oml bryce render than i liked

[Porgy]

arguing this is pointless. You obviously have a stubborn tenacity towards that stoneage program. I mean, hey if arranging torus' and spheres around in a screen and popping pre-made ultra shiny shaders onto the simple heometric shapes tickles your fancy then by all means knock your bryce lovin heart out. I persoannly ditched that program well over 6 years ago in lieu of more advanced software. Some people like reading shakespeare, and some people like reading harry potter. Then again I get paid to do the artwork I do.

[Mwerp]

arguing this is pointless. You obviously have a stubborn tenacity towards that stoneage program.

Stoneage har har.
I have yet to be shown anyway that 3dsm is a better program for that department, so why should I not be?

I mean, hey if arranging torus' and spheres around in a screen and popping pre-made ultra shiny shaders onto the simple heometric shapes tickles your fancy then by all means knock your bryce lovin heart out.

You obviously don't know the full extent of Bryce's power and can't get past the whole torus/sphere with flashy textures thing.

I persoannly ditched that program well over 6 years ago in lieu of more advanced software. Some people like reading shakespeare, and some people like reading harry potter. Then again I get paid to do the artwork I do.

Haha wow that just broke your whole argument. Shakespearre vs. Harry Potter books? Get real. That's like comparing Bach to The Eagles. Bach is an impressionist who tried all sorts of combinations and is arguably the best of his time and today, while The Eagles could never get off the I iv V I progressions and got paid big money for it. So who was the better musician?

[Porgy]

I am fully aware of the capabilities of Bryce. Before Bryce was owned by Corel and now DAZ Productions it was the product of Metacreations which was based out of my hometown of Santa Barbara. I know quite a few people that worked at the former metacreations personally. A lot of them are working for Alias (formerly Alias|Wavefront) where I interned at for a year since it also was in Santa Barbara (they recently closed headquarters there and moved to Toronto) I was using programs such as Bryce, RayDream, Carrara, and Infini-D back int he day when MetaCreations was in their prime and considered a formidable effects house. Bryce has and always will be a low-end consumer level 3d modelling package. I recently attended SIGGRAPH where Corel had a small booth showing Bryce. I came, I saw, I left underwhelmed.

As for the power of Bryce compared to 3DSM or Maya, well, I can write a Mel script to create a random array of geometric objects varying in shape, size, direction, and placement in a fraction of the time it took to put together that ensemble of torus' in Bryce. Hell, I could even be simpler and create a particle emitter to spit out geometric shapes in about 30 seconds and get roughly the same effect. If Bryce was as powerful as you try to make it out to be there would be more FX houses out there using it due to it being a fraction of the cost of the more advanced packages out there. I'd sure be more inclined to use a 3d package that cost $90 as opposed to the $6000 I had to spend on Maya. There is a very specific reason that companies dont use Bryce, that being it is an inferior program.
As for my analogy, let me rephrase it so you wont try to read so deeply into it. Professional modelling clay and play-doh.

[Mwerp]

The beginning part was just your past history and I'm not going to comment on it because it holds no argument.

As for the power of Bryce compared to 3DSM or Maya, well, I can write a Mel script to create a random array of geometric objects varying in shape, size, direction, and placement in a fraction of the time it took to put together that ensemble of torus' in Bryce.

Multiple multireplications in different patterns with different objects, yeah no big. I like how you keep the attitude that Bryce can only make toruses though. That's cute.

Hell, I could even be simpler and create a particle emitter to spit out geometric shapes in about 30 seconds and get roughly the same effect.

..30 seconds? I thought you said a fraction of the time, not a multiplication of the time.

If Bryce was as powerful as you try to make it out to be there would be more FX houses out there using it due to it being a fraction of the cost of the more advanced packages out there. I'd sure be more inclined to use a 3d package that cost $90 as opposed to the $6000 I had to spend on Maya. There is a very specific reason that companies dont use Bryce, that being it is an inferior program.

There aren't any major companies for abstract art, and that's the component we're talking about, not modeling some guy's face.

Want a random analogy? You don't measure a car's speed just by horsepower, you have to think about torque, weight, etc.

[Porgy]

my past is irrelevant? I explained the fact that i have used bryce in the past. Quite a bit actually. It just has its limits and once you get over the whole abstract art thing it becomes useless, literally. Then again when all you know is bryce you are kind of ignorant to everything else that is out there. This is like preaching to the deaf so really this argument is over. Peace.

[Mwerp]

my past is irrelevant? I explained the fact that i have used bryce in the past. Quite a bit actually.

And just how familiar are you with Bryce 5? You had to have been using some old version. So what can you say about what it can do now?

It just has its limits and once you get over the whole abstract art thing it becomes useless, literally.

You can say that about anything. Once you get over the whole modeling thing, 3dsm and Maya become useless too. In fact, once you get over computers, they all become useless. So what? We're talking about the present, not the future.

Then again when all you know is bryce you are kind of ignorant to everything else that is out there.

What right have you to claim that the only thing I have experience with is Bryce? What makes you think that in the first place? You think I would be arguing about this if I didn't know what I was opposing?

This is like preaching to the deaf so really this argument is over. Peace.

Oh cute. Looks like an "I can't win so I quit" statement.

[omgwtfToph]

Maya, Lightwave and 3dsmax can be called "better programs than Bryce" because they can animate and do character design, etc. and ooh make cars lol but whatever - they're completely different engines. Since it's a totally different style of renderer than Maya/3dsmax/Lightwave, you can't compare them. Comparing Maya to Bryce is like comparing DivX to Winamp - they both play media but they do so in different ways. Plus you can't really compare an expert Maya user to a total beginner Bryce user - which is basically what you've been doing Porgy. Like ok you can call Bryce a stoneage program but that's completely stupid because I have seen some very, very beautiful stuff made in Bryce.

The name Bryce is really weird though - even if Maya is just as strange.

[Porgy]

The name Bryce was derived from Bryce National Park which was one of the landscapes emulated for demo in the original version of Bryce. Bryce is to Maya as Divx is to winamp is quite a stretch. Both are 3d packages, its just that ones capabilities end while the others keep going. Divx is a video codec while winamp is a a/v media player. And all 3d packages have different rendering engines. The best in my opinion being Pixar's Renderman followed quickly by Mental Ray. And in no way am I comparing one persons skill in art to another, but comparing one 3d packages capabilities to another. Bryce si a stoneage program, and the majority fo the art you enjoy out there is mostly photoshop.

[CypherToorima]

<3 Toph

[omgwtfToph]

The name Bryce was derived from Bryce National Park which was one of the landscapes emulated for demo in the original version of Bryce. Bryce is to Maya as Divx is to winamp is quite a stretch. Both are 3d packages, its just that ones capabilities end while the others keep going. Divx is a video codec while winamp is a a/v media player. And all 3d packages have different rendering engines. The best in my opinion being Pixar's Renderman followed quickly by Mental Ray. And in no way am I comparing one persons skill in art to another, but comparing one 3d packages capabilities to another. Bryce si a stoneage program, and the majority fo the art you enjoy out there is mostly photoshop.

Haha I didn't know a lot of that, cool. Bryce National Park. Oh well anyway I just find it strange where you say "and the majority fo(sic?) the art you enjoy our there is mostly photoshop" is like well duh because Photoshop is used in EVERYTHING nowadays - TV, magazines, movies, cartoons/anime, comics/manga, I mean shit - saying something like "The majority of the art you enjoy is Photoshop" is really obvious because shit, Photoshop is used in pretty much everything. It's just a great little program that is a great supplement to ANY 3D renderer and I'm sure anyone with an ounce of skill in any 3D renderer would agree with me on this one. o_O

[Porgy]

well yes, im just trying to point out that those bryce renders would be considered boring and pointless without the aid of some heavy photoshopping. Lemme point out a good tutorial for any of those interested in the use of photoshop for post production use

the thing is the majority of the artwork should not have to be done in post production. It takes some stock beauty to provide the source for a masterpiece. There is a point where the 3d is just a supplement to the photoshopping of the piece.

Oh, and since you pointed it out.... apologies for the spelling. i have a taste for scotch that after a hard day of school and work takes its toll on me. They never told me in health class that it leads to impaired typing...

[Mwerp]

well yes, im just trying to point out that those bryce renders would be considered boring and pointless without the aid of some heavy photoshopping.

You're a dumbass. Everything looks boring and pointless without PS aid. You apparently haven't seen what I make in in Bryce, because for you to judge the whole program based off of the ability to create toruses and spheres is absurd.

the thing is the majority of the artwork should not have to be done in post production. It takes some stock beauty to provide the source for a masterpiece. There is a point where the 3d is just a supplement to the photoshopping of the piece.

The majority of what I do most of the time, ironically enough, is done in Bryce. Photoshop is my supplement. I don't know why you continuously make random assumptions about the way people do things as though it's a strict factual guideline that everyone abides by.

Also, I'm not sure whether to be worried or not that you tried to embed a link to a webpage on the forums through image tags. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you drink(which also lowers your credibility).