just got bryce ^__^

[djsmalls]

i suck but ill get better

[flypie743]

I want Bryce. How much did it cost?

[djsmalls]

it was free O.o u actually have to pay for it... luckily my friend has it ^__^

[Anuj]

I've seen imagine online :P

[djsmalls]

??? how did u see that when I made it? unless u mean u saw it here

[Porgy]

do yourself a favor, dont bother with that program. Pick up something like maya or softimage xsi and start teaching yourself that.

[Mwerp]

Do yourself a favor and don't listen to any tips this cat gives you.
Also, make your works blend more. You don't want them to say "Hey, I'm a compilation of toruses/spheres/whatever with psychadelic textures." Granted that does not mean you can't use toruses and spheres.

[SneakyJ]

I love bryce.

examples of my work (some include a tad of PS 7)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v115/SneakyMu/desktop1.png

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v115/SneakyMu/mtn1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v115/SneakyMu/e88ca74f.jpg


etc etc

[djsmalls]

O.o i cant figure out how to get the sun into view -_-

::EDIT::
o thats ps7 lens flare lol just realized

[Porgy]

Do yourself a favor and don't listen to any tips this cat gives you.
Also, make your works blend more. You don't want them to say "Hey, I'm a compilation of toruses/spheres/whatever with psychadelic textures." Granted that does not mean you can't use toruses and spheres.

im trying to help the kid and u are trying to hinder him by your intent to seclude him to bryce. Now who should he listen to?

[flypie743]

:( I wish one of my friends had Bryce.



Now who should he listen to?

hmmm....



I vote Mwerp, still.

If you were wondering why:
1. This thread is about djsmalls bryce work. Not how much you think the program sucks.
2. At least Mwerp gave him some pointers on his work, and didn't just say "That program sucks"

[Porgy]

hey im just trying to get the kid to not waste his time with a dead end program. I mean, hey, i thought MSPaint was pretty cool for a while and I had fun inverting colors and drawing with the airbrush until I discovered this other program called Photoshop. I'd make an educated projection and say Bryce will be discontinued within the next year or two. Yes, its fun to make some cheasy looking mountains and water and toss a few reflective spheres and torus' around for a while but it gets old... quick. And it leaves you wanting more.

[SneakyJ]

I tried VUE esprit or w/e, that sucked, and also 3dsmax...didn't work for me... what else is out there?

[aperson]

Hey Guys, Porgy is right.

End of discussion.

[Porgy]

I tried VUE esprit or w/e, that sucked, and also 3dsmax...didn't work for me... what else is out there?

Well there is Maya which is the package of choice for most effects houses out there. Id say easily 80% of big FX houses including Pixar, PDI Dreamworks, WETA Digital, and Industrial Light and Magic use Maya. Its also the program I'm most fluent in when it comes to 3D. There is also Lightwave which is pretty decent to. It has an extremely fast workflow from my experience using it. And then there is Softimage XSI which I am currently learning right now. I believe it is probably the best out there right now and will soon phase Maya out as the industry standard. The newest version of softimage xsi 4 kicks ass. Period.... Try maya or give 3d studio max another stab. i can point you to some great tutorials. Just because they have a learning curve doesnt mean you should give up.

[soccr743]

I dont get why people call throwing a few polygons on a stage art...

It has no meaning what-so-ever. Get either Maya, Lightwave, 3DS Max, or Softimage. Then you can learn and get good at creating 3D scenes with a different approach rather then putting polygons together with reflections...

-----Soccr743-----

[Mwerp]

sup close minded literalist 2day

[djsmalls]

meh made a bg for my new song in bryce now ^__^

[Squeek]

THANK YOU APERSON AND SOCCR.

See Mwerp, some people agree with me.

Porgy makes great stuff using his programs...don't see why there is the need to call his methods crappy.

~Squeek

[flypie743]

When did anyone call his methods crappy?

[Squeek]

Other threads in the 32-bit forum.

You'll see them if you look.

~Squeek

[flypie743]

No. What you showed was a completely different style of art(if you even want to call it that, I'd call it a bunch of models). It's like trying to compare a vinyl cd case to a television remote. It's just not right. What we WANTED to see was abstract, not models.


Would that be what you were referring to?

[omgwtfToph]

Wait, what the hell? Bryce is awesome unless you suck. RJ uses nothing but Bryce and Photoshop and he's the best graphic artist I've ever seen. If you want to be a mainstream trendwhore, go for it, but don't force your beliefs down other people's throats.

[Porgy]

as I said earlier in another thread, im done arguing that subject with the people who don't know any better. If you are stuck on shiny spheres and other geometric objects knock yourself out on Bryce. Consider me here to critique and offer advice to those who strive to create more advanced modelling and animation. Im working on a caustics test right now with Maya's mental Ray engine using light photons and high dynamic range imaging that I will post as soon as it's finally rendered. Unfortunately, that will take a while since despite the fact Im running a P4 3 ghz and a geforcefx 5900 ultra it is still taking about an hour a frame to render.

[omgwtfToph]

http://img45.exs.cx/img45/5665/prophetess-bg.png

Made in Bryce and Photoshop - that's "shiny spheres and geometric objects?"

Ok whatever :(

[Porgy]

yes, just photoshoped the hell out of.

[Porgy]

here is one of my favorite artists: Meats Meier

http://www.sketchovision.com/mother/mn_41.jpg


Completely modelled, textured, and rendered in maya.

[Mwerp]

THANK YOU APERSON AND SOCCR.

See Mwerp, some people agree with me.

Porgy makes great stuff using his programs...don't see why there is the need to call his methods crappy.

~Squeek

You fucking moron.
Aperson is an abstract artist.


as I said earlier in another thread, im done arguing that subject with the people who don't know any better.

Don't know any better? I'm a thousand times better than you in this field so I wouldn't say stupid shit like that if I were you.

If you are stuck on shiny spheres and other geometric objects knock yourself out on Bryce.

This is odd because Toph showed you that amazing piece of art by Radical Julian and asked you if it was shiny spheres and shit, and you said "yes, just photoshoped the hell out of"
What the fuck.
I have the render he used in that.
The texture is NOT SHINY AT ALL. It's PLAIN.
There are no spheres used AT ALL.
Either you can't use your eyes worth shit or you're just bullshitting yourself and everyone else in this thread with the childish closed-minded attitude you have. I'm thinking it could be both.


Consider me here to critique and offer advice to those who strive to create more advanced modelling and animation. Im working on a caustics test right now with Maya's mental Ray engine using light photons and high dynamic range imaging that I will post as soon as it's finally rendered. Unfortunately, that will take a while since despite the fact Im running a P4 3 ghz and a geforcefx 5900 ultra it is still taking about an hour a frame to render.

That's great and all but us cool cats are into abstract. Art with sparse literal meaning, yet infinite possibilities of interpretations pertaining to the resolute meaning. If you want to find some community that's interested in the modeling you do, that's great, and we won't go and tell you guys that your shit is useless and you should get another program to do it in.

[Porgy]

You fucking moron.

this where I stopped reading. Not going to waste my time reading garbage from someone who just degrades others based on their opinion. Have a peachy day.

[jewpinthethird]

My Two Pence:

If you are serious about graphic art, use another program like Maya or 3DstudioMax.

If you just want to make images for fun, then use whatever the hell you want.


Okay, now I am going to rant. (The following is not targeted towards anyone. Dont take it personally if you are insulted.)

True ART is dead and its rotting corpse is crawing with parasites. Feasting on the heart of the corpse is Modern Art; in the eyes, colonies of photographers can be found; and in the brain, graphic artists lay their eggs.

Graphic art: It is great when it is done right. It is a shame that that is rarely the case though. People think, because they can add some lens flares here and there, and sprinkle in some geometric shapes all over the place, that BINGO, abstract art, "I am a f*cking artistic genius." Sure, it may look pretty, but you are not an artist.

Photography: I like photography. I have seen some awesome photos. But almost anyone with the money and thus, the equipment can become a "photographer." All you need is a 35 mm camera, some black and white film, a pack of cigarettes, some tight fitting designer jeans, and a hip "messy, yet not messy" hair cut. And you have to listen to obscure indie/emo bands. Also, you have to develop your own film. That is all it takes to becoming a photographer...but you still are not an artist.

Modern Art: For the most part, I hate it. IF IT REQUIRES AND EXPLAINATION TO PROVE IT IS ART, THEN IT IS BULLSHIT. Go to any "modern art" museum and chances are you will find that half the "art" in the museum are large canvases that have had paint poured on them. Next to the canvas, you will most likely find one or two paragraphs explaining why it is art because the person who made it is richer than you and you know nothing. It is nothing more than a fad. IF YOUR NUMBER ONE REASON FOR PAINTING IS MONEY, YOU ARE NOT AN ARTIST. In my opinion, this is the "pop music" of the the visual arts.

Now, not all modern art is bad. Just the bulk of it.

Well, that is my narrow minded opinion.

[Porgy]

Well, that is my narrow minded opinion.

maybe, but an entertaining one to say the least.

[omgwtfToph]

And, for the most part, a damn true one, haha

[Mwerp]

You #$#ing moron.

this where I stopped reading. Not going to waste my time reading garbage from someone who just degrades others based on their opinion. Have a peachy day.

Well isn't that a cute little method of cheating out because you know you've lost =(

[Reach]

Wait, what the hell? Bryce is awesome unless you suck. RJ uses nothing but Bryce and Photoshop and he's the best graphic artist I've ever seen. If you want to be a mainstream trendwhore, go for it, but don't force your beliefs down other people's throats.

Its still a very weak program.

And you havn't seen much if you think rj is the best ever :shock:

But whatever. If he wants to use bryce, let him. Its not going to kill anyone. I used to use bryce sometimes. Shoot me? 3DSM is a much better program though. I really suggest it, it owns up pretty much everything, anything abstract or terrian wise you want to make.

[Squeek]

No, Mwerp, that's someone getting sick of listening to your unchanging rants defending your "art". I said something similar only to hear the same reply out of you while I was fully capable of finishing what I started against you.

You have no right to call any person's opinions wrong. Aperson said Porgy was right, I agreed. This was the reason I said aperson agrees with me. I agree with soccr when he said "I dont get why people call throwing a few polygons on a stage art...

It has no meaning what-so-ever. Get either Maya, Lightwave, 3DS Max, or Softimage. Then you can learn and get good at creating 3D scenes with a different approach rather then putting polygons together with reflections..."

See? Those two posted once in this article. I had no background information on either; I based what I said off their posts.

Also, Jewpin put into a comical post exactly what I've been trying to tell you since my "My thoughts on photoshop / bryce renders" thread. Read it carefully. TWICE if you have to.

~Squeek

PS - To add to jewpin's thoughts on modern art, there's an exhibit by us consisting of only fluourescent light bulbs on a wall. Not even in a pattern. Like, a box, then one by itself, then a vertical one by itself. Paragraphs explaining the artist's ideas were included.

[Porgy]

You #$#ing moron.

this where I stopped reading. Not going to waste my time reading garbage from someone who just degrades others based on their opinion. Have a peachy day.

Well isn't that a cute little method of cheating out because you know you've lost =(

gee, that wasn't predictable. Deja vu from another thread.

[flypie743]

I agree with soccr when he said "I dont get why people call throwing a few polygons on a stage art...

That refers to people who don't use bryce correctly. But, when you use bryce to it's full potential you can create some awesome stuff.

[Mwerp]

No, Mwerp, that's someone getting sick of listening to your unchanging rants defending your "art". I said something similar only to hear the same reply out of you while I was fully capable of finishing what I started against you.

I have yet to see either of you prove me wrong in either of your points, so I'd say it's pretty safe to assume you both lose.

You have no right to call any person's opinions wrong. Aperson said Porgy was right, I agreed. This was the reason I said aperson agrees with me.

Aperson said Porgy was right about Bryce being a bad program. Not about abstract art not being art. As such, it was very foolish of you to try and use that as backup for your own argument, which was that abstract art is not art.

I agree with soccr when he said "I dont get why people call throwing a few polygons on a stage art...

It's silly that you should even try to judge Bryce when you don't even know about what it can do aside from the spheres and toruses. And why would you say that polygons on a stage isn't art? The artists for Marvel Comics start out their characters with lines, circles, and triangles. In the end it evolves into cylinders, circles, triangles, rectangles, and whatever else, just blended together so you don't really think about them at all. You see the final product, not what went in to making it. Polygons are used to make pretty much every art form.

It has no meaning what-so-ever. Get either Maya, Lightwave, 3DS Max, or Softimage. Then you can learn and get good at creating 3D scenes with a different approach rather then putting polygons together with reflections..."

Funny thing is you can do the same thing inthe programs you just named that you seem so skeptical of Bryce about. Polygons and reflections(and I won't go past that because it would appear as though you cannot comprehend any further than that). Another thing you don't realize is that Bryce can do landscapes as well. In fact, Bryce was built with that art mindset in mind.

See? Those two posted once in this article. I had no background information on either; I based what I said off their posts.

You want to know a really weird thing about what Soccr said?
His avatar is composed of cubes on a grid background.
And here he is, running around saying that polygons on a stage isn't art. Hah. I tend not to side with people who can't spell simple english words correctly. Generally says something about their mental capacity.

Also, Jewpin put into a comical post exactly what I've been trying to tell you since my "My thoughts on photoshop / bryce renders" thread. Read it carefully. TWICE if you have to.

I already read it. Nothing of it concerned what we're talking about. Look at it again.

Graphic art(note how he states that it is indeed art before he even starts to get to talk about it): It is great when it is done right. It is a shame that that is rarely the case though. People think, because they can add some lens flares here and there, and sprinkle in some geometric shapes all over the place, that BINGO, abstract art, "I am a f*cking artistic genius." Sure, it may look pretty, but you are not an artist.

The bolded parts were the core pieces of those sentences which did not prove you right at all.
Italicized is the part of his quote that is entirely subjective and cannot be used to describe all scenarios. Basically what I see in that sentence is a close-minded literalist speaking his thoughts about abstract pieces, or things he cannot see with literal meaning. Surrealism was a huge hit among artists in the past. Surrealism can encompass a wide variety of situations in a scene, whether it be clocks melting on shelves on a hot plane under the sun, to scattered nonsensical shapes with no visible meaning. I don't see why anyone wouldn't consider this(and abstract art) to be an example of what art is not.

[Porgy]

I have yet to see either of you prove me wrong in either of your points, so I'd say it's pretty safe to assume you both lose.


you keep using the term "lose" every time somebody doesnt want to listen to you. What exactly is it we are losing? An argument? Just because we choose not to listen to you call people derogatory names doesn't constitute failing to prove a point, especially when there is a grip of other people voicing opinions quite contrary to yours. I guess you could argue that I am losing time listening to you defend an inferior program so fiercely but I'd just inform you of the amusement I get from reading your fiesty posts rebutting me. I could be losing my patience, but really its only because it frustrates me to see anybody with a spark of talent inhibit themselves by being so close minded about expanding their talents due to their devotion to a stone age program. I dunno really what it is I keep losing, but as long as you keep up your funny posts I'll keep giving more of it.

[Mwerp]

[quote]I have yet to see either of you prove me wrong in either of your points, so I'd say it's pretty safe to assume you both lose.


you keep using the term "lose" every time somebody doesnt want to listen to you.

If you didn't want to listen to me you wouldn't keep replying. If you seriously didn't want to keep arguing you'd just ignore everything I say. But you don't. You continue. Yet in each time you continue, you have no rebuttals, just reasons why you shouldn't have to keep responding.

What exactly is it we are losing? An argument?

You know that WOULD make sense.

Just because we choose not to listen to you call people derogatory names doesn't constitute failing to prove a point, especially when there is a grip of other people voicing opinions quite contrary to yours.

You failed before I called him a moron, and you're still failing. Go ahead, try and prove me wrong.

I guess you could argue that I am losing time listening to you defend an inferior program so fiercely but I'd just inform you of the amusement I get from reading your fiesty posts rebutting me.

Interesting. Tell me just why it's inferior again? Keep in mind that we're not talking about modeling, we're talking about abstract.

I could be losing my patience, but really its only because it frustrates me to see anybody with a spark of talent inhibit themselves by being so close minded about expanding their talents due to their devotion to a stone age program.

Oddly enough, with this "Stone-age" program of mine, I'm a better artist than you and just about everyone else that posts on this site(with the exceptions of Reach and aperson, I'd say we're all on par but you really can't compare photomanipulation to creating something from nothing). Not only that, RJ uses the very same program you are so averse to and is a better artist(in mine and many other's belief) than everyone here and plenty other communities as well. In fact I honestly I have to say that I haven't seen anyone more unique than he. AND not only is he an abstract artist, he does hand drawings moreso than he does abstract.

I dunno really what it is I keep losing, but as long as you keep up your funny posts I'll keep giving more of it.

How cute. Here you say my posts are funny and humorous, and before you say "I could be losing my patience, but really its only because it frustrates me". So which is it? Contradicting yourself never makes you look too bright, and you definitely don't want another scar on your record.
What do you keep losing? Proving me wrong. I have yet to see it, and each time I prompt you about this you turn away, saying you don't want to continue or you're tired of reading what I have to say.
Very peculiar.

[Porgy]

oh lordy, now you are claiming to be a better artist? Since when did this turn into a pissing contest on whose art is better? Better in whose opinion? Of course, i forgot Mwerp has the last say on what is considered "good art". When people start paying for your work please come back and we'll chat.

[omgwtfToph]

Frankly Mwerp is a better graphic artist than you. The fact that he makes really awesome stuff with Bryce and Photoshop and the fact that you rely on Maya and "higher-end" programs to create lesser work (I'm judging this on your sig so if I'm wrong feel free to correct me rolleyesemoticon) means that he is better. And Mwerp has nothing on RJ, too, so don't even get me started on that one.

[Porgy]

nothing on my sig was created in maya. And I fail to see how judgement on who is a better graphic artist is based on how well you create abstract art.

[Mwerp]

Well considering we're dealing with abstract art and have been talking about it, it should be implied you know.
But hey throughout this whole topic you've had this misconception that we're talking about modeling, which would be a false belief.

[Porgy]

you keep concentrating on abstract art. Some of us look beyond a single style of art, especially since the topic isn't "look at my abstract art!" but rather "I just got Bryce".. And who is we?

[Mwerp]

lol guys watch this
You keep concentrating on modeling. Some us look beyond a single style of art.
That was DIFFICULT.

Who is we? We is basically everyone besides you.
What you don't realize is that the people here have been and still are talking about and interested in the abstract artform. I'm honestly starting to think you have some reading incapacity because I've been telling you that throughout this whole thing, and each time you keep ignoring it.

[Porgy]

im concentrating on the capabilities of the software as a package in whole. And you seem to ignore everybody who says anything contrary to your beliefs. And you seem to find degrading others as a way to defend your beliefs. You seem to be ignoring this.

[Mwerp]

im concentrating on the capabilities of the software as a package in whole.

ODDLY ENOUGH THAT IS NOT WHAT I HAVE BEEN TALKING ABOUT TO BEGIN WITH YOU LOSE SORRY

And you seem to ignore everybody who says anything contrary to your beliefs.

Yeah you know what I've been ignoring everything you've told me and I haven't thought about and replied to any bit of it. No sir.

And you seem to find degrading others as a way to defend your beliefs.

Wow way to put words in my mouth.
I find degrading other to be a convenient method of explaining to your average moron how stupid they really are.
If you haven't seen me defend by beliefs, go back to whatever page this started on and read it all again. Maybe three times if you have to. Your reading comprehension is unacceptable.

You seem to be ignoring this.

I'm most DEFINITELY ignoring that oh yeah.

[Porgy]

ignorance begets ignorance begets ignorance.

and good luck in life if you find degradation as your means to confront people aout their opinions.

[omgwtfToph]

and good luck in life if you find degradation as your means to confront people aout their opinions.

Actually, most CEOs, exceptionally well-paid comedians, lawyers, and journalists are that way.

[Mwerp]

ignorance begets ignorance begets ignorance.

well golly mister lol i cant beet ur cool radnom terminoligessz lidat :<:<:<

and good luck in life if you find degradation as your means to confront people aout their opinions.

Goodness sakes aren't you just the twister of reality?
Confront people about their intelligence.
Intelligence.
Opinions?
No.
Method to win arguments?
No.
Demeaning intelligence?
Yes!
He fades back
swoosh
and that's the game!

[Porgy]

swoosh? you take all discussions down the toilet, the biggest being your response in the "where do you live" topic. Well, you can knock yourself out, I have a business to attend to. Peace.

[Mwerp]

Haha, first you overreact to derogatory comments, and now onomatopoetic words. This is awesome. Thread concluded I win you lose bye

[djsmalls]

woah my thread grew lol...
well yea when i get my new comp ill prolly be using a combination of alot of prog's but this comp is limited to what it can use and bryce is like the only thing that really works right so therefore i use bryce no need to argue lol

[aperson]

Okay guys, I'm sick of this bullshit. Let's set some stuff straight.

Mwerp, you're arguing a lost cause. You talk about your art being on par with other people. I find it hilarious you think you're up there at the same level that I am. You know why? Because you know nothing about theory. All you know how to do is slap a few buttons together in Bryce and piss around with toruses till something looks pretty and throw it in photoshop. Stop trying to appeal to standards where you have no idea where you are valued in the standard.

Bryce teaches people how to be stupid. It teaches them to throw random particle explosions on toruses and do nothing with them. When I learned 3d studio max I had to research theory, and I came out with a much better understanding of how composition works. Let me ask you a question. Have you heard of Gestalt's Theory? Do you know how to apply the Rule of Thirds within a piece? Do you understand the basic theory of typography? Do you understand how to apply the golden ratio to size dimensions and objects of importance within an image? No, you don't. You don't know that because you don't need to know that with Bryce, nor are you able to control many of those elements.

Bryce is like the kid's version of a workstation. It's the little fake screwdrivers and hammers you see kids running around with acting like construction workers when they're five. 3DSM, Maya, and Softimage are the real workstations, the real tools that will actually come into use in life. By using these fake tools you are learning nothing, and your work will simply stagnate... and that's just what your work has done, it's stagnated. It goes nowhere, you aren't doing anything with your work and you aren't gaining any knowledge. I can look at your pieces and point out how you don't have the most basic concepts of composition through applied beliefs of Gestalt theory: How direction and size, depth, and color, lead and pull the eye through a piece. You don't understand typography: How size, type, placement, spacing, color, contrast, and more, create a better flow through the text. You don't really understand anything important about a piece of art.

Why is this? Because you use Bryce. And the minute you try to compare your 3d pissings to things like my "The Birth: Seovine" I'm going to laugh at you, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

[Mwerp]

Mwerp, you're arguing a lost cause. You talk about your art being on par with other people. I find it hilarious you think you're up there at the same level that I am. You know why? Because you know nothing about theory.

This is odd because if you asked over half of pop artists/musicians today if they knew anything about music theory, they'd tell you no. But they still sound good and they're popular groups and make tons of money.

All you know how to do is slap a few buttons together in Bryce and piss around with toruses till something looks pretty and throw it in photoshop.

woohoo random generalization

Stop trying to appeal to standards where you have no idea where you are valued in the standard.

By that it sounds like you're saying that I'm trying to appeal to a set level of skill. Why exactly would you say that?

Bryce teaches people how to be stupid. It teaches them to throw random particle explosions on toruses and do nothing with them.

Geez you people must really suck at Bryce :/

When I learned 3d studio max I had to research theory, and I came out with a much better understanding of how composition works. Let me ask you a question. Have you heard of Gestalt's Theory? Do you know how to apply the Rule of Thirds within a piece? Do you understand the basic theory of typography? Do you understand how to apply the golden ratio to size dimensions and objects of importance within an image? No, you don't. You don't know that because you don't need to know that with Bryce, nor are you able to control many of those elements.

Do you need to know any of that to make your work look nice? No. Do you need to know any of that for people to like it? No. It's just knowledge that helps you if what you're trying to accomplish with your art is to stimulate an art professor's mind in hopes of getting a good review or whatever similar case scenario.

Bryce is like the kid's version of a workstation. It's the little fake screwdrivers and hammers you see kids running around with acting like construction workers when they're five. 3DSM, Maya, and Softimage are the real workstations, the real tools that will actually come into use in life.

That's an odd thing to say when I've seen artists that use Bryce who are of far greater skill than people who use 3DSM, etc.

By using these fake tools you are learning nothing, and your work will simply stagnate... and that's just what your work has done, it's stagnated. It goes nowhere, you aren't doing anything with your work and you aren't gaining any knowledge. I can look at your pieces and point out how you don't have the most basic concepts of composition through applied beliefs of Gestalt theory: How direction and size, depth, and color, lead and pull the eye through a piece. You don't understand typography: How size, type, placement, spacing, color, contrast, and more, create a better flow through the text. You don't really understand anything important about a piece of art.

Is this about why Bryce sucks or has your main topic become a fit of anger directed towards myself?

Why is this? Because you use Bryce.

Oh right so I don't know anything about theory because of the program I use and it has nothing to do with whether or not I ever bothered to research art theory yes? By that logic it's not possible for someone to use Bryce and have a fine grasp on art theory.

And the minute you try to compare your 3d pissings to things like my "The Birth: Seovine" I'm going to laugh at you, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

ty4heads^

[Tasselfoot]

aperson is my new hero. and, mwerp... feel free to quote that and go on a mini-rant.

[Porgy]

ha, someone just got clowned. Nicely stated aperson. Mwerp looks like you "lose"!!

[Squeek]

Frankly Mwerp, making an analogy to today's music is making your debate worse.

95% of modern bands suck. They make money because of stupid people that don't notice how bad they are.

I think aperson said perfectly what needed to be said. I'm sure he's used Bryce enough to realize that the other three he gave examples of were better. I'm sure he made fine art with Bryce but realized that the other programs could do more.

And your argument about people that are better with Bryce than some of those that use 3DSM or Maya... What if I just picked it up today and threw out something? Your Bryce render would PROBABLY be better than mine. Just maybe. That's likely because a) I suck at all aspects of art and b) I'd only been using it for 2 hours.

However, when it comes to Flash, I own. Maybe not as good as soccr, but that's only because I'm still waiting for the software for christmas. I had it in school and managed a few great projects. If you were to pick it up for the first time and just mess around with it, I'm sure you could make a simple little movie. Nothing as advanced as my projects, however.

~Squeek

PS - DO NOT NITPICK THIS POST.

EDIT - OR "ISOLATE COMMENTS".

[flypie743]

Frankly Mwerp, making an analogy to today's music is making your debate worse.
95% of modern bands suck. They make money because of stupid people that don't notice how bad they are.

No, that is your opinion. A lot of people like modern bands. You just think they suck, while others don't.
Mwerp may be one who doesn't think modern banxs suck, hence the analogy makes perfect sense to him. I do not mind modern bands either, so that analogy makes sense to me. So, the analogy does make sense.

I had it in school and managed a few greats projects.
great*



PS - DO NOT NITPICK THIS POST.
I wouldnt call what Mwerp does as nitpicking. It's called isolating each comment.

[Squeek]

http://www.youhavebadtasteinmusic.com/

'Nuff said.

I call it nitpicking. I replied without a quote, can't he?

~Squeek

PS - thanks for finding my one and only menial error and pointing it out for me.

[aperson]

Mwerp, you're arguing a lost cause. You talk about your art being on par with other people. I find it hilarious you think you're up there at the same level that I am. You know why? Because you know nothing about theory.

This is odd because if you asked over half of pop artists/musicians today if they knew anything about music theory, they'd tell you no. But they still sound good and they're popular groups and make tons of money.

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring. This is not related to what we are discussing. You can't analogize two forms of art because they are totally different. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

All you know how to do is slap a few buttons together in Bryce and piss around with toruses till something looks pretty and throw it in photoshop.

woohoo random generalization

Reductio Ad Absurdium.

Stop trying to appeal to standards where you have no idea where you are valued in the standard.

By that it sounds like you're saying that I'm trying to appeal to a set level of skill. Why exactly would you say that?

No, you're trying to appeal to an 'industry standard' in art of which none exists.

Bryce teaches people how to be stupid. It teaches them to throw random particle explosions on toruses and do nothing with them.

Geez you people must really suck at Bryce :/

Yeah, I suck at Bryce. I suck at MSPaint too. No big loss there, because the graphics world doesn't give a shit about either.

When I learned 3d studio max I had to research theory, and I came out with a much better understanding of how composition works. Let me ask you a question. Have you heard of Gestalt's Theory? Do you know how to apply the Rule of Thirds within a piece? Do you understand the basic theory of typography? Do you understand how to apply the golden ratio to size dimensions and objects of importance within an image? No, you don't. You don't know that because you don't need to know that with Bryce, nor are you able to control many of those elements.

Do you need to know any of that to make your work look nice? No. Do you need to know any of that for people to like it? No. It's just knowledge that helps you if what you're trying to accomplish with your art is to stimulate an art professor's mind in hopes of getting a good review or whatever similar case scenario.

Actually, you do need to know that to make your work look nice. And if you understood the above things I pointed out your images would look a lot better. But I guess ignorance is bliss in your case.

Bryce is like the kid's version of a workstation. It's the little fake screwdrivers and hammers you see kids running around with acting like construction workers when they're five. 3DSM, Maya, and Softimage are the real workstations, the real tools that will actually come into use in life.

That's an odd thing to say when I've seen artists that use Bryce who are of far greater skill than people who use 3DSM, etc.

Show me one individual in the professional graphics industry who uses Bryce. Do you see cubadust and chaptereleven using Bryce? No. They're using Maya or 3dsmax.

By using these fake tools you are learning nothing, and your work will simply stagnate... and that's just what your work has done, it's stagnated. It goes nowhere, you aren't doing anything with your work and you aren't gaining any knowledge. I can look at your pieces and point out how you don't have the most basic concepts of composition through applied beliefs of Gestalt theory: How direction and size, depth, and color, lead and pull the eye through a piece. You don't understand typography: How size, type, placement, spacing, color, contrast, and more, create a better flow through the text. You don't really understand anything important about a piece of art.

Is this about why Bryce sucks or has your main topic become a fit of anger directed towards myself?

Oh wow, I pointed out faults in your work it must be ad hominem. So are you going to rebut my arguments or just burst into fits of anger directed towards me?

Why is this? Because you use Bryce.

Oh right so I don't know anything about theory because of the program I use and it has nothing to do with whether or not I ever bothered to research art theory yes? By that logic it's not possible for someone to use Bryce and have a fine grasp on art theory.

You need to take logic101, badly.
Furthermore, when I worked with 3dstudiomax many of the tutorials I followed referenced many pieces of design theory on which the tutorials were built. When you learn about one of the professional programs, you will definitely learn about many theories of design at the same time because of the manner in which the programs work.

And the minute you try to compare your 3d pissings to things like my "The Birth: Seovine" I'm going to laugh at you, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

ty4heads^

ty4more red herring.





Oh by the way, I have used Bryce, I know what I'm talking about: http://www.deviantart.com/view/721641/ There's one of my pieces with it.

[Mwerp]

aperson is my new hero. and, mwerp... feel free to quote that and go on a mini-rant
ha, someone just got clowned. Nicely stated aperson. Mwerp looks like you "lose"!!
That's so cute. Tasselfoot and Porgy cheer their hero on because they couldn't do it themselves.

Frankly Mwerp, making an analogy to today's music is making your debate worse.

95% of modern bands suck. They make money because of stupid people that don't notice how bad they are.

You're just one of those pissy anime kids who hates everything that's popular in the mainstream so basically you calling people who like popular bands today idiots is totally senseless. Especially considering music professors love pop music as well as renaissance and whatever else. I relate things to music to help people get a better understanding of what I'm saying. Thus, it helps.

I think aperson said perfectly what needed to be said.

That's because you are opposing me, so anything anyone else says that conflicts with what I say you're automatically going to worship because you didn't have the wit/intelligence to say it yourself.

I'm sure he's used Bryce enough to realize that the other three he gave examples of were better. I'm sure he made fine art with Bryce but realized that the other programs could do more.

You must have some supernatural telekinetic powers to make you so sure about something that you couldn't possibly have any idea about.
Ironically enough, according to his last post, he has.

And your argument about people that are better with Bryce than some of those that use 3DSM or Maya... What if I just picked it up today and threw out something? Your Bryce render would PROBABLY be better than mine. Just maybe. That's likely because a) I suck at all aspects of art and b) I'd only been using it for 2 hours.

What I'm talking about is comparing people who are skilled at Bryce to people who are skilled with 3DSM. Why would I compare an awesome Bryce user to a poor quality 3DSM user? Porgy was foolish enough to make that error, but you know since I'm a genius and all I think about things before saying them.

However, when it comes to Flash, I own. Maybe not as good as soccr, but that's only because I'm still waiting for the software for christmas. I had it in school and managed a few great projects. If you were to pick it up for the first time and just mess around with it, I'm sure you could make a simple little movie. Nothing as advanced as my projects, however.

k

PS - DO NOT NITPICK THIS POST.

ps no

EDIT - OR "ISOLATE COMMENTS

psps no

Why would you not want me to "nitpick" anyway? Fear?





Mwerp, you're arguing a lost cause. You talk about your art being on par with other people. I find it hilarious you think you're up there at the same level that I am. You know why? Because you know nothing about theory.

This is odd because if you asked over half of pop artists/musicians today if they knew anything about music theory, they'd tell you no. But they still sound good and they're popular groups and make tons of money.

Logical Fallacy: Red Herring. This is not related to what we are discussing. You can't analogize two forms of art because they are totally different. http://www.fallacyfiles.org/redherrf.html

The only ways they are different is in that one is audible and one is visible, and they have different theories and components related. Appreciability is a common issue between both, thus it's no logical fallacy to relate art to music in that way. Now, if I were trying to relate the way you make a piece of art to the way you make music, that would indeed be foolish.

All you know how to do is slap a few buttons together in Bryce and piss around with toruses till something looks pretty and throw it in photoshop.

woohoo random generalization

Reductio Ad Absurdium.

I find your statement a false generalization of capability. I have made tons of things that aren't simple slap and show torus jobs that many Bryce users pump out. Or, by saying reductio ad absurdium, are you implying that actually want proof that I do something other than what you stated?

Stop trying to appeal to standards where you have no idea where you are valued in the standard.

By that it sounds like you're saying that I'm trying to appeal to a set level of skill. Why exactly would you say that?

No, you're trying to appeal to an 'industry standard' in art of which none exists.

Not at all. I'm not trying to get my art sold, and why would I? Abstract has pretty much no place in the marketing world save prints or scarce oddjob magazine sections or cd covers. Unless you mean that the "industry" here is the 3DSM modeler(example: Porgy) is the audience I'm trying to make my art appeal to, in which case you'd still be wrong. The actuality there would be that I'm trying to argue that Bryce is capable of creating works that are on par with what 3DSM can pump out.

Bryce teaches people how to be stupid. It teaches them to throw random particle explosions on toruses and do nothing with them.

Geez you people must really suck at Bryce :/

Yeah, I suck at Bryce. I suck at MSPaint too. No big loss there, because the graphics world doesn't give a (#$% about either.

Hah. The validity of you not being skilled with Bryce is that you're making statements about what your typical Bryce beginner would be doing, and not considering the fact that it has so many more capabilities than just that. You just can't get off the fact that toruses is pretty much all that your average beginner will ever think about doing because it's the easiest thing that pleases them. Then you go and base your arguments off of that.

When I learned 3d studio max I had to research theory, and I came out with a much better understanding of how composition works. Let me ask you a question. Have you heard of Gestalt's Theory? Do you know how to apply the Rule of Thirds within a piece? Do you understand the basic theory of typography? Do you understand how to apply the golden ratio to size dimensions and objects of importance within an image? No, you don't. You don't know that because you don't need to know that with Bryce, nor are you able to control many of those elements.

Do you need to know any of that to make your work look nice? No. Do you need to know any of that for people to like it? No. It's just knowledge that helps you if what you're trying to accomplish with your art is to stimulate an art professor's mind in hopes of getting a good review or whatever similar case scenario.

Actually, you do need to know that to make your work look nice*.

*better than it did before
If you would have said that, sure, I'd agree with it. Why would I not agree with what you actually said? You don't need to know anything about that to make your work look pretty. Like I said, if you want to get into stimulation of the mind and make people think about your work, then sure, art theory comes great in hand.

And if you understood the above things I pointed out your images would look a lot better. But I guess ignorance is bliss in your case.

If bliss means people can look at it and think it looks nice, I'm not asking for more at the moment. I'm actually more into music, as you may have guessed, but that's pretty irrelevant.

[quote]Bryce is like the kid's version of a workstation. It's the little fake screwdrivers and hammers you see kids running around with acting like construction workers when they're five. 3DSM, Maya, and Softimage are the real workstations, the real tools that will actually come into use in life.

That's an odd thing to say when I've seen artists that use Bryce who are of far greater skill than people who use 3DSM, etc.

Show me one individual in the professional graphics industry who uses Bryce. Do you see cubadust and chaptereleven using Bryce? No. They're using Maya or 3dsmax.

It doesn't matter what people in the marketing industry use. What you should be trying to prove is that people who use Bryce cannot possibly be better than people who use 3DSM, not that Bryce isn't used in the professional art world. There are plenty of artists not in the graphics industry that definitely should belong in it.

By using these fake tools you are learning nothing, and your work will simply stagnate... and that's just what your work has done, it's stagnated. It goes nowhere, you aren't doing anything with your work and you aren't gaining any knowledge. I can look at your pieces and point out how you don't have the most basic concepts of composition through applied beliefs of Gestalt theory: How direction and size, depth, and color, lead and pull the eye through a piece. You don't understand typography: How size, type, placement, spacing, color, contrast, and more, create a better flow through the text. You don't really understand anything important about a piece of art.

Is this about why Bryce sucks or has your main topic become a fit of anger directed towards myself?

Oh wow, I pointed out faults in your work it must be ad hominem. So are you going to rebut my arguments or just burst into fits of anger directed towards me?

What anger?
Sure, I'll make rebuttals to that.
You were saying before that when you picked up 3DSM, you researched art theory. Just because you have that program doesn't mean you have to understand art theory to make it function. You just have to know it if you want to apply it.
EDIT: I just read a later part of your post that stated one of the tutorials continually referenced art theory. Okay that's great and all, if you want to understand what that particular tutorial is teaching you then I'd say that's perfectly valid. But you don't need to know art theory just to use the program. Sure, it definitely helps if you want to do stuff related to what the tutorial teaches you.
Want proof?

i sh0ot fiar: Do you know anything about art theory?
SSJ997: can't say i do

People LOVE what Reach does. Heck, I'm pretty fond of it myself. He's a great artist, and he uses 3DSM.
:END EDIT

In that sense, just by using Bryce doesn't mean that you cannot apply art theory to your work. If my work has stagnated(and I wouldn't argue that it hasn't, because I don't think it's getting any more intellectual, it just looks nicer), it isn't because I'm using Bryce; it's because I haven't bothered to study theory and apply it to how I use Bryce.

Why is this? Because you use Bryce.

Oh right so I don't know anything about theory because of the program I use and it has nothing to do with whether or not I ever bothered to research art theory yes? By that logic it's not possible for someone to use Bryce and have a fine grasp on art theory.

You need to take logic101, badly.

Well, let's see here.

"By using these fake tools you are learning nothing, and your work will simply stagnate... and that's just what your work has done, it's stagnated."

Because I use a tool that you consider to be lesser than 3DSM, my art stagnates. Not because I don't understand theory, but because of the tool I use.

"You don't really understand anything important about a piece of art. Why is this? Because you use Bryce."

So what you're saying is that Bryce is what prevents me from looking into art theory? That once I ditch Bryce, this physical block that prevents me from researching anything about it is suddenly gone?
You said I had the logic problem.

Furthermore, when I worked with 3dstudiomax many of the tutorials I followed referenced many pieces of design theory on which the tutorials were built. When you learn about one of the professional programs, you will definitely learn about many theories of design at the same time because of the manner in which the programs work.

So 3DSM gives you the incent to research art theory. Okay. That does not prove in any way that you can't study theory because you use Bryce. Yes, you have less incentive to, considering(well, moreso assuming because I never looked at a Bryce tutorial before; I'm more of a kinetic learner than a 'watch someone else do it' type) the tutorials don't have anything that a knowledge of art theory would benefit you to know in.

And the minute you try to compare your 3d pissings to things like my "The Birth: Seovine" I'm going to laugh at you, because you have no idea what you're talking about.

ty4heads^

ty4more red herring.

If anything the red herring here would be you telling me that you'll laugh if I try to compare something of mine to your Seovine because it's random and does not really contribute to the core argument in any way. It's more of a demeaning "hardy har u suk i rok" statement.







Oh by the way, I have used Bryce, I know what I'm talking about: http://www.deviantart.com/view/721641/ There's one of my pieces with it.

Yeah man, you're right. All you really learned how to do is make toruses and crap. I honestly don't get why people on deviantart go nuts for such trendwhore shit that we've all seen a thousand times before. Know what I mean? Not that I'm demeaning you in anyway, I really like your stuff now, but I mean when people take a moderately close shot on a torus and apply a blurred up or gradient background and brushjob the heck out of it people fall in love with it.
Anyway, just how long did you stay with Bryce? There's so much more that you can do than just shiny toruses that you apparently didn't learn when using it.
EDIT: You didn't even make the render there, you just did the Photoshop. Are you trying to BS me or were you just using that as an example of something you could have done in Bryce?

[Tasselfoot]

i'm getting kind of sick of this.... i know nothing of art. i have basically stayed out of this debate. i think i might have a solution.....

why doesn't Mwerp show us a small portfolio of his Bryce work, and Aperson and/or Porgy can also show us a small portfolio of their work using Maya or 3DSM. and from there, the art community here can vote on which they like the best. this doesn't really solve the debate about which program is better, but you all feel that you are good with the program you use, so this would be better than just continuing this debate forward endlessly.

[Mwerp]

That's stupid. You can't really compare what program is the supreme end-of-story program if you don't have the best of the best from each category. Not only that but we all have pretty different styles. All that would settle is whose art is better, and that's not what the argument is about.

[jewpinthethird]

You guys are hilarious.

Art isnt about whose is better, it is about who can bullshit the best.

[Omeganitros]

Man I wish I could argue that well...

[Mwerp]

You guys are hilarious.

Art isnt about whose is better, it is about who can bullshit the best.

what

[Squeek]

Right. I hate everything in the mainstream. Thanks for keeping more information on myself than I know about.

Though I admit I enjoy anime more than others, I am not against mainstream. I'm against crap. Bands that copy other bands that copy other bands...it's an endless loop of crap.

Hate me if you want, but I still like Linkin Park. Yes, I DID like them before stupid 10-year olds ruined it for me. Want me to name other bands of whom I have purchased their every CD due to the fact that I liked their music on the radio?

Also note that when I talk about somebody else, I use might, maybe, "I'm sure", etc. I found out later that Aperson did not use Bryce that much. Oh well. I made a guess.

I would appreciate you not nitpicking because my posts are generally one idea flowing into the next into the next for the entirety. Taking out peices ruins the flow of the post.

I'm dropping out of this argument. Here's why.

a) Aperson's got it covered.
b) I honestly can say I know less about creating art than anybody here.
c) I've never used Bryce, 3DSM, Maya, Photoshop, etc.
d) There's no point in arguing something with a person that does not want to listen to keywords within the post that change the meaning COMPLETELY. Such as "opinion", "view", etc.
e) Jewpin already spoke twice in which I would ditto his statements. He said what I intended to say. With that said, there's no need to continue.

~Squeek

PS - Seeing as I am now out of the "circle of debate" on whatever it is we're talking about, try not to take this one apart as easily as you think you can.

[Mwerp]

Right. I hate everything in the mainstream. Thanks for keeping more information on myself than I know about.

Sorry but that's basically the case with every child of your type.

Though I admit I enjoy anime more than others, I am not against mainstream. I'm against crap. Bands that copy other bands that copy other bands...it's an endless loop of crap.

Like people who remake Beatles songs? They're still good. You don't like them because your pissy attitude makes you instantly hate anything that has been remixed/remade/whatever. They're still good songs, and they sound more contemporary.

Hate me if you want, but I still like Linkin Park.

That's okay they're a cool group(if anyone starts anything up about emo shit then you're gay and can't get past the lyrics okay bye).

Yes, I DID like them before stupid 10-year olds ruined it for me. Want me to name other bands of whom I have purchased their every CD due to the fact that I liked their music on the radio?

Funny thing about Linkin Park is that they aren't like every other band on the radio. They're mainly digital. And hey maybe their dark lyrics express you in some way who knows.

Also note that when I talk about somebody else, I use might, maybe, "I'm sure", etc. I found out later that Aperson did not use Bryce that much. Oh well. I made a guess.

..what? Might and maybe are completely different from "I'm sure".

I would appreciate you not nitpicking because my posts are generally one idea flowing into the next into the next for the entirety. Taking out peices ruins the flow of the post.

Your posts are not one flowing idea.
In the beginning you're talking about music. In the end you're talking about Bryce.
You're just being overly pissy about the fact that quoting is such a superior method to organizing thoughts, ideas, and points, and thereafter making your rebuttals regarding each. Perhaps you feel intimidated by this method that you apparently cannot adapt to?

I'm dropping out of this argument. Here's why.

a) Aperson's got it covered.
b) I honestly can say I know less about creating art than anybody here.
c) I've never used Bryce, 3DSM, Maya, Photoshop, etc.

(c.5 I'm not capable of continuing this on my own)

d) There's no point in arguing something with a person that does not want to listen to keywords within the post that change the meaning COMPLETELY. Such as "opinion", "view", etc.

Hahaha. You are such a fool I can't even believe it.
Okay, you said that abstract art is not art(however contradictory that is).
Then you said that it's your opinion that abstract art is not art. That's okay, I'll accept that you believe that as I had stated before. However, I also stated before that I'd try and change your opinion.
Then you said that the definition of art is "opinion". I cannot even BEGIN to tell you how ridiculous that is.
I pay attention to every part of your posts and reply to them accordingly. One spot where you lose is that you cannot do the same for me.

e) Jewpin already spoke twice in which I would ditto his statements. He said what I intended to say. With that said, there's no need to continue.

And I totally annhilated it. Move on.

PS - Seeing as I am now out of the "circle of debate" on whatever it is we're talking about, try not to take this one apart as easily as you think* you can.

*know
You have NO IDEA how easy it is to pick out focal point of your posts and completely destroy what you've said about your opinions and points and whatever else. Why should I limit myself in overkill of such an easy target? It's funny.
As long as you keep replying, you're still in whatever "circle" you thought you were in.

[Squeek]

Just to make it clear, I'm not a child.

I'm an adult. By law.

Older than 98% of the people on FFR.

That's all.

~Squeek

[Mwerp]

Just to make it clear, I'm not a child.

I'm an adult. By law.

Oh my goodness. From what I've seen of your mental capacity, I would have guessed 13ish.

[Moogy]

my name is drama

hi mr. topic

[Omeganitros]

Like people who remake Beatles songs? They're still good. You don't like them because they're not as good as the originals.

Now look at what you've done. You got me involved, the guy who sucks at arguing.

Basically, all I wanna say is, "If it works, don't fix it." I wish people would stop touching the classics that are fine the way they are. Making the song into something...How do I explain this...different in mood or style or something is fine, but when all you do is speed it up and give it a louder bass, or mix it in with rap and have the chorus repeat in the background(see: Long Train Runnin' by The Doobie Brothers)...That's crap.

[Porgy]

I'm dropping out of this argument. Here's why.

a) Aperson's got it covered.
b) I honestly can say I know less about creating art than anybody here.
c) I've never used Bryce, 3DSM, Maya, Photoshop, etc.
d) There's no point in arguing something with a person that does not want to listen to keywords within the post that change the meaning COMPLETELY. Such as "opinion", "view", etc.
e) Jewpin already spoke twice in which I would ditto his statements. He said what I intended to say. With that said, there's no need to continue.


for lack of better words, ditto. Especially on point d. I don't feel the need to keep rehashing the point i was originally trying to make by a serious of pointless reworded posts. I believe those that are unbiased to the argument understand the point I was originally trying to make. As for Tasselfoot's suggestion... well seeing as my portfolio work is as completely unabstract as it gets it would be comparing a classical concerto to a top 40 rap song. I work solely on stuff that I can use in my profession. I barely have time as it is to create random art pieces for my own shits and giggles. When i begin work at Sony in December I will have no time at all period.

Oh yeah, and i don't work in 3dsm. I did like 2 years ago but I enjoy maya more now. I have to use it for my business anyways (i do architectural visualisation for a few developers in Santa Barbara where Im originally from). I do suggest 3dsm as a good program to learn with though and i don't knock it whatsoever, its only problem is that as a stock package it doesnt have as much features integrated into it as say maya or softimage. You can get plugins though that provide for some very cool features. Oh and for all you flash animators out there you might like to know that maya exports to swf files. Here is a forum sig i did for my friend a long time ago in maya and then exported to flash. It's really simple and the quality is poor as i had to reduce the quality to keep the sig below http://soma.sbcc.edu/mccaskey/rave.html

but yeah, real handy for more advanced flash integration for websites. It can also render to vector.

Peace

[QreepyBORIS]

HERE ENTERS ANOTHER BIASED THIRD PARTY UH OH UH OH.

So , I have used Bryce for almost a year. I stopped somewhat recently, though. There is a reason why, in fact. It's because in Bryce, there is hardly any room for expansion. When I say that, I mean it is an INCREDIBLY limited program. The most advanced things it can do are Booleans (that's pretty damn simple), and it has an okay texture editor. It would be good if the Bryce engine didn't make almost everything look like plastic. It does good metals, some fun volumetrics, and that's it. When I see about 90% of all bryce renders, I either think: "Hi, mister incredibly high specular coefficient!", "Hi, mister transparent metal texture!", "Hi, mister torus (x1000)!", "Hi, mister thats alot of random diffuse and ambient light that has nothing to do with the environment!", or finally "Hi, mister default full-entity lighting which is completely useless and makes things ugly!".

So naturally, having used bryce for many moons, I am guilty of most of those (actually, some are unpreventable due to poor programming, but some are reversible by the user telling it what to do). I am not a wonderful 3d artist. I do not know much about art theory. And yet, I can say all of this because I have used the program, extensively. Bryce is far from wonderful. Hell, it even makes things take long to render. Its the most messed up type of rendering I have seen. Ever.

Bryce took me only about a month to get familiar with. Easy learning interface, easy user interface. those are nice. But its so easy, that you soon find out that it is impossible to do things such as specific polygon editing/manipulation (EVERY OTHER PROGRAM can do that), it does not do NURBS (not that I use these...ever...but every other program can do these, too), has nothing that can confuse or thwart a new graphical artist. This is not good, because with the marked LACK of options, there is a marked LACK of possible variety. Only a couple of people I have ever seen have conquered the lack of options. RJ is one--kind of--he only manages to surpass others because of his Photoshop skills. That's what it seems for the most part. Also, a rather clever guy who could use terrain and lattices to render damned ANYTHING. And finally this other guy--not famous, no name I can recall. He rendered an AWESOME motorcycle in Bryce--I have no idea how he managed it. He did know art theory, I recall from his site. I think it was his major. But wow, that was good for the program's capabilities.

So, for about 5-10 people, Bryce is a very good program. It is an okay program for perhaps a couple hundred people. Perhaps. For the rest, it is largely mediocre. Mwerp, this includes you. Most of your work was mediocre. Some, sure I liked. Then I saw it over and over an over again in all of your other renders. Please branch out in your style.

Wait, you can't, because Bryce doesn't LET you.
I have the same problem. The best I can do is multireplicate shitloads of spheres, apply a funky texture, photoshop, and call it art. Is it art? Sure. Is it good? Not really. Is it original? I haven't seen things like it before, but probably not.

I think, overall, that Bryce might be good for beginners. Maybe about 2 weeks of instruction from a person will do you good, then you just regress and regress and regress into bad 3d habits. They are difficult to break when you try newer, better, more difficult programs.

Trust me on that.

I have used 3dsm6 quite a bit, with no help files, tutorials, or anything. It was fucking tricky. I hardly had a chance to experiment, but I had already realized how strong the program was. Features, features, and more features. Good ones. Very importantly, speedy rendering. Speedier than Bryce, in any case. Lightwave is even more so. It was used for the 3d parts of the Mars Lander documentary. High quality. It was used in several motion pictures, such as the Iron Giant, if I recall. But Maya is even more prominent than THAT. If you are used to 3d model Tekken figures, you know you're good right there. Even if you ignore the rest of its extensive and impressive resume. Bam, one item I picked off a list, and you can see that beautiful things can be made with it.

Another thing, Bryce looks crappy without secondary production (more editing of pictures in a different program), almost always. It needs it. With all of these other, better programs, much less so. Though almost everything looks better after secondary production, I must admit.

Bryce is largely unimpressive. Nobody has used it professionally since maybe the Mid 1990's. And we all know how good the 3d looked back then, Mmmm, MMM!

However, if you don't mind wallowing in your 3d filth, Bryce is fine for you. If you use it for fun and not in seriousness (i.e. "My Bryce stuff is deeper than your Maya stuff because I am deep and abstract and all people who do abstract are are more intelligent than you"), it will amuse you sufficiently for some time.

If you ARE serious and use Bryce, I sure hope it's because you can't afford anything else. By saying that I mean I hope you WILL be able to afford something else, so you can stop using Bryce. If you use it and are serious about it and think it is better than all the other programs without trying them, then you are ignorant. If you use it, are serious about it, and are GOOD (in my opinion), then you are one of about 5-10 people (as I said before). If you are reading this, you probably don't fall under this category.

Even so. Compare the BEST Brycer with the BEST Maya-er. No motherfucking contest. Bryce simply can't do some of the things Maya, Lightwave, 3ds, Softimage, etcetera can do. And besides, the best Brycers wisened up and started using other programs instead. The best Brycers are not the best at 3d. Period.


I know that was not written well, but it was written in chunks, and I did not stop to edit any of it along the way. But the content should be pretty clear. If it is not, you are either stupid, I mistyped, or in denial.

[Mwerp]

for lack of better words, ditto. Especially on point d. I don't feel the need to keep rehashing the point i was originally trying to make by a serious of pointless reworded posts. I believe those that are unbiased to the argument understand the point I was originally trying to make.

I don't know if there's something wrong with you or what, but you never had to keep restating your points. Each time you did, I slammed on them, and you never gave yourself any retribution to them.

As for Tasselfoot's suggestion... well seeing as my portfolio work is as completely unabstract as it gets it would be comparing a classical concerto to a top 40 rap song.

That has to be the first thing you've said in this thread I agree with.

Oh yeah, and i don't work in 3dsm.

k my bad, from the way you praised it I figured you still used it. Doesn't matter, it's not important anyway.

Now look at what you've done. You got me involved, the guy who sucks at arguing.

Basically, all I wanna say is, "If it works, don't fix it."

It's not "fixing it", it's replicating it.
Lawyers do this with precedent cases in courts. They take previous cases that somehow tie in with the one they are working on and use it in their case. They basically replicate the argument or topic or whatever.

I wish people would stop touching the classics that are fine the way they are.

Do you like No. 13, M, Beethoven's Virus, Speed Over Beethoven, V, Classical Insanity, Classic Party Triathlon, Classic 8, or ANYTHING similar to those?

Making the song into something...How do I explain this...different in mood or style or something is fine, but when all you do is speed it up and give it a louder bass, or mix it in with rap and have the chorus repeat in the background(see: Long Train Runnin' by The Doobie Brothers)...That's crap.

No kidding. If it's done well, then it's good. If not, it's not. Hi logic?

[Porgy]

I don't know if there's something wrong with you or what, but you never had to keep restating your points. Each time you did, I slammed on them, and you never gave yourself any retribution to them.


really? because i felt like i was repeatedly saying "bad dog! No!" over and over and over again. Yet the dog keeps coming out and shitting on the carpet.

[tnyhwk900]

This is so out of hand. A 4-5 person flame war? I swear I wish I had mod powers so I could fucking LOCK this insane piece of shit because the mods aren't doing their job.

Here's my opinion: Mwerp, AP, and Porgy all have their own opinions that they are enforcing like hell. I respect this, but the drama that their arguments create is SO THICK, YOU COULDN'T CUT IT WITH A TWO FOOT OBSIDIAN SCALPEL.

You each have given the points of each of your arguments, so now all that is left to do is run each other into the ground. All that is meant to happen in this forum is CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM. It's obvious that isn't happening anytime soon between these few.

Locked. (I wish.)

[QreepyBORIS]

This is so out of hand. A 4-5 person flame war? I swear I wish I had mod powers so I could fucking LOCK this insane piece of shit because the mods aren't doing their job.

Locked. (I wish.)

Sounds like a cry for moderatorship. Whiner.


Anyways, I love how nobody wanted to comment on my post.

[Mwerp]

So , I have used Bryce for almost a year. I stopped somewhat recently, though. There is a reason why, in fact. It's because in Bryce, there is hardly any room for expansion. When I say that, I mean it is an INCREDIBLY limited program. The most advanced things it can do are Booleans (that's pretty damn simple), and it has an okay texture editor. It would be good if the Bryce engine didn't make almost everything look like plastic.

That's as far as your mind was able to take you with it. I'm sorry you never saw any possibility for expansion with other aspects of it.

It does good metals, some fun volumetrics, and that's it. When I see about 90% of all bryce renders, I either think: "Hi, mister incredibly high specular coefficient!", "Hi, mister transparent metal texture!", "Hi, mister torus (x1000)!", "Hi, mister thats alot of random diffuse and ambient light that has nothing to do with the environment!", or finally "Hi, mister default full-entity lighting which is completely useless and makes things ugly!".

You just described basically everything you have told me in the past looks excellent. Everything you ever wanted/tried to replicate.
The renders you're seeing are composed by people of little artifice in that field.
I'm not saying I've never done that before.

So naturally, having used bryce for many moons, I am guilty of most of those (actually, some are unpreventable due to poor programming, but some are reversible by the user telling it what to do). I am not a wonderful 3d artist. I do not know much about art theory. And yet, I can say all of this because I have used the program, extensively. Bryce is far from wonderful.

If you never got past toruses and shiny textures then I can tell you right now that you have not used the program extensively.

Hell, it even makes things take long to render.

subjective

Its the most messed up type of rendering I have seen. Ever.

I'm not so sure you ever discovered the "render to disk" option?

Bryce took me only about a month to get familiar with. Easy learning interface, easy user interface. those are nice. But its so easy, that you soon find out that it is impossible to do things such as specific polygon editing/manipulation (EVERY OTHER PROGRAM can do that), it does not do NURBS (not that I use these...ever...but every other program can do these, too), has nothing that can confuse or thwart a new graphical artist. This is not good, because with the marked LACK of options, there is a marked LACK of possible variety.

Here you say this and then you go on to say that you have seen people surpass it and work around it.
What side are you playing on?
What you're doing is taking into full focus consideration the morons who use the tool and pump out excessive amounts of metal toruses, and hardly giving the truely efficient anythought at all. You're like 90% of history textbooks. Every one of them will make you think that Columbus was a great person for discovering America and all that jazz. They happen to conveniently leave out every bad thing he and his crew ever did to the natives. Slavery, brutal senseless murder for fun, labor, the list goes on. It's ridiculous. And that's what you're doing with the topic at hand. You're a one-sided text book.

Only a couple of people I have ever seen have conquered the lack of options. RJ is one--kind of--he only manages to surpass others because of his Photoshop skills.

Incorrect. His renders are FAR from being your generic blinged up torus compilation. True, he's amazing with Photoshop as well. That doesn't mean he isn't awesome at Bryce.

That's what it seems for the most part.

You don't sound too sure about yourself.

Also, a rather clever guy who could use terrain and lattices to render damned ANYTHING. And finally this other guy--not famous, no name I can recall. He rendered an AWESOME motorcycle in Bryce--I have no idea how he managed it.

Intersections etc.

He did know art theory, I recall from his site. I think it was his major. But wow, that was good for the program's capabilities.

Are you trying to prove yourself wrong or something?

So, for about 5-10 people, Bryce is a very good program.

Okay you've got to be kidding me.
Which side are you on?

It is an okay program for perhaps a couple hundred people. Perhaps. For the rest, it is largely mediocre. Mwerp, this includes you. Most of your work was mediocre.

mmk opinion I happen to think it's pretty and I also happen to think ice cream is too cold so I don't eat it. Whatever.

Some, sure I liked. Then I saw it over and over an over again in all of your other renders. Please branch out in your style.

What.
Okay.
Har.
Point out to me how all of my renders are the same.

Wait, you can't, because Bryce doesn't LET you.

Hahaha, I've always thought that looks really unprofessional when people answer their own proposal asked of someone else before the other person is even given a chance to reply.

I have the same problem. The best I can do is multireplicate shitloads of spheres, apply a funky texture, photoshop, and call it art. Is it art? Sure. Is it good? Not really. Is it original? I haven't seen things like it before, but probably not.

Whoa what the heck?
All of my renders are spheres? Toruses? I rarely use them. And if I do, they generally don't look like them.

I think, overall, that Bryce might be good for beginners. Maybe about 2 weeks of instruction from a person will do you good, then you just regress and regress and regress into bad 3d habits. They are difficult to break when you try newer, better, more difficult programs.

Subjective. Depends on how you learn, and how mentally capable you are.

I have used 3dsm6 quite a bit, with no help files, tutorials, or anything. It was fucking tricky. I hardly had a chance to experiment, but I had already realized how strong the program was. Features, features, and more features. Good ones. Very importantly, speedy rendering. Speedier than Bryce, in any case. Lightwave is even more so. It was used for the 3d parts of the Mars Lander documentary. High quality. It was used in several motion pictures, such as the Iron Giant, if I recall. But Maya is even more prominent than THAT. If you are used to 3d model Tekken figures, you know you're good right there. Even if you ignore the rest of its extensive and impressive resume. Bam, one item I picked off a list, and you can see that beautiful things can be made with it.

I never said these programs were not good/not difficult to use.
I say, why go the extra mile if you can't get higher than the A you'd have received without it?
Sure, Bryce isn't as difficult as 3DSM. Then you have people rendering bicycles and whatnot. The majority of my renders(most of which I haven't posted here) don't even look like what you'd expect Bryce to be capable of.
Also, we're talking about abstract, not modelling. It's senseless to regress to that category.

Another thing, Bryce looks crappy without secondary production (more editing of pictures in a different program), almost always.

Not true. A Bryce beginner's work look crappy without post production.

It needs it. With all of these other, better programs, much less so. Though almost everything looks better after secondary production, I must admit.

Not in all cases does it need post production. I've seen plenty of renders from 3DSM that TOTALLY need post production, and even then they still look pretty stupid in my opinion. And to think that crap gets favs by the handful on deviantart.

Bryce is largely unimpressive. Nobody has used it professionally since maybe the Mid 1990's. And we all know how good the 3d looked back then, Mmmm, MMM!

abstract, not modelling, dig? Never did I say that Bryce is on par with other programs in terms of 3d modelling.
Nobody uses it because it's not good for modelling. Okay that's great I just said why that's a stupid point to bring up moving on.

However, if you don't mind wallowing in your 3d filth, Bryce is fine for you. If you use it for fun and not in seriousness (i.e. "My Bryce stuff is deeper than your Maya stuff because I am deep and abstract and all people who do abstract are are more intelligent than you"), it will amuse you sufficiently for some time.

Why would you even try to compare abstract art to the modelling industry? Why?

If you ARE serious and use Bryce, I sure hope it's because you can't afford anything else. By saying that I mean I hope you WILL be able to afford something else, so you can stop using Bryce. If you use it and are serious about it and think it is better than all the other programs without trying them, then you are ignorant. If you use it, are serious about it, and are GOOD (in my opinion), then you are one of about 5-10 people (as I said before). If you are reading this, you probably don't fall under this category.

Well considering a multitude of people including RJ have told me that my renders don't look like typical Bryce/are better than his, I'm curious as to what you're talking about.

Even so. Compare the BEST Brycer with the BEST Maya-er. No motherfucking contest.

Are you talking about abstract vs. modelling again? Shame.
If you're talking abstract, I've never seen a BEST Maya user or a Bryce user, and I don't know how close within the realm of possibility it is to find such a person. One person I really do like is RJ, and his stuff is definitely better than the more professional/popular Maya users I've seen. Feel free to prove me wrong. Remember this is opinion based.

Bryce simply can't do some of the things Maya, Lightwave, 3ds, Softimage, etcetera can do. And besides, the best Brycers wisened up and started using other programs instead. The best Brycers are not the best at 3d. Period.

Radical Julian still uses Bryce and he's far more professional than Maya, Lightwave, 3DSM, etc. users. True, opinion. Seriously though, maybe you should take a closer look into his collection if you think at least he(because I'm assuming there are better Bryce users out there) isn't as good if not better than the others.

I know that was not written well, but it was written in chunks, and I did not stop to edit any of it along the way. But the content should be pretty clear. If it is not, you are either stupid, I mistyped, or in denial.

Yeah and it was extremely redundant and I was wondering when it would end.
oh here we go~

[tnyhwk900]

Sounds like a cry for moderatorship. Whiner.
No. I don't expect to get modded ever, but I really wish I could have had it right there. -_-

[Mwerp]

This is so out of hand. A 4-5 person flame war? I swear I wish I had mod powers so I could fucking LOCK this insane piece of shit because the mods aren't doing their job.

I think it's hilarious that it's like 5 on 1 and I still haven't lost.

The rest of your post just made me keep on laughing(not in a bad way) so I'm not goign to bother typing "haha" to each thing.

really? because i felt like i was repeatedly saying "bad dog! No!" over and over and over again. Yet the dog keeps coming out and shitting on the carpet.

Ooh interesting. If you can't offer anything else then I'd say you're pretty much done with here.

[Tasselfoot]

i gotta go with Tny. i feel like i'm listening to a looped recording. it goes from porgy to mwerp to aperson to mwerp to qreepy to mwerp and back again.

you all have opinions. no one is changing anyone else's opinions... if y'all would like to talk about this more, do it over AIM.

and, i didn't lock this earlier because it was mostly sensible debate, not senseless flaming. but, there really is no point in this going on and on. its a Mobius Strip.

[Porgy]

Radical Julian still uses Bryce and he's far more professional than Maya, Lightwave, 3DSM, etc. users. True, opinion. Seriously though, maybe you should take a closer look into his collection if you think at least he(because I'm assuming there are better Bryce users out there) isn't as good if not better than the others.

WOOOOOOOAHHHH!!!!!! Jesus christ I almost fell out of my seat laughing there. Oh crap. That was like a 10.0 on the bulls**t scale. I'd like you to copy that into an email and forward it to every employee at Pixar, Industrial Light and Magic, PDI Dreamworks, and WETA Digital. Oh lordy....

[soccr743]

There is absolutely no comparison between Bryce and Maya, Lightwave, 3DS Max, and Softimage... Bryce renders do not look nearly as nice as any renders done in any of the programs listed above...

Also I truely agree with qreepy and everything he stated. Bryce is so freaking limited it is not even funny. If I were to ever start out in 3D then I would definitely look elsewhere even for a beginning program...

-----Soccr743-----

EDIT: No, I did not lock this thread. And whoever did please do not do that again. This thread is far from a spam war. Ok?

[Moogy]

Qreepy wins thread. ggnore

[Kilgamayan]

It's funny watching people argue that Bryce sucks when they either have no experience with it or suck with it.

From what I can tell, Qreepy has the only valid anti-Bryce opinion.

[Squeek]

Just to make it clear Kilga, I was arguing on the matter of whether or not what "Abstract Artists" do is classified as art or not. I can't make an opinion on the programs since I've not used any.

~Squeek

[Kilgamayan]

Then the comment isn't direct at you.

[QreepyBORIS]

...But I must say, Bryce is an okay bulwark against boredom.

[Mwerp]

Qreepy has nothing to say in response to my post directed towards him?
And people still say he wins the thread?
Fascinating.

[tnyhwk900]

This thread is far from a spam war.
What the fuck? Do you mean flame war? In which case you need to get a fucking clue and realize what flaming is. Flaming is against the rules, so this should've been locked.

[Mwerp]

This is an intelligent discussion/debate. Don't derail it with complaints.

[QreepyBORIS]

Qreepy has nothing to say in response to my post directed towards him?
And people still say he wins the thread?
Fascinating.

Looks like I missed [that train. But whatever, I'll respond tomorrow maybe, cause now its too late for me to make much sense, k.

And besides, you can't say Maya and company is worse than Bryce with out giving it a shot. That's plum silly.

[Porgy]

im still laughing at the comment mwerp made about RJ's professionalism compared to professional maya/3dsm/xsi users. That was rich i must say. I had lunch with a friend over at cafeFX the other day and i mentioned that. He just shook his head.

[Mwerp]

im still laughing at the comment mwerp made about RJ's professionalism compared to professional maya/3dsm/xsi users.

Care to prove me wrong?

[Tasselfoot]

mwerp... would you mind posting some examples for what you are talking about? as an art n00b, i'm curious... you've said alot that Bryce isn't just about this and can do that... would you mind showing me some examples of its capabilities? i think it would also help you prove your case if you had some graphic examples.

[Porgy]

im still laughing at the comment mwerp made about RJ's professionalism compared to professional maya/3dsm/xsi users.

Care to prove me wrong?

well to start, reference the entire collective works of Pixar. Just to start.....

[Porgy]

mwerp... would you mind posting some examples for what you are talking about? as an art n00b, i'm curious... you've said alot that Bryce isn't just about this and can do that... would you mind showing me some examples of its capabilities? i think it would also help you prove your case if you had some graphic examples.

yeah, I'd kind of like to see Bryce simulate such advanced techniques as High Dynamic Range Imaging, photon simulation (or any example of realistic austics), sub surface scatter textures, genuine "final gather" renders, and global illumination. (I know for a fact it can't.) But just one of those, and I'll shut up.

[Mwerp]

well to start, reference the entire collective works of Pixar. Just to start.....

Goodness gracious you are a fool.
Does Pixar do abstract art?
No.
They're about 3d modeling.
Now get your ass back on track and stay on topic.

mwerp... would you mind posting some examples for what you are talking about? as an art n00b, i'm curious... you've said alot that Bryce isn't just about this and can do that... would you mind showing me some examples of its capabilities? i think it would also help you prove your case if you had some graphic examples.

How about you be more specific as to what you want. You want examples of what I've been talking about? I've been talking about so much. Or by capabilities do you mean what it can do other than toruses/spheres?

[Tasselfoot]

what it is capable of doing other than just toruses and spheres. porgy and crew keep talking about how it lacks the ability to do alot and how it takes longer, doesn't look as good, etc... perhaps you could post what you feel are close to the limits of Bryce's capabilities...

or, if its easier for you... you could go back through your multitude of quotes and pick a few pieces that best illustrate your point. they do say that a picture says a thousand words.

[Mwerp]

I believe Toph already linked to a good one used in Prophetess but I don' t know how good you people are at using your eyes.

I don't think it's possible for me to show you something close to the limit of Bryce's capabilities. I can, however, show you stuff besides shiny toruses/spheres etc.

http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs4/i/2004/252/1/6/The_Future_by_mwerp.jpg
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs4/i/2004/254/9/3/Realization_by_mwerp.jpg
No I didn't use spheres for Realization.
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs4/i/2004/265/3/5/Summer_by_mwerp.jpg
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs5/i/2004/289/7/2/Love_Is_Eternity_by_mwerp.jpg
The renders are more ambient in Love Is Eternity, but you can tell it's not shiny toruses.
http://ic1.deviantart.com/fs5/i/2004/275/8/5/Felys_by_mwerp.jpg

So..?

[Porgy]

well to start, reference the entire collective works of Pixar. Just to start.....

Goodness gracious you are a fool.
Does Pixar do abstract art?
No.
They're about 3d modeling.
Now get your ass back on track and stay on topic.





well let's see. Your quote was verbatim:

Radical Julian still uses Bryce and he's far more professional than Maya, Lightwave, 3DSM, etc. users. True, opinion. Seriously though, maybe you should take a closer look into his collection if you think at least he(because I'm assuming there are better Bryce users out there) isn't as good if not better than the others.

Now I don't know how other people read this but to me it says "Radical Julian is more professional than anybody else that use maya, lightwave, etc. Nowhere does it say what style of art you are referring to. Now if YOU will stop making a fool of yourself now.

Oh and as for your collection. They have been so manipulated in photoshop its really kinda hard to see where Bryce was used in the first place. Hell, I'd be so bold as to say that in the current state of of the images they could be recreated easily using a variety of brushes and filters in photoshop and just skip the bryce part completely. Would probably save you time.

PS. I think all of them except the first one blow balls. And even the first one isnt great I just like the color scheme. Even I could have found better Bryce artwork than that to show.

[Squeek]

Mwerp, one thing.

Can you describe for me what these are?

Because to ME, that's no different from this.

~Squeek

[Kilgamayan]

This is where objectivity comes in.

The reason Mwerp keeps trying to get someone to prove that all those professional artist are beter than RJ is because he knows it can't be done. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - there's no universal definition for what makes good art.

Take a college-level music history course some time - you'd be amazed at what some time periods considered music because to you it makes your ears bleed. Art functions the same way - one could see a painting and deem it the best piece of work ever whereas another can look at that same painting 5 minutes later and determine it looks no better than if they had taken a blank canvas and shit all over it.

So to you, Squeek, maybe they are the same. But to Mwerp (and others, I'm sure), they're vastly different. And it's not something I could explain simply because of the difference of standards.

[Mwerp]

well to start, reference the entire collective works of Pixar. Just to start.....

Goodness gracious you are a fool.
Does Pixar do abstract art?
No.
They're about 3d modeling.
Now get your ass back on track and stay on topic.





well let's see. Your quote was verbatim:

Radical Julian still uses Bryce and he's far more professional than Maya, Lightwave, 3DSM, etc. users. True, opinion. Seriously though, maybe you should take a closer look into his collection if you think at least he(because I'm assuming there are better Bryce users out there) isn't as good if not better than the others.

Now I don't know how other people read this but to me it says "Radical Julian is more professional than anybody else that use maya, lightwave, etc. Nowhere does it say what style of art you are referring to. Now if YOU will stop making a fool of yourself now.

Holy shit I can't believe you.
THIS WHOLE THREAD FROM THE BEGINNING HAS BEEN ABOUT ABSTRACT ART YOU FUCKING MORON
YES I JUST CUSSED YOU OUT YOU PUSSOFAGGOT
YOU DESERVE IT FOR HOW DENSE YOU ARE
YOU KEEP MISSING THE POINT EACH TIME I TELL IT TO YOU
WHY?
BECAUSE YOU KNOW THAT YOU CAN'T WIN UNLESS IT'S NOT ABOUT THAT
PICKING OUT LATER QUOTES OUT OF WHOLE SUBJECT MATTER CONTEXT DOES NOT HELP YOU AT ALL IN THIS SITUATION

Oh and as for your collection. They have been so manipulated in photoshop its really kinda hard to see where Bryce was used in the first place.

It's plain as day. The PS work did not alter the renders, just moved them around.

Hell, I'd be so bold as to say that in the current state of of the images they could be recreated easily using a variety of brushes and filters in photoshop and just skip the bryce part completely. Would probably save you time.

EXACTLY.
They don't look at all to you like they came out of Bryce, now do they?
You have just proven yourself wrong.

PS. I think all of them except the first one blow balls. And even the first one isnt great I just like the color scheme.

That's because you don't appreciate abstract art. That's great because I wasn't fond of your modelling either. As Kilga said, beauty is indeed in the eye of the beholder.

Even I could have found better Bryce artwork than that to show.

According to you, all you've seen is shiny tori/spheres.
So now are you revealing something to us?
Have you indeed seen Bryce abstract that isn't composed of such material?
I want to see you back that quote up.

The reason Mwerp keeps trying to get someone to prove that all those professional artist are beter than RJ is because he knows it can't be done. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - there's no universal definition for what makes good art.

Very good. I didn't even know you'd been paying attention.

Mwerp, one thing.

Can you describe for me what these are?

Because to ME, that's no different from this.

~Squeek

That's because you're a fool with no art sense. You've even said it yourself. If you honestly want a better difference it's because in pretty much everyone's opinion what you posted is utter garbage(and don't try and say otherwise because that's incredibly childish for you to say that just to win an argument if you know your response is a lie).
But heck, as Kilga said, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. If you want to bullshit yourself and claim that your paintjob is great with the sole intention of doing it for argumental purposes, I'm not going to stop you.
However, art is NOT in the eye of the beholder.
Just because one coonsimon thinks that a particular art form is not art does not mean it is no longer art. Especially when said coonsimon has no idea what he's talking about.

[djshox]

Mwerp wins.

[Mwerp]

I wish you people would stop interrupting this with gay things like that.

[Tasselfoot]

i just really would like to know... what is a coonsimon? this thread was already locked once, if the quality of the language doesn't stay above the trailer park level, it'll be locked a second time.

[Kilgamayan]

The reason Mwerp keeps trying to get someone to prove that all those professional artist are beter than RJ is because he knows it can't be done. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder - there's no universal definition for what makes good art.

Very good. I didn't even know you'd been paying attention.

Funny thing is, I read about one post that required me to scroll through it.

Everything else got slapped with "tl;dr".

Well, I skimmed them a bit, but you know what I mean.

[Porgy]

if the quality of the language doesn't stay above the trailer park level, it'll be locked a second time.

that would require the intellect of many of these posts to stay above trailer park IQ.

Mwerp, I don't believe you are on any level to judge the validity of anybodies taste in art. Although I wouldn't judge myself or anybody else for that matter qualified to tell anybody how to appreciate art I will give it that I attend an art school. My portfolio has gotten me accepted to the Art Center of Pasadena which has one of the countries most rigorous acceptance qualifications. It requires a portfolio well rounded in the classical art skills of free hand, painting, and sculpting as well as digital 2d and 3d techniques. But I will not call you or anybody else a moron for their taste in art, although i do think you are stubborn and oblivious which often go hand in hand with idiocy. You see, in a debate there is no "win or lose" per se, but more a matter of who can prove a point the best. But we can't even achieve that as you keep shifting the point of interest. The topic of the thread is "Just got Bryce" not "look at my abstract art" and the post I made that sparked all this was suggesting to the topic starter that if he enjoys 3d he might consider looking into more advanced 3d packages. You seem to get uppity about this since Bryce is all you use and abstract art is all you create. And then you get out of hand and start calling other people names because we are trying to debate a subject that spans more than just abstract art. Yes, Bryce can create material used in abstract art pieces. What we are arguing is that its capabilities end there. That maybe the topic starter might want to branch out to more universal applications of 3d in art. So how about you figure out WHAT exactly is the point you are trying to prove and stay on point. mmmkay?

[Kilgamayan]

Mwerp, I don't believe you are on any level to judge the validity of anybodies taste in art. Although I wouldn't judge myself or anybody else for that matter qualified to tell anybody how to appreciate art I will give it that I attend an art school. My portfolio has gotten me accepted to the Art Center of Pasadena which has one of the countries most rigorous acceptance qualifications. It requires a portfolio well rounded in the classical art skills of free hand, painting, and sculpting as well as digital 2d and 3d techniques.

Hooray for popular opinion equating to fact.

[Mwerp]

if the quality of the language doesn't stay above the trailer park level, it'll be locked a second time.

that would require the intellect of many of these posts to stay above trailer park IQ.

I'm surprised you're trying to slam my intelligence when I'm a far greater intellectual than you are.
Also considering the use of vulgar insults does not imply lack of brain power.

Mwerp, I don't believe you are on any level to judge the validity of anybodies taste in art. Although I wouldn't judge myself or anybody else for that matter qualified to tell anybody how to appreciate art I will give it that I attend an art school. My portfolio has gotten me accepted to the Art Center of Pasadena which has one of the countries most rigorous acceptance qualifications. It requires a portfolio well rounded in the classical art skills of free hand, painting, and sculpting as well as digital 2d and 3d techniques. But I will not call you or anybody else a moron for their taste in art, although i do think you are stubborn and oblivious which often go hand in hand with idiocy.

Fantastic but that was irrelevant because I never judged the validity of anybody's taste in art. If you're talking about that MSPaint assjob then I'm sorry to say it but you're either really really dumb or you must have some reading handicap or something.
I'm shocked that you'd call ME stubborn when you're the one who can't get away from the modelling subject and come back to the focus of discussion: abstract.

You see, in a debate there is no "win or lose" per se, but more a matter of who can prove a point the best.

First of all that's incorrect.
Second, when "You see," is used to start a sentence, the content of the sentence it is used in should relate to the previous subject of the past one or two sentences.

But we can't even achieve that as you keep shifting the point of interest.

What the FUCK?!
I'M shifting the point of interest?
Holy shit you're retarded.

The topic of the thread is "Just got Bryce" not "look at my abstract art" and the post I made that sparked all this was suggesting to the topic starter that if he enjoys 3d he might consider looking into more advanced 3d packages.

I named a topic something like "alkjsdfl;df" in this forum.
The content of the topic was abstract art.
Name of topic does not necessarily imply its content.
Regardless, this discussion was sprung from a previous topic of which's content involved abstract art. There, you told him Bryce is a horrible program and he shouldn't use it for that. This whole discussion we've been having is based off of that.

You seem to get uppity about this since Bryce is all you use and abstract art is all you create.

And abstract art is all we've been talking about.

And then you get out of hand and start calling other people names because we are trying to debate a subject that spans more than just abstract art.

No, we're not. You may want to, sure. All that does is makes you look ridiculous. You know you can't win with the original topic at hand, so you have to wait til a moment where you can try and change it.

Yes, Bryce can create material used in abstract art pieces. What we are arguing is that its capabilities end there.

You don't have any idea what's going on, do you?

That maybe the topic starter might want to branch out to more universal applications of 3d in art.

You're going to base this on a maybe?

So how about you figure out WHAT exactly is the point you are trying to prove and stay on point. mmmkay?

How about you try harder at reading more closely k lol

[Porgy]

I'm a far greater intellectual than you are.

Oh? And on what basis do you make this argument?

Also considering the use of vulgar insults does not imply lack of brain power.

No, just a lack of maturity. Most people don't talk like that in civil conversation.

Fantastic but that was irrelevant because I never judged the validity of anybody's taste in art.

That's because you're a fool with no art sense.

lapse of memory?

I'm shocked that you'd call ME stubborn when you're the one who can't get away from the modelling subject and come back to the focus of discussion: abstract.

Im talking about the versatility of a 3d package, its modelling capabilities only being a small fraction of it. And once again, wrong, the focus of the subject is not abstract.

First of all that's incorrect.
Second, when "You see," is used to start a sentence, the content of the sentence it is used in should relate to the previous subject of the past one or two sentences.


"You see" is used as a transitionary here. But then again your major is english again, right? What? High school? Oh...

I'M shifting the point of interest?

Yes, you are. You keep moving to an argument involving abstract art in mind while some of us are talking of a more general sense of 3d. But I think I said that before.... a couple times.

I named a topic something like "alkjsdfl;df" in this forum.
The content of the topic was abstract art.
Name of topic does not necessarily imply its content.
Regardless, this discussion was sprung from a previous topic of which's content involved abstract art. There, you told him Bryce is a horrible program and he shouldn't use it for that. This whole discussion we've been having is based off of that.

What thread was I in again? Did I make a wrong turn at Albuquerque. I could have sworn the sign said "Just got Bryce".

And abstract art is all we've been talking about.

Once again, wrong.

No, we're not. You may want to, sure. All that does is makes you look ridiculous. You know you can't win with the original topic at hand, so you have to wait til a moment where you can try and change it.

please refer to the previous answer for the sake of repetition.

You don't have any idea what's going on, do you?

I could ask you the very same question.

You're going to base this on a maybe?

Did I spell anything wrong there? Yeah, I said maybe being that i don't know for sure that he wants to, it was merely a suggestion.

How about you try harder at reading more closely k lol

ok lol roflmao kthx ttyl.

[Tasselfoot]

if you two wish to keep this going, do it over AIM.

neither of you are saying anything new. and, you are both arguing different things.

ps - i'm not alone in the decision to lock this, so don't yell only at me if you are upset by it.

[jewpinthethird]

I agree with this lock.

BING.

Because everyone knows Abstract Art isnt really Art.

ZING.