Can someone please explain it...



  • I'm glad you and others are happy with Studio. Really, I am. What I DO resent is people who declare that they are SOOO deliriously happy with Studio, Genesis, and Iray coming over to a forum where I'm not bothering anyone just to piss in my cornflakes about how terrible we have it and how our software is going away soon.



  • @matb said in Can someone please explain it...:

    It's annoying in the extreme when those products suddenly cease to work. Case in point - I had a product called Crying Time, that used a Python script to apply tears and bump maps to any V4/M4 figure. Poser was updated to a new version of python (with so far as I can see, no visible benefit) and suddenly that much used tool no longer works.

    That's a 3rd party product - Crying Time. SM/Poser are not responsible for a vendor who refuses to update their products. Your complaints should be directed to the vendor, not SM.

    Oh, and just food for thought.........if Poser had gone the Genesis route, you'd be sitting in the same boat with everything Genesis, Genesis2 and Genesis3.

    Now you know why the Poser/Genesis boat was such a leaky ship.



  • It may have been a 3rd party product, but I do understand the point being made here. With Poser old content generally continues to work in newer versions without issue. Not so in DS, and you can say that the blame lies with the vendor not updating his products, but why should that need be forced on him by the software designer. Adding new features shouldn't need or justify breaking old ones and forcing content creators and users to constantly upgrade. There's just no reason or need for that to happen. Personally I feel that the "backwards compatibility" in Poser is one of its strengths, not a weakness, as it allows us a greater range of options when creating our art. The older figures are great as crowd fillers for large scenes, and older props also remain useful in this role.



  • @theschell And therein lies the difference. Poser wants the stuff you buy to work from one version to another. DAZ doesn't. After all, if a figure from Poser 4 still works in Poser 11, then no problem. Daz wants you to go and buy the next version or updated version of that figure. That's where their income comes from.



  • @eclark1849 said in Can someone please explain it...:

    @theschell And therein lies the difference. Poser wants the stuff you buy to work from one version to another. DAZ doesn't. After all, if a figure from Poser 4 still works in Poser 11, then no problem. Daz wants you to go and buy the next version or updated version of that figure. That's where their income comes from.

    Yep... and as a user of both programs, and a content creator, it greatly annoys me when an update to DS breaks content I've made forcing me to redo it it from the ground up to get things working again, or when they break a plug-in I rely on in my content creation forcing me to have to pay again for tools I already own. This is why some time back I chose to focus on making my content primarily aimed at Poser users. It'll function in DS but I got tired of having to rework things every single time DAZ "fixed" something or changed features. I spend too much time and effort as it is making content without having to constantly fix, update, and repair things that DAZ broke... With Poser I can be confident that a product I made 5 years ago and the product I make tomorrow will work equally well in just about any version of Poser, and so can my customers.



  • Since this is about software, not religion, I use, what works best. If Poser solves its problems, I'd be happy to return to Poser. Just easy. Nobody should expect me to be loyal.



  • Everybody here seems to support the idea that we can have backward compatibility while having new features. So where does the idea come from that we can't?



  • @masterstroke I'm okay with never seeing you again, Masterstroke, because I don't want Poser getting screwed up trying to attract someone that probably won't stay around anyway. Does make me wonder though, what do you do when something you like from Studio breaks?



  • @redphantom said in Can someone please explain it...:

    Everybody here seems to support the idea that we can have backward compatibility while having new features. So where does the idea come from that we can't?

    I think it mostly comes from the software producers and marketers who as was stated make their money by getting people to constantly buy new things. The average user will upgrade because for the most part we've been taught through the years that newer is always better (it isn't), and that new means progress (not always). The younger users especialy have grown up in a world where everything is disposable... Phone more than a year old? Toss it and get a better (ie newer) one! Want a new game, then buy a new computer etc. It's ingrained into us by every bit of advertising we see from the day we're old enough to understand the words we're hearing and the images we're being fed. As a general rule I've noticed that it's the older users that argue in favor of backwards compatibility, and the younger ones that hype up the new stuff saying the older stuff isn't worth keeping, and the corporate profit driven mind set will almost always cater to the crowd that's willing to constantly spend the money rather than maintaining long-term compatibility/usefulness...



  • @eclark1849 Ahm, BTW: Do you need help, Sir? To answer your question: I'd check if Poser had a solution to that. ;-)



  • @theschell I'm not for or against Backward Compatibility, but I don't believe something should be held back either. If it will improve how something is done or looks, by all means... go for it.



  • @eclark1849 Oh I quite agree... backwards compatibility shouldn't prevent new features from being implemented, nor should new features remove the function of older ones.If something can be improved then by all means add that improvement, I just don't think improvements should mean breaking features/functions already present.



  • I think @theschell is correct: we live in a disposable society, where the newest thing is supposedly the "best" thing. And @eclark1849 is right, too, when he says that DAZ wants us to keep buying new or updated versions because it's how they make their money.

    It's how consumerism works. "What? Your toaster is three years old? OMG What's wrong with you?!" "What? Your car is from the previous decade? What's wrong with you?!" Bah.

    Y'know, I'm glad I can still use the old figures in my Runtime. I still make use of M3-V3 from time to time. I even pulled Stephanie 3 and the Dork out of storage earlier this month. It's good to have variety. And let's be honest: I have a lot of money invested in all that stuff I bought for the 3rd Generation figures.

    However... things do move on. I have a music program for Windows 98 that I loved using at the time, that I was super productive with, that won't run on a modern processor, "compatibility mode" or not. Same for some programs I had for my old Mac PowerBook G4. A lot of us probably have cassette tapes or 45's, or VHS (or Beta!) tapes that are either collecting dust or we disposed of, because time and technology moved on.

    That being said, my plain-jane $20 coffee maker is half a decade old and I will only part with it when you pry it from my cold, dead hands. I don't need a Super-Uber-mega-coffeetronic 1600XL Mark V with Bluetooth and wifi and AI that steams and froths my coffee and whatever. I want a cuppa joe in the morning. So it is with some of us who love our older figures. We like what we like and I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

    But things can't stay the same forever. And those figures are old and though we can pretty them up, some of them use really old methods.

    So some questions occur to me...

    Is there anything that we Poser users are giving up by maintaining the ability to use our old(er) figures?

    Or put it this way: was there anything Poser's advancement had to sacrifice in order to keep us happy?

    Also... does maintaining backward compatibility create more headaches for the Poser programmers? Does it mean carrying forward years-old (or decades old) code as a kind of kludge? Or is that not even an issue?



  • @James_in_3D What I think a lot of users, specially the newer ones, miss in keeping the older figures functional is that they require far less system resources than many of the newer figures do so it's much easier to populate scenes. I can use 30 or 40 old p4 figures to fill a crowd for the same system resource use that one Genesis3 figure will hog up. There's a lot of utility left in those older items that often gets over-looked in a major way... :)

    In the consumerism though, I'd rather pay 500$ for a TV that will last me 15 years, than 1000$ for a TV I'll be forced to replace a year from now... I hate the whole "disposable" pre-programmed obsolescence that's built in to everything now days. Prices keep going up, quality keeps dropping, and you have to spend more and more just to keep things fixed or replaced, but as a whole people are earning less and less...



  • @theschell said in Can someone please explain it...:

    @James_in_3D What I think a lot of users, specially the newer ones, miss in keeping the older figures functional is that they require far less system resources than many of the newer figures do so it's much easier to populate scenes. I can use 30 or 40 old p4 figures to fill a crowd for the same system resource use that one Genesis3 figure will hog up. There's a lot of utility left in those older items that often gets over-looked in a major way... :)

    Very true. I saw your impressive render of the hangar with all those figures. :)

    But Poser Pro 11 has the "reduce polygon" feature, too. I've used that when I've had to use multiple 4th Gen figures in a scene (e.g. a bunch of fully equipped soldiers in a troop carrier). Doesn't always work on costumes (it did weird things with the maps on some Xurge3D armour) but it works very well on human figures at least.

    I don't often hear people talking about this Poser feature, but I think it's a great tool.



  • @redphantom It's a myth perpetuated by the competition.

    It's the competition who believe that one should scrap everything you ever purchased and use only the newest. Heck, if they didn't convince their users of that, they would die on the vine - it's their whole mode of marketing.



  • One thing I wish Poser WOULD do is to open up a bit more of Poser's functionality and control to Python scripters.



  • @redphantom said in Can someone please explain it...:

    Everybody here seems to support the idea that we can have backward compatibility while having new features. So where does the idea come from that we can't?

    Let me join the choir. Yes, backward compatibility and new features can go together very well.

    The only real hurdle on backward compatibility for content was taken with the introduction of Superfly.
    The core process of Poser is very simple:
    1 - In a Cartesian system define polygons with material properties attached that make these polygons show up in certain ways in a render process.
    2- Render (OpenGL_preview, SreeD_preview, Firefly, Superfly, Sketch) and get image.

    How the polygons come into that particular arrangement in that Cartesian space is immaterial. They can come from Poser native functionality or from add-ons. Thus, any source of polygons and any manipulation of polygons can be added. I wil not mention DSON, but anynone remember Snarly's subdivider? There is absolutely nothing that prevents a clever programmer to work out his own library system of vamp figures with skin simulated by full soft body mechanics and pump the resulting polygons into the scene next to a Poser 1 figure. The new tech figure may have its own control mechanism when not compatible with Poser dials. In the end both extremes are just a bunch of polygons.
    Likewise, if someone would care to sit down and link for example somehing like surface evolver, the result would still be just a bunch of polygons with material properties attached, representing any form of blob or even splash. Polygons are polygons. Sources of polygons can co-exist.
    BTW: (before anyone begins to blow that pipe: yes such sort of add-ons would need to be maintained, but that is a management issue and not the subject at hand)
    Code driving the Poser 1 figure may be a jungle, but a jungle is constant as long as you do not try to mess with it The present jungle was ported to work in a 64 bits environment so that will work for a while.

    Old and new can have their own pipe. The point where it gets critical is where old and new become mixed and have to be processed in one single pipe. The render engine, in particular the preview render engine, has to deal with modern and old shaders. OpenGL is still pretty standard and Superfly is, as far as I know, as good a render engine as they come today.
    That is all working now to reasonable satisfaction using shaders from the same material room.

    I conclude the idea that backward compatibility of content holding back development in Poser is a myth, which is busted herewith.
    alt text



  • @F_Verbaas Well, now you gotta blow it up!



  • @F_Verbaas Thanks for the explanation!