You''ve discovered the truth... John Carmack is really a genius, balding scientist from Mars!
Heh.
-gary-
Future of Game Engines
quote:Original post by EsteseOriginal post by a2k
games engines will continue to evolve until they reach the complexity of the Matrix. Now, I''m not kidding or anything. I really mean, that there will always be a next step until it is indistinguishable from reality.
I doubt we''ll ever come that far. When it comes to the point where games are so complex, that they are modelling individual atoms, the memory requirements will be so incredibly mindboggling, that it will simply be impossible. Technology will never be able to completely emulate reality. It may come fairly close, but never fully realized.
I''m afraid "never" is a word that has no true meaning when we talk about computers… Just see the evolution these next 30 years… 30 small years… Bill himself thought that 640 kb of RAM would be enough for centuries. Just imagine what we''ll have in 30 more years :-)
quote:Original post by Estese
Technology will never be able to completely emulate reality. It may come fairly close, but never fully realized.
I'm afraid "never" is a word that has no true meaning when we talk about computers... Just see the evolution these next 30 years... 30 small years... Bill himself thought that 640 kb of RAM would be enough for centuries. Just imagine what we'll have in 30 more years :-)
[edited by - thierz on August 1, 2002 12:09:00 PM]
quote:Original post by thierz
I doubt we''ll ever come that far. When it comes to the point where games are so complex, that they are modelling individual atoms, the memory requirements will be so incredibly mindboggling, that it will simply be impossible. Technology will never be able to completely emulate reality. It may come fairly close, but never fully realized.
Yes, but reality doesn''t have LOD, and I''m thinking that atomic or molecular level data can easily be compressed. Also, for most things in everyday life you don''t need to model down to the atomic level.
i used the word "indistinguishable" to mean what humans can actually perceive. if a tree falls in the woods and there''s no one around to hear it, does it make a sound? indeed it does, but if i''m not there to hear it, that sound shouldn''t waste processor time. of course, someone else could hear it, but would that person be able to hear at a distance? i don''t have eyes on the back of my head. frustum culling would still be possible, as far as an individual''s peripheral vision can permit. the Star Trek holodeck was kind of a treadmill world, in which the world moved around as the avatar would move. what if the Matrix was built like that? But let''s face it, no one really knows how the Matrix was created if ever one existed, so i guess i kind of take back the "like the Matrix" line.
This topic is stretching out quite far, and it''s getting a little heated. Everyone will have their own ideas, but none of them really matters. Just get back to developing your game and save the theory to the scientists and university professors.
This topic is stretching out quite far, and it''s getting a little heated. Everyone will have their own ideas, but none of them really matters. Just get back to developing your game and save the theory to the scientists and university professors.
on one hand, with PC''s doubling in power every 18 months, we get a situation where in 15 years final fantasy in real time wouldn''t be a problem for a consumer PC (scary thought)..
but on the other hand,
it''s one thing to have the hardware, it''s another to write for it. PC''s may be streaking ahead in leaps and bounds, but software doesn''t. It''s only the odd jump that occurs every few years, not the constant growth.
Everyone also seems to ignore unreal in all this. Thinking about it, what other engine has had lasted so long, without sign of age, and still has the potential to last as long again? That is the future. Massively modular engines that don''t require a complete rewrite every other year (ie, quake/doom), just slow enhancment of parts of the engine. Hopfully id have realised this with Doom3, but I get the feeling they havn''t, and Doom4 will come out another 3 years later.
ahh well.
but on the other hand,
it''s one thing to have the hardware, it''s another to write for it. PC''s may be streaking ahead in leaps and bounds, but software doesn''t. It''s only the odd jump that occurs every few years, not the constant growth.
Everyone also seems to ignore unreal in all this. Thinking about it, what other engine has had lasted so long, without sign of age, and still has the potential to last as long again? That is the future. Massively modular engines that don''t require a complete rewrite every other year (ie, quake/doom), just slow enhancment of parts of the engine. Hopfully id have realised this with Doom3, but I get the feeling they havn''t, and Doom4 will come out another 3 years later.
ahh well.
quote:Original post by Anonymous PosterNo offence... but this is a joke, right?
Your arguement is flawed and your equation is wrong to boot. distance(n) = distance(n-1) / (2 ^ n) is the proper equation, wish IS infinite.
First, if you want to convince me that my argument is flawed, you''ll have to point out the flaw, because I don''t see any.
Secondly, the total distance is unarguably finite, since it was defined to be finite. It''s the time that was brought into question.
Third, distance(n) = distance(n-1) / 2
Fourth, the sum of the series you gave is finite.
This topic is closed to new replies.
Advertisement
Popular Topics
Advertisement
