 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Do andriods dream of electric sheep?
>
> Does anybody reading this use Electric Sheep? Is it any good?
I only read this because the thread title is the same as a title of one
of my IRTC entries.
Regards,
John
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Do andriods dream of electric sheep?
>
> Does anybody reading this use Electric Sheep? Is it any good?
I used it for a long time. Even used a few of the sheep 'formulas' in
Apophysis to make some backgrounds. Then I started needing CPU time for
other stuff and for some reason never enabled a shiny screen saver again.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v7 wrote:
> Hmm. I seem to be getting between 3 and 20 KB/sec. It managed to
> download 6 sheep in fairly short order, but I'm getting really bored of
> watching the same 6 animations endlessly repeating now. A few sheep seem
> to be quite excellent, and the majority are unspeakably lame. (This is
> based on a sample of 6 though, so perhaps unrepresentative?)
Well, last night it finally downloaded a 7th sheep.
This morning I turned it on and did see it peak at 95 KB/sec. So
apparently my Internet link is much faster than the 20 KB/sec typical
download rate I've been seeing. (I have no idea what 2 kilobits per
second of theoretical bandwidth equates to in kilobytes per second of
*useful* data. In particular, I don't know what percentage TCP adds...)
I left the screen saver running this morning before I left for work.
Hopefully by the time I get home tonight it will have downloaded at
least 1 additional sheep.
PS. Do you think changing my firewall to allow incomming connections
will make any positive difference?
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> PS. Do you think changing my firewall to allow incomming connections will
> make any positive difference?
If it is downloading via bitTorrent then yes, you should forward the port
that the software is using to speed things up.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> PS. Do you think changing my firewall to allow incomming connections
>> will make any positive difference?
>
> If it is downloading via bitTorrent then yes, you should forward the
> port that the software is using to speed things up.
Right, OK.
I wonder if I can configure that...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> PS. Do you think changing my firewall to allow incomming connections
> will make any positive difference?
In BitTorrent, you may connect to other people, or other people may
connect to you. If mostly everybody else didn't bother setting his
firewall, then you won't be able to connect to them, so let them connect
to you! :)
Also, did you try the sheep pack?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> scott wrote:
>> If it is downloading via bitTorrent then yes, you should forward the
>> port that the software is using to speed things up.
>
> Right, OK.
>
> I wonder if I can configure that...
>
Oops missed this post.
Yes, you can configure the incoming port on the screensaver options.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Nicolas Alvarez wrote:
>> scott wrote:
>>> If it is downloading via bitTorrent then yes, you should forward the
>>> port that the software is using to speed things up.
>>
>> Right, OK.
>>
>> I wonder if I can configure that...
>>
> Oops missed this post.
>
> Yes, you can configure the incoming port on the screensaver options.
No no - I mean I wonder if my [hardware] firewall is configurable...
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Well, I left my PC running all of yesterday, and it managed to download
exactly 350 sheep. My viewing experience is now significantly more
interesting.
I find that much of the time, the action is too fast. There's a lot
happening, and you can't really watch it properly because it's too fast.
It would be nice if the transformations were slower so you could
appreciate the level of detail present. (OTOH, that would require more
render time, bandwidth and disk space...)
Also, often you'll see a transformation, it transforms into something
for a split second, and then instantly begins transforming into
something else before you even get to look at it properly. Which is
quite annoying.
And finally, often you get a slow moving loop, and then a very abrupt
change as it goes into another rapid morph. That's quite jarring.
However, overall it's rather fun to watch. Most of the time it hardly
looks like segments of pre-rendered video spliced together. It looks
like a single, long, fluid motion. (Shame about the low sample density
in places...) Many of the looping images are quite interesting and/or
beautiful. A rather larger number are quite bland. Overall it's quite
pleasing.
Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350
would be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images,
plus 15! morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
Oh, and during all of yesterday, my PC rendered 2 frames.
--
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Invisible" <voi### [at] dev null> wrote?
> Now, if I could make it download some more sheep... (You'd think 350 would
> be enough. However, it seems to be more like 15 actual images, plus 15!
> morphs between them. Which isn't so interesting.)
Why 15! ?
For X images, wouldn't the necassary morphs between them be only X*(X-1)/2
and not X! ?
Rune
--
http://runevision.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
