Alternatives

[Peanuts]

Great work Sixwheels - that rendering time seems rather high to me, I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes.

Meg Same message here re link.

Peanuts

[Meg]

Originally Posted by Peanuts Great work Sixwheels - that rendering time seems rather high to me, I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes. ... Peanuts

I agree, but then I have never done something quite as complex as that.

[deekaybe]

Great picture Sixwheels.
Rendering time depends on the options. Bryce is not fast at rendering. A high quality pictures can easily take hours to render. But this is the price to pay for photo realistic pictures.

[AlfredP]

Originally Posted by Meg I get an "invalid post" when I click on that.

Originally Posted by Peanuts Great work Sixwheels - that rendering time seems rather high to me, I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes. Meg Same message here re link. Peanuts

Marilyn's original link pointed to a duplicate post which has been deleted. Try here instead!

Alfred

[Meg]

Originally Posted by AlfredP Marilyn's original link pointed to a duplicate post which has been deleted. Try here instead! Alfred

Thanks very much - they were great, especially the monk one!

[Sixwheels]

Originally Posted by Peanuts Great work Sixwheels - that rendering time seems rather high to me, I've never had to wait more than a couple of minutes. Meg Same message here re link. Peanuts

No, no, my forest image didn't take very long at all (maybe 3 minutes). What I was saying is to get any more detailed would require several hours. On the Superfine setting, and I believe one more above that (whatever it's called), it takes my machine forever to make even a few passes.

[Meg]

Originally Posted by Sixwheels No, no, my forest image didn't take very long at all (maybe 3 minutes). What I was saying is to get any more detailed would require several hours. On the Superfine setting, and I believe one more above that (whatever it's called), it takes my machine forever to make even a few passes.

Ah, get you now.

[omac12]

I've always noticed similarities between Impactplus and Cool 3D. I used them together when I was using Impactplus. I used Cool 3D as a directx file converter to 3ds format that I brought into Truespace for rendering. I sometimes would use Impactplus to render and animate models made in Cool 3D. The one big drawback Cool 3D had compared to Impactplus is regarding placement. It is sort of fiddly with exact placement of anything especially when trying to place an object in correct relation to another. Corel recently brought Cool 3D back and renamed it Corel Motion Studio. It's sort of like a photoshop-looking interface tacked on to Cool 3D. They changed the render engine and that's about all. The modeling tools are exactly the same as they were. It's for exactly the same market Impactplus was designed for- quick consumer 3d. If you were going for quick and easy, Impactplus and Cool 3D were great. I've often thought Ulead Cool 3D might have been the inspiration for Impactplus.

Right now I wish all the 3d tools from Impactplus were added to Drawplus. Drawplus has the same look to its 3d objects as Impactplus. This makes me wonder if Drawplus isn't making directx files internally? I wonder if Serif will allow Drawplus to generate 3d file formats? If nothing else I wish Drawplus would import Impactplus files. While I know that Impactplus was not a professional level 3d modeling application I still think that there's a place for a quick 3d modeler that has no need for correct polygon topology or advanced texturing (i.e. normal maps) or soft body animation. Apparently Corel does too.
Al

[Sixwheels]

Originally Posted by omac12 I've always noticed similarities between Impactplus and Cool 3D. I used them together when I was using Impactplus. I used Cool 3D as a directx file converter to 3ds format that I brought into Truespace for rendering. I sometimes would use Impactplus to render and animate models made in Cool 3D. The one big drawback Cool 3D had compared to Impactplus is regarding placement. It is sort of fiddly with exact placement of anything especially when trying to place an object in correct relation to another. Corel recently brought Cool 3D back and renamed it Corel Motion Studio. It's sort of like a photoshop-looking interface tacked on to Cool 3D. They changed the render engine and that's about all. The modeling tools are exactly the same as they were. It's for exactly the same market Impactplus was designed for- quick consumer 3d. If you were going for quick and easy, Impactplus and Cool 3D were great. I've often thought Ulead Cool 3D might have been the inspiration for Impactplus. Right now I wish all the 3d tools from Impactplus were added to Drawplus. Drawplus has the same look to its 3d objects as Impactplus. This makes me wonder if Drawplus isn't making directx files internally? I wonder if Serif will allow Drawplus to generate 3d file formats? If nothing else I wish Drawplus would import Impactplus files. While I know that Impactplus was not a professional level 3d modeling application I still think that there's a place for a quick 3d modeler that has no need for correct polygon topology or advanced texturing (i.e. normal maps) or soft body animation. Apparently Corel does too. Al

I've often said that I wish they would incorporate some of what was in Impactplus into Drawplus, or better yet, MoviePlus. The program was a perfect accompaniment to MP. There must have been some kind of licensing problems, though, that kept them from using any parts of the program.

[mjh]

Originally Posted by ilakassaa Common use - Dapoxetine belongs to a class of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). [Inappropriate content removed]

Hi

DOn't you know how dangerous SSRIs can be? Think suicidal ideation for just one not so user-friendly 'side effects'.

Since you are obviously not a Serif software user, your posts will be delete from this forum where spam is not allowed.