Submit Your Poser Suggestions to Smith Micro

  • As much as I want so much to have some things that are available in Cycles for Poser - micromesh displacement, I'm STARING at you -, I don't think having a built-in port to send to Cycles would help vendors. We'd have to worry about compatibility with Firefly, Superfly AND Blender, and keeping in mind that most users stay in the comfortable zone of the program's basics (just look at how many people won't even use Superfly as it is, or won't touch dynamics), we could have a hard time trying to troubleshoot things with buyers not finding their way around Cycles.

    Mind you, I'm not complaining about wanting to stay in the comfortable zone - wanting what's easy and sweet is perfectly valid. We can't all be tinkerers LOL

  • @eclark1849 I absolutely agree with this, it's the reason Poser is lacking and falling behind so hard right now.

    @ghostship said in Submit Your Poser Suggestions to Smith Micro:

    @eclark1849 That's why I say leave in FF and Superfly. Backward compatibility while looking to the future. From what the devs have said so far about SF is that it can't be easily updated so, fine, leave it and add the full blown cycles and make it so dev maintenance is minimal to update.

    The problem with that is feature bloat, you end up having three render engines that require resources that SM probably doesn't have.

    While I do agree that they need to fully integrate cycles proper, I don't think keeping the hybrid mish mosh mess they gave us with SF is needed. It should either be full cycles integration or get out of it completely and use IRAY/LUX/Octane or something else that will get constant updates and upgrades. Though from what I understand, SF is close enough to full Cycles that the transition between the two nodes systems shouldn't be too daunting and having to redo shaders for compatibility should be a small payoff for what's been developed for Cycles lately.

    Right now, what we have with SF is an outdated hybrid rendering system that lacks many of the features people really want and ZERO support for current rendering hardware. Anyone who buys a modern computer or modern graphics card is screwed over because SF doesn't support Turing at all and it probably never will. That is extremely stupid, absolutely frustrating for those of us who are looking to upgrade and showed an incredible lack of future proofing on SM's part. The lack of any communication from SM is also something that's really pissing me off.

  • I wonder how many are willing to pay higher prices for a yet 3rd render engine on vendor products.

    I, for one, have no intention of adding yet another render engine to my products at the same price. Nor will I "go back and fix" all those Superfly textures for free.

    Honestly, this is crazy talk. Vendors are losing our shirts now on product pricing and we're supposed to do all this at the same price point? I think not.

  • @glitterati3d said in Submit Your Poser Suggestions to Smith Micro:

    I wonder how many are willing to pay higher prices for a yet 3rd render engine on vendor products.

    I, for one, have no intention of adding yet another render engine to my products at the same price. Nor will I "go back and fix" all those Superfly textures for free.

    Honestly, this is crazy talk. Vendors are losing our shirts now on product pricing and we're supposed to do all this at the same price point? I think not.

    It's not crazy talk, SF is a dead end. If it were ever somehow updated, it would need to be cannibalized and redone anyway to avoid being stuck again.

    And if Cycles was fully implemented there's a plethora of free cycles shaders/nodes that are better than many vendor supplied materials that can cover anything you think of. So you wouldn't have to "go back and fix" everything because the majority of SF users are already versed in Poser and know what they're doing. The people that don't are the ones that are still using FF and can't tell the difference between SF and FF in the first place.

  • I have a mac and I use poser 11 pro which is supposedly 64 bit, but i got the future incompatibility message last night. so really worried about updating to the next OS.![alt text](!0_1560227131333_Screen Shot 2019-06-10 at 11.13.09 pm.png

  • @estherau this is, of course, a great worry. What hardware are you on? I have a mid-2011 27" iMac running macos 10.12 Sierra (and another boot volume with 10.13 High Sierra for occasional testing) which is not officially supported by the latest 10.14 (Mojave) released OS, let alone macos 10.15 (Catalina), though there may be hacks that eventually allow that to occur.

    But having Poser not run under a particular OS will be an absolute showstopper for me. If I were to win the lottery (must remember to buy a ticket, though) I would look at upgrading my hardware, but the latest hardware would come with the latest OS, and could mean that the upgrade path for MacOS users closes the door on Poser forever. Not a thought I want to dwell on.

  • I'm using mohave.
    latest version which is 10.14.5 and running an imac pro.

  • @estherau well, you're fine for an OS upgrade, unless it won't let Poser run. I used to be an early adopter, but I've been bitten too many times with the last few major OS upgrades bollixing software I need for my workflow to be comfortable upgrading without prior confirmation of software compatibility.

    Still, we've already heard the likely SM response to not supporting Turing graphics cards, though I'm not expecting them to be any part of the Mac hardware lineup any time soon, unless in external enclosures.

  • @estherau To be honest, I used to be a "Mac or die" person back when I was using PP2014. Most of my CP products were made on a Mac. Problem was, I needed portability and only had a PC laptop, plus Apple kept upgrading it's OS which eventually, my Mac Mini couldn't support. I didn't have the money to upgrade my Mac, so eventually I made the switch to Windows fulltime. Plus, my laptop can run DS, which my Mac never could. Don't get me wrong. I loved my Mac, and I miss it. But I've barely fired it up since I've been on my laptop, and still running Windows 7 which I know eventually I'll have to give up.

  • @eclark1849 i hate to think what would happen if it comes to a choice of poser or mac. to me that would be like being between the devil and the deep blue sea.

  • AFAIK the Python version used by Poser is 32-bit. So as it looks right now you should not update to any version past macOS Mojave. OpenGL is deprecated as well and i am not sure if it will be still supported in macOS Catalina.

  • @nagra_00_ I haven't upgraded my Mac since OS 7, sooo....... I rarely even keep up with what Apple is doing these days. They seem more interested in $1000 dollar phones these days. Can't say I blme them, but I'm not spending $1000 on a phone for anyone.

  • @eclark1849 OS 7 thats one of the old Apple OSes without a real memory management. I had never been interested in those. I switched some years ago to what was called Mac OS X mainly because it is based on a UNIX kernel (i am a UNIX nerd). But with the lack of support for Nvidia cards with the latest OSes the Apple story found with High Sierra its natural end for me…

  • @estherau This is why I won’t upgrade to Catalina. Heck, according to SM, Poser is not even Mojave compatible.

  • @nagra_00_ Yeah, I misspoke. It was OSX something. I'll look it up later, if you want to know, but it was around Lion or Snow Leopard. One of the big cats.

  • I will most likely have to upgrade. so i am hoping poser will still work. it's worrying though.

  • It was Mac OSX 7.6 I never made it to OSX 8 Mountain Lion.

  • @eclark1849 Ah ok you mean OS X 10.7 Lion. At that time i was a Linux user still hoping it would become the new mainstream OS.

    @estherau i checked Catalina and it will still have OpenGL. In case you use the DSON importer from time to time, that one is AFAIK 32 bit and will not work anymore.

  • I have a suggestion regarding the Morphing Tool.

    Many times I have wanted to fit a piece of clothing to a heavily morphed figure, and found that copying the morphs from the figure doesn't quite give me what I need. Even in the days before that functionality was available in Poser, it was always a tedious process to try and make conforming clothing fit. Simulation also doesn't quite do the job in the case where a piece of clothing has modeled details like hems and stitching, or buttons that aren't directly attached to the cloth mesh.

    What occurred to me, was that the push and pull options of the Morph tool can preserve details relatively well, if they are applying a translation uniformly. However, as soon as I use the smoothing or flattening tools, they will smooth the details out of the mesh.

    What if, instead of the smoothing or flattening function applying to the current mesh vertex positions, there were an alternative version of these tools which only applied to the deltas in the current morph. I.e. just smooth or flatten the deltas you've already modified, as though the deltas comprised a mesh themselves, rather than the actual vertices. That way, details that are built into the mesh cannot be smoothed away or flattened to nothing. Only the deltas will get relatively smoothed or flattened.

    It seems to me that this would not require a great deal of reprogramming or development, merely the application of existing algorithms to an alternative data set, i.e. deltas instead of vertex positions.

  • @anomalaus additionally, the tighten and loosen tools will iron out mesh details when in proximity to the target figure. The details could be simply restored (apart from the extent by which the original mesh has been stretched) by applying delta smoothing, as opposed to vertex smoothing.