Not at all intending to sound unsympathetic --because that wouldn't be true-- but now you guys know what it's been like to be a Mac user lo these many years. I also hope Brycetech will reconsider his intentions. Shutting down shop out of protest seems rather pointless, and it won't mean anything to Corel.

Your job may have gotten easier --unless you don't want it to be. This month's challenge has no restrictions on imports, so if you wish, you can import models... like a gecko (if you can find one)! I'm still learning about custom textures, so maybe someone else can help more, but I'm thinking you could whip up a custom texture in an image-editing program that has a little smudge and grime to it, then apply it to a stretched cube with almost the same properties as glass (only not quite as transparent, so you can still see the smudges). 3DCafe might also be a good resource for textures for your scene. Good luck!

Here's the part where I reveal myself to be a geek-level fan: in the documentary on the Phantom Menace DVD (yeah, I bought it), there's an Apple DuoDock on George's desk. I don't know if he USES it, but... :)

Johnpenn, I've seen that done a couple of times and it's either amusing or pathetic (depending on your point of view) to see the results. I've even thought of doing it myself once or twice, but just haven't gotten around to it.

I performed a minor experiment with this a couple of months back when I had two similar images. The full-image thumbnail got more hits than the detail, because in that case the full image gave a fuller idea than the detail of what the viewer would see. I could see how subject matter could affect the outcome. I generally prefer, as a viewer, to see a thumbnail of the whole image.

Yikes! I didn't mean to set derjimi off! What I meant by "not qualified to comment" was that I'm not sure I have much advice to offer beyond "good work" or "the DOF doesn't look quite right" --but if questioned, I couldn't really tell them what I would DO. There's an active example in this forum: emboldened by this thread, I commented on Big Hoovie's monthly challenge entry, suggesting that he should fiddle a bit with the DOF. He asked me how. I DON'T KNOW! But, in general, derjimi's right. When I post, I sure like to get comments --so why is it so hard for me to leave some? Most of us probably should make a conscious effort to offer some form of constructive feedback when we browse through the galleries. That's my June resolution.

I rarely comment because I don't feel particularly qualified, but when I do comment, I try to single out something that I liked (or think could be improved upon without sounding like all I'm saying is "I would have designed it this way, silly mortal."). When someone solicits advice, I'll offer it if someone hasn't beat me to the punch. Usually, though, I'M the guy wondering "how'd they do that?"

After hours of thinking about it, I'm going with vasquez.

It's just a straight terrain; I knew where I wanted it positioned, so I didn't worry about symmetricality.

I think if you hit the "-" button on the lower right while in wireframe view of the view you're rendering, the image gets slightly distorted, and is most noticeable (to me) with spheres. Try going to your edit view and clicking the "+" button to correct the view, then re-render. You might have to rearrange your juggling man, but all else will be correct.

Hee, hee, Humorix. I've been thinking of asking Corel to throw in a free laser-prototyping machine with each copy of Bryce 6, so we can model in REAL 3D --no more of this silly rendering to screen. Heck, they might as well with some of these wishes and expectations! Oh, and I still want it to cost less than $300! As for your copywriting, I give you a good solid B! No mice were harmed in the making of this post.

Someone will correct me if I'm wrong, but it's my understanding that Bryce's default resolution is 72 ppi. If, however, you choose the "Render to Disk" option (I think it's under the "File" menu; I'm not at my Bryce station), you can set both the dimension and the final resolution of your image.

Ain't capitalism great? In other words, no one is stopping you from buying another app that will fulfill your needs. Quite a few of us are far less interested in animation than in large single-frame renders (print-resolution poster-size work would benefit from network rendering, by the way, so thinking that network rendering is only for animation is naive). Maybe --just maybe-- Corel knows more about its market than you do. (I've been a Brycer since 1.0, when there was NO animation, so I've always understood that --no matter how much people wanted animation, no matter how cool it is, and no matter how much I enjoy dabbling in it-- Bryce's original and primary intent was and is as a single-frame renderer. You might as well be upset at Adobe for not including 3D animation capabilities in Photoshop.) Ever hear of the three-headed beast of business? Quality, value, and speed. You get to pick two, because the product or service that comes with all three is either not achievable or is deeply flawed in a hidden way. You want Corel to up Bryce's quality and speed up renders while keeping the price low? Not gonna happen, because the customer is going to have to be charged for the efforts to improve quality and speed, which means your low price went out the window. Want to improve quality but keep the price low? That means they'll hold off on fixing render speed for a few more versions. Faster renders and low price? That means few, if any, new features. You get the drift?

That's VERY cool!

Addendum: Of course, your tree is set to a cloud texture, while mine was water. Your mileage probably definitely varied. Perhaps I should re-render my image with a non-water texture, eh? Thanks again for your efforts in pushing the envelope!