Aye, and these days it's better to consider one's own self an idiot than to dip into massive egotism and self-centered stupidity... So I wish you well, and expect to see more from you soon, and more renders. PJF has helped a lot of us. Also check out Ornlu, Incarnadine, and AgentSmith's names, in the forums, and you'll find a wealth of information on Bryce's rendering techniques, as well as links to other users who also break out of the normal Bryce renderings.

"I would have been only too happy to give input on those matters, just as I would love to do so now, and in the future. That is of course, if I am welcome here, after this unfortunate mess. I hope so." As far as I am concerned.... anyone that has a passion for Bryce is more than welcome here. We truely are a very tight bunch of passionate Brycers. Everybody's input here is worth something. New people are welcome and encouraged to keep coming back. Don't shy away from us. As far as Pro Render is concerned... I am seriously interested in checking it out. I think that you have a very cool idea about promoting and maintaining it on the website. Also I think it is great that you are going to make it a free product.

LOL shadowdragonlord, with statements like that you are going to make me blush!

Have you all heard that DAZ have bought the rights to Bryce and are going to develope it into a real Bryce 6. 8) BryceTech is also one of the Bryce forum mods over there too. 8) Happy, happy, happy..................and so on and so forth. 8P Catlin

Right, first of all, thanks for making me feel welcome with those recent replies. I'm pleased about it, and look forward to some interesting discussions with you all. I am really VERY proud to become a member of your long list of idiots :-) Well there you have it, the first two renders from PRO-RENDER. I know... You've seen it all before right? Well don't be too sure about that fellow idiots! I say this because, that thread I mentioned in an earlier post got me thinking. You know, that image of the sphere being illuminated by a bright white object. Well, that image said to me, "God, they have to be using a different method to that of PRO-RENDER". And why? Because in PRO-RENDER, that effect is "i think" impossible. As far as I can tell, PRO-RENDER simply won't allow for that kind of effect. Of course you could simulate it, but you would have to use an "actual" light source to do so with PRO-RENDER. You've told me of the problems you members have come up against during your journey through the Bryce render engine. Well, you're not the only ones you know! I have come accross the same problems as well. As far as the "smoothing" problem goes, I am about to try out a new theory I have about this problem, I think I've cracked it! But don't hold your breath, you could well turn blue. As far as transparency goes, I have to say I don't recall there being a problem there. In fact, transparency seems to be the least of the troubles I had. And finally, the lack of power with illumination. Well I'm glad to say it's well and truly "sorted" in PRO-RENDER, that's assuming you mean what I think you mean. Next, I will recreate that image posted here of the radiosity test room, to see how the PRO-RENDER method handles it. That should be interesting! I will do two versions, and they will be the next images to be uploaded. Until then... see you all soon, and thanks again!

PS: GREAT news about the DAZ/Bryce partnership. Let's hope they update the renderer eh!

Hi Pumeco, thank you very, very much for posting screenshots at last. This looks mighty fine! I'm curious to see your next postings. J.

Those are very smooth looking renders, with nice even light fall off in the corners. This looks very promising. pumeco, I summarised the variation of True Ambience I've been using a couple of pages ahead. There should be enough info there to give you an idea of the differences between that and your technique. Wow, a 22 hour render. Hope that's a typo! ;-)

looks promising, very clean renders there :) Can't wait to see your radiosity room.

you should put those renders in your gallery here ;) you'll get even more feedback that way I think :)

A picture worth a thousand words! Thank you and very well done.

Very impressive!

Those renders are nice, but still they are nothing spectacular compared to the works of countless others here, Pumeco. No discouragement intended, only honesty. Also, your 22 hour render time makes them just as obnoxious as any other techniques I've seen, and would be entirely useless for animation purposes, which is the purpose of 3D graphics in the first place. Granted, we all do stills, and love them! But the only reason we do stills REALLY is because we don't have the computing power to animate. Let us hope that Bryce 6 includes some of the other mainstream rendering enhancements, or at least the ability to define render properties per object or something... I'm sorry, Pumeco, but so far I'm still not impressed. That said, both of your renders are MONOCHROME!!! Why?

Shadow, the reason I'm impressed is do to the lack of lights (save for the sun on the second one) and no use of light domes. Unless he is pulling our legs, Bryce cannot look that good without volumetrics or light domes.

.

I would really like to get my grubby little paws on this Pro Render and take it for a whirl. Although as usual it looks like your way of doing things pumeco still has a heavy price tag on render times. But it's always good to learn of new ways to do things and this is what Bryce artists have been doing for years, making the impossible happen in a program that shouldn't be able to. lol 8) Catlin

PJF: Thanks for pointing out that thread to me, but hey, I've been there already and left you a comment, go check! The remarks in my previous post where in fact, partly to respond to the findings you've put forward there. After everything I've read so far, it's obvious now that, the method you are using is correct, it's just not shall we say, "fine tuned". Your radiosity room sample alone, tells me why you are'nt "quite" getting what you want. I have'nt got round to it yet, but when I do recreate your radiosity room, I have a feeling that it will indeed display the same traits as your render, BUT to a much lesser extent. Whilst on the subject of method, it's great that you posted the information about volumetric material. If you recall, I suggested in my previous post that glowing objects don't work with the PRO-RENDER method. Well, thanks to your volumetric tip, I think that perhaps it could be possible after all. I have'nt tried it yet, but I'm pretty sure it will work, let's hope so! shadowdragonlord: I'm sorry to hear you're not impressed. Please know that I don't see myself as an artist, I realise I have a LONG way to go before I get close to the standard of work here, and as such, I've no intention of uploading those images to the galleries. The only purpose of the images is to demonstrate the standard of illumination accuracy that can be obtained from PRO-RENDER. You ask why the images are monochromatic. Well, basically I wanted the first images to demonstrate how smooth and even the light distribution can be, without colour detracting from the effect. Please know however, that although the images may "look" monochromatic, thay are in fact colour images, and no desaturation or colour balancing was performed on those images. And now a word about those render times. I'm afraid the render time specified for MOONLIT ROOM was NOT a typo. However, PLEASE bear in mind that the image was rendered at a MASSIVE virtual RPP of 1024, and remember, that's RAYS PER PIXEL, not PIXELS WIDE. Based on my knowledge, I would say that if the same image where to be rendered at 256 RPP ( Bryce's maximum EFFECTIVE RPP ), I reckon it would take a LOT less time, say 5-6 hours max. When you consider that the result of the first image took only 1H:42M:16S, it's not too bad really. At this point I think I had better clear the air about animation with PRO-RENDER. ...forget it! Unless you've got half-a-dozen computers purring away to the rhythm of Bryce Lightning, you won't be animating your PRO-RENDER scenes. PRO-RENDER was developed for accuracy, not speed, stills YES, animation NO WAY! Finally I would just like to say thanks to everyone who has commented. I have started work on the PRO-RENDER manual, and hope that many of you will give it a go when the package is released. Regards, Len.

Here are some other URL's on PRO-RENDER in alphabetical order:

3D Commune:
http://www.3dcommune.com/3d/forum.mv?Bryce+read+8912215408

DAZ Productions:
http://forum.daz3d.com/viewtopic.php?t=5331

Renderotica (ADULTS ONLY):
http://www.renderotica.com/postt2560.html

Well thank you for painting our forum and Renderosity in general in such a bad light. We may not have been willing to give you money for something we can all create ourselves with a little bit of patience, but we probably would have looked at whatever else you developed along the road with your programming skills, and perhaps even made a purchase. I'm so sorry you feel you were so badly done by here, when all I can see are questions, suggestions, and pointers to what has been done already. Nowhere do I see people with pitchforks and flaming torches trying to slay you for suggesting an improvement for Bryce. All those folk who I've read tonight, saying what a cold hearted bunch we are, cannot have been in here at the Bryce forum lately, perhaps they're talking about the Poser forum, but I certainly don't believe that they or you have the right idea about who we all are. This was the first thread I read when I came in here tonight 'cos I thought you would have more images or whatever to show us, but I am now feeling totally dissappointed by what I have read. Catlin

In response to catlin mc ( post number 72 )

First of all, I have NEVER painted Renderosity or it's forums in a bad light. EVERY reply I have EVER made on ANY site has been given with GREAT consideration. I would urge anyone in doubt, to go and check out the threads on the other sites, and please know that I am NOT responsible for the feelings of OTHERS towards Renderosity or it's forums. If you read my replies carefully, you will see that any references to Renderosity have been made because I have been prompted to do so, and those references have always been in good humour. Also, I try to be as fair as I can by posting links to other website forums ALWAYS in alphabetical order, to show ZERO preferences.

It became obvious in the early days of these threads, that PRO-RENDER had become a VERY controversial product, and that I must make a decision on it's future.

I made the decision to complete PRO-RENDER, and I made that decision, secure in the knowledge that no financial reward would be coming my way. May I point out that, this is NOT the sort of decision one would expect to hear from a man with BUSINESS ONLY logic. I decided to continue PRO-RENDER because I love Bryce, I'm proud of what I've developed, and I want to share it with other Bryce users.

I am consistantly being informed that PRO-RENDER is some sort of re-working of other peoples work. Well, if that's the case, and you're minds are made up on that, you won't be wanting to download PRO-RENDER then will you.
The best I can say on that matter is this: If you're all happy with the excellent work that has already been done here ( and so you should be ), I am happy for you all.
However, I am not prepared to sit back and watch my own work being ripped apart by the childish attitude of some members here. It's plain to see from the posts here, that any PAINTING that's been done, has in fact been done by a select few members on this very site. The impressions that other sites' members have about Renderosity are based on what THEY read here, so please, even the thought that I alone could generate these impressions is absolutely laughable! No, I'm afraid people already had their own impressions of Renderosity LONG before I came along, now I wonder why that could be? A few lessons to be learnt here maybe, so perhaps this thread is a blessing in disguise.

Just because I'm proud of what I've developed, that does not make me an egotist. In fact, as far as I can see, the only egotism displayed in this thread has been by others, NOT myself. Please know that members of Renderosity are NOT the only people with a love of advanced rendering for Bryce at heart. There are OTHER sites and OTHER people, and it actually IS possible for others to have developed their knowledge WITHOUT help from Renderosity or it's members. If anyone doubt's this, then perhaps they had better look closer to home as far as egotism goes. I'm not sure if that SINGLE SHY MALE line has given people the wrong impression that I might be a pushover. But if it has, then you have a LOT to learn. I might be shy around females, but I'm certainly not shy in general, and I'm no pushover, especially in business.

I apologise to the members with a GENUINE need for PRO-RENDER, that you've had to read through large amounts of text in order to get very little information. It's an unfortunate fact that most of my text has been written in order to rectify suspicions and accusations. To you members, all I can say is please bear with me, I am doing my best to get PRO-RENDER online. But having to constantly write lengthy explanations like this tends to slow things down a little. Oh, and by the way, I write a lot here because I CARE!

I truly believe that I have written enough text in this thread to explain away peoples suspicions and accusations. That fact alone, should be enough to make people see that I really DO care about Renderosity and it's members. So, starting from this post onward, I am simply going to ignore ALL suspicions and accusations. I will now, reply only to CONSTRUCTIVE posts, good or bad.

Finally, I hope to get those radiosity room images up shortly, so that members can compare them to the methods used here on Renderosity, I'm sure that you can all decide then, weather or not you will be downloading PRO-RENDER.
Either way, it WILL be released.

Regards,

Len.

Darn it, the ebot stopped sending me update messages to this thread, so I've missed a few days worth. First off, Len, I apologise for any part I may have inadvertently played in your hostile reception here. I tend to post mostly formal 'sounding' text, and that was the mode of my first post above. Looking back at how the thread was going at that stage, I probably should have made more of an effort at relaying positivism. I also said something that might be seen as an implication that you have merely developed the works of others. This was not my intent (which was only to point out that it wouldn't be well received if that was the case), and I apologise if that was how it was read. For what it's worth, I completely accept, without reservation, that you have developed your techniques by yourself. I can also see that I might have come off as a 'bruised ego' by seemingly hijacking your thread with my images. Again, not my intent - and sorry if that's how it appeared. If you've read through my earlier posts on True Ambience, etc, you should have noticed that I talk in terms of my exploring what the Bryce programmers put in there, rather than being any sort of genius myself. I'm pretty 'invisible' around here anyway, and you certainly shouldn't feel the need to tiptoe around my ego. For other folks here, I request a cool off. This PRO-RENDER thingie has massive potential, and is too important for Bryce art to be risked by pettiness brought about by misunderstanding. Remember, when Len first announced PRO-RENDER, he was in professional product presentation mode. He was promoting his product formally, not just being 'one of the lads'. This also meant he couldn't be as forthcoming as he might otherwise like to have been, in terms of sharing knowledge, etc. Well, now, he's going to be presenting his work for free. He's obviously proud of his work (let's hope justifiably so, for all our benefit) and wants to release it all in one hit, on his own site, on his own terms. That might appear 'egotistical' in isolation, but given that he is coming from the disappointment of realising the commercial potential is limited; I not only think it's OK, I think it's entirely appropriate. If PRO-RENDER works out without major limitations, we are looking at global illumination / radiosity, plus more - right now - for free - in Bryce5. Finally, without even paying for a version upgrade, we'll be up there with the 'big boys'. So, c'mon, are we for winning or are we for whining? ;-)

Onto 'technical' stuff (which I would have continued with if I'd known the thread was still active). Heh, "aren't quite" getting what I want(ed) in the radiosity room render doesn't quite explain it. It was driving me mad. The basis - surfaces bouncing light off each other - was there, but one side of a cube primitive would hardly reflect at all, while after rotation, the other side would reflect like crazy. Then a box would 'leak' light, so I'd try putting another box inside it, and so on. That whole scene was a 'fix', in the sense that every material and object had to be tweaked individually to get somewhere near the look of the "Cornell Box" render it was supposed to look like. http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/cbox.html It was all True Ambience, but nowhere near cut the mustard (and needed a lot more than 'fine tuning' ;-)). It wasn't a case of being able to apply consistent settings in a logical manner. The Venus probe image was much more successful and straightforward. I spent more time on the atmospheric effects than I needed to spend on the True Ambience. Having some clue as to what's involved, I can honestly say that I'm very impressed indeed with your renders above. They may not be very exciting images in themselves (which is perhaps behind some others' reactions), but the way the light behaves is way ahead of anything I could achieve. The falloff in the corners is beautiful, very realistic (and usefully illustrated by the mono renders). I note with some wry amusement the nifty 'caustic' reflections off of the reflective materials in your scenes. I spent a lot of time trying to convince folks that there was a form of caustics available in Bryce, so it's nice to see it illustrated so cleanly here.

This is an interesting thread. I would like to see Pro_Render's version of the Cornel Box. TMG

Now then PJF, what's all this then! Come on, you don't seriously believe my previous post was aimed at you, do you?
For what it's worth, I consider you a friend here at Renderosity, and HOPE that you have posted something when I log-on here. After reading your recent post's, I was shocked that you thought I where pointing the finger at you,

...no way man, NO WAY!

I wasn't even pointing the finger at Catlin, even though it was Catlin's recent post's here and on 3D Commune, that triggered such a response. I'm sorry, Catlin, if I've offended you in any way, it's just that, what you seem to be saying is SO not true, and gives the wrong impression of myself and pumeco. You say you would like to get your grubby little paws on PRO-RENDER. Well, now more than ever, I hope you do! Maybe then you'll forgive me for giving you the wrong impression, enjoy PRO-RENDER, and see myself and pumeco in a BETTER light.

The truth of the matter is that I was pointing the finger at this thread in general, not at a single member. It was really starting to feel as if people had it in for PRO-RENDER, though I can't for one moment see why they should.

Sorry for any misunderstanding.

Oh by the way, I forgot to mention to PJF that the reflection problem demonstrated, has been worked out, though not demonstrated in the images below,

...all will be revealed on PRO-RENDER's release!

Regards,

Len.

OK, so there's the Cornell Box renders, made with PRO RENDER. PJF kindly uploaded his version to this thread earlier ( post number 40 ). This is great, because it gives me a way to demonstrate to members, some of the problems that have been sorted. First of all, take a look at the image by PJF, where the bottom of objects meet the floor. You will notice an EXCESSIVE amount of ambience, due not only to the amount of ambience being used, but also to the intensity of the colours themselves. Please also note, that PJF pointed out that the image in question was brought about by a lot of tweaking. Now then, let's take a look at PRO-RENDER's version ( CORNELL BOX 1 ). The first thing you'll probably notice, is the sheer intensity of the colour. This is because I have made the single area light more intense than would normally be called for. I have done this for a VERY good reason, and here is that reason... If, in PJF's example, he were to increase the intensity of the light, the EXCESSIVE ambience problem displayed, would be even MORE amplified, and would result in a worse image, and PJF would probably need some strong form of medication to contain his sanity :-) ...however, please note that in the PRO-RENDER version ( CORNELL BOX 1 ), even though the light is much stronger, and the colours more intense, the problem of EXCESSIVE ambience has been sorted. Please also note, that this was managed WITHOUT having to tweak anything, and also, that the box LEAKAGE problem has been sorted :-) Moving on, CORNELL BOX 2 shows the same type of scene, again rendered with PRO-RENDER, only this time, without any lights. Also, the cube has been changed to a sphere to show how PRO-RENDER handles transparency, reflection, and refraction. Please note that every material used in the four images I have posted here, are PRO-RENDER specific, and will be included among many other PRO-RENDER specific materials when the package is released. Finally, if nothing else, the two Cornell Box images show how the PRO-RENDER method handles the extemes, going from a STRONG light, right down to NO light at all! Be back soon. Regards, Len.

Those examples look good, this is interesting. Please keep posting examples, if you would. How would your method handle, say, a glass with liquid in it placed inside the 'cornell box'? with and without light and how would that affect the rendertime with your methos VS the regular methood? Just curious. :] TMG

Jeez! But I'm glad I stayed outa this one......LOL

Yep.... I am too Bryster. I am quite intrigued with what Pro Render does. I certainly do want to check it out. I am also glad that Len didn't quit coming around and that he is continuing to work on Pro Render. I also think that there is a lot of genuine interest in Pro Render here in the Bryce Forum. I think that some just don't want to admit it. As PJF said I think it is time to have a cool off. I agree with what TMGraphics said. Please keep the info and example renders coming Len. 8) Wade

.

Looking good, please keep us updated!

I'm intrigued! I spent some time digging around this evening to try and figure what Len is up to, but I have to say I'm stumped (something to do with maximum ray depth combined with - ?). Maybe I'll end up kicking myself for being really close (but no cigar), but I couldn't find it tonight. But having said that, knowing that PRO-RENDER is arriving soon anyway took the need away - and I've been playing Sim-City most of the time instead (no creative spark for weeks...). Now, I'm going to risk being a sourpuss and point out that Len's latest renders aren't perfect. There is a little too much stray ambience at the bottom of the tall box in both pics. Which I find fascinating in and of itself... OK then, where's my medication? (mmmmm, beer.....)

Renders are excellent. All banter aside, this should prove to be a helpful tool in any Bryce renderer's toolkit. It matters not who's done what previously. You guys are terrific. Enjoy and learn from one another's accomplishments.

My question to pumeco is this, and it's simple:
When will we get to take this program or these settings for a test spin?
Message edited on: 07/08/2004 10:51

Aye, no animosity intended, Pumeco... We're all excited that you've found a new technique, now let's put it to use...?

Hi everyone.

A few replies this time, so I had better seperate them.

TMGraphics:
First of all thanks, and as far as your question about having liquid in a bottle goes, I can tell you with absolute certainty that it would indeed be possible. I can think of no reason why not.

TheBryster:
I dont' blame you for staying out of this :-)
Oh and by the way, I know I'm propbably going to be the butt of a few jokes because of this but, I need to ask, what is LOL or lol. I keep seeing LOL and lol, and I have absolutely NO idea what it is. Does it stand for something or is it some sort of smiley. And, if it is some sort of smiley, what does is express? I have'nt been at this long enough to find out!

Swade:
Thanks for the support and opinion. I think a couple of more renders should be forthcoming before PRO-RENDER's release, hang in there!

Cris Palomino:
Eh... dont' know how to reply because I dont' know what is suggested by your posts. Got me thinking though!

Rayraz:
Thanks, and yes, will do!

PJF:
I'm assuming you read post number 78. If so, I'm glad to see your still prepared to post here, thanks! Also please know that you are MORE than welcome to post your images and knowledge in this thread, never believe otherwise.

Now then sourpuss! Trust you to spot it :-) Actually, I made a bit of a mistake in my writings, I should not have said that the excessive ambience problem has been sorted. What I meant to say was that it's been minimised.
However, that said, I have recently made yet another improvement to PRO-RENDER, and now, the ambience problem is at present just about non-existent, and the scattering of light has taken on a whole new level of smoothness. By the time PRO-RENDER is released I think the ambience problem could well be TOTALY non-existent, let's hope so. But for now, renders are now smoother than the first four images I posted, it's looking good.

waldomac:
All being well, I hope to have PRO-RENDER online in August 2004. Other 3D projects are slowing things down a little, but it's getting there!

shadowdragonlord:
Thanks, I hope you'll find something usefull in PRO-RENDER, even if it's not perhaps as much as what you wish for. Hope you'll like it anyway :-)

Regards,

Len.

Anything we can alpha test, or if it's due August, probably beta test? LOL - Laugh Out Loud. You need to spend less time programming and more time hanging around forums. ;-)

I meant to mention in my last post, that I'd made a mistake in describing the tweaking in my 'Cornel Box' pic. When I went back into the file to explore a bit more, I noticed that all my settings were actually consistent. It was in the journey to that file that I'd messed about with all the settings; rotated primitives; and tried meshes instead of primitives; and all sorts. The 'fix' in that image is the use of a large ambient/diffuse light source behind the camera to add to the illumination in the scene. This is providing more light than just another plane wall would. The consistent settings I used were wrong, though. I used too much ambience. At that stage I was using 100 percent, but nowadays I use less. Going back to Len's images, I have a concern with the second one. The sphere has transparent and reflective attributes. This may be deliberate, but it happens to also look exactly like the problem I was having with transparent objects picking up a weird reflective attribute even when no such setting was applied. I'd like to see an image something like the one I attempted showing one purely reflective sphere beside one purely transparent sphere. And I'd also like to see a render of an organic mesh model under PRO-RENDER settings to demonstrate how mesh smoothing looks. And speaking of meshes, I've been surprised at how many look bad under True Ambience. Many surfaces render black. What the hell, now I'm in request mode, I'd like to see a PRO-RENDER of a Bryce primitive boolean interaction. One of the default ones from the library should indicate whether PRO-RENDER has overcome the nasty experience I had with booleans under True Ambience.

I'm not sure if I've shown this one or not, but it demonstrates the power of True Ambience and hopefully points to the potential from PRO-RENDER. This image has more conventional items on show. A poser figure, other meshes, terrains and photo textures. The important point about this pic is that it's lit by just one parallel light (representing the sun). All the other natural fill light comes from True Ambience, and unlike light domes, the light bounces between surfaces like radiosity. In this (reduced size) image there are no problems on show from True Ambience. Any limitations are entirely due to my limited 3D skills. This is completely natural light fill/bounce with pure blacks in the shadows. I'm sure this is what the Bryce programmers had in mind with True Ambience.

Then there's ROTFLMAO ! Bet ya don't know what that means either,Pumeco? or NVIATWAS...... ...any more with anymore?

BTW Pumeco! You should know that this is actually MY forum...the geeks above this post are only here under license..........;-)

Well, like the good book says "The Geeks will inherit the earth" I think reading between the lines... this is the geeks forum.

The actual quote is: 'The Meek shall inherit the Earth - if that's ok with the rest of you guys?'

Ok Len I reread all that had bugged me before and I apologize for saying it was your fault, as it was more the narrow minded outlook of others. It just riles me something rotten when I hear these folks bad mouth our forum, especially when they never come in here and they don't know the folk's here, and then go on to proclaim that their's is the better forum with nicer people. Anyway, I think your system is even more interesting having seen your latest examples and I still want to play. 8) Catlin

especially when they never come in here and they don't know the folk's here, and then go on to proclaim that their's is the better forum with nicer people. yeah, everyone knows the real nice people are on THIS forum :P (j/k)

"yeah, everyone knows the real nice people are on THIS forum" ---- I wonder why they never post... SCNR ;-)