that's so cute! LOL

mmmmm.... breakfast...

Very cute.

Wish I knew how to make fur - good render!

making fur is not hard, is only loooooong.

well it was worth it. especially the 'nesting material' it looks almost real.

Sooooooooooooo cute! I always thought chics had feathers though, is there a fur plugin?

no there's not a fur plugin, these are billions of spheres with the appropriate texture

Well there should be, three day render...don't think I could wait that long...:}

Lol, you get the Martyr award. Great chick.

Nice work on the fur :)

Love it! And so doess the wife!!! The Bryster

Cute, cute, cute, and again cute. It's so pretty, I want one to put on top of my computer. Catlin

Very nice job V. It is really very cute! I think the "fur" on the chick Do look like feathers. just very small chick feathers.:)

Fur is hard to simulate in bryce, but this is really good. And the chick looks really cute. Nice work.

thank wolf for yor tip bu I wanted to do it all in Bryce, I'd like to put it to the limit and I think it was also fault of the fur materials is not simple green. your grass is good btw.... and I envy your MAC....

ohhh I forgot... Catlin (and also the other) if you want it there is a bigger version in my gallery.

Rofl, Must have been doing a lot of attr, DISPLAY AS BOX PLEASE! heh I can't imagine. It must have done something like when my computer found out I tried a render with 1200 lights... Did it pull a knife on you?

Not excacty that as you can see from the text 'Microsoft Internet Explorer', but something like that anyway.

Sorry, just a quick refresher, where do get the render report? And will it tell you an estimated time before you render it.

Hey Wolf! What the heck is that in your screen grab? (post #15) You know what I'm talking about, that little window I have NEVER seen before in Bryce? (Actors, Null Object, etc) AgentSmith

Surely 'cos this lil box has nuthin' to do with bryce

It will tell you an estimate time after it has finished one division, look in the bottom left corner, will tell you how long it's been rendering and the estimated time. The top number is the estimate.

That Dialog BOX is a Non-modal panel that was left open in cinema4DXl when i did my screen grab in OSX ,..Not related to bryce.

mutters something about bastard corel optimizing bryce for macs....

ever wonder why there's Maya 4 for Windoze, and 4.5 for Mac? Macs are graphics-superior computers, windoze just has better compatability for games and its cheaper, so more ppl use it....

Antevark: There's nothing superior about Macs....(starts a major row about Macs & PCs) The Bryster

Technically Mac's are better suited to graphics. the only 'problem' is that the clockspeed is to low to make the hardware fast eough to beat normal PC's. It's a matter of taste.

People used to think that there was nothing inside a Mac Monitor but bits of cardboard and string....Mac made the monitors transparent to proove them wrong...... The Bryster

As I said before: If I ever want to have a MAC, I will build an ordinary - entry level PC in a bread box.

Attached Link: http://www.aliaswavefront.com/en/products/maya/whatsnew/v4.5/index.shtml

heh, just what i wanted! i like violent debates, and Rayraz, there's 4 parts that make up clock speed, hertz is just 1, macs are averaged out, and windoze has just loads of mega/gigahertz, dont mean their faster, it's just the part that ppl compare. Windoze isnt faster. ttops, thx for the info, i was mostly guessin, cuz i do like debates

windowz is a crap but mac is expensive

You could race your pcs I guess. give each contestant a predetermined set of objects to render in Bryce5 and see who gets done first or logs the fastest time . or something like that. maybe . perhaps . ???

my macs a year old, but sure, y not?

no more then about an hour render, tho, i need my comp to be actuve

Or we could just throw the systems out of a window and calculate how far they bounce back when they hit the ground. :) The bottom line to this argument is, as vasquez stated; Macs are too expensive. Macs have been concentrating on quality components all along, but if you're building your own system you can control the quality of the components you choose to include in your specification. Therefore a Mac maybe better than a budget system that you purchase retail, but it stands no chance against any PC system that's been built to specific graphics requirements. I'm not a great fan of Windows operating system either. But so far I'm really happy with the stability and performance of XP. If I could get all the software I needed to work on Linux, I wouldn't think twice about which operating system I would use. Hopefully Linux will get there eventually and save us all. Peace and happy rendering to all (Mac and Windows)

ok, finally a good argument. this is the only good one i've EVER heard, i c ur point, and i do think that that's a valid opinion. i fiond that mac has more flexibility over the software, tho. becuz pc doesnt use resource forks, just data forks while mac uses both, it's very ez to customize software. also look at mac's interface. awesome. i also enjoy the flexibility of the interface, and bein able to switch back and forth between operating systems. i hav 3 OS's on my comp. OS 9.2.2, 10.2, and (out of neccesity) windoze 98. on one computer. linux seems to be the halfway point, tho. Mac's new OS is based off of linux, and MS's new OS is based off of linux, too (just a few months later, prolly taking advantage of the fact that 10.0 was open-source)

I'd think that a MAC would bounce higher but I'm not gonna try it. And I don't really care which is faster. vasquez your render seems to have brought out some unintended questions which seems to indicate that the render has a life of its own ... but I won't bring up the question of 'which came first; the chicken or the egg' ... nope I won't do it ... really.

LOL biker I found the quid in my render, all lights (3) had soft shadows activated, so... my poor AMD had to work a little bit more. win or mac it doesn't matter the most important thig is that BRYCE RULES!

antevark, you said: "there's 4 parts that make up clock speed, hertz is just 1" To me clockspeed is the frequency. In the case of a computer this is hertz. What you're talking about is processing speed (I think). What I meant to say is that the technical layout of the MAC and PC are different. The MAC has a hardware layout that's usually better suited to computergraphics and a MAC at 1GHz could kick some 1GHz-PC ass (when programming is optimized). But at the moment you can buy P4's at 3GHz. The fastest MAC's can't compete with that. If you would run the current MAC's at a higher frequency then they would be able to compete with the fastest PC's. However, there are indeed other ways to improve on processing speed. I use WinME. It's basically crap, but when you handle it with care (that means handling it in a minimalistic style and never take risks) it can be fairly stable. I've been told that XP is more stable, but all the encounters I've had with it have made me feel repelled by it. I'd rather use linux if it could run bryce(and run it as fast or faster then windows). MAC OS X sounds great when I hear people talking about it, but sadly I can't run it on my PC (as far as I know).

it's been my experience that linux is slower then PC, but i could be wrong. Windoze operating systems are more versitile then Mac ones, becuz almost all PC's are slightly different in some way, so the OS has to hav more versatillity. Macs all hav basically one package, so no, u can't run OS X on pc, just the other way round.

Linux is slower when it comes to loading programs, but it seems to be lot's faster with graphics. Both games (such as quake) and 3D-rendering (such as Maya). At least that's what I have heard.