just got bryce ^__^

[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~