>> I found this significantly less impressive than expected.
>
> you're a weird geek.

Well, since geeks are by definition weird... :-P

I think it's the fact that the balls don't actually make any sound, they 
just trigger an electronic sensor which then plays the sound. I mean, 
the computer could trigger the sound even if the ball doesn't hit, and 
fake the whole thing.

It would be /far/ more impressive if the physical impact of the balls 
actually make a real sound, with no electronic trickery. (On the other 
hand, I suspect it would be difficult to put the necessary kinetic 
energy into the ball without firing it half way across the building 
first...)

Post a reply to this message

Le 09/04/2012 21:20, Orchid Win7 v1 nous fit lire :
>>> I found this significantly less impressive than expected.
>>
>> you're a weird geek.
> 
> Well, since geeks are by definition weird... :-P
> 
> I think it's the fact that the balls don't actually make any sound, they
> just trigger an electronic sensor which then plays the sound. I mean,
> the computer could trigger the sound even if the ball doesn't hit, and
> fake the whole thing.
> 
> It would be /far/ more impressive if the physical impact of the balls
> actually make a real sound, with no electronic trickery. (On the other
> hand, I suspect it would be difficult to put the necessary kinetic
> energy into the ball without firing it half way across the building
> first...)

The OP is obviously a computer-generated animation, the stochastic
movement of balls are not reflected in the size of the collecting cones.

Most obvious "unreal" is the metalophone: the amplitude of moving parts
are such... they do not oscillate enough from one hit to another to
perturb the collecting cone, yet they move a lot when hit.

The Intel construction is avoiding that very part: you do not see any
collect of balls. I guess they are at least fair for the sound part:
they used plastic and detector to trigger the sound, but they could have
use some real sounding-metal to do it (but it takes more sciences than
electronic to make a sounding instrument).

Yet, no collect, no cigar.

Post a reply to this message

> Probably not made with POV-Ray, but still awesome:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hyCIpKAIFyo

You can download a version for your graphics card here:

http://developer.amd.com/archive/legacydemos/pages/ATIRadeon9700Real-TimeDemos.aspx

Post a reply to this message

Orchid Win7 v1 escreveu:
>>> I found this significantly less impressive than expected.
>>
>> you're a weird geek.
> 
> Well, since geeks are by definition weird... :-P
> 
> I think it's the fact that the balls don't actually make any sound, they 
> just trigger an electronic sensor which then plays the sound. I mean, 
> the computer could trigger the sound even if the ball doesn't hit, and 
> fake the whole thing.
> 
> It would be /far/ more impressive if the physical impact of the balls 
> actually make a real sound, with no electronic trickery. (On the other 
> hand, I suspect it would be difficult to put the necessary kinetic 
> energy into the ball without firing it half way across the building 
> first...)

plastic pads are much easier for a ball to hit than a metallic string. 
Give the guys enough error margin...

-- 
a game sig: http://tinyurl.com/d3rxz9

Post a reply to this message

>> I think it's the fact that the balls don't actually make any sound,
>> they just trigger an electronic sensor which then plays the sound. I
>> mean, the computer could trigger the sound even if the ball doesn't
>> hit, and fake the whole thing.
>>
>> It would be /far/ more impressive if the physical impact of the balls
>> actually make a real sound, with no electronic trickery. (On the other
>> hand, I suspect it would be difficult to put the necessary kinetic
>> energy into the ball without firing it half way across the building
>> first...)
>
> plastic pads are much easier for a ball to hit than a metallic string.
> Give the guys enough error margin...

That's why it's less awesome.

It's easier to play a nursery rhyme than to play a symphony - but the 
latter is so much more impressive. ;-)

Post a reply to this message