Bryce and POV-Ray are probably the most similiar of the ones on your list in
that they both use polynomial primitives.  That means if you make a sphere,
you get a perfect sphere no matter how close you get to it.  In the other
packages they are made up of triangles, so the resolution is limited without
continually subdividing objects into more triangles.

I've even heard a whether well respected person in the industry say that
Bryce's volumetrics are one of it's strongest points.  This person is not
familiar with POV, but if he was he'd say the same thing about POV's media.
This is because both program do sampling though the media, as opposed to
post-processing them.  POV-Ray is the faster of the two when it comes to
doing complex media.

The biggest difference between POV and the ones you mentioned is that it's
free.  That means more than just not having to pay for it.  It means you are
able to see the source and make changes to suit your whims.  One really nice
patch that has made it's way into the public domain is the iso-surface
patch.  I'm not the best person to explain how it works or what it does, but
it's very unique.

POV-Ray is capable of doing images as real as softimage, but it much more
difficult to do so.  It is only a renderer, whereas Softimage is whole suite
of modelling and rendering tools that is also expanded by a ton of third
party plugins.  It all comes with a hefty price tag though.

If the real question is whether or not you should use POV-Ray, there's no
answer really.  Those that do just like it and leave it at that.

-Mike

Rene Horn wrote:

> Other than the fact that POV-Ray is free, what other differences are
> there between it, 3d Studio Max, Softimage, Bryce3d, and Lightwave?  Why
> do Softimage images look so realistic?  What do they do that POV-Ray
> doesn't?

Post a reply to this message