter, and more of an enhancement request, is because it doesn't bother me. To be honest, if I were a new Poser User, a long list like that, collapsed, would confuse me. I open the editor and what I'm looking for isn't there. I don't see it because it's collapsed. Noobies aren't always the sharpest knives in the drawer, and it may not occur to them that they need to expand the editor. That's why I suggested the option check box in General Preferences. If you're an experienced user, then check the box and it is now collapsed.
As for the library, my guess is that the thinking there is a little different. The symbols there are folders and folders are always seen as collapsible as they holder other content.
@Jan19 I agree with you Jan. PhilC already has a preset on his site somewhere. it should be a simple thing for the developers to add there own to the features.
The hair room is another place that could stand some love. For one thing the hair needs more verts created to make styling it a lot easier.
nerd3d last edited by
Not ignored, the Hierarchy Editor is on my wish list too. Just because I'm the product manager doesn't mean I always get my way either. It's a matter of priorities. There are dozens of little things like that. Minor changes that we really want to do. There just isn't enough time in the day. At some point we have to say OK, no more we have to ship this version. I can't tell you how painful it is to decide that a feature you wanted ends up cut because more important fixes and features had to take priority.
Filing them as "Enhancement" bugs is important. I know it may see mile they don't get looked at but they really do. We have to focus on priorities. Anything that can prevent using a feature or cause data loss always take first priority. When we get past those less severe issues get a chance to be fixed.
@nerd3d I figured it'd be priorities. But I have another request then. Is there someway you can post a template or PDF file of a properly filled out bug report or enhancement report? I keep hearing people say that but It'd be a whole lot easier to do if we users knew what you wanted and need to find in these reports. Also, where do we file them?
mr_phoenyxx last edited by
@eclark1849 I agree that the best option is to let us all choose which we prefer. :)
You can report issues here https://support.smithmicro.com/
As far as what to include here is a general list of what to include.
- Operating system
- CPU Type (Intel AMD)
- Build number of Poser
- A detailed description, and preferably and scene export that reproduces it.
- If your computer fu is good, a crash dump (obviously only if it makes it crash).
- And if it is random, you need to mention that, and if you can get it to do it again describing what you did.
- Installed addons (Reality, Octane, etc)
- Scripts you run at startup, if set up for that
- Anything else you can think of that might relate to it. I know that sounds odd, but you never know.
I can't think of anything else to add to this, if so I can add it later.
Might be a good idea to start a thread about it with a related tag as well, I will look into that as well.
And by all means, start a thread here about it. I have run into more than a few issues that were on my end...
piersyf last edited by
@Jan19 If you are talking about preset materials in the sense of stretch and fold parameters and the like, that cannot be done as it is dependent on the mesh (size of poly, tri or quad).
Queue log, if using Queue Manager to run batch lists of renders or rendering animations.
If I remember correctly, it will be in C:\Users\admin\AppData\Local\Temp\Queue Manager\11 in 64bit Win7.
WER temps - Windows Error Reporting; If I remember correctly, they'll be in C:\Users\admin\AppData\Local\Temp in 64bit Win7, and will be named WER*****.tmp. They'll be time/date stamped so that you can identify which one(s) are relevant.
fbs7 last edited by
@nerd3d I think that this complaint would be less frequent if the users were asked what they actually want.
The impression I have is that some particular partier or particular groups have a lot of influence, while most of the customers have very little influence. It ends up being a very random hit and miss (at least for me). As a customer for 15 years, it pains me that never ever I was officially asked what I'd like to see in next version, even if I started some 40 threads and polls in several places asking for suggestions and voting mysefl.
I cite as example the new morph tool. Brilliantly done, and very useful. A hit. Also poly reducer, very useful.
Then I cite the continuous changes with the library. I have no idea why people are so obsessed with library. It keeps changing every version. Who uses library all the day? Library must be 1% utilization time, yet it seems to receive 50% of the effort in the product. Big miss. Meanwhile my 99% utilization items are just neglected and left stale - yeah, I'm talking animation, clothes and hair.
piersyf last edited by
The library is more than 1%. The rubbish library is the primary reason I never bothered with Studio. If you can't find your resources, you can't make the scene.
That said, I want metadata search capacity. Give me my tabs back (as a minimum)!
fbs7 last edited by
@piersyf Fair enough.
Perhaps I should rephrase my statement: I don't use 300 different characters and 3,000 different props. I have some 3 base characters, and some 10 customizations of those characters, and I just keep all of them in pzz files. When I need to add a toon, I just duplicate one from the current document, or I import from the pzz.
As for the props I have perhaps 100 different props that I use all the time, and I just keep them in a few pzz - for example one of my pzz is called Lib_V3_Dresses, and it has some 30 dresses in it, organized in a grid, and that also has my customized V3 models. When I need to find a prop I open that pzz, find the dress I want, set it the way I want with the models already in place, then I just transfer the result to the document I'm working with.
The advantage is that when I customize a new V3 model I just import it to Lib_V3_Dresses, then I can see several dresses nearby my custom model, then I can try several dresses directly in there to find the one(s) fit better, fit them in there as new dresses, and then just transfer the fitted dress to my main document.
So I use very little of the library (perhaps to keep light presets and to transfer objects, and other times just to fool around). I like that flow better because I see all my dresses nearby all my models, I can immediately see their dimensions compared to my models, I can see which ones are groups and which ones are figures and which ones are simple props, then I set up and fit them without clogging my main document.
I've found that faster than eternally adding/trying/deleting ("You sure you want to delete? Yeah, whatever") a bunch of stuff in my main document.
Anyway, my point with the 1% was that I spend perhaps 1 hour adding toons and props to my main document, then I spend some 100 hours or more in the actual animation. I don't see myself spending 99 hours adding resources and then 1 hour in animation. Other people's spreads may of course differ.
esha last edited by
I have sent in a LOT of official feature requests and most of them are still unsolved.
My guess is that some things look like simple changes to us users but are actually difficult to get done in programming. At least that's the only explanation I can come up with.
F_Verbaas last edited by F_Verbaas
I must say that Poser developers over the versions have been responsive to my suggestions on the wishlists and I found features implemented I had suggested.
But, of course the saying is that had Henry Ford done what most people wanted in his time he had set off breeding stronger horses.
Uli Klumpp last edited by
My guess is that some things look like simple changes to us users but are actually difficult to get done in programming.
Sometimes that, and they're also coming in at a higher rate that they can be implemented. That said, every update usually includes several of them, so they are being taken into account.
What are your top three that are still pending?
esha last edited by
Well, when development for P11 started we were asked for input. We vendors put together a feature wishlist and I fed each issue separately into Mantis. I also added several requests by users (non-vendors). Of these 30+ feature requests so far only 1 has been fulfilled.
If you ask me what is on top of the list for me personally, it's everything that has to do with rigging, weight painting, morphing.
Without a proper reverse deformation feature it's not possible to create high-quality content (and no, GoZ doesn't always solve the problem). Also the weight painting tools are still awkward to use.
The only thing that has improved is ERC setup, that is better than in previous versions. All the rest is still pending.
Glitterati3D last edited by
Well, i don't find the weight painting tools difficult to use at all. Yes, they take some getting use to, but since I use them practically every day, I can say I find them very easy to use.
One of the things I DON'T want to see in Poser is the "do it all FOR you" mentality I see in other riggers. At that point, rigging itself becomes knowing what buttons to push, NOT a specialized skill set.