I don't know about you, but i quickly consume any amount of computing power given to me. My PII266 sits compressing video for hours, and rendering ray-tracings for days. Even if my machine was ten times faster that would reduce rendering time from what, like 100 hours to 10 hours? Still room for improvement. Newer apps (especially multimedia) often require some major number crunching, sometimes because of large amounts of data and complex algorithms, and sometimes for bloated coding. These factors will be increasing significantly in the near future, and will be affecting more and more people. I need as much power as i can get, though if you're only writing code you probably won't need that power (unless you want to quickly compile something).
Are you saying game makers should try to make it look cool because future generations might not be impressed? The future generations aren't buying the game. I think you should absolutly try to make it look and play as good as possible. It's all dependent on the talent of the programmers, but a lot of the best games are ones that come out late in the systems life, after programmers have learned to get the most from (push) the system. Three words: Donkey Kong Country
You should set your sights a little higher. The only reason they did that stuff was because the technology just couldn't deliver the high quality graphics. Soon all that will be required to make the game photorealistic is good programming. The whole interactive movie thing is extremely rigid and to me, not very entertaining. It would be okay for parts of RPGs and such, but no matter how many clips you have, you just can't "play" a video the same way that you can play a CGI video game. It is a common solution lately to compensate for shitty programming with tons of data, but i will not support that, and i doubt many others would accept that as "the future of gaming".
Lots of misconceptions floating about here. The software is new. It has nothing to do with what you were talking about, and this is not photogrammetry either. The camera takes two pictures: one for the texture and one as a greyscale depth field. The depth is created by scanning over the surface with beams of light (hence the max distance of 90cm) and reads the depth offset in the scanlines as they travel over the surface. This creates "facing" surfaces which are modifed and stitched together into one model. The polygonal resolution can be optimized through software to any appropriate detail level.
Slashdot Mirror
I don't know about you, but i quickly consume any amount of computing power given to me. My PII266 sits compressing video for hours, and rendering ray-tracings for days. Even if my machine was ten times faster that would reduce rendering time from what, like 100 hours to 10 hours? Still room for improvement. Newer apps (especially multimedia) often require some major number crunching, sometimes because of large amounts of data and complex algorithms, and sometimes for bloated coding. These factors will be increasing significantly in the near future, and will be affecting more and more people. I need as much power as i can get, though if you're only writing code you probably won't need that power (unless you want to quickly compile something).
Are you saying game makers should try to make it look cool because future generations might not be impressed? The future generations aren't buying the game. I think you should absolutly try to make it look and play as good as possible. It's all dependent on the talent of the programmers, but a lot of the best games are ones that come out late in the systems life, after programmers have learned to get the most from (push) the system. Three words: Donkey Kong Country
You should set your sights a little higher. The only reason they did that stuff was because the technology just couldn't deliver the high quality graphics. Soon all that will be required to make the game photorealistic is good programming. The whole interactive movie thing is extremely rigid and to me, not very entertaining. It would be okay for parts of RPGs and such, but no matter how many clips you have, you just can't "play" a video the same way that you can play a CGI video game. It is a common solution lately to compensate for shitty programming with tons of data, but i will not support that, and i doubt many others would accept that as "the future of gaming".
That sounds like an impressive set-up. If you "already did this" do you have any of the resulting 3D Models to show us?
Lots of misconceptions floating about here. The software is new. It has nothing to do with what you were talking about, and this is not photogrammetry either. The camera takes two pictures: one for the texture and one as a greyscale depth field. The depth is created by scanning over the surface with beams of light (hence the max distance of 90cm) and reads the depth offset in the scanlines as they travel over the surface. This creates "facing" surfaces which are modifed and stitched together into one model. The polygonal resolution can be optimized through software to any appropriate detail level.
That Company is DMA (Dimensional Media Associates). www.3dmedia.com (i work there).