Bryce quick scene project - plane and terrain - by David Brinnen.

[@kkm_dev]

Oh that was my childhood.

[@AlwaysOnline2001]

thanks David, even if not a tutorial, you provide great insight.

[@davidbrinnen]

Thanks for the feedback. Surprising how even after all this time, this video is still getting a few views.

[@joman66]

You use this software so quick and effortlessly. Wow it's mesmerizing.

[@davidbrinnen]

Hi, thanks, well I had a lot of practice beta testing the software!

[@BomberLuke]

Amazing tutorial, just found about about Bryce and your quick edits and mastery of the software really helps me get familiar with the interface!

[@davidbrinnen]

Thanks for the feedback. Very pleased to hear that these little tutorials are still being helpful to fellow Brycers!

[@johnadriandodge]

Shalom and evening howdy how. Pretty Nifty Mr. David, good show and thank you for sharing!

[@davidbrinnen]

Hi John, thank you for your kind words, I'm glad you found my video useful!

[@ravenmindd]

what an incredible visualization tool, cant believe I havn't come across this before. Also a fantastic demo. Is it possible to export meshes for use in 3d suites?

[@davidbrinnen]

Thank you for the kind words. To answer your question, yes and no. There are tools within Bryce that allow for the export of some types of geometry created in Bryce to be exported. Eg Terrains and primitives (once they have been converted - not always a successful or easy process), trees - not so much, because most are generated with Bryce's own procedural system. The textures are butchered by export - again Bryce works largely procedurally internally with materials - so they don't export well. This is why I qualify my answer as yes and no. It is possible, but rarely worthwhile. If you search I have made some videos showing how to export terrains and their textures for use in Octane Standalone and that will give you some idea of how long winded and fiddly the process is exporting stuff from Bryce that is actually useful. Compared to modern software the interface is rather eccentric and alienating which does not help matters. On the plus side, it's inexpensive and as a renderer very flexible.

[@ravenmindd]

Thanks for the fast reply! okay i'm with you. the UI is great in my opinion! a little like Xnormal, a fantastic bit of kit that in terms of the UI remans untouched, brings back a lot of nostalgia from the early 2000's programs. The scanline renderer speed looks fantastic, totally agree. The reason I ask is becase this would be great for look development and would love to add architechture and an array of props. After a bit of looking in to Bryce i see there are loads of add on packs that will allow for this, now to have a binge on your videos and really learn it! cheers!

[@davidbrinnen]

@@ravenmindd You are welcome. Feel free to ask questions if you get stuck, I know the software pretty well so I can fairly quickly say if I do or do not know a thing. Just don't ask about animation! I've never got into that side of things. I usually use .obj (wavefront) format to import into Bryce. If you use geometry that has not been UV mapped, most of the procedural materials will still work fine since they tend to be in worldspace or objectspace mapping modes - which is quite useful for quick mock-ups as it lets you bypass the UV stage.

[@BrainToMush]

Look amazing! Why not use a preset water material? Do you get better looking results with this method?

[@davidbrinnen]

Thank you. Well, you could use a preset water material, the effect would be different. There is nothing wrong with that. However, I always feel it is better, from a learning perspective at least, to experiment with making your own materials. And if you struggle to get the desired result. Try a preset, but modify it to see if you can make it more to your liking. Or just use a preset, if you like the result, fair enough. I always think that I get better results from my own methods. But that is a matter of taste. It is my view that the artist is the final arbiter of their own work. Do not feel compelled to do things in any particular way, trying out things is a good way to learn too.

[@BrainToMush]

David Brinnen You're method looks more natural than the presets. I always thought starting with a preset was the only way to assign a water material.

[@davidbrinnen]

The presets use what was supposed to be physically accurate values for materials and while these were good choices at the time for what was not a physically accurate render engine, over time the render engine has been updated and many of the materials are now legacy. The render engine in its updated form is still not physically accurate (though it gets closer with some of the more advanced options - HDRI/TA etc. ) so I consider the best results are those that "look" the way you want them to look and if that is not necessarily the "technically correct" by the figures method, then I say, go with what looks nicest and ignore the physics. This is "art" after all is said and done.

[@aiden_macleod]

Because Presets offer less freedom than doing it yourself, and are good if you need help getting the look you want, kind of like a short-cut until you get good enough to do it yourself. That's why.

[@timedriverable]

Can you give me a description of your computer and are you relying mostly on your cpu or gpu? Thanx in advance.Also I'm confused about pro7 vs 7.1...are they the same or what? Daz can't give me any info on that, and if their is a difference...what is it?

[@davidbrinnen]

Bryce doesn't use any GPU acceleration for rendering, so it is raw processing power that matters. I have a i7-5820K CPU @ 3.30 GHz. Bryce can address a maximum of 8 cores. I'm sorry I can't remember the difference between Bryce 7 pro and 7.1 pro. I suggest asking at the Bryce forum over at DAZ3D.

[@timedriverable]

@@davidbrinnen What would you recommend for minimum cpu for Bryce?

[@davidbrinnen]

@@timedriverable A difficult question to answer, in terms of it depends how long you want to wait for the results? My longest render was 500 hours, or about three weeks. Because of work this was fine, just let the PC process the numbers and get on with it. So it is down to how much of a rush you are in. Bryce will get there... eventually... I mean, as a formally trained artist, three weeks is not a long time to work on a painting, but we are not comparing like with like, if you need faster results, either switch software or get a more powerful CPU to crunch those numbers.

[@timedriverable]

@@davidbrinnen Thank you sir.

[@davidbrinnen]

@@timedriverable You are welcome. I rendered on a pentium 200MMX, a 750mhz AMD, a Intel P4 running 2.4ghz (that was hot), and now the i7.

[@ShayNashiv]

nice bro

[@davidbrinnen]

Thank you.

[@stanpantilus6676]

anoing

[@ThatsMeOnTheRadio]

Pulp