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.

Could be worse, could be raining.