His face is so lopsided ... it looks like half of it went through a mangle.

Which had me doing an experiment .... results attached.

Also, size may depend on what you are planning to do with the texture.  If it is intended as a seamless texture and is not highly detailed, you may be able to get a better result with a smaller image.  If it has a fair amount of detail (that might make it unrealistic as a seamless texture ... for example, a wall with the exact same cracked area every few feet, then you are better off using the largest image you can manage.

As to the gray scale bump map, some formats will allow you to save your grayscale as an alpha channel ... in which case the bump will be imported automatically when you bring the image into Bryce.  Otherwise, I generally save the grayscale as a separate image with "bump" in the name so that I can find it.

The best way I know of to save materials is to create a new library in Bryce and then export and post the entire library.

I have 4 Sony LCD monitors currently.  None with dead pixels and all performing beautifully.

Yup, Mugsey, that's what I was talking about in your other post.  Glad you figured it out.

I love to drive around on cloudy days and take texture shots.  I get a lot of stares and comments when they see me standing a few feet from a brick wall snapping away.  

But, if they ask, I just tell them the truth, that I do a lot of computer art and I need the textures to apply to my models.  Most people are really interested in the process.

Gang ... this sale is worth joining the PC for .... you will save a ton of money on these items (that is, if you don't already have them).  The items listed are only on sale for one day .... they will have another set tomorrow, and another Friday, and a set on Saturday.

OK .... right, no wrongful arrest because no arrest.  Police intimidation isn't really a cause of action (anywhere I know of), plus, in order to be intimidated Quest would need to actually be intimidated ... and do something that he wouldn't have done otherwise.

Like I said .... take it to court.  Have your cell phone bill with you as well as the date and time of the ticket.  If they don't show, the matter will normally be dropped.  If they show and say that they "saw" you using a cell phone (which we know is not true), then produce your bill and the ticket.

I would also (respectfully) explain to the court that (1) you did not even have your cell phone with you (if that is true), or that it was not on .... whatever the truth is ... that you were not using it (2) that the police never even asked you to produce the phone (which wasn't in the car), and that (3) the ticket which you never deserved cost you _____  in lost wages (and whatever else it is legitimately costing you), and (4) that you would appreciate knowing if anyone at the city level reimburses people when the police decide to pass out unwarranted tickets (the answer is probably going to be "no" .... but as long as you are respectful to the court, it never hurts to ask.)

Yup ... fight it.  If the police didn't even bother to look and see if you had a cell phone, well ... that was stupid of them.

Generally (not positive about your state, but generally), if you plead not guilty, the police also have to show up at the hearing and testify as to what they observed that made them write the ticket.  If all that they observed was that you had one hand up near your ear ... then that's all they are going to have to support their case.  More than likely ... since that's all they have, they might not even show up, in which case the whole thing will be dismissed.

Brilliant idea to take your cell phone records, which would show that no calls were made or received during the time around the issuance of the ticket.  That's all that is really key .... not how many calls you make, but given the time of the ticket, were you on the phone at that time or just before? If not, then you have a defense if the cops decide to lie on the stand.

As someone mentioned, if they decide to argue that you could have more than one cell phone provider, it is up to them not only to prove that you do, but also that you were on the phone through that provider at the time of the ticket.  All you have to do is testify that this is your only provider and that you were NOT on the phone at the time or before the time that the ticket is dated and timed.

If they don't prove their case, then you win.  If you don't fight it ... you lose automatically.  Your case would be very difficult to prove, and my thought is that the cops are not going to bother to show up .... as noted, that should lead to an automatic dismissal.  But ... again, on the off chance that they show up ... have your evidence in hand.  They won't expect that and it will bolster the fact of our innocence.

Oh, and yes .... I have noticed for a LONG time that your font is teeeeeny tiny.  I always end up with my nose right up to the screen so that I can read it.  But, your posts are always worth reading. 

It's not that we don't have it here ... it's just that we call it PMS and not PMT.

Of course, ever since I had that pesky uterus thingie removed (back about 10 years ago), I haven't had to suffer with that.  Thank heavens.

Actually, I would really enjoy the snow.  As long as I don't have to go to work in it.  I used to live up in the Sierras, and having the whole place buried up past the windows was common.

So .... maybe we should try to plan something for April 08??  (When I have a real job and can actually think about taking a vacation.)

Hey!!!   That's the DITI I did .... coooool :)

She's a pretty girl.  And Alex ... what a cutie!!

You know, Acadia ... one of these days we should do a vacation "house switch."  I'd take care of your crew and see those parts of Canada that were day trips from your house, and you'd look after my fur kids and day trip around the Hill Country of Texas (lots of wineries, the Alamo, the Riverwalk in San Antonio, Fredericksburg's antique and quilt shops, .... ).

They don't look alien to me ... but they look great.

Impatient and Bryce do not go together well.  The "trick" that they use is not much of a trick at all.  You start with the image, which, if you are lucky is a color image on a black background.  Then you select all of the black bits, reverse selection and then fill with white.  Save as transmap.

I am not certain that you can do that with gimp ... but if you can, then that's your trick.  However, if you want "some measure of tinting", then you will want to play with the transparency settings, or possibly the shades on the transmap, so that the glass is not completely transparent.

A photograph of a window may not work as a transparency map because you need something that is all black and white for transparency.  It will work as a great texture map.

So, Mugsey ... here's my question.  What type of window are you creating??  Is it  something you are going to need a texture map for or are you planing to use a procedural map?

Also ... there is a simple alternative to using a transmap to create a window, and that is to model one out of primitives (cubes for the glass pane, and cubes for the cross pieces).

However, if you are committed to the trans map idea, all you need to do is create your new image, fill it with black and then draw your wood (or whatever) cross pieces in with white.  If you are starting with a photo, just duplicate the photo and save it as a new image.  Color over the glass area in black, and color over the cross pieces in white.

Death .... that's why their breaking that one nearly broke my heart.  The deep amber of the Honey Amber Lowex is just so beautiful.  I want to keep them out because I love how the sun looks passing through them.

However, I may have to find a way to build some shelves in front of the office window so that I can put my collection there ... out of harms way (no cats allowed in the office).