I don't use the director's view to compose an image as I >found it useless for doing so almost 20 years ago, and >haven't tried it since. From personal preference, or because it's broken? I fully understand the camera is the blue thing. I like the Directors View because I can manipulate the camera if I wish, and it's the most versatile view for me.

Since you know so much, show me. I have asked about this often enough, and nobody has tried to tell me I am wrong. Not "convinced me". Nobody has tried to tell me.... >The zoom button work by changing the viewpoint's scale, >again, they don't actually do anything to the camera. And I have shown with pretty pictures etc that you appear to be wrong in your above statement. I think it would be far more useful if you presented your case, in the CAMERA analogy, than if you simply resorted to the sanctuary of sarcasm and secret knowledge. And I am sorry, I will take some convincing that Bryce is doing what it should, whatever it is doing, regardless of "what I want", given the camera analogy. Remember, what I illustrated is not the problem I have talked about. It is the reason I want the problem fixed. As far as Pan, Zoom and the camera movers are concerned, it does do what I want, but does it in an erratic way.

Apart from which, as I have I think said, -I get problems in ortho views as well. - many people say they do not get problems with Director's View

Stop using the magnifying glass to zoom and the hand to >pan. They are intended to be used with the orthogonal >views (top, front, right, ect...) Use the camera controls >to move the director and camera views. So are you saying, in a roundabout way that you can repeat my stated problem, in Director's View? I keep getting told this, as if it's the solution. If I am "not supposed to use it" then gray the silly thing out in the scenes where I am not supposed to use it. But I do not want that, as they have a completely different effect! If you Zoom out, you get a smaller image of the same "Focal length". If you use the camera controls you actually move the camera away from the scene , thus flattening it, Zooming in is then like using a Tele lens on a distant object, and literally gives completely different perspective. Which is as it should be. A photographer uses this. >When you use the hand to pan, you are not moving the >camera. Agreed. >The zoom button work by changing the viewpoint's scale, again, they don't actually do anything to the camera. See above. They do. They act differently. You can see the effect if you understand how a camera works, as I describe. I have posted about this. This is partially misinformation. When you zoom in and out, it does affect the camera. It affects Focal length. You can see this if you use Camera View and then Zoom that. The Focal Length actually changes on the Camera if you then look at it in Director's view. In Dir's view, as I describe above, you see the effect of this. All this about not affecting the camera is all very well, whether true or not. But if I render the image, the result is what I did. I want to be able to set that result as I want it. I want to move the camera back, then zoom in so I get a full screen, without fisheye. I am known as the Director, by their choice, not mine. {letting you do something wrong isn't a bug, it's a feature} Beg pardon? - It's only a feature if I can use that "wrong" thing to produce predictable, useful results. -It's so easy to disable a "feature" if it's not supposed to be used. However, I do feel that in the Dir's View, there are two distinct functions. One of them does not work very well. {The camera and the directors view are the same thing with two exceptions: the camera is a selectable object in a scene, and the director will let you rotate around an object.}

OK. Thanks guys. The other guy who is joining me in bitching about this says he has tried it on 5 totally (as in old, new, different OSs etc) different machines, and had the same trouble with every one. If I could.... I use Director's View. This is where the trouble seems worse. I was told (by Brycetech no less. The dragon stirs in its realm)that the Zoom controls were not meant for the Director's View....mmmmOK. I use an NVidia 5200 card. Win XP SP2. Intel Celeron 2.4. Bryce is set up at 1024*768 as is the screen. To try to repeat the problem, place a cube on screen, on ground default spot. Move it to TLHC of screen by dragging the cube. Pan the image to make it central again. Now "+" zoom in. For me, quite often_ it moves off the top of the screen, instead of straight toward me. If it does behave, try moving it again, and again zooming, as you might in a normal session. Then if I "-" zoom out, it will sometimes get worse, or zigzag. If I zoom way out, then ctrl-spacebar and drag a marquee just around the object, it simply disappears. Sometimes it almost seesm that zooming out "-" "remembers" previous positions, rather than zooming back down the path. Unfortunately these positions are false, or take account of the object's drag movements, but not the pan or..... I actually get some problems with the "camera controls" as well. This has been an ongoing problem for me, and apparently quite a few others. If anybody can describe their setup, and/or try my "recipe"....

huh? Takeover? Again, you mean after DAZ? Who by? Corel? You are talking about stuff with Bryce that I have not even tried, and maybe never will. I agree it's a good price, and is workable. But there does not seem to be much pressure to tweak it, and in fact quite considerable resistance from the oldschool users. I would never be interested in the Big Boys at all. Could not justify it. I have, with help here, also overcome the two gripes I had. But I have met a couple of others. I will start another post on that.

OK.

Read the title of this thread. Every time I or someone else says somethong everybody compares this programme to other 3d stuff. OK. Maybe they're (3d programmes) all weird. I have not tried to the others. As a new Bryce trier-out, I have used a heap of Windows programmes, including a 3d drafting package or two. Bryce looks easy until you try to do stuff. If you know where to look it's not too bad. But with no tooltips, limited menus and buttons, triangles and key combos scattered everywhere, it is not logical. I do see that the suggested book for Bryce is 1000 pages; not far off the 1100 mentioned....the Help is way insufficient. Help takes ten lines to tell me where a control is. This has to indicate problems. If it were a menu you can Manu/Edit/View/DoWhatever and it's all over. Or there may be a shortcut key. But it's a part of the menu. Next time, your choice. Or you customise toolbars and have what you want on the screen for the stuff you use most. I cannot see the harm in changing the interface to suit more Windows-used people. Don't want menus? *Hide the menus. Don't want buttons? *Have Toolbars, that are customisable, dockable etc. But at any rate, have the same actions throughout the programme, or allow User choice. I do not expect to know all of the capabilities of this programme in a week. But I do feel that if after two weeks I am still "discovering" that I needed a key combination (no menu, or button) to some simple act, that I could only find by buying a 1000 page book or scanning many articles, then the interface can be improved. As a very least for instance: Why is there no "Zoom to Window" button"? We have Pan, Zoom In and Zoom out. But no Zoom to Window. Almost universal, but not here. Why, when I m ove across the buttons, do I not see Tooltips, should I require them? What possible harm can that do? Remember they are going to be fighto9ng for an increased market here, from....new users, used to Windows.

All of these rollicking good very happy or sarcastic replies leave me with little that a very powerful programme could maybe be made more accessible, by changing the interface to halfway to what people are used to. I have not said I won't use it. I have not said it's not clever and good in many ways. I just feel that the interface looks nice and clean, but every step in learning it requires a half page of description just to get to the button you want.

Thanks so much! So that's where they are :-) I'm off to >make a new world now...... Just don't forget the power of the plop render button....

Bryce hides it good bits, just so that newcomers have to >enter these forums and ask questions (sorry, being >flippant.. but it sems that way sometimes). Not flippant at all. I really feel that in the interests of an uncluttered UI, the programme will drive away anyone who tries it. I have posted this in the DAZ forums, and been severely questioned!

OK. I will try again. Last post failed badly. I want to say that my comments concerning taking Bryce seriously were NOT aimed at (in PARTICULAR) dukduk et al. I am sorry if it belittled the practical input here. You guys have provided practical hints, support and advice, and helped me stay with Bryce, for all its shortcomings as I see it. It does do animation. It does need fixing IMO. But I am still using it, and this forum has helped ne stay there. I was taking a shot at the Bryce site, as much as anything. The site does not seem to have caught up with the changes, and animation in particular. Even Tech support gave me what looked like bad info....

Really. As long as I see "waffles" and "adolescentposer" titling posters in Bryce forums (God...at least they are educated spellers!) I have a problem dealing with it as a serious animation/posing programme. WNU Poser?

If you dont have Poser then you still can animate in DS to >your Hearts content >just have to do it Frame By frame... Which is hardly what I would ever call "to my heart's content"!