Erlik: Great modelling! And I got infected the same way with Zhann's sextant. BUT......why model in Rhino? I can't see anything here that couldn't be done in Bryce..... I guess it's a matter of choice and that's fair enough, but I've noticed that lots of guys in this forum model in something else. That's ok if the object in question is beyond Bryce's capabilities, but stuff like this isn't...... This is not in any way a reproach....I'm just a bit confused at this trend.

Looks great, but what do these things DO anyway?

Bryster, well, the bands would be a piece of cake in Bryce. the base, I'm not certain. An octagonal shape? Or that swept part of the base? Yeah, the terrain editor would be useful for that, but I could never get the cleanness of the shape and now I've started modelling in Rhino, it's much easier for me to build it in Rhino than slog through Bryce. I haven't discarded the modelling in Bryce though. Some things are much easier. For instance, the windows and the doors on the buildings opposite the foreground in Garden are all done as terrains/lattices in Bryce. As well as the building that can be seen in the window reflection. GG, as far as I know, this is some kind of sundial. The thicker band you adjust with the little screw below it, to point at your latitude. Then, the wide band has some kind of hour numerals on the inside and the constellations on the outside. So, you get a sundial that shows both the time and the constellation Earth is currently in, ie the month. So, a fancy sundial. Corrections welcome.

Oh Erlik, it's so very easy to do octagonal shapes in Bryce!! All you do is multireplicate a rectangluar cuboid around its y axis. 3 replications rotated at 45 degrees. The swept part of the base, I agree, harder to do, but using metaballs, it wouldn't be all that hard.

or a negative torus

"But you're right in general." Sheesh.

Erlik, great job, love the base..... I only model in Amapi because most of my Bryce scebes already are crowded and the last thing I need to worry about is a multitude of booleaned objects cluutering it up more. And yes, it can be modeled in Bryce, but because they are primitives they can not be exported to use in any thing but Bryce. And if I model a freestuff item, I want the widest range of people to be able to use it.....

Thing is, Bryce is great and all, but the possibilities or pure boolean modelling are simply...limited, without extensive practice and experience. I know, you guys rock the hell out of it, but some of us just don't quite have the patience to spend hours upon hours of booleaning away to come up with something relatively simple to come up with in a more powerful program. No offense to any of you guys, with your crazy boolean skills.

Absolutely true, Zhann. That's the one thing I hate, that I can't export my Bryce constructions into other programs -- or share them with anyone except another Brycer. And, Erlik, of course I'm right in general. It's just in the specifics that I'm usually off the mark. As to having lots of booleans to work with, it's really a matter of organization and structure ... another reason I started writing my book (in the dim past of 2001). I've got 1,000s of cubes and spheres in most of my structures, but there are some simple tricks for keeping track of them and for selecting just the ones you want at any one time. Also different ways to organize materials and textures that the books never discuss. (I can see I'm going to have to post a chapter or two as tutorials on that. I may suck at some things, but I'm a whiz at organizing stuff.)

In my honest opinion... you use what is easiest and fastest for you to personally use, there is no shame in that... and it's simply smart to organize multiple objects in Bryce, to name them, color code them, and on the bottom choose the color/item you are looking for... easy.

True to a point. Just naming and color coding will not get you very far when you have 300 cubes that are all fence posts. Knowing the keyboard techniques for selecting that one post out of 300 helps a lot. And, for me, it's not always about what is easiest and fastest. I love a challenge. There's a certain amount of pride that goes with finishing the huge puzzle that a really big boolean construction can become ... and having it come out just like it's supposed to look

I don't find modeling in Bryce very intuitive. I find it's great for simple modeling but other than that I find it slow and cumbersome and your scene can become cluttered beyond recognition quite fast and when it does, you need to resort to coloring, hiding and naming schemes to try and keep it all together. Can sometimes be quite bewildering. Of course, if you have nothing else at your disposal then you make due with what you have at hand. I've long ago stopped considering if I should model something in Bryce or in another package. To me, time is of the essence and if an item can be modeled in Bryce quick enough without having to transfer over to another program, like a simple book, a ball, a fast wheel, a pyramid, a simple cabinet, shelves, doors and things of that simple nature then I model them in Bryce. Anything more complicated, I'm off to another program where it can be done quicker and with more control knowing that Bryce was never meant to be a modeling program. I can appreciate and respect those that find no time constraints and find it a challenge to sit there and prove that something can be modeled in Bryce. I can see that as a labor of love and it says a lot about the perseverance of the person. It's like putting together a 2 thousand-piece jigsaw puzzle. My hats off to them but I have no such self imposed ambitions in my sights.

Sorry ... that should be "rotated" pyramids.

some packages allow you to create 'n-gons' on primitives and specify the number of sides (er, well Wings does anyway). 400 cubes? sounds like Bambam's stuff (I don't know how he does it either..;) I think it looks great; if I had Rhino (for what it costs), I'd be modelling everything in it as well..;)

Woah! Stirred up a mess of reasons here...LOL The swept part of the base could be done using a negative torus...but I bet you knew that really? But thanks for replying, for a minute I thought I was gonna get burned. The Bryster

Did a little reading up on Rhino. Now I understand what filleted edges are ... sort of radiused. It does look like a very cool program. But $900??? Yow. Have I been good enough this year to get myself that expensive of a Christmas gift?? And, more importantly, are Buddhists allowed to get themselves Christmas gifts??

I find it amusing how some people think doing things the hard way is the best. Maybe for them, but if a person goes into graphics professionally, the boss wants it done fastest way possible... and that means every shortcut known to make the deadline, or before. As they say, "time is money" in this business. I'm not in it professionally, but my friend is. This is how I get my info ;-)

If time is the only factor considered, then that's too bad. No matter what kind of work I've been in )medicine and law so far), I have always preferred to take all the time I need in order to give the patient or the client the best outcome possible. I think that trying to beat the clock often results in crappy results. I've also found that doing things the "hard way" has taught me a lot about seeing complex objects in terms of their basic components, and also about patience, and planning. I find it amusing that some people want to jump to the end product without learning any of the basics. You know the type ... they want to be rock stars, they just don't want to have to learn to play an instrument. If a person wants to go into graphics professionally, believe me, they will learn all about doing things the hard way before they start doing things the quick way.

Filleted edge means rounded edge. So, you'd need to work with the rounded cylinder and cube in Bryce to get some of the stuff I did. I congratulate you on the base, but it's not the same. The top of the octagonal part is rounded, as well as the middle and the bottom. Before I got Rhino, I also found modelling in Bryce easier, but now, as I said, I completely forgot it. And it's different stuff anyway. The only Booleaning I did in Rhino was to create the slot on the top.

the only advantage of doing things the hard way is appreciating the easy way when it comes along..I started with Amapi 4.15, and by the time I got to Wings, I could fly (couldn't model, but could fly just fine..;) btw, I tried a negative torus in Wings, but it got flakey on me..;)

Yes, Erlik, after reading a bit on Rhino (as noted above) I figured out that was a rounded edge (or radiused ... whichever term you like). It would be possible to do the base in Bryce with that effect, but it's all sort of moot anyway. My basic point (and I do have one) is that not everyone can afford to go the easy route and that should never force them to cramp their creativity. If Brycers (who are only using Bryce, for whatever reason) think they are limited to the models they can buy or get for free, then their scenes will suffer for it. Don't get me wrong, Rhino looks like a wonderful program, and in fact, I ordered it last night (mostly because I'd like to produce some models that I can also use in Vue) ... HOWEVER, I hope to heck I never stop using my boolean modelling skills (both in Bryce and Vue).

If you get into the business of graphic design, you have to be both fast, and good. And that means knowing the programs you use very well. It is just a fact of life. If you are a hobbyist, then you don't have to worry about time. I have personally seen some incredibly good graphics done in a matter of minutes by professionals. It is enviable how they can do that.

Yes, it's also nice that they either work for companies that can afford to spend a kazillion dollars on high end programs and/or can take the cost of the programs off on their taxes. If people like that are using Bryce, it is almost certainly only as a renderer, and perhaps for textures. However, a lot of the people who use the Bryce Forum are just starting out or have used Bryce for a while and want to get better at Bryce. While it certainly doesn't hurt to be told there are high end programs out there that can do something difficult quickly, it doesn't do the people who want to use Bryce any good to be told that something can't be done (or is too hard to be done) in Bryce when it is neither impossible or difficult. Wouldn't you agree that the place to discuss a great new Rhino model would be the Rhino Forum?? Meanwhile, back in Bryce, I am making some octagons with filleted edges to save in my object library.

Well, no rickymaveety, I disagree. We discuss everything Bryce here even its ability to import outside formats and their parent programs. You will find that most people who use Bryce either import their models from outside sources usually in ".obj" or ".3ds" format and then build their scenes around that, or they just need outside models to populate their scenes. Together with that comes all the problems associated with that process. So as you will often find here in this forum, people asking questions on how to import this format or another, so yes, it does become part and parcel of the Bryce forum to discuss these other products. Further, as has also been pointed out on many occasions, all these 3rd party programs become part of your graphic tool kit, your palette if you will, and therefore becomes an opened topic of conversation around here, just take a quick look through the forum messages. No one here has suggested you stop using Bryce as a modeler. Neither is anyone suggesting that it's impossible to model complicated objects using Bryce. What does come into questioned is the ease, efficiency and time economics of using Bryce as a modeler. Further, keep in mind that Bryce was never intended to be a full featured modeling program. In your statement above posted earlier you say; it's so very easy to do octagonal shapes in Bryce!! All you do is multireplicate a rectangluar cuboid around its y axis. 3 replications rotated at 45 degrees. And, frankly, I would have to say that clicking a button once and extruding the same shape is faster and at the end, its still the same shape. Nothing different about the two shapes, not in appearance anyway, so what would set them apart? Time, time conservation sets them apart. One shape is not any better than the other, its the same shape but one is more costly when you figure in time and probably in this case, the number of polygons that make up the shape. Once you go into graphics as a career, it is understood that speed is of the essence. You cant be lounging around at home like some great maestro waiting for a brainstorm to pass you by. There will be deadlines to meet, client meetings to attend, progress reports to go in and brainstorming sessions to attend with venue changes going on all the time. It can be a very non-fun situation with plenty of stress to go around with late nights up at the computer. If and when you get into a modeling program and you become proficient at it, chances are that you will never see Bryce modeling the same again. After all, Bryce, in realizing their modeling shortcomings, added the options to import from 3rd party programs.

In the end it's the same shape, but the cost is a factor to some. If you can model and object in Bryce and save $900 on Rhino, that is something to consider. Not everyone at Renderocity (or in the Bryce forum for that matter) is a professional graphics artist. In fact, I would hazard to guess that the larger portion of those on the forum are hobbiests who don't even plan to become professionals. I'm sorry that you pros out there are under so much stress that you can't enjoy your craft anymore. That's sad. Of course you all have to save time -- you are under the gun -- but when someone asks the question "why don't you model that in Bryce?", the appropriate answers are (1) I'm a pro and don't have the time and have access to something else that allows me to do it faster, or (2) Because I don't know how to do it in Bryce and do know how to do it in the other program ... not (I submit) (3) because it's a pain in the rear to do it in Bryce, or (4) it can't be done in Bryce. Those last two are strictly opinions about the program and don't really answer the question. Further, for anyone new to Bryce, that kind of response can really be discouraging. I see all sorts of stuff posted as "Bryce" that has very little else of Bryce other than Bryce used to render it. No Bryce modelling, no Bryce terrains, sometimes not even a Bryce sky .... but it's posted in the Bryce section as a Bryce image. Now some people will credit the fact that nothing but the render was done in Bryce ... but then I still find myself wondering why they would post it in that category. Does the render alone qualify it as such? As mentioned, I have already ordered Rhino because I would like to see how good it is. I have owned and used other 3D modelling programs in the past, and often find myself going back to Bryce because I find it very straightforward and easy to use. Plus, I enjoy the mathematics of Bryce modelling. Will I give up modelling in Bryce just because I own Rhino? I doubt it. We'll see, but I really doubt it.

It is my understanding that Bryce is used by (at least) some professionals "as a tool" as it's been put to me. They may not use it as their main program, but Bryce does get used professionally for some effects.

Well, I think that (3) and (4) are equally valid answers.

If you consider, you'll see that the modelling in Bryce is actually done as a way to overcome its shortcomings as a modelling program. Replications are an awkward way to do the revolutions of splines. Terrains give you huge models polygon-wise. Even the Boolean operations are not the real Boolean operations, since the primitives are all still in the scene.

As Quest said, it's all part of the toolkit. I'm not a pro, though I'd like to be, but what is important to me is the final picture. In order to get to that picture, I want to go as fast as possible.

*No Bryce modelling, no Bryce terrains, sometimes not even a Bryce sky .... but it's posted in the Bryce section as a Bryce image.*Yep, I work in Bryce with imported models, with photo-skies, sometimes even with imported terrains, whether DEMs or something else. Why? Because I haven't found a program that can beat Bryce in the ease and strength of texturing, positioning and lighting. And I still count my work as Bryce, because without Bryce there wouldn't be any picture.

What's amazing is that a program originally designed for "the great unwashed" to play with landscapes became a tool rivalling programs costing ten times more. But it's a tool. I can fix household appliances with a kitchen knife and sellotape. Still, I'd rather do that with a proper screwdriver, soldering iron and electrician's tape.

I'm aware that I'll never be a Bryce modeller like Agent Smith or Humorix. But then, I don't intend to be. Why do you think that people drift away from Bryce as a modeller, and some even drift away altogether? Because they found something that will fulfill their needs faster and/or easier. They found a better tool.

I repeat, it's the picture that's important, not the tool. No tool should become its own purpose.

It seems to me that you are selectively avoiding things that have already been said. In the end it's the same shape, but the cost is a factor to some. If you can model and object in Bryce and save $900 on Rhino, that is something to consider. In my prior post; Of course, if you have nothing else at your disposal then you make due with what you have at hand. Not everyone at Renderocity (or in the Bryce forum for that matter) is a professional graphics artist. In fact, I would hazard to guess that the larger portion of those on the forum are hobbiests who don't even plan to become professionals. What are you suggesting? That because youre not a professional that you should do all your modeling in Bryce? If that is in fact what youre suggesting, I think thats nonsense! but when someone asks the question "why don't you model that in Bryce?", the appropriate answers are (1) I'm a pro and don't have the time and have access to something else that allows me to do it faster, or (2) Because I don't know how to do it in Bryce and do know how to do it in the other program ... not (I submit) (3) because it's a pain in the rear to do it in Bryce, or (4) it can't be done in Bryce. Again you avoided from my prior post; No one here has suggested you stop using Bryce as a modeler. Neither is anyone suggesting that it's impossible to model complicated objects using Bryce. Youll forgive me if I disagree again with youwe can agree to disagree, cant we? In the first place, dont presume to dictate what is an appropriate response to the question. I can provide my own answers to question without any interjection from the sideline. The appropriate answer should be the simple and honest truth. Im not working for Bryce so I can express myself openly without fear of retribution. But I must first say that Bryce is my program of choice to work from. It is my home based studio platform launcher so to speak. Again I say, and I would have to answer; Bryce was not intended to be a full-featured modeler, with that in mind, they incorporated 3rd party imports. So yes, in that respect Bryce is a pain in the butt to use. Its slow and cumbersome to use as far as modeling goes. Yes, Bryce can be used for modeling all sorts of things, yes, it can even import grayscale heightmaps. But, given a choice as a modeler, Bryce would have to be my last choice as a pliable modeler. Bryce does best that what Bryce was designed to do and that was as a terrain generator. It has nothing, whatsoever to do with whether youre a professional graphic artist or not. That would be my answer to all users alike. I see all sorts of stuff posted as "Bryce" that has very little else of Bryce other than Bryce used to render it. No Bryce modelling, no Bryce terrains, sometimes not even a Bryce sky .... but it's posted in the Bryce section as a Bryce image. Now some people will credit the fact that nothing but the render was done in Bryce ... but then I still find myself wondering why they would post it in that category. Does the render alone qualify it as such? A good while back we had a thread posted here concerning those same questions richymaveety, I cant find it at the moment, but the general consensus, as I recall was that yes, the sheer reason that Bryce is your render engine of choice constitutes sufficient reason for posting in the Bryce forum. And the reason for that seemed to be that most everyone realized that importing was a built-in feature of Bryce. It was also suggested that not all artists are built equally. Some could and know how to model and others decided they just werent any good at it and preferred to import either from 3rd party software or from other modelers those items did needed to complete their artistic visions. That all art forms barrow from other art forms. To say that photography cannot be considered an art form because all the elements are already put in place for the artist, and all he has to do is capture it onto an imaging element is wrong. And the same thing holds true with Bryce. At least, that is how I remember the outcome of that thread, Im sure Ill be corrected otherwise. Bryce is only one part of the tool kit. Most of us have other software packages we use as tools, they include some combination of but not limited to; Poser, Photoshop, PhotoPaint, Paintshop, Painter, CorelPaint, Amorphium, Xfrog, Zbrush, Canoma, TrueSpace, Carrera, Amapi, 3Dwing, Dogwaffle, Cinema4D, Rhino, 3D Studio Max, Lightwave, Maya to name a few and Im sure I missed a bunch but you get the picture. Bryce, unfortunately, is simply not the end all of render software packages, everything rolled up in one. I think most of us here have come to accept that simple truth. But all of this shouldnt stop you from modeling in Bryce until your hearts content. Not by any means whatsoever. In fact, we would applaud you and cheer you on for pushing the Bryce envelope to its extreme if that is what you choose to do. We are constantly amazed at the quality of work that Bryce can produce. In doing so you would have but again shown that which has been shown many times over, that Bryce is nothing short of a tremendous little package that can output at top shelf, showcase level and we know it! Thats why were here!

I'm not avoiding prior posts, what I am saying, an issue that no one seems to address, is that while Bryce was not created to be a modelling program, even a raw beginner - with no $$ to afford all of the extra bells and whistles (Rhino and the ilk), can create some great models in Bryce. And I think much of what has been said about the use of outside programs would tend to discourage a new user from even trying. It's interesting to hear that all you need is to render something in Bryce to have it be considered a Bryce image. So, someone renders a photograph on surface effectively and that's a Bryce image? I would have thought there would be at least some use of the program rather than just the render engine to make it so. Clearly I am wrong in that assumption. The render engine is all that counts. Personally, I like the fact that those images that Bryce chose to advertise itself (like Chris Casady's Tori Gate) were completely produced (and modelled) in Bryce. To me, anything else would have been false advertising ... I like that the company showed me what really could be done with the program in competant hands. Further, and speaking only for myself, the artwork I am most impressed with (in the Bryce gallery), are those that are able to knock my socks off and be mostly Bryce, not just rendered in Bryce. As for appropriate answers to questions asked, I still submit that a fact based answer is always better than an opinion with no factual basis included. Whether one type of modelling is better, faster, begs the question, if what the person purchased is Bryce and they come to the Bryce forum hoping to learn more about using Bryce only to hear an opinion that Bryce sucks as a modelling program. It may not have been intended for that use, but I've seen some great stuff produced with it. Yes, in the end, it's the finished artwork that counts. And I will always enjoy a great piece of art however it may be created, but to me, if none of it was created in Bryce, it's not much of a Bryce image. And, yes, I understand that in the prior discussions everyone decided that I'm wrong on this point. So, I'll just stay wrong, and keep in mind that being a Brycer has very little (apparently) with using Bryce. But then, you might not have liked Bryce Camp much after all, since that's what the whole thing is about ... pushing Bryce to the max: modelling in Bryce and making those models come alive. For people who have no interest in such things, it would be a complete waste of time ... or nearly so.

Okay guys, all the 'to Bryce model or not to Bryce model' aside, did you like Erlik's armillary?

Erlik,I love your armillary. No matter where it was modeled it looks great. Zhann whatever did you start?...LOL

I dunno, a debate on modeling it looks like...;]

It's all Zhann's fault ;)

Yeah, it's Zhann's fault;-P

Yup, it's always my fault...;P

Holds his hands up in depair NOPE! I guess it's MY fault............ I just asked a simple question, that's all I did, honest! I think the answer is: Whatever fries your bacon. It's a fair cop, Guv! In other words....if it works for you, do it. The Bryster

Actually, I loved it Erlik. It looks really good. I'm looking forward to seeing the finished model.

Personally I don't know what attending Bryce camp has to do with the price of tea in China. And I dont understand why some people insist that theres a right way and a wrong way. I'm sure we can continue this discussion et infinitum but the folks here are right, we have strayed slightly off the intended topic. So with all due respect... Zhann, it is certainly your fault and Erlik is the instigator by inspiring us with his well-done model. An excellent job Erlik! I took a run over to that site Zhann and I too, like Bryster (the threads troublemaker ;) ), I too was instantly infected with the sextant, this is a fine example, it's gorgeous! Bryster, you werent clear in your post, are you planning on modeling it?

I'm fairly sure Bryce Camp has absolutely nothing to do with the price of tea in China. That is usually completely dependent on the tea crop that year.

LOL...well, good. At least we can agree on something.