Using more rays per pixel is not necessary. 8 rays per pixel is enough. The important setting in VUE is the quality threshold. As you can see in Charles' examples, there is no noticeable differences between 12 rays and 25 rays with a 100% "best" quality threshold.
I'm even sceptical about "25" rays per pixels... even high-end 3D rendering engines don't go further than 16 rays.

Martin (aka Cheers) also noticed that "standard" antialiasing produce, in most cases, better result than "superior" anti-aliasing. Don't ask me why !

Yves : "I'm sure Vue can do the same very good quality as others code". Well I don't think so. Look at Nightvoice's example : the "ultra" quality image is awfull and with the highest user setting there is still aliasing on the edge of the object and the soft shadows are noisy.
103 minutes of rendering for a so poor quality is a joke !

I don't know how fast is the processor used by Nightvoice but a scene as simple as this one should be rendered in a few minutes even on a 1 GHz processor.

With Cinema4D XL 7, I could produce a perfect render of this horse in 45 seconds (on a 1GHz PIII).

Of course comparing the $200 VUE4 with the $1700 Cinema4DXL7 is not fair. But there are many low cost 3D softwares with a better rendering engine than VUE : Truespace 6 ($600) and Carrara Studio 2 ($400) for example. They can both produce perfect renders. They have a higher price tag but don't forget that they include a complete modeler and many others features not yet available in VUE.

In fact VUE 4 has one of the worse rendering engine available. I can't produce soft shadows, it doesn't remove aliasing correctly, and it's outrageously slow. That's why I'm not interested in the POSER animation import plug-in or any other upcoming features. Before anything else, VUE needs a new rendering engine.

It's strange that only a few users of VUE complain about that !

Eric