I have to say I'm amazed at some of the comments in this thread. It's clear that the whole point of the product and how it's designed to work, is going in one ear and flying out the other at break-neck speed. I've stated time and time again that "the product needs to be a realistic compromise of error/speed/reality", so what part of that are people not understanding? Unless you grasp what I'm saying here, then you're not going to understand why the rules are the way they are, or even why PR was developed. When I say it has to be a "compromise", it means exactly that, nothing more - nothing less, so again for the final time; PRO-RENDER has to be a compromise of error/speed/reality! It can NOT be allowed to bias towards ANY of those attributes; because in doing so, the other attributes would start to go AWOL! In turn that would result in a less "real" render, and as PR is geared towards photographic qualities, it can't be allowed. 100% shadows IN THIS RENDERER will NOT for the most part give more photographic results than you'd acheive by reducing them. Like I said, PR is based on the 'visual' aspect, NOT the logical one. RobertJ, as much as I'd like to fill my gallery - I won't. I've stated once before, the reasons I don't post to my gallery. If people think it's because I'm incapable, then they're more than welcome to do so. So long as 'I' know I'm capable of producing a photograph from a renderer, I'm happy. Rayraz, I really don't understand why you felt the need to take the piss; Have I even used GI before? - lol Hey maybe you're right though, maybe I haven't used it before - and don't have any conception of what it is. I've got work to do. I'll leave the "uncomplete" PR files up until I need to restructure the site. Len.

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