I wasn't gonna post in this thread again, but I will anyway - sorry :-D Nah, I've got something to say about a test I'm doing right now, but before I do there's a few words I want to say on this thread. Basically, and 'finally', someone seems to have got the reason for PR's existence (or part-existence as the case may be). Ray is correct in his statements of why the product would be useful. The fact is, PR was never promoted as being a replacement renderer, or indeed being of use in a professional environment. It was designed to help Bryce users get photographic results without needing to understand the ins/out and problems associated with TA. The important thing to note here is that I said "Bryce" users! Important, because as a Brycer who really can't afford to be shelling-out for Mental-Ray, V-Ray, Maxwell etc, I figured that a product that could give the 'look' of a higher-end renderer in Bryce might be received well. I was wrong. It's all very well people saying stuff like "yeah but I can do that in Maya!" or "excuse me while I crank-up my copy of 3DS-Max" - I say bully for you, enjoy it! You certainly paid enough money for the priviledge ;-) I'm a Brycer, and like a lot of other Brycers I'm drawn to using it simply because Bryce is Bryce, and I think it would have been cool to have 'high-end' looking features in a render created even by novices or Bryce newbies. I just think there's more satisfaction to be had in thinking you've produced a render with qualities that might not usually be expected from a particular renderer. I also think anything that can aid people in using Bryce to kick high-end ass, is a good thing ;-) I mean, call me sick or call me kinky. But I get an overwhelming amount of satisfaction when I look at the high-end stuff and think "f*ck-you and your multi-thousand dollar application - I'll kick your ass with Bryce any day!" Anyway, it's a shame I've released it like this, but it's done now so that's that. Which brings me to the reason I'm back in the thread: Peter, I've been doing a test but it means I've got to render at four-times the RPP to be able to find out what I need to know. If (and only if) it turns out OK I'll post the render, and you can cast your cautious eye over it if you wish - and let me know what you think. I remember you asked why I can't allow the shadows to be adjusted: Well, I still don't think it would be wise, but I think with just one 'working-range' type of rule, maybe 100% shadows is going to be possible, or at least 75% (without giving overpowering side-effects on other elements of the product). The problem is the staining effect with colour, so I'm rendering a scene with 'clashing' colour in order to get the info I need. I'm having to use 'render-to-disk' and didn't even bother with the preview so... InfernalDarkness, no prob's - I'm not offended. Actually, I'd give myself a headache so god knows what I do to the rest of ya :-D Len. (So there)

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