All of my space images are created in Bryce 4/5 from scratch, all concepts and designs are by me. I try to use very little texturing instead actually drawing all the parts instead. Ive notice that a lot of people post 2 to 3 things a day. I render all my images at 1186X889 in size using the highest settings that you can use in Bryce. I do not do this because Im bragging but because Im trying to produce the best render possible. By using these settings my render time will vary from 8 hours up to 3 weeks. I guess what Im really trying to say is I wonder if anyone really understands what Im trying to accomplish here. These entire models are created exclusively in Bryce. Every little shadow that you will see is because of an actually render part not because of a texture that Ive used. At most there are only about 4 different textures I use and only one that would have any variation of shade in the texture, all others being solid colors. I try to depict as accurate as possible what an actual space vehicle would look like if viewed from that angle in space. I also try to stay with scientific fact and away from science fiction. So here my question to everyone, because of the time and effort I put into my images trying to be as accurate as possible why is it that when someone post a spaceship that they didnt even create themselves and adds a little color to the picture in space that everyone says this is the best thing sense the invention of the wheel. Please understand to each there own, Im not putting anyone down, art is in the eye of the beholder but I was wondering is my stuff just not that interesting? Ive always wanted to go into space but I realize that the closest I will every get to that is in my own minds eye. I just wanted to share my dream of what could be with everyone here. I feel that unless its something that looks familiar like it came out of Hollywood no one will really give any notice to it. Im not trying to complain but it would really be nice to know. Thanks for listening and viewing my work.

David

PS: if you want to slam me for what Ive said here have at it, but I believe that Ive been fair to everyone that I have made a comment to on there posting.

hmm I hope you really wanted to know and are not just looking to slam anyone who responds.. I will give you the benefit of the doubt but I swear if I get roasted I am deleting this response ;-). Okay first off a BIG part of Bryce is texturing .. texturing is what gives life to most images .. Your images are yes very well modeled .. beautifully lit and very boring .. they are flat .. I am not sure I understand why you put the effort you do into your renders .. and yet do not go the final step and use that same talented eye to create textures that will give life and breath to your renders.. you do not have to use anyone else's textures if you are trying to do it all your self .. create your own. It takes a great deal of skill and technical expertise to create Bryce materials and textures .. I have been using Bryce for years and still get major headaches in the DTE, BUT..Bryce is not the greatest modeling tool in the world .. (mind you sure seem to be getting amazing results) however it rocks when it comes to it's ability to create great textures. I really do think your work is wonderful now that I have given it a good look .. but it never caught my eye before and I think the only reason is as I said .. the images seem too plastic and flat .. you have created amazing models .. now for heavens sake get thee self into the DTE.. those models deserve it ;-). err and remember.. you asked..

A lot of people have felt this at one time or another. getting any 3D project "just right" takes alot of time not only in work time, but in the time needed to learn how to do it in the first place. It's hard to go through with what I know what you must to make such complex models within Bryce itself. And, I can understand to do such hard/detailed work, and then wish your work could get more/better attention. If it counts for anything, in my opinion, there aren't many people who can actually model WELL within Bryce itself, you are MOST definetely one of them. As far as others' more easily made pictures getting more accolades than yours...there could be many reasons for this...and any of them could come off as critiques to your art, and that is not how I want this text to come off, because what you do in Bryce is exceptional. But, I will say that people react more off the dramatic, than the technical. :o/ One suggestion I can give, something that has given my stuff more "attention"...is posting my work to other places than just Renderosity. Maybe this could give you a shot in the arm. And, if you need it, let me tell you to keep it up. I really love what you do with Bryce. AgentSmith

Very well done, lots of detail and time spent. I have to agree with you, some of the faster images that I've done that didn't take as much effort got more attention from friends and folks on the net. I have a theory about that. I think lots of people like 'pretty' things and really don't understand or consider the effort that goes into it. Some of the faster images are obviously not complex, just pretty. I'm not bothered by folks liking the easier things and passing by the more complex ones. As a helicopter pilot, the greatest compliment a passenger could give me was to look over after the landing and say, "gee, there's nothing to this, is there?". It tells me that other enjoyed themselves and didn't focus on my effort. Isn't that what its about? Making others enjoy the image? By the way, I do appreciate the effort you put in and I do enjoy your images as well.

i have seen your pics and think they are fantastic,i dont comment on others stuff because i dont think what i have done is that good compared to someone like your self. but i do think you answer your own question.........as accurate as possible ........with scientific fact......from 8 hours up to 3 weeks.......where is the fun, i to would love to go in to space but i think i would like to do it in some thing with warp drive.

I haven't seen your work, but I would say this. What matters is the final picture. It doesn't matter how much time you spent modelling or rendering, or whether you used "pure" Bryce or not. That's completely irrelevant. It's the artistic appeal of the result that counts.

David You've seen my comments on your images and yes, I can SEE that what you do is technically difficult, the modelling is brilliant and not something your average Bryce user can do, and will probably never do....I enjoy your work for its technical skill, its accuracy, its obvious heartfelt desire to see space....I know why you post as you do and IMO - yours are images that don't really need texture....they are obviously NOT why you post therefore don't include them. ;) I agree with AgentSmith, there are other sites to post but please keep posting here...I appreciate your work.

OK, one thing I would have to point out is that there are many forms of "art". Modeling is one of them. Obviously this is an area where you excel (and I do not). I'm not alone, in fact I would say that the majority of 3d "artists" out there are probably seriously lacking in modelling skills. That being said, there is more to art than modelling. There is composition, lighting, colors, and yes, even textures. Some of my art involves me creating some sort of landscape, then inserting Poser figures (which I obviously didn't model). However, the fact that I didn't get in there and model my character out of primitives doesn't make my work any less "art" than yours. I spend many, many hours, sometimes weeks, positioning things just so, and texturing tiny pieces just right, and test rendering, and making adjustments, and then doing postwork. It's not like I'm just some hack, and there are many others out there who make art that's MUCH better than mine without doing their own modelling. So I guess that what I'm trying to say is that there is a lot more to 3d art than sheer modeling alone.

As a corollary to Phantast's post... You can't make people like your art. You can't make people respect your effort. They will or they won't. I understand your frustration. I've got some quickie images in my gallery, but several of them took a huge amount of effort and learning to get them to the point where I felt comfortable posting them. And, more often than not, they'd end up in the Bryce gallery adjacent to a twenty-minute render of a busty Poser woman standing next to an imported motorcycle model. Guess which one got more attention --every time? I created an image for a Bryce challenge some months back that took more time and effort on my part than any image before or since (it really was a challenge!), and it got like one vote, because another artist's image spoke more to the voters. But that's life. Cliche though it is, beauty really is in the eye of the beholder. For what it's worth, I think your modelling skills are exceptional, beyond what I expect mine to ever be. But know that Bryce was conceived and developed with a mind to creating fanciful images, not technical ones --and even though your images are wonderfully constructed, you're dealing with a viewing public that is likely more inclined to enjoy those more fanciful works.

I did not say you HAVE to texture .. and as I said I agree your modeling ,light and composition are utterly fantastic.. you asked why folks are not looking .. I think it is because the images to not grab the eye .. and this may be because the textures do not have a lot of depth.. and I would not even have bothered saying that much if your work was not outstanding .. why risk it? I look through the galleries and have commented on every thing that really gets my attention (as much as I have time to anyway )no matter what the subject or who created it. The simple fact is these images did not and I wish they had because I really enjoyed them .. When I said try texturing it was because I honestly thought you wanted to know if there was anything you could add to try and grab folks eye.. not because I am trying to change your vision. I am sorry if that was the way I made it sound ;-(.

Just to add to Laurie's post. You mentioned you modeled everything so you didn't have to "cheat" with a texture (I know not your words). But you seem to be mixing up bump maps with textures. I agree with Laurie. Your renders and fantastic and the modelling is exceptional but there's nothing there that really cries out "Look at me!". The plain solid gray of your models makes them neutral in the whole picture. At least add some lettering and decals. Use a more metallic texture. As I said above you don't HAVE to use the bump map channel to give the ships a more interesting texture and look. On another note, some people may not comment on your works even though technically they are great, but some people just aren't awed by this kind of art. What counts is how do YOU feel about your work? Are you doing it for yourself or just to get awes and ahs from the public? IOW what does your art mean to you?

I haven't seen this addressed in any of the above posts, so I'll say it here. Bambam131 (may I call you "Bam"?), you have set up some "rules" for yourself in order to produce work you can be proud of. This is commendable, and shows you work logically at the "craft" side of digital art. This is the kind of attitude that would be essential if you were for example working in the animation department at NASA. However, none of the rest of the artists here are going to follow your rules. Heck, until you stated them here, we didn't know you even had rules. Most of the artists here are winging it with the best their knowledge and experience (and talent) provides them, myself included. Now as to why your images lack "popularity". The best illustration I can think of is this: Rent "2001: A Space Odessy" and "The Empire Stikes Back". In "2001" the outer space science is built on real science of the time. There is no sound when the engines are fired in space, for example. The ship designs are very functional and based on what NASA could produce at the time. Now look at "Empire": you can hear engines roar and lazer fire, etc. in space. The ships are designed for maximum coolness, not functionality. Which of these two movies would be the more popular if released today for the first time? Finally, I checked your gallery: I saw a lot of "hits", rankings and comments- a lot more than my stuff gets, anyway. So it's not like you're not getting recognition. Do what satisfies YOU as an artist. That's all that counts.

Hoi David, I posted my latest picture' "Starfury Squadron" a couple of days ago. The friends I've made since coming to this site have had a look and commented as they usually do. The next comment comes from you, actually 3 questions as to whether I made the ships myself, how big the file size was and how long it took to render the image. I fired off an instant message to you with the imformation. A day later, after no thanks, nada, I sent another instant message to you asking if the information had helped you, still no response. I then thought I'd better check you out to see if I could work out the reason behind the questions by looking at your gallery. Low and behold I find spacships, spaceships and more spaceships!!!!!! Great stuff, lots of detail in the models. Now as to depicting what a spaceship would look like up there, who's to say what they really look like? We go by a few pictures taken from the ships already launched and by the Hubble Space Telescope to define our ideas on what things look like in space. There'd be a handfull of people that would actually know from experience, the rest of us have to plod along using our imagination. I do know what you mean when you say that there are some who will post a picture of a model done by someone else, put abit of colour in it, and its regarded as a masterpiece. The work involved to make models like yours and mine is complex and time consuming. The Starfury took about 30 hours to make, the Babylon 5 took about 80 hours to make. My most complex model to date, what I have called the Explorer Ship, has over 7000 Bryce primitives in it. Dont remember how long it took to make now, it went through about 30 transformations to get the final model. You and I can use Bryce to make the models in our Imagination. Some people either cant, wont or dont use Bryce to model. Some people still annoy me with regards to their attitude towards Bryce as a modeller, one in fact told me in chat one night that Bryce was a "rudimentary modeller" at best. That got me so annoyed, I posted a picture, "USS Rudimentary", just to show what the metaballs can do. Being the first ship I made with the metaballs,it is basic compared to what I've learnt to make with them now. I too would love to go into space. I've been a fan of Sci-fi for over 30 years. I've got a collection of over 500 books that have been reread over and over. The artwork on the covers is something that has always inspired me, I've thought for years it would be great to be able to create those types of images myself. Most of my spaceships have been made as both a challenge to myself, to see if I could actually make them, and as a tribute to the people who brought them to life. With that in mind, they need to be made with textures and mats as close to the originals as possible. Some of the textures and mats I've made myself, some I've got from other places. With the right textures and colours, the models come to life, I can look at the scene and believe for a time that its real. To sum this all up, IMHO, your models are technically brilliant. Unfortunately, I have been wont to pass over them because they simple dont catch my eye. If you were to apply metalic textures and mats to them, and yes, added abit more colour, they would come alive to not only myself, but alot more people. Most of the folks either dont care or dont want to know how to build models such as yours and mine. Dont worry about the people not commenting. Do the images for yourself,if comments come, think of it as an extra buzz. You'll go crazy trying to please all of the people, just please yourself. Regards, fozzibear.

I would really like to thank all who have posted a comment here. I agree with some of your comments and disagree with others but I really do appreciate your input. I want all to understand that Im not complaining Im just curious about why certain images get more attention than others and was looking for a different perspective. If on the one hand that we believe that without action or color in an image people will not respond than that may tell you that either they need that action to tweak their interest or that they truly dont understand what the artist (you) are trying to say with your image. I know that art is subjective but I guess I would just like people to think more when they view an image to try to see what the artist was trying to say. I know that some of us here do exactly that, but I feel on a hole this is not what takes place. As far as myself is concern Do I enjoy doing this? Well the answer is YES! I do this for my own satisfaction, it does not matter how long it takes as long as Im happy with the results. I would like to think that what I do is well conceived and thought out. This is not a slight on any one; this is just my opinion on how I myself would do things. There are so many wonderful images produce here by so many talented people. I would like to make a suggestion though, has their been any thought given to a section for people to post in a genre that covers a specific topics? Also I apologize if I have not responded to you directly, (fozzibear).Sorry! ;-( I try to check to see if any one has responded to my question and before I new it there were over 11 responses. I will respond to one question that has been ask by more than one person, you ask that if I added color or different textures to my space ship pictures that people would take notice. I appreciate what your saying but I would not be true to myself if I am approaching this scientifically. For example all my space ships are design to never enter into the atmosphere unless I specifically design one to do so; (hence the Lander for Mars Explorer 1). These ships also have an expected life span of at most 10 to 15 years. In that short span of time you would not notice much deterioration to the outer hull. There is really no such thing as weathering in zero atmospheres. If you take the International Space Station as an example; the first parts of the station being launched back in 1998 you will see little if any weathering to the outer hull, (it looks the same way it did on launch day). Brand New! So I did not want to use any dark colors because when you are in outer space with no atmosphere to block the suns radiation dark color absorbs heat and can damage the ship itself. These ships that I have design do not spend around to dissipate heat. NASA has performed test with different material and has determine that for the most part the more reflective the material the better (White). You definitely do not want to use flat colors as they do not reflect well. Ill stop now. ;-) If any one would like me to explain further why I design the way I do please feel free to drop me an e-mail. (drobinson@cox.net) I will respond as soon as I can. Thanks again for all the suggestion; I really do appreciate your input. David

I understand what you are saying there BabBam, just one note and the no damage thing. There are micrometeors that would provide damage to the outer hull. But more to the point here's a pic done by someone nicknamed Vypr over at the www.spacebattles.com forum. Now I realize it's the thing your are trying to get away from (i.e. warp engines etc) but take a look at the texturing and lighting etc. This wasn't modelled in Bryce, it was done in LW or Max and rendered there as well, but the only textures are the decal eveything else is modelled. But it is what I was talking about, it has life, also noticed the lighting isn't pure white. Just something to think about.

Thanks for the info but this is not science and again you aproch it from the Hollywood point of view and thats what I'm trying to stay away from. Also as far a micro meteors are concern if the ship I depect hit one depending on the size and the amount of meteors it would for the most part put the ship out of action. My ships do not have any forcefield to protect it Capt'n Kirk, and by the way it's Bambam ;-)

b and m are close together on the keyboard, easy to hit the wrong one. Your typing ain't perfect either. Really, I just wanted to respond to your question about galleries for topics. It would make much more sense than the present arrangement of galleries by software. If I want to look at pics of spaceships I really couldn't care less as a viewer if they were made in Bryce or Lightwave or Notepad if the image is good. But alas, this view has not carried weight with the powers that be.

Bambam, I can definately respect your knowledge of space and it's effects on the wear and tear of spacecraft. I'm also impressesed with your knowledge of authentic design. However, as some other posters have referred to above, I'm more interested in science fiction that I am in science. My own artwork if full of elves and knights and other fantasy characters, because they represent an escape from everyday life. Likewise, when I look through a gallery of spaceship images, I don't particularly care if something could "really happen" or not. You say that such and such can't happen, but in fact what you should be saying is that "such and such can't happen in this universe at this a time according to what we know right now." What about the future? What about an alternate reality? What about a universe where the laws of physics were different? It seems as if you just dismiss these ideas offhand. A lot of the art I like is "what if?" art. What if there were dragons terrorizing villages? What if there was a race war between dwarves and elves? What if we had Millenium Falcons that could travel at light speed? I often see art as an escape from reality, and evidently you don't. Just keep in mind that many people share my thoughts on this, and you'll begin to see why other pics get more interest than some of your "technically correct, realistic" pics...

Phantast, somewhere (prolly in Forum News or Community Improvement) I recently ran across a thread that talks about sorting by genre or the possibility of being able to do that in the future. In fact, I posted to it, come to think of it. (Haven't experimented with that myself.) Sorry I can't remember the details offhand - it's far too early in the a.m. for me to be thinking coherently. In any event, I honestly don't think the issue is being ignored. Also, I do recall that we've an option for selecting what genre we wish to be identified with. And if there isn't one that works for you, you can at least request a new genre.

I've been looking at your renders and have to say I am impressed with the quality of the models you have created. It is obvious to me that you have a lot of love for them and it shows in their quality and detail. You have also stated in other posts that you are trying to avoid the "sci-fi" approach that so many other artists use. That's commendable. I kinda have the same attitude towards one too many Bryce+Poser fantasy/erotica renders. I enjoy some them, but it's not for me to do. I do have some constructive criticism for you though. Although beautifully done, no casual viewer cares about render time or design time. I personally don't care if it took 45 years to build a cathedral, but can be awed at it's majesty. If time did matter, art galleries would have a note card next to the picture for people to ooh and ahh over. In a way, it's the old annoyance "Fine artists" have towards "Pop artists". Heck, as a graphic artist I get mad when a project costs twice as much (in hourly rates) as it was quoted at. Can't charge for that time, even though the effort was put in. I'm not trying to be cruel here, just helpfully honest. Composition also matters. Your beautiful models, handled in a more dramatic fashion may not only enhance your work, but make people appriciate it more. I'd personally love to see more renders like your "Ships Passing inthe Night". and "Spacestation in Low Earth Orbit". The problem with a totally scientific approach is that it has no anima, or soul, or heart. People appriciate art on a gut emotional level. People don't wax melodic over a picture of the X-1, but they will over hubble pictures of the Horsehead Nebula with all it's striking colors. As a side comment, you'd probably be able to sell your meshes to some artists who are aching to use those well crafted models. They're certainly better than a lot of models I've seen. And they're in a niche I've not seen very often. Anyway, that's my $1.50 worth. TTFN

The spaceships are nicely modelled, but I'd have to agree with those who have said that they look flat without any textures. Nothing is one solid color. No spaceship has ever been, or will ever be made from a single sheet of metal. There would be panel lines where the different plates come together. And each panel would have imperfections and ripples which would cause it to look different from the ones around it. Textures are used to create those imperfections because it would be impractical, if not impossible to physically model them. Steve Sanvito

That is exactly what I'm talking about.

Again thanks for all your comments; one thought though, I never said that my ships were model in one piece. I do understand that the ship will have seams and the like; I just have never been able to create textures that are set in the correct direction or scale. Most of the texture that I've seen on spaceships posted here would not fit my idea of what my ship should look like. For that reason I would not just pick anything. I have searched the web and work on different textures and bump maps myself but have never been satisfied with the results. It is easy to point to a picture and say see this is what Im talking about it is a whole other ball game to be able to create this effect in Bryce. You may say why dont you use a different program, not everyone has the money to spend. I do the best with what I have; also if I could create those textures correctly you would still just be seeing various shade of white. You still would not be using dark colors for the reasons Ive stated above. I will however take all the input that has been given into consideration for the future. Thanks again for the input. David ;-)

I would like to make just one last comment, to all who have posted here, Thank you so much for giving me food for thought. I will definitely try to take all your suggestion to heart. If any one has an idea on how to make panels that would run horizontal on a sphere that you can scale to different sizes I would really love to here from you. Im not apposed to trying texturing or bump maps I just havent found or been able to create the correct ones for my designs yet. Again you have all been great!!! Thank you, David ;-)

Put a naked woman in the thumbnail! Off course mine it's a joke but some on renderosity don't think so. Some months ago I posted a comment on an image of yours because I felt that your model was fantastic, but I didn't continue to look to your images because they feel all the same... your gallery seems more a product showcase instead an art gallery (my not a product nor an art gallery). your models are AMAZING but I think it's time to put them into an art image. I respect you as modeler but your image are... cold... and remember thumbnail is very important. only my two cents and with max respect!