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.

The wait can be horrific, but the outcome can be worse - pumeco 2006