 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
These things are geared at next generation game consoles due in about 1-2 years.
You know E3 was running these days, right?
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] dev null> wrote:
> >
> > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQB9ds2AYwM
> > If that is the future of games, I suspect Hollywood better embrace the tech.
>
> I think they already did, about 20 years ago? :-P
I still watch movies, even computer generated ones from same old boring angles
as last time I watched.
There was a supposed feature of bluray that allow one to watch a few scenes from
other selected camera angles. Too little, too late.
> Fast-forward 15 years or so, and things have changed. GPGPU is here. And
> now, we find that the GPU can actually do all the effects that POV-Ray
> does AND MORE, and it can do it in real-time or near real-time.
>
> In the old days, it was scanline for speed, ray-tracing for realism.
> Today "unbiased rendering" seems to be the new ray-tracing. And to get
> that kind of quality in POV-Ray, you seen to have to work really hard
> for it. You need complicated photon maps, clever material design, and
> ultimately endless tweaking of radiosity settings.
>
> Or you could just fire up an unbiased renderer running on the GPU, which
> directly simulates /everything/, without effort and faster than POV-Ray.
>
> Le roi est mort, vive le roi!
I couldn't put it better.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/06/2012 4:40 PM, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
> I rephrase: It's generally not /useful/ to Google an image.
I agree.
--
Regards
Stephen
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Fri, 08 Jun 2012 20:47:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> in real time.
The whole thing is just jaw-droppingly incredible.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> Le roi est mort, vive le roi!
>
> I couldn't put it better.
That's because I'm awesome. 8-D
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 09/06/2012 07:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> The whole thing is just jaw-droppingly incredible.
No.
The thing that's jaw-droppingly incredible is that in 10 years' time,
all of this stuff will look laughably fake compared to the technology
cheaply available for purchase. (!)
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:
> >> Also: The really impressive thing is the GUI. What the hell *is* that??
> >> It looks really slick...
> >
> > I know you have been asked things this a million times already, but do
> > you *deliberately* try your hardest to *not* do any research whatsoever
> > on your own, just so that you could ask here?
> You can't Google an image. I figured somebody here would probably
> recognise it on sight.
It's Unreal Engine, and there's an editor. The search keywords should be
rather obvious.
"Love with you heart, use your head for everything else."
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Sat, 09 Jun 2012 19:37:36 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 09/06/2012 07:24 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
>
>> The whole thing is just jaw-droppingly incredible.
>
> No.
I found it to be so. You can't disagree with my subjective opinion of
something. (Or rather, you can hold a contrary opinion, but that doesn't
make my opinion invalid for me on something that's subjective).
> The thing that's jaw-droppingly incredible is that in 10 years' time,
> all of this stuff will look laughably fake compared to the technology
> cheaply available for purchase. (!)
You may find it so, but I don't. Having watched computer technology
since the 70's, what would surprise me is if in 10 years this /isn't/
possible on inexpensive hardware.
Jim
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 9-6-2012 5:47, Darren New wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>
> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
> in real time.
>
It looks great. The downside of having so much detail and so much
flexibility is that for a reasonable world someone has to provide that
detail.
On the one hand: think of what Thomas de Groot could do with this for
his Gancaloon. On the other hand, he'll need to put in a lot of detail
in every place that might be visited, not just the ones he makes a
closeup for. That will mean many years of work. There will be no way to
justify that expense. Unless someone is going to shoot a holywood
blockbuster in his town.
--
tip: do not run in an unknown place when it is too dark to see the
floor, unless you prefer to not use uppercase.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 6/9/2012 11:35 PM, andrel wrote:
> On 9-6-2012 5:47, Darren New wrote:
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOvfn1p92_8
>>
>> Amazing the level of visual computation people are achieving these days
>> in real time.
>>
>
> It looks great. The downside of having so much detail and so much
> flexibility is that for a reasonable world someone has to provide that
> detail.
> On the one hand: think of what Thomas de Groot could do with this for
> his Gancaloon. On the other hand, he'll need to put in a lot of detail
> in every place that might be visited, not just the ones he makes a
> closeup for. That will mean many years of work. There will be no way to
> justify that expense. Unless someone is going to shoot a holywood
> blockbuster in his town.
>
>
>
The next step in 3D is going to have to be auto-blending of stock
elements, so that you limit the level of detail the designer needs to
do, to make the game. Sort of Grebling, on steroids. lol
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
