I see no reason why Bryce can't be used in production work. Depending, of course, on what is required of that production. The quality of it's renders, although very SLOW by comparison, can be made to look and feel as good as any. GI can be faked, and although it's not quite as good as the real thing, it can be adequate. Remember, true GI is not used very often in real production work anyway (although now that new meathods of GI are much faster, it's seeing more use recently). No, Bryce can't do advanced camera mapping or compositing, and it doesn't have much flexibility to work into a production pipeline, but it's a damn fine piece of software anyway. I think it's mostly neglected in modern CG production because it lacks the render speed to meet all-important deadlines, and it doesn't have an SDK platform for 3rd party developers to build customized plugins from (huge limitation). It also fails in the area of micro-poly displacement, which is a major thing among CG professionals... But Bryce HAS been used in production before. Mostly for games and some movie background mat renderings. I don't recall specifically what movies, but the famed MYST original game used Bryce for all it's "cinematic" scenes. Over the years, Bryce has fallen far behind in it's render technology, which really put it out of contention for most production use, but it's not totally unusable in that respect either.