Can someone please explain it...



  • 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!



  • I would think the backward compatibility of new content holds back Poser because it removes the need for users to upgrade their copy of Poser. ...and that has a direct impact on revenue.

    Note: I'm not saying it should be done just for the sake of forcing sales!



  • @prixat Poser doesn't sell content. It sells software. Forcing people to buy new content doesn't do Poser any good at all, although I'm sure DAZ appreciates them when they do.



  • @prixat Since Miki4, you have to buy the new Poser to use the new figures.

    I think people are confusing backward compatibility. It simply means I can still use the old models (backward) with the new software. Old mt5 materials still work on new models, etc.

    Backward compatibility is a property of a system, product, or technology that allows for interoperability with an older legacy system, or with input designed for such a system, especially in telecommunications and computing. Backward compatibility is sometimes abbreviated to BC, or called downward compatibility.



  • @eclark1849
    It's the peculiar version of Backwards Compatibility that we've all seen in the forums, where owners of earlier versions of Poser call for functionality or content that they've seen in later versions. But they don't want to buy the later version they want it in their current version!!!

    It's not about forcing the sale of new content, I'm suggesting more emphasis on "encouraging" people to buy new Poser!



  • @prixat ROFL, yeah, I've seen that too. Poser is supposed to magically make old content do what new content does.

    But, of course, that has nothing to do with backward compatibility - that has to do with user expectations which are unreasonable.

    The best way to encourage users to take up the newest version is for vendors to create products which are only usable in that version and above. This is where I think Poser falls down on the job - Content Paradise should be a showcase for vendors who are supporting their new figures and software. It should have very strict quality control and show off only those products which promote the software with required high quality renders and promos.