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.

-- erlik