real light cannot be REPRODUCED, Rayraz, but is simulated all the time. I am simulating it as we speak on several different projects. as i mentioned, only the output resolution differs from real-life. simulating real light isn't the question : accuracy in this simulation IS the point. the "mystical bs" was indeed said, by me, as an adjective for how PJF appears to feel about realistic lighting. to understand the nature of debate is to understand that i am what I say, and am without equal in this arena. perhaps your renderers are untrue to reality, especially when acceptable rendering speeds are a must, but this reality is in fact not reality at all, but your subjective experience my friend. I have been rendering photon-mapped scenes for years with complex scenes, which take mere minutes (less than ten!) with mental ray. the compass picture, for example, in my gallery took less than five minutes using image-based lighting and global illumination. but see now I digress. my aim wasn't to discourage Brycers, or slander Bryce itself, but to point out that Pro-Render isn't what it says it is. perhaps i wouldn't have been so anti-PR had it been called something like, "SuperTA" or something less misleading. my problem is this : everything Pumeco has done with PR can be done without it, inside Bryce, using the settings they already gave us. so for him to claim he actually DID anything, or to tout PR as some kind of renderer (which is implied by it's name, regardless of intent) is pretty weak. it would be like me saving my Render Global settings in Bryce or Maya and then trying to play them off as "something new and something I MADE". "Hey, I've been perfecting my render options for years, and now I'm saying it's a PRODUCT!" i would be the laughingstock of the Maya community, which I already may be but that's another topic! it's simply settings, people. there's nothing new going on under the hood with PR, nor does it make TA any easier to use, NOR does it make better renders than Bryce could already do, at all.