Catlin... I have nothing personal against Ornlu, that was stated so in a PM I sent to Clay several days ago concerning this thread. What ever the editor or editors did, correct or incorrect I can not say, I will say that they should have at least discussed the changes with Ornlu prior to publication, but as we all know, the editors are not obligated to do so. My beef is with anyone who airs their displeasure here concerning Renderosity in the open forum, and some folks do it more than others. If you have a problem with Renderosity, concerning your dealings as a vender or author, then take it to the proper channels, do not air it here. As I recall, this bridge has been crossed with Ornlu before and the moderators then reminded folks to go to them first instead of taking the complaint to the open forum. I can not help but think what newcomers to this forum think when they see a thread like this one. It certaintly does not reflect well on Renderosity, it does not reflect well on Brycers, especially when adults chime in and support this type of behavior and lastly it does not reflect well on the individual who is complaining. A perspective employer would look at this type of behavior as belonging to a person who has not used the 'proper channels' for problem resolution. Ornlu has a habit of bringing his gripes about Renderosity to the forum. This is the third time, as I recall, that he has brought his displeasure to the open forum. Obviously he has problems with Renderosity at one level or the other. Perhaps he needs to move to another site that can better serve his needs as he apparently is not pleased with Renderosity. My suggestion to anyone who feels that they have repeatedly been 'wronged' by Renderosity staff and they can not seem to get this problem resolved is to go participate on another service. Is this personal? No, not at all, I am just an adult dealing with the actions of another adult.

Perhaps if you had stated your concerns as you did in your second post, BabaLouie, it would have come off less like a personal attack. Your first post sounded like nothing more than name calling. The second post is much more rational and well thought out.

The contract is 'no re-publication' for 90days after magazine publication and the rights remain with the copyright holder(the one who wrote it), so that after the 90 days, Ornlu can submit the article to whomever or, whatever publication he sees fit to submit it to from that point on, and actually, possibly get PAID for it.

BabaLouie, don't allow this thread and Ornlu's position on matter ruin your 'Renderosity Experience'....:)

rickymaveety, Yes, you are correct and thank you for pointing that out. When dealing with adults I tend to 'pull no punches', the result of this, when it is written, can often be misinterpreted. Of course, when dealing with children, I do a 180, I have the patience and understanding of Job. :) Once again, thank you. BabaLouie

You're so kind, BL. :-)

I understand where your coming from now BabaLouie and agree with Ricky that your "second post is much more rational and well thought out". The problem is I think, is that we have friends here and who do people normally go to to express their problems with, but with their friends. It can come over as moany, but I feel that if it's only now and again then we can all make some small exceptions. And don't forget that some adults are more childlike than children. lol 8) Catlin

Well, BabaLouie, if you're not already aware that I don't 'pamper' Ornlu - someone can probably soon make you aware ;-). I can't say that I agree with you on his actions in this instance. He has presented his case in a civil manner, and the fact that you, personally, don't feel he should present his case in an open forum is academic. I think he is perfectly entitled to publicly sever his association with the edited article and to state why (if he breaks an agreement in the process of doing so, that's his problem). That doesn't change the fact that I see this outcome as amusing and appropriate. In previous discussions I warned that the magazine isn't a proper professional publication in the sense of those that pay their way by paying for content are. If those who are content to be 'published' for reasons of vanity (to see their words in print, etc) end up with egg on their face, it's hard to not laugh (pride comes before a fall, etc). Add to that my contempt for a process (the magazine) that undermines the free, open interchange of program-user information, then it's clear that I'm going to be amused at seeing this whole sorry saga dragged out in public. To those non-professional-writers considering contributing articles to the magazine - especially now that it is going to be online only - I say this. If you've got something to say about a program or a process, how about saying it where everyone can access it - you know, like here in the Bryce forum for Bryce related stuff. If it's a biggie that warrants specific access, or (like me) you're not fully comfortable with Renderosity ethics, how about posting it on a webpage where anyone can access it? Why restrict it to a fee-paying audience when you aren't even getting a fee yourself, and when what you say is mangled by people who don't know what they're doing? You almost certainly got started in this with the help of people openly sharing their knowledge - so why not return the compliment?

This whole thing brings to mind voting for a new site logo and colors, and having the PTB alter the original artist's vision by not only changing the background colors from the original voted on, but a couple of months later chaanging the entire site's color scheme, under the auspices of 'community rule'....hmmmmmmmmmm, deja vu....;]

PJF ... > I think he is perfectly entitled to publicly sever his >association with the edited article and to state why (if >he breaks an agreement in the process of doing so, that's >his problem). I agree completely that Ornlu or anyone for that fact has the right to publicly distance themselves from misconstrued words, verbal or written. It would have been better if Ornlu had simply opened a thread and given a brief statement about the matter, stated that what he actually had written would be posted in 90 days and that as a matter of personal integerity he would not discuss the matter until then and asked AS or Clay to lock the thread. However, as is obvious, as folks continued to ask questions, Ornlu continued to provide answers or examples. That is partly where I have issues, it became a public trashing of Renderosity. >Why restrict it to a fee-paying audience when you aren't >even getting a fee yourself, and when what you say is >mangled by people who don't know what they're doing? You >almost certainly got started in this with the help of >people openly sharing their knowledge - so why not return >the compliment? Agreed, I have difficulities with how this online magazine is being handled. Would I pay for it? No. Certainly an editor should have a knowledge of the subject that they are editing. I have been a subject matter expert in electronic switching systems and have written tech manuals before, but I was quite fortunant that the editor had a very good knowledge of the equipment and only hacked my poor spelling and grammar. :) As I mentioned before, this is not personal, my words would have been the same for anyone else. Had this thread died after a couple of posts, I would have thought nothing of it, however, starting at post 6 it got out of control. There is simply no need to publicly trash Renderosity. For what is basically a free service for the bulk of us here, Renderosity, the admins and mods do a pretty good job. Are there some bumps, oh yes, but there are mature and appropriate ways to handle the bumps in the road of life.

fortunant=fortunate

Bablouie,....:) Seems alot of people are editors here, the forums really do need a spell checker...;)

/* fortunant=fortunate */ That is why they gave me an editor .. :) Probably would been cheaper just to buy me a spell checker though. :)

BabaLouie stated: "There is simply no need to publicly trash Renderosity." Can't say as I agree with you on that, either. If Renderosity behaves poorly, why shouldn't the members talk about it openly? I can't stay within their terms of service and call them all a bunch of *&$x, but last time I checked I was able to constructively slate what they do. Most of the mods I see do a stirling job - most of the admin, well there's that TOS thingie again... ;-). And I "pay" by shopping in the store occasionally - that was the 'deal' explained to me when Rendo went commercial. I've never thought much of the magazine, and now it's becoming part of the site I see it as a direct threat to the content of the technical forums - which are the last vestige of the sharing philosophy that started this place off and what keeps it worthwhile. I see the start of a process to turn Renderosity into a subscription site.

Regarding how "off base" Ornlu's comment about simulating global illumination, this irony: An article in a holiday special from Computer Arts describes how to make light domes in Lightwave as a way to "simulate global illumination." Sounds pretty simulated to me.... Mick

Indeed mickmca, I meant what I meant in my original statement, and I am disapointed in the irony of some of the name calling posts above... I honestly believe that it is our democratic right to speak out against whatever we want. While i'm not going to name call or break the TOS, I wanted everyone to know my opinion on the issue, not just the renderosity admins, as someone had suggested. And out of curiosity, what good would that do? I know what their answer would be; "it's our right to do whatever we want to your article". Just as it is my right do speak out against it in the manner I see most fit... Calling me a child solves no problems, and frankly, I find this rather insulting. I didn't go through puberty to put up with this. laughs

PJF ... /* but last time I checked I was able to constructively slate what they do */ The 'intent' behind what the speaker or author has said or written, or the perceived intent by the audience, often determines whether the subject matter at hand is being viewed as constructive criticism or a public trashing. Granted, there is a very fine line between that which is constructive and that which is not. I support that which is constructive, a good debate about a matter is always healthy and keeps the mind from getting too locked into stale ways. However, what sometimes occurs is that the problem is between what the communicator intended and what the listener or reader perceived. The speaker may intend their words to be positive or constructive criticism but the listener may perceive these words as negative criticism. When in doubt, a communicator will do will to remember that 'descretion is the better part of valor'. If a person is unsure how their words, oral or written will be perceived it is usually better to say or write nothing at all. This is a lesson that I will do well to remember as well. :) I have reread this thread again, for the third time and I find it difficult to see it as anything else but a public trashing. Perhaps my perception is skewed in this matter or perhaps it has been skewed by a repeating of history.

I've been asked to help out in the new "online zine". I'm not sure what my .... you in the back --- put out that tourch and lay down that pitchfork *** looks around nervously *** .... now as I was saying, I'm not sure what my position is going to be but I will give it my best. It is entirely voluntary and I work full time, 10 days on 4 off, the first five are 4-midnight and the second five midnight-8. I hardly ever know what day it is. Work, along with all my hobbies, my time will be tasked to the max. I'm not going to comment on the above matter, just bear with us until the new mag comes online. thanks, bob

mickmca wrote: "Regarding how "off base" Ornlu's comment about simulating global illumination, this irony: An article in a holiday special from Computer Arts describes how to make light domes in Lightwave as a way to "simulate global illumination." Sounds pretty simulated to me...." I am not at all surprised that "Computer Arts" makes the same error as Ornlu and the RendoRag. The magazine is a lightweight from a populist stable. Many of the people who write for Future Publications rotate through the titles. Cars one month, gardening the next. I'm aware that I lack enough credibility with some here to permit them to take my word for it, so here's a page on global illumination by someone who isn't lacking: http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/global.html As you'll see, it has nothing to do with the illumination that might be provided by a globe, and everything to do with what I said it did. Global illumination cannot even be approximated by use of a dome light (area light or array of pinpoints) let alone simulated. Global illumination is any combination of raytrace and radiosity render processes that together must account for all light interaction that would occur in a real scene. Any simulation of it must also simulate all those interactions. This cannot be done with just a light dome. You might as well say that a standard Bryce render with just the sun and normal ambient materials is a simulation of global illumination.

PJF .. /* http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/global.html */ Thanks for posting that link, I had forgotten about Jensen, certainly a good source of info and an interesting web site as well.

While I'm in the mood, here's another howler from Ornlu (that the RendoRag kept the intent of despite the pointless messing): "...ambient illumination in its true form- does not even exist..." Well, with the caveat that a "true form" of ambient illumination does not exist in any 3D rendering package (they're all just mathematical constructs, folks, there is no spoon) this statement is just plain wrong. It's hard to imagine how anyone who has followed the threads on True Ambience could make such a conclusion. It may be infuriatingly flawed and limited, it may use a different render process in Bryce than in other programs to come about - but it exists.

Oooooo! I remember your ambient light turning round corners PJF. Now that was an interesting little detail that isn't supposed to happen in Bryce. 8) Catlin