Slashdot Mirror


First Person Shooter - Under 100KBs of Code

Cariad Ilmara writes "For those of you old-timers who spent days & nights trying to get your code fit into 64Kb, here's the first beta of .the .produkkt's next FPS: .kkrieger. Moderately beautiful, what's impressive is it can fit inside the UT2004 readme. The demo is 96Kb zipped. All textures are procedural and generated at startup. Screenshots available here, here, here, here, and here. You still need a relatively recent computer (~1.4Ghz, 512MB RAM) and a DirectX8 GPU (Windows required)."

741 comments

  1. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    amazing

    1. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      doom came on four disks.

    2. Re:Wow by BoomerSooner · · Score: 1

      I thought Doom was 3 floppies? Anyone know for certain?

    3. Re:Wow by rmsousa · · Score: 2, Informative

      Doom won't fit in a floppy disk. I believe the shareware version takes two or three disks...

      Wolfenstein, maybe

    4. Re:Wow by Knight+Thrasher · · Score: 2, Informative

      Yeah, I guess a couple of floppies would be Doom. Wolfenstein is what I was thinking of, there we go. Sorry, my memory on the games I played when I was 6 is bad. ^_^

    5. Re:Wow by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 2, Informative

      5, first encounters (elite 3) was 3. I got both at the same time, and thought they were huge :)

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    6. Re:Wow by ticklemeozmo · · Score: 1

      They have the size down pat because there are WAD files. No bitmapped walls, no skins, no 3 min wav demo loops.

      --
      When modding "Informative", please make sure it both has a source and IS actually informative.
    7. Re:Wow by kalirion · · Score: 1

      I believe the full version of Wolfenstein 3d came on 2 disks. The shareware fit on 1 though.

    8. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doom never had any wavesounds looping. It was a midi-equivalent music format that used the soundcards synthesizer. Techno-industrial-style with FM-synths as the SB and SB Pro, goth-whatever-style on SB AWE 32 & General Midi Systems.

    9. Re:Wow by phaze3000 · · Score: 1

      IIRC Doom 2 was 5 floppies, Doom was 'just' 3.

      --
      Blaming GW Bush for the Iraq war is like blaming Ronald McDonald for the poor quality of food.
    10. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The parent post is the first correct reply!

    11. Re:Wow by Mateito · · Score: 1

      > Sorry, my memory on the games I played when I was 6 is bad. ^_^

      Suddenly, I feel way to old to be here.

      (I was already in my 20s when I started on Wolfenstein.)

    12. Re:Wow by Welsh+Dwarf · · Score: 1

      To be honest, IIRC what I got was 'The Ultimate Doom' which had an extra levelset, so that might make up the difference.

      --
      Ask 8 slackers a question, get 10 awnsers (a citation, but I can't remember from who)
    13. Re:wOw by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Strange. I always thought downloading was on demand.

    14. Re:wow by Chilliwilli · · Score: 4, Interesting

      No so much a compression algorithm as a way of procedurally generating textures. Theoretically using this technique a games company could ship a game and the user could decide at the other end what size and detail they want their textures to be. This would have benefits as the textures would be scalable to suit users hardware and only one set would need be distributed in a small vector/algorithm/macro form. If more game distribution was moved to online electronic form then this would certainly be something worthy of consideration by the developers.

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    15. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In all fairness, this is on topic.

    16. Re:wow by Three+Headed+Man · · Score: 1

      The only problem is, you need a relatively good computer for this. You would have been able to play a game about as good as this on a much slower processor with much less RAM years ago. And though it requires a processor that was new about a year or two ago, I can play games of comparable quality on a Pentium II 400 MHz with RAM expanded to 384 MB. I don't see the extra efforts and extra requirements as advantageous.

      --
      I'm probably at the karma cap. Mod up a funny troll instead, it lightens the mood :)
    17. Re:wow by Chilliwilli · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is not the result of the procedures being stored procedurally but merely due to having a highly (size) optimised engine. If you look at the quality of the textures you will see that that aren't subpar.. the delights of procedurally stored textures as opposed to bitmap textures include smaller file sizes and when careful written, full scalability. It has parallels with vector graphics icon sets versus bitmap icon sets.

      --
      Cure cancer.. and stuff! www.team45.info
    18. Re:Wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PENIS!!!

    19. Re:wow by krogoth · · Score: 1

      Yeah, and let's encode movies in SVG while we're at it! Down with DivX!

      --

      They that quote Benjamin Franklin on liberty and safety deserve neither.
    20. Re:WOW by GoLLuM.no · · Score: 1

      UT 2004 is on DVD ? Man I got the 4 CD version :( *Cries, runs and hides*

    21. Re:wow by Pxtl · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Amen. Those shots just startled me. When I read the description, I was expecting something like Cube (wouter.fov120.com/cube). Cube was super-high efficiency - small engine, simple mapping system, simple networking. Cube used jpegs for textures - fsck quality, I like small games. It was a good idea. But this game is gorgeous. It shows how much graphical power DX comes with out-of-the-box.

    22. Re:wow by LoRdTAW · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "Theoretically using this technique a games company could ship a game and the user could decide at the other end what size and detail they want their textures to be."

      This definatly would be an excellect idea. Think about it when you buy the game you could specify low rez 128x128 textures for a low end machine or 512x512 high rez or even bigger for cutting edge systems. and maybe throw a few variables in there to make shure the textures come out a little different for each person so the game is never the same on any two machines. And of course the first time the textures are generated they are written to disk as a cache so a user doesent have to wait hours to generate hundreds of textures or have gigabytes of ram. Could also apply this system to vary skin textures on models so all the in game characters never look the same. You could also generate more then one wood texture in a scene so the wooden floor in an old mansion will look totally different throughout the entire mansion and not just a repeat of the same texture over and over. would require allot of power but pc evolve so fast that in a few years we might be downloading games under 10 megs in size that generate all terrain, models and textures on the fly so the game never looks the same but always plays the same (maybe that can be dynamic too!).

    23. Re:WOW by M3wThr33 · · Score: 1

      http://search.ebay.com/ws/search/SaleSearch?from=R 8&ht=1&satitle=unreal+tournament+2004+dvd&sosortpr operty=1&sospellrecommendation=1
      The install on the DVD is about 15 minutes. I heard the CD version is closer to an hour. That must really suck.

    24. Re:wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The game is DAMN slow in my PC. Config - AMD XP 2800 - 2.08 GHz. Definitely fast enough for Quake and Americas Army.

    25. Re:Wow by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      Actually, the shareware-version(first episode) was distributed on a single disk(trough magazines and the like), so in a sense DOES Doom fit on a disk. :)

    26. Re:Wow by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      Wrong, the Sharewate-version did fit on a single HD(1.44mb) disk, atleast the early versions.

  2. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    impressive compression algorithm !

  3. awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Interesting

    that's awesome!

    1. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by dustmote · · Score: 3, Interesting

      awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux

      I would think that it might be kind of difficult to move this code across platforms if it's optimized that much, wouldn't it? ------didn't RTFA

      --


      -1, "1337" speak
    2. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by SamiousHaze · · Score: 5, Funny

      awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux Hell, It wouldn't be all that much code to port.

    3. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by kidgenius · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I know you are being funny, but this program seems fairly DirectX dependent. Maybe if it was OpenGL?

    4. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by S3D · · Score: 4, Informative

      Would be about the same if we are talking about graphics. There is no noticable difference in code size for DirectX and OpenGL with appropriate driver with all extensions. Both Nvidia and ATI are shipping OpenGL drivers with all extensions realized in hardware, giving OpenGL about the same functionality as Direct3D. But there is no sound in the OpenGL. Don't know what are standart sound library for Linux...

    5. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by kidgenius · · Score: 1
      Don't know what are standart sound library for Linux...

      I'd imagine that you don't even want to try going down that road here. :)

    6. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by molarmass192 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Off the top of my head OpenAL, I know it's used by NWN and some of the old Loki games. Whether that makes it a standard or not is a whole other question.

      --

      Good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws-Plato
    7. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by essreenim · · Score: 1


      Yeah, I agree, but it would be a good bit over 96k
      if it was relying solely on good old openGL

    8. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by rogabean · · Score: 2, Interesting

      just thinking here.. but if it's DirectX 8 based then Wine should be capable of running this. Would most likely need a bit more in the way of system requirements, but might run. Will give me something to test out when I get home tonight.

      --
      "why don't you just slip into something more comfortable...like a coma!"
    9. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant to say winex not wine ;)

    10. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by drinkypoo · · Score: 4, Informative

      The standard sound library for Linux 2.6 is ALSA. Games usually talk to it through OpenAL (see sibling) or SDL, the simple directmedia layer. SDL basically provides all the functionality of DirectX except Direct3D, whose functionality is provided on Linux via OpenGL (as you know.)

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    11. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by smithmc · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hell, It wouldn't be all that much code to port.

      Really? Gonna port DirectX 9 to Linux during your lunck breaks, are ya?

      --
      Downmodding is the refuge of the weak. Don't downmod, make a better argument!
    12. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by KozmoStevnNaut · · Score: 2, Informative

      OpenAL is also used by UT2004.

      --
      Eat the rich.
    13. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by sbrown123 · · Score: 1


      Yeah, I agree, but it would be a good bit over 96k
      if it was relying solely on good old openGL


      Why exactly would OpenGL implementation be larger?

    14. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I meant to say gayx not gay =[~

    15. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, It takes less code for imediate mode implementations like this.

    16. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by tearmeapart · · Score: 1

      Don't ya think they should port it over to minux instead? For those who do not know: minux=1.44 mb version of linux. Meanwhile, distributions like Mandrake are taking up 8 cds AND 1 dvd

    17. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by flatface · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It uses DirectX. And Windows binaries are larger than Linux ones. Don't get me wrong, I use Linux almost exclusively-- I wouldn't mind an extra few kb bloat to run it, just as long as it runs. I've been drooling over Farb Rauch's stuff for a while now.. Only if they released their source.

    18. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by dustmote · · Score: 1

      Yeah, I didn't catch that. Like you said, a few kb one way or another aren't going to make a whole lot of difference. I was thinking they had somehow managed to get all of it into that space, and the thought of doing that and preserving portability caused my two-volt brain to blow a fuse. But like I said, I should have RTFA. :)

      --


      -1, "1337" speak
    19. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by cubic6 · · Score: 1

      DirectX has code for sound, input, music, etc. OpenGL does not. OpenGL is tiny in comparison.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    20. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by cubic6 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Does Minux have X, OpenGL, and suitable other libraries? This game isn't a standalone work. It makes extensive use of DirectX, and you'd need some pretty heavy support code to make it run on something else. The main "coolness" is the procedurally generated textures. In most games, textures, sounds, and models take up the most space. Code isn't that big.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    21. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by timmyf2371 · · Score: 1
      Don't ya think they should port it over to minux instead? For those who do not know: minux=1.44 mb version of linux. Meanwhile, distributions like Mandrake are taking up 8 cds AND 1 dvd

      Great! Now I can download X-Windows, FireFox, and all the other applications I use rather than having them all easily accessible with an installation program on a CD in a local drive!

      --

      Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
    22. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by cb8100 · · Score: 1

      Direct X and HARDWARE dependent. This thing won't even run on my laptop (unhandled exception) which is just a touch under the specifications.

      --
      My lack of God, it's Trotsky!
    23. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      openal for the sound & music and glut for input.

    24. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by /ASCII · · Score: 1

      Last time I used it Glut only gave you keypress events. For a game you want keydown and keyup events. Glut would be completely worthless for games.

      --
      Try out fish, the friendly interactive shell.
    25. Re:awesome... now only if they'd do this for linux by sbrown123 · · Score: 1

      glutKeyboardFunc(keyboard) - Keydown
      glutKeyboardUpFunc(keyboardUp) - Keyup

  4. Libraries by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1, Insightful

    While it is impressive to write something like this in such a small binary, the "Application" as a whole is MUCH larger. The obvious dependancy on DirectX alone makes the entire app > 20MB.

    --

    "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    1. Re:Libraries by Jad+LaFields · · Score: 5, Insightful

      True, but this still seems like something designers should try more often. In fact, this seems like a very good argument for DirectX -- since its pretty much required to play most modern Windows games, it is a Windows standard, and it comes with recent versions of the OS, you and I are most likely to already have it. This is in contrast to my admittedly minor attempts to get games going under Linux, as each game seems to use a different toolkit/library that needs to be dowloaded separately and which have names like dvsdl-1.62.78 (all right, I made that up). Don't want this to sound like anti-Linux flamebait, but there is something to be said for Microsoft's ability to force a single, simply-named and -numbered standard library.

      --
      [SIG] It's like putting a moose in the blender -- a recipe for disaster!
    2. Re:Libraries by JoScherl · · Score: 1

      Don't forget the whole Windows System, that is required. DirectX and the application won't work without the windows base system (or maybe wine...)

    3. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While I agree that developers in general
      should try the keep their apps small, it makes
      no sense in this particular case. On a platform
      that has DirectX installed, size does obivously not
      matter. And on devices where it does matter (embedded etc.) there will be no DirectX ...

    4. Re:Libraries by ideatrack · · Score: 1

      While this is true, you could equally say that it requires Windows too so in fact the game is well over 700Mb (or however big a minimal install of XP is).

      Which is actually a valid gripe...

    5. Re:Libraries by Silas+is+back · · Score: 1

      As long as it stays MS-exclusive it's not to be threated as an alternative, even if the Idea is a good one.

      --
      this sig is useless
    6. Re:Libraries by dave_mcmillen · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While it is impressive to write something like this in such a small binary, the "Application" as a whole is MUCH larger. The obvious dependancy on DirectX alone makes the entire app > 20MB.

      Right! It reminds me of the business of creating N-ingredient recipes (3-ingredient or 4-ingredient, typically): the trick is to define as many things as possible as "staples" (salt, flour, butter, sugar), so that the ingredients can be "salmon, oregano, and bread crumbs" or something.

      But just like the N-ingredient case, it's not really cheating. People really are likely to have those things already in their kitchen, and people really are likely to have the supporting libraries around their hard drive. And any attempt to optimize for size has a certain appeal in these days of increasingly bloated code.

    7. Re:Libraries by essreenim · · Score: 1

      Yeah whatever.

      Mace Griffin Bounty Hunter (released recetly)
      depends on DirectX too, but that game takes up
      4GB!

    8. Re:Libraries by John+Harrison · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I did something similar using OpenGL. It is a 3D asteroids game in which the action occurs in 3d, not in a 2d plane. The zip file for it is about 102 kb, but most of that is because I included glut.dll so that people wouldn't have to hunt it down. Oh, and by using OpenGL I have been able to run it on Windows, MacOS, and Linux.

    9. Re:Libraries by penginkun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Nevertheless, for a FPS to weigh less than half a gig these days is rather impressive.

    10. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well, any API is not part of the application if it's not compiled in. DirectX is not part of the application.

    11. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That's a braindamaged way of counting.

      You aren't probably aware that it's still very well possible to do that with bare metal if you restricted yourself to some very specific platform. This is what demos used to do "in the old times" and the price is pretty hefty; It's still possible to find a working GUS but how about in 10 years? (lucky we have dosbox though)

    12. Re:Libraries by jon3k · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Should we consider the size of the operating system in that too? What about the hardware drivers?

      So every application is the size of it + all dependent software?

    13. Re:Libraries by kryptkpr · · Score: 1

      Got a link for this asteroids game of yours?

      --
      DJ kRYPT's Free MP3s!
    14. Re:Libraries by spray_john · · Score: 1

      Downloading/compiling fresh libs for each game you download is more a consequence of the "by programmers, for programmers" nature of the kind of things you're dealing with than it is inherent in the platform.

      You'll notice that when commerical games based on OpenGL/SDL/OpenAL/whatever are released, they generally include a .so in the package for anything at all unusual that they use. That's just the same as in windows games that use anything other than DirectX.

    15. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your
      linebreaks are all
      messed
      up
      !

    16. Re:Libraries by Quarters · · Score: 1
      And crap, it requires Windows, which will easily add a gig or more to the actual app!

      DirectX is a platform that a developer can safely assume exists on a Windows box. Why shouldn't the developer take advantage of the capabilities offered by the OS?

      How large is the typical GNOME app if you include all of the GNOME libraries in the size calculation? Should a GNOME developer recreate the functionality of those libraries just for some misplaced sense of truth-in-advertising? No. So why shouldn't these guys make use of DirectX? That's what it is there for.

    17. Re:Libraries by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      Because DirectX 8 is NOT guarenteed to be on every supported windows version.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    18. Re:Libraries by drxenos · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I believe his point was that the DirectX library handles a lot of the work that went into the bulk of the size of pre-3d accelerator games, such as Wolfensein 3D and Doom I & II. So, he's starting out with an advantage in size.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    19. Re:Libraries by Tongo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      learn to keep you fuckin mouth shut you /. asshat grammer/spelling/penis nazi.

    20. Re:Libraries by Quarters · · Score: 1

      What a stupid thing to say. GNOME 2 apps require libs that might not be on every installation. Java 2 apps require a runtime that might not be on an end user's machine, and the list goes on and on. You're essentially advocating recreating the wheel every time an app is made. Why in the heck would someone do that when there are shared libraries that provide robust, mature, and stable implementations of the functions they need.

    21. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Let's face it, OpenGL is an under-effecient pile of crap. Sure, DirectX also is... same shit, different pile, however. =P

    22. Re:Libraries by PickyH3D · · Score: 1

      Someone is jealous.

    23. Re:Libraries by Ryosen · · Score: 4, Funny

      >> Don't forget the whole Windows System, that is required. DirectX and the application won't work without the windows base system (or maybe wine...)

      It's much worse than that. I actually tried to install one of these things. Turns out the damn thing requires a computer, too! Lying bastards didn't tell me that I need space on my desk for a monitor, neither! I'll tell you this much. I never had any of these problems with my WebTV!!

      --

      Ryosen
      One man's "Troll, +1" is another man's "Insightful, +1".
    24. Re:Libraries by TheRealMindChild · · Score: 1

      I said nothing about reinventing the wheel. But the fact that it is a dependany that is NOT guarenteed packaged with the operating system by default, you have to consider it as a liability of the application using it.

      --

      "When life gives you lemons, don't make lemonade. Make life take the lemons back!" -- Cave Johnson
    25. Re:Libraries by butane_bob2003 · · Score: 1

      DirectX is more of a proprietary API than a standard. Microsoft has nothing to gain by supporting OpenGL, they like the fact that many Linux users still have a copy of Windows around to run DirectX games. DirectX is very cool as far as what you can pull off with it, I'm not sure if OpenGL is equally powerful. This game looks really good, I'd like to have a look at the code and see what can be done about an OpenGL port. (Maybe something is being done already?) OR, maybe try running it in Wine? There are lots of libraries for sound and graphics out there for Linux and BSD, it would be nice if everybody standardized around stuff like OpenGL.

      --


      TallGreen CMS hosting
    26. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think the size of XP is closer to 1.5 gigs (maybe could remove some crap and get it down, but thats not easy/obvious to do)

    27. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So many things wrong with this troll.

      Let me give you some advice. The better your "grammar", the more effective your troll is. People will accidentally take it seriously and read through it if it is well formatted and properly spelled and punctuated.

      So, in order to properly troll with your post, you need to change it thusly:

      "Learn to keep your fuckin' mouth shut, you /. asshat grammar/spelling/penis nazi."

      See, not too difficult to correct and much more effective and potentially offensive this way.

    28. Re:Libraries by Tongo · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      The really need to move the "Post Anonymously" checkbox away from the "Submit" button. :(

    29. Re:Libraries by JoScherl · · Score: 1

      I never had any of these problems with my WebTV!!

      how did you get this working without a (TV) Screen?

    30. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I believe his point was that the DirectX library handles a lot of the work that went into the bulk of the size of pre-3d accelerator games, such as Wolfensein 3D and Doom I & II. So, he's starting out with an advantage in size.

      Maybe. But if that advantage held any significance, modern FPS's wouldn't be much larger than Wolf3D or Doom. Yet, they are.

    31. Re:Libraries by arkanes · · Score: 1

      Not to take away from this, but the vast, vast majority of a modern games size is art assets. The actual code size is generally tiny, even when you include the supporting libraries. Generating textures that look as good as the ones in the screenshots in code (and that little code, as well) is impressive, but it's not like this means that modern games are bloated per se.

    32. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      but there is something to be said for Microsoft's ability to force a single, simply-named and -numbered standard library.

      Yeah it's called the "You got no choice. Use our s*** plan"

    33. Re:Libraries by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      Wolfenstein 3D and Doom I & II are not applicable comparisons. The only thing moderately "3D" that they did was raycasting, which really isn't actually 3D - it only looks that way.

      If you want to look at older actual 3D games, look at the Ultima Underworld series. It was released before Wolfenstein 3D, and was true 3D (you could walk under bridges, several objects like ankhs and benches were polygonal, while people were sprites due to processor limitations). Many people needed to run tweaked sys.cfg and autoexec.bat files for this game, because it had special memory requirements.

    34. Re:Libraries by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      "Don't want this to sound like anti-Linux flamebait, but there is something to be said for Microsoft's ability to force a single, simply-named and -numbered standard library." Microsoft seems to force a lot of single "standards" upon its users...

    35. Re:Libraries by Silas+is+back · · Score: 1

      what's a turd??

      --
      this sig is useless
    36. Re:Libraries by drxenos · · Score: 1

      The only thing moderately "3D" that they did was raycasting, which really isn't actually 3D - it only looks that way.

      What the hell are you talking about? EVERYTHING presented on your display as 3D isn't actually 3D, but only looks that way. The methods used to create the image do not change that fact.

      --


      Anonymous Cowards suck.
    37. Re:Libraries by bishiraver · · Score: 1

      What I mean is, their engines do not represent objects in 3D space. They are simply 2 dimensional representations of a 3 dimensional representation of a 2 dimensional map.

    38. Re:Libraries by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Turd==nigger

  5. 2K raytracer by ggambett · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Not as impressive, but there's a software raytracer with shadows and recursive reflection which generates .PBM images - in 2K of C source, with no libraries required.

    http://www.mrio-software.com/2k_raytracer.php

    1. Re:2K raytracer by photon317 · · Score: 1


      When they say 64kb, 96kb, etc in the article, they mean executable size. 2k of C source, depending on what's in it, could be and likely is much larger in binary form.

      --
      11*43+456^2
    2. Re:2K raytracer by Prothonotar · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It compiled to 10310 bytes on my system. Dynamic library dependancies were as follows: libstdc++.so.5, libm.so.6, libgcc_s.so.1, /lib/libgcc_s.so.1, libc.so.6, /lib/ld-linux.so.2

      --
      "Every man is a mob, a chain gang of idiots." - Jonathan Nolan, Memento Mori
    3. Re:2K raytracer by Abcd1234 · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to belittle the man's efforts, but a raytracer is *incredibly* simple, algorithmically... hell, I could (and did) write a basic one that renders the classic reflective sphere on a checkerboard (with shadows) in an afternoon. Sure, making it small requires a few tricks, but, honestly, I've seen much more impressive things.

    4. Re:2K raytracer by Kombat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Have you actually read the source code to that thing? I downloaded it out of curiousity, here's a tidbit of the main() function:


      int main (void) {
      char b[99];
      int W=GN,H=GN,i,n;
      nl=GN;ns=GN;
      _f x,y;
      F(nl) RP(LI)
      F(ns) {RP(SI.c) SI.r=GN; RP(SI.l) SI.f=GN;}
      char* s = new char[(n=W*H*3)];
      memset(s,0,n);
      PT p={0,0,CZ},q={0,0,0},c; ...


      Skipped the class on "meaningful variable names," did we?

      While a 2K raytracer is marginally impressive, a 5K raytracer with readable source code would be far MORE impressive, IMHO.

      --
      Like woodworking? Build your own picture frames.
    5. Re:2K raytracer by ggambett · · Score: 1

      Skipped the class on "meaningful variable names," did we?

      Not really. The goal was to make it as small as possible, not clear to read, efficient, or anything else. "Small source", just that.

    6. Re:2K raytracer by buckeyeguy · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Looks to me like it was run through a code obfuscator... sure, you could write code with 1 and 2 letter vars for everything, but would you want to?

      --
      I'd have a personalized plate on my car, but "toxic bachelor" won't fit into 7 letters.
    7. Re:2K raytracer by essreenim · · Score: 1


      Yep, its a bit "look at what I can do, I'm brilliant".. : )

    8. Re:2K raytracer by S3D · · Score: 1

      I recently wrote a raytracer in DirectX pixel shader 2.0 It traced only 6 point, but actually produce elevated texture , effect similar to dislacment mapping but all in texture unit, without any additional vertices and tesselations. Pity my bosses did't like it because of high aliasing ....

    9. Re:2K raytracer by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      The goal was to make it as small as possible

      Then why use 2 letter variable names and newlines at all ?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    10. Re:2K raytracer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a 2K raytracer is marginally impressive, a 5K raytracer with readable source code would be far MORE impressive, IMHO.
      Invent some decent variable names, autoformat the code and you'd STILL have less than 5K.

    11. Re:2K raytracer by ggambett · · Score: 1

      To make it *barely* readable :)

    12. Re:2K raytracer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      While a 2K raytracer is marginally impressive, a 5K raytracer with readable source code would be far MORE impressive, IMHO.

      Well, the zip provided on the website include the raw code in a 2K file and a commented code in a 5K file

    13. Re:2K raytracer by alexandre · · Score: 2, Funny

      Here you go, a raytracer in postscript: (These people really scare me :-)

      %!IOPSC-1993 %%Creator: HAYAKAWA Takashi<xxxxxxxx@xx.xxxxxx.xx.xx> /C/neg/d/mul/R/rlineto/E/exp/H{{cvx def}repeat}def/T/dup/g/gt/r/roll/J/ifelse 8
      H/A/copy(z&v4QX&93r9AxYQOZomQalxS2w!!O&vMYa43d6 r93 rMYvx2dca!D&cjSnjSnjjS3o!v&6A
      X&55SAxM1CD7AjYxTTd 62rmxCnTdSST0g&12wECST!&!J0g&D1 !&xM0!J0g!l&544dC2Ac96ra!m&3A
      F&&vGoGSnCT0g&wDmlv GoS8wpn6wpS2wTCpS1Sd7ov7Uk7o4Qk dw!&Mvlx1S7oZES3w!J!J!Q&7185d
      Z&lx1CS9d9nE4!k&X&M Y7!&1!J!x&jdnjdS3odS!N&mmx1C2wE c!G&150Nx4!n&2o!j&43r!U&0777d
      ]&2AY2A776ddT4oS3oS nMVC00VV0RRR45E42063rNz&v7UX&UO zF!F!J![&44ETCnVn!a&1CDN!Y&0M
      V1c&j2AYdjmMdjjd!o& 1r!M){( )T 0 4 3 r put T(/)g{T(9)g{cvn}{cvi}J}{($)g{[}{]}J}J
      cvx}forall/ moveto/p/floor/w/div/S/add 29 H[{[{]setgray fill}for Y}for showpage

    14. Re:2K raytracer by Dachannien · · Score: 1

      Yes, if you were programming in C64 Basic.

    15. Re:2K raytracer by alexandre · · Score: 1

      Oh i forgot: just cat the data into a ".ps" file and open it with gv(1) for example.

      (havent tried to print it yet, i wonder if the printer will be stuck rendering the ball ;-)

    16. Re:2K raytracer by hode · · Score: 2, Funny

      If all code was written this way, even microsoft would not be so protective of their source.

    17. Re:2K raytracer by Bram+Stolk · · Score: 1

      Paul Heckbert and John Hartman managed to
      do raytracing in a 300 line Postscript
      program. Now *that* is impressive.

      Stack-based languages like PS can be fun.

      Bram

      --
      Bram Stolk http://stolk.org/tlctc/
    18. Re:2K raytracer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hmm... I get weird reflections when I try to change the colors of the spheres (the raytracer can only handle spheres). I get e.g. a strange yellowish reflection when I change the color of the smaller sphere to blue in the provided scene. Anyone else tried this? Also it outputs PPM files not PBM files, and does require some standard c libraries.

    19. Re:2K raytracer by Lehk228 · · Score: 2, Informative

      funny thing is that without any knowledge of raytracing I was able to chop it down to 1,855 bytes, some of the variables that are #defined are only used once, (they are defining numbers to var names, good practice while coding, but bad if only used once or twice and you are going for small source, I also removed all the line breaks since the compiler only cares about ; except for preprocessor instructions.

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    20. Re:2K raytracer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      If they had used 1 letter variable names they could only have a maximum of 53 variables (uppercase and lowercase letters, and underscore - am I missing anything?)

    21. Re:2K raytracer by hiworld · · Score: 1

      Well, renaming the variables to longer and more meaningful names wouldn't make the final executable any bigger. when code is compiled, all comments are removed and variable names are trimmed down.

    22. Re:2K raytracer by gr8_phk · · Score: 1
      "a raytracer is *incredibly* simple, algorithmically..."

      Handing polygons to OpenGL is even easier.

      While we're talking RT, I must plug rtChess.

    23. Re:2K raytracer by Nosf3ratu · · Score: 1

      Eh...it only runs on Windows anyway. Who's gonna see the code?

      --
      The old Lie: Dulce et decorum est Pro patria mori
    24. Re:2K raytracer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The site boasts about the size of the source code, not the binary.

    25. Re:2K raytracer by ggambett · · Score: 1

      I meant "no libraries" as opposed to "needs the DirectX runtime" and "link statically with SDL/Mesa/whatever". This uses printf() and almost nothing else...

    26. Re:2K raytracer by HoppQ · · Score: 3, Interesting

      begin-base64 644 raytracer.ps
      JSFJT1BTQy0xOTkzICUlQ3JlYXRvcjogSEFZ QUtBV0EgVGFrYX NoaTx4eHh4
      eHh4eEB4eC54eHh4eHgueHgueHg+IAovQy9uZW cvZC9tdWwvUi 9ybGluZXRv
      L0UvZXhwL0h7e2N2eCBkZWZ9cmVwZWF0fWRlZi 9UL2R1cC9nL2 d0L3Ivcm9s
      bC9KL2lmZWxzZSA4CkgvQS9jb3B5KHomdjRRWC Y5M3I5QXhZUU 9ab21RYWx4
      UzJ3ISFPJnZNWWE0M2Q2cjkzck1ZdngyZGNhIU QmY2pTbmpTbm pqUzNvIXYm
      NkEKWCY1NVNBeE0xQ0Q3QWpZeFRUZDYycm14Q2 5UZFNTVDBnJj Eyd0VDU1Qh
      JiFKMGcmRDEhJnhNMCFKMGchbCY1NDRkQzJBYz k2cmEhbSYzQQ pGJiZ2R29H
      U25DVDBnJndEbWx2R29TOHdwbjZ3cFMyd1RDcF MxU2Q3b3Y3VW s3bzRRa2R3
      ISZNdmx4MVM3b1pFUzN3IUohSiFRJjcxODVkCl ombHgxQ1M5ZD luRTQhayZY
      Jk1ZNyEmMSFKIXgmamRuamRTM29kUyFOJm1teD FDMndFYyFHJj E1ME54NCFu
      JjJvIWomNDNyIVUmMDc3N2QKXSYyQVkyQTc3Nm RkVDRvUzNvU2 5NVkMwMFZW
      MFJSUjQ1RTQyMDYzck56JnY3VVgmVU96RiFGIU ohWyY0NEVUQ2 5WbiFhJjFD
      RE4hWSYwTQpWMWMmajJBWWRqbU1kampkIW8mMX IhTSl7KCApVC AwIDQgMyBy
      IHB1dCBUKC8pZ3tUKDkpZ3tjdm59e2N2aX1KfX soJClne1t9e1 19Sn1KCmN2
      eH1mb3JhbGwvbW92ZXRvL3AvZmxvb3Ivdy9kaX YvUy9hZGQgMj kgSFt7W3td
      c2V0Z3JheSBmaWxsfWZvciBZfWZvciBzaG93cG FnZQo=
      ====

      That's the same thing corrected (the original was mangled by slashcode) and base64-encoded, which doesn't care about extra spaces inserted by slashcode. Decode with uudecode(1) or something else.

      --
      My sig will be released in 2015 third quarter. Rating pending.
    27. Re:2K raytracer by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


      where I come from we use utf8 so the domain of available variable names is a bit more than 53.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    28. Re:2K raytracer by Abcd1234 · · Score: 1

      That is just sick and wrong...

    29. Re:2K raytracer by davew2040 · · Score: 1

      I'm really, really, really not interested in people mangling variable names and bastardizing other syntax measures towards the goal of producing small source files. The only thing anyone should care about is the compiled output.

      Serious coders and great software engineers know better than to emphasize code unreadability for kicks.

    30. Re:2K raytracer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So you posted a comment aiming for a +5 Funny and nothing happened.

      You must feel like a fag in a bathhouse with his bare ass stuck up in the air - and nobody's looking. Or a spic in a Camaro with a trunk full of subwoofers - and everyone has an iPod.

    31. Re:2K raytracer by LS · · Score: 1

      This really isn't that impressive at all. It only draws spheres, so its use is pretty limited. Also, the ZIP FILE is 2k, not the source. It expands quite a bit. Lastly, I did nearly the exact same thing for my LEVEL 1 graphics course in college. Raytracing spheres, even with shadows and reflection, is novice level stuff.

      LS

      --
      There is a fine line between being a cultivated citizen and being someone else's crop. - A. J. Patrick Liszkie
    32. Re:2K raytracer by Briareos · · Score: 1

      Well, I tried that some time ago on our Xerox Phaser 1235, and it took about 7 minutes to print.

      Then I tried it on our LaserJet 1200 a few weeks ago... I already had figured the printer had croaked on it, but it simply took a wee 3 1/2 hours, give or take a few minutes, to finish... :)

      np: Alexander Kowalski - You Think You Know (Response)

      --

      "I'm not anti-anything, I'm anti-everything, it fits better." - Sole

    33. Re:2K raytracer by pyman · · Score: 1
      w04h! Decreasing source size by truncing variables and removing whitespace!!!

      That is some m4d sk1Llz you have there!!!

      --
      a ^= b; b ^= a; a ^= b;
    34. Re:2K raytracer by Short+Circuit · · Score: 1

      I would think that your binary size would only increase if you statically link with the libraries you need. Otherwise, your executable code should be smaller than your C code.

    35. Re:2K raytracer by Alban · · Score: 1

      Everytime a bunch of programmers do something amazing (like this tiny shooter), all average programmers can come up with is "their code is not readable", "their variable names are meaningless", etc.

      Dude these guys are awesome.

    36. Re:2K raytracer by Lehk228 · · Score: 1

      well seeing as some of the code has been shortened already using tricks like #define _f float it's not like the original code was meant to be readable, in any other case i wouls never remove white space and the variable names were already short, i didn't change them, only the places where #define was used on a variable that only existed once in the program

      --
      Snowden and Manning are heroes.
    37. Re:2K raytracer by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Last time I checked, line breaks are regarded as white space.

    38. Re:2K raytracer by photon317 · · Score: 1


      This is often true for larger programs, but there's a certain amount of unavoidable overhead that often makes it not true for smaller programs. There was a contest a while back to write the smallest ELF binary that could do some trivial task (exit with a given return value I think?). Doing it in straight C dynamically linked like "normal" gave an executable that runs several k on most platforms, even though the C code amount to a single short line. There are ways around this, the winningest guys ended up with extremely short binaries by hacking around a lot manually with a hex editor in assembly rather than bothering with the compiler.

      --
      11*43+456^2
  6. Sure would be nice by Heem · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sure would be nice if programmers around the world would at least follow this guys lead a little bit. I'm so sick of bloated software. For example - CD Writing software for windows. Does anyone need or even want all the dang crap that comes in those?

    --
    Don't Tread on Me
    1. Re:Sure would be nice by stratjakt · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Frankly, who cares?

      If it's a commercial game, it's going to ship on a CD-ROM, or more and more on DVD-ROM these days (like UT2k4).

      I don't care if the coders stayed up all night coming up with the worlds tiniest collision detection algorithm, hand assembled. (Bad example, the DirectX API and ultimately the GPU does stuff like that, but anyways).

      I really don't care if the textures are procedural or compressed bitmaps. Actually, do I want to wait 20 minutes for the game to compute all textures at startup? Nope, I'd rather have static data ready to go. I hate load times. Especially on a hard level where you die every 30 seconds and have to wait 5 minutes for it to recreate the world.

      You can save the code-bloat arguments for another topic, like the kernel or web browser. I just like to play fun games. I have 200gb of space to install 'em on. It's not a big deal.

      It's impressive how small they managed to make this thing, but really, who gives a shit? Tiny code might make for a better browser or word processor, but it wont make it a fun game.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    2. Re:Sure would be nice by petard · · Score: 2

      Heh. It's unlikely that anyone needs all "the dang crap" that comes with [fill in the blank] program for Windows. It is very likely, however, that some subset of the software company's paying customers wants each one of the features that you consider bloat. Removing the bloat would be turning down money on the part of the program's authors. Presumably, it would entail turning down more money than they're driving away by producing software that you consider "bloated". Especially since most people just buy the bloated software while complaining about bloat, whereas people won't buy software that doesn't do what they want at all. (e.g. If someone wants a CD burning package that includes a label editor, they won't buy one that doesn't. If someone wants just a CD burning package they're unlikely to refuse the "best" one just because it also includes a label editor they don't want.)

      --
      .sig: file not found
    3. Re:Sure would be nice by MoneyT · · Score: 1

      Tiny code might make for a better browser or word processor, but it wont make it a fun game.


      Someone never played duckhunt.

      --
      T Money
      World Domination with a plastic spoon since 1984
    4. Re:Sure would be nice by Garak · · Score: 0, Flamebait

      The better/shorter code in a game is written the faster it will run. Faster in games usually means smoother which makes for better game play.

      Tiny code == fewer instructions == faster

      --
      God, root, what is the difference?
    5. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, I played duc khunt at the strip club. Just ask for one of the "interactive" rooms.

    6. Re:Sure would be nice by noselasd · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No.
      It pretty much depends on what the code does as well. If you have a
      really cool way of computing the normals of thousands of polygons in 10
      lines of code, that might be _alot_ slower than a great algorithm doing it in 100 lines.
      By your argument, the code in the story should run 100'ds of times faster than any of the recent commercial FPS games..

    7. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      don't forget "hunt the wumpus"!

      i smell a wumpus

    8. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      DirectX and GPU:s most certainly do NOT do collision detection.

    9. Re:Sure would be nice by dave420 · · Score: 1
      errr.. like CDRWin? It's fully-featured and about 600KB.

      Having a pop at something's cool, but when you've not done your homework, it's pretty weak.

    10. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "I don't care if the coders stayed up all night coming up with the worlds tiniest collision detection algorithm, hand assembled. (Bad example, the DirectX API and ultimately the GPU does stuff like that, but anyways)."

      FYI...while DirectX contains some code which could be used by code performing collision detection, it doesn't come anywhere near actually performing collision detection on its own.

      And, aside from people writing games inside the pixel shaders, current GPUs never do collision detection for the game.

      AND...collision detection is one of the toughest things to get right. AND...it can be a major bottleneck in the game's speed. Obviously, I'm talking more about realistic physics engines than Breakout here ;)

      So...you've actually got a very good example.

    11. Re:Sure would be nice by essreenim · · Score: 1

      Yes, I agree, and although I cannot remember the site, there was a /. link to it in a previous story. It talked about the magnitude of modern games like MMPG's compared to the old platform single players. The complexity is huge by comparison. In other words, techniques like this are unfeasable for largew modern games.

      However, thats not the point of this game I think. It is just a very novel game, that looks very good and weighs in at 96k. It should be acknowledged but taken with a pinch of sault ..!

    12. Re:Sure would be nice by Quarters · · Score: 2, Informative

      In a word, "no". If I write a small tight efficient graphical effect routine (e.g. a glow effect) that runs on the CPU it is still going to be slower than a glow pixel shader that runs on the GPU. The GPU code doesn't even need to be as small and efficient in order to run faster. The GPU is a better solution to use in that instance. High performance games rely on proper use of machine resources; graphic effects and polygon T&L on the GPU, sound processing on the DSP on the sound card, etc.... Those decisions are equally, if not more, important than a highly optimized routine to accomplish something.

    13. Re:Sure would be nice by Kenja · · Score: 2, Insightful
      "For example - CD Writing software for windows. Does anyone need or even want all the dang crap that comes in those?"

      Lets see, Golden Hawks CDR software comes in at 688k. Cant realy see them getting much smaller then that. Then again, if you can't handel a 688k program, what are the odds you have a use for a CDR drive?

      --

      "Have you ever thought about just turning off the TV, sitting down with your kids, and hitting them?"
    14. Re:Sure would be nice by stratjakt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, this isn't true. Often optimizing for speed is at odds with optimizing for size. They're (with exceptions) mutually exclusive. Pick one of the two, not both.

      Statically linked binaries are a tad faster than dynamic ones.

      Pixel shader effects are SLOW. Look at Halo PC as an example, and all of the bitching from gamers about "how shitty they ported it". The GPU has to do maybe 200 times the work per pixel.

      Using static arrays, prerendered graphics (whats faster, raytracing the pieces for your chess game on the fly, or using some premade bitmaps) speeds things up.

      How about an example from something I wrote, back in the day of 486s that didnt necessarily have a FPU..

      It was a 3D app for a class project, a goldfish swimming around in a tank. I wanted his fins and tail to 'ripple' in sort of an undulating way. I figured the best way to do it would be to offset some of the vertexes, following a sine wave over time.

      So, first I wrote something like this:

      for (each fin)
      for (each vertex)
      yoffset = yoffset + sin(t + (180 * VertexNumber));

      That approach worked, sort of, the fins moved like I wanted them too. The binary was tiny, since the sin function lives elsewhere. But it was slow as hell, especially on machines with no FPU.

      What I went with was a lookup table, like this:

      Create an array of 1080 entries (so I could follow sin's to a quarter degree)

      Fill the array with values of the sin function

      Replace calls to sin() with a simple array lookup.

      It was orders of magnitude faster. Of course, the running size was larger with a big array of floats. Startup time still bothered me, so I eventually put the entire array of values into a header, which made the code much larger.

      You would call it bloat if all you looked at was code size, but I got an A because mine was the only fish with wiggly fins who rendered (in software mesa on el cheapo lab machines circa 1996) in realtime with 8 independent lights rotating around him (also thanks to my sin lookup table). He did backflips too.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    15. Re:Sure would be nice by Entropius · · Score: 1

      How big is emacs?

    16. Re:Sure would be nice by tricops · · Score: 2, Informative

      Someone else mentioned goldenhawks, but another nice (and even smaller if you ignore the help file) cd burner is burnatonce. Nice, relatively simple, and small.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
    17. Re:Sure would be nice by stratjakt · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but CDRWIN sucks for anything other than burning bin/cues you downloaded off of bittorrent. And even then, Alcohol 120 is the new king of the hill, imo.

      It's really awkward to lay out a data iso with it, compared to dragging and dropping folders onto nero, ezcd, whathave you. Actually, for just throwing files onto a CD the burning wizard in XP doesn't do too bad of a job.

      The bloat in there is to widen the audience of a product. Nero has features to recompress many different video formats to MPEG1 or MPEG2 so you can master your own VCDs, for example. It'll decompress MP3s on the fly for audio CDs, etc, etc. It can do Karaoke CD-Gs, etc..

      Even if only 5% of people with CD burners care about making a VCD or CD-G, that's 5% more potential revenue. That's why Word or Excel have 9 billion features that I know I'll never use, but someone, somewhere will.

      --
      I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    18. Re:Sure would be nice by timeOday · · Score: 4, Insightful
      If it's a commercial game, it's going to ship on a CD-ROM, or more and more on DVD-ROM these days (like UT2k4).
      Or maybe it will download to a cellphone, or in a Flash game on the web.
    19. Re:Sure would be nice by bluesnowmonkey · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You should be more respectful. Making demoes or (MY GOD) a playable game of such incredible quality in so little code would require an intimate, masterful understanding of almost every aspect of computer science. These guys are VIRTUOSOS. I don't think they're trying to make a commercial game, anyway, so quit comparing it to that. They're trying to shame the rest of for our pathetic coding skills, and let me be the first to say, "Mission accomplished."

    20. Re:Sure would be nice by russellh · · Score: 2, Informative

      Frankly, who cares?

      Hey, we care! After all, the blurb did, in fact, say For those of you old-timers who spent days & nights trying to get your code fit into 64Kb. That must not apply to you.

      --
      must... stay... awake...
    21. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why is this discussion full of failed games developers attempting to prove to everyone else how wonderful they are...

      Hint: If you're going to post something along the lines of 'I wrote this cool piece of code that did this and that' post it as AC.

    22. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I really don't care if the textures are procedural or compressed bitmaps. Actually, do I want to wait 20 minutes for the game to compute all textures at startup? Nope, I'd rather have static data ready to go. I hate load times. Especially on a hard level where you die every 30 seconds and have to wait 5 minutes for it to recreate the world.
      I actually found the loading times comparatable to UT2004 which is quite surprising.
    23. Re:Sure would be nice by ktulu1115 · · Score: 1

      Well put... Lookup tables were one of the most widely-known (and used) tricks of the game/graphics programmers back in the days of the '486 and such. Hand-rolled assembly in a few key places also made a world of difference.

      The only problem with it nowadays is that there is usually so much *crap* going on (lots of models/sprites/etc) that if you were to prerender them all, it'd take up a whole lot of room... maybe something like, I don't know... 6 CD's?.

      Back then the processing power wasn't nearly fast enough to keep up with something that complex or large, so prerendering all the graphics took up minimal room.

      The game still rocks though. :)

      --
      # fuser -v /dev/attention | grep work
      #
    24. Re:Sure would be nice by MisterFancypants · · Score: 1
      Sure would be nice if programmers around the world would at least follow this guys lead a little bit. I'm so sick of bloated software. For example - CD Writing software for windows. Does anyone need or even want all the dang crap that comes in those?

      It would? I got kind of annoyed at the 2.5 minute data generation time, and that is on my 2.6 ghz 800 mhz FSB Pentium 4.

      Not to mention that all the art in games would become very boring if it were all procedurally generated by a programmer rather than laid out by real artists and level designers.

      Comparing what is essentially a procedurally generated demo with some interactivity to a real game is apples to oranges.

    25. Re:Sure would be nice by tprime · · Score: 3, Insightful

      More than anything this game serves to prove a point with the illegible vars and "cheating" by using directx. Games don't HAVE to be huge to be good. The games I have played recently come on 2 cds and often take up over 1.3GB for the installation.

      Will all games be this size? Do the games need to fit on a floppy? No, but a happy medium would be nice. It just seems odd that Microsoft bloated their OS with all this stuff that no one seems to fully utilize and developers, because they don't use the OS to its potential, bloat their software further.

      Maybe I am easily amused, but either way what these guys did was impressive

      --
      http://www.tomandemily.com
    26. Re:Sure would be nice by pheede · · Score: 0

      Oh, get over yourself. I sincerely respect what these guys have done. It is very impressive. However, to claim that this would require an intimate, masterful understanding of almost every aspect of computer science is utter baloney. They're great coders no doubt, but a 'masterful understanding of computer science' is a hell of a lot more than coding. It's domain specifications, requirements, design methodologies and a lot more.. including coding which is obviously important, but hardly the only thing.

    27. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    28. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I give a shit.

      The game industry is focusing on cellphones and hand helds now. Why? Because the development cycle from start to gold to is 3-6 months, rather than the 18+ months for most games. And alot of those resources are art resources - texture maps and the such. Teams of 30 or more are not unusual these days.

      If the codebase gets smaller, then the the development time _should_ be reduced. Which, of course has nothing to do with the enjoyment gained from playing the game - but it is a financial/resource issue.

      I'd like to see more than 3 or 4 great games a year on the shelf, despite what the publishers want. Image, 15-20 great games a year...

    29. Re:Sure would be nice by warrior · · Score: 1

      There is something to be said for code that can fit entirely in the L1 cache, especially if there are separate I & D caches. Cache misses are expensive, at least with this code you'll only be using the bus to fetch data instead of instructions.

      --
      Intel transfer the difficult from Hadware to software, for get more power, programmer need more technology. -- chinaitn
    30. Re:Sure would be nice by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, do I want to wait 20 minutes for the game to compute all textures at startup? Nope, I'd rather have static data ready to go.

      Wrong. Computing a texture from a few input params can often be faster than loading it from disk. (The disk-based texture is probably in a compressed format, PNG prehaps, so it'll also take computation to load, beyond the actual IO delay)

      Many recent FPS games have horrendously slow load times (50 sec even on a powerful PC) due mainly to all the high-res textures. This is especially bad if you're loading straight from optical disc (as with a Playstation2)

    31. Re:Sure would be nice by Minna+Kirai · · Score: 1

      In other words, techniques like this are unfeasable for largew modern games.

      No they're not. The core skill any "software engineering" class should teach is managing complexity.

      No matter how huge an MMPG might grow, it can still be subdivided into semi-independent chunks that are simple enough for one programmer to optimize thouroughly.

    32. Re:Sure would be nice by DAldredge · · Score: 1

      What all mean jackshit if the result of all that knowledge doesn't run worth a shit.

    33. Re:Sure would be nice by Cannelbrae · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Right! The linux code should be just as simple to follow as your average bash script.

      After all, most code out there is properly engineered, with all of the planning done up front, with requirements defined at the beginning of the project and remaining the same through the end.

      It isn't like games get tweaked or redesigned daily, as people on the team realize what is fun and what isn't. ;)

    34. Re:Sure would be nice by rossjudson · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the more distant future, bitmap textures are probably going to become somewhat obselete. The shader languages supported by high-end cards can do a ton of procedural texture generation during rendering, which is a much better place to do it. I expect that someday we'll see shader libraries, just like we see in the static rendering world, that can produce most of the textures needed.

      Of course, textures themselves are a poor substitute for dynamically generated geometry, in most cases. If you're looking at a brick wall, there's the texture of the actual bricks (each physical brick), and that's best handled with procedural textures. Then there's the interlocking nature of the bricks themselves, with the mortar, which is optimally handled by dynamic geometry generation or depth maps.

      Smooth interpolation between bitmap -> procedural -> geometry texturing is where we'll end up eventually. Shader languages are the way to go.

    35. Re:Sure would be nice by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      Someone never played duckhunt.

      Or, Nethack.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    36. Re:Sure would be nice by Knos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Domain specifications, requirements and design methodologies are not computer science, but software engineering. Which is separate from the real science in computer science, which is what I would shorthand as the Art of Algorithms.

      --
      . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .
      may u!sh 2 sm!le at dz!z bad nn.!m!tat!ion
    37. Re:Sure would be nice by essreenim · · Score: 1

      I work for a games industry, and I believe my point is valid.
      These guys spent 2 years perfecting their game, and it paid off.
      However, just imagine how long it would take them if they took on a mutilplayer game to the scale of Quake 2 or 3. A long time I think!! Whole other ball game..

    38. Re:Sure would be nice by essreenim · · Score: 1

      You don't live in the real world ; )

    39. Re:Sure would be nice by Cannelbrae · · Score: 1

      Apologies - my post was meant to be sarcastic. It was also intended as a response to Minna Kirai post. I definitely blew it on all counts.

      I work in the game industry as well; been here about 4 years. The idea that an MMP ought to be simple to optimize, and ought to be nice and modular is definitely a magic-magic land suggestion in my opinion. Games are written against hard deadlines, with requirements that change all the time.

      I will leave the arguments about how well software engineering handles these situations to those with more free time than I.

    40. Re:Sure would be nice by myrdred · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Or maybe it will download to a cellphone, or in a Flash game on the web.

      A cellphone with a CPU of ~1.4Ghz, 512MB RAM and a DirectX8 GPU?

    41. Re:Sure would be nice by randyest · · Score: 1

      Yep, and if this code were such a thing, we'd say it about it , whatever it is.

      The code and data memory size expands massively on execution (procedurally-generated textures and geometries mostly, though probably some code-generating code as well) -- it does require 512MB of RAM. And, WinXP said the game process was using more than 200MB when I ran it.

      The point is that the stored copy of the code is small, not the runtime footprint.

      No one else has pointed out, BTW, that besides the extra time and celeverness required to do something like this, game companies don't want their games to be this small! It just makes piracy to quick and easy if you only need to send one file that can easily attach to an email. Better to have 3 CD's jammed with FMV cutscenes and such even if the game would fit on one floppy -- the media is cheap, and it makes a small hassle (or at least a slowdown) for the pirates.

      That said, the game is awesome for it's code size. Very pretty. Fast. Even kind of fun. Just needs sounds, control re-mapping, and netcode, and it could compete with unreal, IMHO.

      --
      everything in moderation
    42. Re:Sure would be nice by TheBoostedBrain · · Score: 1

      "For example - CD Writing software for windows. Does anyone need or even want all the dang crap that comes in those?"
      Yepp.. sometimes windows fails.
      In my laptop, suddenly one day windows stopped detecting my cd-rw drive. It's now detected like a standard cr-rom drive. So i can burn using the windows API.
      I tried changin the drive-type value for the drive in the registry and now i have the recording tab when I right-click the drive.
      Still ISO recorder Power Toy doesn't detect the unit as valid nor the "Write this files to cd" wizard.
      I had to install Roxio Easy CD creator (which works perfectly) in order to burn cd's again.

      --
      -- When did Ignorance Become a Point of View?
    43. Re:Sure would be nice by TheBoostedBrain · · Score: 1

      I don't know about goldenhawks, but burnatonce deppends on the windows API, wich is exactly my problem (my cd-rw drive is detected by windows as an standard cd-rom).

      --
      -- When did Ignorance Become a Point of View?
    44. Re:Sure would be nice by tricops · · Score: 1

      Depends on the windows API? It does depend on having a valid ASPI layer, but it doesn't have to be the default windows one. I'm not entirely sure, but you may have some success getting/using the Adaptec one from here.

      --
      (\(\
      (^v^)
      (")")
      This is the cute vorpal bunny virus, copy to your sig or runaway, runaway in fear!
    45. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Frankly, who cares?
      Smart people. People who matter. I.e., not you, stratjakt. Move along, there's nothing for you here.
    46. Re:Sure would be nice by krumms · · Score: 1

      These guys are VIRTUOSOS.

      I'll second that. Anybody criticising this astounding effort is likely one of those "I play games, therefore I may judge them on a technical basis."

      Hint: you really, really don't know just how hard it would be to do this shit.

    47. Re:Sure would be nice by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, this isn't true. Often optimizing for speed is at odds with optimizing for size. They're (with exceptions) mutually exclusive. Pick one of the two, not both.

      Yep, trouble is there are LOTS of exceptions. Basically anywhere you have a bottleneck: loading from disk, reading data and instructions from memory, sending geometry to the video card, network communications. Many of these have become more important due to speed increases, since that made the effect so much more noticable. 10 years ago the size/speed trade off was more clearly a trade off.

      Create an array of 1080 entries (so I could follow sin's to a quarter degree)

      1080 entries is enough for 1/12th of a degree, or 1/3rd if you don't realize that you only need to store one quarter of the circle.

    48. Re:Sure would be nice by timeOday · · Score: 1

      That's just for this particular game. These guys should be looking to license their technology, or at least market their skills, for future applications. And remember, there's no "moore's law" for wireless bandwidth, nor for batteries - cellphones are only growing *more* bandwidth limited relative to their ever-faster processors and memory capacities. Even after the OS and built-in applications on these puppies are no longer resource-constrained, content delivery will still be an issue.

    49. Re:Sure would be nice by huchida · · Score: 1
      More than anything this game serves to prove a point with the illegible vars and "cheating" by using directx. Games don't HAVE to be huge to be good. The games I have played recently come on 2 cds and often take up over 1.3GB for the installation.

      Will all games be this size? Do the games need to fit on a floppy? No, but a happy medium would be nice. It just seems odd that Microsoft bloated their OS with all this stuff that no one seems to fully utilize and developers, because they don't use the OS to its potential, bloat their software further. A lot of applications and games are intentionally bloated these days. Two cds are a lot more difficult to share via P2P or even BitTorrent.

    50. Re:Sure would be nice by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      >> Sure would be nice if programmers around the world would at least follow this guys lead a little bit.

      GOD, NO.

      You see, that size comes at the expense of runtime performance.

      Do you plan on having a computer with tons of power, gobs of RAM, but only a few hundred kb of hard drive space anytime soon?

  7. Windows only? by elid · · Score: 5, Funny

    A produkt made by .the .produkkt won't run in KDE!?

    1. Re:Windows only? by G-funk · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not to mention the other requirements:

      A 1.5GHz Pentium3/Athlon or faster.
      - 512MB of RAM (or more)
      - A Geforce4Ti (or higher) or ATI Radeon8500 (or higher) graphics card
      supporting pixel shaders 1.3, preferably with 128MB or more of VRAM.
      - Some kind of sound hardware
      - DirectX 9.0b

      And I can assure you, a GF4Ti does _not_ cut it unless you call 2-5fps acceptable. *sigh*

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    2. Re:Windows only? by drinkypoo · · Score: 1
      I have Athlon XP 2500+, 1024MB DDR333 Dual channel (relevant only for latency reasons) and a GF4Ti4200 which I underclock because it's a flaky Inno3D card.

      I got 12-15 fps in all the scenes I tried (I went only until the room with all the columns in it, and the harder-to-kill spiders.)

      I suspect your limiting factor is your CPU.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Windows only? by Xzzy · · Score: 1

      No, it's the video card.

      The game computes fully dynamic lighting, I noticed a lot of bump mapping and specular effects. The lighting when you use the grenade launcher in a room full of pillars is quite a joy to watch.

      This is Doom3/HL2 grade stuff, it will definetly exercise the video card.

    4. Re:Windows only? by Nimloth · · Score: 0

      Apparently an All-In-Wonder Radeon Vivo 64Mb DDR does not cut it either... That's just an assumption though, since the error messages said... wait, hold up.

      THERE WERE NO ERROR MESSAGES.

      Great work! I downloaded less than 100Kb of crap which generated a progress bar that got around 3% (guessing here, no actual words or numbers displayed... ASCII characters are too heavy), and crashed.

      You know I have everything I need to crash Windows BUILT-IN, I don't even need that extra 100Kb.

    5. Re:Windows only? by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      No, it's the video card.

      It's hard to say without some benchmarking.

      I have a ti4600 and was using a 2100+ processor. Benchmarking UT2003 in WinXP AND Linux (dual boot) showed that the bottleneck was the processor. As the resolution increased, the framerate slowed down.

      When I switched to a 2600+, the benchmark of 800x400 vs. 1600x1200 was within 2% even though the clock speed of the 2600+ (barton) isn't much more than the 2100+.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    6. Re:Windows only? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And I can assure you, a GF4Ti does _not_ cut it unless you call 2-5fps acceptable. *sigh*

      I have an Athlon XP 2600 w/ GeForce4 Ti 4600 and 1GB RAM, and aside from the slow load time (about 30 seconds to load textures, etc) the game ran fine.

    7. Re:Windows only? by G-funk · · Score: 1

      Erm, no. P4 2.8 800mhz and 1.2gb ram :) And mine's a 128mb Ti4400.

      --
      Send lawyers, guns, and money!
    8. Re:Windows only? by blincoln · · Score: 1

      And I can assure you, a GF4Ti does _not_ cut it unless you call 2-5fps acceptable. *sigh*

      I think there is something else going on. I have a ti4600 and it plays fine (for a tech demo) - something like 20-30fps.

      My processor is an Athlon XP 1700+, so it's not like I have some sort of speed demon machine either.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
  8. wow, but... by ajboyle · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    don't tell me this was statically compiled and includes all the fonts, and 3d libraries in the download!

    1. Re:wow, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      "this was statically compiled and includes all the fonts, and 3d libraries in the download!" :P

  9. Torrent file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    I was about to make a torrent for the game, but then i realized the torrent would probably be bigger than the file itself ;)

    1. Re:Torrent file by prat393 · · Score: 2, Funny

      It's an obvious ploy to keep their server load down - the next step is trying to make it small enough that it can fit in an IP header.

    2. Re:Torrent file by Temfate · · Score: 1

      Looks like it didn't help; I can't get threw anymore...

    3. Re:Torrent file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I was about to make a torrent for the game, but then i realized the torrent would probably be bigger than the file itself ;)

      Even 96K files are subject to the Slashdot effect. You should ALWAYS publish a torrent, regardless of the size of the file. It will spread out the load amongst many computers.

    4. Re:Torrent file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually it wouldn't. Not to spoil the joke or anything.

    5. Re:Torrent file by 74nova · · Score: 1

      first of all, nice one :-) however, the point of setting up a torrent in this case woudl be to try to keep the server up (and availability of the file if unsuccessful) by limited the downloads from it, no matter how small.

      --
      use your turn signal! you people act like it's divulging information to the enemy
    6. Re:Torrent file by beegle · · Score: 2, Funny

      Someone had to do it. Get your .torrent here

      --
      --
    7. Re:Torrent file by beegle · · Score: 2, Informative

      For the record, the torrent that I created was a whopping 188 bytes. Which is to say that the http overhead is probably larger than the file size. Hell, the TCP overhead is close.

      --
      --
    8. Re:Torrent file by evilmonkey_666 · · Score: 1
      Even 96K files are subject to the Slashdot effect.


      Yeah, he just said that the .torrent would be BIGGER than 96k!

      --


      - PS. This is what part of the alphabet would look like if Q and R where eliminated.
  10. Wow by Knight+Thrasher · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Suddenly, I'm taken back to the days of Doom, where I can fit a FPS onto a floppy disk. Sweet.

  11. 96k by bubkus_jones · · Score: 5, Funny

    And it's still too much for my computer.

    1. Re:96k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Well remember, 640k ought ta be enough for everybody!
      -Billy Gates

    2. Re:96k by digitalsurgeon · · Score: 1

      it skips on my gforce 5200 :( i guess i'll play nfs underground atleast it runs smooth :(

  12. Amazing by !ucif3r · · Score: 1

    Absolutely incredible. But I can't find any links to information on .the .produkkt here? Or on Google. Anyone know who these guys are? Is this open source or commercial release?

    I got the .zip file and it is .exe (sigh).

    --
    "Take that Lisa's beliefs!" - Homer Simpson
    1. Re:Amazing by Naffer · · Score: 3, Funny

      Hey guys, I don't get whats the big deal? I downloaded a ton of these 85 to 150KB ".exe" games off kazaa yesterday. They never seem to run though...

    2. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Demoscene, I guess. I'm not really in the know, but theproduct.de (from farbrausch) was the first thing that sprung to mind.

    3. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      http://www.theprodukkt.com/
      http://www.theproduct .de/
      http://www.farb-rausch.com/

      http://www.demoscene.info/

      Bye, avatar / black maiden.

    4. Re:Amazing by antime · · Score: 2, Interesting

      It's a demoscene product, made by the group farbrausch.

    5. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They are the German demo group 'Farb-rausch'. A fairly complete collection can be found at www.farb-rausch.de

    6. Re:Amazing by grungeman · · Score: 1

      I saw two of them on German TV last night. They are four (or five?) young quite smart geeks, aged around 20, and kkrieger seemed to be something like and extended hobby to them. That's all the information I have.

      --

      Signature deleted by lameness filter.
    7. Re:Amazing by troon · · Score: 5, Funny

      Please be sure to stick to standard Slashdot etiquette. In making a joke about accidentally messing up your system, it is customary to truncate the last bit of the message and terminate with [NO CARRIER] or some sort of +AT code.

      Applying to your situation would give us:

      Hey guys, I don't get whats the big deal? I downloaded a ton of these 85 to 150KB ".exe" games off kazaa yesterday. They never seem to run tho[NO CARRIER]

      Do you see? That's instantly at least 1337% funnier. Remember this trick for next time.

      --
      Ydco co ,df C erb-y go. a Ekrpat t.fxrapev
    8. Re:Amazing by lexbaby · · Score: 1

      Are they related in any way to these guys that released a 64kb demo in 2000 called .the .product?

      I love 64kb demos. Sure it might not make the best games, but it means they are looking at all aspects of the code. Now if other programers for all apps would be that meticulous.

      --
      lexbaby
      "Be Brave, Be Loyal, Be True." -- Hawkeye Pierce
    9. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      mods again proving that one man's funny is another man's offtopic

    10. Re:Amazing by faxe · · Score: 2, Informative

      they are actually the same group of people.

      --
      fx! kicking and screaming
    11. Re:Amazing by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      Hahahahahah That is so Funn[NO LAUGHTER]

  13. I thought this was more of a joke by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    where they'll have an article about a crappy game no one wants to play, but just as a way to look at all the recent advancements, but looking at the screenshots it actually looks like a decent game, I might go investigate further and get a copy once the fires are out from the servers after a good /.'ing.

    1. Re:I thought this was more of a joke by Entropius · · Score: 1

      The download isn't slashdotted... it's so tiny. My transfer was done before I'd decided where to save it.

  14. System Requirements by Lord_Dweomer · · Score: 1, Funny
    It really is a shame that you need such high specs to run this thing. Something this small could be really cool on a cell phone or something else mobile.

    Cool stuff though, I'm always amazed at how efficient people can make software, and this is a prime example of it.

    --
    Buy Steampunk Clothing Online!
    1. Re:System Requirements by cexshun · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's simple why you need a semi-powerful machine to play this. It generates the textures at startup. I'm assuming it'd take a pretty powerful machine to generate textures like these screenshots, with such small code to work with in the first place.

      As a comparison. Think of SETI@HOME. A very very very small file. Yet, it can take 4 hours or more to process on what is considered a fast machine. Same dealio with this.

    2. Re:System Requirements by Visigothe · · Score: 1

      Size of the binary has little to do with what it needs to run. If you remember the Demo Scene of the 80s, coders would routinely cram some pretty massive special effects into *very* small binaries (much smaller than this game). If you didn't have higher-end hardware, they'd run slowly, or not at all.

      I imagine that this game relies quite a bit on tight assembler code and pixel shader instructions to get the most out of the higher end video cards [making the hardware work for you]. Of course, I only looked at the screen shots, so I could be wrong.

    3. Re:System Requirements by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      the textures are cached once generated, although they are presumably part pixel shader program. This is why you need the DX 8.1-compliant card. The game itself ran at about 14 fps on my XP 2500+ with GF4Ti4200 which is not exactly stellar performance.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    4. Re:System Requirements by duckpoopy · · Score: 1

      Unfortunately you would also need directx for your phone to run this game.

      --
      word.
    5. Re:System Requirements by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
      Actually no. The generation of textures is pretty fast (think shorter then the loading time of recent commercial FPS) yet the game is still choppy. Considering the minimum specs wich I meet and exceed I think they just haven't had the resources to test it on to much hardware.

      It looks amazing with some real detail like metal nails that stuck out on doors but it also looked like it wasn't using my GPU and doing it all in software mode. Why I don't know.

      --

      MMO Quests are like orgasms:

      You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    6. Re:System Requirements by grolschie · · Score: 1

      My system is a XP1800+, 512MB ram, Win98SE and Radeon 9000. Runs as jerky as anything and just spins constantly. Unplayable. I guess I need a DirectX9 card. Dag nabbit! Exited out, but music kept playing. Had to kill the process.

    7. Re:System Requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, well I don't think it's your lack of a DX9 card.

      Windoze XP Sp 1
      Athlon XP 3000
      Radeon 9800 Pro (128mb)
      1 gig ram
      Audigy 2

      My system can run the UT2k4 demo at full settings on 1280x1024 smoothly (consistent 30+ fps). This game, I get about 8. Fun fun fun.

  15. 64 Kb by Distan · · Score: 2, Funny

    Old timer? 64 Kb?

    For my first paid programming gig, I had to stay within 8 Kb. You young whippersnappers with 64 Kb had it easy!

    1. Re:64 Kb by Daemongar · · Score: 1, Funny

      Kb?! You were lucky! When I was a kid, we had to work within b's - as in bytes and we thought "Luxury!" Kb's. *sheesh*

    2. Re:64 Kb by Triskele · · Score: 1
      Damn you beat me to it ;-)

      Mind you, first lunar landar I wrote was in 256 bytes on a KIM. 8kb was luxury after that ;-)

      --

      --
      USA: home of the world's largest terrorist training camp.

    3. Re:64 Kb by spoonyfork · · Score: 1

      Back in my day, we had to bang two rocks together to get 1's!

      --
      Speak truth to power.
    4. Re:64 Kb by Nuclear+Elephant · · Score: 1

      ... And we had to walk to work in the snow, with no shoes....uphill both ways....with no electric - oh wait.

    5. Re:64 Kb by grub · · Score: 3, Interesting


      Back in school we had a 6502 development kit. We had to flip a 8 switches (bits, this had a staggering 256 bytes of memory) to set the address and another 8 for the data then hit a button to load the data into RAM. Once it was all done we set the address toggles to the start point of the program and hit an execute button. The output was 2x 7 segment LEDs..

      I seriously almost bought one for home to tinker with but it was a few hundred dollars and I was a starving student..

      --
      Trolling is a art,
    6. Re:64 Kb by shystershep · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh, you had two rocks, did you? I only had one, and had to bang it against my head. And I liked it!

      Wait a minute . . . what were we talking about?

      --
      The bigotry of the nonbeliever is for me nearly as funny as the bigotry of the believer. - Albert Einstein
    7. Re:64 Kb by Jeff+DeMaagd · · Score: 1

      8kbits huh? 1024 bytes isn't much to work with.

      I still code with a limitation of 8k instruction words for the PIC microcontrollers. Some of them only have 512 bytes code space, which was no problem as I made one program for a useful product in about 30 instructions.

    8. Re:64 Kb by Morthaur · · Score: 5, Funny

      Right. I had to get up in the morning at ten o'clock at night half an hour before I went to bed, drink a cup of sulphuric acid, work twenty-nine hours a day sorting punch cards for an S/360, and pay IBM for permission to come to work, and when I got home, my mum and dad would kill me and dance about on my grave singing Hallelujah.

      And you try and tell the young people of today that
      ..... they won't believe you.

      --

      +++++++
      "Look, dear, it's a crazy hairy scary man!"
    9. Re:64 Kb by PorscheDriver · · Score: 2, Funny
      Bytes! When I were a lad, me and my 23 brothers and sisters had ter share 3 bits between the lot of us.

      But we were 'appy!

      --
      "This is your life, and it's ending one second at a time."
    10. Re:64 Kb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ahhh.. 64K RAM SYSTEM 38911 BASIC BYTES FREE

      fuzzy warm memories

    11. Re:64 Kb by lacrymology.com · · Score: 1

      You had bits? We had to work with a system of pipes pushing water through tubes to generate basic units of computation called sips and gulps. You whipper-snappers had it made!
      -m

      --

      #
      # Modus Ponens
      #
    12. Re:64 Kb by phunhippy · · Score: 1

      Rocks?!?!? You had rocks?!?! I had mountains! do you know how long you have to wait for a mountain to erode over time to turn in to a rock?!?! let alone two rocks!!

    13. Re:64 Kb by Drakonian · · Score: 1

      Luxury!

      --
      Random is the New Order.
    14. Re:64 Kb by dhuff · · Score: 2, Funny

      Bits ?! You youngsters and your 1's and 0's. Back in my day we just had 0's, and we liked it that way...

    15. Re:64 Kb by apankrat · · Score: 0

      8K ? Pfft .. My old trusty Casio GFX calculator had a space of 422 bytes for holding scripts ! And I still managed to make it draw a rotating 3D cube.

      --
      3.243F6A8885A308D313
    16. Re:64 Kb by merdaccia · · Score: 1

      That's all very amusing, but my current job has me developing sensor network code. The current wonderful generation of sensor nodes has 4KB of data space and 128KB of program memory. The first generation (in which we included crypto, multihop routing, sensing, data forwarding, revocation, target detection and the bloody operating system) fit in 1KB of data memory and 16KB of code memory.

      Lovely!

      --

      *blinking cursor*

    17. Re:64 Kb by funkygibbin · · Score: 1

      64Kb! Hah! My first "take-home" 'PC' used silver dip switches on the front panel, 16 LED's (8 for address, 8 for data - all red). About the size of a small VCR nowadays. It was the "expanded" microcomputer version that had 256 bytes of RAM, as opposed to the completely useless and very limited 128 bytes of RAM. That's "bytes", not "kb". I'm pretty sure it didn't run OpenGL...

      64Kb! "Luxury"!

      Funky

    18. Re:64 Kb by mOdQuArK! · · Score: 1

      Ah, so you worked with fluidics too! (There _are_ actually logic gates based on fluids...)

    19. Re:64 Kb by Espectr0 · · Score: 1

      Bytes? You newbie! Back in the day, we only had a few bits to work on

    20. Re:64 Kb by The+Troll+Catcher · · Score: 1

      TinyOS development is fun, isn't it? Amazing how much you can do with such a small device :).

  16. No Directx 8.1? by RichM · · Score: 5, Interesting

    For those of you who don't have a GPU with pixelshaders, you can try the original which started the whole thing, the 64kb fr-08: http://www.theproduct.de/

  17. so, what does this really advance? by StingRayGun · · Score: 1, Redundant

    HD space is cheap right? So if this advancement increases development time and cost, it is a tech achievement, but... i guess... whats the point?

    1. Re:so, what does this really advance? by Stevyn · · Score: 4, Funny

      It's not the saved space that's the issue here, it's the efficiency of the code. If I made a 500 mb text editor (and called it ms word 2003) then that would be inefficient.

    2. Re:so, what does this really advance? by DrugCheese · · Score: 1

      Microsoft Excel is 8,950kb

      I think it's great to show how bloated some apps have become.

      --
      *DrugCheese rants*
    3. Re:so, what does this really advance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      > so, what does this really advance?

      Their claim to m4d sk1llz? :)

      I remember a time when posters on slashdot enjoyed tech coolness for the sake of coolness. I'm probably growing old and grumpy, but lately too many /. posts reek of techno-ludditeness (-luddetery?) to me.

    4. Re:so, what does this really advance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wait, it gets worse.. Excel on OS X is 11.7 MB. Excel 2003 on a PeeCee is 9.6MB.

    5. Re:so, what does this really advance? by Mysticalfruit · · Score: 4, Funny

      Is that with or without the easter egg flight simulator?

      --
      Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
    6. Re:so, what does this really advance? by kauttapiste · · Score: 3, Insightful

      HD space is cheap right? So if this advancement increases development time and cost, it is a tech achievement, but... i guess... whats the point?

      The point is not the size, features or technological advance at all. It's just sort of a proof-of-concept, if you like. It doesn't do rendering on it's own, nor does it have support for various graphic chips (all that is provided by DirectX), but it does have its own engine and all the model data and textures (mind you, it still includes all the textures although they are procedural, it just means that they are in forms of functions). And that is impressive.

      Can't try it myself yet, but I'm already amazed. Btw, to those who wonder where's the source etc, these things are usually not handed out. Demo/intro scene is more about competing with each other and the secret's of the trade are not given away!

      People pointing out DirectX dependency are missing the point.

    7. Re:so, what does this really advance? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 0

      >whats the point?

      Downloading super impressive ads quickly?

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    8. Re:so, what does this really advance? by GoofyBoy · · Score: 1

      Huh?

      In the first sentence you are saying that space of code doesn't matter, its efficency. In the second sentence you are equating space of code to efficiency.

      --
      The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
    9. Re:so, what does this really advance? by log0n · · Score: 1

      nah, you're not grumpy, the technovunderkids of today are slackers :-)

    10. Re:so, what does this really advance? by albion_t · · Score: 1

      Isn't this the same website where everybody shouts "Because they can!" everytime somebody installs linux on their toaster? Perhaps this was coded in 96k to satifsy themselves. Not anyone else.

    11. Re:so, what does this really advance? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      pfft. easter eggs don't fly.

    12. Re:so, what does this really advance? by smallfries · · Score: 1

      HD space isn't the issue, download times are the issue. More and more games are designed to be played online with downloadable content, look at the success of X-Box live. Now imagine how much quicker a procedurally described level would download than an explicitly described one. Which would you rather wait for?

      --
      Slashdot: where don knuth is an idiot because he cant grasp the awesome power of php
    13. Re:so, what does this really advance? by UfoZ · · Score: 1

      No, not really.

      Well, the executable is, sure.

      Then there's the tens (hundreds?) of megabytes of additional dll's and crap.

  18. Amazing Screenshots by william_lorenz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    These screenshots are amazing. Does anyone know more about the fact that "textures are procedural" and how they're able to use this method to compact things down into such a little distribution?

    1. Re:Amazing Screenshots by eddy · · Score: 5, Informative

      Google 'Perlin Noise'. Read 'Procedural' as 'described mathematically'.

      --
      Belief is the currency of delusion.
    2. Re:Amazing Screenshots by pe1rxq · · Score: 2, Informative

      Simple, instead of an image you simply include a piece of code that generates it think of it like those small programs that create enormous fractal images.

      Jeroen

      --
      Secure messaging: http://quickmsg.vreeken.net/
    3. Re:Amazing Screenshots by 3Suns · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe it's a trick borrowed from the demo scene. In extremely size-critical styles of demo, such as 64k intro, coders create textures, models, and even music at runtime, rather than storing these as bitmaps, vector lists, or midi/mp3. Usually they are created with some fractal-type function.

      I assume the models, levels, and sounds for this game are pregenerated and stored in some efficient format. Textures are pretty easy to generate with a fractal.

      What impresses me most about those screenshots are the really cool lighting effects. It appears they have implemented realtime shadows, luminance maps, and other really difficult techniques.

      --

      -3Suns

      ~~~~
      The Revolution will be Slashdotted
    4. Re:Amazing Screenshots by grumbel · · Score: 1

      All of the geometry and textures in the game are created by combining and deforming very simple objects (cubes, sphears). So instead of saving all the mesh data, they just save the operations they used to generate the mesh data, which requires a lot less data. So for example instead of saving each vertex of some part of an enemy, they just save 'take a cube, stretch by 5, shear by 10'. Same with textures, 'take a circle, blur by 50%, add text "bla" add 50, 50', etc., so instead of saving a hires texture which can consume multiple megabytes, they just save the operation used to generate it, which can bit into a few bytes.

    5. Re:Amazing Screenshots by Funk_dat69 · · Score: 4, Informative

      Um, I'm hoping you're not suggesting procedural textures originated in the demo scene.

      Ever heard of Ken Perlin?

      Programmer who actually won an Academy Award for basically inventing this?

      Anyone?

      --
      FUNK!
    6. Re:Amazing Screenshots by mauddib~ · · Score: 1

      A procedural texture is nothing more than a function with a 2-vector as input (x and y coordinates), and a scalar as output. The scalar is then used for example as a rgb-color value, the specular (how much the material shines), for normal calculation (to create bumpy surfaces) etc. etc. Sometimes recursive functions are used to create things like fractal patterns. The possibilities are endless.

      Moreover, one can also generate a scene in a procedural manner. Same trick.

      --
      This is a replacement signature.
    7. Re:Amazing Screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      These screenshots are amazing.
      The game is smaller than a screenshot of the game!
    8. Re:Amazing Screenshots by AnwerB · · Score: 2, Interesting

      There's a nice 23-page pdf of an (iterative fractal) procedural textures examples at:

      http://www.uno.edu/~SAGES/presentations/Riddleof th eSphinx.PDF (warning: huge 1.9MB pdf file).

      There's also an example in the file of fractal compression of topographic maps. Something like this could be used to provide any level of datail to a surface, as long as you knew the statistics of the texture, and defined some 'binding points'. So you just need to fill in the rough details of the mountain, not the actual matrix defining it:

      E.g. 1000m high at [55,-92], 0m at [444,17], 0m at [-90,200], Hausdorff dimension 2.3 (Alps), or 2.15 (Rockies).

      The file also list some example uses for the fractal texturing methods, such as background noise generation for missile tracking, stock market fluctuation simulations, expected word frequency in written text, lung destruction patterns from smoking, percolation, etc.

    9. Re:Amazing Screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No. Of course you are the only one who has heard of Ken Perlin..

    10. Re:Amazing Screenshots by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Your affirmation is false, for Ken Perlin is the one who designed Google's festive period Java applets -- applets I am too lazy to search for in Google's festive period logos archive, so here are the links found on Ken Perlin's official site: Valentine's day applet and Easter Bunny applet.

    11. Re:Amazing Screenshots by HokieJP · · Score: 2, Funny

      Ok, if we're giving out props, I think big ups need to be given to my boys Gaston Julia, Benoit Mandelbrot, Georg Cantor, and Aleksandr Lyapunov. Lately Stephen Wolfram has been doing similar work.

      Seriously, this concept did not originate in CS.

    12. Re:Amazing Screenshots by Mattsson · · Score: 1

      Well... As a matter of fact, these guys *are* sceners. =)
      Take a look at http://www.theproduct.de
      Somewhere around there they have a rather good explanation of how they made one of their 64k demos using the same technology a few years ago.

      --
      /.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
  19. In my day! by Monkeyfobia · · Score: 1

    Im sure this will spark off the obitious "In my day comments" Well your day didnt have sweet 3d gfx!

  20. There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by tcopeland · · Score: 5, Interesting

    ...Infinite Game Universe: Mathematical Techniques that talks a lot about how to have a varied game universe while keeping size requirements under control.

    One of the techniques he discusses is using a psuedorandom number generator to create game objects and attributes and such, and shipping the game with a couple of pregenerated seeds to start up the generators. He uses the game Elite a lot in his examples, and anyone who's played that game knows what a good job they did in that regard.

    It's an interesting approach, especially when contrasted with WAD files.

    1. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by tcopeland · · Score: 1

      Er, make that "Guy Lecky-Thompson". Too many hyphens...

    2. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by HohlerMann · · Score: 1

      Could you be more specific about "Elite," such as who made it, when it came out? I'm interested, but a google for "elite game" comes up the wrong kind of 31337.

    3. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by permaculture · · Score: 2, Informative
      I googled for 'elite trading game' and found it. Get it free here.

      There's a newsgroup too: alt.fan.elite. I can't find who wrote the game, though.

      --
      Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
    4. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Heavens.

      Elite was written in the 1980s, initially for the BBC Model B, but then for other machines (including the Spectrum, where I put in my hours at the console of a Cobra Mk III).

      It is probably the best computer game I have ever played. The only game which I can possibly have spent a comparable amount of time playing is Doom II.

    5. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by WoodenRobot · · Score: 1

      David Braben.

      See this article for more information.

      --
      ---
      "I did nothing. I did absolutely nothing and it was everything that I thought it could be."
    6. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by GigsVT · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Nethack et al do the same thing. It's cool that they are random from game to game, but once generated, they are persistant.

      Back in the day, Telengard for the commodore did this too, except it made the levels very huge, and the same from game to game, so that the level was always the same for everyone, but it was never stored anywhere, it was only generated from the "seed", which never changed.

      --
      I've had enough abrasive sigs. Kittens are cute and fuzzy.
    7. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by bryhhh · · Score: 1

      There is some info about the game on this page.

      6502 assembly source code

    8. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by Kaelem · · Score: 1

      Ian Bell was the co-author of the original Elite along with David Braben. Ian's Elite page can be found here :

      http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/

      --
      "That's some catch, that Catch 22." "It's the best there is."
    9. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by cubic6 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Another great game that used a lot of mathematical methods was Daggerfall. It had a world so big that it would take something like a week of real time for your character to walk across it (not using fast travel). All the wilderness parts were fractally generated, so everywhere looked unique without having to pregenerate the layout.

      --
      Karma: Contrapositive
    10. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by Burgundy+Advocate · · Score: 1

      To continue the information overload...

      There's a GBA port of Elite available at http://www.geocities.com/quirky_2k1/. Pretty damn cool, especially if you have a flash rom card.

      --
      Dragging people kicking and screaming into reality since 1996.
    11. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by blincoln · · Score: 1

      Back in the day, Telengard for the commodore did this too, except it made the levels very huge, and the same from game to game, so that the level was always the same for everyone, but it was never stored anywhere, it was only generated from the "seed", which never changed.

      River Raid (the ancient console game) allegedly works this way too.

      --
      "...always new atoms but always doing the same dance, remembering what the dance was yesterday." -Richard Feynman
    12. Re:There's a book by Guy-Lecky-Thompson... by Ch_Omega · · Score: 1

      Actually, I walked right across the map in only two days!

  21. Very Cool But..... by kidgenius · · Score: 1

    I thought that the whole 64kb was more of a memory limitation instead of harddrive limitation. I would imagine this program takes up a bit more than 64kb of your memory when it starts generating all these texture. Still cool nonetheless.

    1. Re:Very Cool But..... by Glonoinha · · Score: 2, Informative

      The 64kb was actually a limitation of early compilers that needed to keep the entire address space of a program inside of 64k. It was called the small memory model, I believe, and all the code and pre-allocated memory for variables needed to sit inside that 64k (but dynamic allocated variables could reside on the heap in excess of that 64k.)

      --
      Glonoinha the MebiByte Slayer
    2. Re:Very Cool But..... by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      The tiny memory model on x86 computers allows for a space which is no more than 64kB. This is significant to DOS users because a .COM program cannot make far jumps, which is to say, more than 64kB away. It can still address memory outside this range but it can't jump outside of it. x86 has (IIRC) three types of jumps, short, near, and far, something like that. I don't have time to get out my x86 book. But the point is that they work in different ways, one jump is a signed int and it jumps that number of lines in either direction for example. For more (accurate) information, check the intel x86 instruction set reference, freely downloadable in PDF from intel.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    3. Re:Very Cool But..... by motown · · Score: 1

      This had to do with the memory model of the 8086 and 8088 CPU's used in the old XT computers back in the day.

      Since the address bus of these CPU's was only 16 bits wide, only 64kbytes could be addressed linearly. In order to facilitate the addressing of up to 1MB of conventional memory (640KB usable), the memory had to be segmented.

      That's why the old "real mode" addressing works with 64KB segments. It gets worse even: the segments overlapped as well. It was a real mess.

      COM executables were limited to being 64KB for this reason. Later on, DOS started supporting the more sophisticated EXE format, which did support more than 64KB. It had something to do with "near" and "far" memory jumps within assembly code, if I remember correctly.

      Thinking about it, I now understand why the demo scene (mostly writing everything in assembly language) tended to prefer the 68000-based Amiga platform. :)

      --
      "Oooh, does that mean we get to kick some puffy white mad zionist butt?"
  22. in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    relying upon Mesa, the nv driver, and the linux kernel would be any better? It would still weigh in over a meg then.

    Do we only impress the critics when we write to bare metal?

    (of course not, because then you're criticized for having hardware lock-in. You just can't win)

    1. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Hey now, if we're going to draw the linux kernel into this we'll have to compare against the windows dependency too, my C:\Windows directory on XP is 1.5GB

    2. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. I must be an idiot.

      You were obviously in diapers when an entire OS with a GUI could fit on a disk or two.

    3. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Which probably amounts to around 1% of your HD right? lol. If you think 1.5GB for an OS is a lot then you're an idiot.

      Awwwwwwww. That's 1.5 gigs that could be used for something else. Unlike Windows, Linux actually /tries/ to prevent itself from becoming bloatware...

    4. Re:in that case by Tarpan · · Score: 4, Funny

      I live by the theory that anyone who says "lol" is the real idiot, works so far.

    5. Re:in that case by wed128 · · Score: 0

      i think what he's trying to say is that even though the binary is small, it still requires much memory to be used...don't be so defensive!

    6. Re:in that case by misleb · · Score: 5, Funny

      Umm, it is a lot considering how little practical functionality exists in that 1.5GB C:\Windows directory.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    7. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So it needs notepad, sol, wordpad, write, calc...?

    8. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      no, I think he was just being anti-directx. you can make a small binary on linux, mac os x, or solaris and still have 20+MB of libraries to rely upon.

      anyone can make this assertion against any "small" program, no matter the os. i doubt you would see such a highly moderated post if the program ran on linux.

    9. Re:in that case by websaber · · Score: 5, Funny

      It's even sicker when you realize the screenshot takes up more room than the app (116kb)!!

      --
      "A good friend will bail you out of jail. A true friend will be sitting next to you saying, 'damn....that was fun!'"
    10. Re:in that case by DrSkwid · · Score: 0, Offtopic


      you mean like this one

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    11. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      i go by the theory of anyone who quotes it, physically types it, or singles out those that do, is a complete fucking moron.

      works so far.

    12. Re:in that case by RevDobbs · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, you impress the critics when you write a kick-ass FPS that I can play on my pile of 486s.

      I mean, it's cool and everything that the program is small... I'm not going to knock anyone for doing something simply "because they can". But what's the point of making a program that fits on a floppy when most modern computers meeting the requirments don't even ship with floppy drives anymore?

    13. Re:in that case by Polkyb · · Score: 4, Funny

      LOL!

      :-)

      --
      I've never shoed a horse, but I once told a donkey to piss off!
    14. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And Swinemeeper. Don't forget swinemeeper.

    15. Re:in that case by Krunch · · Score: 1

      i think what he's trying to say is that if it was statically linked, that binary would be a lot bigger

      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    16. Re:in that case by interiot · · Score: 1

      What is with all the Plan9 spam lately? As far as I can tell, all of them have only the thinest pretense of being on-topic. Is this a vast right-wing conspiracy?

    17. Re:in that case by Slime-dogg · · Score: 1

      Anyone who goes by theories and not laws is a complete fucking moron.

      Always works.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    18. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, it only works in theory....

    19. Re:in that case by beeblebrox87 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Since nothing is certain or provable, i.e. there are no "laws", anything you do must rely on theories. By your logic, that makes _everyone_ a "complete fucking moron" which, in my experience, seems quite probable.

      (In theory, anyway).

    20. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      3 of the 4 posts were by the same person, the 4th was by AC (so still could be the same person).

      To be a conspiracy by definition there would have to be 2+ people, to be 'vast' i would assume at a minimum 3+ people were involved, we saw a max of 2 (more likely 1 though).

      Looks like its left wing math again.

      (FYI: I'm AC because I'm at a school's computer right now)

    21. Re:in that case by interiot · · Score: 1

      Here's another person, here's a third, these two people may or may not be spamming also (though they're short snippets which fits the profile), and DrSqwid actually got a front-page story accepted about it, which could reinforce or decrease the argument about his trollish/spamish nature depending on how you look at it.

    22. Re:in that case by DrSkwid · · Score: 1


      There is no pretense.

      plan9 is widely considered useless. I'm working hard at highlighting how plan9 could fit into many scenarios so if I see a way that plan9 releates to the topic, I post that relation.

      Rob Pike (one of the world's foremost OS researchers) working at google and rumours of a google OS surely isn't offtopic.

      A suggestion of desktop environment where networking is considered paramount at the outset is *exactly* what plan9 is, how could you consider that offtopic?

      And although I don't post anonymous, a 15 second booting, network aware OS that boots from a CD is *exactly* what plan9 is, how is that offtopic.

      right wing?

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    23. Re:in that case by Slime-dogg · · Score: 4, Funny

      The statement "Nothing is certain or provable" disproves itself. If, in fact, it is true, then it is a certainty in itself. If it's not, then it leaves the door open for certainty and provability.

      --
      You need to restart your computer. Hold down the Power button for several seconds or press the Restart button.
    24. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're also AC because you didn't bother putting your name in the post.

    25. Re:in that case by interiot · · Score: 1
      "right wing" = attempt at humor. It almost seems like it's a spammish undertaking by a group.

      If you really like Plan9, then put forth a little more effort to come up with a convincing argument instead of just stamping "Plan9 rules" everywhere. There are probably 50 floppy OS's and I'm sure every OS marketing department would want to call themselves a "Network OS". Little snippets like that don't help you* and they don't help the reader.

      (* unless you're just trying to spam)

    26. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Unlike Windows, Linux actually /tries/ to prevent itself from becoming bloatware...

      Mod Parent +5 Funny

    27. Re:in that case by Happy+Monkey · · Score: 1

      It is the exception to itself that makes it universally true.

      --
      __
      Do ya feel happy-go-lucky, punk?
    28. Re:in that case by DrSkwid · · Score: 1

      au contraire

      I have had many positive responses

      Very few posts are of the 'plan9 r00lz' variety, though I must admit the ones you posted weren't very indepth.

      I usually post a link to a man page or utility.

      I'm not a marketing dept. and there is an element of trolling/spamming involved - brand awareness and all that.

      --
      There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
    29. Re:in that case by blake8087 · · Score: 0

      lol

      --

      --Slashdot readers delight in generalizing the behavior of other Slashdot readers.
    30. Re:in that case by necro2607 · · Score: 1

      This whole thread is off-topic, so why is it all modded +5 Funny?

    31. Re:in that case by StuckInSyrup · · Score: 1

      and anyone who reads something where is "lol" written, is a miserable failure.

      --
      Ni.
    32. Re:in that case by F2F · · Score: 1

      simple: those who like Plan 9 like it a lot.

      go through my comment history -- it's all there.

    33. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You guys need a girlfriend

    34. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you aware, that there may be no ultimate truth?

    35. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Huh? I don't really see why not. If someone wrote a program that was only 96k and linked to SDL, glib, etc. you could say exactly the same thing. And you would be correct. You can keep binary size down be dynamically linking to libraries that you can expect your users to have on their computers. Pointing this out is not being disparaging towards the libraries in question. You are being defensive. Lighten up.

    36. Re:in that case by Luigi30 · · Score: 1

      Does Doom count as a kick-ass FPS you can play on your pile of 486s?

      --
      503 Sig Unavailable

      The Signature could not be accessed. Please try again later or contact the administrator
    37. Re:in that case by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      One each, that is

  23. Anyone remember omniscent? by teejie · · Score: 5, Informative

    Omniscent, is the first level of Descent (you remember, the first 360degrees shooter) in 4kb (4096 bytes) with music and textures. Non-playable, but still really cool. It was released in 1997.

    1. Re:Anyone remember omniscent? by blair1q · · Score: 3, Funny

      >Descent (you remember, the first 360degrees shooter)

      Actually, it was the first 4*PI steradian shooter.

    2. Re:Anyone remember omniscent? by andr0meda · · Score: 1


      Nice to see some demo interest again on /. There are more of these perls, for example Keen Like Frog's 4K (!) implementation of the game Magic Carpet by Bullfrog. Unfortunately, right now I can't provide a link to the production because most of pouet.net is down since scene.org had some HD trouble a few days ago, but things should become available pretty soon again.

      --
      With great power comes great electricity bills.
    3. Re:Anyone remember omniscent? by blair1q · · Score: 1

      >>Descent (you remember, the first 360degrees shooter)

      >Actually, it was the first 4*PI steradian shooter.

      Actually, it was probably the hundredth, if you count all the space- and flight-combat sims...

      So it was the first 4*PI steradian FPS constrained to a fractally linear environment (a tunnel).

      Which, when you think about it, is kind of a ripoff...

      But not really, because the ability to do a vertical circle strafe totally kicks ass.

      When I take over the galaxy, all my fighters will have 6-DOF thrusters and Logitech Cyberman II puck controllers.

  24. err, great. I think. by iainl · · Score: 2, Insightful

    So they've optimized it down so amazingly well the zip fits in 96kb, but the thing still needs half a Gb of memory to run? Interesting.

    Personally, I'd rather go for a 512Mb package that runs on a 96kb box, but I'm odd like that.

    --
    "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    1. Re:err, great. I think. by DR+SoB · · Score: 1

      No problem, just take all your RAM chips out, install a 32Meg card, and set ur virtual to 512Megs, ta-da, your now running from hard drive instead of RAM, enjoy!

      --
      Mod +5 Drunk
  25. Great Compression by DrugCheese · · Score: 3, Interesting

    I remember a friend of mine showing me the winner of this compression contest, it was like an 24kb download and it was 12 minutes of good music and graphics scrolling around the screen. Blew my mind.

    Anyone know what I'm talking about? Cause I've searched and can't find it anymore.

    --
    *DrugCheese rants*
    1. Re:Great Compression by faxe · · Score: 1

      you are talking about demos and intros from the demoscene. find any info you want by following this link.

      --
      fx! kicking and screaming
    2. Re:Great Compression by scovetta · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think I know the one you're talking about-- didn't some warez group put that in their distros along with the "This file came from XYZ BBS" .txt files?

      --
      Wer mit Ungeheuern kämpft, mag zusehn, dass er nicht dabei zum Ungeheuer wird. --Nietzsche
  26. while I am impressed at the code size... by garcia · · Score: 1

    I am very impressed with the code size, the screenshots, and the possibility that this might actually be real. My problem is that when I try to open it I get, pno0001.exe has generated errors and will be closed by Windows. You will need to restart the program. An error log is being created.

    Reminds me of that fake emulator that was released, and hyped here, a couple years back.

    I am pretty certain that this window would be about 96k of code ;)

    1. Re:while I am impressed at the code size... by angusr · · Score: 2, Insightful
      It certainly does work on my system (XP Pro SP2(RC1),AMD Athlon64 3000+, NVidia 5200, 1GB memory) although the frame rates are less than impressive. So if it's faking it, it's not doing it by not working...

      (And yes, being a suspicious puppy, I did look at the network traffic while it was starting up just in case it was downloading on the fly...)

      But 64K? Pah! There were more fun games in 16K - I mean, who can forget 3D Monster Maze and JetPac?

    2. Re:while I am impressed at the code size... by grumbel · · Score: 1

      Its not a fake, its just that they had just something like half a day to finally test it (had to get it done in time for a demo-party), so it won't work on all computers and nicer will run with all kinds of graphic cards.

    3. Re:while I am impressed at the code size... by Tiersten · · Score: 1

      Works fine and with a reasonable refresh rate on my P4 3.2GHz, Radeon 9800Pro and 1GB memory on XP SP1. Takes a while to load though.

    4. Re:while I am impressed at the code size... by iainl · · Score: 1

      The game is going crazy with the shaders from what I understand, so the poor grandparent with his GeForce 5200 is bound to be struggling more than your Radeon. Personally, I've only got a GeForce 2, though, so I can't even load the thing.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
    5. Re:while I am impressed at the code size... by angusr · · Score: 1
      so the poor grandparent with his GeForce 5200 is bound to be struggling Grandparent! Heesh, I'm not even 34 yet...

      Young whippersnappers. When I were a lad we had 8" floppies, thermal printers with capacitors the size of soup cans and 64x64 graphical resolution - if we were lucky.

      Yes, the 5200 is a relatively old card now but it was cheap and has two DVI outputs. Plays Unreal Tournament 2004 at smooth framerates, and what else does one need?

    6. Re:while I am impressed at the code size... by iainl · · Score: 1

      Like I said, even the 5200 is a shiny new fast ninja card in comparison to my aged thing. Its just that its known for having slow pixel shaders. Since UT2k4 cares more about geometry its just fine and dandy for that. I'd happily swap my card for one, if anyone were dumb enough to do so.

      --
      "I Know You Are But What Am I?"
  27. Hello...What's this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    YES! They finally released.... Duke Nukem Forever!
    *jumps for joy*
    *looks again*
    Oh shit. Wrong program. Damn you, 3d Realms!

  28. Other 64Ko 3D demos by wolruf · · Score: 4, Informative

    here: http://sebaplus.free.fr/prog3d/demoscene.html
    Thi s one is especially impressive: http://sebaplus.free.fr/prog3d/fr08v101.exe

    --
    wolruf@gmail.com
    1. Re:Other 64Ko 3D demos by De+Lemming · · Score: 1

      Lots of demo's can be found on ftp.edome.net. Scene.org also has an archive, but they seem to have disk problems at the moment.

      My absolute favourite is Zoom 3 - Trance Generation by AND & Cybermag. They were the winners of the 64k compo at Assembly 2003 (with almost tree times the votes of the 2nd place). Beautiful graphic effects (thanx to pixel and vertex shaders for making this possible), stunning music and yes, that's full speech!

    2. Re:Other 64Ko 3D demos by lonesometrainer · · Score: 1

      I guess they're using the narrator .dll from windows, sounds very comparable. Test it, "Start -> Run -> narrator".

    3. Re:Other 64Ko 3D demos by MBraynard · · Score: 1

      thanks for sharing that; absolutly fascinating.

  29. Torrent anyone? by SealTit · · Score: 4, Funny

    Can someone post a link to a torrent?

    It's taking forever to download . . .

  30. why is this impressive? by dioscaido · · Score: 1

    So they've kept the game's source ~100k compiled? That's still a *lot* of source.

    They use DirectX, so a lot of the complexity in graphics processing (and hence file size) is external to the executable.

    They still definitely need to set up the worlds, and keep track of all the data, AI, collision, etc..., but that can easily be done in under 50k lines, especially for a demo with a few stages at most.

    1. Re:why is this impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Looks like someone needs to click the link. It is a 96k binary.

    2. Re:why is this impressive? by baadfood · · Score: 1

      Huh - I dont understand how DirectX is considered "cheating". I mean, its not like anyone has accused the other demos of omitting the motherboard & harddisk drivers required to load the thing off disk and interface with the rest of the hardware in the system. DirectX is part of the OS and im pretty sure most demo competition rules do not begrudge demo's using the OS to interface with the PC.

    3. Re:why is this impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Since you know so much about it, why don't you denigrate them by competing instead of bitching like the ineffectual little friendless faggy geekbitch that you are?

      Oh, that's right, you can't compete on merit. Continue on...

      And by the way - the 96k also includes everything. The whole damn game. Fuckass.

    4. Re:why is this impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why dont you show us your game then?

    5. Re:why is this impressive? by dioscaido · · Score: 1

      > And by the way - the 96k also includes everything. The whole damn game. Fuckass

      Really?! They've included DirectX in those 96k?! Wow, awesome.

      You obviously have no idea what you are talking about.

      * Setting up a character's vertex definition, and procedural texture, is at most a few hundred lines of code.

      * Collision detection between two geometric objects is also at most a couple of hundred lines.

      * AI can be quite extensive, but I haven't played the game (it seems like no one on this thread can) so I can't vouch for how smart the characters are.

      * Programmed well, the character defs and world definitions reside outside the code to render them. They can be extensive, but not a million lines. And the code to render them does at most a bunch of set-up, then calls DirectX to do the hard work.

      The game's screenshots look great, but the 100k aspect shouldn't be what makes it 'cool'. It just shows the poster has a lack of knowledge of how these things work.

    6. Re:why is this impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The lack of knowledge you ascribe to me can be traced to the fact that I don't consider a system library to be a part of the game. I think you are wrong, and you have no idea what you are talking about. Or perhaps, since they are likely not statically linked to the OS runtimes, they should also be added? And of course, it probably takes a small additional amount of space in the filesystem, so we should count that overhead. And you know what, you STILL don't have the skill to do it. Fuckass.

      Although perhaps to back up your points you can show me a link to some other games that fit in with these "easy" specifications. Perhaps even one you, in your infinite skill, wrote.

    7. Re:why is this impressive? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Maybe I'm wrong but it wasn't 100,000 lines of code, but it is 100k of code. I believe each character takes what a byte. So 100k of code is what 102400 characters.

      Lets say each line has 25 characters that quickly drops the number of lines down to 4096 lines total.

      Maybe it would be more impressive to you if they said it was under 5000 lines of code?

      It seems to me, since you keep referencing line counts, that you were thinking 100K lines of code.

  31. Re:zipped doesn't count for size by br0ck · · Score: 5, Informative

    Informative?? It unzips to exactly 96k.

  32. riiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has crashed for every person that I know that has tried to run it. Look out it's a trojan! hahahahah.

    1. Re:riiight by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Moderate this one up... I'm running Windows XP - every time I try and run it, I get:

      The instruction at 0x00000000 referenced memory at 0x00000000". The memory could not be "read".

  33. size belies necessary hardware by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This thing is a feat of programming, but its small size belies that fact that it requires a mammoth rig. Procedural textures? Great if you want to needlessly minimize your software so it will fit on exactly the kinds of devices that won't be able to run it.

  34. the product: 64k by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    http://theproduct.de/ was the first thing I thought of when reading this article. It was a demo in 64 that otherwise is as you described.

    1. Re:the product: 64k by networkz · · Score: 1

      yup, thats the one!

  35. the.produkkt. by faxe · · Score: 3, Informative

    these guys are actually a part of the demoscene. They have done quite a lot of spectacular demos and intros. They can be found here. This was a release from the 96k game competition of this years breakpoint demoparty held last weekend in Bingen, Germany.

    --
    fx! kicking and screaming
    1. Re:the.produkkt. by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

      I knew I'd heard the name before..yeah... http://www.theproduct.de/ that's where.

      I just looked through my archive, and I wrote about it on the 30th October 2001! That was nearly three years ago :o/ Mein gott I feel old.
      Anyway, those guys are simply amaaazing.

  36. It crashes by gonvaled · · Score: 3, Informative

    The instruction at "0x00000000" referenced memory at "0x00000000". The memory could not be "read".

    In Windows 2000 Profesional

    1. Re:It crashes by Zerbey · · Score: 1

      Crashes in XP Professional (SP2-RC1) as well.

    2. Re:It crashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I couldn't get it to work either. Win XP

      "pno0001.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience."

    3. Re:It crashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As a guess (since I don't know what CPU you use)and based on what was the cause the last time I saw that error message, perhaps it requires features your CPU doesn't have?

      (For me it was an OpenGL wrapper using SSE instructions which my pre-XP Athlon doesn't support)

    4. Re:It crashes by freeweed · · Score: 1

      Works just fine on my 2k Pro box. Odd, because what little I know of Windows error messages leads me to believe you got a null pointer dereference, which should occur for both of us regardless... right? :)

      --
      Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
    5. Re:It crashes by Malc · · Score: 1

      Maybe they tried to instantiate a COM object and didn't check the HRESULT for failure (e.g. missing runtime library dependency). The first call on that interface will be on an uninitialised pointer.

      Really, it could be anything...

    6. Re:It crashes by FuzzyBad-Mofo · · Score: 1

      I wonder why MS puts the word "read" in quotes like that. I mean, it's not like reading memory is a new or strange concept, like Dr. Evil's "giant laser" or something.

    7. Re:It crashes by slapout · · Score: 1

      I think you have to have the hardware they ask for. I tried it on a 1.4 GHz Athlon XP 1600 with 256 MB and an ATI All in wonder 7500 and I got the same error. (This was running Windows XP Home)

      I tried it on an 1.8 GHz Athlon XP 2500 with 512 MB and an ATI 9600 and it worked fine.

      --
      Coder's Stone: The programming language quick ref for iPad
    8. Re:It crashes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm having a crashing issue different from all of these. On my WinXP machine, the program starts up, shows its loading bar, and about an inch into loading, the program quits without an error. Any insight?

      --
      M

  37. Not as impressive as you think... by __aazuyo6398 · · Score: 4, Informative

    Ok, I'm not saying this isn't impressive, but since it's using everything included in DX8.0, it's not really fair to say it's that small. I mean, look at it another way...If you built a mod for UT2K4 that was 150k would you be jumping up and down? No, because it requires > 1GB worth of stuff to be downloaded first. In the end though, that's still some pretty tight programming

    1. Re:Not as impressive as you think... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      "because it requires > 1GB worth of stuff to be downloaded first." (about UT2004)

      Or you could buy the game, I did and I haven't regretted it for 1 second.

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    2. Re:Not as impressive as you think... by __aazuyo6398 · · Score: 1

      Kill, I was generalizing. I have in fact bought the game...as I did 2k3...and UT...and Unreal 2.

    3. Re:Not as impressive as you think... by Linwood · · Score: 0

      Dx comes with windows, since like nt4 (abiet an older version) but since it uses DX it uses Windows, which is like a GIG. so this game is huge it needs over a GIG to play, awsome post tho. glad you wasted your time.

    4. Re:Not as impressive as you think... by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

      Me too, and I bought the same, except for Unreal 2, in my opinion, that one wasn't that good (except for the best boobies in a mainstream game I have seen sofar, she beats Lara Croft hands down)

      --
      This is the sig that says NI (again)
    5. Re:Not as impressive as you think... by mrjackson2000 · · Score: 1

      "No, because it requires > 1GB worth of stuff to be downloaded first" try 5.5GB awesome game though, well worth it

    6. Re:Not as impressive as you think... by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      I'm not sure if NT 4 can ever be counted as having DirectX, it came with some DirectX 3 stuff, but I'm not sure if it was a complete implementation, but even if it was it was pretty useless for games, especially as it wasn't updated alongside the 9x implementation. I think a few components like DirectShow did get upgraded, because they were required for serious things.

      AFAIK Windows 98 was the first retail release with bundled DirectX (v5), although the OSR releases of Win95 might've added DirectX before then, and Windows 2000 was the first useful NT release, with DX7.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    7. Re:Not as impressive as you think... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Are you brutally retarded or just mindlessly bitter?

      I'm not quite sure what you think DirectX is - it's a system library for sound and video output. It's no different from using, say, OpenGL or OpenAL libraries. And you're already going to have DirectX 9 if you install Windows (and run Windows Update to get the latest version). DX is considered part of the system.

      Comparisions with a 150k Unreal mod are pointless - the 96k here is for the entire game - absolutely everything, including code and all assets.

  38. Proof that real programmers do still exists by Jason+Straight · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I thought we were all nearly extinct from the Visual Armageddon!

  39. 100KB, please by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This game is dynamically linked to DirectX, which is a large program library. 3D Winamp visualizations are also small, because they don't have much rendering code in them either, but they're also not optimized very well (like a *real* engine such as Quake 3 or UT2004). Just because *your* "hello, world" is statically linked to the C++ library and mine isn't, doesn't make mine better because it's smaller.

    And procedural textures? The demo scene guys have been doing this for ages.

    This has left me underwhelmed.

    1. Re:100KB, please by BenV666 · · Score: 1
      The demo scene guys have been doing this for ages.
      This game was actually released at a demo party - Breakpoint 2004.
    2. Re:100KB, please by faxe · · Score: 5, Informative

      this guys ARE demo scene guys, also known as Farbrausch.

      --
      fx! kicking and screaming
    3. Re:100KB, please by mopslik · · Score: 1

      Just because *your* "hello, world" is statically linked to the C++ library and mine isn't, doesn't make mine better because it's smaller.

      But on a slow internet connection, I'd rather download the smaller file if I already have the C++ library installed, which is pretty much analogous to the whole DirectX/Windows bundle. So I'd say it *is* better in this regard.

    4. Re:100KB, please by willdenniss · · Score: 1

      Similarly for a Java application or just about every Linux program. Common libs like DX are just assumed to already be installed and in most cases this is correct.

      I don't see anyone complaining that you need an OS to run it - caus that would blow the size out to over 600MB!

      Will.

    5. Re:100KB, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      "[it] doesn't make mine better because it's smaller."

      I have a feeling yours is very small, sir.

    6. Re:100KB, please by romerom · · Score: 1

      i doubt you'd ever have anything positive to say. in your eyes, your probably the smartest person in the world, moron.

      instead of complaining why dont you contribute something like these guys are actually doing.. sour puss.

      --
      http://www.awwsheezy.com
    7. Re:100KB, please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And procedural textures? The demo scene guys have been doing this for ages.

      This has left me underwhelmed.


      How is this repugnant shit modded up? Of course people have been doing this for years, as the readme mentioned, they took techniques used by others. And they aren't trying to take credit for it either. Why not use existing methods that are tried and tested? Only a dumbass would try to reinvent the wheel.

    8. Re:100KB, please by Repugnant_Shit · · Score: 1

      I'm not putting them down. I'm saying that it is not the news slashdot says it is. And I've contributed plenty in the past (to open source) and continue to do so, so go away.

  40. Re:zipped doesn't count for size by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    100K is the executable size....it's zipped but not compressed

  41. Re:zipped doesn't count for size by Walkiry · · Score: 5, Funny

    They have obviously gained with the zipping:

    Packed: 97,256
    Unpacked: 97,280

    It's quite obvious the original assertion is misleading since it's zipped and it's smaller!

    --
    ---- Take the Space Quiz!
  42. Intrigued... by thryllkill · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    I bookmarked your site, and will visit again some time. But please, in your next release, allow me to invert my mouse.

    --

    Note to self: No more arguing with the faithful.

  43. Real-time generated textures by PingKing · · Score: 5, Interesting

    According to the readme, the texture-maps are generated in real-time:

    We do .not. have some kind of magical data compression machine that is able to squeeze hundreds of megabytes of mesh/texture and sound data into 96k. We merely store the individual steps employed by the artists to produce their textures and meshes, in a very compact way. This allows us to get .much. higher data density than is achievable with normal data compression techniques, at some expense in artistic freedom and loading times.

    The problem with this, of course, is that it requires major computational power, and you're limited with the type of textures you can produce. It's probably a case of this program specifying 'bumpy metallic texture' or 'smooth stone texture' on the fly.
    I remember the old flight-sim 'Strike Commander' would generate the game's maps during installation based on fractals. It used take AGES... this program generates many more megabytes of graphics on the fly... very impressive.

    --

    Patriotism - the last resort of scoundrels.
    1. Re:Real-time generated textures by SensitiveMale · · Score: 1

      I remember the old flight-sim 'Strike Commander' would generate the game's maps during installation based on fractals. It used take AGES... this program generates many more megabytes of graphics on the fly.

      You think maybe it is because we are using Pentium 4s with $300 video cards than have more processing power than the CPUs that were used to run 'Strike Commander'?

    2. Re:Real-time generated textures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You think maybe that was his point?

    3. Re:Real-time generated textures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...and you're limited with the type of textures you can produce.

      I wouldn't actually call that a limit. Keep in mind that most of the textures used in Pixar's movies are procedural.

      And think about all of those times you see great realistic textures in games, and then the illusion is ruined because you step back and see the tiling.

    4. Re:Real-time generated textures by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      I remember the old flight-sim 'Strike Commander' would generate the game's maps during installation based on fractals. It used take AGES... this program generates many more megabytes of graphics on the fly... very impressive.
      Sounds like a great idea. Fewer disks = cheaper game and reduced chance of damaged media.
  44. Instant review by ites · · Score: 5, Funny

    1. Downloading... very fast, as you'd expect. 2. Installation... very simple, just unpacks to one readme file and one executable. 3. Documentation... brief, note that DirectX 9.0 is required (not 8.1 as mentioned in the story). 4. Running... brief: "Instruction at 0x000000000 referenced memory at 0x000000000". Conclusion: I can make the same functionality in an even smaller package.

    --
    Sig for sale or rent. One previous user. Inquire within.
    1. Re:Instant review by Eshock · · Score: 3, Informative

      I think they were referring to the fact that it requires a "directx 8 class" graphics card, ie one with a pixel shader.

    2. Re:Instant review by hattig · · Score: 1

      Worked fine for me. Quite impressive although I am sure that DirectX is doing most of the work, all they've created is a texture generator (a good one, the textures are pretty good), a map generator (maps aren't that inspiring or involved at the moment, but there are nice touches) and then a few baddies and weapons and a way to walk around the map firing the weapons at the baddies (with nice graphical effects for some of the ammo).

    3. Re:Instant review by robson · · Score: 3, Funny

      Quite impressive although I am sure that DirectX is doing most of the work, all they've created is a texture generator (a good one, the textures are pretty good), a map generator (maps aren't that inspiring or involved at the moment, but there are nice touches) and then a few baddies and weapons and a way to walk around the map firing the weapons at the baddies (with nice graphical effects for some of the ammo).

      Yeah, but the baddies were just procedurally generated with the DirectEnemies module, and the whole thing uses the built-in functionality of DirectAI.

  45. wOw by PortHaven · · Score: 1

    I'm impressed!

    I know someone said hard drive is cheap...so no big deal. But bandwidth ain't...

    If any of this tech can be incorporated for compressing video and interactive displays we could bring such things as videos or games on demand much more quickly.

    The issue isn't storage space for watching a movie. A PVR/TiVo has the room. The issue is download wait. If you can cut that download down by a 1/10th the size, + the 10 times increase in bandwidth over the next 5-10 yrs. You will have a 100 fold performance increase. More than enough to make DOD (Download On Demand) feasible!

  46. before you post.... by theguywhosaid · · Score: 1

    step one) download the file
    step two) extract the junk
    step three) look at the extracted file size

    my computers too crappy to run the exe, but a quick check says the executable really is ~96k.
    _maybe_ that extracts into another one, but i think its my lack of dx9 that caused a crash instantly.

  47. Zip counts for size if its binary by werelord · · Score: 1

    Have you ever tried to zip a binary file?? Ratio of the compression is less than 1%; in the case of kkrieger:

    Compressed: 97256 bytes
    Uncompressed: 97280 bytes

    24 bytes were compressed, which makes the compression ratio 0.0246% percent of the original... And then add the readme file, which is 5k..

    1. Re:Zip counts for size if its binary by 91degrees · · Score: 1

      Usually they compress quite well (certainly better than 0.02%). There are a lot of repeated instructions. Apps typically only use a handful of the available instructions most of the time.

  48. Procedural textures by raygundan · · Score: 4, Informative

    I don't know what generation procedures they used, but "the textures are procedural" means that there are no graphics files in there, and that an algorithm creates the textures at runtime. As a simple example, you could write an algorithm that made a checkerboard image in only a few lines of code. That code takes up only a handful of bytes, whereas the texture graphic itself would take up hundreds of kilobytes, even compressed. You could also look at it as the difference between an equation, and a graph of the equation.

    I'm curious to know if the maps are procedural, too.

    1. Re:Procedural textures by ichandarin · · Score: 1
      That code takes up only a handful of bytes, whereas the texture graphic itself would take up hundreds of kilobytes, even compressed.

      Not to belabor a point here, but an algorithm that generates a texture is a compressed form of the texture -- a compressed version of your checkerboard might be, quite simply, your algorithm. In a sense, a (losslessly) compressed file is just an algorithm that creates that file. I think.

      --
      Denn wir sind wie Baumstaemme im Schnee. Scheinbar liegen sei glatt auf, mit kleinem anstoss sollte man sie wegschieben
    2. Re:Procedural textures by HokieJP · · Score: 1

      Well, you're close. I can .zip a file but, without the program to unzip it, I can't recreate its contents. Now, if you create a self-extracting executable, then you can call it an algorithm that creates the file.

      Also, you are using a very generalized definition of 'compression'. As a mathematical argument, I think its great. Most people here however are probably thinking of programming land, where protected mode processors enforce strict separation between 'code' and 'data'.

  49. Re:zipped doesn't count for size by AndyElf · · Score: 1

    Yeah, code is, probably, a lot more than 100K, but an executable itself is way under 100K, and that is *after* you unzip an archive:

    $ unzip -l /tmp/dnloads/kkrieger-beta.zip
    Archive: /tmp/dnloads/kkrieger-beta.zip
    Length Date Time Name
    97280 04-11-04 23:45 pno0001.exe
    5504 04-11-04 21:20 readme.txt
    102784 2 files

    --

    --AP
  50. That's nothing... by 192939495969798999 · · Score: 0

    I used to work at a tattoo shop, and a girl came in and wanted the source to Wolfenstein 3d tattoo'ed on her arm...

    If you think that's something,you should see her compiler!
    ha ha.

    --
    stuff |
  51. benchmarks by WormholeFiend · · Score: 1

    so what kind of frames per second can I get with the Nvidia GeForce 6800 Ultra and this game?

  52. Re:Who cares.. by Killjoy_NL · · Score: 1

    We're not all linux users here man, chill.

    --
    This is the sig that says NI (again)
  53. I did something similar by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Only all my levels consisted of solely untextured empty boxes. And there was no HUD.

  54. Bleh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Just played it through, awsome amount of architecture and content they've fitted into such a small face. However, I'm getting screwed up shadows, despite meeting the requirements (1.4ghz athlon, 512 ram, gf4 ti4600) :/

  55. In case they go down... by Steamhead · · Score: 1, Informative

    Mirror... http://catsdorule.torpedobird.com/slash/

  56. Re:Who cares.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yeah NS. I've never used linux in my life. Just because it's "geek news" doesn't mean it has to be fricking Linux every bloody article....

  57. Mirrors by dbloodnok · · Score: 5, Informative

    Trust slashdot to kill a website hosting a 96k file.

    try here and here or for a complete list here

    Farb-Rausch do some nice demos... worth checking out.

  58. Wait... by MrNonchalant · · Score: 1

    If it's 96kb how come it's taking so long to download...

  59. Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    What the hell is it with the tradition of dark foreboding metal enhanced settings?

    I want a FPS game set in a sunlit mountain meadow with birds & butterflies flitting about.

    So I can see the blood....

    TDz.

    1. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You might be interested in Serious Sam. Not only an impressive engine, but many of the maps are vast, lush, beautiful outdoor environments.

      Or, you could actually GO outside. You know.

    2. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by aliens · · Score: 4, Informative

      The answer to that would be FarCry.

      It'll make your box beg for mercy though.

      --
      -- taking over the world, we are.
    3. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Diziet+Asahi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Play FarCry then But dont complain if you get shot while admiring the view

    4. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Milo+Fungus · · Score: 2, Informative

      Have you tried Jump N' Bump? It's not 3D or anything, but it sure is a lot of fun. And it matches your description perfectly.

    5. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Stele · · Score: 1

      Try Far Cry.

      Lush foliage instead of meadows, but you can see plenty of blood. Yours, at several points.

    6. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      as the bishop said to the actress

    7. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by tehcyder · · Score: 3, Funny
      with birds & butterflies flitting about
      and sheep...but maybe that's another genre...

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    8. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MARES! with mares!!!

    9. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I am totally with you about the darkness thing. (Forget the butterflies, though.) I'm not a big FPS gamer (mainly because I didn't want to shell out the money for the top-of-the-line video cards they need, and I don't have a lot of time to get good enough at them to play online.) I recently downloaded and played the demo of Half Life to see how it was since I heard so much about it. I could barely play it on a Saturday afternoon because even with the brightness settings in the game turned all the way up, the stinkin' hallways were still too dark to see very well in. I could play pretty well at night because there is dim stuff there to be seen if you are playing in the dark. I haven't played a lot of other ones, but Doom and Descent were decently lit. Is this an on going trend of games getting darker and darker? Pretty soon, every video card is going to have to be sold with a pair of night vision goggles to actually be able to see the games you play.

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    10. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by rpillala · · Score: 3, Informative

      Get Serious Sam. Also, read the interview at Old Man Murray: http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/73.html

      Ravi
      --
      When the axe came to the forest, the trees said, "Look out - the handle was once one of us."
    11. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Phekko · · Score: 1

      That SOOO reminds me of "Beavis & Butt-Head discover a new species of butterfly... and pull it's wings off"

      to answer your question, though, it's simple. No-one will take a FPS game seriously unless it's got lots of metal, dark foreboding and a plot that begins with "xyzzy has taken over the world..." or something very similar. Try selling a FPS with a plot like "lovely butterflies are flittering about peacefully and you with your butterfly collection kit must collect as many different samples as you can without disturbing the ecosystem seriously"

      --

      Sigs for Nerds. Sigs that Matter.
    12. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by jackbird · · Score: 1

      Not an FPS, but try Loop, a brilliant and extremely difficult game from gamelab (creators of Blix and Sissyfight2000, among others). The whole game is ABOUT catching butterflies.

    13. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by retro128 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I'm with you there. Well not necessarily regarding the butterflies and Bambi prancing happily though the meadow, but I'm talking about open environments. There is very, very, very little of that in games for some reason. Everyone still has Doom syndrome where they make you run though a maze for the entire game.

      It's probably why I liked Beyond Good & Evil and Giants so much.

      --
      -R
    14. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For anyone without maxed hardware i'd recommend Chrome [http://chromethegame.com/]
      playable. very.

    15. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by green_crocadilian · · Score: 1

      Ever head of S.T.A.L.K.E.R. by GSC? Granted, the sunlit meadow will be radioactive enough to kill you in 5 minutes, and the birds 'n butterflies are all weird mutants... (game is set around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant)

    16. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by xTown · · Score: 1

      Deer Hunter :)

    17. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    18. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by weiyuent · · Score: 1

      What the hell is it with the tradition of dark foreboding metal enhanced settings?

      For the same reason that the lights are dimmed in "romantic" settings: to let imagined perfection fill the shadows where flawed reality hides. Despite all its advances, current graphics technology still does a poor job of mimicking the real world.

    19. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      I recently downloaded and played the demo of Half Life to see how it was since I heard so much about it. I could barely play it on a Saturday afternoon because even with the brightness settings in the game turned all the way up, the stinkin' hallways were still too dark to see very well in. I could play pretty well at night because there is dim stuff there to be seen if you are playing in the dark.

      You're carrying a flashlight in that game.

      Check the batteries.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    20. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by silicon+not+in+the+v · · Score: 1

      I know; I've used the flashlight in the rooms that are pitch black. What I'm talking about is that almost every hallway is just dimly lit to give this scary type of feeling. They are playable at night when the room is dark, but not if there's some sunlight coming in. Even the flashlight doesn't do anything then because it doesn't light it up more than those hanging bulbs in the game hallways do.

      When I was typing my original post, I thought of mentioning that I'm not talking about "Just turn on your flashlight.", but I hoped people would know what I was talking about. I guess too many people play at night and don't even think about it.

      --
      We may experience some slight turbulence and then...explode. -Capt. Mal Reynolds
    21. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      When I was typing my original post, I thought of mentioning that I'm not talking about "Just turn on your flashlight.", but I hoped people would know what I was talking about. I guess too many people play at night and don't even think about it.

      I was just kidding. The truth is, the games aren't getting darker and darker, you're going blind!

      No, it's really your video card (or drivers) that's the problem. Quake based games have always had several settings to account for things like that.

      Look at sites that have screenshots of Half-Life and notice that although there are shadows, it's not really that dark considering the fact that you are underground and the power is failing all over the place.

      Google for 'half-life gamma tweak' if you want to fix your problem. I had to mess around with settings with an old video card that showed everything so bright the textures were washed out.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    22. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      I'm with you there. Well not necessarily regarding the butterflies and Bambi prancing happily though the meadow, but I'm talking about open environments. There is very, very, very little of that in games for some reason. Everyone still has Doom syndrome where they make you run though a maze for the entire game.

      It's probably why I liked Beyond Good & Evil and Giants so much.

      The reason they aren't very open is because the load on the graphics card and processor are dramatically raised when you enlarge an area. (I used to design Quake maps for fun)

      For example, take a 10'x10'x10' room with stuff in it and double the size. It's not really double to your video card. Instead of 1000 cubic feet, it's 8000 cubic feet! It isn't 8 times the load, but it is a significant difference.

      The only way around that problem is to a) lower the detail and put in some flashy effects or fogging so people won't notice, or b) design smaller areas with lots of turns and corners so that the rendering engine can think 'hey, that's around the corner, I don't have to bother with that yet'. That's why lots of games are played in mazes and canyons.

      Giants went with option A and was still very tough on video cards. Speaking of which, we play Giants on the lan here sometimes. It's a very replayable game.

      The same guys that did Giants just came out with Armed & Dangerous. It's even more funny and entertaining than Giants.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    23. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by renoX · · Score: 1

      IGI: I'm Going In is a FPS which plays outside which feels more free.

      All and all a good FPS even if I couldn't finish it because of a 'too hard' level..

    24. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by retro128 · · Score: 1

      No lie. Giants kicks ass. It's one of my favorite games of all time. Thanks for the heads up on Armed & Dangerous, I will definitely check that out.

      I don't disagree that open environments are hard on video cards, but they've been done quite effectively on the games I have already mentioned, and a few I forgot - Tribes, Uru and BF1942. Back in the Quake days, yeah, I can see why open environments would be impossible - but today I think most respectable gamers have the video power to hack nice open environments.

      I think what's been happening is that developers are sticking to closer surroundings so they can throw in more detailed geometry and take advantage of the T&L effects that video cards offer today. And I suppose closed areas are good for building suspense and "guiding" a player to an objective. But still, as the games I have pointed out prove, it's possible to make a great game (well, except maybe in the case of Uru) incoporating open environments that run well. I just wish more developers would make them.

      --
      -R
    25. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by adug · · Score: 1

      This is a really good point. Wish I had mod points for you today. Cheers!

    26. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Deliveranc3 · · Score: 1

      Um it's boring when you can see enemies comming a mile away and they just run straight at you.

      The only alternative is something like Ghost Recon but that one game kind of does it to death. Though very well.

    27. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I want a FPS game set in a sunlit mountain meadow with birds & butterflies flitting about.

      Would you also like a pony? I know you mean well, but try building a 1st person shooter before you complain about them. The reason most are set indoors is because of the view complexity.

      With indoor environments, culling the scene (and limiting what parts of the world are drawn) is a relatively easy problem. The current room is visible - and possibly an adjacent one if the door is open. The amount of stuff on screen is relatively finite and confined to a couple of rooms next to each other.

      But with outdoor environments - the amount of stuff on screen quickly becomes a problem. In order for anything to look decent close-up, it must be built with a high level of detail. But if you render the entire visible world (including stuff on the horizon) at this high level of detail - you will quickly swamp the graphics card and bring the game's performance to a grinding halt.

      So the big problem with outdoor environments is the level of detail. Drawing close stuff intricately - drawing far stuff roughly (if at all). And the smooth transition from high to low detail is a relatively difficult problem to solve - on both the art and the code front. Plus outdoors you tend to have plants, trees, rivers, lakes, hills, mountains - all relatively difficult to make these look good compared to an indoor scene.

    28. Re:Why are they all set in dark machine rooms? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You get better framerates with dark indoor settings. Try any of the various UT2004 benchmarks. Rankin gets a good score; Torlan, less because it is set outdoors with fog, etc.

  60. Re:Who cares.. by Linwood · · Score: 0

    news for NERDS Stuff that matters, where does it say linux bs only? correct me if i'm wrong, but I dont think so.. heck, you should post this everytime they talk about a book, OSX, BSD. everything. please waste more bandwidth and braincells.. hopefully both of yours will runout before the rest of ours

  61. You're right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll
    You are making it up. In fact, you're bullshitting. SDL is the primary toolkit used by linux game creators.

    You obviously have no knowledge of anything linux. Nice troll.

    1. Re:You're right... by misleb · · Score: 4, Informative

      Using SDL may be "absurd" if you want to write a Windows-only game, but it isn't absurd if you want to make it crossplatform. Whether you will admit it or not, SDL/OpenGL is a standard that many (good and fast) Linux games have been based on.

      --
      "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
    2. Re:You're right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dude, you don't even know what glut is. SDL is far superior to glut.

    3. Re:You're right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      SDL/OpenGL is a standard that many (good and fast) Linux games have been based on.

      Name ten.

    4. Re:You're right... by simcop2387 · · Score: 0

      UT
      UT2k3
      UT2k4
      Quake3
      Doom3 (not out yet, but it will be)
      Tribes 2
      Alpha Centauri
      Decent 3
      Heavy Gear 2
      Heretic 2
      Northland (in beta right now)

      hows that?

    5. Re:You're right... by Qzukk · · Score: 2, Informative

      noiz2sa - SDL
      Aleph One - SDL/OpenGL
      BZ Flag - OpenGL
      Egoboo - SDL/OpenGL
      PoopemUp - SDL/OpenGL
      Neverwinter Nights - SDL/OpenGL
      Not to mention all the Loki titles that used SDL (heck, didn't they develop it in the first place?): Myth, Rune, Civ3,Sim City 3000, Tribes 2, Alpha Centauri, and so on
      Don't forget the billion or so Doom/Quake/Wolfenstein 3D ports/spinoffs.

      --
      If I have been able to see further than others, it is because I bought a pair of binoculars.
    6. Re:You're right... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      MAN, you're so busted....

    7. Re:You're right... by Zangief · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Using SDL would still make sense if you are developing a windows-only game. The simplified API would lower your costs, both in time and money. Although you give up a little power in exchange for that, so it may only make sense if you are a indie developer.

  62. Sweet by t_allardyce · · Score: 1

    1.6Ghz Athlon, 512MB RAM, ATI 9200SE (128MB) 1024x768 - looks great! runs about 2fps :\

    --
    This comment does not represent the views or opinions of the user.
    1. Re:Sweet by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      same here:
      XP 1900+
      512 RAM
      ati9100

      veeeeery slow, can understand why :/

  63. Game Requirements by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So the game requires a PC with:

    1.4 GHz Processor
    512 MB Ram
    96 kb HD Space

    Well at least my computer meets one of those requirements!

    1. Re:Game Requirements by razmaspaz · · Score: 1

      Where did you get a 1.4 Ghz processor for an apple IIe?

      --
      I tried for 5 years to come up with a clever sig...only to realize that I am not clever.
  64. Elite..? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    Are you serious?!

    Discover Elite now!! Check out this page, maintained by one of the original creators Ian Bell and this Elite resource

  65. 4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by K. · · Score: 3, Funny

    10
    01

    You may have to scale and tile it a bit.

    --
    -- Proud descendant of semi-nomadic cattle-herders.
    1. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by torpor · · Score: 1

      incomplete. what color is '1' and what color is '0'?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    2. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What makes you think it's palettized representation?

    3. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by torpor · · Score: 1

      this story is about algorithmic composition of a fairly vivid set of features, one of which is color.

      a '4-bit' representation of checkerboard requires at least -some- notion that 0=color A and 1=color B. is that notion to be encoded in a '4-bit representation of a checkerboard' or is it to be detailed in the 'checkerboard representation algorithm'?

      per the grandparent, which was an attempt to stuff the entire dataset into 4 bits in lieu of small code-size, it would be appropriate to also include colour coding information in the bitmap implementation. either that, or admit defeat that small-bitmap size does not necessarily mean smaller distribution size, since the '0=color A' decision, being determined by code or set by a colormap, nevertheless still influences the total binary size of the distribution...

      i'm not arguing for either case; obviously bitmap vs. algorithm is an implementation decision ... but it is interesting to note the complexities of such a process in light of an apparently 'simple' optimization into 4 bits.

      'palettized' or not, this is one smokin' FPS ...

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    4. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by HD+Webdev · · Score: 1

      incomplete. what color is '1' and what color is '0'?

      1 is 'all colors' and 0 is 'no colors'.

      --
      This is not a dream, not a dream...we are transmitting from the year 1-9-9-9.
    5. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by BirdTracker · · Score: 1
      This is even better:

      10

      Half the size and you just have to add a shift operation.

    6. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by rpj1288 · · Score: 0

      Better yet, a 2-bit version: 01 You may have to scale, tile, and rotate it.

      --
      Marvin knew: "Think of a number, any number..."
    7. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is even better:

      0

      One quarter of the size, and you just have to invert the bit to generate the next square.

    8. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by torpor · · Score: 1

      so, you have code somewhere that goes:

      "1 == all colors", draw this bit
      and some that goes:
      "0 == no colors", do not draw this bit

      is it better to put the asset in the program binary or the resource binary? what difference does it make?

      --
      ; -- the corruption of government starts with its secrets. a truly free people keep no secrets. --
    9. Re:4-bit representation of checkerboard texture by cehbab · · Score: 1

      err, its monochrome

  66. Does it piss off anyone else that... by mrwiggly · · Score: 1, Offtopic

    DirectX would be a perfect name for a graphics library for X windows?

    1. Re:Does it piss off anyone else that... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Beating the pundits to it...

      Nothing about X is direct!

      Nah, it's got too much meaning in the name.

      DirectX is more than just a graphic library, it does your kitchen sink too.

  67. Compiler? by sxltrex · · Score: 1

    I don't even know her!

    Thanks, I'm here all week.

  68. Wonder how big the VB/.Net version would be? by caluml · · Score: 2, Informative

    It reminds me of this guy who wrote a snake game for Linux that compiles to under 1500 bytes. It really does work.

  69. System requirements a bit annoying by DaLiNKz · · Score: 1

    You know, I used to get away with using a P233 until about two years ago.. now its like I need a 2.5GHz box anytime I touch something..

    AMD AthlonXP 2200+ 1.8GHz
    512MB DDR Memory
    GeforceFX 5200 Dual-out VGA

    Game runs laggy as shit. Looks nice though, amazing graphics, but laggy as shit.

    --
    I've left to find myself. If you happen to see me, please, keep me there until I return.
    1. Re:System requirements a bit annoying by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      You know the 5200 is the low end card, right?

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
    2. Re:System requirements a bit annoying by mabhatter654 · · Score: 1

      I managed on a 1GHz T Celeron, 512 ram, & radeon 9500pro...but it was only barely playable. I'll have to try it on the 3GHz at work with 1G of ram!!!

  70. Elegance by PhotoGuy · · Score: 2, Interesting
    Wow, flashback to when elegance in programming was far more common, and bloat was far less programming.

    I worry about newer generations of coders, never having known elegant, lean, efficient, and useful code, from the major bloat that comprises most software projects today.

    Items like this, are truly things of beauty, and only becoming more rare.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  71. I would like to try the opposite by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The author(s) are basically trading off processing power for hard drive memory space. I once had the idea of the opposite: a FPS with minimal processing power put huge memory requirement.

    Basically, the approach could be to pre-generate all possible game screen and show the right one to the player depending of his actions. So for example, I could generate a graphic file of the player looking in a particular direction, then another image with the same player but 1 pixel to the right of his previous position, etc. etc. In game time, I could then simply show the relevant graphic image to the player depending of his XYZ position and heading.

    Granted, such scheme present a lot of problems, especially when you take account player "shots", or ennemies. Also, this would probably be very IO/memory intensive. But the actual "game code" would be greatly simplified.

  72. 6502 with Switches by BuildMonkey · · Score: 1

    I used one of those too, only it was in a computer class at a summer camp. Output was one row, 8 "digits". I was about 12, and the instructor put a lot of numbers on the board for us to load (via switches) into the machine. The we hit the execute button and it said, "What are you looking at froggy-face?"

  73. shiny sacrifice by dunkelfalke · · Score: 1

    the persephone levels are quite like that.

    --
    Conservatism: The fear that somewhere, somehow, someone you think is your inferior is being treated as your equal.
  74. Bill Gates was right by Woy · · Score: 2, Funny


    640Kb was enough after all!

    --
    "If God created us in his own image we have more than reciprocated." - Voltaire
    1. Re:Bill Gates was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      except he never said that, faggot.

    2. Re:Bill Gates was right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      he didn't actually say BillG said it, faggot

  75. Impressive by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

    To have a FPS in less than 100 megs is truely amazing.

    Ban the bloat.

    --
    I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
    1. Re:Impressive by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not a dig, but man are you showing your age. Doom, Duke Nukem, Rise of the Triad, ie all of the games that really lauched the fps genre were all under 100MB. Heck I even think Quake was under 100MB.

      I understand what you were saying that compared to todays bloated games this seems amazing but rest assured that there were some really amazing FPSers under 100MB not so long ago.

    2. Re:Impressive by g0bshiTe · · Score: 1

      To show my age. I was playing Chuck Yeager Flight Simulator on a TRS-80. At the time my dad worked as a sales manager for Radio Shack, he got me a floor model as a novelty. He said it beat the C-64 hands down. He was right.

      --
      I am Bennett Haselton! I am Bennett Haselton!
  76. You would be correct... by ThePyro · · Score: 3, Informative

    On my 2.8 GHz machine, the demo took a full minute to load.

  77. Sunplasma - Beautiful flight-sim for Linux, 76K by lobiusmoop · · Score: 1, Informative

    Check out:
    http://freshmeat.net/projects/sunplasma/
    It looks beautiful on an accelerated-X Linux box.
    76K compressed download, again textures (trees and landscape) fractal-generated at compile-time.

    --
    "I bless every day that I continue to live, for every day is pure profit."
  78. this is nice but.. by Garble+Snarky · · Score: 1

    if you took the code for say, half life, and ignored all the textures and maps, how big would that be? it seems to me that this release was an exercise in procedural graphics generation, not in code optimization.

    1. Re:this is nice but.. by absurdhero · · Score: 2, Informative

      The half-life executable and client and server dlls puts it up at several megabytes. perhaps over 10 megabytes, but I don't have a copy of it around to check, atm. This is 100kilobytes including generated music and textures. It requires very skilled coders to save byte after byte in every inch of the code. These guys have been making great 64k demos for a long time. Just a couple weeks ago I was thinking, "gee, why doesn't someone stick some mouse control, a gun, and collision detection in one and let me shoot stuff?" And my wish has been granted.

  79. You know far cry? by imsabbel · · Score: 1, Insightful

    nt

    --
    HI O WISE PRINCE. WHT TOOK U SO DAM LONG?
  80. Right on, Commander!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If only I were logged in and had mod points...

  81. Pfft by l33t-gu3lph1t3 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    So, zipped, it's 96KB. Whoop-dee-doo-dah-day. Running, it consumed an obscene amount of system resources on my PC. How on earth does it require 512MB RAM and 128MB framebuffer? There seems to be an awful lot of duplication of texture, geometry, and code going on here...

    --
    ------- "From bored to fanboy in 3.8 asian girls" ----------
    1. Re:Pfft by randyest · · Score: 2, Informative

      seems to be an awful lot of duplication of texture, geometry, and code going on here

      No, there is some procedural generation of all of the above going on here. Not much duplication I expect.

      It requires 512MB RAM and 128MB framebuffer because it procedurally generates geometry and textures that are that big.

      And the zipping does little. The executable is 97,280 bytes, the readme is 5,504 bytes. The zip archive is 100,185 bytes. The compression is negligible.

      Don't poo-poo it just because you don't get it. It's very cool, and very impressive, IMHO.

      --
      everything in moderation
  82. Dork by raygundan · · Score: 1

    Yeah, yeah, I know. Go ahead and ruin a simple, explanatory example by pointing out that yes, a checkerboard could actually be stored as data smaller.

    I should have picked a two-axis gradient.

  83. It's dark in here! by ninejaguar · · Score: 1
    Really, quite an impressive achievement! But, looking at the screenshots, one wonders if size reduction was achieved by lack of lighting ;-)

    = 9J =

  84. Real Programmers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0


    Use Vim!

    Seriously tho, what is the massive fasination of something that produces all the code for you includes everything in the know universe just incase you may want to use it and producers uber bloatware>

  85. One up... by gillbates · · Score: 1


    Oh yeah? When we wrote code on IBM Mainframes, we had to stay within 4k - and we liked it!
    </oldtimer>

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
  86. Re:zipped doesn't count for size by Shurhaian · · Score: 1

    Can't verify this at my work computer, but it's worth noting that there's more to zipping than compression; even in already-compressed or otherwise difficult-to-compress situations, it's the ubiquitous Windows equivalent to tar, after all. If there are multiple files in the archive, the download is already easier. If not, well, a few bytes of compression is better than none; considering the stated demands of running the thing, the time to decompress is trivial.

    --
    NB: YMMV. IANAL. Take the above with a grain of salt.
  87. In this particular case, yes. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I used to say the same thing, but finished by using the extensions of CD-writing software. For instance,
    my Nero is very good at converting home videos into VideoCDs (I use this feature quite often).

  88. The file.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The executible unzips to the same size as it's archived form because it's packed with some form of executible compressor (UPX-like). Looking in the executible indicates that instead of code and data secrions, there's one monolithic section called "kkrunchy". A google search only lead to a single result suggesting that it is, infact, a file compressor and does cause trouble (memory access restrictions within XP/2000).

    DeMe

  89. I love you by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    it is the equivalent of outlook-excel-whatever-macro-virus for slashdot readers :)

  90. Tube 256 byte demo by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tube 256 bytes intro [www.256b.com] only needs DOS.

  91. It runs like ass..!? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    I am running an optimized XP Pro system with the latest patches, 2.4 GHz, 1 gig of ram, ATI Radeon 9700, and it runs like dogshit. It crashed my computer and I am not going to try it again.

    1. Re:It runs like ass..!? by mobby_6kl · · Score: 1

      Same here, 2.6Ghz, 512 ram and radeon 9600pro. I get about 20 fps in the first room, and then it crawls down to 12-13 in the room with many columns, just after you pick up the grenade launcher or something.

  92. Waste of space by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You can do it in 2 bits if your engine supports brick tiling;)

  93. Yup, includes Easter Egg by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    That added 64 bytes.
    if (EasterEggSequence && Office)
    Office->EasterEgg(FlightSim, BiPlane, Red, Chicago, 1964, 10:30, 183, 247, 0.2, 9.8, 3.1416, 2.718, 299792);
  94. Shrug - Been there, done that. by superultra · · Score: 4, Informative

    So I guess this is impressive, especially if it's taken more as a contribution to the demoscene than to gaming. But what I think is far more impressive is that a game like Starflight which included hundreds of planets, dozens and dozens of hours of gameplay, an equal number of conversations and text and hundreds of objects, all fit into 2 5 1/4 disks (360K x 2). In 1986. And while exceptional, Starflight is merely representative of the amount of efficient coding that had to go into early game creation. Kkrieger, and more so older classics like Starflight, should serve as examples to modern developers who seem to be bloating their code.

    1. Re:Shrug - Been there, done that. by otis+wildflower · · Score: 3, Informative

      Elite.

    2. Re:Shrug - Been there, done that. by theotherfish · · Score: 1

      On a side-note, the screenshots for that game look really familiar - is it just me, or does Starflight look like an early version of Star Control 2?? (The star map, system navigation, planet scan, and planet navigation screens all look like rough versions of those in SC2)

    3. Re:Shrug - Been there, done that. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Been there, I can see that. But you've done that too? Where is your code? I would like to see a sample please, if it seems so trivial.

  95. Farbrausch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    There was a ground-breaking demoscene entry a while back called FR-08 written by a group called Farbrausch. It was 64kB and to my knowledge, was the first 'public' program that used procedural texture generation. (I forget which demoscene party it was entered in...)

    Is this written by the same guys? Since FR-08 was also called ".the .product" it does seem kindof a strange co-incidence ;)

    1. Re:Farbrausch? by tehlodda · · Score: 1

      procedural texture generation has been used for quite a while in the demoscene in the size optimized competitions(most common are 256 bytes, 4 kb and 64kb) (i guess the first stuff you could call procedural tex generation are plasmas which are basically images where you have a formula like color = sin(x)*cos(y)) it's no strange coincidence as it's by one guy of farbrausch the demoscene was started back when commodore was new by groups who cracked games and added small messages in the cracked games. later however the scene became independent of cracking and started to create stuff for fun. there are parties on a yearly basis like Breakpoint(former Mekka and Symposium), Assembly, The gathering, Dreamhack, Evoke etc.. the scene is mainly in central europe and scandinavia

    2. Re:Farbrausch? by faxe · · Score: 1

      it is written by the same guys ;)

      --
      fx! kicking and screaming
    3. Re:Farbrausch? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What exactly was so ground-breaking there? I mean, compared to all 64k's before that.

  96. Re:I would be more impressed... by misleb · · Score: 5, Insightful
    What I find curious is why the executable is 96k when it depends on DirectX. I would imagine that a good game engine written in assembly could easily be fit into 16kB. I would be more impressed with this particular effort if they had built their own graphics engine (with lighting effects, etc...)



    That 96k contains all the scene data. It isn't just the engine. Why would you be impressed if they wrote their own graphic engine? How would you take advantage of hardware accelleration. Sheesh! Write a tight program that uses OpenGL/DirectX and you get criticized for not using assembly tuned to bare metal. Write aseembly tuned to bare metal and you get criticized for having a program that only runs on specific hardware (or doesn't take advantage of hardware acceleration).

    -matthew

    --
    "THERE IS NO JUSTICE, THERE IS ONLY ME." -Death
  97. Re:I would be more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    The fact that it is only 96kB is really nothing to laud, considering that most assembly programmers could fit a basic raytracer in under 4k of code - provided that all textures and layouts were read from disk.

    So the fact that they fitted all the textures and layouts into the other 92kB is "nothing to laud"?

  98. Misconception by Rascasse · · Score: 1

    Variable name length has nothing to do with the resulting binary size.

    1. Re:Misconception by ggambett · · Score: 2, Informative

      However, it does affect the size of the source code, which is what I was trying to minimize. Same thing with the #defines, which the preprocessor expands anyway...

    2. Re:Misconception by Bilestoad · · Score: 1

      All you've done is apply a kind of dictionary compression to make the source code unreadable to humans with the side effect that it fits in less bytes. The code itself is much bigger than you'd like to think.

      Comparisons of "code size" are extremely misleading until you start talking about the output of "gcc -E".

  99. Freakin' awesome! by lonesometrainer · · Score: 1

    It was *very* impressive and worked on this machine without any problems, was a bit slow though. This is a Pentium-M 1.7GHz with 1GB and DirectX9, required roughly 300MB Ram.

  100. Another 2K raytracer. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

    Not to belittle the man's efforts, but a raytracer is *incredibly* simple, algorithmically... hell, I could (and did) write a basic one that renders the classic reflective sphere on a checkerboard (with shadows) in an afternoon. Sure, making it small requires a few tricks, but, honestly, I've seen much more impressive things.

    Sphere on checkerboard, two mirrored spheres, and fractal-textured picture of Saturn. Each of the above in one (long) first-year lecture, on a TI-81 graphing calculator (which has 2k of memory for all programs total). Greyscale implemented using one-dimensional error-diffused dithering for all of the above. :) And yes, Saturn had shadows.

    I miss my TI-81. I'll dust it off again when I finally kit-bash a holder for D cells on to it (it eats 4 AAAs in about 9 hours when running rendering code).

    1. Re:Another 2K raytracer. by Christopher+Thomas · · Score: 1

      Clarification - one 2-hour lecture _per_ program, not all 3 in one lecture. I'm not Johnny 5 :).

    2. Re:Another 2K raytracer. by Halcyonandon · · Score: 1

      You should post the code for this...

      --
      ^o^
    3. Re:Another 2K raytracer. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Amazing, all I did in my boring classes was check out the redhead to my left.

  101. Doesn't work by TeXMaster · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Crashes on my Windows XP box. (BTW, when first writing this comment, Slashdot complained I was too fast ... looks I need some of those pills to last longer?)

    --
    "I'm never quite so stupid as when I'm being smart" (Linus van Pelt)
  102. here ya go, an 8KB pure ASCII shoot'em up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    right here Assembled on x86 Linux, the binary is 8 KB. Since it's in assembly it probably won't work on anything but x86 anyway...

  103. mhm by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have this tiny game too. I use game.dll and the `only' function I run is
    run3Dgame();

    Kidding aside - That's a nice pice of work :D

  104. Procedural maps and creatures by morcheeba · · Score: 1

    The maps *are* procedural, but more interesting is that all the characters are, too.

    The initialization is pretty simple. It starts off with a few cells dividing and mutating, and pretty soon simple creatures are evolved. These keep evolving and then they discovery metalurgy, and eventually they make some cool guns. Then the program introduces another alien race that was running in a different simulation, and gets them to try to fight. At about the right time, it'll stop the whole simulation and put you in the game.

    Incidently, that's how the maps are made prodedurally. The cool thing is that every time you play, the creatures and maps are totally different.

  105. Re:zipped doesn't count for size by Thud457 · · Score: 1
    It still fits entirely into the L1 cache on my machine!

    errrr... not counting all the OS and support libraries :-(

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  106. Same here by bogie · · Score: 1

    I basically have the exact specs it requires on my gaming rig and it just hardlocks it with a blackscreen. Oh well would have like to see it.

    --
    If you wanna get rich, you know that payback is a bitch
  107. What if it *did* install Linux? by NotQuiteReal · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Maybe not this time, but it seemt to be just a matter of time before someone comes up with Linux "scum-ware", a la Gator (or whatever it is called now) and its ilk.

    1) get your cool geek game advertised on slashdot.
    2) lots of people download it and run it.
    3) bury some obfuscated language in a 30 page EULA [well, 30 pages that only show up 5 lines at a time in a tiny un-resizeable window]. The gist of the "I agree" button is that your machine will bootstrap into a nuke-and-pave Linux installation!

    Ok, this is tongue in cheek, but seriously, do the slashdot editors evaluate things like this for viruses or other mal-ware? Where's the checksum of the one they checked?

    Who downloads mysterious 100K executables and runs them on a live machine? [heh, especially from Germany, I mention this only because the last two unprotected Windows machines put on the net by some hapless aquaintences of mine were running German FTP sites so fast you'd think they were configured that way out of the box.]

    --
    This issue is a bit more complicated than you think.
  108. 751709 extracted my junk liberally!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Leave my junk alone!!!!

  109. Yawn.. here's a 5kb FPS by RenHoek · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Seen this?

    http://www.the5k.org/description.asp/entry_id=946

    It's a winner of the 5K contest. A Wolfenstein in Javascript in just 5 kilobytes.. Now THAT is small ;)

  110. Re:I would be more impressed... by kb · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Raytracing? What exactly have you smoked?

    I won't allow myself the time to dismiss your "arguments" on a detailed level, but:

    * Why is the game SO dependent on the graphics card then?
    * Why do you talk about missing lighting effects when there's a full phong lighting model with several light sources and stencil shadows everywhere?
    * Why do you think you know ANYTHING of the used algorithms? Did you already reverse engineer the whole game?
    * Timer interrupts? ON WINDOWS? Come on.

    Please. "I have no idea how this all works, but I hate them" would really have been less hassle to type

    kb / farbrausch .kkrieger audio programmer
    game programmer at Inverse Entertainment, .de

  111. From the readme file by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Apparently, they are using the same method as in their 64K demo http://www.theproduct.de/
    From the readme file :

    - We do .not. have some kind of magical data compression machine that is able to squeeze
    hundreds of megabytes of mesh/texture and sound data into 96k. We merely store the
    individual steps employed by the artists to produce their textures and meshes, in a very
    compact way. This allows us to get .much. higher data density than is achievable with
    normal data compression techniques, at some expense in artistic freedom and loading times.
    - .kkrieger is not written in 100% assembler/machine language. Not even nearly. Like the
    vast majority of game projects being developed today, .kkrieger was mostly written in
    C++, with some tiny bits of assembler where it is actually advantageous (notably, there
    are a lot of MMX optimisations in the texture generator).

  112. Pathetic... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    All I have seen in the top modded threads are pretty much "this sucks", "I could do better", "those var names suck" etc. Personally, I am quite impressed, and i'll bet that most of you, deep-down are too. If you think that you COULD do better, then why didn't you? Why aren't you the one who made the app? Ah, and that's just it... ripping on the work other people did, be it MSFT, Real, or some individual is easy and doesn't take much work.... Grow up, we're not 6 years old anymore.

  113. I'll sum up by gillbates · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I post this in reply to a few of the responses I've gotten, not just the parent post.

    • I'm not impressed with the 96kB executable size. As far as executables go, it is small for a Windows app, but it still dwarfs the animated demos which have a limit of 4k.
    • It seems to me that the point of writing this game was not to produce the smallest useful binary, but rather to illustrate a particular method of reducing binary size by producing textures at runtime rather than compile-time.
    That said, the real story is not the size of the executable, but rather the value of the tradeoffs made to produce it. I don't find this particularly remarkable. The coders made a tradeoff; they exchanged a smaller exe size for a lower runtime performance. So what? How is this any different from what every other coder has had to do at one point in their career?

    I wish these guys had actually made the exe larger, because /. would focus instead on the technique used to compress the textures, rather than its small size. Maybe instead, someone would comment on how the 96kB exe actually runs faster because the whole executable image resides in the processor's cache?

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:I'll sum up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You are a moron. I don't think you have any idea what goes in to something like this. Get a CS degree too.

    2. Re:I'll sum up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "The coders made a tradeoff; they exchanged a smaller exe size for a lower runtime performance."

      Uhm, maybe you should RTFWS (Read The Frickin' webSite). They did _not_ trade exe sizer for lower runtime performance. Once the data is extracted/generated, it runs at normal speed.

      Yes, the 4K demos are impressive. But the 256 byte (yes, byte!) grafical demos are even more impressive. However, since the 256 byte demo does much much less than the 4 K one and the 4 K one does much much less than their Überdemo (it does hardware-accelarated 3D!), I think all of them are very impressive.

      I am sick of people that can't even get a hello world program under 1 Meg, readily download 400 MB (yes, MB!) games demos and don't think any of it (aka: consider this normal), and then find 96 Kbytes "unimpressive".

      Hell, even their screenshots are larger than their entire app! Just you try to code a nearly-complete FPS in 96 Kbyte (feel free to add as much content as you want externally) and then we talk again...

    3. Re:I'll sum up by TwistedSpring · · Score: 2, Insightful

      You're all retarded. If you knew that this 96kb has: 1. Several texture generators
      2. AI engine
      3. 3D engine with collision detection, mesh animation, mesh generation from simple primitives...
      4. Software music synthesizer as used in the Candytron and .das.produkt 64k demos

      This is an extremely interesting production for its size. Just look at the textures. So it uses DX8, oh no. Go download the Heaven Seven demo if you want a software raytraced demo in 64kb. This is a game, not a demo.

      Also, it won't run on Linux. Not everything has to run on Linux. This was made for windows. Windows has the best gaming and 3D support out there, Linux doesn't come close. If you wanted to play games, then why the hell do you run Linux? Linux is for work. And please don't cite a ton of games that have been ported to lux. The demoscene has always been for Windows/DOS only on the PC scene, since Windows is the best way to get the max out of gfx and audio hardware without compromising performance. It's just done better I'm afraid. I hope linux catches up someday, but the best way for it to do that would be to have MS port directx to it.

    4. Re:I'll sum up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      Maybe instead, someone would comment on how the 96kB exe actually runs faster because the whole executable image resides in the processor's cache?
      Because thats not the entire executable image. By the time the dlls enter the picture the foot print is considerably bigger.
    5. Re:I'll sum up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Windows has the best gaming and 3D support out there, Linux doesn't come close.

      Yeah, sure, just keep telling yourself that and it'll become true! Who needs experience when you can just make up "facts"?

    6. Re:I'll sum up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I think you like most people missed the point. The point is he wrote this game and it is COMPLETELY 96k. Everything, not just the exe. No one would even care if the executable was 96k yet it had over 1GB of pak files.

      This demo really shows off the true power of programmable hardware, and doing textures procedurally on the fly.

    7. Re:I'll sum up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, so it's a game, not demo.

      Remind me again why I'd choose a game with a smaller executable size over one that was more interesting to play....

    8. Re:I'll sum up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I agree with you save the last paragraph.
      Linux is faster, and that includes 3D graphics. There are some issues with sound latency, dependent on configuration, but they might be over by now, I'm not running a late distro.
      Direct3D would not make 3D graphics any faster on linux, do you even know what you are talking about?
      Oh, IAAGP (I am a game programmer).

    9. Re:I'll sum up by GameNutz · · Score: 1

      NOOOooooo...The 96k is a result of their procedural compression. At run time, the decompressed files (code, textures, etc.) weigh in at over 150MB. Memory footpring running the game is over 180MB. And, it is an ok tech demo as far as 150MB games go.

      Understand that this is wicked compression tech, but it is NOT a 96kb game.

      -GN

    10. Re:I'll sum up by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It is not compression, it is fancy coding. They generate the textures using code. The game *is* 96kb. It just has a large memory footprint. Where the hell else are you going to store the textures and models? (Without generating them for every frame, which obviously is impractical).

    11. Re:I'll sum up by GameNutz · · Score: 1

      Yes, everything is generated out of that 96K, including the game code, collision, geometry, etc. The *game* is not 96k, the application that generated everything is 96k.

      -GN

    12. Re:I'll sum up by Snaller · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually the demo scene was always on the Amiga. Originally the PC was so far behind it neede a space telescope to see the dust.

      --
      If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
    13. Re:I'll sum up by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Christ, the whole game fits in 96k. The size is a natural result entering a 96k competition. I'd imagine future releases might not meet the qualification, but remember, the entire game, complete with level textures and vertices is stored in those scant kilobytes.

      The tradeoff involved wasn't executable size. Realistically, there's a lot of code within DirectX and whatever else was used. The tradeoff was execution time (esp at the beginning) and input size. I'd almost expect the executable to be smaller if it didn't have to have code to build textures.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

    14. Re:I'll sum up by TwistedSpring · · Score: 1

      :) should have modded me troll, I was asking for it. It is interesting how Linux zealots can say the exact same thing about Linux being "better" than Win32, and that's never disputed by the Win32 crowd.

      Linux does have terrible latency issues with sound, but OpenAL and ALSA have probably fixed that now. Linux also has an awful amount of different gfx APIs, because nobody can decide which is best, so OpenGL is still pretty much the standard sure-fire way of making sure the game will work. OpenGL is old now, and cobbled together with a ton of vendor-specific extensions making it nigh-impossible to ensure that the game will take advantage of the hardware features.

      Currently, DirectX sets the *standards* for graphics card functionality. You can't get better support than that. Sorry.

  114. UT2004 read me = 22.1 kb by catphile · · Score: 0, Redundant

    I know it was a joke, but I thought I'd point this out for the curious. Yes, 2004 is big, but it ships with 80 player characters and over 100 maps.

  115. Two Words: by shachart · · Score: 3, Informative

    Serious Sam

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, consult.
  116. Re:BUY AMERICAN! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A real man licks his own genital.

  117. The first cheats are already available... by jea6 · · Score: 1, Funny

    The first cheats are already available on KaZaa.

    --

    sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.
  118. OK by Christ-on-a-bike · · Score: 4, Informative

    America's Army
    Aliens vs. Predator
    Descent 3
    GLTron
    Heavy Metal
    Mutant Storm
    Neverwinter Nights
    Unreal Tournament
    Unreal Tournament 2003/2004
    Vega Strike

    These are all games that use both SDL and OpenGL. Many more use either one or the other.

    1. Re:OK by AvantLegion · · Score: 1
      Of course, the reason to use SDL and OpenGL together is because OpenGL does ONLY graphics, while SDL handles all of those other tasks DirectX does (input, audio, etc).

      At the same time, SDL is no OpenGL in the graphics department. SDL development has been VERY smart to make SDL accomodate OpenGL very easily, and focus their development efforts on the other areas.

  119. linky linky by John+Harrison · · Score: 4, Informative
    1. Re:linky linky by Talonius · · Score: 1

      Heh.

      That was actually a lot of fun. :)

      Thanks!

      --
      My reality check bounced.
    2. Re:linky linky by Cobralisk · · Score: 1

      Cool game, not really asteroids exactly, it seems more like Wing Commander/X-Wing/TIE Figher to me, with obstacles. Took me a minute or two to figure out the radar, because there's no mention of it anywhere.

      --
      Waiting for ad.doubleclick.net...
    3. Re:linky linky by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      yet you did figure it out, right? Lots of people don't get it even when I explain it, but I agree it could use more documentation than simply mentioning that there is a heads up display.

    4. Re:linky linky by Pope · · Score: 1

      I'm totally going to check that out on my Mac when I get home, thanks for the link! :)

      --
      It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
    5. Re:linky linky by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      aggggh! Mac version isn't up on the web, which is odd, since I originally wrote it on a Mac, my trusty old 1995 Performa 6216, which had no 3d acceleration. The linux version isn't up either, though it still exists.

  120. Why so many negative comments?.. by ciupman · · Score: 0, Redundant

    .. like .. "been there done that", and "it's not that impressive" .. For crying out loud, that's impressive work guys! I ran it in a ATI 9600 and was impressed .. it seemed very close to DOOM 3 in 100 Kb, the lighting efects, the game play (yes it's good if you think about the 100 Kb) the textures (ok that they are procedural), and the models were great. One of my room colleges in my office had the same attitude and i felt like spanking him for those type of comments .. (;)

    --
    I fuse with Mercer every single day...
  121. RTFR by Dachannien · · Score: 3, Informative

    Read the readme.txt, dude.

    "The concept of the texture/mesh generators was developed by fiver2. We do .not. want to claim that the techniques we used to develop .kkrieger are new inventions. Its rather a selection of useful operations and their parameters to optimise the results."

  122. Bill was right all along! by fritter · · Score: 5, Funny

    Looks like we all owe Bill Gates an apology. 640K is enough for anybody!

    1. Re:Bill was right all along! by Ziviyr · · Score: 1

      I'd like to see a 640K version. Wow!

      --

      Someone set us up the bomb, so shine we are!
  123. 5k of code by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Here's a first person shooter in 5k of code
    www.wolf5k.com

  124. Explanations! by kb · · Score: 5, Informative
    Hi...

    As I'm one of the guys responsible for this game, let me explain a few things.

    First, to all the people saying this is senseless etc.: Please watch every second story posted on /. - most of them are about people doing something nobody in their right mind would ever try. So come on ;)

    Then, a few clarifications:

    • Yes, we are the same guys who are responsible for FR-08: .the .product and all the follow-ups (which you can find at our home page, http://www.farb-rausch.de).
    • We don't use any hidden texture/sound or game generators in Windows. .kkrieger requires DirectX 9, but only to gain access to the graphics and sound hardware. OpenGL and whatever audio API would also work, we just chose to use DirectX. Maybe we will even release a Linux version in the future (which should be about the same size using X and ALSA), but as all this is done in our spare time and none of us has a linux desktop PC, it's rather improbable. So, the only thing where we "cheated" and used ressources from Windows are the Arial and Times New Roman fonts which we use as base material for our fonts (heavily processed tho). This and all Windows DLLs that are essential for running. We don't even use any external libc.
    • All content, that is: the textures, the models, the map and part of the animations is generated procedurally. The basic concept is a modular graphics synthesizer which only stores the steps needed to opbain a certain image or mesh with their parameters. On www.theproduct.de you'll find a short explanation. .kkrieger uses the very same concepts, only in a really evolved and refined way.
    • Also the sound is created procedurally by a virtual-analog software synthesizer processing heavily compressed MIDI data. It runs in real-time (for the music) as well as as pre-processing step (for the sound effects). Actual sound output is done via simplest DirectSound programming.
    • The graphics engine is made for Doom3-style graphics, that means full Phong lighting model with various light sources and normal mapping everywhere, and of course stencil based shadows. It requires a PS1.3 level graphics card such as a GeForce4Ti or a Radeon8500 or better, though it's only fun on at least a Radeon 9600 or a GeforceFX 5700, we know.
    • We also know about the insane hardware and memory requirements and all the bugs as well as the mostly missing gameplay, but we worked on it (partly) for about two years and we definitely wanted to get it out at the Breakpoint party on Easter. This meant lots of things we had to cut, this meant lots of thigs we didn't test, and we know this beta is far from perfect. But expect a final version in a few months (we'll definitely take some rest now) which will be about 128k and not only feature less bugs, hangs and fsckups but only vastly more content and hopefully an improved engine capable of real vs/ps2.0 support for more speed and quality. Oh, and gameplay. And monsters that actually DIE instead of just being turned off :)


    Hope that clears up a few things...

    Tammo "kb" Hinrichs
    Farbrausch Consumer Consulting
    freelance audio programming guy for .kkrieger
    shocked that our server is still alive.
    1. Re:Explanations! by Otis_INF · · Score: 1

      Very great idea :)

      It's still somewhat buggy on a GF ti4600 with DX9b and 45.23 drivers, (perhaps that's the reason, dunno) as that a lot of shaders are simply not working. (very grey intro, shadows are not correct). For the rest: hats off! :) (and that you all still produce stuff for demoparties :) AMazing)

      Otis/Infuse project

      --
      Never underestimate the relief of true separation of Religion and State.
    2. Re:Explanations! by Krunch · · Score: 1

      Thanks for all these explanations, may be you could write that on your websites too (.kkrieger's page is rather empty).
      Is there any plan to release the source of .fr-08 and/or .kkrieger ? If you want it to be more portable may be you could try to use SDL and OpenGL. It runs on Windows too, so no need to install Linux if you release the source: someone else could easily port it (and not only to Linux).

      --
      No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
    3. Re:Explanations! by kb · · Score: 3, Informative

      The intro is supposed to be grey, for some unknown reason somebody here considered a postproc effect which uses the alpha blend unit to square (and thus solarize+half) the dest color good-looking ;)

      For the rest, well, a final will come ;)

    4. Re:Explanations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      When you make the "Linux" version, is there any change it would actually work on other unices? Do you use any x86 ASM, or might it actually work on OS X (with the appropriate libraries)?

    5. Re:Explanations! by WWWWolf · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As I'm one of the guys responsible for this game, ...

      Tammo "kb" Hinrichs

      Oooo, it all suddenly makes sense. You were the one of the guys who ported Second Reality to C64, right? Can't stop amazing people with smaller and smaller things, eh? =) Great work!

    6. Re:Explanations! by tehlodda · · Score: 1

      are the farbrausch prods (still) based on chaos' company's library? (i thought i read it somewhere, correct me when i'm wrong) if not, i volunteer for looking at the source, trying my hardest to port it(i.e. i look at the source and never really start porting ;) :D lodda

    7. Re:Explanations! by Kyouryuu · · Score: 1
      Well, I just wanted to say thanks for a really trippy way to kill about 10 minutes. It's an awesome demo. Even for those who criticize "Oh, but it's using DirectX wah wah wah," it's a very neat technical demonstration. I really liked the shadow effects too, especially when doors opened and light would flood into a dark room. The spiral staircase was also very neat, as was the general look. Oh, have to love the bumpmapping/shiny effects too!

      A couple stylistic things I would change, since you are the audio guy:
      - I would probably give the weapons better sound effects. They need a bit more "oomph," especially the one that fires the little blue blobs. Lift some sci-fi samples from Descent or something. :)

      - The walking sound seems clunky. It sort of sounds like a whole army is marching, rather that one guy briskly walking along. It gets the job done, but it just seems a bit "heavy." ;)

      Anyhow, thanks for all of the time and effort. I'll be looking forward to playing the next version of this and the next chapter! :D

    8. Re:Explanations! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      " But expect a final version in a few months (we'll definitely take some rest now) which will be about 128k and not only feature less bug"

      Oh man! you mean I have to download even more stuff?!

    9. Re:Explanations! by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

      Maybe this is extrapolating too far, but online gameplay often suffers in the distribution of custom maps to play against eachother on. I'm told Tribes had a very small mapfile size, making custom maps easy to distribute from game server to clients.
      Contrast this with Halflife or counterstrike, with maps that sum up to a couple megs each. If there's twenty people on the map and none of them have the map, that's something like 100 megs transferred right there. And its certainly not instantaneous.
      I wonder if there's any applicability of the tech in this situation. I haven't had a chance to play the game yet, but I do recall FR-08.

      --
      I Browse at +4 Flamebait

      Open Source Sysadmin

  125. Doesnt work for me... by Mindcry · · Score: 0, Redundant

    The load bar finishes and then i get a blue screen...

    what a great game ;)

  126. In Comparison by Alan · · Score: 1

    My UT2k4 was a DVD containing 6 CDs, installed (not including libraries already on the system, such as directX), was about 5G. Wow.

    Course, it has lots of levels, and net gameplay, options, multiple skins, etc. But still. Wow. Wish I had a windows box here to try out this here game.

  127. Impressive! KKRieger wins FATALITY! by Taicho · · Score: 0

    WOW Simply put I have not been so impressed with 96kb in a looooooooooooooooooooonnnnnggggggggg time I think stuff like this shows how rich and full this world is with intelligence, keep up the great work guys if you ever complete and sell this you've got my money :-) Later

  128. Why is it... by fzammett · · Score: 2, Insightful

    ... that every alien spaceship/moonbase/post-WWIII Earth is devoid of the technology to do LIGHTS?!?

    I am impressed by anyone that can get a 3D engine into that small a piece of code. You can make the argument that because it's linked to DX that it's actually hundreds of megs large. I don't agree... I could then make the claim that EVERY piece of software that makes use of an OS's API calls is really hundreds of megs big. That's clearly a bogus argument, and I don't think linking to a given library nullifies this achievement.

    But still... Can we get some LIGHTING in that thing?!? Doesn't even have to be dynamic, I'd be perfectly happy if you increased the overall gamma a bit. I mean, the graphics, what I can see of them, look excellent, Why not bring them out in the light more?!?

    *

    Omnytex Technologies - Where dreams and software unite

    K&G Arcade - 26 games in one, a unique blend of action, adventure and humor
    Invasion: Trivia! - Trivia, with a very sick twist!
    Electro - The premiere electronics tool for PocketPC

    --
    If a pion (n-) collides with a proton in the woods & noone is there to hear it, does lamdba decay into the source pa
    1. Re:Why is it... by Taicho · · Score: 0

      I will second that, my mouth is watering for more! static vector lighting or something to show off your work would definatly be nice :)

    2. Re:Why is it... by entrigant · · Score: 1

      I don't even like much light irl. Dark games and tv shows forever! I could make out details just fine.. perhaps it is your system that needs its gamma set overall :)

    3. Re:Why is it... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "But still... Can we get some LIGHTING in that thing?!? Doesn't even have to be dynamic, I'd be perfectly happy if you increased the overall gamma a bit. I mean, the graphics, what I can see of them, look excellent, Why not bring them out in the light more?!?"

      But it is dynamic! That's dynamic per-pixel lighting going on in there. It's just that the design and textures are a little dark.

      I agree with the sibling post... I think your monitor is probably set up badly.

  129. Re:I would be more impressed... by Krunch · · Score: 1

    There is no texture in that file, only code to generate it. This was done before.

    --
    No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
  130. comments! by Grendel+Drago · · Score: 4, Informative

    Did you notice minrt_comments.cpp in the zip file? Same file, but with actual comments. Variable names are explained. The snipped you pasted becomes...

    int main (void)
    {
    char b[99];
    int W=GN,H=GN,i,n; // Read screen width and height
    nl=GN;ns=GN; // Read number of lights and spheres
    _f x,y;

    F(nl) // For each light
    RP(LI) // Read position

    F(ns) // For each sphere
    {
    RP(SI.c) // Center
    SI.r=GN; // Radius
    RP(SI.l) // Color
    SI.f=GN; // Reflection
    } // Allocate the frame buffer. Init to zero to perform antialiasing.
    char* s = new char[(n=W*H*3)];
    memset(s,0,n);


    Some weird macros are used:

    #define F(T) for(i=0;i<T;i++) // For
    #define FV(V,T) for(V=0;V<T;V++)

    #define SI sp[i] // i-th sphere
    #define LI lt[i] // i-th light

    #define GN atof(gets(b)) // Read a float from stdin

    #define RP(P) {P.x=GN;P.y=GN;P.z=GN;} // Read a point


    It's not really that bad.

    --grendel drago

    --
    Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
    1. Re:comments! by ImpTech · · Score: 1

      It's still not *good*.... I, for one, still have a hard time parsing that. Though maybe a lot of that is my natural distaste for preprocessor macros. And seriously, do you really need macros for basic for loops? Sheesh!

    2. Re:comments! by AaronStJ · · Score: 1

      > And seriously, do you really need macros for basic for loops?

      You do if you're trying to make a raytracer in 2kb of code.

      --
      Stupid like a fox!
    3. Re:comments! by forgotmypassword · · Score: 1

      Some weird macros are used:

      When I wrote Molecular Dynamics code I made similar odd-ball macros to optimize all of my vector operations. (By optimize I mean that it is much faster to write, and in my case it was partially unrolling loops)

      Sadly this method is way faster than doing it the correct way in C++. (Or at least it was when I did it)

      I am guessing that the coder is older.

    4. Re:comments! by be-fan · · Score: 1

      Heh. "basic" for loops in Dylan are just macros for local tail-recursive functions :)

      --
      A deep unwavering belief is a sure sign you're missing something...
    5. Re:comments! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> And seriously, do you really need macros for basic for loops?
      >You do if you're trying to make a raytracer in 2kb of code.

      Doesn't using macros increase the amount of code - both source and executable? If you're talking about executable code, then you can use intelligible variable names.

    6. Re:comments! by Old+Wolf · · Score: 1

      #define GN atof(gets(b)) // Read a float from stdin
      char b[99];

      So now we know, to crash the raytracer just enter 99 characters! (or even, a value outside the allowed range for floats.)

      These macros (except perhaps RP) are all execrable. What a great way to say "Dont hire me for any serious project!"

    7. Re:comments! by N1KO · · Score: 1

      Macros disappear after cpp goes through the file so there should be no reason for the executable to be larger.

    8. Re:comments! by CaptainCarrot · · Score: 1
      It's not really that bad.

      Yes it is. What a load of crap. You shouldn't need a directory in order to understand C source code. The only advantage to this is the bragging rights that come from having written a raytracer that only takes up 2K. If this came up in a peer review at work, me and every single one of my co-workers would slap it down as unmaintainable.

      Leave the comments in the source that's distributed, or use descriptive variable names in the first place.

      --
      And the brethren went away edified.
    9. Re:comments! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      > Macros disappear after cpp goes through the file so there should be no reason for the
      > executable to be larger.

      Macros are compiled in place, rather than there being a call to a subroutine. So they take up more space. I guess a good optimizing compiler can turn them into a call to a subroutine, at the expense of speed, but that's not a requirement of a C++ compiler.

    10. Re:comments! by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      No.
      C Macros are simply replaced and become real code - whatever that code is - during the pre processing stage (cpp for CGG) and before the compiler goes near it. The fact of something being a macro does not increase the size of the executable by itself.

      _IF_ you represent more than one expression as a macro, and _IF_ those expressions could be split out into a function, then you would get a space saving (at the expense of speed, as you said) if that macro / function was used more than once (maybe more than twice, I'm not sure what overhead a function adds to a binary). But there's nothing about macros that say you have to use them like functions. In fact, a lot of the time they're used to do things you cant do with functions.

      But the macros in question here were making a shortcut for "for(i = a; i b; i++)" which you obviously can't turn into a function.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    11. Re:comments! by mabinogi · · Score: 1

      argh...slashcode ate my less than sign!

      and I meant GCC, not CGG obviously.

      --
      Advanced users are users too!
    12. Re:comments! by black+mariah · · Score: 1

      Nice to see you've completely and totally missed the point. I'm going to venture a guess that the Obfuscated C Contest pisses you off too, doesn't it?

      --
      'Standards' in computing only impress those who are impressed by things like 'standards'.
  131. Re:I would be more impressed... by ymgve · · Score: 1

    By the same guys that made this game.

  132. Implied palette by tepples · · Score: 1

    Many graphics systems, when passed an image without any indication of a palette, will assume a linear gray ramp.

  133. 640kb by Catskul · · Score: 1

    Fortunately I was born after they realized that 640kb would be enough for anybody.

    --

    Im not here now... Im out KILLING pepperoni
  134. Doesn't work w/ wine or winex3 by taxtropel · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Well, this is rather disappointing. The game works with neither wine (transgaming CVS build) or winex3 (prebuilt binaries). You'd think that something this simple would run. I wish, I wish I hadn't paid that stupid fee to transgaming. I'm canceling my subscription to them as the CVS build works better for me anyhow.

    1. Re:Doesn't work w/ wine or winex3 by Fred+Or+Alive · · Score: 1

      I wouldn't describe a game that needs DirectX 9 and a GeForce 4Ti-level or above graphics card to run "simple." it's using all the latest technologies. I'm not a Linux user, so I don't know how good WineX is at DirectX stuff, but I find it doubtful it'd have prefect emulation[1] of the current release of DirectX, especially for a game that is obviously using a lot of the latest techniques.

      I mean, the authors say they're using similar techniques to Doom 3...

      I will try it on my (Windows) PC later, but I doubt my Athlon 1500+ and GeForce 4Ti will have much luck with this game either, I doubt it'll have the horsepower. But it seems impressive to me.

      [1] I'm not sure if this is the right term for what Wine does, if it isn't I apologies for my n00biness.

      --
      10 PRINT "LOOK AROUND YOU ";
      20 GOTO 10
    2. Re:Doesn't work w/ wine or winex3 by taxtropel · · Score: 1
      um, good point, I'm not a windows person, so I don't do DirectX. Wine however, doesn't emulate; it translates rather, into OpenGL, X, and other library calls. Libraries which are native to GNU/linux.

      I've often heard that SDL ( LibSDL.org ) is comparable to DirectX, and any program written in a nice API like SDL would *seem* easy to translate in such a high-level way. Although I have no experience w/ DirectX or any such translating software, so this is all just speculation.

  135. Re:I would be more impressed... by Krunch · · Score: 1

    Yes, I found this comment only after I posted mine.

    --
    No GNU has been Hurd during the making of this comment.
  136. Another interesting game by ynnaD · · Score: 5, Informative

    Noctis (http://anywherebb.com/noctis.html) is less than 1mb but lets the player explore a whole galaxy. It's an interesting game where you have total freedom to fly anywhere and do anything. No fighting, just exploration.

  137. completly worthless by xmorg · · Score: 0, Funny

    It doesnt work! whats up with this?

    % ./pno0001.exe
    bash: ./pno0001.exe: Permission denied
    % chmod 777 pno0001.exe
    % ./pno0001.exe
    bash: ./pno0001.exe: cannot execute binary file
    % bash pno0001.exe
    pno0001.exe: pno0001.exe: cannot execute binary file
    %

    What directX? Does this use openGL or software? what lib of sdl do you need?

    1. Re:completly worthless by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to be running Microsoft Windows to execute it. You know, the most popular operating system for PCs.

    2. Re:completly worthless by Synic · · Score: 1

      Having a clue is also very helpful.

    3. Re:completly worthless by Programmer_In_Traini · · Score: 1

      i think the poster meant more to point there were no linux version and that sucks :)

      --
      If you look like your passport photo, you're too ill to travel. - Will Kommen
  138. Secret codes? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, what is the secret code to open a spreadsheet? ... Anyone? ;-)

  139. Make it good, *then* optimize. by nobodyman · · Score: 1

    On a certain level, I agree with you that alot of software today is way more bloated than it needs to be.

    On the other hand, I think it's wrong for a game developer to focus on the disk space footprint as a primary goal. Every book and evey intstructor will tell you to make your code work and then optimize. When you start off with the intent to make a totally optimized piece of software, you can often times limit its scalability. Furthermore, if UT2k4 was delayed 6 months because the developers wanted to make the install take 200MB as opposed to 2GB they would make far more enemies than slashdot-reading codemonkies.

    Also, keep in mind that game developers often have to keep a close eye on memory footprints (especially when developing for a console with 24-64MB of RAM for video, data, and sound).

  140. Re:I would be more impressed... by drxenos · · Score: 1

    Just the fact he would use the timer's interrupt to handle independent events shows he's never done any real-time programing. The latency alone would kill you.

    --


    Anonymous Cowards suck.
  141. Bug fix for code by BayBlade · · Score: 1
    Due to rounding errors, I believe the correct implementation of that code is actually:
    01
    10

    --

    The key difference between a Programmer and a Senior Programmer is that one of them is Mexican.

  142. starflight/sc2 tangent by superultra · · Score: 1

    Yep, when I first started playing SC2 I thought that they completely ripped off Starflight and its sequel, but SC2 was just so good that you couldn't help but love it.

    When the guys at Toys for Bob started their sourceforge remake of SC2, I emailed them and asked them about the connection. They responded that starflight was inspiration for SC2, and that the lead designer for SF (Greg Johnson, also of Toejam and Earl fame) and Paul of Toys for Bob had been good friends for a while. Greg Johnson did some voice acting on the 3DO version of SC2, so there's obvioulsy a connection.

    The humor in the Starflight series is also similar, if much more subdued and not as overt. Still, if you enjoyed SC2 and are willing to endure some pixelation and the hassle of getting it to run in DosBox or something, the starflight series is still quite a playable game. Great plot too.

    this fan site and Underdogs should get you started.

    1. Re:starflight/sc2 tangent by juhaz · · Score: 1

      Still, if you enjoyed SC2 and are willing to endure some pixelation and the hassle of getting it to run in DosBox or something, the starflight series is still quite a playable game. Great plot too.

      Also, unless I remember my retro-wading trough Starflight totally wrong, Amiga versions look somewhat better than DOS ones.

      Sega Genesis version even more so, but being a console one, I think it made some stupid sacrifices.

      So playing them trough UAE might be a good option if you've got a box that can handle it.

  143. sf/sc2, gta, and open ended gameplay by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    btw, further down the tangent. as well as being classic and early examples of efficient code, the same is true of SF and SC2 being quite early examples of the open ended gameplay GTA3 "pioneered." Nothing new under the sun.

    1. Re:sf/sc2, gta, and open ended gameplay by Jagasian · · Score: 1

      Actually, GTA3 is nothing more than the original GTA with better graphics and sounds, minus motor bikes and minus multiplayer.

  144. ps: starflight for genesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I should think before I post. If you want to forgo the dosbox hassle, a barely modified Starflight was also released for the genesis. you know, if you want to "scour" the "garage sales" for the "cartridge."

  145. The point? by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 4, Interesting
    Well howabout that this thing took less time to load then any recent FPS I played?

    Also there may be a model for selling software online rather then on CD/DVD. Obviously this game would cost a bit less to host then say the 5CD farcry.

    Also don't forget more portable solutions. Laptops or PDA's and other gadgets. They got extremely limited storage but my old calculator could hold this one. Not run it but hold it :)

    Mostly however this is just a tech demo. Showing that you do not need a massive wad of textures just to make a nice looking game.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

    1. Re:The point? by Hast · · Score: 1

      Probably hard to run something like this on low power device like PDA though. I would assume it requires a pretty high end graphics card to create it's magic.

      But I agree with you that it's a neat thing to do however. You can run this first as a "wait while we load" game for some other games I've tried. ;-)

  146. 64k - 128k = Supersizing! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    which will be about 128k

    Which is double the file size! Why don't you just go ahead and ship this on DVD-ROM? Geez. Think of the bandwidth, won't you?

  147. "Play The Fucking Demo" or PTFD by SmallFurryCreature · · Score: 1
    If you had played it you would have noticed that it actually loads faster then most recent FPS. Hell I am currently beta testing a FPS wich takes longer to load then it took me to download this, extract, run and get shooting.

    But no easier to blast something then actually take the time to test it.

    --

    MMO Quests are like orgasms:

    You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.

  148. I just tried the game... by thx2001r · · Score: 2, Informative

    My hardware and software includes (I know, not the latest and greatest, but not a slouch either):

    • Windows XP Pro (all latest patches... this computer has not crashed in over 2 years... is not continously on, but does not crash when I use it for over 2 years)
    • AMD Athlon XP 1900+, MMX, 3DNow, ~1.6GHz
    • 512MB DDR 266 RAM
    • ATI Radeon 8500 128MB (DirectX 8 Support)
    • DirecX 9.0b (4.09.0000.0902)
    • Creative Soundblaster Live! 5.1 PCI

    Clearly, I meet the 'minimum requirements'... according to the game's accompanying readme.txt, the minumum requirements are:

    • A 1.5GHz Pentium3/Athlon or faster.
    • 512MB of RAM (or more)
    • A Geforce4Ti (or higher) or ATI Radeon8500 (or higher) graphics card
      supporting pixel shaders 1.3, preferably with 128MB or more of VRAM.
    • Some kind of sound hardware
    • DirectX 9.0b

    These requirements were not kidding... the game runs extremely slowly on my hardware. It was chugging along at, I'd guess, 10-15 frames per second (I'm not sure what resolution it was running at or color depth, but I run Windows at 1024x768x32bpp). The game was ok looking, visually, in some aspects was better looking than the original Unreal game, in others, not as good. Gameplay was not particularly exciting... though, at 10-15 frames per second, it might not be anyhow, but I only played it for about 2 minutes.

    After 2 minutes, the game crashed and crashed Windows as well... Probably a result of it being 'beta' software, but nevertheless, a rare occurence on my particular Windows XP PC. As noted above, it's been over 2 years since anything caused Windows XP to crash on me! Not sure if my hardware was overwhelmed, the game being buggy, or if DirectX just killed it, but that's what happened. If you have a computer, less than 1 year old, with the latest hardware and loaded with RAM, this game will probably work for you. It doesn't work too well for the minimum requirements (in my experience, YMMV).

    Interesting that they can pull this off in such a small package and trying out to see how it works for you. My $0.02.

    --

    -Joe
    If we're all god's children, what's so special about Jesus? - Jimmy Carr

  149. Re:I would be more impressed... by null+etc. · · Score: 3, Informative

    I wonder if you're referring to an assembly program I wrote to generate Sierpinksi triangles in 76 bytes. But please note, those 76 bytes included calls to DOS interrupts, which is an API in the same fashion that DirectX is an API.

  150. WOW by M3wThr33 · · Score: 1

    Really. It ran a bit slow on my FX5200/2400+/512MBDDRRAM but I'm still shocked. Really, it's amazing. Makes you wonder why UT2K4 needs a DVD.

  151. 100k? by panic911 · · Score: 1, Troll

    Perhaps it should say.. "Under 100k of ZIPPED code". Either way, it's impressive though.

  152. Anyone remember Novell's liteyear.exe? by hotspotbloc · · Score: 1

    It was a first person spaceship/shooting application that came buried in NW and I think was meant for "testing" IPX connectivity. Vector graphics, network play (of course), played well on a 386 and was under 30k. We played that thing for hours ...

    --
    "I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence or insanity but they've always worked for me" - HST
  153. Nothing New by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I wrote a short (one line) DOS .bat file that plays glquake...

    c:\quake\glquake

    See. No problem

  154. Inverted? by joemc79 · · Score: 1

    It's cool to have a game this small, but I think I'd give up another 500-1000 bytes to have an inverted mouse. :)

    1. Re:Inverted? by Xenolith · · Score: 1

      Yeah, anyway to invert the mouse. I can't play it in the present config...

      --

      Journal
  155. Re:Make it good, *then* optimize. by Darren+Winsper · · Score: 1

    And what if you determine your performance bottleneck is an architectural flaw made very early on in the design process? Oops, redesign time.

  156. Pathetic by aposch · · Score: 1

    This is just a pathetic try to avoid slashdotting. Cowards, I say!

  157. WayOut, BallBlazer by michaelmalak · · Score: 1
    Do these qualify?
  158. In a meantime by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Im doing a project where mere "helloworld" application is taking about 160Megabytes of source code and other resource files .... AND the target machine has 8mb of memory.

  159. It doesn't like XP by msim · · Score: 1

    Evidently it doesn't like XP, i get XP bitching about maybe loosing data, and then that's it. no nothing. might have to download it at home. It's just a shame my pc at home is only a 1200.

    Sorta scrapin the bottom of the barrell performance wise, (perhaps)

    --

    Life is like a box of chocolates, you never know when your gonna get food poisoning.
  160. 100K !!! by adisakp · · Score: 1

    I know programmers who can't write HelloWorld.cpp with such hard limitations.

  161. Nice by Dave_bsr · · Score: 1

    this is totally sweet. Thanks!

    ps- I figured out the radar too.

    --


    Who is this Anonymous Coward character, how does he post so much, and why is he always such a whore?
    1. Re:Nice by John+Harrison · · Score: 1

      You are welcome!

  162. Re:zipped doesn't count for size by pclminion · · Score: 1
    it's not under 100KB of code if it is zipped! you should count the *expanded* version of the code, as that is what is actually executed.

    First, as others point out, it's only "gratuitously" zipped, and expands to not much more than the zipped size. This implies the code is compressed in the file by some kind of executable packer.

    I don't see how that's any less impressive than generating the textures at runtime. Why draw a distinction between procedurally generating textures, and decompressing a compressed representation of the code? Both are "nifty tricks."

  163. Re:2K raytracer - well not 2K small but impressive by mulcahy · · Score: 1

    well, not that small but this one here also looks quite nice:

    http://graphics.cs.uni-sb.de/~morfiel/oasen/index. html

    Dunno what it is rendered with (and what hardware requirements) but the images are quite nice

  164. Mod parent up by KingRobot · · Score: 0, Offtopic

    How is this offtopic? Short maybe, but perfectly relevant...

    1. Re:Mod parent up by Mc_Anthony · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      Perfectly pointless! Stating the obvious! And it gets modded up?

  165. to clarify by gillbates · · Score: 1
    Please. "I have no idea how this all works, but I hate them" would really have been less hassle to type.

    You misinterpreted that. I discussed the difference between a basic raytracer and a more advanced graphics engine to lend fairness toward the coders. Yes, a basic raytracing engine could be fit into a 4k executable, but not without sacrificing the more esoteric graphics effects - as I explained. If the goal of the coders had been to produce the absolutely smallest exe, they've failed by a long shot. But I don't think this was the case. Rather, I think they successfully demonstrated an alternative form of compression in which the data was regenerated at runtime by an executable set of instructions, rather than merely reading and applying a transformation to existing data. And that is worth talking about.

    I kind of hate to see this, but it irks me that people will worship this kind of thing - an FPS in under 96kB! How cool! Really. How many times have you heard of game reviewers rating games based on .exe size? Does it even matter? (I've got plenty of FPS games that come in under 96kB. Yes, they suck. Who cares? - the point of a game is to have fun, not marvel at the small size of the executable!)

    --
    The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
    1. Re:to clarify by relaying+denied · · Score: 1

      Then you missed the point. This game was entered into the 96k compo. So that's what they shot for. These guys could probably do it smaller if they wanted to. And for the most part they have pioneered the type 4k and 64k demo compo entries we see today. For those reasons we love KB and farb-rausch/produkkt.

    2. Re:to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uh. Seems you kindof missed the point.
      The idea behind this isn't to appeal to the hardcore programers via gameplay and other stuff, it's the same idea that's behind all things demoscene:
      Show your skills to people with similar interests.
      It's kindof like a pissing contest, and has nothing to do with what a game reviewer would say about it.
      I'm a demoscener myself, and I think this game is a work of art, quite marvellously displayed.
      What I'm trying to say; stop whining about it not being a progamers dream, it wasn't meant to be.
      *sigh*

    3. Re:to clarify by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "And for the most part they have pioneered the type 4k and 64k demo compo entries we see today"

      That is complete and utter horse poo.
      They've been a class in compo's for over 10 years now. The 1st 4k that made people stand up and realise what could be achieved was Dawn by Artwork http://www.pouet.net/prod.php?which=9213 and that was back in 1995.

    4. Re:to clarify by relaying+denied · · Score: 1

      As in with full synthed music and speech, and WITH great style and code.

  166. *worship* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I have only read the moderated comments above this one up until now, and most of them were just bullshit.

    Anyway.

    I would just like to say that I've been following your group's releases for a few years and I keep on getting surprised everytime I see them. :)

    Keep up the damn good work.

    PS. You people who complain should check out some stuff from the demo scene at some point. These guys kick ass. You don't. Deal with it.

  167. vi 20 by wannasleep · · Score: 1

    Never had problems fitting my games in less than 4K on my VIC 20 in the '80s

  168. Best support for audio and gfx? by Ayanami+Rei · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would really have to argue that... clearly you've never programmed against ALSA or OpenGL in Linux with properly supported hardware (which is a good slice of stuff available today, if you're willing to support the occaisional binary driver). There really isn't a difference, just familiarity with the APIs.

    Hell, demoscene coders would have killed for something like ALSA 6 years ago. Thank god for Sahara Surfers, if you know what I mean.

    The demoscene loved the Amiga. Now they love the PC. TBL managed to get their demo engine working on Linux and Windows (which is quite impressive). So what evidence do you have to support your opinion?

    (and I'm not expecting that anyone write a 3d demo in Linux, especially if they want a wide audience of gawkers... but IMHO it's much easier to write a 64k demo (especially if it eschews 3d in an old school stylee) in linux with the simple APIs than it is with Windows and DirectX. I can see myself doing the former, but I'd struggle with the latter.)

    --
    THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
  169. Useless link. Try this by Inominate · · Score: 1

    I believe you were looking for
    http://www.iancgbell.clara.net/elite/

    The site has many different versions of it for several platforms. And unlike that googlespam site, it doesn't try and get you to pay for something that's free.

  170. Re:I would be more impressed... by MyFourthAccount · · Score: 4, Funny

    "Cause even Trolls love Rock & Roll"

    I totally agree with your post.

    A couple of days ago I executed an MD5 hash and it was more functional than this.

    Years ago I was thinking of writing a ray-tracer in 1 bit. But, I couldn't decide if I should write it in Java or C#.

    Then I picked up my copy of "The Zen of Assembly Language", but unfortunately a little too swift so the dust cloud that that generated kept me from entering my parents basement for a couple of days.

    "The Zen" is truly the a great piece of work, although I don't really know why we would need to use these new fangled 16-bit CPUs.

    But back to the subject, let's walks through how this game could be done SOOOO much better:

    A "basic" raytracing algorithm is very simple - you simply map a texture over a wireframe model and then scale the result by dividing the x and y dimensions by the z distance.

    That's right. That's EXACTLY how a raytracer would work, if there ever was one. I think for this one we should also implement tracing the actual rays, to add to the effect. Btw, I've got a nice wireframe model sitting in my backyard that can be used for this. Again, I think this really can be done in 1 bit.

    Basic FPS gameplay would involve loading your device handlers (mouse, keyboard, etc...), and writing a response loop.

    I think we can safely say that with mouse, keyboard, speech synthesis, speech recognition and a couple of other run of the mill devices this could be done in 2 bits, give or take 1.

    Asynchrous gameplay (i.e., enemy moves as you stand still) can likewise be handled by chaining the timer interrupt (18h? IIRC) to your "enemy movement" code.

    What can be more simple than chaining an interrupt to the "enemy movement" code that appeared out of thin air? But because it deals with interrupts, maybe 2 bits??

    I bet with a Z80 we could bring it down even more, but let's not get ahead of ourselves. It's better to keep the system requirements low. So far we can do this in a 74HCT04.

    Collision detection, etc, could simply be brute-forced by plotting the vector of the expelled projectile until it collided with another object.

    I have a question about this. Do you think we should also use radiosity on the projectiles? Because my plotter doesn't support that, and I'd hate to waste the ink. Well, let's round it off, say 3 bits. That gives us a target of 8 bits total.

    There. We're practically done. What are these guys smoking. This can be done in 8 bits, on a 74HCT04.

    [/sarcasm]

    Sir, you are a fucktard. Your last experience with Assembler (yes I call it Assembler, not Assembly, sue me) seems to predate the invention of the 8086 CPU.

    I actually write assember for a living, and I can tell you that what these guys do is amazing. They are squeezing the last drop out of the space. These are the people that _write_ books like the Zen of Assembly (which is in serious need of a predecessor).

  171. Linux is faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Also of note is that with linux you can set up a fullscreen game as one of your X Session managers (or even a runlevel), thus freeing up all the resources that would be taken up by window managers, desktop environments, etc. When logging in you can use the session menu (of many display managers) to tell it to run the game instead of KDE/Gnome.

    1. Re:Linux is faster by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This sounds interesting... Do you mean simply launching the game after X initializes, rather than running a window manager? In other words, could what you said be done by simply running xinit, then the game?

  172. Urban legend, apparently. by Andy+Smith · · Score: 1

    I'm only typing this because I'm forced to.

  173. How do you use it? by PetoskeyGuy · · Score: 1

    I downloaded and got it working, but I can't seem to play anything. I end up in a certain room with the camera spinning, but there is never any guns or control given, just watching the camera.

    I see it says press M1-M9 to change spawn points, but I'm not sure what that means. I have 768 Ram, GeForce3 Ti 500, on XP. Sounds stupid, but what do I do to start playing?

    1. Re:How do you use it? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I have 768 Ram, GeForce3 Ti 500

      And there's your problem. If you, like, RTFA, you'd know it needs a GeForce4 minimum.

      (Yeah, it sucks, doesn't it? I've only got a GF3 too, I share your pain...)

    2. Re:How do you use it? by TheBadger · · Score: 1

      I've got a Gforce3 Ti 500, I thought I'd see if it worked, but it doesn't work at all.

      One of those dodgy "Please tell M$ about it" messages....

      "pno0001.exe has encountered a problem and needs to close. We are sorry for the inconvenience."

  174. Does not work under WineX latest stable (v3.3.1-1) by tartley · · Score: 1
    I had high hopes, have had a lot of success with WineX recently, but kkreiger-beta does not work:
    ..winex/kkrieger> winex3 pno0001.exe
    wine: Unhandled exception, starting debugger...
  175. Not that simple.. by fforw · · Score: 1
    "a raytracer is *incredibly* simple, algorithmically..."

    Handing polygons to OpenGL is even easier.

    A FPS is much more complex than just passing a few polygons. You need a full 3D engine with occlusion culling, player and object movement, scene scripting, map handling, collision detection, sound system.

    But the main chunk will be all the textures, sounds, models and maps that add to a massive amount of data.
    (one uncompressed texture in 256 x 256 in 24 Bit color takes 192 kilobyte alone). As even really good compression algorithms won't compress all that data down to 96K, you'll need to calculate it algorithmically - which is quite difficult if you want it to look as good as the screenshots show it.

    --
    while (!asleep()) sheep++
    1. Re:Not that simple.. by gr8_phk · · Score: 1

      Agreed. All that stuff that goes into a game is non-trivial. Content creation - weather it be manually created or algorithmicly - is challenging. The original comment about the simplicity of ray tracing, and my comment about the simplicity of using OpenGL both overlook things like occlusion culling or oct-tree traversal. I was just firing a cheap shot back at theirs :-)

  176. How is this Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The whole last paragraph was complete bullshit.

    I mean, he gives such excellent arguments as "...since Windows is the best way to get the max out of gfx and audio hardware without compromising performance."

    I'm not aware of how Linux makes your compromise performance. His post sounds like it a plagery of some page on microsoft.com. He gives no proof what-so-ever. He just says it, and snaps his fingers "Make it be so".

    1. Re:How is this Insightful? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      maybe if you linux freaks resort to namecalling and acusing people of making unsubstantiaed claimes people will care.

      linux is no better to get exellent "gfx" than windows (i may give windows a little more credence because drivers generally are more recent and better)

      you guys are no better than the windows junkies and that must really piss you off

  177. Re:Make it good, *then* optimize. by BinxBolling · · Score: 1

    Exactly.

    Nobody would argue that functional defects can't be introduced at design time -- clearly, they can, and given the expense of fixing a design flaw late in the dev cycle, good software engineers put a lot of effort into getting the design right. (Unless they're using an 'agile' process, which simply isn't appropriate for larger projects.)

    Why are problems with resource consumption (CPU and storage) any different than functional defects? Why do so many people adhere to the dogma that you shouldn't think about performance until late in development?

    Yeah, every book and every instructor may say "optimize last", but only neophytes who've never worked on a real software project of any size take it to mean "don't think about performance at first".

  178. SDL games by algeliten · · Score: 1

    ... and unreal tournament - SDL/OpenGL.

  179. Re:I would be more impressed... by swatoa · · Score: 1

    Why are you personally offended? Are you one of the authors? I know nerds, but...

  180. More for web me thinks by GoLLuM.no · · Score: 1

    Size don't really matter when it comes to games on CD-ROM. I think this sort or engine is more suited for the web because of it's small size its easily downloadable for use with web commercials/banners and/or 3D web games. Alot better than earlier engines for the web (name of them slipps my mind atm though, did'nt SGI have a web-based 3D engine waaaaay back).

  181. Re:YOU SIR, ARE A FAGOT by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
    I concur.

    It's been 17 seconds since you hit 'reply'!

  182. Impressive!!! by master_p · · Score: 1

    I have a GF3 card. It has Doom III-quality graphics, and it did not run on my machine: it crawled at 1 frame per second.

    If you go back in the history of games, the game 'Lord of Midnight' was one of the most impressive ZX spectrum games: 48000 different screen, and each screen had different things to play with...the ZX spectrum had 48K memory, by the way.

    Another impressive game was the original Elite. In only 48K, there were thounsands of planets to visit.

  183. Re:I would be more impressed... by Lost+Race · · Score: 2, Funny
    Years ago I was thinking of writing a ray-tracer in 1 bit.
    I did this once but after I put in the EULA and a few easter eggs it was bloated all the way out to a byte. Then my disk crashed and I lost that byte... if only I'd made a backup somewhere! I think it was 0xE7 or maybe 0x74? Ah well, so it goes.
  184. I've always wanted by bigenchilada · · Score: 1

    a FPS using my name.

    Yes, yes, I know, krieger in Deutsch means warrior.

  185. Re:I would be more impressed... by scot4875 · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Raytracing has absolutely nothing to do with wireframes. Maybe you're thinking of 'raycasting', which is similar but still not the same. But then you start talking about rendering the scene back-to-front, which has nothing to do with either technique.

    "Chaining the timer interrupt" is like something I'd say if I were interested in making something sound more complicated than it really is to someone who had no idea what I was talking about. Besides that, you don't get timer interrupts in Windows programming (nor any other protected-mode operating system, I'd assume).

    Based on those 2 things, I'd assume that you've got no clue what you're talking about. And how does an 81-byte fractal program compare in any way to a primitive 3d game engine?

    --Jeremy

    --
    Jesus was a liberal
  186. Re:I would be more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Had you actually completely read his post, you would have noticed that kb was the audio programmer for the game.

    Anybody complaining about the game should try to make a more impressive one. If you can't, you have no right to complain.

    I certainly can't. I'm in awe of the achievement. I've only seen one other 96kb game as good: Tsunami 2010, available at www.ainc.de

  187. Frog stupid... by adamofgreyskull · · Score: 1

    Have a look Here, here and who could ever forget...Sheeeeeep Cuuuuull!!!!.

  188. ACK!!!! No Invert Mouse!!!! by Op911 · · Score: 1

    You'd think you could add code for that to keep below the 100k mark...

  189. I'm stuck in the game by epgandalf · · Score: 1

    In the game I get stuck after I enter the large 2-story room that contains the first monsters bigger than the ones you can kill with 2 shots. The door opens and I see a new gun, but there is an invisible force field of some kind and neither me nor the monsters can get through it.
    I tried shooting it, but I can't get through.

    Has anybody gotten past this?

    Lots of people said it crashed their system or ran slow, but it worked find on my Barton 2500@10.5x215 with a Radeon 9600 Pro and 512MB RAM.

    1. Re:I'm stuck in the game by Jotham · · Score: 1

      same... I m1 - m6 jumps you to different points (I think m4 puts you inside the room)

  190. It's a FAKE.* by ModusOperandi_2002 · · Score: 1

    Do a "netstat -aon" while the game is loading. (The -o switch only works under XP, not 2k). The initial progress bar is simply the game downloading the bulk of its binary/data from an application server (192.67.198.49) somewhere in Germany.* * This statement is a lie.

    1. Re:It's a FAKE.* by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      * This statement is a lie.

      haha.. makes me think.
      NOVA FM(melbourne) have an add campaign at the moment..
      "Nova promises that by the end of this add you will be invisible. (Warning this promise is not a real promise - but this is - We'll never give you more than 2 adds in a row)"

  191. Re:Does not work under WineX latest stable (v3.3.1 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Don't worry. It doesn't run under Windows, either. (Using XP)

  192. You're a fake. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice try. No matching PIDs. No bandwidth usage when ran. No connections to any server period from firewall logs.

    You could of at least posted some fake results or something like that.

  193. Use Linux? No problem. by covox · · Score: 1

    And yes, .the.product is (for the better part) playable under Linux with Wine's DX8 wrapper, if you don't mind the music being a tad out of sync.

  194. More Wow! by Ch_Omega · · Score: 4, Interesting

    For those interesting in something else from the same people, check out this 64k demo which among other things, includes detailed 3d-models of nude women. :)

  195. Dare I post it, but... by man_ls · · Score: 1

    www.asshats.org/64kb.exe

    is another earlier demo this group released...very impressive. 64kb 3D environment exe demo.

  196. Bill Gates made you do it? (NT) by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Yep, there's text here. I'm a lier.

  197. Why being so small is important? by TLSPRWR · · Score: 1

    ...Millions of downloads and still no /.ing!

    1. Re:Why being so small is important? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      also, with humongus new games comming out, we will be able to fit them on smaller media. like, for example think of a gta game with the entire USA on a single cd

  198. A *real* engine? by cgenman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    like a *real* engine such as Quake 3 or UT2004

    Hello Mr. Clueless-modded-insightful. What is listed as a requirement for Quake 3? That's right, Open GL. UT2004 doesn't explicitly require DirectX9.0b if you're willing to run in software emulation mode, but don't kid yourself and try it without. And since when does a static linking to DirectX9 take 5 CD's?

    Games take a lot of space because they are full of detailed 3d animated models, extra-large textures, and lots of sound and music. None of that comes from DirectX. These guys have managed to use some cool tricks to create detailed models and images on par with a lot of what is released today and do so in under 100k. That's pretty darned impressive.

    If your "Hello World" is dynamically linked to a C++ library, and mine procedurally generates a novel titled "Hello World" of comparable quality to a Tom Clancy book, my "Hello World" is just cooler.

    Of course, mr. Repugnant_Shit, you are a troll. But someone modded you up for reasons unknown, and as such a little explanation was in order.

  199. wow by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    and when I compile my "hello world" program it creates a 129kb executable!

  200. Modding Capability? by necro2607 · · Score: 1

    If the textures are generated when the game loads, then I suppose each of the textures has a short "key" to its design and then the game generates the texture based on that. The first thing that makes me think of is how that means huge modding capability. I don't know how the level data is stored but if it were to be made modular then this game would make a great engine for smaller-scale shareware games or even a few well-done commercial "total conversions" or the likes.

  201. This is art. by Lurgen · · Score: 2, Insightful

    This isn't just a demo, it's fucking art. Nothing short of art.

    These guys consistently put together tightly coded, artistics pieces of material that not a single contributor to this discussion could have done no matter how long they had available to them.

    Yes, they used DirectX. Who cares. No, the game isn't a commercial effort. But it's tiny. And it looks awesome. And on good enough hardware it runs perfectly.

    This is the programming equivalent of carving a portrait into the top of a needle.

    So what if it doesn't run on Linux. Who said it was supposed to? It doesn't use OpenGL, that's their personal choice. Just respect it for the phenomenal level of expertise required to produce something like this. For the innovation, skill and effort they must have poured into 96KB of data.

    Personally, I'd love to come close to this level of skill in anything, let alone something this difficult.

    1. Re:This is art. by 10537 · · Score: 0

      Amen to that. It appears that many of the posters here are completely unfamiliar with "the scene" and the amount of technical and artistic effort put into these things. So it's not Unreal 2004, and yes, it uses Direct X, but given that UT2k4 is nearly 60,000 (yes 60,000) times bigger it's no surprise.

      --
      This sentence no verb.
  202. Re:I would be more impressed... by MBraynard · · Score: 1
    No that's totally rediculous to say.

    I was a video game reviewer for a zine, I could probably not program anything more than a tic tac toe game. I don't think many movie reviewers could make a movie. I've done published book reviews but have no near-time expectations of writing a book.

    I too am in awe but my inability to replicate their work on my own does not disqualify me from criticising it.

  203. Re:I would be more impressed... by xenocide2 · · Score: 1

    "I was a video game reviewer for a zine,"

    Oh, well there's a hard to come by credential!

    --
    I Browse at +4 Flamebait

    Open Source Sysadmin

  204. Heres an idea, NO sound so I can play w/Radeon8500 by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How about it?
    I couldn't even exit the game,
    I had to kill it.

  205. Interesting by j.bellone · · Score: 1

    This is really interesting to me; as I went ahead and read the website before reading any of these comments.

    Something like this could be easily adapted so that you can ship small (er?) patches for your games so that they are narrowband friendly? Of course it would take a little while to actually extract the contents, but in the end it would be less time than actually downloading everything in a zip file.

    Neat design guys, keep up the good work!

    --
    I'm f#$king magic!
  206. Re:I would be more impressed... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Righteous post, dude. Where are my mod points when I need them?

  207. OMG!!!! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    A tech demo that doesn't do anything even remotely special from a technical standpoint that takes more time to start up (even on a top-of-the-line machine) than any sane person would want to spend actually "playing" it? WOW!!!!!!! HOW DID THEY DO IT?!?!?!?!

  208. Dawn by PsilocybeCubensis · · Score: 0

    Dawn was amazing. Azure is truely a legendary 68k coder. I saw it live on The Party when it was released. Gee.. I'm getting all nostalgic here.

  209. Re:I would be more impressed... by MBraynard · · Score: 1

    I am quiet proud of the writing I did. We were a serious zine with representatives at e3, we got all of the games given to us in advance by publishers. It was Well-Rounded Entertainment.

  210. Re:YOU SIR, ARE A FAGOT by Xformer · · Score: 1

    At least he can spell.

    --
    All I want is a kind word, a warm bed and unlimited power.