About that 64-bit color remark you made. You'r forgetting that Carmack is working on the next generation technology. You can't say "oh there's no application for 64-bit colors now, so why implement it?" if everyone did that there'd be no T&L.
I doubt that you ever wrote a line of code in your life, but if you have just blend a spherical gradient texture map on top of itself about 100 times and see how gradient it is. I'm guessing you'll be looking at about 2 or 3 shades of gray at the end of the process. THAT'S why we need 64-bit colors. Texels would still be 32/24 or even 16 bits. You would just use 64-bits for the internal math and then do one high quality dither to the 32-bit frame buffer.
64-bit colors are for reducing banding on next-gen multi-pass stuff. Such as advanced lighting algorithms.
You go girl! I agree completly! It bothers me when people have such hatred for products they haven't even seen just because it comes from a certain company. If it's good, and it looks like it's on the right track, I'll buy it. I would never want something to fail because MS is creating it. If there's a chance that a company will put out a product that's better than their competitors I salute them. No matter who they are. Competition is good. Microsoft doesn't have monopoly in the gaming market, and if they gain monopoly it will be because they are better than Sony. Competition is good.
You're absolutly right! But not on one point. The resolution on your TV depends on the TV itself. My TV can handle something like 900*700 pixels (it's something like 983*712, or whatever) at 100 frames per second. If I would get an input signal of that resolution and 100fps It would look a lot better than regular TV. The max res depends on your TV, but for newer sets the determining factor is the console. Oh, and I read somewhere that the X-box will run at 800*600, which is pretty nice.
"If you in any way gather information about the program that wouldn't be available to you without the program being under the GPL and using that information to create a patch you are obligated under law to distribute the patch under the GPL" I meant: "If you in any way gather information about the program that wouldn't be available to you if the source wasn't available to anyone but the original developer and using that information to create a patch you are obligated under law to distribute the patch under the GPL"
If you use (in any way) the source of the original program while creating the patch it is to be considered derivative work. AFAIK it is nigh on impossible to create a patch for a program without using the source code in any way. Note I'm using the word "use" not "include". By reading the source of the original to figure out how to create you patch you are using the source, and you patch must be released under GPL. If you read a document explaining the interface between various objects in the source to create a patch without reading the source you are still using the source. If you in any way gather information about the program that wouldn't be available to you without the program being under the GPL and using that information to create a patch you are obligated under law to distribute the patch under the GPL. Are we all clear on this now? Can I go home?
Slashdot Mirror
Oh for fucks sake!
About that 64-bit color remark you made.
You'r forgetting that Carmack is working on the next generation technology. You can't say "oh there's no application for 64-bit colors now, so why implement it?" if everyone did that there'd be no T&L.
I doubt that you ever wrote a line of code in your life, but if you have just blend a spherical gradient texture map on top of itself about 100 times and see how gradient it is. I'm guessing you'll be looking at about 2 or 3 shades of gray at the end of the process.
THAT'S why we need 64-bit colors. Texels would still be 32/24 or even 16 bits. You would just use 64-bits for the internal math and then do one high quality dither to the 32-bit frame buffer.
64-bit colors are for reducing banding on next-gen multi-pass stuff. Such as advanced lighting algorithms.
You go girl!
I agree completly! It bothers me when people have such hatred for products they haven't even seen just because it comes from a certain company.
If it's good, and it looks like it's on the right track, I'll buy it.
I would never want something to fail because MS is creating it. If there's a chance that a company will put out a product that's better than their competitors I salute them. No matter who they are. Competition is good. Microsoft doesn't have monopoly in the gaming market, and if they gain monopoly it will be because they are better than Sony. Competition is good.
You're absolutly right! But not on one point. The resolution on your TV depends on the TV itself. My TV can handle something like 900*700 pixels (it's something like 983*712, or whatever) at 100 frames per second. If I would get an input signal of that resolution and 100fps It would look a lot better than regular TV. The max res depends on your TV, but for newer sets the determining factor is the console. Oh, and I read somewhere that the X-box will run at 800*600, which is pretty nice.
"If you in any way gather information about the program that wouldn't be available to you without the program being under the GPL and using that information to create a patch you are obligated under law to distribute the patch under the GPL" I meant: "If you in any way gather information about the program that wouldn't be available to you if the source wasn't available to anyone but the original developer and using that information to create a patch you are obligated under law to distribute the patch under the GPL"
If you use (in any way) the source of the original program while creating the patch it is to be considered derivative work. AFAIK it is nigh on impossible to create a patch for a program without using the source code in any way. Note I'm using the word "use" not "include". By reading the source of the original to figure out how to create you patch you are using the source, and you patch must be released under GPL. If you read a document explaining the interface between various objects in the source to create a patch without reading the source you are still using the source. If you in any way gather information about the program that wouldn't be available to you without the program being under the GPL and using that information to create a patch you are obligated under law to distribute the patch under the GPL. Are we all clear on this now? Can I go home?