 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 2014-05-14 18:35, Doctor John wrote:
> Incidentally, where are the algorithms?
Well, if that's their selling point that's letting them accomplish
things, I'd expect it's probably proprietary/industrial secret kind of
thing. Heh.
--
T. Cook
http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 14/05/2014 10:15 PM, Tim Cook wrote:
> On 2014-05-14 15:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> I can't imagine how you would make low-latency access direct from
>> low-bandwidth devices like spinning disks or network shares and yet at
>> the same time [...]
>
> The present day left a memo for you: they have solid-state hard drives
> now that are a bit faster than traditional spinning media.
>
> True, they're still kind of pricey, but they're out there in the wild
> and can be had for only about twice as much as a regular drive for the
> cheap ones.
All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
It turns out that while the seek times are drastically superior, most of
the cheap ones have write times far inferior to a spinning disk.
Bizarre, but true. Also, they seem to break much more frequently.
OTOH, if anybody tells you they can only withstand so many write cycles,
you can just ignore them. The laptop on my desk gets the entire drive
zero-wiped multiple times *per day*, every single day of the year (even
when I'm not in the building), and after over a year of this abuse, it's
still working just fine.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Irf-HJ4fBls
>
> I'd seen about this thing a few years back, it's apparently legit.
I saw it a few years back too (maybe posted in here?) and was sceptical.
It certainly looks impressive and I'm still trying to figure out if this
really could be possible or not. Something like a tile-based LOD system
could work, games do this already with polygon and texture data (game
world size only limited by the storage media), no reason why it couldn't
work with point data.
As for the compression I was thinking along the lines of something
similar to the way mp3/jpeg drops information that probably won't be
noticed. You don't need to store every point at every detail level with
the full precision, and the point data could make use of the coarser
data (position and colour) from the next level up.
That just leaves how to get the million or so points that are in RAM on
the screen in the right place in the right order in a fraction of a
second. Are CPUs fast enough today to just simply draw every one with a
z-buffer? Seems like it could be made multi-threaded very easily, on the
rare occasion two threads try to write to the same pixel at the same
time it probably won't even be noticed if the pixel is the wrong colour.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
>> True, they're still kind of pricey, but they're out there in the wild
>> and can be had for only about twice as much as a regular drive for the
>> cheap ones.
>
> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
I have this in my work PC:
http://www.misco.co.uk/product/199853/Seagate-2TB-Desktop-3-5inch-SATA-SSHD
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> On 2014-05-14 15:05, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> I can't imagine how you would make low-latency access direct from
>> low-bandwidth devices like spinning disks or network shares and yet at
>> the same time [...]
>
> The present day left a memo for you: they have solid-state hard drives
> now that are a bit faster than traditional spinning media.
exactly the fastest thing around.
--
/*Francois Labreque*/#local a=x+y;#local b=x+a;#local c=a+b;#macro P(F//
/* flabreque */L)polygon{5,F,F+z,L+z,L,F pigment{rgb 9}}#end union
/* @ */{P(0,a)P(a,b)P(b,c)P(2*a,2*b)P(2*b,b+c)P(b+c,<2,3>)
/* gmail.com */}camera{orthographic location<6,1.25,-6>look_at a }
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
scott <sco### [at] scott com> wrote:
> Are CPUs fast enough today to just simply draw every one with a
> z-buffer? Seems like it could be made multi-threaded very easily, on the
> rare occasion two threads try to write to the same pixel at the same
> time it probably won't even be noticed if the pixel is the wrong colour.
CPU's don't draw anything anymore nowadays. The only thing they do is to
transfer data to the GPU and tell it what to do with it.
--
- Warp
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
> CPU's don't draw anything anymore nowadays. The only thing they do is to
> transfer data to the GPU and tell it what to do with it.
If by "draw" you mean "convert a value at a memory address to a signal
to be sent to a monitor", then no, CPUs don't draw anything, and AFAIK
never have.
However if you mean "calculate pixel values that will be displayed",
then the CPU "draws" in programs like POV and (apparently) in this demo.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:21:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
Nonsense. SSD drives are incomprehensibly expensive, and only the most
well-off geeks have them because they're incredibly rare "in the wild".
They must cost billions of dollars to purchase, most certainly. ;)
Jim
--
"I learned long ago, never to wrestle with a pig. You get dirty, and
besides, the pig likes it." - George Bernard Shaw
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On 15/05/2014 05:29 PM, Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Thu, 15 May 2014 08:21:51 +0100, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>
>> All the PCs at work actually *have* these.
>
> Nonsense. SSD drives are incomprehensibly expensive, and only the most
> well-off geeks have them because they're incredibly rare "in the wild".
> They must cost billions of dollars to purchase, most certainly. ;)
Well *I* certainly couldn't afford one. But then, I'm not the one
paying, so... ;-)
As I say, there's not much real-world observable performance difference,
to be honest.
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
On Thu, 15 May 2014 03:58:50 +0200, Tim Cook <z99### [at] gmailcom> wrote:
> On 2014-05-14 18:35, Doctor John wrote:
>> Incidentally, where are the algorithms?
>
> Well, if that's their selling point that's letting them accomplish
> things, I'd expect it's probably proprietary/industrial secret kind of
> thing. Heh.
>
> --
> T. Cook
> http://empyrean.sjcook.com
Like Minecraft with pixel-sized blocks?
--
-Nekar Xenos-
Post a reply to this message
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
