Outthink The Room

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1496 Excellent

About Outthink The Room

  • Rank
  1. Question about the cost of CPUs

    I recently watched a bunch of videos on silicon costs and how much the cost per wafer will increase as CPUs move down the nm ladder. These were fascinating insights to me, especially since I'm completely ignorant to how this stuff is created.   But the one thing that wasn't explained was the increase in cores to a chip. So that's kind of where I'm lost on.   Does it cost significantly more for Intel or AMD to make a chip with 8 cores compared to 4 cores? I don't really get how the amount of cores plays into the equation of cost. If I understand correctly, there would be more transistors, but that alone doesn't seem like it warrants the drastic increase to the price we pay for a chip.   Is it really just markup and larger margins for CPUs with more cores? Or is there a part of the fabrication process that I've missed?   I figure you guys would know more about this stuff and could maybe explain to me or point me in a direction so I could read about it and learn.
  2. Will _No Man's Sky_ be boring?

    I personally think it's going to be boring.   The reason I say that is because almost every planet we've seen so far, is a pretty close representation of every other planet we've seen. The idea that it's procedurally generated is fine for the fanboys on forums. But when you show me 10 different planets that pretty much all look like they could be different colored versions of itself, then the scope of the game loses it's value.   I'd much rather have just a few dozen solar systems, but make each one an entirely different type of environment, with different vegetation, different life-forms and so on. Scope means little when I just look at screenshots and footage and see simple variations.   Why does every planet have grass colored differently? The fish in the latest 18-minute IGN video look EXACTLY like fish here on Earth. We're millions of galaxies away and for some reason, every planet looks like a colorful and abstract version of Earth for the most part.   Don't get me wrong, some of the components look cool, like being able to dogfight for no reason. Trade materials and stuff might be cool. The meta-game stuff outside NMS on Wiki Guides will be cool to read. Seeing how a million different people all upload data and learn how the galaxy works is awesome. My FAVORITE thing they are doing is building their own Table of Elements. I think that's brilliant and very cool for their own lore.   But in the end, seeing almost a dozen planets now, with only color variation to distinguish which planet is which, does not bode well for the game, in my opinion.
  3. Microsoft shy away from Windows

    I think Windows is going to be reduced in price over the years to come, not dissolved. Microsoft realizes they've relied so heavily on Windows as their moneymaker, that they need something to replace that cash cow, given an unforeseeable situation.   I think when Windows 11 comes out, which I guess would be roughly around 2021 or 2022, Azure will probably be more profitable along with other Cloud type enterprising services. If Microsoft as a whole can put up profit margins company wide, as big as they are now, while selling Windows at $49 every few years, then more people will likely continue to be Windows users. Windows 11 at $49 might not make as much as Windows 9 at $199, but their Azure services will make up for that, while keeping the user base in tack.   Microsoft needs to figure out a way to get people to upgrade so they don't have to worry about legacy on multiple OS's. If they can essentially get everyone to upgrade at least once every 5 years, then legacy goes away and they can focus more on current models.   I really think Cloud is going to be more profittable in the years to come. Hopefully that means cheaper Windows and more focus on making those OS's better.
  4. DirectX 12 Effect on the Game Development Industry

    If DX12 is as amazing as it's hyped up to be and truly a next generational leap in regards to power distribution, I can't see OpenGL being that attractive going forward.   I'm curious to see if DX12 blows away competition, will the enthusiasts knowingly not upgrade to Windows 8 or 9 (I don't think full support is coming to Windows 7). Will enthusiasts try to downplay the improvements in an attempt at making excuses for why SteamOS is the more attractive route? For all the hate that Microsoft gets because of Metro, if DX12 truly does impact performance like they're claiming, I can't see the gaming world's excuses being sound.   I also think the Universal App approach, including the XB1 support as being another potential driving force for DX12 to succeed. Which brings up a question I had. How does DX12 impact the PS4? From what I understand, they went with OpenGL and wrote a wrapper for DX 11.1 features. Would the PS4 be given the full benefit of DX12 like how XB1 will or is Sony resigned to getting a half assed version? To me, that could be very impactful since the PS4 is currently selling more and may be the lead platform going forward.
  5. DirectX 12 Effect on the Game Development Industry

    Exactly. SteamOS was a response to a competitor. Why didn't Valve build SteamOS when GFWL was proposed and rolled out? Why did Valve make BILLIONS off gamers who used Windows XP, Vista, 7, only to then come out with their own system?   They took Linux, which they didn't create. To sell a box, which they don't sell themselves. To sell games, which they don't publish themselves.   ...........Just so they can take the same 70/30 split every other digital store takes. Yeah, Gabe is a great human being. If only all CEOs had his mentality, the world would be so much better. Profit off the hard work everyone else does.   ....Wait.......That IS EXACTLY what all other CEOs do. But hey, at least Gabe takes his billions and puts it back into his own products..............right? Right? Nope. Not at all.
  6. The Next Huge Leap in Computing Power?

    I know Euclideon isn't a very popular company here, but I personally believe they are most likely the "Next Huge Leap". They have demonstrated their tech is real for Geospatial and more than 15 companies have signed on to use their technology, so it isn't fake. When it comes to the gaming world or more appropriately, "IF" it comes to the gaming world, I think that's the biggest leap we'll see.   The second thing I believe could be the "Next Huge Leap", would be stacked chips. The fact that mobile has created such a huge divide between what is needed for phones/tablets and what people need for PCs is being blurred by SoCs by the day. Tegra, A Series APUs, Atom...etc., are all being designed for wider application stuff now. If stacking chips becomes truly the route everyone takes, then every device sees improvement, without such a divide anymore.   The third thing I believe could be the "Next Huge Leap", would be the cloud. If stacking chips becomes the route to take, which I believe almost everyone agrees with, then the switch to more CPU bound processing would greatly be benefited from the cloud.   Microsoft built DX12 and apparently focused more on CPU utilization more so than GPU kind of implies that may be the route alot of people take in the future. If they believe the cloud would work hand in hand for everyday use, that could be a huge leap.   Personally, I think if Euclideon is real, which they've stated is run entirely on the CPU, combined with stacked chips for CPUs and throw in Cloud Computing for good measure to offload CPU tasks to, would be not just a huge leap, but the "Ultimate Leap".
  7. UE4, CRYENGINE, and UNITY 5: Will it work?

    Personally, I think the Unreal Store is going to be extremely beneficial. The idea of sharing Blueprints as starting points is game-changing. Uploading art assets and textures beyond just the samples that Epic will provide is invaluable to beginners.   I also think the 5% royalty isn't that big a deal. If UE4 is as friendly as they claim, the speed at which you could release games seems to be significantly faster. If a developer could build 2 games in UE4 at a speed comparable to building 1 game in another engine, then you're getting much more money in return even after you factor in the royalties.   Obviously that's dependent on a few things, but I really think the Unreal Store could change developement in a drastic way.
  8. Euclideon Geoverse - Latest Video Calms More Critics

    Hodgman, AeroMetrex doesn't only use meshes for that tool they built. Also, it isn't LiDAR, they use Photogrammetry techniques.   AeroMetrex built that mesh tool to correct any irregularities with the data-set. Making sure that when converted to Euclideons format, it's an entirely clean mesh. That's why AeroPro 3D gives them a ton of flexibility compared to most solutions. For those that are curious how data-sets like this are done, here's a couple videos.   The first video shows a company scanning the Himalayas and creating one large dense point cloud using thousands of pictures.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mEs3euTgj8s   The second video shows off a product called PhotoScan by the company Agisoft. It's a photography to 3D data-set converter. I used this company as an example because their product ranges from landscape/surveying all the way to smaller, individual assets. And also because of how it segues into the 3rd example.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXC0q40Vkww   The third video is the Fox Engine Demo from GDC. They are actually using Agisoft to create scanned images. If you jump to the 27:30 mark in the video, that's when they start discussing PhotoScan. They give a few examples and show a smallish type glimpse into how they're approaching this.   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQMbxzTUuSg   Kojima Studios is obviously having to retopologize the 3D model once they convert to polygons, but it gives a clear indication of what's possible if there isn't a polygon count or limitation on texture resolution. They also show how quickly re-texturing an asset would be, from individual pictures.
  9. Euclideon Geoverse - Latest Video Calms More Critics

    1. It isn't Voxels. It's Point Cloud.   2. The world they showed was "1 square kilometer". A cubic kilometer would mean the world is 1 kilometer deep. What is the point of converting Point Cloud 3,000 feet below the surface, which nobody would ever see, while completely wasting storage space at the same time?   3. Converting based on 64 Points per mm^3 does not mean, the outputed asset will actually have 64 Points per mm^3. Polygon models are surface based and are hollow inside. Point Cloud is also surface based data. You wouldn't convert the empty space inside of an object. Euclideon essentially needs to break the object into a divisible structure.   In other words, if you converted a 1 cubic meter polygon box, that would "technically" equate to 64B Points. Thing is, based on my math, converting only the surface data of that box would equate to only 96M Points. Which is actually 1/667th the size of what you're saying would be converted.   4. AeroMetrex is a geospatial company and from what I understand, they are the first company to license Euclideons technology. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5086PjOKge0   In the video I linked to, they comment about the size of the data-set. They state specifically, the Polygon version of that entire data-set is 15GB. The converted Point Cloud data-set is 3GB. 20% of original file size, which, coincidentally was done almost a year ago. Compaction has increased and continues to increase according to multiple companies who have been licensing the technology.   Furthermore, that entire data-set is roughly a square kilometer. And not only is that a square kilometer, there is NO REPEATED GEOMETRY. That is an entirely unique Point Cloud Data-Set. No trees are duplicated, no cars are reused and every inch of asphalt is converted Point Cloud.   They also stated the entire data-set is made up of roughly 100 Million Polygons and when converted, it's roughly 40 Billion Point Cloud. In this instance, the entire data-set is one large piece of geometry. And from what has been revealed, that actually helps Euclideon compact more and reduce file size for massive data-sets.   So if a company can get a square kilometer of unique Point Cloud in 3GBs, imagine if you built a forest with repeatable cubes of dirt. Or reusable trees. Grass and Leaves being reused. File sizes would drop dramatically and never reach unsustainable storage levels.   5. Euclideon's technology does not load Data-Sets into RAM. When you convert from Polygons to Point Cloud, it's converted into Euclideons .UDS file type. It's a zip file that indexes the data in a very specific way. Euclideons algorithm then searches the hard-drive (the zip files), finds as many points as is needed for the resolution and temporarily sends them to RAM to be computed. Some have hypothesized that it's essentially a cache for the data to be rendered. Using a zip file would allow the algorithm to view the content without having to extract the entire data-set.   Companies have confirmed it doesn't load the entire data-set into RAM.
  10. Euclideon Geoverse - Latest Video Calms More Critics

    Hodgman, it's not actually compression like going from Bitmap to Jpeg, where it's obviously a lossy format change. It's more along the lines of data compaction. Euclideon uses a proprietary format called .UDS. It's a zip file where they compact all points into a readable format. These compaction ratios are roughly 17% of original file size, which they've actually stated. And depending on the actual size of the asset, compaction could reduce that number down to only 5% of it's original size.   Also, what you were describing is more along the lines of "Unlimited Assets".  Not "Unlimited Detail" in regards to those assets. They never stated they had Unlimited Storage, but art assets themselves will have ZERO limitation.   I'll explain it like this...   ..Open Maya and load a primitive cube. Then load a second primitive cube, but this time, subdivide the cube until it's 10M Polygons.  Euclideon has stated years ago, that their conversion technology converts at a rate of 64 Points Per Cubic MM.   Those two primitives are of IDENTICAL SIZE in actual 3D Space. So regardless of Polygon Count, when either asset is converted, they will convert to the IDENTICAL AMOUNT of Point Cloud. Euclideon is converting based on a measurement. A physical number associated to the proportions and dimensions of the asset. Not Each Polygon Individually.   The amount of polygons has no bearing on file size, nor does the size of the texture. A 256x256 texture would wrap around UVs the same as a 4096x4096 texture. When Euclideon converts, each point is given color attributes, which some have said is "vertex color" built for their own shader system. So Polygon Counts and Textures are irrelevant since it's technically an offline workflow for asset creation.   So again, the term "Unlimited Detail" in regards to art assets is actually correct and in no way an exaggeration.   Also, Unlimited Power does not mean Unlimited Hardware. There is no amount of geometry on screen that would slow the system down. If the technology renders 1 Point for Every Pixel, then regardless of how many assets are on screen, it would always render.   There wouldn't be a draw call count, because it's only searching for 2.0736M Points if you're rendering for 1080p. If you zoom in on an object, it may take up more pixels, but Euclideon's tech would still be searching for exactly 2.0736M pixels. Whether you're looking at one massive mountain taking up the whole screen or 1,000 trees in a forest, the exact same number of points will always be displayed.   The ability to bypass constraints due to polygon counts, texture counts, draw call counts..etc.. is not an exaggeration. It's the same reason they can "technically" load a 2TB file set in less than a second. When the data-set loads, they are only looking for those initial 2.0736M Points that are based on your cameras current position. It's not trying to load the entire file, it's only looking for those points that need to be displayed at that exact frame when the application launched.   Sorry for typing so much, couldn't find an easier way to be more concise about the topics I talked about.
  11. Euclideon Geoverse - Latest Video Calms More Critics

    But it actually is, Unlimited Detail, in multiple ways.   Why do you say that claim is wrong or not the correct suitable word for it?
  12. UDK 4 release date?

    They announced it at E3 2012 when they first unveiled that Elemental Demo. It's one of the reasons why a lot of people have been asking if they should start building a game with the UDK knowing their Unreal Script stuff will have to be rewritten.   On Topic: I think it's going to be released once they launch Fortnite. Problem is, that game has been M.I.A. for awhile now. I don't expect UDK4 (don't know what to call it) to be coming until at least this time next year.
  13. What is your poly budget?

      Doesn't 1920 x 1080 = 2,073,600 pixels? I'm curious why you used basically half the pixels of that resolution.   I'm not a programmer by any means, so please excuse my ignorance. I'm just trying to understand your numbers in regards to pixel counts.
  14. Possible ps4 SDK?

    @SuperG If Microsoft is building the X1 with a version of Windows 8 (albeit a stripped down version), couldn't they just allow people to use the same toolset and release it for the Windows 8 store?   To me, that would allow indies to release it for both Windows and X1. Plus, on top of that, *hopefully* they can easily optimize it for Windows 8 tablets and phones as well. Basically using one version and having 4 different platforms for deployment.   I'd love to see Microsoft release a whole new version of XNA, but be totally Windows 8 centric. Essentially allowing developers to utilize it's functionality in a much grander way and give them a wider reach altogether.
  15. Your thoughts on Adobe's new subscription-only model?

    I don't actually mind it too much. From what I've seen, the pricing allows you to cancel your subscription at any time. Meaning, if you only need the program(s) for a couple months, buying an entire suite would be very expensive and wasteful.   I would actually rather see the pricing model like this.   1 Program = $15/month 3 Programs = $30/month All Programs = $50/month   If you do video editing, you'd need Premiere, After Effects and Audition. For someone to pay $60 is stupid, so they'd go with the $50 collection. Problem is, you are getting access to a bunch of junk you don't need and having to pay for it. I'd say, most people would need a distinct set of 3 programs for most projects.   As for individual pricing, I don't see a problem. If you were to only use Photoshop, the previous price was $1000. That would mean 50 months of payments. And that would not include any upgrades. My question is, how many people have CS3, CS4, CS5, CS5.5 and C6 on their computer right now? How many people, AFTER UPGRADING multiple times, keep every version active on their PC?   Lastly, the thing about "not owning" it, is kind of childish to me. Look at Playstation Plus. They give you "free games", as long as you still have the subscription active. If you cancel PS+, you don't have access to those games anymore, yet nobody is furious with Sony.   If Adobe becomes complacent with these updates and they start rolling out bullsh*t features like Autodesk has been lately, then yes, this CC Model sucks and would be more harmful than good. But if Adobe supports these products and updates are well worth it, then I sort of welcome the pricing model.