IF I want to open it in a new window then I can perfectly well hold the SHIFT key for myself and decide what's good for me. Now I don't have any choice anymore and someone not knowing how I like to view things decides what's best for me (the word "lamer" comes to mind). What's wrong with having to use the shift key when clicking or the back button to go back? It's not as if you need to operate that mousebutton with two hands. Or make it so that you can decide to turn it off in your profile. That way it's a very good thing of course. As long as I'm not FORCED to use it.

I think it sucks. If I WANT to open it in a new window then I can perfectly well hold the SHIFT key for myself. Now I don't have any choice anymore. What's wrong with having to use the shift key when clicking? It's not as if you need to operate that mousebutton with two hands. Or at least make it so that you can decide to turn it off in your profile?

I don't think you can easily produce that in PS... The GI version looks MUCH better in my opinion *way more depth in the water for instance). I would simply accept the rendertime and let it render in a few nights. I'm pretty sure you too will have spare time in wich you don't make use of the the computer. Use it anyway, it's worth it! (cool render btw)

Yup it is an estimate... therefore the smaller you go, the more inaccurate it will be. However, doing it like this almost always gives me the estimate within a few minutes (with over hours of rendering).

Rendertime is easily estimated... Just divide the size of your image to render by x and render it at the settings you want. Then multiply the true time by x^2 and you have an almost 100% good estimate. So let's say you would want a render of 800 x 600. We make x=10... So render it at 80 x 60. If it takes 2 minutes then the real time will be 2*10^2=200 minutes. If you think 80 x 60 is already too long to wait then make x=20 so the pictogram you're rendering is 40 x 30...

Increasing the size of things is not an option either for what you want. The atmospheric effects kick in way more because the distance changes and you would have to tweak everything to get it the way you want. I agree that a small camera would make sense. and I would love to have it too

#4

Attached Link: http://munkh3ymagnet.nofrag.com/?rep_rubrique=tools&page_centre=article&id=1

7

I can't get the lighting figured out on this one: The right side of his face is illuminated most. The rest of the room seems to be illuminated mostly from the left though (see the dog, the doorknob and the shadows of the towels). Beside that: The subject itself is wel lit!

No one seems to discuss "ex-Vue users". There must be reason(s) for that.......... Yup, Because Vue is better (and because we're in THIS forum of course ;). All I was saying is that I wished it didn't have such a slow interface. If it was fast, like Bryce then it would leave Bryce far behind on ALL aspects. I too prefer Vue's interfce EXCEPT that it is so slow

wabe,
It's still rendering and I expect it to do so over the weekend (started it at work and it will definitely take a LONG time to stop rendering). Then again, I used about 100 lights in the Bryce scene (a little bit overdone ;) and as far as I can see, the Bryce result comes out slightly better than the Vue.

The result is what counts for sure. That's why I'm working with Vue mostly these days. It's NOT because Vue is doing it faster but because the render engine is better to me. I can render at night and I don't mind if I have to save it in the morning and then continue rendering (yes it's possible to save during a render in Bryce and then continue rendering again, so who cares how long it takes in Bryce?)

But when you try to use options that are simply not working because it's so darn slow in Vue then it irritates. Yes, I know there are work-arounds and if Eon says that this is the only way to work really well with Vue then so be it: DROP the options that are not working!

But... Why wouldn't it be possible to make Vue's interface work 100 times smoother like Bryce and still have Vue's render engine? The really slow interface is exactly what irritates most ex-Bryce users (including me) once the number of objects goes up. Change that and Bryce won't stand a chance anymore.

As it is now I see a lot of really good artists (way better than I) keeping Bryce. Simply because they work with it for a long time every day. They feel that the need for a better interface than Vue's is more important than the render engine. If needed they have tricks to come up with the same results.

Look in my gallery at the last pic to see if that's what you want... Anyway, I simply use a lot of fog and haze to get the depth. When you use the right color of it then it's almost as if the under water feel comes automatically