> You
> don't have to turn on many lights 100W lights to easily exceed that...

You still have 100W heaters that give off a bit of light? ;-)

Post a reply to this message

>> You
>> don't have to turn on many lights 100W lights to easily exceed that...
>
> You still have 100W heaters that give off a bit of light? ;-)

Yeah, pretty much.

In my mum's house [where most of this render took place] there's only 
two lights in the building that aren't incandescent.

Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour 
to turn on...

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.07.2014 09:47, schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:
>>> You
>>> don't have to turn on many lights 100W lights to easily exceed that...
>>
>> You still have 100W heaters that give off a bit of light? ;-)
>
> Yeah, pretty much.
>
> In my mum's house [where most of this render took place] there's only
> two lights in the building that aren't incandescent.
>
> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
> to turn on...

Sounds like they're /all/ pretty much outdated.

Post a reply to this message

> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
> to turn on...

They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were 
selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and 
even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just 
throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.

Post a reply to this message

On 30/07/2014 10:13, scott wrote:
>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>> to turn on...
> 
> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.

When you have a single fixation system for the bulb, maybe.
But here (France !), I have two different system: screwing or bayonet mount.

So, it's not just "count, buy the number of bulbs and replace", each
mounting system must be checked and counted separatly.

Moreover, the impact of trashing still working apparatus is still a bit
disturbing.

I heard I'm not in the only country with such dual system. And bayonet
is the best system for customer, despite the extra-cost of the receiving
device (it's more than just a foil of metal pushed by a press). It's
easier to put and remove a bulb, and there is no tension on the external
body.

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

> When you have a single fixation system for the bulb, maybe.
> But here (France !), I have two different system: screwing or bayonet mount.
>
> So, it's not just "count, buy the number of bulbs and replace", each
> mounting system must be checked and counted separatly.

Also in the UK we have by no means a single system, I have at least 
three types in my house. The traditional bayonet is IIRC in all the 
bedrooms, there are screw-fit "candle" bulbs in the downstairs rooms, 
and those spot-light bulbs with prongs on in the kitchen. I kept all the 
bayonets as fluorescents as they hardly get used (max 1 hour per day), 
but converted the spots and candle bulbs to LED as they see much more 
use and I could get my money back in under a year. It wasn't that tricky 
to count them and order the different types.

> Moreover, the impact of trashing still working apparatus is still a bit
> disturbing.

If you feel uncomfortable throwing them away, you could sell them 
(although that might be illegal now?), give them away or fit them in 
places that you very rarely use (eg attic or cupboard or something).

> I heard I'm not in the only country with such dual system. And bayonet
> is the best system for customer, despite the extra-cost of the receiving
> device (it's more than just a foil of metal pushed by a press). It's
> easier to put and remove a bulb, and there is no tension on the external
> body.

The other thing about threaded bulbs is that there is the chance they 
come loose over time due to the heat cycling of the thread. With bayonet 
it is impossible to come loose.

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.07.2014 10:33, schrieb Le_Forgeron:
> On 30/07/2014 10:13, scott wrote:
>>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>>> to turn on...
>>
>> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
>> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
>> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
>> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
>
> When you have a single fixation system for the bulb, maybe.
> But here (France !), I have two different system: screwing or bayonet mount.

Sounds like you're screwed then ;-) (SCNR)

Post a reply to this message

scott <sco### [at] scottcom> wrote:
> > Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
> > to turn on...
>
> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.

No way.
I’ve yet to see a fluorescent bulb that was bright enough, halogen ones are too
actinic.

As far as fittings go. A flat I was in recently had bayonet fittings with three
prongs instead of two.

Stephen

Post a reply to this message

> No way.
> I’ve yet to see a fluorescent bulb that was bright enough,

I think whatever brightness you want is available, within reason. The 
problem is likely the cheap standard ones are 40W or 60W equivalents, 
and they're probably lying a bit with those claims too. I'm pretty sure 
I've seen some monster 150W and 200W equivalents.

And the problem with LEDs is that you can't get a 100W equivalent LED 
(about 10W) in a package the size of a standard bulb - it just generates 
too much heat and would cook itself. So you need to use more bulbs, we 
have two 5x5W fittings in our living room so it was perfect for 
switching to LED and reducing the power from 400W down to 50W, but it 
only made financial sense because those lights are normally on for 
several hours every day.

> halogen ones are too
> actinic.

I don't think halogens offer any efficiency improvements over 
incandescents do they?

Post a reply to this message

On 7/30/2014 1:13 AM, scott wrote:
>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>> to turn on...
>
> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.

Yes well.. Here in the good old US, you get morons like the one who 
tried to tell me that, "other lights hurt my eyes", which I supposed 
meant that the dimwit was still trying to use the really old ones, which 
flicker, and thought that the new ones did too. He also whined about 
them not being "natural light", which is, you know, the whole point of 
the bulbs with a blue coloration to them, to make them more natural, as 
per outdoor light. So the clown was actually complaining that he didn't 
like light that actually bloody **was** a more natural color, instead of 
the ugly yellowish stuff standard incandescents produce. lol

Seriously though, I just so love living in a country where the answer to 
everything from which light bulb they pick, to which over sized SUV they 
drive, comes down to, "I don't like those more cost effective ones.", 
and/or, "and besides, I might need the extra stuff it can do for some 
reason, once in my entire life time!", and they get praise for this 
stupid attitude by such a large number of other idiots.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 7/30/2014 6:00 AM, scott wrote:
>> No way.
>> I’ve yet to see a fluorescent bulb that was bright enough,
>
> I think whatever brightness you want is available, within reason. The
> problem is likely the cheap standard ones are 40W or 60W equivalents,
> and they're probably lying a bit with those claims too. I'm pretty sure
> I've seen some monster 150W and 200W equivalents.
>
> And the problem with LEDs is that you can't get a 100W equivalent LED
> (about 10W) in a package the size of a standard bulb - it just generates
> too much heat and would cook itself. So you need to use more bulbs, we
> have two 5x5W fittings in our living room so it was perfect for
> switching to LED and reducing the power from 400W down to 50W, but it
> only made financial sense because those lights are normally on for
> several hours every day.
>
Well, you could.. But you would have to a) add a heat sink, b) use 
higher end LED which are way brighter than the ones usually found in 
those things, and c) throw out the transformer setup on them, and go 
with a straight DC power connection, with the right voltage range. 
Since, short of wiring your house yourself to provide 5v and 12v lines, 
instead of 220, or the local equivalent, none of these things are going 
to happen any time soon...


-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 30/07/2014 20:03, Patrick Elliott wrote:

> Seriously though, I just so love living in a country where the answer to
> everything from which light bulb they pick, to which over sized SUV they
> drive, comes down to, "I don't like those more cost effective ones.",
> and/or, "and besides, I might need the extra stuff it can do for some
> reason, once in my entire life time!", and they get praise for this
> stupid attitude by such a large number of other idiots.
> 
It's shared with other countries... 4x4 with bullbar (I mean, the heavy
mega super model)... in Paris, France.

Muddy roads in town, right!
Filled with angry charging cows... no doute.

btw, in France, getting off road to wild course with a vehicle is
forbidden (excepted on your own soil, but some forest are owned by
state-like-organisation so these ones are forbidden, and when was the
last time you saw a forest in Paris ?), so it's not like you are going
to need that mega-jumbo-wheel-drive to cross a field or a beach.

And for the unexpected snow condition (once every three years ? or
less), do not worry, the roads are to be blocked anyway by the other
cars (and trucks!), so you won't move even with that super-4x4.

-- 
IQ of crossposters with FU: 100 / (number of groups)
IQ of crossposters without FU: 100 / (1 + number of groups)
IQ of multiposters: 100 / ( (number of groups) * (number of groups))

Post a reply to this message

On 30/07/2014 09:13 AM, scott wrote:
>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>> to turn on...
>
> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.

I have yet to see a fluorescent bulb that works instantly. Oh, they all 
strike instantly, but it takes about quarter of an hour for them to 
"warm up" to the point where they produce any appreciable quantity of 
light. And even then, they always seem a bit dark. As inefficient as 
incandescent lights are, at least they WORK. There are many people who 
hate the mini flourescents with a fire passion.

LEDs sound like a nice idea, but the light they produce is usually very 
directional, and they're not really bright enough. You'd need to coat 
your whole ceiling with them.

As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of 
the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS 
casting a shadow over the work surface. A normal light, suspended just 
below the ceiling and throwing light in all directions, doesn't seem to 
suffer this problem nearly as much.

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.07.2014 15:00, schrieb scott:

>> halogen ones are too
>> actinic.
>
> I don't think halogens offer any efficiency improvements over
> incandescents do they?

They do: Their filaments are hotter than those of classic incandescent 
bulbs, causing their emissive spectrum to be more blueish, so they emit 
less infrared light and more visible light. Some are also coated with a 
material that reflects infrared light.

The gain is rather low however, something like a factor of 1.2 over 
classic incandescent bulbs (*). Just about high enough to still allow 
them to be sold though.

Post a reply to this message

Am 30.07.2014 20:03, schrieb Patrick Elliott:
> On 7/30/2014 1:13 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>>> to turn on...
>>
>> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
>> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
>> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
>> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
>
> Yes well.. Here in the good old US, you get morons like the one who
> tried to tell me that, "other lights hurt my eyes", which I supposed
> meant that the dimwit was still trying to use the really old ones, which
> flicker, and thought that the new ones did too. He also whined about
> them not being "natural light", which is, you know, the whole point of
> the bulbs with a blue coloration to them, to make them more natural, as
> per outdoor light. So the clown was actually complaining that he didn't
> like light that actually bloody **was** a more natural color, instead of
> the ugly yellowish stuff standard incandescents produce. lol

For private homes it's probably healthier -- in terms of day/night 
rhythm and anything related to that -- to use the more yellowish stuff.

On the other hand, for work places where good old daylight isn't 
sufficiently available for one reason or another, bright blueish 
illumination is kind of a must. But they've mostly been using 
fluorescent lamps for ages anyway.

Post a reply to this message

> flicker, and thought that the new ones did too. He also whined about
> them not being "natural light", which is, you know, the whole point of
> the bulbs with a blue coloration to them, to make them more natural, as
> per outdoor light.

Saying that, we ordered "daylight" colour LED bulbs, and seriously 
several times I've come downstairs in the evening and thought "ooh the 
sun's still out", only it was just the lights on. When you are used to 
that, the other bulbs looks horribly yellow and dirty/old fashioned. I 
guess with almost everything, it's just what you're used to, and people 
generally resist change.

Post a reply to this message

> Well, you could.. But you would have to a) add a heat sink,

There are light fittings specially designed for LEDs now, where the 
light fitting itself is the heat-sink. This seems like a good idea.

> b) use
> higher end LED which are way brighter than the ones usually found in
> those things,

Higher brightness = more heat. You can get ones that are marginally more 
efficient, but you're still generating roughly the same amount of heat, 
and the need to keep the LED junction below 120°C or whatever it is.

> and c) throw out the transformer setup on them, and go
> with a straight DC power connection, with the right voltage range.

Actually that is quite common here, if you've got multiple low-voltage 
lights then you have one transformer "brick" (that attaches above the 
ceiling somewhere) with DC running to each bulb. It's especially common 
in bathrooms as it means you can run standard lights (rather than 
expensive IP rated ones) much closer to a shower/bath than the 
regulations would allow with mains power.

> Since, short of wiring your house yourself to provide 5v and 12v lines,

I don't think it will work very well trying to wire an entire house with 
5V (or even 12V lines). The total current will be large, which means 
thicker cables required, and over longer runs you'll get significant 
voltage drop due to the cable resistance. Dropping a few volts when you 
switch on a 13A kettle at 220V is no issue, but dropping from 5V to 2V 
when you switch on a room full of LEDs is obviously an issue. There's 
room for some innovation here I think.

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-07-30 18:00, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> On 30/07/2014 09:13 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Trouble is, those mini fluorescent things take about quarter of an hour
>>> to turn on...
>>
>> They must be *very* old ones then. Even the 99p ones that Tesco were
>> selling a while back turn on instantly. Given the price of them, and
>> even the price of LED lights now, it's pretty much a no-brainer to just
>> throw all your incandescent bulbs in the bin immediately.
>
> I have yet to see a fluorescent bulb that works instantly. Oh, they all
> strike instantly, but it takes about quarter of an hour for them to
> "warm up" to the point where they produce any appreciable quantity of
> light.

For sufficiently small values of "an hour".  Unless it's -5C in your 
living room, CFLs should warm up within a minute or so.

> And even then, they always seem a bit dark.

YMMV.  I have 2 100W-equivalent in my basement, and I can barely look at 
them without seeing spots after I turn my eyes.

> LEDs sound like a nice idea, but the light they produce is usually very
> directional, and they're not really bright enough. You'd need to coat
> your whole ceiling with them.

I don't get this.  Here, we have warnings that LEDs are too bright and 
can actually injure your eyes if you look directly at them.

>
> As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
> the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
> casting a shadow over the work surface.

Just turn on radiosity, that will solve the problem.
;)

> A normal light, suspended just
> below the ceiling and throwing light in all directions, doesn't seem to
> suffer this problem nearly as much.


-- 
/*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

> I have yet to see a fluorescent bulb that works instantly. Oh, they all
> strike instantly, but it takes about quarter of an hour for them to
> "warm up" to the point where they produce any appreciable quantity of
> light. And even then, they always seem a bit dark.

You do realise that CCFLs come with different power ratings and 
different light outputs, exactly like incandescents? If "they always 
seem a bit dark" then maybe you are always buying ones with too low 
power for the room?

> LEDs sound like a nice idea, but the light they produce is usually very
> directional,

Most "candle" type LED bulbs will actually consist of multiple LEDs 
pointing in all different directions with scattering/diffusing lenses. 
If you buy LED spotlights/downlighters then yes you will get a 
directional light pattern, that is the whole point (same if you buy a 
halogen downlighter).

> and they're not really bright enough. You'd need to coat
> your whole ceiling with them.

Realistically you're going to get equivalent of maybe 40-60W 
incandescent from a single "normal" LED bulb. If you are used to using a 
single 100W bulb to light a room then you won't be able to replace it 
with a single LED bulb, but if (like me) you had those light fittings 
that take 3x or 5x 40W halogen/incandescents then you can easily make it 
brighter than it was before with LEDs.

> As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
> the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
> casting a shadow over the work surface. A normal light, suspended just
> below the ceiling and throwing light in all directions, doesn't seem to
> suffer this problem nearly as much.

That's because they are downlighter spots, nothing to do with the fact 
that they are LED. You'd have the same issue with halogen spots. 
Kitchens often used to have full-sized fluorescent tubes, which actually 
worked quite well, they just went out of fashion. A "normal" uplighter 
works by throwing the light onto the ceiling and it reflecting back 
down, LED uplighters will do exactly the same, but typically you don't 
have them in kitchens.

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.07.2014 15:16, schrieb Francois Labreque:

>> LEDs sound like a nice idea, but the light they produce is usually very
>> directional, and they're not really bright enough. You'd need to coat
>> your whole ceiling with them.
>
> I don't get this.  Here, we have warnings that LEDs are too bright and
> can actually injure your eyes if you look directly at them.

That's probably because the light comes from a very small spot, so you 
can easily focus all of the light energy on a very small region of your 
retina.

Post a reply to this message

Am 31.07.2014 15:44, schrieb scott:

>> As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
>> the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
>> casting a shadow over the work surface. A normal light, suspended just
>> below the ceiling and throwing light in all directions, doesn't seem to
>> suffer this problem nearly as much.
>
> That's because they are downlighter spots, nothing to do with the fact
> that they are LED. You'd have the same issue with halogen spots.
> Kitchens often used to have full-sized fluorescent tubes, which actually
> worked quite well, they just went out of fashion.

I don't know about the UK, but in Germany such kitchen lights would 
often not be fluorescent tubes at all, but so-called "Linienlampen" - 
incandescent light bulbs in a tubular shape with a long filament and 
special sockets.

http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linienlampe#mediaviewer/Datei:Linestra_with_visible_filament.jpg

Post a reply to this message

> I don't know about the UK, but in Germany such kitchen lights would
> often not be fluorescent tubes at all, but so-called "Linienlampen" -
> incandescent light bulbs in a tubular shape with a long filament and
> special sockets.
>
>
http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linienlampe#mediaviewer/Datei:Linestra_with_visible_filament.jpg

Ooh interesting, never seen or heard of that before. I don't think they 
were very common, if available at all here. All the ones I remember 
always had the starter ballast in the side, which presumably is not 
needed for the Linienlampen.

Post a reply to this message

>> As a matter of fact, my new flat has LED downlighters in the ceiling of
>> the kitchen. Consequently, no matter where you stand, you are ALWAYS
>> casting a shadow over the work surface.
>
> Just turn on radiosity, that will solve the problem.
> ;)

Win.

Post a reply to this message

On 28/07/2014 05:20 PM, scott wrote:
> And are you planning to make the animation public?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM

Worth it, eh?

Post a reply to this message

On 16/08/2014 18:17, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 28/07/2014 05:20 PM, scott wrote:
>> And are you planning to make the animation public?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
>
> Worth it, eh?

Actually, yes.
Could you do it from another angle?

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

>> Worth it, eh?
>
> Actually, yes.
> Could you do it from another angle?

FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

Post a reply to this message

On 17/08/2014 10:15, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>>> Worth it, eh?
>>
>> Actually, yes.
>> Could you do it from another angle?
>
> FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU

OFFFFFFFFFFFF! :-)

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sat, 16 Aug 2014 19:17:45 +0200, Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

> On 28/07/2014 05:20 PM, scott wrote:
>> And are you planning to make the animation public?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
>
> Worth it, eh?

Awesome!

Now change it to glass beads.

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

On 17/08/2014 01:04 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
> Awesome!
>
> Now change it to glass beads.

I did try it with mirror beads... doesn't actually look all that good.

Post a reply to this message

On 29/07/2014 08:18, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> Reminds me of this:
>
> http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-28402709

It reminds me of something Invisible posted years ago.
Connected with The Amiga IIRC.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On Sun, 17 Aug 2014 16:11:12 +0200, Orchid Win7 v1 <voi### [at] devnull> wrote:

> On 17/08/2014 01:04 PM, Nekar Xenos wrote:
>> Awesome!
>>
>> Now change it to glass beads.
>
> I did try it with mirror beads... doesn't actually look all that good.

I meant red tinted glass. Though that would change your render time to a  
couple more years. Though you wouldn't need the radiosity, so you may yet  
be able to render it in 2 weeks. :)

A fly-around camera would also be nice :)

-- 
-Nekar Xenos-

Post a reply to this message

>>> Now change it to glass beads.
>>
>> I did try it with mirror beads... doesn't actually look all that good.
>
> I meant red tinted glass. Though that would change your render time to a
> couple more years. Though you wouldn't need the radiosity, so you may
> yet be able to render it in 2 weeks. :)
>
> A fly-around camera would also be nice :)

Heh. My PC is currently rendering the next animation in the sequence. 
(Cyan beads in a Cornell box, following an epicycloid path.)

One surprising thing is that the rippling water doesn't cast caustics on 
the sea floor. Then again, I guess the entire sky is more or less 
uniformly bright, so...

Post a reply to this message

>> And are you planning to make the animation public?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
>
> Worth it, eh?

Nice water surface effect! The balls moving like that made me remember 
back to those computer demos in the early 90s, they always seemed to 
have at least one section with 10 or 20 balls moving about in 
interesting patterns. Of course back then the balls were usually just 2D 
sprites and the screen resolution was 320x200 or something ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 18/08/2014 07:58, scott wrote:
> The balls moving like that made me remember back to those computer demos
> in the early 90s, they always seemed to have at least one section with
> 10 or 20 balls moving about in interesting patterns. Of course back then
> the balls were usually just 2D sprites and the screen resolution was
> 320x200 or something ;-)

That is the one. I am sure Andrew posted an animation of that years ago 
as a homage.

-- 

Regards
     Stephen

Post a reply to this message

On 18/08/2014 09:19 AM, Stephen wrote:
> On 18/08/2014 07:58, scott wrote:
>> The balls moving like that made me remember back to those computer demos
>> in the early 90s, they always seemed to have at least one section with
>> 10 or 20 balls moving about in interesting patterns. Of course back then
>> the balls were usually just 2D sprites and the screen resolution was
>> 320x200 or something ;-)
>
> That is the one. I am sure Andrew posted an animation of that years ago
> as a homage.

About 2 years ago, in fact. ;-)

I first saw this trick on the SAM Coupe (no, I cannot find any mention 
of it on Google). I and my siblings were astounded that the computer 
could animate millions of balls like that. (In the demo, it runs as long 
as you leave it, with a ball counter in the corner constantly counting 
up. When you press a key, it switches to the next pattern.)

The "trick" is that it's not actually sprites at all. I saw a demo like 
this on the Amiga, using Bliz Basic. And it turns out, all it does is 
this: There are 16 framebuffers. It draws just ONE ball onto the next 
framebuffer, and then switches that to be the current one. That's all it 
does. It's only rendering 1 ball per frame, but because each framebuffer 
still has all the previously rendered balls on it, and there are 16 
framebuffers constantly switching, it LOOKS LIKE the computer is 
actually animating millions of balls, all at once!

I, of course, REALLY AM animating several hundred spheres, in actual 3D, 
with full global illumination. At about one frame per hour. :-P

Makes you think, though... Remember that browser-based GPU unbiased 
renderer demo a while back? If I could somehow utilise that, the entire 
animation could be done in mere *hours*...!

Post a reply to this message

On 18-8-2014 20:24, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:

> Makes you think, though... Remember that browser-based GPU unbiased
> renderer demo a while back? If I could somehow utilise that, the entire
> animation could be done in mere *hours*...!

but where would be the fun in that?


-- 
Everytime the IT department forbids something that a researcher deems
necessary for her work there will be another hole in the firewall.

Post a reply to this message

Am Sat, 16 Aug 2014 18:17:45 +0100 schrieb Orchid Win7 v1:

> On 28/07/2014 05:20 PM, scott wrote:
>> And are you planning to make the animation public?
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
> 
> Worth it, eh?

Looks a bit like the old school demos (not that they were that fancy with 
water, but some had shiny spheres with shadows and some were flying over 
wobbly surface (albeit in a different scene - not at the same time)).

Post a reply to this message

Am Mon, 18 Aug 2014 07:58:53 +0100 schrieb scott:

>>> And are you planning to make the animation public?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s7I80H96CM
>>
>> Worth it, eh?
> 
> Nice water surface effect! The balls moving like that made me remember
> back to those computer demos in the early 90s, they always seemed to
> have at least one section with 10 or 20 balls moving about in
> interesting patterns. Of course back then the balls were usually just 2D
> sprites and the screen resolution was 320x200 or something ;-)

Oh... seems I was not the only one with that association :)

Post a reply to this message

> Makes you think, though... Remember that browser-based GPU unbiased
> renderer demo a while back? If I could somehow utilise that, the entire
> animation could be done in mere *hours*...!

Plenty of examples on shadertoy.com of real-time GI in the browser ;-)

Post a reply to this message

On 8/19/2014 1:27 AM, scott wrote:
>> Makes you think, though... Remember that browser-based GPU unbiased
>> renderer demo a while back? If I could somehow utilise that, the entire
>> animation could be done in mere *hours*...!
>
> Plenty of examples on shadertoy.com of real-time GI in the browser ;-)

Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well. Something about 
the way Firefox threads its content causes it to slog to a total crawl, 
until all the shaders fully load. They work, they just.. lag the shit 
out of it, while loading up. I presume this is still true in the latest 
release, since I haven't been stupid enough to try going there recently. lol

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

>> Plenty of examples on shadertoy.com of real-time GI in the browser ;-)
>
> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well. Something about
> the way Firefox threads its content causes it to slog to a total crawl,
> until all the shaders fully load. They work, they just.. lag the shit
> out of it, while loading up. I presume this is still true in the latest
> release, since I haven't been stupid enough to try going there recently.
> lol

It's similar in Chrome here, the first time I open the main page it 
takes about 4-5 seconds to fully load, and if I go "back" to the main 
page after that it still takes a second or two to populate all the 
shader previews.

But the most impressive thing is that while watching a shader run, you 
can modify the code on the right and hit play to run it.

Post a reply to this message

On 21/08/2014 01:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well.

Does anybody remember when Firefox was the browser of choice, because it 
was so much faster than everything else? These days, Firefox seems to 
take *forever* to do anything...

Post a reply to this message

On 21-8-2014 9:43, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
> On 21/08/2014 01:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well.
>
> Does anybody remember when Firefox was the browser of choice, because it
> was so much faster than everything else? These days, Firefox seems to
> take *forever* to do anything...

What is /forever/ though? from above I understand 4-5 seconds to be 
/unacceptable/ ;-) To tell the truth, I have no complains about firefox.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2014 12:08 AM, scott wrote:
>>> Plenty of examples on shadertoy.com of real-time GI in the browser ;-)
>>
>> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well. Something about
>> the way Firefox threads its content causes it to slog to a total crawl,
>> until all the shaders fully load. They work, they just.. lag the shit
>> out of it, while loading up. I presume this is still true in the latest
>> release, since I haven't been stupid enough to try going there recently.
>> lol
>
> It's similar in Chrome here, the first time I open the main page it
> takes about 4-5 seconds to fully load, and if I go "back" to the main
> page after that it still takes a second or two to populate all the
> shader previews.
>
> But the most impressive thing is that while watching a shader run, you
> can modify the code on the right and hit play to run it.
>
Umm. No, when I try it in Firefox its more like 4-5 minutes. There is a 
lot trying to load through that page, and.. Chrome takes a bit of time 
to do it, but even loading just "one" shader, on its own page, in 
Firefox lags like hell. Figure.. 20-40 second "per" shader, and the main 
page has like 12 on it (just checked), so, at minimum it ends up taking 
2 minutes minutes, or worse. But, no Chrome handles the page **way** 
better than Firefox does.

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2014 4:08 AM, Thomas de Groot wrote:
> On 21-8-2014 9:43, Orchid Win7 v1 wrote:
>> On 21/08/2014 01:12 AM, Patrick Elliott wrote:
>>> Uh.. Just don't expect Firefox to hand that site well.
>>
>> Does anybody remember when Firefox was the browser of choice, because it
>> was so much faster than everything else? These days, Firefox seems to
>> take *forever* to do anything...
>
> What is /forever/ though? from above I understand 4-5 seconds to be
> /unacceptable/ ;-) To tell the truth, I have no complains about firefox.
>
> Thomas
He said that the page takes that in Chrome, it takes minutes, not 
seconds, in Firefox. But, really, for any other page it seems to work 
fine. It only really has issues with shadertoy.com, due to what its 
loading, and a similar issue with pages with large scale animated gif. 
Its something to do with how it doesn't properly load those things in 
parallel right. Its a known problem, and one they, supposedly, would 
have to completely rework large sections of code to fix. But, since it 
effects less than maybe 100th of a percent of sites, in any noticeable 
way...

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

> Umm. No, when I try it in Firefox its more like 4-5 minutes.

:-O

I don't remember the last time I had FF installed and it sounds like I 
won't be installing it again anytime soon.

Post a reply to this message

On 22-8-2014 5:20, Patrick Elliott wrote:
> He said that the page takes that in Chrome, it takes minutes, not
> seconds, in Firefox.

Ah ok. I misread that it seems.

> But, really, for any other page it seems to work
> fine. It only really has issues with shadertoy.com, due to what its
> loading, and a similar issue with pages with large scale animated gif.
> Its something to do with how it doesn't properly load those things in
> parallel right. Its a known problem, and one they, supposedly, would
> have to completely rework large sections of code to fix. But, since it
> effects less than maybe 100th of a percent of sites, in any noticeable
> way...
>
I suppose that all browsers would be more or less affected by these 
issues, although some browsers might be better equipped to cope with them.

Thomas

Post a reply to this message

On 8/21/2014 11:47 PM, scott wrote:
>> Umm. No, when I try it in Firefox its more like 4-5 minutes.
>
> :-O
>
> I don't remember the last time I had FF installed and it sounds like I
> won't be installing it again anytime soon.
>
Personally, I hate the lack of customizability in Chrome, and the basic 
lack of certain in-built features in it. Otherwise, it has some features 
for html5 that are not yet implemented any place else, which, if you 
wanted to use them, means they won't work in FF, and, some shaders 
depend on them too. But, really, as I said in another post, the problem 
generally only happens when large images/files that need to transfer, on 
the same page, like.. large animate gifs, or, shaders, which seem to 
thread badly, somehow, and probably for the same reasons. For 99.999% of 
the pages out there, they work more or less equally well. And, I won't 
give up the plugins I use in it, just for some stuff I rarely visit. lol

-- 
Commander Vimes: "You take a bunch of people who don't seem any 
different from you and me, but when you add them all together you get 
this sort of huge raving maniac with national borders and an anthem."

Post a reply to this message

Le 2014-08-17 14:10, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
> One surprising thing is that the rippling water doesn't cast caustics on
> the sea floor. Then again, I guess the entire sky is more or less
> uniformly bright, so...

I noticed that.  I was also going to complain that when the beads get 
splashed by waves, they don't become wet.

;)

-- 
/*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

On 25/08/2014 02:06 PM, Francois Labreque wrote:
> Le 2014-08-17 14:10, Orchid Win7 v1 a écrit :
>> One surprising thing is that the rippling water doesn't cast caustics on
>> the sea floor. Then again, I guess the entire sky is more or less
>> uniformly bright, so...
>
> I noticed that. I was also going to complain that when the beads get
> splashed by waves, they don't become wet.
>
> ;)

I did start a render a while back where a rock was partially submerged 
in water, and the waves actually reflect off the sides of it. You can 
write a closed-form equation for that if you're careful. But the render 
times were trans-sane...

Post a reply to this message