Aldaron: I am going to order it today. Thanks to you and the others who have replied. Paul

orhlu: That is the most impressive cloth model I have ever seen. It is just damn unbelieveable! How did you do it? I have been trying to make a good cloth model using Lightwave for a couple of years and I have not come close to what you have done. My models look more like paper (stiff) than cloth. What are you using to make the model? Thanks; Paul

MadMax has a great idea. A basic Bryce program with labs to purchase seperately. I don't use the animation feature so I would rather have other choices. The seperate labs should allow for plug-ins. This would be great. Paul Oksnee

Wyrwulf: Thanks for the link. Paul

Johnpenn: Thanks I'll give it a try. It looks good. Paul

3dwiz: You are right, I just found out about this and I have to say the tress are pretty good. Paul

Alleycat169: Thanks for your reply. I have been do computer art for years. I would not want Bryce to be Lightwave, actually I think Bryce has more potential than Lightwave for landscape and even perhaps still life art which are my interests. I agree the tree lab is a great improvement over the "ready made" trees included with Bryce, but the "ready mades" were totally useless. Everyone says for the money Bryce is worth it. That may be so, but I think Bryce could be so much more, perhaps Bryce should do as Lightwave did...have a Bryce Light and a Super Bryce. I would not mind paying more for an advanced Bryce. As I have said I really like the "lab" concept and the format of Bryce. The procedure for producing realistic trees in Lightwave or Maya for that matter is ridiculous. I don't mind learning processes and procedures, but I don't want to spend my time finding work-a-rounds. I would rather spend time creating art than correcting software issues, particulary ones that could be easily fixed like the tree trunk curve. Or adding a bending capability for trunks. Paul

Clay: Thanks for your suggestion. I have tried to get rid of the deformed tree trunk...what do you tweak in the tree lab? Thanks again; Paul

Alleycat169: Thanks for your reply. I agree many question are just a matter of learning more about Bryce. I have been using it since Bryce 2 and learn at least one new thing every time I use it. But that is kind of the problem, I want to use it to create something, not necessarily have a learning experience. Speaking of dial adjustments, how do you get rid of the curve that is in all tree trunks when viewed up close? Or what adjustments do you use to put a curve in a tree trunk (where you want it) or cause a bend in a tree trunk to make it look natural? These are the quality issues I mean. I feel Bryce has great potential, but so far none of the owners are willing to develop it. None of the other "more expensive" programs have some of the potential that Bryce does, particularly in landscape scenes. The lab concept is a great idea, but the tree lab as it stands is not worth much for making realist looking trees. Paul

Clay you are right the patch addressed "crashes" which never happened to me so the patch is useless to me. I was hoping that the patch would address quality problems. One the the BIG problems for me, and I would think anybody who wanted realist looking trees, was the goofy curve on both sides of tree trunks. All trees from tree lab have it if you creat a tree and move the camera in close to the trunk, you can see it. I feel Bryce has such potential, but it's various owners do not want to develop it. Oh well maybe the next owners will!

I do not see any reference to tree lab under enhancements to Bryce 5.01. Are there any? The enhancements do not look like much to me. Paul

What would be great for Bryce or any other 3D software would be an object; kind of like metaballs that would take the shape of the surrounding walls and could be raised or lowered. Also could be given a texture or material attribute. It could be used for lakes, rivers...wine glasses...what ever.

Alleycat169: I'll give it a try, but not so simple. This is a wine glass and it has a stem and base (which can also be enclosed in a negative cube), but the "liquid" will not be continous (hollow in the middle) and may not look right. Thanks; Paul

JJNorton: Thanks for your reply. Your suggestion is great for a boolean you make yourself, but if you are using a one mesh model made by someone else, that is a different story. Any ideas here? Thanks; Paul

I tried metaballs. I may not be using them right, but metaballs don't seem to do much (just different shaped blobs). They are also hard to place on branches of trees from tree lab. Thanks for the ideas. Paul