Yikes! My browse through the messages so far indicates some serious energy and interest, and some great ideas. In fact, too many ideas! Well, not too many, just too disorganized.
table of contents
What someone needs to do is create a tree hierarchy of reasonable topics mentioned so far, which could be in the form of a table-of-contents. Then people can add their requests in the appropriate place, and everyone can see the fullness of the topics without reading a zillion messages --- just imagine this thread in a few months!
omit fad wars - keep ratings professional
I also have a question and request. I don't have problems with ratings - that's a reasonable way to judge the quality and popularity of an article. However, I have to point out one annoying problem that exists in gamedev as well as just about everywhere else. That is the problem of ratings and commenting based upon "fads" rather than utility, quality and other values. A huge number of people, especially close-to-newbies try to show how "in" or "hip" they are by trashing anything that doesn't conform to the current set of fads. This just creates pointless fights. But even worse, people with loads of experience get tired of being dumped on by fad-addicts (and "my-way-or-the-highway" types), and stop contributing. Why should they help if their reward is being dumped upon?
So I'm a bit skeptical about a wide open rating system. I'm not sure how to solve this problem. I've seen a few of the moderators behave the same ways in gamedev threads, so I'm not sure leaving ratings to moderators is the solution either. Only let authors who already contributed rate others? Anyone have a solution for this problem?
Here are examples of what I want to avoid:
- lots of negative votes for a great article about SIMD because "assembly language is stoopid" or "outdated".
- lots of negative votes for a great article about "topic-X" because "C" or "java" or "pick-your-language" is not very popular.
- lots of negative votes for a great article about "topic-X" because it contains OpenGL while D3D is more popular, or vice versa.
Hey, I always prefer to find that great articles formulate their examples in the programming language, shading language, graphics API, indenting-style that I adopted for my own projects. But I never mark anyone down for their choices - that's just unprofessional, and tends to punish good folks who are simply trying to help others.
editing - author has last word
I very much appreciate when someone fixes my typos or grammar, or makes my language clearer, or adds an image, figure, example. Unfortunately, more often than not, people who edit my stackoverflow messages make them less precise, more confusing, and insert errors (which people then assume came from me). So while I love the idea of improving and perfecting articles, I don't know the best way to achieve this in practice in a wide-open community setting such as this. My opinion is, the original author must have final say on his article. My favored solution is for edits to be sent to the author, who can then choose to incorporate them or not. A tool that emphasizes changes with different color text would make this process easy for authors and editors.
Some topics I would love to see:
- shadow maps
- basic algorithm explained in exhaustive detail (explain everything, make no assumptions)
- exponential shadow mapping (current state of the art - explain everything)
- variance shadow mapping (current state of the art - explain everything)
- compute geometric center of object (array of positions)
- compute center of mass of objects with thin shells
- compute center of mass of solid objects
topics from me
Some topics I might contribute articles about:
- SIMD (32-bit mode with 8 128-bit xmm registers, and 64-bit mode with 16 256-bit ymm registers and AVX/FMA/etc)
- for matrix multiply
- for vertex transformation
- for simultaneous computation of any combination of 4 sines/cosines of 4 input angles
- collision detection
- broad phase with SAP
- narrow phase convex with GJK
- narrow phase concave with new technique
- procedurally generated content
- 3D shapes - create, assemble, articulate, automate, destroy
- triangle-triangle intersection
- fast technique that outputs all information
- fastest known technique (outputs true or false)
Edited by maxgpgpu, 28 March 2013 - 01:51 AM.