Hi drawbridgep.

Thanks for that, It's always interesting to know of opinions. There's really only one MAJOR thing that bothers me about PR's release, and it's this:

When I read through almost any PR thread, I can't help but get the impression that people STILL think that PR is a program or a plugin. The reality of course, is that this is NOT the case, and I've never said otherwise. This bothers me a lot, because it means that no matter how good PR is, and no matter how many people it helps out, a lot of people will come down on it like a ton of bricks. And the sad fact of the matter is that in most cases, this will be because of what it is, and without regard for what it actually does.

Yeh drawbridgep, I know, thanks for the warning. I'm ready for the "experience" I KNOW I'm gonna get, no matter how PR is recieved. I only hope that the amount of positive response, outweighs the negative. I can't please everyone, but then, who can?

My pre-release post will include:

Explanation of Reflection problem.

Explanation of Smoothing problem.

Explanation of Boolean problem.

Standard Bryce to PRO-RENDER comparisons.

PRO-RENDER to PRO-RENDER-XTREME comparisons.

PRO-RENDER and PRO-RENDER-XTREME specifications.

Len.

Aldaron,
Believe me, the emotions displayed here, have me totally amazed. I personally can't understand how anyone can have any dislike of such a product, especially now it's free! I just wish that some people would settle down a little, and see PR for what it is, and that's a product to make advanced rendering easy, and there's nothing wrong with that.

catlin mc(post 99), derjimi(post 123),
Apology accepted, no problem, it's water under the bridge.

Thanks to others for the supportive comments.

I'll be posting again soon with my pre-release posts.

Regards,

Len.

Easy derjimi. I did say "CLOSE" to abandoning, I did'nt say I had. When I came close to abandoning PR, I started preparing an announcement for the forums. However, because I've decided to continue PR and PRX, there was no point in posting it was there? I personally, don't see your problem here. If I had'nt mentioned it in my previous post, you would never have known any different. I don't see how honesty can be lame. Len.

Hi everyone.

I've just read the recent posts here, and this is really just a quick "STILL HERE" kind of post.

I'm sorry I have'nt posted as much as I would like to. Unfortunately, I have a lot of other business to attend to, other than PR (PRO-RENDER). In fact, I came VERY close to abandoning PR just recently, as it's no longer in my best interest to produce and support it. However, thanks to the opportunity offered by PRX (PRO-RENDER-XTREME), I've decided to continue and complete both.

Just before I go, I feel the air needs to be cleared regarding the name "PRO-RENDER". It has been suggested in one or two threads, that perhaps it's misleading or unsuitable. First of all, I need to point out that the word PROFESSIONAL is not for the sole purpose of use, to describe a product with which you can make money. The word PROFESSIONAL, is also used to describe a standard of quality. The name "PRO-RENDER", was created to describe a product which can give PRO standard RENDERS, and because PRO-RENDER can do this, the name is entirely suitable, and not in any way misleading. If there are members, who disagree with this, then I'm sorry, but that name is going to stay. And if there are members who believe it's name suggests a "PAY PACKET", then there's an almost infinite list of other products that also use the abbreviation "PRO" in their name, like "Paint-Shop-Pro" for example.

Final pre-release renders, and a FINALISED specification chart will be uploaded soon. Please bear with me, I'm working on it ;-)

Speak to you all soon,

Len.

drawbridgep,

Spot on!

And, the bus maybe missing it's engine, but it'll soon be fitted!

Len.

"What's more important, the road travelled or the destination?"

That all depends upon your goal:

A: To get the image you want.

B: To get the image you want, and to know there's a consistent way to get it under more than one circumstance, and for everyone who attempts it.

As I've said, that's GORGEUS. I saw that image, and loved it immidiately, and you have a valid point.

But there is another point to remember. When you created that image, you did so using your own skill, and innovation. It does'nt matter what your level of skill is, the point is, YOU DID IT, and as I've said, RESPECT!

Now, would'nt you agree, if that sort of effect was a standard feature of Bryce 5, then everyone would have the knowledge to create such a render. This then, is route B, and that's the route of PRO-RENDER, or rather the logic behind it's existence.

I hope you can see what I'm trying to convey :-)

Len.

Ahhh man, you cheat :-))

I kinda hoped you had done it for real.

Yeh, your right, I should be doing the manual, sorry, but I just can't resist!

Can PRO-RENDER do this for real? ...time will tell ;-)

Len.

NOW you're talking... ...thats just GORGEOUS! RESPECT!

AgentSmith,

Thanks for joining in, and for your comments.

It was made clear to me in the other thread, that my renders are nothing exceptional, and I agree, because I see myself as more designer, than artist, and those renders are rather "void" of any artistic quality.
If I where to post my renders to my gallery, I can't help thinking that I'd get agro for it. I appreciate that you have'nt had time to read through the other thread yet, but if and when you do, you will know why I can't risc upsetting the members here, anymore than I already have.
Thanks for the thought though :-)

drawbridgep,

As was originally intended, I hope to get PRO-RENDER out there by August 2004. You're right about no eating, sleeping, forums, or emails. I've had less sleep over the past two weeks, than I've ever known. When I announced PRO-RENDER, I had'nt reckoned on all this publicity. I looked at the threads other members where posting and thought, yeh, I'll probably get about 20 replies or something.

...yeh, I know.

Anyway, I intend to post a set of images soon. These will HAVE TO BE my final response until the release of PRO-RENDER, and yes, it's because of the manual. As I've recently pointed out to Tesign, over at DAZ. The manual is going to be a problem. I have to write it in a manner that beginners can understand, but at the same time, I have to be carefull, that the more seasoned users don't think I'm insulting their intelligence. I've only ever written one manual before, and that was for a rendering product I created for IMAGINE, on the Amiga. That was when the internet was in it's infancy, so I never got to know how the manual faired.

Anyway, I'll do my best.

Regards,

Len.

...pumeco used the SUN and ehhh NO LIGHT!

...still watching :-)

Hi everyone.

I may not be posting much at the moment, but I am certainly watching all these PRO-RENDER synthesis type threads. It reminds me, of me, when I was in the process of developing PRO-RENDER, and it's great to be able to look in like this :-))

I am really enjoying watching this, and no, before anyone even suggests it, I'm NOT trying to be witty.

Every image I've posted here, demonstrates quite clearly, that light does "bounce" in Bryce 5, If it did'nt, then perhaps someone had better explain how on earth I created those images.

There have been many digs at PRO-RENDER for being a slow method of rendering. Well, let's be honest here, the attempts so far to imitate the output of PRO-RENDER have resulted in the render times of your images coming pretty darn close to that of my SAMPLE 1 (WIDESCREEN TV) render.

Perhaps now, more of you will appreciate that render for what it is. Boring as it may be, it has a very reasonable render time, considering the method used to create it.

Oh yes, almost forgot...

draculaz, I quote you:

"as for that image, if that's the result you get with massive rrp, then i'd be afraid to see how it would look like with a normal setting."

...well all I can say to that one is, check out SAMPLE 1 (WIDESCREEN TV), because that image, WAS rendered with a normal RRP setting.

If you have found a MORE accurate method of illumination than this, then I for one, would love to get my hands on it :-)

So then, it seems, we've come full circle. Surely now it's my turn to be the sceptic here. The very fact that members are trying to emulate the PRO-RENDER method, and failing, shows that I HAVE a valid product. A product that WILL do what it was always intended to do, - to help Bryce 5 users, create more professional looking renders.

I'll post some more images soon. But until then, I'll be watching these threads, and watching you learn. Keep up the good work ;-)

Finally, I'll give you all a little advice that should help you in your quest to crack PRO-RENDER.

The advice is simple...

...listen REAL GOOD to what Peter(PJF) is trying to teach you. He has, by far, the most solid perception of PRO-RENDER posted in these threads. If you really want to crack PRO-RENDER before it's release, then consider PJF's knowledge, your guide book!

Regards,

Len.

Hell... I think I'd better grab a pen and paper quick, and make a note of todays date...

aha.... ahemmmmm.... rrright...

July 15th, International "HAVE A GO AT PUMECO" day, must remember that one!

First of all the "Render tests?" thread, now this.

I could be doing without all this you know, but still, It gives PRO-RENDER more publicity, so I'm not complaining.
However, generous that I am, I'll give a little substance to thread by posting some info.

There's obviously doubt here, as to whether or not the MOONLIT ROOM scene was done with one light. Well, the reason I said it was done with one light was because, it WAS, done with one light (THE SUN).

Because of the method PRO-RENDER uses to illuminate a scene, everything in that scene, effectively becomes an INDIRECT light source. So, I will explain to you how PRO-RENDER essentially SEES that scene.

Basically, the SINGLE light from outside the room gets bounced from object to object. So, because there's a wall OPPOSITE the window, the sunlight hits it, get's reflected BACK towards the window, and therefore causes the sphere to create ANOTHER shadow. This is happening throughout the entire MASS of 3D space in the render, and is the reason that my images look the way they do. PRO-RENDER causes Bryce 5 to act as close to real-world illumination as possible.

Oh BTW, there are NO blurry reflections or transmissions in the scene, and no, you cannot do this by simply making adjustments to ambience either way. The image looks the way it does, because PRO-RENDER is a COMPLETE and SPECIFIC method, not a bit's'n'pieces quickie.

Finally, on the subject of that 22hour+ render time, I recall that I gave the specs for it, along with the image.
Check the specs out again, the VIRTUAL RRP for that image is MASSIVE, so I think that warrants it's render time.

Regards,

Len.

Well spotted dan whiteside. Ok...Twistedbolt...hurry up with that render. C'mon I'm waiting...

Hi drawbridgep.

I have'nt had time to download your animations yet, but I have the collectors edition DVD of that movie, and that render would'nt look out of place on it's cover...

...nice!

Regards,

Len.