=====
From roth@ens.ascom.ch:
i bit too simple, try a more complex probe (look at the hubble telescope in this

round). A starfield would make quite a difference!

=====
From djconnel@flash.net:
This could be a nice image with more work.   Stars?   Probe texture?
Lighting?  Clouds on the moon?!?!?

Also, it doesn't stress any engineering aspects.


=====
From castlewrks@aol.com:
Fine first pass through blocking out the parts of the probe... now add
the details.  Each pass will give added depth and dimension to the render.
=====
From sonya_roberts@geocities.com:
Nice colours.  Could have used a lot more detail, like a less "made out of
simple primitives" look to the probe, and a starfield of some kind in the
background.
=====
From chipr@niestu.com:
Hmmm ... not a real probe, like Voyager or Giotto.  Not a bad design, but
needs a bit more detail and texture.  The planet is nice; the moon in the
background seems to have atmosphere too, which looks odd.  Good lighting.

=====
From gmccarter@hotmail.com:
Good balanced composition.  Needs a little more detail.

=====
From ethelm@bigfoot.com:
A good effort.

=====
From bsieker@techfak.uni-bielefeld.de:
*yawn*
Sorry, but I think submitting doesn't help anyone. Not you and not the
competition.

=====
From lpurple@netcom.com:
The color and arrangement are OK, but the modelling needs some work.
The clouds shouldn't stick up so far above the planet; the probe should
look a little less shiny and more beat-up; and the moon's also too smooth.
Some stars would also help.


=====
From r@dial-up35.webbernet.net>:
Good, if cloudy. planet.  The moon is too blurry.  The space probe has an odd
pseudo-Victorian "Space 1889" feel, but it really needs more detail.