Thomas de Groot <tho### [at] degrootorg> wrote:
> but
> over the years much of the information is somehow lost or forgotten and
> I have noted several times that the same wheel is being invented over
> and over again.

Right.  I've noted that as well, and there are certainly more scene and include
files in the archives than I know what to do with.

> most of what I do is common-sense, straightforward, coding. I
> am sure however, that there could be a demand for it.

Most often I see the people with the most talent underappreciate and undervalue
themselves.  It's also often not "what" you do, but how you do it.  And most
often, if you have the initiative and stamina to do it at all.

> I am not sure in
> what form this should be done and if this should be incorporated into
> the web site

I've had write science articles, and have read a lot of patents --- usually one
starts out with a brief introduction (these are the basics of the heightfield)
does a short review of notable prior art (this can be a few sentences with
references/links, and then I would imagine in the present context, one might lay
out the stepwise development of a scene that uses a hf as terrain, how it gets
generated, how it gets modified and tweaked, and some of the tricks for
texturing it.
Then there may be a list of references and links that are of related interest or
further reading on the specific subject.

I would also say that articles reviewing past _unsolved_ issue may be of
interest as well - as this is instructive about how people approach the same
problem in many different ways, goes into the specifics of what has been tried,
why it doesn't work or how it falls short of the desired result, and sets out a
list of ideas that may have been pondered but not yet tried.
That way if someone has an interest in a similar subject, they will already know
that it doesn't work, and what the issues are in attempting to get it to.  It
also puts ideas and problem solving strategies out there for people to learn
from and acts as a seed for brainstorming and inspiration for derivative works.
(More clever readers may get frustrated by the failed attempt and be spurred to
show how it CAN be done   :D )

Lastly, and this is mostly here for completeness, would be articles that deal
with what _can't_ be done - and why.  This may help someone just starting a
scene from unproductively pursuing a doomed strategy.  It's also a good place to
discuss what scene coders probably do best - fake it with a workaround that's
good enough to fool the eye from the chosen perspective.  Many people may be
tempted to model the exact geometry of something, or a _whole_ something, when
simply a close approximation and some clever texturing with normals will do the
trick.   Billboarding.  Etc.

Check THIS out  :O
https://twitter.com/QTAnon1/status/1288270534493581314



Text / html in the usual sort of post would be good, but also maybe exporting it
to a PDF so it can be individually downloaded and archived might be a good idea
as well.  It would also look pretty professional, and outside sites could link
to the PDF thus generating traffic to - HERE.


There should probably be a poll soliciting what actual users would like to see
covered (and why), as well as a list of people they might like/hope to see
invited articles by.   (It's early and this is by no means an inclusive list)
Paul Bourke, Inigo Quilez, Tor Olav Kristensen, Jaime Vives Piqueres, Paul
Nylander, Robert McGregor, Ive, Norbert Kern, Gilles Tran, Christoph Hormann,
Samuel Benge ... and others which I may not even be aware of.

Post a reply to this message