I'm wondering if our 3D hobbys won't be totally useless in maybe 5-10 years. For example some Doom III screenshots look better than the work some of us make. And this is a realtime game. In 5 or 10 years computing power will be so big that realtime computer games might look better than our stills. Won't it be a bit silly if you are still rendering then? Or do you think that in 5 to 10 years we will have tools with wich we can make huge photorealistic designs? Just a thought...

Well, a 5 year render should be pretty nice. LOL. Yeah, technology does change. Heck, look at what we were doing 5 to 10 years ago. I think I had just bought my first puter in 92 and it was a 386.

regarding advances in technology, I keep thinking about a science fiction story about a sleepership from Earth that was sent out to explore a planet 200 years away. When they got there they found a thriving Earth colony.

Visit an art gallery sometime and be amazed at how much art is not photorealistic. - Jack

Duh I know art doesn't have to be photrealistic. But you don't need a renderer to make really abstract art.

I wasn't thinking so much of rendering as the idea that "...realtime computer games might look better than our stills." My point was only that photorealism need not be the holy grail of 3D imagery created with the use of a computer. Nor need "non-photorealistic" automatically mean abstract. But sticking with the abstract scenario you may have seen the Bryce rendered abstractions by Bill Ellsworth. Unfortunately, his old website seems to have disappeared but one example may be found at: http://www.metasynth.com/BRYCEART/Brycers/EdgeofForever.jpg For further abstracts you might look at Huff's Maya renderings at: http://www.itgoesboing.com Both of these artists are rather "render intensive". So while a renderer is not necessary for abstract art it certainly is useful in the proper hands. Sometime ago I did a short and rapid series of very simple and decidedly non realistic city images to make a point in another forum. Amazingly, it wound up as a show in a small local gallery. Even more unbelievably, I actually sold a number of prints! http://www3.sympatico.ca/jackvalero/urbana/ - Jack

Nice images. But still I think your images and other abstracts would benefit from photorealistic rendering techniques. They don't have to be photo realistic, but they might look better if the light and materials behave ad they do in real life..

Hey! I thought we were useless now. You start out comparing a hobby with a paying commercial endeavor. I'd rather be puttering around with Bryce, creating something new than watching reruns of reruns of the X-files. I am not going to stop just because I can't match a whole team of artists who are working on their third major revision of a product that has over twenty years of development behind it. I played Castle Wolfenstein 2D on a Commodore 64. I remember where and when this whole thing started. The original graphics then were really bad, and only 256 colors!! Game development has advanced to the stage where a single person doesn't produce the whole look of the product. You start comparing your efforts to a group with $1M budgets you are definitely going to feel inadequate. But, if you mean will we be making the same type of pictures in ten years, probably not. We will be 4D hobbyists. Instead of grass mats, we'll have a plant lab that generates individual plants on our terrains. There will be wind and rain to blow the grass in random patterns. We will probably post movies instead of stills. Everyone will want to buy the new 100meg Victoria MarkXX. At that point we will probably still be bemoaning the fact that our characters don't have real circulatory systems, can't bleed, breathe or get flushed and out of breath like the new characters in Doom XXV. Until then, keep dreaming and pestering Corel for the things you want in Bryce 6. :)

Thanks Cyberbeast. Perhaps my images might have benefited from photrealism but that wasn't the goal. I intended them to be symbolic- perhaps another level of reality. At any rate, I didn't have the time. The reason for their being was a thread at the Bryce Forum. People were complaining that with today's software and readily available models that there was no longer any value in skill or craftsmanship. The fear was that anyone with a few dollars could create decent work without requiring any actual ability. I set a personal public challenge to create a series of simplistic work, with very basic models, during the coming weekend. The goal was to produce something that some might consider "artistic", thus showing that art went beyond mere craftsmanship or component parts. In total the set, including the web pages, took about 16 hours. The forum members received it very well and as I said, a number of people were actually willing to pay money for prints. I found it particularly interesting that the images appealed to the technically savvy Bryce Forum members as well as public gallery goers who knew nothing of digital techniques but were interested in "art". Frankly, I was surprised at how well this series was accepted for in terms of time or effort it was a trivial undertaking. My comments in this thread are not intended to belittle photorealism. It definitely has its place and its admirers. But Renderosity portrays itself as a place for artists and I contend only that there are other, equally valuable, approaches to art. If this contention is true then future advances in computing hardware and software, while not insignificant, will not be the sole or even major determination or influence for digitally created art. Therefor I must conclude that no, it will not be silly if we are still rendering our efforts when computer game imagery finally rivals reality. In fact, presumably the same tools available to game designers will also be available to other artists. My comments so far have been somewhat academic. But on a personal note I have never been much interested in reality in my imagery. The big advantage of artistic imagination is that it doesn't have to be constrained by the mundane mechanics of the "real" world just because today's software is so adept at producing "real world" effects. If your preference is for photorealism then more power to you. It is a worthy goal. I intend no argument, just an alternate (and I hope legitimate) viewpoint. - Jack

Hello all, Enjoying the thread and thought I would chip in - but this is free, and you get what you pay for LOL. "It is what it is, and nothing more." That's what drives me to make 3D art as a hobby. I'm not any good (hence no images posted yet!) but I dearly love the learning process and seeing inspiring things from people like AgentSmith, EricofSD, clay, hobbit, Blackhearted, and so many others who are generous to a fault with time, teaching, patience for newbies, and just flat-out skill. I don't fear a time when the artist will be replaced - just think what an Egyptian tomb painter would have said when confronted with a series of Bryce images - "Oh great, there won't be any work for me anymore..." but even today hieroglyphics and tomb paintings are powerful design elements in and of themselves that stand as art, and are copied and used in art, in design, in clothing, etc... While the tomb paintings certainly aren't photorealistic (and whether they were intended to be or not, no one can ever say for certain) they played an enormous role in defining a culture (at least to those who now look back on it). So I say Bryce away, do what pleases you, do not do art for anyone's sake but yours (barring the paying customer) and do not fear the future, for your images may define this culture - and that kind of power (IMHO) is one of the best things available through art. Peace! luke27

I was going to put my 2 penneth in (cents)but luke27 made the point. ~Its all about comunication, bryce 6 bryce 2 man in cave with charcoal who cares what the medium?

Well, the first 3D game I played was "3D Monster Maze" on the ZX81 - black and white, graphics resolution 64 x 48 - so I'm under no illusions as to how fast technology develops... BUT... I think we're still a long way from having games that come even close to the stuff that can be produced (as stills) in Bryce. Not even the giant render farms can ray-trace anything but the simplest animation in real-time, and they are 50,000X + more powerful than the PC on your desk. Bear in mind that 99% of the Doom3 screenshots doing the rounds are just cut-scenes with pre-rendered textures - not even in-game shots - and the process involved is completely different to the process of ray-tracing. They are real time, I know, but the thousands of hours of texuring and rendering and lighting calculations have already been performed - apart from basic illumination, shading and movement, it's all been done. I don't reckon the current silicon computer architecture is capable of producing real-time photorealism on a single machine, simply because there's a physical limit to the speed a silicon computer can function (i.e. the speed of light). I think there will need to be a new form of computer for real-time realism (!) to become a reality - maybe a quantum computer - either that or someone will need to find a way to exceed the speed of light. ...And yes, I know they already have, but I mean within the architecture of a computer. Hey, but I still like 3D Monster Maze!...

Isn't the definition of a hobby meant to be something totally useless? No insult meant here folks, but I have yet to make money/reach a higher spiritual plain/fall in love from my various hobbies. I don't mind that I can't compete with a team of 20 people. I don't even mind that people don't usually comment on the few things I post. On the other hand, I like to see what I can do and figure out how to improve my skills, whether it's in bryce, or for something else. So I suppose my hobbies aren't totally useless. ;)

3D hobbys won't be useless in 5 years. We're approaching the 5 year mark since Bryce 3D was released. Most of the stuff I have done in Bryce could have been done in Bryce 3D.(but, that's just my stuff) It hasn't been advances in Bryce that has made me better, but my (ongoing) education of 3D, 2D, and light. I think we already have the tools to make basic photorealistic designs (if that is your goal), it just comes down to learning how to squeeze it out of what we already have(Bryce). But, you can only go so far with photorealism, the trend lately is "toon shading" or making 3D look like a traditional cartoon. I believe we will see a LOT more of this kind of stuff. And, yes photorealism is an ongoing benchmark in 3D, always has been, always will be. I should know, I probably concentrate too much on that myself and not on the artist side of Bryce, but that has always been "me" in whatever art I have done. But, it's just a benchmark, not truly the final artistic goal. 3D games look great beacuse a team of guru professionals have slaved over it, mostly using textures they made in Photoshop/Deep Paint, etc. They have tools we don't have and more importantly Knowledge, Skills and Talent that are beyond a number of us here. In 5 years the face of 3D will have changed, more like morphed. And, some aspects we slave over today will be more automated tomorrow. But, some high-end users have already complained about Bryce and Poser in the past saying they were too easy, or automatic ("just click the render button, you're an artist"). All that is slowly changing. I can't wait to see what will exsist in 5 years. Intel hopes that in 3 to 6 months from now you will be able to buy (with a lot of money) their Pentium 4ghz. How fast will a cpu be in 5 years? But, whatever happens in 5 years they will still need a human to hit the render button, so take heart. AgentSmith

First. Ok you people have won me over :) I guess I was just in a down mood. I'm looking forward to the tools we will have at our disposal. Maybe we will be able to create our own beautiful worlds in which people can walk in realtime :) offtopic: "either that or someone will need to find a way to exceed the speed of light. ...And yes, I know they already have, but I mean within the architecture of a computer." --- I don't think they have exceded the speed of light. Wouldn't that mean that our understandig of physics would be totally flawed? I know they have been transferring signals faster than light but that's possible due to some complex form of wave interference (or something like that). "I can't wait to see what will exsist in 5 years. Intel hopes that in 3 to 6 months from now you will be able to buy (with a lot of money) their Pentium 4ghz. How fast will a cpu be in 5 years?" Well probably around 30Ghz (if computing power doubles every 18 months as it has done in the past)

cybrbeast - yes, you're right. They (i.e. scientists!) have managed to transmit information faster than the speed of light, due to some wavey process that cannot be understood by my limited brain! However, I read last week that they've also performed the first instantaneous teleportation of a bunch of particles (50, I think!) so I suppose that counts as faster than light travel, too. Sort of. And finally, to go completely off-topic, I read also that some clever guy had managed to slow light down by way of an impossibly complex device, so it only travelled at a few mph. Where do these guys get their ideas from?

Sorry, it was a woman - Lene Hau. And it was 38mph. Might as well get what little facts I know correct! ;)

..."either that or someone will need to find a way to exceed the speed of light. ...And yes, I know they already have, but I mean within the architecture of a computer." Yeah, it seems to be something to do with quantum mechanics and hardly anybody understands that. Apparently completely different rules apply in the submicro world of quantum mechanics than in our macro world. So maybe when we get quantum computers we'll find that decimal 2+2 isn't really 4. I've been trying to visualize what quantum art might look like (taste like, feel like?) but it just hurts my head too much... - Jack

I'm not the most keen on quantum mechanics, but if I could get my hands on an orbital photon modulator and make a non gravitational singularity-- Anyhow... Art... Computer Architecture... Does it matter? I'm not one to care how relevent my hobby is, as long as I'm having fun... And for the mention of StarRaiders - Wooohooo... That was fun back in the 8-bit days. I remember that on my 130XE quite fondly (130 XE being the model between the older 8-bit 800's and the 16-bit ST's.) Then there was Mig Alley Ace... And speaking of old 3-D games (real old, as in 8-bit), anyone remember LucasArt's Ballblazer? It had quite catchy theme music and an early form of ray-tracing. Speaking of software... Heh... I remember taking my time and manually dithering/antialiasing (yes, pixel by pixel using the magnifier tool) while using RemBrandt on my ol' Atari... And some would say that 10yr olds (which I was at the time) didn't have any patience. Then a couple years later it was on to the Amiga 500 and playing with Photon Paint. 4096 colors was a cool concept at the time, but I remember the fustration at getting pixels to remain the correct color when making .HAM images. Well at least I was good with getting my .IFF images to look cool. So, even though I do agree that Bryce could always be better in some aspects. I can't complain considering where I've been computer wise. L8R!

cybrbeast, What you are talking about is called Moore's Law. According to Dr. Michio Kaku, Moores Law breaks down as we appoach the molecular level. (we're almost there). If you're interested, He has a program on "Pacifica" a group of non-profit Radio Stations on Tuesdays and occasionally appears on the Art Bell radio show. He also has a website (mkaku.org). - TJ

...Isn't the definition of a hobby meant to be something totally useless? lsstrout, In western culture we have an unfortunate tendency to equate useful with income production. But it isn't true just because we believe it. The dictionary definition of "hobby" precludes deriving an income from it but makes no other judgements on its usefulness. I become easily bored so have had mutiple careers. Fortunately my hobbies of playing music, photography, hifi, writing and, recently, digital art have all led to an income. But in each case it was more accident than good planning. If these pastimes had never earned a cent I would not have enjoyed them less. Nor would I have thought them any less useful. The sad part of it is that once I start earning a decent income from a hobby I tend to lose interest in it. Perversely, once income enters the equation my avocations actually become less useful to me for, after all, money is only money. As they say- all work and no play makes Jack a dull boy... - Jack

We are artists, we will adapt...

"However, I read last week that they've also performed the first instantaneous teleportation of a bunch of particles (50, I think!) so I suppose that counts as faster than light travel, too. Sort of. And finally, to go completely off-topic, I read also that some clever guy had managed to slow light down by way of an impossibly complex device, so it only travelled at a few mph. Where do these guys get their ideas from?" I'm no expert but I don't think that teleportation thing they did last was instantaneous. They teleported photons (a laser beam) right? Just because they teleported it doesn't mean they'd have to teleport faster than light. Can you post a linkg to that slowing light down thing. I'm quite interested. Slowing light down isn't all that special. Light travels at 300000Kilometer/s in a vacuum. But put it through a different substance and it will move slower. Maybe the scientist made a very special substance? Yes quantum thingys are totally weird. Particles that can be in two places at the same time, time travel, etc. It's all possible there. "What you are talking about is called Moore's Law. According to Dr. Michio Kaku, Moores Law breaks down as we appoach the molecular level. (we're almost there)." Yeah you're right. But I think we still have a long way to reach the molevular or atomic level. You keep hearing about new breakthroughs, but I think it will still be some time before they can be made useful in the consumer market. This post has become two(three) topics :)

cybrbeast, Here's the link to Dr Kaku's site incase the link didn't work its http://www.mkaku.org/. You really should read the forums on Dr Kaku's site. There are forums there where you can ask questions like this one and recieve a more scientific response. You have to register but it's painless. You can discuss everything that you asked in post 24 there. - TJ

just checked the link. it should work.

Thanks biker, I just paid Dr Kaku's site a visit. It's a strange mix of science, god, religion, all mixed up in the one bag. I think it will be a good place to visit periodically. Catlin

Thanks for the link. I'll check it out when I have a few hours to spare.

Way off topic, but... the only book I understood on Quantum Mechanics, relativity and other related science was in the book "Black Holes and Time Warps" by Kip Thorne who worked with Dr. Wheeler on the Hydrogen bomb and helped Carl Sagan with his science for "Contact". It's written for laymen like me. A very good read if you have the patience.

Realtime games will get a higher visual quality as technology improves, but it's alwayts been like that. Thechnology changes, gets more powerfull and we make more complex images to compensate. And software will evolve too. So in some years we may actually be able to easily model stuff that would be impossibe now.