I would just like to express my sincere disapointment in the publication of my article. The entire piece was chopped to bits. The writing no longer flows (at all)... The first paragraph was utterly destroyed. A section of my original introduction written as; "The native lighting in Bryce is inefficient at best; soft shadows use complex ray based algorithms, ambient illumination in its true form- does not even exist, and volumetric lights become near impossible to render on any machine. Fortunately, there are loopholes which allow one to pass by these shortcomings with ease." was changed to "The native lighting in bryce is inefficient at best; soft shadows use complex ray based algoithms. Ambient illumination, in its true form, does not exist, and volumetric lights become near impossible to render on any machine." In place of a suitable piece a chopped up fragment was added... The introduction sentence about loopholes was added to the next paragraph and butchered completely, as was the rest of the article. I'd add more, but I'm afraid of legal consequences. I would like to state that I am completely detatching myself from this article and magazine; I hold no responsibility for what they claim is my work. Furthermore, I am very disapointed in the editing and production of said piece. This is not something I would have expected from renderosity.

Ornlu, I am really sorry to hear that happened. I was even considering purchasing the magazine, but I would have done so strictly for your article, which I now will not have the benefit of reading.

Could be worse, could be raining.

woah... I worked in newspapers (granted, university rag level) and I can tell you that there are two kinds of editors, or rather submission forms: the one that gets back to you and tells you what they're going to cut and the other that's made up of people who won't, chop up your work, and then generally don't care. The way they changed your writing might as well be used for an anti-Bryce article. It is shameful. I'd ask them why they did it before I'd jump and tell them they're arseholes, but yeah... very unfortunate. Drac

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12357&Form.ShowMessage=1574795

I am sorry for what they did, it is most unfortunate... Guess you won't make that mistake again....the thing is it's your work they're butchering, your copyright, it's a sad thing but lately par for the course. Have you been keeping track of the 'we want your free content, but we will charge you for the magazine that is no longer a tangiable thing but online content' threads? http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12357&Form.ShowMessage=1583580

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

hope you don't mind, ornlu, but i posted something in the magazine interact forum 'asking' them of what their editorial policy is mihnea

Considering we don't even get a complimentry copy of the magazine, the least they could do is not slander us by adding improper english to our articles. Granted, I'm not master of the english language, but the mistake they made, after changing my wording, was amazingly obvious. Thanks though, it is pretty amazing.. This magazine must be nearly all profit aside from publication.

What publication? It's all online content now.....just some coding added to a web page (that's simplified of course) you don't even get to touch it it anymore, no printing costs, no delivery costs.....I'd say it's mostly profit now. Unlike other online magazines they don't even pay the contributors that make the magazine possible, yup, all profit now...

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

Sorry about your publication woes, Ornlu. Zhann, is there a link to the online mag now?

I was just thinking, Ornlu, you should check around, I'm sure there's an online magazine that would be willing to pay for your article (from what I heard, most pay between $500 to $1000 per article, or some .15 to .25 a word)....

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

Never mind.. I found the link! LOL!!

Ardiva, Issue 8 is the last one actually printed, issue 9 will be totally online content in, I think February....check the Magazine Interact Forum for details, not sure...

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

Ornlu, having been impressed beyond measure with your work --made me rethink how to use tools-- I'd very much like to see the article the way you intended it; is it online anywhere?

It can't under the agreement be posted anywhere online for 90 days after publication......:(

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

Wow.I thought it was a magazine to the people and for the people of this community for the majority.Reading through issue 7 I thought the mag could use more content.I found it a nice publication on good paper.But it took very little time to read.Now you say they are chopping editorials up.Sorry, doesn't wash with me.If I wrote something,I would want it as I wrote it.Sorry this has affected you in this manner.Try to have a Happy new Year.

Painting: The art of protecting flat surfaces from the weather and exposing them to the critic_____website

Um...

Ornlu, I'm sorry you feel that they've butchered your writing, but having read your version and their version in your complaint, I have to say that they've actually done a pretty good job. Here's why:

Your first sentence runs on, especially after the semi-colon. I understand that you are introducing your idea with "The native lighting in Bryce is inefficient at best." Then, the three concepts after that--

1. Soft shadows use complex ray based algorithms.
2. Ambient illumination--in its true form--does not even exist.
3. Volumetric lights become near impossible to render on any machine.

--are supposed to SUPPORT that idea, which is why you've kept it all as one sentence. As I said, though, it's a run-on sentence with all those subject nouns and verbs, all of which makes it grammatically incorrect.

A better way to keep all those concepts together would be to group them as sentences in a single paragraph, which is what they did. That's partly why they moved the sentence about the loopholes into the next paragraph--so it doesn't muddy up your group of concepts there.

All in all, it makes sense, AND it's grammatically correct. The only thing I would have done differently is change their first sentence and break it up into two:

"The native lighting in Bryce is inefficient at best. Soft shadows use complex ray-based algorithms."

That way, it doesn't look like items 2 and 3 are off by themselves while item 1 is stuck to the idea you've introduced.

Anyway, I didn't mean to rain on your ranting parade--just thought I'd throw that in. I don't work for the magazine; nor do I buy it. However, I have a cum laude bachelor's degree in literature and writing, and I've worked a few times as an editor and as a proofreader. So, stuff like this is kind of my forte.

Congratulations on getting published, by the way!

:)

The internet offers a fine way for individual writers to reach a potentially wide audience without the grief of dealing with editors and publishers. Another joy of posting tutorials, tips-n-tricks, and other program user related material on open websites is the continuance of the fine, old-fashioned tradition of the free exchange of information between those sharing a common interest. I can't say I have any sympathy for the magazine or Ornlu. This all seems a very appropriate outcome. Bah, humbug, etc.

I've been asked to write an article for the next magazine issue (also on lighting). Now I hesitate to do it.

Man oh man would that tick me off!!! To no end. Personally, I think its a shame that they get everything for it for free (you dont even get a copy!?! UNBELIEVABLE!). The covers, the articles, etc. Seems they are "art pimps" that use the artists here to make a profit. What a shame... the Almighty Dollar is king in this world. Really, that's a bummer to hear, Ornlu. LAME -Bruce

Aprilgem, however, that was not my original intent.. Those are just three things that bryce is inefficient in. HOWEVER, I explained that there are loopholes to get around these... They left this out... Not to mention the fact that the rest of the article has many many changes, some of which change meaning completely. At one point they say "while producing better visual" changed from... "while producing superior visual results"... better visual? I'm not trying to land a plane, this is about art.

haven't read the article as yet..will do so in a few hours time. (just woke up..) ornlu.. editors have to do their job. If aprilgem's observations are correct, well... they do have to edit it. I sympathize with you. I've had to butcher, rewrite stories completely..so much that reporters cried. But it was the only way of making it printable, short of trashing it. If the editor is a bad one, I think you ought to just take it up with them. Ask them why did they make the changes they did. Hopefully, they won't mind. If their editing changed the meaning of a sentence, or thought, tell them. They have to know. Occdoug, normally an editor won't show you what they edited before it's published, but I think you may be able to ask them here. If any changes are made that you don't approve, you can always tell them before it gets published.

Prior communication here would be my only concern. If editing changes the the original intention, wouldn't it behoove both parties to iron it out? Otherwise it's a mute point to publish.

___
Ockham's razor- It's that simple

"Those are just three things that bryce is inefficient in. HOWEVER, I explained that there are loopholes to get around these." This is why the three things are part of the paragraph/group and the loopholes aren't; the three are what's inefficient, and the one is how to get around them. That's exactly what I thought you meant and now exactly what you say you intended. So I still hold with what I posted; the loophole sentence is better off separate from what makes Bryce inefficient. As for the rest of the article, I haven't read either version, so I can't really comment on how well or how poorly they've edited your writing. I can only say that, like art, editing can be really subjective; some editors go beyond correcting just grammar and punctuation and try to put in "better phrasing" or "more concise wording" as they see fit. If that's the case, it's a shame they didn't send you a galley proof of some kind so that you could comment on their editing decisions. If they thought they needed to edit your article to that extent, then it probably means you didn't make yourself as clear as you thought you did; but if their editing only makes your meaning even less clear, then you should at the very least have the chance to address that before the whole thing goes to print.

Moot point ... not mute. Sorry, I also tend to edit other people's work. Can't help it. I agree that if the editor changes the meaning of a sentence and the ultimate idea communicated by the article, that is wholly inappropriate. The editor is not there to alter the intent of the written work. If the editor does more than clean up grammar, the occaisional incorrect word usage (as in "moot" rather than "mute"), and punctuation, they should absolutely communicate with the author prior to publication. It is the author's name on the work after all. Some editors are frustrated writers. Some are very good writers that are stuck in their own style of writing. Either type can be horrible editors because they tend to try to impose their style on the author. A good editor makes suggestions and works with the author. A REALLY good editor doesn't leave their fingerprints all over the place.

Could be worse, could be raining.

Newspapers are pretty bad when it comes to editing too. Like you said, meaning isn't just in the words - but in how it's worded. LOL... I've had that happen myself. Anyhow if theres any major edits, shouldn't they use those brackets "[ ]" with comments inside to indicate where a major edit occured. They used to do this a lot, but now editors apparently like to leave their mark upon the original author. I don't exactly care for that.

---

Barbequed Pixels?

Your friendly neighborhood Wings3D nut.
Also feel free to browse my freebies at ShareCG.
There might be something worth downloading.

Aprilgem... Maybe you don't understand what I'm saying here. I'm not a horrible writer, and yet nearly every portion of the article was changed. It's less my work than the editors. Here is another example, mind you this is from the initial onset of the publication... I'm not going to point out every detail, as it would take all night and get me into trouble... My original sentence "For example, dome lighting (the simulation of global illumination), can be created through the use of spherical arrays of omni-lights." Was changed to: "For example, Dome lighting, is a simulation of global illumination. Dome Lighting should not be confused with radiosity because it is not the same thing, yet a similar effect can be created through the use of light domes." Let it also be known that they added a sentence before it that also used "dome lighting" in it.... repeating dome lighting 4 times in a row.. And then using it as a title directly below it. After that my sentence: "Fortunately, Bryce allows us to bypass this using either True Ambiance or Blurry Reflections." Was changed to: "Fortunately, bryce allows us to check a box for either 'true ambience' or 'blurry reflections'." It's not about checking box, it's about utilizing those aspects of bryce... Fortunately, bryce allows us to check those boxes, so that we can use those options to our advantage. It has nothing to do with checking the freaking box. The entire section about using two booleaned spheres for the sky dome was taken out.. This is a necessity when using glass as a subject. It's not even my work! They didn't shorten it. They didn't Simplify it. They chopped it up into mutiple sentences. They made multiple repetetive sentences out of my original work. And I hope you get that I am just being humerous with the above sentences... Furthermore, the subtitles of the images were removed, and yet they were still refered to as 'image 1' - 'image 7' I think I allready mentioned this, however, nearly every transitional phrase in the piece was removed, making it choppy. This was done dispite the fact that I was under the top length for the article. On the contrary, I admit they did indeed fix my gramatical errors in some sentences, but at what cost? As the article wanes I see the editor's fingerprints less and less, however, it's the beginning that drives me up the wall. I didn't post this to be criticized aprilgem, I merely wanted to state that the work in that article is not my own and should therefore not be connected to me in any way. I thank you for your time and hope that you choose not to belittle how I choose to present my ideas any further. Good day.

I've written a fair share of articles in my time, mostly specialty (not unlike R'osity). The first thing I do is insure I have last editorial rights. That basically comes down to; "Yes, you can publish my article for the aforementioned price", or "No, you've slaughtered my original intent and if you go to press I'll have your (fill in the blank) in a vice and will beome mean! Ornlu: Every writer gets it once. The trick is to learn and not get it twice. PS Other than those scam poetry anthology sites, I don't know of any "legitimate" publication that doesn't offer authors at least one hardcopy...

I once had a poem published in one of those scam poetry anthologies... it is as follows.. (you may want to dim the lights and light a few candles before reading)... Entrepreneur by MuddyGrub I wish I'd get a dollar For every time I poo'd. Cuz with the cash I'd buy more, Raw materials, Food.

Ornlu, please try not to take my comments as criticism of your writing in general. I never called you a horrible writer; I addressed only their editing of the lines you mentioned in my first post, and in my second post I stated that they should have given you galley proofs to review, especially if they changed your article so much that they changed the meaning of many lines. When I edit other people's writing, I go beyond grammar, spelling, and punctuation ONLY when I feel that the writer didn't make him or herself clear enough. This is why I assumed whoever edited your work was the same way; I had no idea to what extent they made the changes as I only had your first and second posts on which to make any judgments. Had I known how severely they rewrote your entire article (your later examples are a much better illustration of your original complaint than your first example), then I would have seen your point right away. As it was, I was only trying to give the editor the benefit of the doubt, especially considering how well they DID edit that first bit. I still say you should have gotten galley proofs so that you could correct their corrections. I used to work in magazine publishing, and I thought galley proofs were the standard procedure. I guess Renderosity Magazine is still doing things in a fairly amateur way.

I can imagine how it must be for you Ornlu, having your work all chewed up like this. Sorry to hear you had to go through this. As I started to read this thread I immediately wondered why you weren't given the chance to proofread the edited version before going public with it, but as aprilgem says, Rendosity must be running the magazine in an amateurish way.

Oddly enough I was somewhat surprised that they did not give you a chance to read the edited version before they went public. But upon greater reflection I think I will just shake my head and sigh.

Calypso Dreams... My Art- http://www.calypso-dreams.com

Renderosity Gallery

Whoa! Aprilgem..your publication is a gem on it's own if they allowed writer's to see galley proofs. It's so not done. We were even warned about that in Journalism school. followed it to a T in real life..(worked with 4 papers and 2 mags) Reason? Writers will always dispute what editors have done to the story. reason? It's their work..no one likes it butchered.

Oops! You may be right, Erosiaart. The magazine publishing house where I used to work also published books. Fancy Publications had something like 40-50 magazines and a book division all in one building, and I worked in the electronic/art department, not in the editorial department, so I was not an editor in this case. Perhaps the book division is where I saw the galley proofs, which I think are pretty standard for books. The magazines typically came back from the printer as Rainbow proofs and bluelines, which the production coordinators and editors would look over for a final proofing, and I might have gotten them confused with galley proofs. Sorry for the confusion! :)

LOL...ok everyone..restart the discussion! Ornlu..dry your tears. If I had to print some of the stuff I got while an editor..I'd have caused facts and language wars. The ed here was probably just trying to improve it a bit..do their job. May not have made a good job out of it..but still... To the pple who will be writing for the mag here.. ask the eds for special permission to read the edited version. If they say no..they are following the rules of journalism. You may hate their guts for it...but that's the publication rules all over the world. if they say yes..they have a crush on you and are doing you a favor, or they are not professional editors. You take your pick. And if you feel they spoilt your story? Well.. sob your heart out to us, trash the mag into the trash can, and go write a better one next time! Don't worry..some reporters made me feel real sh.. afterwards. :( We're so used to it. PS..I know I am a sub-ed's worse nitemare. I learnt how to type really fast because of deadlines. And I try not to inflict my editorial life with personal. :)

eros, if the mag was the Economist, then yeah, by all means, let's not mess business with personal stuff, and once you submit your story they're god over it. But this is a mag that doesn't have current events, in terms of politics and so on. I don't see the problem of Ornlu asking to see and approve the finalized version. More than that, it's his right. There's a difference between editing an article and COMPLETELY changing its scope and meaning. M

Some people just can't leave well alone and constantly poke their fingers in other peoples pies. I understand what you are saying about the editor changing the meaning of your words and that is much, much worse that simply correcting grammatical mistakes and should not be allowed without first contacting the author of the article. The phrase "too many chiefs and not enough Indians," comes to mind. Folks in charge here continually seem to think that they can make changes all over without paying any heed to the members. So sorry this has happened to you Ornlu, but I do think you should get in touch with the editor and ask them what they thing they were doing. Catlin

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12420&Form.ShowMessage=1593994&Reply=1594975#5

From the Magazine Interact Forum on this issue.

Ornlu wrote: "This is not something I would have expected from renderosity." I would have... Laurie

I said that more because it seemed like the thing to say. In other words, so I didn't have to say "I knew this would happen..."

I guess the question is, "Can you edit and article about a software's functions, if you do not know how that software works?" So, we are to believe that the editor is not only proficient, but expert in all the softwares that have articles about them submitted to the magazine, and that not only can they edit for spelling or grammar, but technical content as well.....that's quite a feat of intellectual prowess....

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

If you change one word in a chemical formula , you either get library paste or a big boom.....(extremely simplied example)

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

How true Zhann.............8)

In this case Zhann, I think they got a bit of both.

___
Ockham's razor- It's that simple

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

Ornlu quoted the RendoRag misquoting him: "For example, Dome lighting, is a simulation of global illumination. Dome Lighting should not be confused with radiosity because it is not the same thing, yet a similar effect can be created through the use of light domes." Now this one is curious. The 'radiosity' remark is such a substantial addition to what Ornlu appears to have provided that it's hard not to conclude that they ran the article by an independent 3D techie. If so, it either makes a mockery of the notion that they "contact writers for verification of technical details" - or they did in this case and the author failed to provide them with such. Whichever, the final result (as quoted by Ornlu) is an abomination. The 'radiosity' addition was made possibly in an attempt to correct a technical error in what Ornlu wrote: "For example, dome lighting (the simulation of global illumination), can be created through the use of spherical arrays of omni-lights." Let's be clear here - "global illumination" is a specific 3D term used to describe compound render techniques that must take into account all aspects of lighting in a scene (diffusion, reflection, specularity, transmission, caustics, colour bleeding, etc, etc). Global illumination cannot be simulated merely by dome lighting; and nor is dome lighting a render process designed to be such a simulation. However, Ornlu's short phrase in parenthesis can, perhaps, be forgiven as an attempt to rush a complex issue in a few words. The RendoRag version, despite the attempt at 'clarification' through the additional mention of radiosity, is profoundly worse in that it is clearly wrong and misleading. This particular edit fails on all grounds. It takes something that was succinct but partially incorrect through (perhaps) limitation and turns it into something that is rambling; badly written to the extent of being almost meaningless; and totally incorrect through obvious ignorance of the facts. It's difficult to know for sure without the context of the rest of the article, but it strikes me that the obvious edit to Ornlu's sentence would have been to simply remove the troublesome reference to global illumination altogether. To be correct, reasonably succinct and comprehensive, it might have read: "For example, dome lighting (the soft, overall 'area' lighting provided by 'skylight') can be approximated through the use of complex, spherical arrays of point light sources."

Typical....sad it happened to such a nice guy. At least this way I'll get to read the article, in 90 days. Looking forward to it. At least you warned anyone else, before they could make the same mistake. My advise....ask for the money up front.

Money???? What money??

Could be worse, could be raining.

Eh, I surely hope we can get this stuff fixed heading into the new format. I'm sorry this all happened guys and gals, hopefully w/ the new format we won't have "limits" per se on article length, etc. I know I'm probably preaching to the brick wall at this point, but I surely hope those that entertained the idea of contributing to future issues still consider it. It's my hope that we can make something much more updatable and packed with information with the new online version. I had some things in my article swapped around too, although it didn't change the scope on the entire article. I wish it hadn't have happened to Ornlu, I was certainly looking forward to your Bryce article. I'll read it anyways when I get a chance, because I know zilch on the topic of lighting anyhow and I'll still stay tuned to your Web site in 90 days. ;) Ian "MadDog31"

It wasn't the fact the the article was limited in length, it was the glaring editing mistakes on the 'technical content' that's being discussed....and why, if you know nothing about the software being discussed in the article, are you editing 'technical content' at all.....:

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

No ... actually what I see the problem as is Ornlu being a cry baby again. He Has done this before, and the bulk of you jump to pamper him. Whine Whine Whine .. How about this, how about growing up Ornlu, you are not eleven years old. Granted, they should have discussed with you the editing of your article.. but just as importantly, you should have gone to the admins or editors and talked with them about what happened. But no, as before, you seem to have a need to cry out in public, your crying has brought more harm to Renderosity and Bryce by being public that the butchered article itself. Renderosity seems to cause you grief to such an extent that you must whine on the open forum, how about this, how about leaving Renderosity, you can only feel better about yourself afterwards, the editors will no longer be able to hack you work and the market place will no longer be able to delay getting your products on line. GO AWAY OR GROW UP !

A word of warning: Chances are that in addition to not paying, R'osity acquired reprint control over the article, so it can't be published elsewhere (as someone seemed to suggest above). Don't know how common that knowledge is. Just because they didn't pay you doesn't mean they don't own it. This is why I never enter those "entries become the property of the contest mogul" contests. They are essentially scams to gather up stock photos, etc. Picture it: A short story contest where the entries become the property of the mag. Everyone sends their best work, and the mag now has a pile of 10-100 stories it can publish without having to pay for them.

BabaLouie if the editors did not give Ornlu a copy of what they were going to print, prey tell how he would be able to contact the editors and correct their mistakes? Have you ever had dealings within the magazine? If you had or had any contact with regards to your work and the powers that be, you would understand why people here are on Ornlu's side. Also, those of us who have some understanding of Bryce know that what was writen by the editor has made a mockery of what Ornlu was trying to say. The PTB have a tendency to do first then think of the contributer later. You seem to have something against Ornlu that has nothing to do with this thread and I think that perhaps you should reread this thread and consider who is in the right here. In particular post #44 by PJF explains how the sentence in question could have been writen to make it more succinct. Catlin

Catlin... I have nothing personal against Ornlu, that was stated so in a PM I sent to Clay several days ago concerning this thread. What ever the editor or editors did, correct or incorrect I can not say, I will say that they should have at least discussed the changes with Ornlu prior to publication, but as we all know, the editors are not obligated to do so. My beef is with anyone who airs their displeasure here concerning Renderosity in the open forum, and some folks do it more than others. If you have a problem with Renderosity, concerning your dealings as a vender or author, then take it to the proper channels, do not air it here. As I recall, this bridge has been crossed with Ornlu before and the moderators then reminded folks to go to them first instead of taking the complaint to the open forum. I can not help but think what newcomers to this forum think when they see a thread like this one. It certaintly does not reflect well on Renderosity, it does not reflect well on Brycers, especially when adults chime in and support this type of behavior and lastly it does not reflect well on the individual who is complaining. A perspective employer would look at this type of behavior as belonging to a person who has not used the 'proper channels' for problem resolution. Ornlu has a habit of bringing his gripes about Renderosity to the forum. This is the third time, as I recall, that he has brought his displeasure to the open forum. Obviously he has problems with Renderosity at one level or the other. Perhaps he needs to move to another site that can better serve his needs as he apparently is not pleased with Renderosity. My suggestion to anyone who feels that they have repeatedly been 'wronged' by Renderosity staff and they can not seem to get this problem resolved is to go participate on another service. Is this personal? No, not at all, I am just an adult dealing with the actions of another adult.

Perhaps if you had stated your concerns as you did in your second post, BabaLouie, it would have come off less like a personal attack. Your first post sounded like nothing more than name calling. The second post is much more rational and well thought out.

Could be worse, could be raining.

The contract is 'no re-publication' for 90days after magazine publication and the rights remain with the copyright holder(the one who wrote it), so that after the 90 days, Ornlu can submit the article to whomever or, whatever publication he sees fit to submit it to from that point on, and actually, possibly get PAID for it.

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

BabaLouie, don't allow this thread and Ornlu's position on matter ruin your 'Renderosity Experience'....:)

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

rickymaveety, Yes, you are correct and thank you for pointing that out. When dealing with adults I tend to 'pull no punches', the result of this, when it is written, can often be misinterpreted. Of course, when dealing with children, I do a 180, I have the patience and understanding of Job. :) Once again, thank you. BabaLouie

You're so kind, BL. :-)

I understand where your coming from now BabaLouie and agree with Ricky that your "second post is much more rational and well thought out". The problem is I think, is that we have friends here and who do people normally go to to express their problems with, but with their friends. It can come over as moany, but I feel that if it's only now and again then we can all make some small exceptions. And don't forget that some adults are more childlike than children. lol 8) Catlin

Well, BabaLouie, if you're not already aware that I don't 'pamper' Ornlu - someone can probably soon make you aware ;-). I can't say that I agree with you on his actions in this instance. He has presented his case in a civil manner, and the fact that you, personally, don't feel he should present his case in an open forum is academic. I think he is perfectly entitled to publicly sever his association with the edited article and to state why (if he breaks an agreement in the process of doing so, that's his problem). That doesn't change the fact that I see this outcome as amusing and appropriate. In previous discussions I warned that the magazine isn't a proper professional publication in the sense of those that pay their way by paying for content are. If those who are content to be 'published' for reasons of vanity (to see their words in print, etc) end up with egg on their face, it's hard to not laugh (pride comes before a fall, etc). Add to that my contempt for a process (the magazine) that undermines the free, open interchange of program-user information, then it's clear that I'm going to be amused at seeing this whole sorry saga dragged out in public. To those non-professional-writers considering contributing articles to the magazine - especially now that it is going to be online only - I say this. If you've got something to say about a program or a process, how about saying it where everyone can access it - you know, like here in the Bryce forum for Bryce related stuff. If it's a biggie that warrants specific access, or (like me) you're not fully comfortable with Renderosity ethics, how about posting it on a webpage where anyone can access it? Why restrict it to a fee-paying audience when you aren't even getting a fee yourself, and when what you say is mangled by people who don't know what they're doing? You almost certainly got started in this with the help of people openly sharing their knowledge - so why not return the compliment?

This whole thing brings to mind voting for a new site logo and colors, and having the PTB alter the original artist's vision by not only changing the background colors from the original voted on, but a couple of months later chaanging the entire site's color scheme, under the auspices of 'community rule'....hmmmmmmmmmm, deja vu....;]

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

PJF ... > I think he is perfectly entitled to publicly sever his >association with the edited article and to state why (if >he breaks an agreement in the process of doing so, that's >his problem). I agree completely that Ornlu or anyone for that fact has the right to publicly distance themselves from misconstrued words, verbal or written. It would have been better if Ornlu had simply opened a thread and given a brief statement about the matter, stated that what he actually had written would be posted in 90 days and that as a matter of personal integerity he would not discuss the matter until then and asked AS or Clay to lock the thread. However, as is obvious, as folks continued to ask questions, Ornlu continued to provide answers or examples. That is partly where I have issues, it became a public trashing of Renderosity. >Why restrict it to a fee-paying audience when you aren't >even getting a fee yourself, and when what you say is >mangled by people who don't know what they're doing? You >almost certainly got started in this with the help of >people openly sharing their knowledge - so why not return >the compliment? Agreed, I have difficulities with how this online magazine is being handled. Would I pay for it? No. Certainly an editor should have a knowledge of the subject that they are editing. I have been a subject matter expert in electronic switching systems and have written tech manuals before, but I was quite fortunant that the editor had a very good knowledge of the equipment and only hacked my poor spelling and grammar. :) As I mentioned before, this is not personal, my words would have been the same for anyone else. Had this thread died after a couple of posts, I would have thought nothing of it, however, starting at post 6 it got out of control. There is simply no need to publicly trash Renderosity. For what is basically a free service for the bulk of us here, Renderosity, the admins and mods do a pretty good job. Are there some bumps, oh yes, but there are mature and appropriate ways to handle the bumps in the road of life.

fortunant=fortunate

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

Bablouie,....:) Seems alot of people are editors here, the forums really do need a spell checker...;)

Bryce Forum Coordinator....

Vision is the Art of seeing things invisible...

/* fortunant=fortunate */ That is why they gave me an editor .. :) Probably would been cheaper just to buy me a spell checker though. :)

BabaLouie stated: "There is simply no need to publicly trash Renderosity." Can't say as I agree with you on that, either. If Renderosity behaves poorly, why shouldn't the members talk about it openly? I can't stay within their terms of service and call them all a bunch of *&$x, but last time I checked I was able to constructively slate what they do. Most of the mods I see do a stirling job - most of the admin, well there's that TOS thingie again... ;-). And I "pay" by shopping in the store occasionally - that was the 'deal' explained to me when Rendo went commercial. I've never thought much of the magazine, and now it's becoming part of the site I see it as a direct threat to the content of the technical forums - which are the last vestige of the sharing philosophy that started this place off and what keeps it worthwhile. I see the start of a process to turn Renderosity into a subscription site.

Regarding how "off base" Ornlu's comment about simulating global illumination, this irony: An article in a holiday special from Computer Arts describes how to make light domes in Lightwave as a way to "simulate global illumination." Sounds pretty simulated to me.... Mick

Indeed mickmca, I meant what I meant in my original statement, and I am disapointed in the irony of some of the name calling posts above... I honestly believe that it is our democratic right to speak out against whatever we want. While i'm not going to name call or break the TOS, I wanted everyone to know my opinion on the issue, not just the renderosity admins, as someone had suggested. And out of curiosity, what good would that do? I know what their answer would be; "it's our right to do whatever we want to your article". Just as it is my right do speak out against it in the manner I see most fit... Calling me a child solves no problems, and frankly, I find this rather insulting. I didn't go through puberty to put up with this. laughs

PJF ... /* but last time I checked I was able to constructively slate what they do */ The 'intent' behind what the speaker or author has said or written, or the perceived intent by the audience, often determines whether the subject matter at hand is being viewed as constructive criticism or a public trashing. Granted, there is a very fine line between that which is constructive and that which is not. I support that which is constructive, a good debate about a matter is always healthy and keeps the mind from getting too locked into stale ways. However, what sometimes occurs is that the problem is between what the communicator intended and what the listener or reader perceived. The speaker may intend their words to be positive or constructive criticism but the listener may perceive these words as negative criticism. When in doubt, a communicator will do will to remember that 'descretion is the better part of valor'. If a person is unsure how their words, oral or written will be perceived it is usually better to say or write nothing at all. This is a lesson that I will do well to remember as well. :) I have reread this thread again, for the third time and I find it difficult to see it as anything else but a public trashing. Perhaps my perception is skewed in this matter or perhaps it has been skewed by a repeating of history.

I've been asked to help out in the new "online zine". I'm not sure what my .... you in the back --- put out that tourch and lay down that pitchfork *** looks around nervously *** .... now as I was saying, I'm not sure what my position is going to be but I will give it my best. It is entirely voluntary and I work full time, 10 days on 4 off, the first five are 4-midnight and the second five midnight-8. I hardly ever know what day it is. Work, along with all my hobbies, my time will be tasked to the max. I'm not going to comment on the above matter, just bear with us until the new mag comes online. thanks, bob

mickmca wrote: "Regarding how "off base" Ornlu's comment about simulating global illumination, this irony: An article in a holiday special from Computer Arts describes how to make light domes in Lightwave as a way to "simulate global illumination." Sounds pretty simulated to me...." I am not at all surprised that "Computer Arts" makes the same error as Ornlu and the RendoRag. The magazine is a lightweight from a populist stable. Many of the people who write for Future Publications rotate through the titles. Cars one month, gardening the next. I'm aware that I lack enough credibility with some here to permit them to take my word for it, so here's a page on global illumination by someone who isn't lacking: http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/global.html As you'll see, it has nothing to do with the illumination that might be provided by a globe, and everything to do with what I said it did. Global illumination cannot even be approximated by use of a dome light (area light or array of pinpoints) let alone simulated. Global illumination is any combination of raytrace and radiosity render processes that together must account for all light interaction that would occur in a real scene. Any simulation of it must also simulate all those interactions. This cannot be done with just a light dome. You might as well say that a standard Bryce render with just the sun and normal ambient materials is a simulation of global illumination.

PJF .. /* http://graphics.ucsd.edu/~henrik/images/global.html */ Thanks for posting that link, I had forgotten about Jensen, certainly a good source of info and an interesting web site as well.

While I'm in the mood, here's another howler from Ornlu (that the RendoRag kept the intent of despite the pointless messing): "...ambient illumination in its true form- does not even exist..." Well, with the caveat that a "true form" of ambient illumination does not exist in any 3D rendering package (they're all just mathematical constructs, folks, there is no spoon) this statement is just plain wrong. It's hard to imagine how anyone who has followed the threads on True Ambience could make such a conclusion. It may be infuriatingly flawed and limited, it may use a different render process in Bryce than in other programs to come about - but it exists.

Oooooo! I remember your ambient light turning round corners PJF. Now that was an interesting little detail that isn't supposed to happen in Bryce. 8) Catlin