I would just like to express my sincere disapointment in the publication of my article. The entire piece was chopped to bits. The writing no longer flows (at all)... The first paragraph was utterly destroyed. A section of my original introduction written as; "The native lighting in Bryce is inefficient at best; soft shadows use complex ray based algorithms, ambient illumination in its true form- does not even exist, and volumetric lights become near impossible to render on any machine. Fortunately, there are loopholes which allow one to pass by these shortcomings with ease." was changed to "The native lighting in bryce is inefficient at best; soft shadows use complex ray based algoithms. Ambient illumination, in its true form, does not exist, and volumetric lights become near impossible to render on any machine." In place of a suitable piece a chopped up fragment was added... The introduction sentence about loopholes was added to the next paragraph and butchered completely, as was the rest of the article. I'd add more, but I'm afraid of legal consequences. I would like to state that I am completely detatching myself from this article and magazine; I hold no responsibility for what they claim is my work. Furthermore, I am very disapointed in the editing and production of said piece. This is not something I would have expected from renderosity.

Ornlu, I am really sorry to hear that happened. I was even considering purchasing the magazine, but I would have done so strictly for your article, which I now will not have the benefit of reading.

woah... I worked in newspapers (granted, university rag level) and I can tell you that there are two kinds of editors, or rather submission forms: the one that gets back to you and tells you what they're going to cut and the other that's made up of people who won't, chop up your work, and then generally don't care. The way they changed your writing might as well be used for an anti-Bryce article. It is shameful. I'd ask them why they did it before I'd jump and tell them they're arseholes, but yeah... very unfortunate. Drac

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12357&Form.ShowMessage=1574795

hope you don't mind, ornlu, but i posted something in the magazine interact forum 'asking' them of what their editorial policy is mihnea

Considering we don't even get a complimentry copy of the magazine, the least they could do is not slander us by adding improper english to our articles. Granted, I'm not master of the english language, but the mistake they made, after changing my wording, was amazingly obvious. Thanks though, it is pretty amazing.. This magazine must be nearly all profit aside from publication.

What publication? It's all online content now.....just some coding added to a web page (that's simplified of course) you don't even get to touch it it anymore, no printing costs, no delivery costs.....I'd say it's mostly profit now. Unlike other online magazines they don't even pay the contributors that make the magazine possible, yup, all profit now...

Sorry about your publication woes, Ornlu. Zhann, is there a link to the online mag now?

I was just thinking, Ornlu, you should check around, I'm sure there's an online magazine that would be willing to pay for your article (from what I heard, most pay between $500 to $1000 per article, or some .15 to .25 a word)....

Never mind.. I found the link! LOL!!

Ardiva, Issue 8 is the last one actually printed, issue 9 will be totally online content in, I think February....check the Magazine Interact Forum for details, not sure...

Ornlu, having been impressed beyond measure with your work --made me rethink how to use tools-- I'd very much like to see the article the way you intended it; is it online anywhere?

It can't under the agreement be posted anywhere online for 90 days after publication......:(

Wow.I thought it was a magazine to the people and for the people of this community for the majority.Reading through issue 7 I thought the mag could use more content.I found it a nice publication on good paper.But it took very little time to read.Now you say they are chopping editorials up.Sorry, doesn't wash with me.If I wrote something,I would want it as I wrote it.Sorry this has affected you in this manner.Try to have a Happy new Year.

Um...

Ornlu, I'm sorry you feel that they've butchered your writing, but having read your version and their version in your complaint, I have to say that they've actually done a pretty good job. Here's why:

Your first sentence runs on, especially after the semi-colon. I understand that you are introducing your idea with "The native lighting in Bryce is inefficient at best." Then, the three concepts after that--

1. Soft shadows use complex ray based algorithms.
2. Ambient illumination--in its true form--does not even exist.
3. Volumetric lights become near impossible to render on any machine.

--are supposed to SUPPORT that idea, which is why you've kept it all as one sentence. As I said, though, it's a run-on sentence with all those subject nouns and verbs, all of which makes it grammatically incorrect.

A better way to keep all those concepts together would be to group them as sentences in a single paragraph, which is what they did. That's partly why they moved the sentence about the loopholes into the next paragraph--so it doesn't muddy up your group of concepts there.

All in all, it makes sense, AND it's grammatically correct. The only thing I would have done differently is change their first sentence and break it up into two:

"The native lighting in Bryce is inefficient at best. Soft shadows use complex ray-based algorithms."

That way, it doesn't look like items 2 and 3 are off by themselves while item 1 is stuck to the idea you've introduced.

Anyway, I didn't mean to rain on your ranting parade--just thought I'd throw that in. I don't work for the magazine; nor do I buy it. However, I have a cum laude bachelor's degree in literature and writing, and I've worked a few times as an editor and as a proofreader. So, stuff like this is kind of my forte.

Congratulations on getting published, by the way!

:)

The internet offers a fine way for individual writers to reach a potentially wide audience without the grief of dealing with editors and publishers. Another joy of posting tutorials, tips-n-tricks, and other program user related material on open websites is the continuance of the fine, old-fashioned tradition of the free exchange of information between those sharing a common interest. I can't say I have any sympathy for the magazine or Ornlu. This all seems a very appropriate outcome. Bah, humbug, etc.

I've been asked to write an article for the next magazine issue (also on lighting). Now I hesitate to do it.

Man oh man would that tick me off!!! To no end. Personally, I think its a shame that they get everything for it for free (you dont even get a copy!?! UNBELIEVABLE!). The covers, the articles, etc. Seems they are "art pimps" that use the artists here to make a profit. What a shame... the Almighty Dollar is king in this world. Really, that's a bummer to hear, Ornlu. LAME -Bruce

Aprilgem, however, that was not my original intent.. Those are just three things that bryce is inefficient in. HOWEVER, I explained that there are loopholes to get around these... They left this out... Not to mention the fact that the rest of the article has many many changes, some of which change meaning completely. At one point they say "while producing better visual" changed from... "while producing superior visual results"... better visual? I'm not trying to land a plane, this is about art.

haven't read the article as yet..will do so in a few hours time. (just woke up..) ornlu.. editors have to do their job. If aprilgem's observations are correct, well... they do have to edit it. I sympathize with you. I've had to butcher, rewrite stories completely..so much that reporters cried. But it was the only way of making it printable, short of trashing it. If the editor is a bad one, I think you ought to just take it up with them. Ask them why did they make the changes they did. Hopefully, they won't mind. If their editing changed the meaning of a sentence, or thought, tell them. They have to know. Occdoug, normally an editor won't show you what they edited before it's published, but I think you may be able to ask them here. If any changes are made that you don't approve, you can always tell them before it gets published.

Prior communication here would be my only concern. If editing changes the the original intention, wouldn't it behoove both parties to iron it out? Otherwise it's a mute point to publish.

"Those are just three things that bryce is inefficient in. HOWEVER, I explained that there are loopholes to get around these." This is why the three things are part of the paragraph/group and the loopholes aren't; the three are what's inefficient, and the one is how to get around them. That's exactly what I thought you meant and now exactly what you say you intended. So I still hold with what I posted; the loophole sentence is better off separate from what makes Bryce inefficient. As for the rest of the article, I haven't read either version, so I can't really comment on how well or how poorly they've edited your writing. I can only say that, like art, editing can be really subjective; some editors go beyond correcting just grammar and punctuation and try to put in "better phrasing" or "more concise wording" as they see fit. If that's the case, it's a shame they didn't send you a galley proof of some kind so that you could comment on their editing decisions. If they thought they needed to edit your article to that extent, then it probably means you didn't make yourself as clear as you thought you did; but if their editing only makes your meaning even less clear, then you should at the very least have the chance to address that before the whole thing goes to print.

Moot point ... not mute. Sorry, I also tend to edit other people's work. Can't help it. I agree that if the editor changes the meaning of a sentence and the ultimate idea communicated by the article, that is wholly inappropriate. The editor is not there to alter the intent of the written work. If the editor does more than clean up grammar, the occaisional incorrect word usage (as in "moot" rather than "mute"), and punctuation, they should absolutely communicate with the author prior to publication. It is the author's name on the work after all. Some editors are frustrated writers. Some are very good writers that are stuck in their own style of writing. Either type can be horrible editors because they tend to try to impose their style on the author. A good editor makes suggestions and works with the author. A REALLY good editor doesn't leave their fingerprints all over the place.

Newspapers are pretty bad when it comes to editing too. Like you said, meaning isn't just in the words - but in how it's worded. LOL... I've had that happen myself. Anyhow if theres any major edits, shouldn't they use those brackets "[ ]" with comments inside to indicate where a major edit occured. They used to do this a lot, but now editors apparently like to leave their mark upon the original author. I don't exactly care for that.

Aprilgem... Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying here. I'm not a horrible writer, and yet nearly every portion of the article was changed. It's less my work than the editors. Here is another example, mind you this is from the initial onset of the publication... I'm not going to point out every detail, as it would take all night and get me into trouble... My original sentence "For example, dome lighting (the simulation of global illumination), can be created through the use of spherical arrays of omni-lights." Was changed to: "For example, Dome lighting, is a simulation of global illumination. Dome Lighting should not be confused with radiosity because it is not the same thing, yet a similar effect can be created through the use of light domes." Let it also be known that they added a sentence before it that also used "dome lighting" in it.... repeating dome lighting 4 times in a row.. And then using it as a title directly below it. After that my sentence: "Fortunately, Bryce allows us to bypass this using either True Ambiance or Blurry Reflections." Was changed to: "Fortunately, bryce allows us to check a box for either 'true ambience' or 'blurry reflections'." It's not about checking box, it's about utilizing those aspects of bryce... Fortunately, bryce allows us to check those boxes, so that we can use those options to our advantage. It has nothing to do with checking the freaking box. The entire section about using two booleaned spheres for the sky dome was taken out.. This is a necessity when using glass as a subject. It's not even my work! They didn't shorten it. They didn't Simplify it. They chopped it up into mutiple sentences. They made multiple repetetive sentences out of my original work. And I hope you get that I am just being humerous with the above sentences... Furthermore, the subtitles of the images were removed, and yet they were still refered to as 'image 1' - 'image 7' I think I allready mentioned this, however, nearly every transitional phrase in the piece was removed, making it choppy. This was done dispite the fact that I was under the top length for the article. On the contrary, I admit they did indeed fix my gramatical errors in some sentences, but at what cost? As the article wanes I see the editor's fingerprints less and less, however, it's the beginning that drives me up the wall. I didn't post this to be criticized aprilgem, I merely wanted to state that the work in that article is not my own and should therefore not be connected to me in any way. I thank you for your time and hope that you choose not to belittle how I choose to present my ideas any further. Good day.

I've written a fair share of articles in my time, mostly specialty (not unlike R'osity). The first thing I do is insure I have last editorial rights. That basically comes down to; "Yes, you can publish my article for the aforementioned price", or "No, you've slaughtered my original intent and if you go to press I'll have your (fill in the blank) in a vice and will beome mean! Ornlu: Every writer gets it once. The trick is to learn and not get it twice. PS Other than those scam poetry anthology sites, I don't know of any "legitimate" publication that doesn't offer authors at least one hardcopy...

I once had a poem published in one of those scam poetry anthologies... it is as follows.. (you may want to dim the lights and light a few candles before reading)... Entrepreneur by MuddyGrub I wish I'd get a dollar For every time I poo'd. Cuz with the cash I'd buy more, Raw materials, Food.

Ornlu, please try not to take my comments as criticism of your writing in general. I never called you a horrible writer; I addressed only their editing of the lines you mentioned in my first post, and in my second post I stated that they should have given you galley proofs to review, especially if they changed your article so much that they changed the meaning of many lines. When I edit other people's writing, I go beyond grammar, spelling, and punctuation ONLY when I feel that the writer didn't make him or herself clear enough. This is why I assumed whoever edited your work was the same way; I had no idea to what extent they made the changes as I only had your first and second posts on which to make any judgments. Had I known how severely they rewrote your entire article (your later examples are a much better illustration of your original complaint than your first example), then I would have seen your point right away. As it was, I was only trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, especially considering how well they DID edit that first bit. I still say you should have gotten galley proofs so that you could correct their corrections. I used to work in magazine publishing, and I thought galley proofs were the standard procedure. I guess Renderosity Magazine is still doing things in a fairly amateur way.

I can imagine how it must be for you Ornlu, having your work all chewed up like this. Sorry to hear you had to go through this. As I started to read this thread I immediately wondered why you weren't given the chance to proofread the edited version before going public with it, but as aprilgem says, Rendosity must be running the magazine in an amateurish way.

Oddly enough I was somewhat surprised that they did not give you a chance to read the edited version before they went public. But upon greater reflection I think I will just shake my head and sigh.

Whoa! Aprilgem..your publication is a gem on it's own if they allowed writer's to see galley proofs. It's so not done. We were even warned about that in Journalism school. followed it to a T in real life..(worked with 4 papers and 2 mags) Reason? Writers will always dispute what editors have done to the story. reason? It's their work..no one likes it butchered.

Oops! You may be right, Erosiaart. The magazine publishing house where I used to work also published books. Fancy Publications had something like 40-50 magazines and a book division all in one building, and I worked in the electronic/art department, not in the editorial department, so I was not an editor in this case. Perhaps the book division is where I saw the galley proofs, which I think are pretty standard for books. The magazines typically came back from the printer as Rainbow proofs and bluelines, which the production coordinators and editors would look over for a final proofing, and I might have gotten them confused with galley proofs. Sorry for the confusion! :)

LOL...ok everyone..restart the discussion! Ornlu..dry your tears. If I had to print some of the stuff I got while an editor..I'd have caused facts and language wars. The ed here was probably just trying to improve it a bit..do their job. May not have made a good job out of it..but still... To the pple who will be writing for the mag here.. ask the eds for special permission to read the edited version. If they say no..they are following the rules of journalism. You may hate their guts for it...but that's the publication rules all over the world. if they say yes..they have a crush on you and are doing you a favor, or they are not professional editors. You take your pick. And if you feel they spoilt your story? Well.. sob your heart out to us, trash the mag into the trash can, and go write a better one next time! Don't worry..some reporters made me feel real sh.. afterwards. :( We're so used to it. PS..I know I am a sub-ed's worse nitemare. I learnt how to type really fast because of deadlines. And I try not to inflict my editorial life with personal. :)

eros, if the mag was the Economist, then yeah, by all means, let's not mess business with personal stuff, and once you submit your story they're god over it. But this is a mag that doesn't have current events, in terms of politics and so on. I don't see the problem of Ornlu asking to see and approve the finalized version. More than that, it's his right. There's a difference between editing an article and COMPLETELY changing its scope and meaning. M

Some people just can't leave well alone and constantly poke their fingers in other peoples pies. I understand what you are saying about the editor changing the meaning of your words and that is much, much worse that simply correcting grammatical mistakes and should not be allowed without first contacting the author of the article. The phrase "too many chiefs and not enough Indians," comes to mind. Folks in charge here continually seem to think that they can make changes all over without paying any heed to the members. So sorry this has happened to you Ornlu, but I do think you should get in touch with the editor and ask them what they thing they were doing. Catlin

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12420&Form.ShowMessage=1593994&Reply=1594975#5

Ornlu wrote: "This is not something I would have expected from renderosity." I would have... Laurie

I said that more because it seemed like the thing to say. In other words, so I didn't have to say "I knew this would happen..."

I guess the question is, "Can you edit and article about a software's functions, if you do not know how that software works?" So, we are to believe that the editor is not only proficient, but expert in all the softwares that have articles about them submitted to the magazine, and that not only can they edit for spelling or grammar, but technical content as well.....that's quite a feat of intellectual prowess....

If you change one word in a chemical formula , you either get library paste or a big boom.....(extremely simplied example)

How true Zhann.............8)

In this case Zhann, I think they got a bit of both.

Ornlu quoted the RendoRag misquoting him: "For example, Dome lighting, is a simulation of global illumination. Dome Lighting should not be confused with radiosity because it is not the same thing, yet a similar effect can be created through the use of light domes." Now this one is curious. The 'radiosity' remark is such a substantial addition to what Ornlu appears to have provided that it's hard not to conclude that they ran the article by an independent 3D techie. If so, it either makes a mockery of the notion that they "contact writers for verification of technical details" - or they did in this case and the author failed to provide them with such. Whichever, the final result (as quoted by Ornlu) is an abomination. The 'radiosity' addition was made possibly in an attempt to correct a technical error in what Ornlu wrote: "For example, dome lighting (the simulation of global illumination), can be created through the use of spherical arrays of omni-lights." Let's be clear here - "global illumination" is a specific 3D term used to describe compound render techniques that must take into account all aspects of lighting in a scene (diffusion, reflection, specularity, transmission, caustics, colour bleeding, etc, etc). Global illumination cannot be simulated merely by dome lighting; and nor is dome lighting a render process designed to be such a simulation. However, Ornlu's short phrase in parenthesis can, perhaps, be forgiven as an attempt to rush a complex issue in a few words. The RendoRag version, despite the attempt at 'clarification' through the additional mention of radiosity, is profoundly worse in that it is clearly wrong and misleading. This particular edit fails on all grounds. It takes something that was succinct but partially incorrect through (perhaps) limitation and turns it into something that is rambling; badly written to the extent of being almost meaningless; and totally incorrect through obvious ignorance of the facts. It's difficult to know for sure without the context of the rest of the article, but it strikes me that the obvious edit to Ornlu's sentence would have been to simply remove the troublesome reference to global illumination altogether. To be correct, reasonably succinct and comprehensive, it might have read: "For example, dome lighting (the soft, overall 'area' lighting provided by 'skylight') can be approximated through the use of complex, spherical arrays of point light sources."

Typical....sad it happened to such a nice guy. At least this way I'll get to read the article, in 90 days. Looking forward to it. At least you warned anyone else, before they could make the same mistake. My advise....ask for the money up front.

Money???? What money??

Eh, I surely hope we can get this stuff fixed heading into the new format. I'm sorry this all happened guys and gals, hopefully w/ the new format we won't have "limits" per se on article length, etc. I know I'm probably preaching to the brick wall at this point, but I surely hope those that entertained the idea of contributing to future issues still consider it. It's my hope that we can make something much more updatable and packed with information with the new online version. I had some things in my article swapped around too, although it didn't change the scope on the entire article. I wish it hadn't have happened to Ornlu, I was certainly looking forward to your Bryce article. I'll read it anyways when I get a chance, because I know zilch on the topic of lighting anyhow and I'll still stay tuned to your Web site in 90 days. ;) Ian "MadDog31"

It wasn't the fact the the article was limited in length, it was the glaring editing mistakes on the 'technical content' that's being discussed....and why, if you know nothing about the software being discussed in the article, are you editing 'technical content' at all.....:

No ... actually what I see the problem as is Ornlu being a cry baby again. He Has done this before, and the bulk of you jump to pamper him. Whine Whine Whine .. How about this, how about growing up Ornlu, you are not eleven years old. Granted, they should have discussed with you the editing of your article.. but just as importantly, you should have gone to the admins or editors and talked with them about what happened. But no, as before, you seem to have a need to cry out in public, your crying has brought more harm to Renderosity and Bryce by being public that the butchered article itself. Renderosity seems to cause you grief to such an extent that you must whine on the open forum, how about this, how about leaving Renderosity, you can only feel better about yourself afterwards, the editors will no longer be able to hack you work and the market place will no longer be able to delay getting your products on line. GO AWAY OR GROW UP !

A word of warning: Chances are that in addition to not paying, R'osity acquired reprint control over the article, so it can't be published elsewhere (as someone seemed to suggest above). Don't know how common that knowledge is. Just because they didn't pay you doesn't mean they don't own it. This is why I never enter those "entries become the property of the contest mogul" contests. They are essentially scams to gather up stock photos, etc. Picture it: A short story contest where the entries become the property of the mag. Everyone sends their best work, and the mag now has a pile of 10-100 stories it can publish without having to pay for them.

BabaLouie if the editors did not give Ornlu a copy of what they were going to print, prey tell how he would be able to contact the editors and correct their mistakes? Have you ever had dealings within the magazine? If you had or had any contact with regards to your work and the powers that be, you would understand why people here are on Ornlu's side. Also, those of us who have some understanding of Bryce know that what was writen by the editor has made a mockery of what Ornlu was trying to say. The PTB have a tendency to do first then think of the contributer later. You seem to have something against Ornlu that has nothing to do with this thread and I think that perhaps you should reread this thread and consider who is in the right here. In particular post #44 by PJF explains how the sentence in question could have been writen to make it more succinct. Catlin