Hellborn: It is relatively simple in many respects, I grant you that. It just lacks a lot of the little touches that make a program pleasant to use, and lacks many things that ought to be basic functionality (like hot keys for cameras, see other thread). I am pretty sure that in 99% of cases it's just thoughtlessness that's responsible, and is nothing to do with some deep structure of the source code. Windows programming is not black magic. It follows certain rules that are inherent in the Windows model. Let's have another little example. You have a light called "Light1". Duplicate it. What is the new light called? In Bryce it's called "Light2". In Vue it's called "Light1". Whoever programmed Bryce thought, "Well, there is never going to be a case where the user actually wants two lights called 'Light1', so let's check the name of the item to be duplicated and give the new item a name that's an intelligent variant on that". Whoever programmed Vue couldn't be bothered. The programming involved is trivial. Result: you have the extra task of renaming the new light by hand. On the other hand, the Vue developer DID think that it would be a good idea, whenever copying a material from one material zone to another, to eliminate the duplicated material zone. The problem here is that if you want to make variations on a material, the easy way to do it is copy the original material and then change the one aspect you want to vary (say, make it a bit shinier). However, you now can't do that, because as soon as you do the copy, the material zone is destroyed without any question or confirmation. If you need to make variations on a material you have to resort to elaborate workarounds. Nothing to do with complex coding problems, everything to do with a bit of software design that simply wasn't thought through properly. That's what I mean by square wheels (metaphorically speaking). This example may not be as extreme as actual square wheels on a car, but it is still just poor design.