I'm looking into the dpi vs ppi issue and will post what i find here. PhotoPaint (Corel) does what I described quite well. The only difference that can be seen is in the properties listed where the actual image dimensions are reportede in inches as appropriate for 300 dpi in lieu of the 72. The image size (i.e. total information data points content remains unchanged.) No degradation happens. I believe this is because PP deals in an image as data point by data point info and treats the inches/centimeters, etc as output scaling function. Regardless, will p-ost what i find out. I tend to let my machine run Bryce renders without any other functions in the background. Multitasking (especially with any heavyweight apps is just asking for trouble, Burning a CD while surfing the internet and running business spreadsheets, wanna bet you get a coaster?! Sorry, I would not advise too much extarneous usage during a render, especially if the model is big. Richard

Yes I am rendering at 72ppi. At my actual screen resolution (91ppi = SQRT(1280^2 + 1024^2)/18 in diag) my rendered image is 35.16 in x 28.02 in. This is what is indicated in my photoeditor for the completede bmp. I can tell the photoeditor in Image/Resample to maintain the image data size as constant, but alter the sample rate to 300 dpi. Then I resave the image as .tif (w/LZW on). Does not seem to make any difference though. It all comes down to data items per inch and both 1 pixel cluster (1R/1G/1B) and 1 halftoned ink dot are 1 data item. Please point out any holes in my logic. I am NOT an expert and am more than willing to admit error if it can be shown. Richard

I usually render at 1280x1024 and print to my Epson 760 at fit to page (about 55%) via PhotoPaint. My prints on the heavyweight photopaper are beautiful (1440 dpi resolution). I have in the past rendered images at 3200x2550 (11x8.5 @ 300dpi) on the standard desktop (i.e. Not to disk) without any problems. It took about 12 to 18 hrs per image based upon the complexity/settings. How big do you have to go to hit that wall?

Yup. I do all my post work in PhotoPaint 9. Works like a charm. nice piece of work agentsmith!

I have just posted the "Virtual Escape" image in the Bryce Gallery. Came out really well. Let me know what you think.

By the way, I have done something very similar to that flesh to water idea in "The Body Electric", "High Tech Halloween" and "Daydreaming" in my posted works. I first discovered this technique back with an erotic Christmas image done for Renderotica back in 2000. Cool stuff!

Cool! I'm going to try this tonight myself. Thanks for the shot.

More rays, more accuracy in the render. (More time for your cpu to think too!)

This is just a suggestion, I haven't tried it yet so take it as you will. If you use the wireframe template that you get from UVmapper or a default poser figure, as a jpg file and apply it as a texture to your object, would it not render as a solid with the mesh visible? I suppose you could colour alter the lines in a photoedit pkg to be, say green with a black bkgrnd. If someone gives this a try, let me know please (curious!)

How big is the model file?

Hi Momcat- One other thing I have found that can really slow down a render is some layered transparencies (or semi transparencies/volume materials). Any of those in your image? Vasquez's comment is quite accurate too. Especially in combo.

I hate to harp on the RAM question but you have 20Gb (most compiuters can't handle more than 1.5 Gb and the typical is 256 Mb to 512 Mb). Were you commenting on remaining hard disk space (not the same thing!)

One possible issue is that your cutting objects are not completely overlapping at their edges and you are getting very small artifacts left behind of the cut object and it's cut face is textured with the (I am assuming default grey) cutter's texture which is the same as you default groundplane (while not invisible, very hard to see). As to the cast shadows, you might also want to check the cutting material's properties regarding cast shadow settings in the texture controls.

I was actually somewhat disappointed with the Bryce F/X book when I actually got into it. Found it was actually rather thin on content. My opinion.

You could also just do a simple peer to peer connection via a fast ethernet card in both machines. A cross cable is required in lieu of the standard ethernet link. Much simpler and you don't have to go through the whole setting up a hub mess. (Note this applies to only TWO machines) This is what I use to connect my laptop with my desktop.