Objectify your people trees...
In a perfect world... I would love to change the way figures are instantiated. Currently, a figure is created, and then the conformed parts are also created, but they are flat in the menu. If there is duplication of the name, Poser adds _1 to the instance, but that's awful for a crowd, since you have little idea which one it belongs to. You also have no idea what the object was originally called in the library once you change the name.
My wishes, which are fishes... The "name" of the figure (usually a tree of conforming objects) would be the prefix, and any parts conforming or added to the figure would take that prefix automagically. This way, I don't have to rename all the parts of a figure when saving lots of people. Sure, I can do it, but it's annoying. I would also love to add a second descriptor which is the part name in the library (before I changed it). The fishes are really schooling now! :-)
Easy-peasy automagical naming...
ibr_remote last edited by
Yes, it would be helpful, but I manually change the names to reduce the confusion.
I read that the Poser gurus were thinking of updating the user interface, and before they start adding dumb things to just make it look different, I wanted to get a useful feature in first... :-) :-)
A brilliant idea that I've also wanted to see. It's such a great suggestion that it'll never happen.
They don't come any more cynical and jaded than me. Software is just one of the subjects that winds me around the bend. I bitched, whined, moaned and complained to whomever owned Poser at the time, for years about unimportant items like stability and got...(cue the sound of crickets). I finally just gave up.
Ask me about good old ACDSee classic sometime, go ahead I dare ya.
Said with a huge smile.
ACDSee Classic (or V3.1) became a victim of what's called 'feature creep'. If you used it then you remember how stunningly and blindingly fast it was at opening images. It didn't fix red eye, or have anything but the most rudimentary image manipulation tools, it just opened pictures. It was simple and straight forward and Wham! Bam! Thank You Ma'am Fast! This made it a huge favourite with us early professionals in the graphics industry. In my lab we were scanning 9 inch negatives from aerial surveillance film (15 minutes a scan) and ACDSee was the only program besides Photoshop that could open the images, and it did it in mere seconds. It also did bulk renaming, that was a deity send. One of the best loved features was the ability to select images with ctrl-click, hit the 'eye's icon for full screen and scroll through them with the scroll wheel. The one-handed crowd loved that wink, wink I appreciated the fact that it was also Canadian (Bob stands on a beaver dam and waves his little Maple leaf).
(Cue ominous music)....then it started. Subsequent versions began adding features that slowed it down. Each new release got bigger and s-l-o-w-e-r. We complained bitterly. Oh how we bitched. But it was to no avail. The drain dead, myopic marketing punks had decreed that more was better. Computers got more powerful, negating some of the speed loses but images also got bigger. Version 3.1 was available for quite awhile and was renamed to 'ACDSee Classic' but it eventually disappeared from the site.
I worked for many years for a small group that had several software engineers. I discussed this with them and they mentioned that the program was almost certainly written in the early days before using 'APIs' became common, and was a great example of efficient programming by people who obviously knew what they where doing.
I've tested it against modern image viewers and surprise surprise!, it's still the fastest. I can throw 1GB panoramas at it and it opens them when other image viewers choke, lock up, or crash. It also still works in Windows 7. It exhibits a few little quirks that I can easily avoid,
but it still works just fine and is used daily. I visit the ACDSee website once a year and it's nice to see that folks are still asking about it and waving it's flag. Of course, management won't admit anything. They want people to buy their be all, do -all (expensive) versions and have an army of paid 'professionals' to trumpet it's merits.
Thankfully it's still widely available on 'those' sites and I'm constantly seeing positive things being said about it in forums.
Wow, I said all that and didn't spit blood or foam at the mouth, maybe I'm learning to relax in my old age.
...but don't call me old.