I just noticed a thread on the DAZ board from a certain Pumeco. AS need not wince, I'm not bringing back the whole debate, safe to say that I'm terribly sorry I missed it all since I was in Romania :: I read most of his replies from both here and at DAZ... and GOD is he long winded. So apparently now it's free? LOL. So what's the deal? Have there been any more incredible treads I've missed about the guy? His site is still under construction and there isn't anything new on DAZ. Drac (figures i'd get into this)

I think... Wait and see.

He looks as if he may have somthing here so I am inclined to wait/see and give him the benefit of doubt. (my opinion)

yeah, from the looks of it he might have something, but i don't see how it can be anything but a set of defaults inside a scene. meh...

Even that might be a boon to beginners who can find the Labs (especially the Light Lab) a pretty steep learning curve. A set of scenes (especially since they're supposed to be free) could be helpful for them. The only transgression here (if there is one) is talking a lot about something that is still essentially vaporware. Best to make something, then talk about it. Hard to have an opinion about 3 or 4 renders, and little else. So that's why I'm going to wait and see.

you're wise, tjohn :)

Well, from what's he's shown and said, he got some AMAZING lighting in his scenes with just 1 light. I think this guy is for real!

I think if it was just a setup then it would have been released already. From the hype, I'm guessing it's more than that. Can't imagine how it works though, since (from what I understand) it uses Bryce render engine. I'm looking forward to trying it out. I agree that he should have kept quiet about it until it was ready to be released. That was the only mistake, but quite a biggie.

Kept quiet??? Since when has ANYBODY here kept quiet when they're working on something. When people are working on stuff to help out the general good of everyone, like that one grayscale converter thing, or bryceman, they would post TONS of wips and announcements, and that was always fine. True, he did come to us before he had anything to show, but he didn't want our comments on the product, he wanted to know, kinda theoretically, how much we would pay for a renderer like that. People said they wanted sample images, and he gave them(after a little while) sample images! I dunno. I guess I'm just kinda playin the devils advocate....I wonder if that comes with a good health care plan?

That's all fine and dandy, Mrdodobird, but, as I (or we) all remember, guy did not post one single WIP or example rendering of his new approach which differs a lot from some renderings i have seen in bryce galleries, so scepticism is kind of OK in this case !!! :) Time will show, he just needs to (since he likes to talk about it a lot) to present his approach fully explained (i'm sure there is plenty of people here who will understand tehnical aspect of it)...

PICTURES!!!!!!!!.....where are these examples,I am afraid I missed them....even if they are "sample" shots.Does anyone have the link off hand.Thx in advance.

As far as I recall he posted asking who would be interested in purchasing ( Pro Render for Bryce ) A very misleading title ( IMO ) then explained what it was about. My reply was I personally would not pay for anything that is really only rendering techniques ( using materials & lighting ect...) But if he offers it for free ( as it should be, in the spirit of the Bryce community IMO ) I will be more than interested to see what it's all about. He's explanations are very vague.

ok I found them at daz......22hrs with a 2.6 gighert compy!!!!, that seems excesive to me.I have stumbled upon very,very similar results in the past few days(sparked by tests from a thread by Drac).But my renders are near 2 or 3 hours on a 300 Mhz compy.All it is is a mixture of ambiace setting in the material and sky lab.Then true ambiance,and blurry transmissions is turned on.Simply max out raytraces and ray depth and its smooth and "real looking" like his pics are.Take the settings down,and it gets grainy, but light still shadows the same.I'll do a few tests,we'll compare.

http://www.renderosity.com/photos/MSG2/Message1833990.jpg All of this done with only one light... looks like he's onto something!

If it was, how would you explain that double shadow under the shelf on the TV thingy? Or that weird window shades' shadow which breaks in the middle? Or the fact that the whole TV has one strong shadow at about 5 o'clock and a fainter shadow at about two o'clock? The sphere has the same two shadows. One group of lights, okay. But one light, I doubt it, although I'd like to be wrong. Still, it looks very good.

I still wait to see, this may be a promising idea and/or technique. TMG

I dl the image and brightened up, and found double shadows in alot of places, under the monitor bottom plate, on the shelves(they stand out the most) under the sphere and btw, why does the window shadow fall one way and the sphere's shadow falls differently, double shadows in the blind's reflection on the wall...I don't know how this could have been done with only one light.

Hell... I think I'd better grab a pen and paper quick, and make a note of todays date...

aha.... ahemmmmm.... rrright...

July 15th, International "HAVE A GO AT PUMECO" day, must remember that one!

First of all the "Render tests?" thread, now this.

I could be doing without all this you know, but still, It gives PRO-RENDER more publicity, so I'm not complaining.
However, generous that I am, I'll give a little substance to thread by posting some info.

There's obviously doubt here, as to whether or not the MOONLIT ROOM scene was done with one light. Well, the reason I said it was done with one light was because, it WAS, done with one light (THE SUN).

Because of the method PRO-RENDER uses to illuminate a scene, everything in that scene, effectively becomes an INDIRECT light source. So, I will explain to you how PRO-RENDER essentially SEES that scene.

Basically, the SINGLE light from outside the room gets bounced from object to object. So, because there's a wall OPPOSITE the window, the sunlight hits it, get's reflected BACK towards the window, and therefore causes the sphere to create ANOTHER shadow. This is happening throughout the entire MASS of 3D space in the render, and is the reason that my images look the way they do. PRO-RENDER causes Bryce 5 to act as close to real-world illumination as possible.

Oh BTW, there are NO blurry reflections or transmissions in the scene, and no, you cannot do this by simply making adjustments to ambience either way. The image looks the way it does, because PRO-RENDER is a COMPLETE and SPECIFIC method, not a bit's'n'pieces quickie.

Finally, on the subject of that 22hour+ render time, I recall that I gave the specs for it, along with the image.
Check the specs out again, the VIRTUAL RRP for that image is MASSIVE, so I think that warrants it's render time.

Regards,

Len.

len, all you explained above was radiosity. and bryce doesn't have that feature, you can only fake it. so unless you h4x0red the Bryce code, it all comes down to material and light settings. i'm sorry, but you won't get a sympathetic OMG THAT'S SO COOL from me until I see what you're talking about. And you have failed to bring in screenshots of the process itself. as for that image, if that's the result you get with massive rrp, then i'd be afraid to see how it would look like with a normal setting. i'm not trying to be antagonistic, at least not overly so. i just have this innate hatred of bs. Tell us what the hell it's really about, or at least finish it up (forget the 'manual'), and give some real screenshots. Regards, Drac

drac go test my file!!!

"the SINGLE light from outside the room gets bounced from object to object" Unfortunately, the Bryce program and its rendering engine has never, at any time, had that capability. Perhaps its time you offered us the information of what "Pro-Render" REALLY is, as the name of your product is misleading people into thinking/wondering if it is a whole new plug-in rendering engine, etc, etc. Is it a program plug-in? A hack? Bryce presets? Free or for-sale is cool with me, I'm just happy to see ANYTHING new be created for Bryce, to make our program better. AgentSmith

Ammmmm... Welll I am going to go back and RE-read the Manual because something just hit me about what AS was saying...Ummmm I think it does say how Light does bounce from object to object...Well see everybody in a few weeks when I dust it off... Any way you look at,If it helps the community I am all for it...

I've been reading the threads again. Both here in Rosity and at our friends down the hall (cough 3d-Commune). It seems to boil down to people needing to see some more samples. Maybe doing a 'with and without' comparison would be an idea? Like the nice moonlit scene with the chrome sphere and monitor, maybe render that in Bryce alone without Pro-Render and then it would be easier to compare what is actually going on? Just a thought. Phil

Just take any object in Bryce, apply any kind of relective/mirror mat to it, and aim any light at it. See how much light bounces off it onto anything else. None.

From Susan Kitchens' "Real World Bryce 4", page 636 (she also created tutorials used in the Bryce manual) "The rendering method that treats every object as a potential light source is called radiosity. With all the added rendering calculations, radiosity is an extremely time-consuming method. (Radiosity in not used in Bryce)" "If a light is shining toward a mirror, when you look into the mirror, not only do you see the light, but the light shines ino your eyes" "But, if you set up a [mirror] in Bryce, it will not work that way."

AgentSmith quote and wrote: ++++++++++ "the SINGLE light from outside the room gets bounced from object to object" Unfortunately, the Bryce program and its rendering engine has never, at any time, had that capability. ++++++++++ No 3D renderer has ever, at any time, had that capability. There is no light at all, of any description, in 3D programs. They all, in various ways, simulate the real world process of illumination. It's just algorithms and calculations. Radiosity, photon mapping, surfaces, objects, et al, are just mathematical constructs. There is no spoon. So just because Bryce doesn't have the specific process of 'radiosity', it doesn't mean that it can't simulate the realistic bouncing of light from one surface to another in some other way. That way is True Ambience. pumeco's PRO-RENDER appears to be a very well developed implementation of Bryce5 True Ambience. It isn't a hack, and it isn't a plugin - as he's already explained. I have to say that the reaction by some people to this would provide material for a psychology PhD thesis. pumeco's real 'crime' appears to be that of being outside the 'in crowd'. Happens a lot 'round here, doesn't it? In the final analysis, the only one with anything to lose out of this is pumeco. Cut the guy some slack.

i don't think that the issue is an 'in' from outside the bryce community as much as a community asking valid questions from someone who intends to enter it by selling it something. it's not gestapo questioning, it's a batch of honest questions that he has avoided up to this point. i started this thread because i was curious to see what the opinions were on the issue right now since I missed the discussion and more developments could have arised.

And if this PRO RENDER! PRO RENDER! PRO RENDER! is what it's been hyped to be, all for the better. If it's not, then our queries were justified. I don't speak on behalf of the Bryce community, but I do believe that we do anything BUT shun new members from becoming part of it.

I personally just have a low tollerance level for bs.

Drac

Message edited on: 07/16/2004 08:10

"It isn't a hack, and it isn't a plugin - as he's already explained." Actually, no it wasn't explained here. That's why I asked for one. Not an overview of radiosity, but a one word answer to "what" Pro Render is. I'm guessing "presets" is the answer. Which that is cool/fine/great. But, we're feeling the effects of a lot of hype and avoidance. So does Pro Render have a sale day and price? I guess that's the truly important question. If it works, where can I buy it? AgentSmith

According to what pumeco said, the price will be $0.

Really? Well heck, $0 buys a lot of patience, personaly, lol. pumeco should then DEFINETELY approach DAZ with it (imho). If it is really to be free, then actually having it a included or internal part of Bryce would bring years of bragging right. ;o) AS

AS: I may be telling you something you already know, but Kitchens' book was written before True Ambience was added in Bryce 5. The light will actually bounce off a mirror, for a short distance, if you have TA going.

AgentSmith wrote: ++++++++++++ "Actually, no it wasn't explained here." ++++++++++++ On 20th June in the Renderosity Bryce forum, pumeco said: "I can tell you that because Bryce 5 does'nt allow for a plugin renderer, you're right in assuming it uses a .br5 file to set up the renderer. However the .br5 file alone is not enough to be able to use PRO-RENDER correctly. This is because PRO-RENDER uses a method that requires not only a VERY specific scene preset, but also modification of all rendered materials. The final element of PRO-RENDER is the documentation, which describes the undocumented abilities and methods to be learnt in order to allow the Bryce 5 render engine to perform PRO-RENDER abilities." Later the same day: "As far as the Bryce 5 render engine question goes, as I said earlier, Bryce 5 does'nt allow for a plugin renderer, so yes, it does use the Bryce 5 renderer. PRO-RENDER consists of .br5 setup files, compatible material presets, and documentation needed to describe the PRO-RENDER method of rendering." http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1822731 Seeing as you were unaware of the free status of PRO-RENDER, I can only conclude that you haven't seen that thread, AgentSmith. Nevertheless, you not having seen his explanation here is a very different thing to you saying that he hasn't provided one - and saying his title is "misleading". Given your categorical statement about light bouncing in Bryce, perhaps you also missed this one: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1832901

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1096627

Here's a picture of a strong light (about 500) hitting a mirror and there ain't no light bouncing off that. What setting do I have to turn on to get the visible light beam to bounce off the mirror and hit the ball or the floor or something?

This one is from way back: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1445452 The True Ambient 'light' reflecting off of mirrors is always diffuse as far as I can tell. There are no perfect reflections of rays and beams. However, the diffuse light can be focussed to some degree, both by refraction and curved mirrors. You might call it semi-caustic, unlike some of the posts here which are very caustic. ;-)

PJF: Thanks for the link to your terrific examples. That post was where I learned what little I know about the phenom of reflected light in TA, I had totally forgotten where I had seen it. Anyone interested should take a look at PJF's images, they are amazing! They make it much easier to see it than in my pic. John

June 20th?, lol... I have not read anything on Pumeco except for this thread in particular, I don't have time to go digging in forums to read everything on this, I was asking here, I heard nothing here. Some of you are way off base with what True Ambience is. It is not a way to have light bounce around a room. It just isn't at all, lol. How many people do we need aiming spotlights at mirrors to convince? I'm not seein of any evidence of light bounce at the link, sorry. As drawbridgep shows in his post, it is not possible in Bryce. YOu can do that scene with any render setting you want, that light isn't going to reflect off the mirror and hit the ground. Ever. Ang25, it's a Bryce bug I also ran into a while back, I could minimize it by turning down materials ambience level to zero, I believe is what I did. AgentSmith

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?Form.ShowMessage=1445452

Hi everyone.

I may not be posting much at the moment, but I am certainly watching all these PRO-RENDER synthesis type threads. It reminds me, of me, when I was in the process of developing PRO-RENDER, and it's great to be able to look in like this :-))

I am really enjoying watching this, and no, before anyone even suggests it, I'm NOT trying to be witty.

Every image I've posted here, demonstrates quite clearly, that light does "bounce" in Bryce 5, If it did'nt, then perhaps someone had better explain how on earth I created those images.

There have been many digs at PRO-RENDER for being a slow method of rendering. Well, let's be honest here, the attempts so far to imitate the output of PRO-RENDER have resulted in the render times of your images coming pretty darn close to that of my SAMPLE 1 (WIDESCREEN TV) render.

Perhaps now, more of you will appreciate that render for what it is. Boring as it may be, it has a very reasonable render time, considering the method used to create it.

Oh yes, almost forgot...

draculaz, I quote you:

"as for that image, if that's the result you get with massive rrp, then i'd be afraid to see how it would look like with a normal setting."

...well all I can say to that one is, check out SAMPLE 1 (WIDESCREEN TV), because that image, WAS rendered with a normal RRP setting.

If you have found a MORE accurate method of illumination than this, then I for one, would love to get my hands on it :-)

So then, it seems, we've come full circle. Surely now it's my turn to be the sceptic here. The very fact that members are trying to emulate the PRO-RENDER method, and failing, shows that I HAVE a valid product. A product that WILL do what it was always intended to do, - to help Bryce 5 users, create more professional looking renders.

I'll post some more images soon. But until then, I'll be watching these threads, and watching you learn. Keep up the good work ;-)

Finally, I'll give you all a little advice that should help you in your quest to crack PRO-RENDER.

The advice is simple...

...listen REAL GOOD to what Peter(PJF) is trying to teach you. He has, by far, the most solid perception of PRO-RENDER posted in these threads. If you really want to crack PRO-RENDER before it's release, then consider PJF's knowledge, your guide book!

Regards,

Len.

Alright, lol....from your Bryce 5 manual; "True Ambience Computes the ambient light for a surface using the color and intensity of nearby surfaces, resulting in color blending from one surface to another." Color Blending, that's all it is. I myself wish it was more, but it is not True Reflection, it is not Radiosity. What you see is a blending of the ground...and everything else. It can be made to sorta simulate a real world scene, and PJF has made it look gorgeous!, and I myself use "faked" attributes in Bryce all the time, but were not doing real radiosity here, that's all I'm saying. Real radiosity provides interobject reflections and color bleeding, True Ambience does not. If so, I could aim a spotlight at a mirror (NOT sitting on the ground, but elevated)...and I would see the spotlight hit the ground below, not a faint glow, which is again, the blending of surfaces, but I would see the spotlight itself. AgentSmith

That being said...that's all I'm going to say, it's all just repeating, lol. (back & forth..rinse and repeat) Pumeco, you really should post all your wip pics in your gallery, so everyone would have one place to see them, and...can't wait to play with Pro-Render. :o) AgentSmith

Yes! More examples. But not at the expense of the release date. And is there any idea of a release date yet? I would suggest that you (Pumeco) don't eat, don't sleep, don't read forums, don't even check email. Just write the manual, finish the program and get it into our grubby little hands so that we can play with the thing before we all explode.

As was was so well explained to me...it's not a program, lol. AS

AgentSmith,

Thanks for joining in, and for your comments.

It was made clear to me in the other thread, that my renders are nothing exceptional, and I agree, because I see myself as more designer, than artist, and those renders are rather "void" of any artistic quality.
If I where to post my renders to my gallery, I can't help thinking that I'd get agro for it. I appreciate that you have'nt had time to read through the other thread yet, but if and when you do, you will know why I can't risc upsetting the members here, anymore than I already have.
Thanks for the thought though :-)

drawbridgep,

As was originally intended, I hope to get PRO-RENDER out there by August 2004. You're right about no eating, sleeping, forums, or emails. I've had less sleep over the past two weeks, than I've ever known. When I announced PRO-RENDER, I had'nt reckoned on all this publicity. I looked at the threads other members where posting and thought, yeh, I'll probably get about 20 replies or something.

...yeh, I know.

Anyway, I intend to post a set of images soon. These will HAVE TO BE my final response until the release of PRO-RENDER, and yes, it's because of the manual. As I've recently pointed out to Tesign, over at DAZ. The manual is going to be a problem. I have to write it in a manner that beginners can understand, but at the same time, I have to be carefull, that the more seasoned users don't think I'm insulting their intelligence. I've only ever written one manual before, and that was for a rendering product I created for IMAGINE, on the Amiga. That was when the internet was in it's infancy, so I never got to know how the manual faired.

Anyway, I'll do my best.

Regards,

Len.

AgentSmith quote and wrote: +++++++++++++ "True Ambience Computes the ambient light for a surface using the color and intensity of nearby surfaces, resulting in color blending from one surface to another." Color Blending, that's all it is. +++++++++++++ The Bryce manual statement isn't consistent with itself. It should read: "True Ambience Computes the ambient light for a surface using the color and intensity of nearby surfaces." and leave it at that. Computing the ambient light for a surface using the colour and intensity of nearby surfaces involves, by logic alone, more than mere colour blending. Hello, did somebody mention the intensity of one surface being used to compute the ambient light on another? I think they did. What does that sound like? What do the results look like? Does it happen just once, or does it happen for a whole sequence of surfaces all the way down to pitch black? I've always avoided saying that Bryce True Ambience is 'radiosity' in the sense of the calculation process used by traditional radiosity renderering programs. But the term 'radiosity' has undoubtedly become more widely and generally used to mean the effective bouncing of light in and around scenes. And that's what's happening in my scenes and, in a much better way, in pumeco's scenes. ++++++ radiosity provides interobject reflections and color bleeding, True Ambience does not. ++++++ - Yes it does. ++++++ If so, I could aim a spotlight at a mirror... ++++++ - No, that's caustics. Radiosity is a system for simulating the reflections between diffuse surfaces. Read here: http://freespace.virgin.net/hugo.elias/radiosity/radiosity.htm Note how True Ambience, especially in pumeco's hands, is doing a damn fine job duplicating the effect of the radiosity process. And remember this. We bandy about terms like 'True Ambience' and 'colour bleeding' as if they're something simple ("that's all it is"). Scratch your head for a minute and think about what is going on behind the scenes for this to occur. How come it takes so long? How does it relate to normal ray tracing? Received wisdom is good up to a point. Challenging received wisdom by thinking and exploring is how you push the boundaries and make new discoveries.

I posted that last one before I read either Pumeco or PJF's last comments.