nemesis wrote:

> doesn't it bother you then that computers math operations use fake real 
> numbers?

The fact that they're fake doesn't bother me.

The fact that it's a non-associative algebra is a little disturbing 
though... o_O

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

>> Fundamentally, what it comes down to is this: No matter how smooth it 
>> looks, *I* would know it's fake. And that would seriously annoy me.
> 
> So pixels bug you, huh?

Well... given the choice, I am a vector graphics kind of guy. ;-)

I haven't yet come up with a ray to raytrace something and come up with 
a vector description though. I'm guessing this is highly, *highly* 
intractable.

-- 
http://blog.orphi.me.uk/
http://www.zazzle.com/MathematicalOrchid*

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   Does everything have to have a reason behind it? 

Yes.

> Can't things be done just
> for the fun of it?
> 

Isn't that a valid reason?

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Warp wrote:
> > 
> >   Does everything have to have a reason behind it? 

> Yes.

> > Can't things be done just
> > for the fun of it?
> > 

> Isn't that a valid reason?

  Reason implies logic. Fun doesn't always involve logic.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:54:06 -0500, Warp wrote:

> Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>> > 
>> >   Does everything have to have a reason behind it?
> 
>> Yes.
> 
>> > Can't things be done just
>> > for the fun of it?
>> > 
>> > 
>> Isn't that a valid reason?
> 
>   Reason implies logic. Fun doesn't always involve logic.

It's also not mutually exclusive.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Warp wrote:
> 
>   Reason implies logic. Fun doesn't always involve logic.
> 

Yes. Doing X because of Y makes Y the reason to do X - that certainly is
logical :). IMO fun is universally a valid value for Y as long as no-one
gets hurt.

Or have I misunderstood the meaning of the word "reason"?

-Aero

Post a reply to this message

On 12/18/09 19:54, Warp wrote:
> Eero Ahonen<aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid>  wrote:
>> Warp wrote:
>>>    Does everything have to have a reason behind it?
>
>> Yes.
>
>>> Can't things be done just
>>> for the fun of it?
>>>
>
>> Isn't that a valid reason?
>
>    Reason implies logic. Fun doesn't always involve logic.

	But doing something for fun is usually logical.

-- 
Depend on the rabbit's foot if you will, but remember, it didn't help 
the rabbit.

Post a reply to this message

Eero Ahonen <aer### [at] removethiszbxtnetinvalid> wrote:
> Or have I misunderstood the meaning of the word "reason"?

  I was playing with the two distinct meanings of the word.

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message

>> I thought all games used per-pixel lighting now?
>
> Apparently HL2 doesn't. (They've upgraded the Source engine several times 
> since then, so maybe it does now. I doubt it.)

HL2 has normal mapping, so it definitely does use per-pixel lighting, at 
least on some surfaces. It samples from three lightmaps representing the 
light coming from three directions, and then does dot products with the 
normal to determine the total light on a pixel.

Characters do something similar but without light maps.

 - Slime
 [ http://www.slimeland.com/ ]

Post a reply to this message

Slime <fak### [at] emailaddress> wrote:
> >> I thought all games used per-pixel lighting now?
> >
> > Apparently HL2 doesn't. (They've upgraded the Source engine several times 
> > since then, so maybe it does now. I doubt it.)

> HL2 has normal mapping, so it definitely does use per-pixel lighting, at 
> least on some surfaces. It samples from three lightmaps representing the 
> light coming from three directions, and then does dot products with the 
> normal to determine the total light on a pixel.

> Characters do something similar but without light maps.

  I think it all comes down to how you *define* "per-pixel lighting".

  In the good old days gouraud shading was the standard because it was
inexpensive, as opposed to phong shading which was (at the time of
software renderers and even with the early 3D graphics acceleration cards)
very heavy, as it required calculating lighting on each pixel, as opposed
to gouraud shading, where it was enough to calculate it only on each vertex
point (but naturally the result was not even nearly as good).

  (Basically gouraud shading is calculating accurate lighting at the three
vertices of a triangle and then interpolating these lighting values linearly
throughout the surface of the triangle. Linear interpolation is inexpensive,
especially with early acceleration cards. Full-fledged phong-shading requires
making accurate lighting calculations on every single pixel, which was very
heavy at the time.)

  So you could say that phong-sading is per-pixel lighting.

  On the other hand, nowadays when people talk about "per-pixel lighting"
in conjunction with 3D graphics acceleration cards, what they are really
talking about is per-pixel shaders (usually as opposed to lightmapping
and/or vertex shaders).

-- 
                                                          - Warp

Post a reply to this message