 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
"Darren New" <dne### [at] san rrcom> wrote in message
news:489b5fff$1@news.povray.org...
> St. wrote:
>> Autonomous? You can do basically what you want with this editor.
>> Obviously, you need to learn it, but Darren, if I can, you most certainly
>> can.
>
> I think you're missing the question I'm asking.
>
> I'm asking the equivalent of "how does a company design and manage the
> creation of a major software project", and you're telling me where to
> download the compiler from. I'm not asking "how do you get the ideas into
> the data structure that the map editor lets you manipulate." I'm asking
> "how does a company creating a large professional game that's going to
> take years to code go about working out responsibilities between team
> members."
Heh, well you didn't say that afaik. ;)
What do you mean by "years to code"? Once the program has been sorted
out to be used in the best possible way, the world is your oyster, yes? The
original program, CE1, (SandBox1) was to do with FarCry, then the next
program, CE2, (SandBox2) was the editor for Crysis (and they LOOK
identical). I don't know what happened between these two programs and their
respective developers, but I think someone probably bought someone out, and
changed a few things. (Probably the Yerli brothers, and then they allowed
the new Farcry people to use the 'old' version which will soon be on the
market as a new version in itself when the FarCry2 editor comes out under a
different name). Ha! Even though I'm no programmer, imagine receiving that
program that you can then work on a professional game without any legal
responsibilities.
>
>> Want to licence the game? $2mill.(ish) Heh.
>
> That's kind of what I'm saying, there. How does one organize things such
> that $2Mill is a reasonable amount of money to pay?
I'm not a professional game maker, (and never will be, although I would
like that challenge for sure), but if it was me, I would do as I've already
described - hire people that are good at what they do best and just get on
with it, and *hope* for the best. It's a tough world in the games industry,
and to be honest, Crysis didn't do as well as it should have. Mistakes were
made about high-end computers and performance. People bought and made their
own high end comps just to play Crysis only to find that they couldn't as
expected, (which is weird, because I can on my low end machine). Go figure.
;)
~Steve~
>
> --
> Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
> Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
> kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
> who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
> and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
St. wrote:
> Heh, well you didn't say that afaik. ;)
I'm not sure how to more clearly express the question than "How does the
planning and design go?" ;-)
> What do you mean by "years to code"? Once the program has been sorted
> out to be used in the best possible way, the world is your oyster, yes?
I don't have any idea what that sentence is supposed to mean.
> hire people that are good at what they do best and just get on
> with it, and *hope* for the best.
It would seem there's a bit of process between "hire" and "release" that
we're missing in between there. ;-) But since, as you say, you don't
actually know the answer to the question, I'll let that slide.
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> Even more impressively, they've been able to colour films that were
>> originally shot in B&W.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Film_colorization
>
> Yeah, but only with human intervention. You don't just press a button
> and out pops an image with colours that correctly match the original.
>
IIRC, many B&W films aren't actually B&W the way digital media is, but
rather *appear* to be B&W. It's as if the hue values get compressed
into an extremely narrow range. With a good scanner and some good
software, automatic colorization should be perfectly feasible these days.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid XP v8 wrote:
>>> I meant you can't just give a machine a BW picture of a tree and have it
>>> automatically know to turn it green. That's impossible.
>>
>> I don't know that to be the case. Again, a case of one's ability to
>> fathom how something like that is done doesn't translate to "there's
>> no way it could possibly be done".
>
> It's a basic premise of signal processing that you cannot recover data
> that isn't there any more. Shannon's theorum and all that.
You have to understand, data on analog film isn't really lost, it's
merely distorted. If you can correct for the distortion, you can get
the original back.
Analog media isn't like digital; it's not changed instantly and
irrevocably. Rather, entire regions are distorted in predictable ways.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Jim Henderson wrote:
> After all, two thousand years ago, the earth was flat because nobody
> could comprehend the idea that it wasn't. Well, I say nobody - there
> were some who did, and they were branded as heretics and in many cases
> they were killed for it. Turns out they were right.
Two thousand years ago, the Greeks knew the earth was round, and they
even knew the radius.
Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round. They didn't laugh
at Columbus because he thought he could sail west to get to India; they
laughed at him because he thought the world was smaller than it was.
Turns out, they were right. If he hadn't landed in the Americas, he and
his crew would have died in the middle of the ocean.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott wrote:
>> The real point is more that on a PC, just switching from one window to
>> another always seemed to take forever, whereas on an Amiga it was
>> instantaneous unless the machine was under heavy load.
>
> Yeh, I remember my friend had a 33 MHz PC, and just closing a window it
> took several seconds for his desktop wallpaper to repaint itself,
I was surprised by how fast my computer was when I upgraded to a 33 MHz
processor. Windows ran like a dream on it :)
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Chambers wrote:
> Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.
"""
In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the
earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually
live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
"""
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7540427.stm
--
Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
Ever notice how people in a zombie movie never already know how to
kill zombies? Ask 100 random people in America how to kill someone
who has reanimated from the dead in a secret viral weapons lab,
and how many do you think already know you need a head-shot?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Darren New <dne### [at] sanrrcom> wrote:
> Chambers wrote:
> > Even 500 years ago, people knew the Earth was round.
> """
> In fact, people have known since at least the 4th century BC that the
> earth is round, and the pseudo-scientific conviction that we actually
> live on a disc didn't emerge until Victorian times.
> """
A disc is "round". A torus is "round". A ring is "round". A cylinder is
"round".
Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Aug 2008 13:26:16 -0400, Warp wrote:
> Why do they always use "round" to mean "spherical" in this context,
> given that the meaning of the word is not very exact?
Because it reinforces the idea that we've always thought of the Earth as
spherical.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Invisible wrote:
> I don't know about you, but every time *I* look at either the GIMP or
> PhotoShop, I can never figure out what magical trick I'm missing that
> lets you do the impressive stuff everybody else does. To me, it just
> seems to be a small set of pretty simple tools that don't appear to give
> you much power to do anything.
There are many, many tutorials available on the Web for the GIMP, and
probably for PS as well.
Whenever I need to do a new trick, I usually play around for about two
hours, then go look up a tutorial on what I'm doing, then finish it in
15 minutes.
Seriously, watching someone else do something well can give you a huge
boost in productivity.
...Chambers
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
