Responses in order: maxxxmodelz: The only real difference is in render speed. You're not kidding! But Bryce is a slow renderer anyway, so it's no surprise that its stab at 'radiosity' takes an age. I did this test because of the opportunity to compare TA results with examples of radiosity, etc, at the cathedral competition website (and I think Bryce is amongst the best in that regard). A day and a half render is more than I'd normally be willing to put up with. twistedbolt the TA render "feels" better in my opinion. That's probably cos it is better ;-). The non-TA render was done purely to show how the exact same setup looks without TA, not as a complete look at what each method is capable of. maxxxmodelz: The one without TA is dark and "cold"... Indeed. But I think the relevant issue is the absolute darkness in most places. In a non-TA render the lights could be increased in intensity, and given a warm colour, but - importantly - the black areas would have remained completely black. Shadow ambience was 100% (nearly always is in my renders) and any surfaces not hit directly by lights would remain black - nada. True Ambient light bouncing is what illuminates the sidewalls and under the arches, etc. Did you add "grain" to the first image in post, or is that some kind of artifacting as a result of using the TA? The grain is due to using True Ambience at 64rpp (medium power ;-)). Using the highest setting would have resulted in a smoother appearance, but this thread wouldn't have happened until next week ;-). Normally I would have reduced the image size and in so doing the grain would have taken on the appearance of photographic film grain, adding to the reality. In this case I wanted to show the straight Bryce render, so it's full size, warts and all. The grain also allowed me to get away without using the bump channel, which adds to the render time. Ornlu 6 hours for the TA render or non TA? Hope you were talking about the TA. Nope, that's for the non-TA render I'm afraid (36 hours for the TA). There's six lights with premium effect soft shadows in a complex mesh. Maybe my computer is running slow. ; -) My only crit is that the ceiling is too bright, there is only light coming through the windows to light that area of the model. There are certainly faults with the image that I wouldn't have tolerated under normal circumstances. It was a case of judging overall composition as best as possible on a first render pass and then making a decision to go or not. Starting again wasn't an option once things got underway, especially as this is a 'technical' investigation. My spare time isn't that spare ;-). I think that generally speaking in bryce it's easier to just use many filler lights / rings / domes for a much faster render. I agree, and your images always demonstrate the potential of 'faking it' over 'doing it'. All else being equal, I would nearly always recommend people using Bryce as an art tool to use 'tricks' to 'fake' real world (and other) effects rather than spend time forcing Bryce to do it 'properly'. And I'd point to your images as evidence of the wisdom of that approach, since you are one of the best Brycers out there. But currently, my perverse pleasure in using Bryce is simply to explore what Bryce is capable of doing. It takes all sorts I suppose, but maybe someone can pick up something useful from these fiddlings. I was using light domes back in the days when Bryce2 and Pentium200s were all the rage. Once an extreme pervert, always an... The link I posted above although nowhere near perfect... Yeah, whaddaya playing at, coming in here with less than perfect? ;-) One last Q, how'd you avoid fasceting wow bad spelling.. on the ceiling? Oh, that was easy; I just didn't. It's there, but presumably its appearance is reduced 'sufficiently'. It doesn't seem any more obvious in your image, although the pillars do look unsmoothed. drawbridgep ...I'm not sure I'll have the pateince to wait a day for a render... On the other hand, you can have more than one instance of Bryce open at the same time with Bryce5, so it is possible to let a render chug away while getting on with other things, as I did with this one. Plus Bryce5 is very good at picking up a render after closing and opening a file, so it's fairly easy to schedule a long render around other important activities. TheBryster ...but what would complete the illusion would be something outside the main window, maybe a skyscaper/highrise building... The model does come with simple outside buildings (it's a whole complex) but I deleted them to have clear windows. Actually, to be 'photorealistic', having bright, 'washed out' windows is the correct approach. The exposure latitude of film generally isn't enough to provide for interior and exterior subjects to be properly lit at the same time (photographers and film makers will use filters to compensate if it is important enough). By convention, we tend to judge CGI work in comparison to photography, since both represent the 3D world seen by the eye/brain in a 2D format. In that context, my image would benefit from even more light saturation at the windows, plus some flaring, to bring it all together. And I've just thought of a way to do that in Bryce... Thanks for the compliments, comments and comparisons, all.