Quote - I appreciate that you think that way - I just happen to disagree.  There's really no reason (that I can think of) why the initial comparison shouldn't be the Hybrid approach.  I guess I'm still not clear on what you mean by "tolerating greater mismatches in surface alignment".

Quite possibly the initial comparisons should use the hybrid.  It all comes down to the effectiveness of it.  I've never seen the 2007 approach give good results with eyelashes.  That's one of the things I'm looking at closely.  For all it's flaws, the current approach can handle things like eyelashes.  That's basically what my garbled statement about tolerating mismatches is all about.  Check the recent tutorial.  I've provided files for anyone to quickly set up the same comparison conditions I use in the tutorial.  In that comparison, the eyelashes are barely lined up.  Yet they end up being close enough to turn out tolerably well, once Restore Detail is applied.  I don't think the 2007 process can do that.  That's all.  Not trying to be insulting or offensive.    I'm conflict averse, generally.  :lol:

Sorry about the three weight comment.  I don't think I intended to be derogatory.  :unsure:  If I did, my opinion changed once I realized that the 2008 .pyd code was returning buggy results.  I'm fully behind the raycasting process, up until its weaker points become a problem.  I will say the same for the closest vertices approach.  I've not had to struggle with its shortcomings as much, so far.  I still expect to end up doing so.

===========================sigline======================================================

Cage can be an opinionated jerk who posts without thinking.  He apologizes for this.  He's honestly not trying to be a turkeyhead.

Cage had some freebies, compatible with Poser 11 and below.  His Python scripts were saved at archive.org, along with the rest of the Morphography site, where they were hosted.