An editorial article by Bill Munns

                       I consider Bryce my favorite software application, and my best work is created in it. So each time a magazine runs a review of Bryce, I read it with great interest. But I have yet to read a review that describes the software I know. Sometimes the opinions expressed by the reviewers are so diametrically opposite my views and experience, I feel compelled to speak up. 3D Artist magazine was kind enough to let me offer up this alternative review of Bryce.

                       Most reviewers have a long history of computer use and experience with multiple versions of graphics applications, including the older versions of current applications. They approach any review with a long history of familiarity with keyboard commands, toolbars and numeric registers. But a new breed of graphics users are those with a strong artistic experience in other mediums, and who are learning computer graphics as simply a new tool for their artistry. I'm one of them. As such, I see Bryce from a totally different perspective, and feel this perspective deserves to be shared.

                       The single most common negative opinion of Bryce is that it's odd interface and tool layout is not "intuitive". But intuitive is relative to your background and experience. It is not "intuitive" if your background includes extensive experience in the mechanical and operational procedures of computers in general. But if your background is artistic, it is splendidly intuitive, efficient, and refreshing. It is elegantly designed to let you very quickly master the tool use so you can get on with the business of being an artist. And all the default settings give you a logical or reasonable configuration. The tools do exactly what you expect unless you edit or modify them to do otherwise.

                       The second most common mis-conception about Bryce is that it's just a "landscape tool". Granted, it's ability to create landscapes is breathtakingly grand, but it also is an excellent tool for structures, architecture, and "man-made" objects. I've built pagodas, windmills, the Great wall of China, ancient Egyptian monuments, mid-eastern mosques, and oriental courtyards in Bryce with equal ease and splendid results.

                       The third mis-conception about Bryce is that it's a beginner's or hobbyist tool, not robust enough for pro applications. My current scene in progress is a reconstruction of one of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World, the Pharos Lighthouse of Alexandria. It has 2100 objects, several million polygons, and for the night scene, it's lit up with 30 lights representing the main pyre and all the exterior oil lamps that light up the building. Creating it in Bryce was pure joy and exhilaration, never annoying and never intimidating. I keep trying to push Bryce to the limits, and I haven't found them yet.

                       I must assume that Bryce is thought of as a toy or novelty because it's so embarrassingly easy to make something good and pretty. I suspect many users stop there, satisfied with "good and pretty". But if you simply reset your thinking to believe "good" isn't good enough, and nothing less than excellence will do, then you start pushing Bryce to it's higher level and find it's extraordinary potential.

So how can my experiences with Bryce be so different than those of other reviewer? I'm convinced that it's all in the way we try to measure a software's sophistication. The common frame of mind is that the number of specific features is the measure. And by that standard, other applications do have more features than Bryce. But that represents only the theoretical potential, and not the practical "real-world" results. 

                       The "real-World" results are what an artist can actually accomplish in a given application, and how quickly an artist can go from zero to proficiency with learning a new tool. If you're only 1% proficient in a software with 10,000 feature, and you're 25% proficient in a "lesser" software with perhaps 2000 features, the reality is you are more proficient in the supposedly "lesser" application. You can accomplish more productive work. The sad reality of many software applications is that they may have incredible features, but if the average person learning it can't find these features, then they might as well not exist. So if you measure software by how quickly and easily you can find all (or at least many) of it's wonderful features, Bryce just leaves everything else in it's dust.

                       Applications with an extraordinary range of features may seem superior to Bryce, but in reality, if you are starting out with computer graphics, you will be proficient faster in Bryce than any other software, and you will accomplish more with it. And if you ignore the people who think it's just a toy, there is a potential for the most breathtakingly beautiful, richly detailed, and artistically aggressive images you are capable of. 

                       The only downside is that once you fall in love with Bryce, every time you try to learn another application, you will continually be frustrated by its bizarre, cumbersome and artistically hostile format. You'll find yourself continually asking " Why couldn't they make it more like Bryce?".