If it may be of interest, here are the stats for the "Gardens" round by
renderer used:
there were 86 pictures submitted)
Renderer     N   %
Povray      51 59%
3DS/MAX     13 15%
Bryce        5  6%
Raydream     4  5%
Cinema4D     3  3%
Vue d'Esprit 3  3%
Blender      2  2%
Unknown      2  2%
Lightwave    1  1%
Polyray      1  1%
Stratastudio 1  1%

Povray, in its various flavours, is still the most used renderer in the
competition, followed by 3DStudio.
It's a little surprising that Bryce and Vue d'Esprit, which are both
specialised in "outdoors" scenes, were not more represented (Vue has an
excellent plant generator). Also surprising is the fact that, apart
Povray, other free renderers like Blender (2 images), Polyray (1) or
BMRT (0) are little represented.
3 users didn't say what renderer they used : one of them looks like he
used 3DS (or at least another professional tool) but is too shy to say
so, and the other two images don't look rendered at all (which doesn't
imply they weren't).

I also looked at the various tools used to generate the plants :
- Non-povray users all modelled their own plants (with some impressive
results, I must say), or, in the case of Bryce and Vue d'Esprit, may
have used internal generators or premade objects. One Bryce user used
PlantStudio.
- Almost half of the Povray users made their own plants without external
help apart the use of non-specific modellers like sPatch. The other half
mentioned several utilities, including my own tree & grass macros (8,
thanks !), Tom Aust's tree macro (5), PlantStudio (4), LParser (2),
Derek Owens's tree macro (2), Sonya Robert's, Pradel's and Colefax's
macros (1 each), Johannes Hubert's TreeDesigner and the Genesis Toolkit
(1 each).

G.

Post a reply to this message

Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote in message
news:387343E4.E012B7AC@inapg.inra.fr...
> The other half
> mentioned several utilities, including my own tree & grass macros (8,
> thanks !),

You're welcome.

Small wonder so many used Maketree and Makegrass?  I don't think so...

And you act as if there were better and more user friendly plant marcos than
yours;)

-Chris-

Post a reply to this message

Thanks for posting this Giles it makes interesting reading.

I was surprised to see that not one entrant used my latticework
macro. 


-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

  1:49am  up 3 days, 23 min,  1 user,  load average: 1.00, 1.00, 1.00

Post a reply to this message

While we're on the subject of statistics one thing that really struck me
was that for the horror round there were lots of Spanish entries, and 
for the garden round there are so many French entries, probably a result
of different subjects appealing to different cultures.

I think (I'm going to have to go and add them up now), that there are 
more French entrants than all the others put together in this round.
The Horror round seemed to be the American and Spanish round. 
We here in the UK tend to think of Australia as a desert, but this round
seems to have really captured their imaginations aswell.


On Wed, 05 Jan 2000 14:15:17 +0100, Gilles Tran <tra### [at] inapginrafr> wrote:
>If it may be of interest, here are the stats for the "Gardens" round by
>renderer used:
>there were 86 pictures submitted)
>Renderer     N   %
>Povray      51 59%
>3DS/MAX     13 15%
>Bryce        5  6%
>Raydream     4  5%
>Cinema4D     3  3%
>Vue d'Esprit 3  3%
>Blender      2  2%
>Unknown      2  2%
>Lightwave    1  1%
>Polyray      1  1%
>Stratastudio 1  1%
>
>Povray, in its various flavours, is still the most used renderer in the
>competition, followed by 3DStudio.
>It's a little surprising that Bryce and Vue d'Esprit, which are both
>specialised in "outdoors" scenes, were not more represented (Vue has an
>excellent plant generator). Also surprising is the fact that, apart
>Povray, other free renderers like Blender (2 images), Polyray (1) or
>BMRT (0) are little represented.
>3 users didn't say what renderer they used : one of them looks like he
>used 3DS (or at least another professional tool) but is too shy to say
>so, and the other two images don't look rendered at all (which doesn't
>imply they weren't).
>
>I also looked at the various tools used to generate the plants :
>- Non-povray users all modelled their own plants (with some impressive
>results, I must say), or, in the case of Bryce and Vue d'Esprit, may
>have used internal generators or premade objects. One Bryce user used
>PlantStudio.
>- Almost half of the Povray users made their own plants without external
>help apart the use of non-specific modellers like sPatch. The other half
>mentioned several utilities, including my own tree & grass macros (8,
>thanks !), Tom Aust's tree macro (5), PlantStudio (4), LParser (2),
>Derek Owens's tree macro (2), Sonya Robert's, Pradel's and Colefax's
>macros (1 each), Johannes Hubert's TreeDesigner and the Genesis Toolkit
>(1 each).
>
>G.
>
>


-- 
Cheers
Steve              email mailto:sjl### [at] ndirectcouk

%HAV-A-NICEDAY Error not enough coffee  0 pps. 

web http://www.ndirect.co.uk/~sjlen/

or  http://start.at/zero-pps

 12:34pm  up 8 days, 11:08,  3 users,  load average: 1.22, 1.32, 1.63

Post a reply to this message

(Note: Although I use the word "you" here, I'm not blaming you personally,
but I'm referring to a wider audience since this is a very common trend)

  Why did you quote the whole original article although you didn't refer to
anything concrete inside it?
  This is a very common trend. People type their answers at the beginning of
the article and leave the whole original article quoted at the end for no
apparent reason (thus increasing article length, downloading times and
server capacity requirements).
  Is it so difficult to just delete the original quote if you are not
referring to anything inside it?
  The right way to quote the original article is to delete everything but
the sentences you are responding to. It's also a good idea to answer _after_
the quote, not before.
  The format could be like this:

> Quoted sentence

Response to this sentence

> Another quoted sentence

Response to this sentence


-- 
main(i,_){for(_?--i,main(i+2,"FhhQHFIJD|FQTITFN]zRFHhhTBFHhhTBFysdB"[i]
):5;i&&_>1;printf("%s",_-70?_&1?"[]":" ":(_=0,"\n")),_/=2);} /*- Warp -*/

Post a reply to this message

What about "me too" posts?  

-- 
Francois Labreque | Rimmer: "Let's go to red alert!"
     flabreq      | Kryten: "Are you sure, Sir?  You realize it
        @         |          actually means changing the bulb!"
  attglobal.net

Post a reply to this message

This is interesting, does anyone keep stats on what systems people use to
create their entries? I guess it's my Macevangelism that's really curious
about this.

Gilles Tran wrote:

> If it may be of interest, here are the stats for the "Gardens" round by
> renderer used:
> there were 86 pictures submitted)

--
Josh English
eng### [at] spiritonecom
"May your hopes, dreams, and plans not be destroyed by a few zeros."

Post a reply to this message

I use a PC.  Not that it matters.  If I had a choice I'd use a Mac for
rendering work (seems to be faster) and a PC for modeling and creation.

--
H.E. Day
------------------------
Science is merely a method of gathering data and information.
Science *cannot* prove facts.
It can only provide theories that fit given data.
Technology is merely Science applied to common situations.
Technology is used for both good and evil.
Society is a framework mostly dependent on the willing participation of it
subjects.
Kingdoms and dominions come and go, none are eternal.
In the end, Society, Technology, and Science do not matter.  Only the actions

and choices of the individual will matter. <><

Post a reply to this message