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!

:)