Professional -vs- Amatuer also speaks directly to the heart of the matter... I have been using 3DSMax for about 6 years, though this has been using 3D for architectual visualization, not artistic per-se. I have been paid for this ie. -professional. not better than amatuer, but deadlines definitely trump art in my work! As such render time is VERY important! In 1995 I was retired prematurely due to Multiple Sclerosis, and bought Max from my employer. I am an amatuer as an artist and bought Bryce and Poser et. al. for a hobby, hoping one day to get paid, at that time I'll probably use Max for rendering. Unless Bryce does improves dramatically of course. Bryce creates wonderful skies to use in Max as tiled skydome materials, by the way. Bryce doesn't cost much and is worth it for that alone. But I also purchased Lightscape a couple day's ago. Once you've had true radiosity it's hard to go back! Bryce has a chance at competing with Lightscape. But if you are comparing Bryce to Max, Maya, and Lightwave. forget about it! I am sure Corel doesn't try to measure themselves and Bryce against these 3D dev/animation systems. I would have loved for Bryce 5 to support rendering enhancements similar to lightscape because I love the Bryce UI. And HATE the Lightsacpe one. Not to mention price (Lightscape cost $495.00) Bryce renders are not the best or the fastest, as a former Pro I don't plan to upgrade. ... but the aspiring artist in me probably will eventually anyway! I don't want to fan any flames here. But if there are people who read posts here hoping to make an informed buying descision. ALL opinions have some value...

I'm sticking with 4.0 but only because 4 works fine for my limited uses, 5 doesn't offer much new. But the price seems reasonable to me. Microsoft IS the world champ at underachievement, the Windows 9x's ar not a whole helluva lot different since Windows 95 OSR 2.1. but people lined up for 98. again for 98 SE, and quivered over ME. And XP is the supposed "must have" for '01 I think Corel will serve their market well. Real Radiosity is all it'll take for me...

M$MPEG4.inf file is the installation file. Right click on that, then choose install from the drop-down menu... It is kinda unusual, but most codecs are intalled that way...

By the way the DIVX fast motion codecs are pretty good as .ASF file too. for web content anyway. But the Mpoeg4 codecs are better when banswidth isn't an issue... Microsoft used to have a portion of their web site for Windows Media. On-demand Producer was free 6 months ago. But I don't know now...

i use Windows Media On-Demand Producer ver 4.0 Are you right clicking on the file to install? I have installed this codec in Win98, Win ME and in Win 2000, I haven't had any troubles. All I did was to run the right click install, and be sure to copy MPG4C32.dll and mpg4ds32.ax to your windowssystem directory, Sorry if that is no help to you.

What am I missig? Mpeg2 is DVD, IE *.vob's. MPEG codecs ARE available. And cost $0.00!... I'll toss out more food for thought Microsofts .ASF format which runs in Microsofts' multimedia player... "QuickTime, Real, and Windows Media all provide video codecs better than that of MPEG-4. ..." Stuie don't believe EVERYTHING you read! ;) I use .ASF to compress Mpeg4 avi's exclusively. If I want to avoid forcing my clients to download some goofy plug-in...

I don't see the problem... Just install the Mpeg 4 codec, then run any video program even avi2vcd, Mpg4 will be anoption, along with all codecs installed.

It took me several years to become an functional novice. I started with Max 2.0. I can't afford Max 4.0, so I'm sticking with 3.1 Discreete should rethink the 15 day trial. I know a little about Max, for instance, I know that's just long enough to remind you that you will need to invest time and money in MORE training. On the other hand, Max is a teriffic piece of software, so if Discreete can get more new people into the fold... That's so much the better for us all!