Quote - Yes "Use Host to Render" option has been removed.

Make sure you use the proper Bryce Lightning with the Version of Bryce in use.

Example Bryce v6.x uses Bryce Lightning v2.0C  which does not work with Bryce v5.0 or v5.5

Are you saying that you need to install Bryce Lightning on the client computers w/5.5?  In 5.0 a machine with the full Bryce install would work ... Bryce Lightning was only needed if you were going to use a machine as a client without having a full Bryce install on it.

Also, I'm truly stumped as to why "Use Host to Render" was removed.  Usually I'm going to do the bulk of my Bryce scene design on my most powerful computer, so then to have that machine sitting dormant while I do network rendering almost makes it a waste of time to use network rendering at all.

Thinking seriously of going back to Bryce 5.01 at this point ... Daz hasn't impressed me at all with their abilities as a software development house.

Thanks Dan!  I did install it today, and I'm finding everything you said to be exactly true for me as well.  Rendering on my 2.33 Ghz Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro is only slightly above half of the speed of my HP Windows laptop with a 2.0 Ghz Core Duo (on the exact same scene).  So I'd evaluate the relative, cycle-for-cycle performance to be cut by up to 70% by Rosetta.
All the same, the performance seems good enough to allow me to do some scene design and modeling on my Mac, and that's a good thing, since that's the machine where both Photoshop and my video editing software reside.  I'll be doing network rendering when the time comes for lengthy final renders anyway, so both machines will get to participate.

Quote - > Quote - EDIT: Looks like I may have spoke too soon.  Something in the "Bryce 5.5 for free" thread led me to believe that the Mac version was also available, but I can't find it, so perhaps not.  :(

Perhaps you have spoken too soon again because a simple search for the word "Bryce" on download.com already brought it up.

Oh, you're right ... thank goodness!  What threw me was that, when I clicked on "Design Tools" as originally instructed, it wasn't shown there ... and moreover, only Windows OSes were shown in the filter box.

Now that Bryce 5.5 is freely downloadable, I guess this will finally allow me to run Bryce on my Intel MacBook Pro?  (Under Rosetta, of course ... can't have everything for free.)  Are there any other problems or warnings I should know about before I spend the time downloading and installing this?

EDIT: Looks like I may have spoke too soon.  Something in the "Bryce 5.5 for free" thread led me to believe that the Mac version was also available, but I can't find it, so perhaps not.  :(

In case anyone wants to see, here's a quick little test render of a simple parachute-like object that I have been testing with in order to observe the translucent effect on both the inside and outside surfaces.

This render uses blurry transmissions (not blurry reflections) with the specular color set to white.  One difference is that I'm using a negative object that is transmitting a flat white color to the inside of the object, which seems to help with making the inside surface look more realistic.  Both the inside and outside surfaces are using a transparency value of right around 50% in order to test and observe the translucent glow effect more easily.  (There are no lights in the scene other than a radial light at the location of the flame.)

I'm pretty pleased with this result thus far, and deeply appreciate all of the terrific input that people have been offering.

Quote -
Now comes the magic, when u have the light shining through looking good. we go to the premium render settings and we turn all premium effects off, except blurry reflections. Change rpp to a low setting for test renders 4rpp-16rpp will do just fine.
Blurry reflections can blur out whatever shines through the transparent surface! thus making it look translucent. It's a powerfull method to simulate translucent surfaces! To control how much the amount of blur, sue the specular halo color in the texture of the balloon.

Wow, you put a lot of thought into this, and I really appreciate it.  But did you actually mean "blurry reflections", or is it possible that you intended to recommend use of "blurry transmissions" instead?  Because I'm getting just about exactly what you describe with only "blurry transmissions" checked (especially changing the translucency with the specular color ... I never would have known that), whereas the behavior of "blurry reflections" doesn't seem to be matching what you've described.

Excellent reference pictures and good observations.  But now the $64K question remains: how can one create (or simulate) translucent (not transparent) materials/surfaces in Bryce?

I wonder if the judge is accustomed to this particular officer (or even all of them as a group) trying to "meet his quota" by issuing false cell phone tickets?  That might explain both why the case was resolved so fast, and the "don't even try it" comment to the officer.

Anyway, congrats and well done!

Ah, I see.  Thanks much for the info.

It's too bad that material animation (which I am depending upon for my current project) is broken in Bryce 6, or I'd consider upgrading for this purpose.  At least I can continue to use Bryce 5 on my PC for now ... I'm just trying to migrate more of my work over to the Mac (now that I've got one), and was hoping to make Bryce one of those programs.

Ooo ... I had completely forgotten about the Render Options dialog.  I just tried enabling True Ambience, and it definitely improved the results of my "inner ambient bag" method a LOT.  Thanks for that!

I was thinking of something similar: i.e., adding a gradient mask to the alpha texture used for the outer bag's transparancy to lessen the effect at distances further from the burner.  But perhaps adjusting the ambience of the inner bag itself in this way would indeed be more effective.  Good thoughts!

Thanks for all of the input!

What has been the problem has been emulating the gentle glow that fills almost the entire bag when those burners light off in the dark, and the existence of a "flame object" doesn't seem like it would be of any help in that.  That's such a cool thing to see in person that I'd like to realize it as closely as possible in my animation.

I tried the idea I'd proposed in the last paragraph of my previous message, and it comes kind of vaguely close, anyway.  I'd still like to get closer, but at least I feel like I'm in the ballpark now ... maybe it will do the trick after some additional refinement.  However, I remain open to any brilliant notions that anyone might have.  I'm still working with a sphere primitive for testing it today, but before the end of the weekend I figure to try a render with one of my actual balloon models ... when I do, I'll post the results for your comments.

I don't think hot air balloons are transparent to any significant degree: look at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon for some example photos of what I mean.  Anyway, if I add just barely enough transparency to the balloon to allow a little bit of the inside light through (not enough to achieve the desired effect), I can already see the pattern on the opposite side of the balloon, as well as the horizon beyond, and I think that's very wrong.  :(

I did just figure out my ambience problem - my ambient color in Sky Lab was black.  Thanks for trying it for me, though.  (slapping self :)

I'm now wondering if it might work to put a solid, highly ambient copy of the balloon bag just inside the main balloon bag, and then add some transparency to the outer bag?  That way the slightly transparent balloon still couldn't be seen through.  And if I base the outer bag's transparency on an alpha texture that is less transparent in darker areas, perhaps it would prevent the "washed out" effect?  Does that sound like a workable approach, or can someone suggest a better one?

Add my name onto this petition as well. I purchased P4 from Curious Labs, and was originally very interested in P5, but instantly knew I wouldn't purchase P5 (or use it ... I don't steal software) once I became aware of the "activation" system it uses. This objection is primarily out of concern that the company will eventually not be around anymore (all too common an occurrence in this industry) and my software will thereafter become useless, but also it is because of the annoyance factor ... this is why I don't plan to upgrade to XP either. The very idea of having a limited number of installs on OSes that practically require periodic reinstallation of the entire OS to run properly, even without consider computer hardware upgrades ... well, it seems to me that adding such a scheme to software is much like intentionally building in a time-triggered virus. Also, I have never purchased and never intend to purchase any software that requires a dongle either (I'd have to disconnect other hardware in order to attach it). Nor will I touch software schemes that write strange stuff into corners of your hard drive like Pace ... that's just asking for system trouble, as most anyone with a Pace-infected system can tell you. Serial numbers are just fine by me, though, if CL must have some sort of security device. But they won't see any more of my business with the current security scheme, nor with the hinted-at dongle idea. Too bad for both CL and me, I guess. I'll get by well enough without upgrading Poser ... but will they? As has been said before, the dumbest element of this whole deal is that hackers will undoubtedly find ways around any security device, so those slimeballs who really are stealing Poser won't be hindered much or at all by this security scheme. Instead, it is only legitimate current and/or potential customers whom CL will end up having punished and pushed away. David Sandberg

This is very touching ... thank you for making it available.