Jump to content

  • Log In with Google      Sign In   
  • Create Account

Interested in a FREE copy of HTML5 game maker Construct 2?

We'll be giving away three Personal Edition licences in next Tuesday's GDNet Direct email newsletter!

Sign up from the right-hand sidebar on our homepage and read Tuesday's newsletter for details!


We're also offering banner ads on our site from just $5! 1. Details HERE. 2. GDNet+ Subscriptions HERE. 3. Ad upload HERE.


Rhetorician

Member Since 21 Oct 2011
Offline Last Active Private

Topics I've Started

Community

14 October 2013 - 08:06 PM

There seem to be 3 kinds of communication.

1. Crying.
2. Artifice.
3. Doug Engelbarting.

A few make sure they aren't either.
Some of us are sociopaths.
Most of us seem to be ballers.

Did I get that backwards.

Stop Bludgeoning Normal Mapping

04 October 2013 - 07:30 PM

I'd just like to note that I find many "modern" games unappealing due to the excessive amounts of normal mapping they use without sufficient artistic control or physically-based accuracy.

If you can "bake in" physically-based effects into a diffuse map and make them look better than real-time approximations for the most part, then do it! There's a quality threshold between when an effect needs to be baked -- despite having many dynamic properties -- and when technology permits to achieve the same amount of static quality, but also properly capturing the dynamics.

I often find myself appreciating the 3D graphics and artwork of older 1998-2007 games more than many modern games for reasons like this.

Edit, other bludgeoned 'modern' effects:

  • SSAO.
  • Low-res "Megatexturing"
  • Terrible yellow-ish color graded fog which oddly seems to have transmission disproportionate to absorption. For instance: "Given the amount of over saturation the fog has caused, wouldn't the camera would be blind after only about 5 meters of depth? ... Yet it can see far beyond that."
  • Over-exaggerated depth of field with a ridiculously horrid blur kernel
  • And yet we still see INSANE amounts of bloom, though slightly (yes, I said slightly) more accurate than it was several years ago. Your increase in familiarity with color theory justifies little.

Will a Fixed, API-controlled Pipeline really limit you?

26 August 2013 - 08:17 PM

In regards to absolutely no existing API or any aspects of existing APIs: Will a pipeline fixed into the API always have strong limitations?

It seems like rendering engines ultimately strive towards a pipeline which is uniform and absolute to reduce redundant state changes and so forth (eventually a linear, fixed-pipeline?). What are your thoughts on this?

Program Stacks and Uninitialized function data

05 August 2013 - 11:30 PM

Regarding the implementation of the C-programming language.

void Example()
{
ExStruct example;
LoadExStruct(example);
}

Will 'example' occupy the program data (i.e. generated machine code) before this function's scope is pushed onto the program stack during execution?

I am in fact using C++, but let's assume ExStruct is a raw struct without any constructors or the default is just ExStruct::ExStruct(){};


A Daft Statement

26 May 2013 - 02:26 AM

So daft, yet with my experience, I really believe it: Computer scientists must avoid solving problems in formal mathematics.

 

There you have it. For now, it's probably futile for me to attempt providing any argument in support of this statement. So I'll just start with one issue: Are you able, in any way, to find concurrence between your own views and this statement? Feel free to augment the statement to something which conforms slightly more to your belief. Otherwise, I guess we're just at odds.


That's the topic. Discuss.


I will make a more particular augmentation for myself:

 

Computer scientists must usually avoid thinking about problems in formal mathematics (excluding lambda calculus) and strongly avoid solving problems in formal mathematics.

 

 

Edit:
One very important detail is that this exclusively applies to problems, not existing theory or solutions.


PARTNERS