"Supported" depends on what you mean.

The only thing Genesis 3 has, at least in terms of the base figure, that Poser can't do right now is the dual quaternion bending, which isn't exclusive to DAZ, and the ability to read the file format. That's it, really, and that second one is a minor issue. Pretty much everything else such as the bones for use in facial expressions has been possible to use  in Poser for years.

Oh, really? So on July 26th, in this thread, you didn't quote a post from the forums over at RDNA in which it was explicitly stated " Of course there will be advanced settings that need some time to learn but you will be able to lean those as you go." but which you proceeded to ignore while complaining that there would be no advanced settings?

Odd, because I certainly responded to that post by pointing out your own post demonstrated your complaint had some issues.

If you had the faintest idea of what you are talking about, which you definitely don't, you would know that the late Nerd3D was talking about the parametrization of the Cycles engine, not of the structure of shaders. Keith, go to Blenderartits and read carefully the 755 page thread about Cycles, get Blender, go thru a couple of hundreds of tutorials ranging from a trivial matte material to volumetric fogs and clouds and then, only then, come back to discuss about Cycles because then, only then, you will know it enough to have an opinion about what Cycles is and is not, about what Cycles does and does not.

Signed: somebody who started using Cycles the next day after the nightly build included it for the first time, i.e. about 4 years ago.

As far as I can tell, having read that same post, he said nothing of the sort. He didn't say anything to come to any sort of final conclusion about what or might not be incorporated in the final version. You made assumptions about what he meant, didn't seek any clarification of what he meant, and then proceeded to complain about what you interpreted he meant while assuming that of course you had to be correct. Just as you don't have the faintest idea what I may or may not know about Blender, what I may or may not have read about it, whether I may or may not use Blender and Cycles. You just assume that because I don't complain about Poser incessantly, as you do, that there's no possible way I can know anything about it.

I will admit I'm not up on the latest changes in Blender and Cycles since the last version I have is 2.69 since I prefer modelling in modo, and that release is almost two years old now so i haven't bothered upgrading. Just out of curiosity I should look in my archive and see...why look at that. My original download of 2.41. Why, that can't be right. That came out in 2006! That would mean I've had Blender for...carry the one...9 years now. Peculiar.

But you've been using Cycles for a whole four years! How could you possibly be wrong? Clearly something else must be at fault. Perhaps a timewarp? You just can't trust those singularities.

flat-front Blue Bird bus

Literally the only historical inaccuracy in this ad Disney made was the bus, the flat-front variety weren't around in the early 1980s:

...that might come as a surprise the the people who took this picture of a bus manufactured in 1962:

Yes, I naturally assumed buses back then would have looked entirely different.

Long-haul trucks are another good example. A Peterbilt 359 from 1967 looks a lot like a Peterbilt 379 (aka live-action Optimus Prime) which was last produced in 2007.
Generally speaking, vehicles in which function is more important than form tend to be very conservative in changing their appearance. Farm tractors, dump trucks, train engines...it's often difficult to identify, without detailed knowledge, when a particular vehicle's design comes from.

Quote from this thread on RuntimeDNA, post #10

The way we're implementing the new render engine is a perfect example. The only new interface will be the options for it. No way around that. It will use materials you already know from FireFly. There will be very little learning curve to get into a Physical Render. Basically just turn it on and start playing. Of course there will be advanced settings that need some time to learn but you will be able to lean those as you go.

As I had expected, the answer to baggingsbill and to everybody who had wild dreams about using the full power of Cycles in Poser is therefore a resounding middle finger.

Don't start crying, you will still get the new activation and, if my divinations are right, a collaboration with Hivewire3D .

"Of course there will be some advanced settings that need some time to learn" Are people so desperate to find things to complain about they don't bother reading their own supposed "proof"? Wait, never mind, that's a silly question. Of course they are.

It's because the overall shape of the passenger bus hasn't as changed as much as cars and pickups. You see the same with the school bus and other utility vehicles. Hardly anyone would confuse a car manufactured in the 2000s with one from the 1960s, but if you look at a flat-front Blue Bird bus, you have to look a lot closer to see differences.

Aircraft have the same thing. The Boeing 707 first flew in 1957 but doesn't look a whole lot different overall from an Airbus 318 that first flew in 2002.

Sad that as usual everything descends into a dustup to the detriment of useful conversation. I waded through seven pages and found perhaps a half page of intelligent discussion.

I for one love the idea of a CPU-based PBR, although long-term I hope to have better GPU options. My computer itself is incomparably more powerful than my video card.

The interesting thing I've noticed is that people are howling for GPU rendering for Cycles without actually looking at what Cycles GPU rendering can do.

In the current release, there are significant differences between the capability of GPU rendering on NVIDIA cards and AMD cards. There's also differences between what can be done on the CPU and on the GPU.

Want to do subsurface scattering? Available on CPU rendering. Experimental on CUDA. You're out of luck in OpenCL. Want to do smoke or fire or volume? Well, the volume you can do on the CPU and CUDA cards. Out of luck for AMD again. And for fire and smoke, it's not happening on your video cards at all.

If I were in the process of adopting the Cycles engine, of course I'd focus on the CPU implementation. Not being able to do scattering? Yeah, that doesn't work real well for a software program designed primarily for human figures combined with a render engine that's supposed to be for realism.

One almost gets the impression that people have heard "GPU rendering" and think it's a magic term and thus there's no need to look further and see what exactly that means.

...and you know the next thing that's going to happen? Movie studios are going to show "sneak peeks" of films without all the post work effects completed, or they're going to just show a crew on location instead of what's actually going to be seen on film. Modellers are going to show only parts of what they're working on, just some screencaps of their workspace without any kind of texturing or surface shaders. TV shows will show entirely context-free clips of future episodes.

It will be a madhouse. A madhouse.

Several weeks ago, New Horizon's first images of the Pluto system began coming in. They were better than had been taken before, but didn't show much, being fuzzy and showing indistinct features at best.

Not to worry, it was reported. The probe was still over a million miles away. The images will get better as approach comes closer. These are just the first ones. It's just to make sure that the camera and data storage and transmission system is working. It would be rather silly to make judgements one way or the other on the success of the mission based on those first images.

I have no idea why that suddenly springs to mind.

I would trust this doesn't mean Firefly development has stopped. PBRs are nice and all, but for a lot of applications are not necessary.

This is exactly why FireFly is staying. there are also some things it does  better. This emphasizes that you need a choice in render engines. Now you will have another.

I would note this doesn't actually answer the question I was implying, so perhaps I should ask it straight: are there going to be improvements/changes to Firefly or has development on it been essentially frozen?

I would trust this doesn't mean Firefly development has stopped. PBRs are nice and all, but for a lot of applications are not necessary.

Just like how Autodesk doesn't create any significant content on their own, which is why no one would ever consider using Maya, Softimage or 3ds Max, amirite? No. You're not right, in fact you're so wrong you just divided by zero.

Comparing Poser to Autodesk's software is like comparing an old dusty VCR to the entertainment industry.

Your VCR is useless if you don't have any content to go with it.

That whooshing sound was my point going by. DAZ Studio is absolutely no different in that regard: delete all your content, and what are you going to use Studio for, hmm? My point was that just because the software company doesn't provide content does not mean by definition the software is useless or less valuable or whatever.

Think about your VCR analogy, or any related kind of technology: just because Samsung doesn't produce movies doesn't mean their product for watching or recording said movies is worthless. It just means there's a separate market to supply the content for them. No one says my TV on the wall is worthless because Samsung doesn't produce any television shows that appear on it. If people went around proclaiming that "Hey Samsung doesn't have any equivalent to Game of Thrones! Man, their TVs suck!", people would wonder what was wrong with them, and yet when people go around saying "Man, Smith-Micro has nothing like the DAZ Figures, so Poser sucks", people nod sagely even though those are two identical statements.

This isn't slagging Studio users: the Poser users who think that the most important thing that can appear in the next version is a new figure make the same mistake.

Complaining that a piece of software doesn't do X, or that another program can do Y better, or that X can't handle content Y can, that's fair and legit because you're comparing apples and apples.

Just like how Autodesk doesn't create any significant content on their own, which is why no one would ever consider using Maya, Softimage or 3ds Max, amirite?
And I suppose "only works with old characters" is true, so long as one defines "old" to mean "more than a month ago".

There are many legit reasons to gripe about Poser. These...not so much.

I am fascinated why people seem to think that the company developing the software must also be providing the content to go with it, something I've seen people on both sides of the DAZ/Poser line seem to assume is some basic rule of the universe.

You forget that Autodesk users know how to create content by themselves while most Poser users don't. Even then, you might explain me how shop like Turbosquid exist and prosper.

No, not all of them do (or they don't have the time to create their own assets) which is why sites like Turbosquid exist and prosper and that was exactly my point: in theory, there's no reason why Smith-Micro needs provide any content for Poser, and quite honestly, they haven't provided much of it for years, even before there was a DAZ Studio, so why people focus on it to the exclusion of everything else is curious.

Oh my, I'm behind the times. I still haven't used Victoria 5 & 6! Smith Micro doesn't create content. Poser only works with old characters created by other companies like DAZ3D. Poser wouldn't have lasted this long without outside companies creating content.

Just like how Autodesk doesn't create any significant content on their own, which is why no one would ever consider using Maya, Softimage or 3ds Max, amirite?
And I suppose "only works with old characters" is true, so long as one defines "old" to mean "more than a month ago".

There are many legit reasons to gripe about Poser. These...not so much.

I am fascinated why people seem to think that the company developing the software must also be providing the content to go with it, something I've seen people on both sides of the DAZ/Poser line seem to assume is some basic rule of the universe.

Invisibility does make a difference.

I have a scene showing an entire street 9 blocks long (using Dreamland's city blocks), so 18 city blocks in total, and if I have too many characters in there as well (vehicles + people), my render simply gives up because the machine runs out of memory. What I did was to group objects and characters and the city blocks so that I could turn off the ones not visible in camera, and the render is pulled off without a problem. Turn the camera to another angle, and it's easy to change what's visible and what's not.

The only issue this causes is if you have a reflective surface showing what's behind the camera, but that's not that hard to fake.