Making Graphics In Games '100,000 Times' Better?

Unnecessary bloat is obviously the way forward ....

i like cool stuff and some demo dudes do impressive things for sure, but obsessively optimizing it for the sake of it is sort of pointless, like polishing boots?

for me personally it's limiting enough working with mobile devices, trying to use the available resources pragmatically.

you serious or joking?

if someone can do that with 4kb, the possibilities for 8gigs=pretty huge.

4KB!

(also nice choice of colors)

trying to say it's some circle jerking thing is all. These guys probably do have good jobs at NVidia or Microsoft or something so more power to them, okay?

  On 8/12/2011 at 6:31 PM, phling said:

i like cool stuff and some demo dudes do impressive things for sure, but obsessively optimizing it for the sake of it is sort of pointless, like polishing boots?

 

for me personally it's limiting enough working with mobile devices, trying to use the available resources pragmatically.

you could make the same argument about sudoku. what's the point?

the point is the challenge. it's a hobby. i imagine most start off writing normal programs. once they get bored of that, they try to do it in half.... then a quarter.... some people just dabble, while others take it to almost unhealthy levels. in short, it's like IDM.

edit: i also feel i should point out that this isn't mere optimization. i'm sure they wind up writing completely different solutions to the same problem, as the previous solutions are bigger. coming up with new solutions is what keeps it fresh. closet nerd anoraks in finland probably get mad ideas for assembler while they're in the shower or taking a dump, just like many of us music makers come up with synth patches in those situations.

last attempt: why is it exactly distribution file size that measures quality in this case? WHY GODAMMIT. the act of folding programs recursively in on themselves is cool stuff, no question. I have only vague ideas on how you would do that. But why not limit yourself to say, 4 pixels. Arbitrary.

kind of feel like posting this, dunno:

  Quote

"5 Million Dollars 1 Terrabyte" (2011) is a sculpture consisting of a 1 TB Black External Hard Drive containing $5,000,000 worth of illegally downloaded files

  On 8/12/2011 at 8:59 PM, phling said:

last attempt: why is it exactly distribution file size that measures quality in this case? WHY GODAMMIT. the act of folding programs recursively in on themselves is cool stuff, no question. I have only vague ideas on how you would do that. But why not limit yourself to say, 4 pixels. Arbitrary.

first they did 256. then 128 for a challenge

then 64.....

then 32....

then 16...

then 8...

then 4.

2 is next. any other questions? ok.

i recommend an old DOS demoscene game called "tetripz," which was tetris combined with simulations of various mind-altering substances. i remember it was amazingly small for the amount of game involved.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lE60ujt1UUc Singularity?

okay, there's also the fact that modern hardware (and its APIs such as OpenGL with programmable pipeline) is very powerful.. you can do so much with smart shader design.. this for instance: http://fractal.io/ (unfortunately they took the webGL stuff off now apparently, there's still video but that doesn't really do justice)

you can obviously do a lot more using less code as the computing industry advances.

a lot of the demoscene stuff comes from people just competing to see who could push older computers (especially the C64) as far as it could possibly go. then computers advanced and they had this crazy knowledge of C64 assembly code and were like FUCK IT IM STICKING WITH THIS. and thats the demoscene.

  On 8/12/2011 at 10:44 PM, disparaissant said:

a lot of the demoscene stuff comes from people just competing to see who could push older computers (especially the C64) as far as it could possibly go. then computers advanced and they had this crazy knowledge of C64 assembly code and were like FUCK IT IM STICKING WITH THIS. and thats the demoscene.

yeah. this is what i meant by closet nerd anoraks in finland. i probably should have been more explicit. +1

this is probably a dumb question, but instead of using an infinite amount of those pixels couldn't you just use a couple million or something and have it look just as nice?

and wouldn't it be possible to use this technology selectively and integrate it with the polygons? Could you render the stationary objects like rocks with the infinite pixels and use the polygon technique for the stuff that would be too expensive?

it is computationally expensive to render porn in voxels.

  On 8/13/2011 at 6:42 AM, Ricky Downtown said:

and wouldn't it be possible to use this technology selectively and integrate it with the polygons? Could you render the stationary objects like rocks with the infinite pixels and use the polygon technique for the stuff that would be too expensive?

Yes, that's why it's silly to talk about the death of gpus. The thing to be skeptical about is reasonable storage requirements for unique geometry ( so far the demos contain a lot of repeating geometry )