Attached Link: http://www.cgfocus.com/ArticleDetails.cfm?ArticleID=121

Greetings, We just added the review of Bryce 5 on our site. Let us know what you think. :) Cheers! ------------------------------------------------------- Jean-Francois Lepage CG Focus Focus on Computer Graphics http://www.cgfocus.com -------------------------------------------------------

ehhhh? I think you missed it one a couple of things but hey.

Thanks for the vue look at Bryce I think you mentioned the word vue more then Bryce in the article. You can blend materials in countless ways in bryce. Slope and Altitude are two of the basic ones and there are several versions of each. Bryce imports 20 different formats not just the few that you mention. You can set different gradiant skies (its not called gradient in bryce) with the custom sky on the menu. I think though the biggest overlook is bryce's ability to render things other then just landscapes with clear and accurate raytracing. Something that Vue and worldbuilder cannot do. I noticed in your vue article that there was a mac version? Did I miss something here? As of right now Bryce is the only option for mac and landscape in the hobbiest range.

Griggs, The OS X version of Vue is almost ready. :) You are right about the gradient but it's not as evident as in Vue. Regarding the import/export I don't list them all in every review since most software have over 10 format types possible so I simply name the most popular ones. I agree Bryce does more than render landscapes but the review is meant for people looking for landscape softwares since almost all of my members/visitors already own either LightWave, Max, Softimage, Maya or another high end 3D software. I think I did one of the most detailed review of Bryce...even of Vue and World Builder. I think some readers got the bad impression that I hated Bryce, which is weird cause some that didn't like the demo told me that they are looking into it now and might purchase it. I will rectify the gradient mistake asap, thanks. :) Cheers!

Actually I didn't get the impression that you hated Bryce at all. I just think there is more to Bryce then Landscape rendering. It seems to me you just breezed over those thing that Bryce has and Vue doesn't. Things like metaballs, network rendering, ability to use photoshop plugins (opps you didnt mention that one) and it better handling of super high poly scenes (try putting a 4096 terrain in vue and working now put 3 in Bryce). I think it is one of its biggest things that set Bryce apart from those two other applications, something that should not be left out in a review. A review of Bryce definently deserves to point out both its strengths and weaknesses, based on what it can do and not just how it handles those things that vue can keep up on it with. It gives your readers an assumption that Vue and Bryce are totally equal programs and doesn't really point out the differances in the two. Vue maybe a great program, but as for being on Bryce's level of power and accuracy it just isn't there yet (maybe one day it will be). Griggs

Hi Griggs, I played with Vue 4, WB 3 Pro and Bryce 5 for the past weeks and that's why I made these comments...I know Bryce has more features than what I mentionned but again, please point me to a more detailed review of Bryce 5 on the web. :) I know some use Bryce for more than creating terrains but, like I said, my audience is composed of mostly CG artists that already own much more expensive CG software and they want to use a software that is dedicated to landscapes, which is why I make the reviews. Cheers!

This is the exact reason I say reviews suck. They have no real value to the 3d artist, your Vue on Bryce using limited criteria is a perfect example of what really makes buying 3d software a chore. And does nothing more then reinforce my opinion that reviewers are in it for the software not the user. I am a Lightwave owner,user and a published artist and I find your limited outlook on software to be appalling and hurtful to the up and comming artist. Griggs

Attached Link: http://members.home.net/400exatv

Fly, "I know some use Bryce for more than creating terrains but, like I said, my audience is composed of mostly CG artists that already own much more expensive CG software and they want to use a software that is dedicated to landscapes, which is why I make the reviews." Even though that may be the case, there are still things in Bryce 4 and 5 that are quicker to do then in say Max or Cinema 4d, that have nothing to do with Landscapes. I dont want to get into everything, but I have all 3 "actually also Lightwave but haven't played enough with that to have an opinion" and Bryce is one of my favorites. I also got the impression that you didn't really like Bryce and that you were pushing Vue more then Bryce or World. Having never used World I have no idea on that software but I am sure it is good in its own right. What everyone knows and has to admit is that there is no "silver bullet" in the 3d world, there is no "I can do it all and make it easy" software. Nuf said

Seems that constructive criticism isn't accepted in here...all my reviews got 100% of great comments from the readers and even the developers so I guess it's not that bad. I know that you both like Bryce but it's not a reason to bash someone that doesn't feel it's the best application out there. I feel the review was quite informative and again, please read most reviews that covers softwares on a weekly basis on the web and you will see that they generally don't criticize the softwares but rather lists their features. Being a landscape CG artist for several years it's hard to read that I don't judge as a CG artist since I do this on a daily basis. I will end this here, I am sorry if you felt I sort of attacked your beloved software, Corel certainly didn't see it as an offense by what they told me this morning. Cheers!

What ever I guess your right, reviewing software shouldn't be about the software you review. I would love to see your review on lightwave perhaps you will only cover the modeling part? Your review proved to be error filled and unfinnished. You can continue patting yourself on the back for a half done job. And accepting your free software Griggs

Thanks for the kind words, perhaps you could point me to your reviews so I take pride at looking at the flaws. :) Seriously, you should start sending hate mail to every software reviewers since so many don't cover most of the software...if you see a complete review on any site please let me know because I am still looking for the Holy Grail of Reviews. :) I guess it's easy to be on th eother side of the fence. Cheers!

Hate mail? I hated your review not you. Your review reminds me of the drival that zdnet just put out on the Athlon XP. And is a perfect example how reviews twist and skew things. If you don't know about zdnet's review it comes down to this. I read 10 reveiws about the athlon xp. 10 of them show the Athlon 1800 xp out performing the P4 2 ghz by 10 to 15% on every test except quake 3 at 640 by 480, where the P4 won by a slight margin. The conclusions on the xp were the same for 9 reviews. It is a much better chip at a much lower price. The zdnet review comment There was no clear winner and the P4 outperformed the athlon on several test. (several meaning one). If you read this far (which I doubt) the moral is. Un finnished and one sided veiws in reveiws end up with skewed outputs and hurt the consumer. No time did your articles on any of the software say. That you will be taking a look at only those things related to landscape. So one would assume you tried to reveiw the whole software. A few last comments. I have been there and turned down reveiwing software. The reason was the software to be reveiwed was really an unfinnished program and, I could not give it even remotely passing marks. I turned it down because I knew if the review was bad that it could hurt that webpage owners chances for more opportunities from that manufacture. If you didn't want critism you shouldn't have posted for critism. check out indepth arts reviews especially the ET shade review. Perhaps you will learn something (judging from your high opinion of yourself and your inablity to accept comments, I highly doubt it though) Griggs

heh griggs chill..lol ok fly, you are not an experienced Bryce user..as is obvious from your review. you have absolutely zero impression of it as a whole..and have not even seen the most comprehensive review of it since 5's birth. http://bryce-alive.net/bryce5review/ be ware of what ground you tread..the loyal are few..but... I'd avoided this string cause I knew it'd piss me the hell off...I finally came in cause I saw griggs wouldnt let it go. twas obvious there was a difference of opinion..and I personally respect his...so tis my objection now. never write a review about something you have no clue about. dont say..I have used it for weeks as a defense (?)..lol Bryce has a loyal following..it is the premiere in landscape programs. Unless Corel asses it up, it will remain so. To date, corel has improved its power (but not its speed). you should retract most of what you said about bryce..or at least get a clue about it. Bryce can make exterior better than most programs..and in the hand of a true brycist..it is nothing short of art..in its highest form. I give clay's simplest renderings as an example. BT

Well said!!

hey wolf "I have used it for weeks" lol BT

Yeah that kills me too "weeks" could mean I opened up the program 4 times over a 14 day period.

Call me easily satisified but I didn't think this review was all that bad. It is easy to fault a review when you adopt the perspective of a long time user who is intimately familiar with the software. Perhaps these things should be called "impressions" rather than reviews. Face it, it takes more than a few weeks of use to prepare a truly in depth review. On that basis it is unlikely that a reviewer could write more than one or two comprehensive reviews a year. One should also consider that reviews are not intended for those who already know the program. They are for those who know little about it and want a simple taste of what to expect. At this level I think Flywaver succeeded. Call it "product evaluation light"- less satisfying but fewer calories. If I had never used Bryce this review would have been sufficient to tempt me to try the demo. Then I could begin my own review based on my own expectations. In the end, isn't that the only review that really counts? One thing I was glad to see was the implication that Vue and Bryce render speeds are similar. I keep reading how much faster Vue is than Bryce. This is certainly true when using the render defaults. But the Vue results appear inferior to Bryce's to these eyes. I can adjust Vue's settings to approach something akin to Bryce renders but then the render speed becomes quite comparable to Bryce's. (But what do I know? People still keep telling me Vue is faster...) I read reviews the way I read newspaper and magazine articles. Take a little from this one, a little from that one and eventually I begin to get the real picture. Reviews at best are only sufficient to pique your interest. When that has been accomplished it is up to the reader to engage further research. The best Bryce review I have ever read is Susan Kitchen's real World Bryce. However, that review cost me $80... ps. Certainly it is true that Bryce does far more than landscapes, something I rarely do. On the other hand, I'm not sure that the reviewer can be completely faulted for treating it as a landscape generator when that is the way its various publishers have always treated it too.

Hey jval, I guess you were one of the few in here that got my point. why would Corel be happy with my review if they were as pissed as the loyal fans? I just don't get it but I know that it's far easier to criticize than to write the article itself. I shall wait and see when they write reviews just to see how they'd do it. :) brycetech, no offense but did you realized you pointed me to a review of Bryce from a Bryce biased site? Just my 2 cents...have a look at the variety of articles we have just to compare. Cheers!

Hey, way too much negativity going on here. The review was not negative. It's tone was quite positive. True, it missed the mark on a couple of points, but you can study Bryce for years, and still find new things it will do. For someone who hasn't worked with Bryce since 1, I think the reviewer did an OK job. Gunther put the program through its paces and came up with a reiew that was wonderful, and way too long for anyone but a devout Brycer to read. We all have ideas about how Bryce could be improved. That our ideas are a little more informed goes without saying. That a near outsider came into our world, and tested Bryce 5 out, leaving with a positive experience is wonderful. That his review got trashed and he got hostility in return... not so nice. I love Bryce. I wish every review were perfect, but that ain't gonna happen. Just my two cents.

Attached Link: http://www.stevesartgallery.com

I have read your reviews on all 3 of the " landscape " programs. I found them all individually informative. And can see where any of the software company would be pleased with them. I think why the Bryce people in here are a little upset, is because in the Bryce review you mentioned or compared Bryce to Vue d'Esprit 4 numerous times, and compared Bryce to World Builder a few times. Where in the World Builder review it was compared to Vue d'Esprit a few times and with Bryce only in the cost. In the Vue d'Esprit review it is not compared to either Bryce or World Builder. This is understandable considering that you first reviewed Vue d'Esprit 4 before trying World Builder or Bryce. This is clearly conceived by the order the reviews are listed and your introduction in each review. You stated in this thread " but the review is meant for people looking for landscape software since almost all of my members/visitors already own either LightWave, Max, Softimage, Maya or another high end 3D software." When one reads the review for Bryce with so much comparison to Vue d'Esprit 4, and then reads the review for Vue d'Esprit 4 with no comparison to Bryce. They may get the idea the Vue d'Esprit 4 is obviously better then Bryce. Same with World Builder. If your intentions are truly to help people in the CG community make chooses. Then I would say you should write a review which compares these ( landscape ) software with one another, pointing out the pros and cons of each unbiased, now that you have all 3 to compare. And not worry about what the software developers might think. Thanks S. Ray

Attached Link: http://www.digitalproducer.com/2001/10_oct/reviews/10_01/corel_bryce5.htm

I should say I did not find the article to be Bryce bashing. It had a clear Vue flavor though which really hampered its goal. You took on the responsibility to review Bryce and thats what I graded you on. I must appologise for overreacting when you defended your article. I became over defensive myself. Sorry One thing is for certain you missed some major parts of Bryce many here have pointed that out. Perhaps a little more footwork would have avoided that and the errors you had. I am sure when you compare the three you will undoubtably do it with an unbiased opinion. Thankyou for fixing those errors, there is another but it requires advanced knowledge of the deep texture editor to fix and is not something you would expect to see in a review. Griggs

Hey all, You are right in saying I wrote what I wrote in each articles...I reviewed Vue 4 first, then got World Builder offered and finally I approached Corel to review Bryce. I should have mentionned that these will all be part of a comparison article, where I will even throw in Terragen since it was my favorite landscape generator for almost 2 years. I intended to do a massive comparison of all these softwares but I had to get them all first...I never heard back from 3D Nature so this is why I won't include WCS. I hope that making the comparison article it will sort of tweak my opinions and I must say that when I got World Builder and then Bryce, the previous software review was already obsolete. I will probably update all reviews later on since my readers can get a wrong impression regarding the software. Many of you might not know this but when you get a software for review you lack the manual and you have a very short period to learn the software and make an opinion as unbiased as possibleand when you have several software to review per week there is not a lot of time to elaborate on each of them if you know what I mean. I have seen so many generic reviews on the web and in magazines that I started to make quite elaborate reviews and it's 100% sure that there will always lack informations in my reviews since there is no way you can write an extremely detailed review in such a short time. I did notice I forgot to mention several of Bryce's features, and I apologize but it's like this in all of my reviews and I always mention to visit the company's site for a complete list of features. Hope all is clear now because I am already late in my work! :) Cheers!