I know I should pay attention to rendering results, I'm just usually in too much of a hurry to see what the nights work came out to look like. But this one struck me, big numbers for me. I ususally keep things as simple as possible. This was from a global image being back lit by 29 radial lights. Think I'll stuff and mount it, stick a hook in its mouth and take a picture holding it.

LOL...your pute didn't have smoke comin out of it or anything, did it?

Had a lot of glass or reflections, did you? :-)

Big balls Mr Smith! Big Balls.........lol The Bryster

and crystal ones too!

like to see this picture. Maybe at least a thumbnail one?

I wonder how far it can count to? Zillions of Squillions? Very impressive!

god....damn!!!

I got to about 4.1 Quad on a increased size re-render of my "The Quickening" image. (That took a long time ~18 hrs on my P4 1.8)

I hate you people with fast computers that can handle that.... My pithy PIII 800 has trouble rendering my current project which has a grand total of 1 volumetric cylinder light and one shperical low level light (non-volumretric) to light 134 million polys. Ususally takes 30+ hours to render 800*600 DEFAULT NO AA. Well, something like half those polys are from invisible negative boolean objects. --The LodeRunner

bryce uses way too many rays than it should. I have seen premium quality lightwave stuff rendered with no more than 10,000

That's precisely why I went out and got that machine! I still work B5 on my laptop when travelling (P2 366 Mhz w/128 Mb). Just work smaller and let run overnight. Also I learned how to max the performance real fast regarding modelling and rendering (this was my main bryce4 base for about a year and a half)

I now have a AMD Athlon XP 1.5ghz cpu, 256mb ram, which is a Ferrari compared to my old pc. I swear it also runs better/faster because of using Windows 2000... It was probably so many rays because it was 29 lights going through that slightly transparent Globe which then hit my scene? Rendered at regular AA, "to disk", and 1024x768. Yeah, obviously some reflections, some glass, table is reflective also. AgentSmith

Whoa that's a lot, compared to what I usually do on my humble Presario 1690 AMD K6II computer (And I thought billions were big numbers.) But when it comes to stats on images like that, it makes you wonder what they are for the "big boys" who actually make movies,etc. with entire networked render farms... I bet I'm not the only one who would be curious about Pixar's or Silicon Graphics' stats here. Your render time was 8 hrs too... I usually don't try for much more than 4 on a render if I can help it (I'm not quite patient enough, and then there's games to play.) Probably explains why most of my stuff is relatively simple. LOL...

Oh, I always do my bigger renders whenever I'm asleep or away. I betcha the big boys' numbers aren't as big, like madmax_br5's example of Lightwave renders with 10,000 rays. Bryce's big numbers are just a result of it being an out and out raytracer, no shortcuts.

I could not do a render that long, would get in the way of doing the other pictures. 18 hours is my limit. Wonder what the upper limit is and how many days?

Hmmm now here's a thought! Maybe if we tell bryce to render at 9 rays per pixel, then it will actually do that!

Yeah with Bryce 5 you can get carried away....I waited 2 days for a network render of a 640*480 model with every quality option maxed out....and Bryce botched the final stich together of the tiles....damn it. --The LodeRunner