"Derrick J Houy" <djh### [at] pawzaorg> wrote
> Loki wrote:

> > I'm afraid I totally agree with this, no doubt to Derrick's chagrin.

> >>Generalisations like, "...I have seen little truly deserving of the top
places.", is just plain upsetting.

> > The truth hurts sometimes.

> So, the bottom line is that you think I did not deserve my 2nd place,
> yet you offer no solid, pointed criticism as to why. I worked long and
> hard on that image, learning more about Pov in that short while than in
> all the time I have used it, still having self-doubt whether it was good
> enough or not, and whether I should enter it or not. I was elated with
> my placing, which was far beyond what I ever expected, and here you go
> saying it was not deserving of its place. What the hell is your problem?

Calm down. He never targeted you specifically. And yours is certainly
deserving 2nd place *in amongst* the submissions. I think his point was that
the overall quality of IRTC submissions hasn't kept up with the advances in
technology, and I would agree with that. Part of the reason is that IRTC
isn't attracting professionals - and I don't just mean those who use really
expensive software. Having said that, there seems to be some bias against
other (non POV) software which may have helped to turn those people off from
IRTC. As a long time (but "light") POV user, I must also sadly admit that
POV is showing its age and its not helping matters. But the main reason,
IMHO, for the lackluster state of IRTC is the proliferation of competitions,
forums and venues for showcasing renderings.

Post a reply to this message