With a shader it can look better than in max , considering in max you dont use materials , because max will always win if you use it's fancy stuff like materials special lighting and rendering. Now to make this clear , NO engine can match what you can achieve in max , NONE , not even Unreal 3 and the like , because todays engines can come close by using shaders and the like , but they are still limited by the fact that they have to render everything in around 60 frames per second , which means it has to render 60 images of the scene per second , and thats while handling all the game code and the like. 3D Max can take hours to render a couple of images depending on the settings , the fancier the render the longer it will take , but you can achieve insane stuff (you seen movies with all those special fx right ?). So dont think Unreal 3 engine can render better than 3d max , no engine can , so why are people comparing gamestudio's rendering to 3D Max? About the screenshot , thats exactly what I did , but trying to post a screenshot of a model with a gamestudio shader to compare it with the max shader is retarded and pointless because in max you can just use ur materials and the like and blow any shader away. Another thing to keep in mind , Max can render scenes or up to a million polygons or more , there is no limit to what you can do , because it's not a REALTIME ENGINE , which is why there is NO POINT in comparing it to gamestudio , which IS a realtime engine. Thats why I took a screenie of both of the default renderings , to prove those models in the screenshots would look very good in gamestudio , which people were saying they wouldnt , and only looked good because of max, and I proved them wrong. Now , about comparing gamestudio's render to 3d max's render , well thats just plain stupid and pointless. We might as well compare the Cars video game to the Cars Animated movie , or the Shreck video game to the Shreck CG Animated Movie , do you see how stupid comparing Max to Gamestudio is now ?