Some of us don't care whether reported technology is immediately practical. We visit.\ for entertainment; for us "nerds," that often means science news that's cool or interesting, regardless of the technology's maturity. We don't visit.\ to learn about how to improve our lives, though sometimes we do learn such things. We visit it for fun.
A lot of intriguing stories are for our own mental enrichment; an external reward is not necessary. They're not time wasters (in the fundamental sense) for us when they grant to us what we desire.
If you only want to read about the big events that affect standards of living, I suggest CNN.
Agreed... but the strive for efficiency in the F119-PW-100's development should translate to even greater benefits in commercial engines. It's not so much important that the F119 achieved some thing called "supercruise." It's that in trying to create an efficient high-output engine compared to other military engines, they gained more experienced and better technical expertise that should allow them to design better engines in general.
So no tech breakthroughs, as supercruise technically existed in the Concorde (and the British Electric Lightning, and the F-14D clean configuration...), but I think the F119's progress helped.
I don't think the Concorde hindered SST development. Many of the base technologies (powerplant, thermal, materials) involved have advanced greatly on their own, mostly due to the military aviation world. Skipping the Concorde would have just killed the SST at that time; Lockheed, Boeing had already ended their efforts (which hand't been breakneck pace, more like a slugglish struggle) and ending the Concorde would have just confirmed what all the naysayers thought, that it was too soon for a decent SST. The Concorde wasn't perfect, but it was a great leap ahead that kept the SST concept fresh and current throughout the years.
Today I think a 2 mach SST would be much easier to create, albeit still more expensive than an.9 mach aircraft of the same capacity (you can't just double the speed for nothing).
What I've always found interesting is that those who take issue with the U.S. defensive ABM program seem to have no qualms with the U.S. offensive ICBM programs. Which is more likely to provoke war? Which is more directly meant to protect?
in that case, you might as well assume the military has anything you want to believe, seeing as evidence is no prerequisite in formulating a conclusion. also, did you ever consider the fact that that article was not written by a member of military, but by an e4 journalist? ah wait, he's secretly being paid by the military, because that's what circumstances could possibly allow for.
simply because something could be true doesn't actually make it true. you could spend all day filling in the blanks of info in press releases from everywhere. fun speculation, but worthless, insignificant analysis.
Unguided missile weapons are typically termed "rockets." They would be useless against modern jet aircraft, and no ballistic SAM systems currently exist.
Texels are not really manipulated directly in 3d content creation. Texel is a graphics term referring to a pixel of a frame occupied by geometry which is texture-mapped.
It would depend on a lot of things, but small errors can propagate. For example creating a character skeleton relies on precise positioning of "joints" that, if improperly adjusted, can become pretty screwed up. Distorting texture coordinates can result in badly misplaced textures, especially with real time work (games). Extremely detailed models can have minute detail and large objects, with some of the larger details being thousands of times larger than the smaller details. Lossy compression algorithms could result in an unacceptable level of vertex deformation in smaller things as it only tries to preserve the larger details well.
It all really depends on the degree to which precision loss exists though, which I don't think any of us can predict.
I think it highly unlikely that it'll be a lossy format. There has never been a lossy 3d geometry format, and I'm pretty sure if I consulted my colleagues they'd find the idea insane as I do. Filesize is rarely a problem with 3d geometry files (I've worked with models with hundreds of thousands of polys only a few megabytes in size), and it's not like everyone is always trying to download the latest new 3d models off of Kazaa. There's no mass low-bandwidth transfer of 3d models compared to JPGs and MP3s, so no compression is needed. Lossy compression would be a completely unnecessary feature that would effectively block it from usage in almost every area of 3d content creation.
Very intriguing, but it is only capable of storing raw quantized geometry (i.e. no spline-based models, unless polygon conversion is acceptable).
The universal 3d file format being proposed seems more like Rich Text File, whereas . It should not only store the meaningful content, but also basic object-organization data, comprehensive mapping coordinates, decent instance handling, intelligent scale adjustment and have flawless coordinate system conversion. Something that would store more data than a mapping of bits (as coordinates), just like Rich Text File stores than just text.
Alias was acquired by AKKR recently, and with that transfer probably went the ownership of the file format rights (the cursed or blessed.mb, maya binary). I doubt that AKKR has any interest in opening the format up, unfortunately...
I thought it was pretty obvious that they were referring to polygon meshes (and possibly NURBS), which can be used to make any of the things you listed. A 3d map is a collection of vertices shaped like a map. A 3D wireframe is a mode with which you view a 3d object (it is a view setting, like smooth shaded or flat shaded), it is not an object. A 3d solid object could refer to volumetric computerized geometry, however the uses of that are so uncommon (engineering, medical, scientific visualizations) that it would not be worthwhile to create a standard 3d file format. A 3d interior space is a collection of vertices shaped like an interior space.
It's not like you have to use a different image format when create an picture of a house or a picture of a dog. It's all in how the user paints the pixels. Likewise, with a polygon model, it's all about how the user manipulates the geometry.
There *are* some 3d geometry types other than polygon meshes and NURBS, but the only need (that I've perceived anyways) for a universal 3d geometry file format is with those two categories. The others so seldomly in such esoteric groups that they'd have no need for such a thing.
Interesting that Rio, originally from Diamond, is making the top mp3 player (imnsho), the Karma. One of (if not the) first mp3 players was the Rio PMP300, whose button design may have inspired the iPod's. Seems like Rio is still in step with preempting tech trends, with a player that supports OGG and FLAC, has two RCA outputs to connect to a home stereo system, and file transfers via ethernet.
The Apple World: The Cathedral. The Holy Steve Jobs (ever wonder why it's called the Cult of Mac. Systems running tightly integrated software officially sanctioned by the Apple. Little output for customization, creativity or diversity. All Macs have one of a few appearances, with extremely rare exceptions. Apple progress is often characterized by usually large but infrequent bounds, often coupled with impressive corporate acquisitions (e.g. NothingReal) and ruthless business tact (terminating PC support for Shake and FCP). Highly elitist users and developers, often very willing to "preach" to the unfaithful.
The PC World: The Bazaar. All sorts of manufacturers running about trying to sell competing products through a myriad of resellers. A much more complex market that gives rise to fierce, often chaotic competition, with more incremental but far more rapid advances. All manner of users, from the clueless newbie, the hardcore gamer, the unix guru, the graphics artist and the scientist and engineers. Among the more high-end users, risque hardware customization and minute hardware analysis reign supreme. Software and hardware integration is less integrated than in the Apple World, but needless to say, that does not seem to be much of an impediment. The PC World is far less united, but also amazingly adaptive and incredibly diverse.
The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Which is better? You decide...
More or less how most vapor phase cooling systems work, using liquids whose boiling points are lower than room temperature. It's been done with liquid nitrogen (anyone remember the Kryotech Super-G?) and freon as far as I know. Very effective, but very expensive.
"What is the top theoretical speed of the current US fighter/and or/stealth aircraft?"
There's not a formula (or formulae) currently with which one can just plug in some values and come up with a theoretical terminal speed for an aircraft. Even disregarding differences in aircraft configuration (additional stores, fuel etc.) and flight path (level flight, dive, low altitude, high altitude?) top speed is the combination of a million different mechanical, aerodynamic features, impossible to calculate with significant precision.
Of course, one can easily make reasonable estimates based on past demonstrated performance. The fastest U.S. fighter is the F-15 with a top speed of Mach 2.5 (achieved with a minimal fuel load and clean configuration).
Top speed doesn't matter so much in a fighter though as sustained speed and acceleration to a lesser degree. The quoted top speed (i.e. used to advertise the aircraft to potential buyers) can only be maintained for a few minutes at most before too much fuel is consumed. Practically speaking, a high top speed for a fighter is only significant because it implies a high acceleration, which is essential in tactical air engagements (i.e. dogfights) in which complex maneuvers rely on rapid positive and negative acceleration (among many other things).
The F-22's top speed has been commonly quoted as 1.9M, mostly due to skin friction. It has demonstrated supercruise of Mach 1.53 and a requirement for the ATF program was supercruise of at least 1.5M. There are strong reports that both the British Electric Lightning and American F-14D were capable of supercruise, albeit at a much lesser magnitude (~1.1M with no external stores).
The SR-71 is not completely "air-breathing." It used a turbo-ramjet hybrid design created by engineer Ben Rich. It only was airbreathing when functioning as a ramjet.
Top speeds are only "top" until they're broken. The highest speed I've seen quoted for the SR-71 is around 3.2M, and as that was significantly above its typical cruising speed I doubt that it could go higher. I've never heard of it being "classified."
1) US refusing Concorde at supersonic speed over US territory.
Done for the same reason that most western European countries cited when limiting Concorde flights, i.e. noise. I'd expect less noise to be generated by scramjets because of the lack of fans (reducing aerodynamic and mechanical noise) and more compact combustion of the vapor-fuel mixture.
2) Price of petrol
SCRAMJETs will not use kerosene-derived propellant. They will combust hydrogen with oxygen from the atmosphere (maybe you should have done 2 seconds of research).
3) 2 hours of transatlantic flight, 2 hours to go to the initial airport, 2 hours to go from the final airport...
A flight on a Mach 5 aircraft will be shorter than the same flight on a Mach.9 aircraft.
4) Looking back at this, it was somewhat an ecological catastrophe
If what you mean by "somewhat" is "not really." I can't see the 20 Concordes built adding significantly the net pollution of thousands of supersonic military aircraft in service around the world.
How will all those factors be taken into account by the sdcramjet developers?
What the fuck? There is not and never has been any aircraft manufacturer with a name close to "Aerospaciale." The Concorde was jointly developed by a consortium of British and French companies, none of which have the name which you conjured.
Hmm let's see... A 1024x768 or 1280x960 image, 24bit, 40 or 60 times a second. Losslessly compressed, let's say. What would that create, maybe a couple megabytes of data sent per user per second?! Multiply that by 20 users... and now it's at least a couple dozen megabytes per second. How many servers have this much bandwidth at their disposal? How many clients do?
And then the server's processing load... not only does it have to handle the typical non-graphics duties of a game server, but now it must render the game from around 20 different viewpoints... at 1024x768, 24bit, 60 times a second. Ok, unless the quality settings are set incredibly low, no video card and CPU combination will be able to render that many pixels at a decent framerate (unless you consider sub-single-digit, "decent"). With cluter computing it might be possible (30 AthlonFX-53 workstations, though there are better ways to use that much processing power), but not with anything powering a game server today.
Please... having all the frames pre-rendered by the server is completely impractical, bordering on ridiculous. I can't believe anybody could take such a solution to cheating seriously.
Slashdot Mirror
Some of us don't care whether reported technology is immediately practical. We visit .\ for entertainment; for us "nerds," that often means science news that's cool or interesting, regardless of the technology's maturity. We don't visit .\ to learn about how to improve our lives, though sometimes we do learn such things. We visit it for fun.
A lot of intriguing stories are for our own mental enrichment; an external reward is not necessary. They're not time wasters (in the fundamental sense) for us when they grant to us what we desire.
If you only want to read about the big events that affect standards of living, I suggest CNN.
Agreed... but the strive for efficiency in the F119-PW-100's development should translate to even greater benefits in commercial engines. It's not so much important that the F119 achieved some thing called "supercruise." It's that in trying to create an efficient high-output engine compared to other military engines, they gained more experienced and better technical expertise that should allow them to design better engines in general.
So no tech breakthroughs, as supercruise technically existed in the Concorde (and the British Electric Lightning, and the F-14D clean configuration...), but I think the F119's progress helped.
I don't think the Concorde hindered SST development. Many of the base technologies (powerplant, thermal, materials) involved have advanced greatly on their own, mostly due to the military aviation world. Skipping the Concorde would have just killed the SST at that time; Lockheed, Boeing had already ended their efforts (which hand't been breakneck pace, more like a slugglish struggle) and ending the Concorde would have just confirmed what all the naysayers thought, that it was too soon for a decent SST. The Concorde wasn't perfect, but it was a great leap ahead that kept the SST concept fresh and current throughout the years.
.9 mach aircraft of the same capacity (you can't just double the speed for nothing).
Today I think a 2 mach SST would be much easier to create, albeit still more expensive than an
What I've always found interesting is that those who take issue with the U.S. defensive ABM program seem to have no qualms with the U.S. offensive ICBM programs. Which is more likely to provoke war? Which is more directly meant to protect?
in that case, you might as well assume the military has anything you want to believe, seeing as evidence is no prerequisite in formulating a conclusion. also, did you ever consider the fact that that article was not written by a member of military, but by an e4 journalist? ah wait, he's secretly being paid by the military, because that's what circumstances could possibly allow for.
simply because something could be true doesn't actually make it true. you could spend all day filling in the blanks of info in press releases from everywhere. fun speculation, but worthless, insignificant analysis.
Unguided missile weapons are typically termed "rockets." They would be useless against modern jet aircraft, and no ballistic SAM systems currently exist.
.3ds also can't handle spline surface geometry. I've been using IGES for that instead (exports beautifully from Maya to CATIA).
Texels are not really manipulated directly in 3d content creation. Texel is a graphics term referring to a pixel of a frame occupied by geometry which is texture-mapped.
It would depend on a lot of things, but small errors can propagate. For example creating a character skeleton relies on precise positioning of "joints" that, if improperly adjusted, can become pretty screwed up. Distorting texture coordinates can result in badly misplaced textures, especially with real time work (games). Extremely detailed models can have minute detail and large objects, with some of the larger details being thousands of times larger than the smaller details. Lossy compression algorithms could result in an unacceptable level of vertex deformation in smaller things as it only tries to preserve the larger details well.
It all really depends on the degree to which precision loss exists though, which I don't think any of us can predict.
I think it highly unlikely that it'll be a lossy format. There has never been a lossy 3d geometry format, and I'm pretty sure if I consulted my colleagues they'd find the idea insane as I do. Filesize is rarely a problem with 3d geometry files (I've worked with models with hundreds of thousands of polys only a few megabytes in size), and it's not like everyone is always trying to download the latest new 3d models off of Kazaa. There's no mass low-bandwidth transfer of 3d models compared to JPGs and MP3s, so no compression is needed. Lossy compression would be a completely unnecessary feature that would effectively block it from usage in almost every area of 3d content creation.
Very intriguing, but it is only capable of storing raw quantized geometry (i.e. no spline-based models, unless polygon conversion is acceptable).
The universal 3d file format being proposed seems more like Rich Text File, whereas . It should not only store the meaningful content, but also basic object-organization data, comprehensive mapping coordinates, decent instance handling, intelligent scale adjustment and have flawless coordinate system conversion. Something that would store more data than a mapping of bits (as coordinates), just like Rich Text File stores than just text.
Alias was acquired by AKKR recently, and with that transfer probably went the ownership of the file format rights (the cursed or blessed .mb, maya binary). I doubt that AKKR has any interest in opening the format up, unfortunately...
I thought it was pretty obvious that they were referring to polygon meshes (and possibly NURBS), which can be used to make any of the things you listed. A 3d map is a collection of vertices shaped like a map. A 3D wireframe is a mode with which you view a 3d object (it is a view setting, like smooth shaded or flat shaded), it is not an object. A 3d solid object could refer to volumetric computerized geometry, however the uses of that are so uncommon (engineering, medical, scientific visualizations) that it would not be worthwhile to create a standard 3d file format. A 3d interior space is a collection of vertices shaped like an interior space.
It's not like you have to use a different image format when create an picture of a house or a picture of a dog. It's all in how the user paints the pixels. Likewise, with a polygon model, it's all about how the user manipulates the geometry.
There *are* some 3d geometry types other than polygon meshes and NURBS, but the only need (that I've perceived anyways) for a universal 3d geometry file format is with those two categories. The others so seldomly in such esoteric groups that they'd have no need for such a thing.
Didn't Dynamix give a talk on the Tribes 1 netcode at a GDC long, long ago?
Interesting that Rio, originally from Diamond, is making the top mp3 player (imnsho), the Karma. One of (if not the) first mp3 players was the Rio PMP300, whose button design may have inspired the iPod's. Seems like Rio is still in step with preempting tech trends, with a player that supports OGG and FLAC, has two RCA outputs to connect to a home stereo system, and file transfers via ethernet.
The Apple World:
The Cathedral. The Holy Steve Jobs (ever wonder why it's called the Cult of Mac. Systems running tightly integrated software officially sanctioned by the Apple. Little output for customization, creativity or diversity. All Macs have one of a few appearances, with extremely rare exceptions. Apple progress is often characterized by usually large but infrequent bounds, often coupled with impressive corporate acquisitions (e.g. NothingReal) and ruthless business tact (terminating PC support for Shake and FCP). Highly elitist users and developers, often very willing to "preach" to the unfaithful.
The PC World:
The Bazaar. All sorts of manufacturers running about trying to sell competing products through a myriad of resellers. A much more complex market that gives rise to fierce, often chaotic competition, with more incremental but far more rapid advances. All manner of users, from the clueless newbie, the hardcore gamer, the unix guru, the graphics artist and the scientist and engineers. Among the more high-end users, risque hardware customization and minute hardware analysis reign supreme. Software and hardware integration is less integrated than in the Apple World, but needless to say, that does not seem to be much of an impediment. The PC World is far less united, but also amazingly adaptive and incredibly diverse.
The Cathedral and the Bazaar. Which is better? You decide...
Yes.
More or less how most vapor phase cooling systems work, using liquids whose boiling points are lower than room temperature. It's been done with liquid nitrogen (anyone remember the Kryotech Super-G?) and freon as far as I know. Very effective, but very expensive.
fucking dumbass. "potentially" != "possibly"
completely different meanings.
Allows for changing the look of thousands of pages accessing the same style sheet by editing a single file...
"What is the top theoretical speed of the current US fighter/and or/stealth aircraft?"
There's not a formula (or formulae) currently with which one can just plug in some values and come up with a theoretical terminal speed for an aircraft. Even disregarding differences in aircraft configuration (additional stores, fuel etc.) and flight path (level flight, dive, low altitude, high altitude?) top speed is the combination of a million different mechanical, aerodynamic features, impossible to calculate with significant precision.
Of course, one can easily make reasonable estimates based on past demonstrated performance. The fastest U.S. fighter is the F-15 with a top speed of Mach 2.5 (achieved with a minimal fuel load and clean configuration).
Top speed doesn't matter so much in a fighter though as sustained speed and acceleration to a lesser degree. The quoted top speed (i.e. used to advertise the aircraft to potential buyers) can only be maintained for a few minutes at most before too much fuel is consumed. Practically speaking, a high top speed for a fighter is only significant because it implies a high acceleration, which is essential in tactical air engagements (i.e. dogfights) in which complex maneuvers rely on rapid positive and negative acceleration (among many other things).
Hope this helps.
The F-22's top speed has been commonly quoted as 1.9M, mostly due to skin friction. It has demonstrated supercruise of Mach 1.53 and a requirement for the ATF program was supercruise of at least 1.5M. There are strong reports that both the British Electric Lightning and American F-14D were capable of supercruise, albeit at a much lesser magnitude (~1.1M with no external stores).
The SR-71 is not completely "air-breathing." It used a turbo-ramjet hybrid design created by engineer Ben Rich. It only was airbreathing when functioning as a ramjet.
Top speeds are only "top" until they're broken. The highest speed I've seen quoted for the SR-71 is around 3.2M, and as that was significantly above its typical cruising speed I doubt that it could go higher. I've never heard of it being "classified."
SCRAMJETs will not use kerosene-derived propellant. They will combust hydrogen with oxygen from the atmosphere (maybe you should have done 2 seconds of research).
A flight on a Mach 5 aircraft will be shorter than the same flight on a Mach
If what you mean by "somewhat" is "not really." I can't see the 20 Concordes built adding significantly the net pollution of thousands of supersonic military aircraft in service around the world.
They don't need to.
What the fuck? There is not and never has been any aircraft manufacturer with a name close to "Aerospaciale." The Concorde was jointly developed by a consortium of British and French companies, none of which have the name which you conjured.
God damn you have as stupid an attitude on scientific research as Bush.
Hmm let's see... A 1024x768 or 1280x960 image, 24bit, 40 or 60 times a second. Losslessly compressed, let's say. What would that create, maybe a couple megabytes of data sent per user per second?! Multiply that by 20 users... and now it's at least a couple dozen megabytes per second. How many servers have this much bandwidth at their disposal? How many clients do?
And then the server's processing load... not only does it have to handle the typical non-graphics duties of a game server, but now it must render the game from around 20 different viewpoints... at 1024x768, 24bit, 60 times a second. Ok, unless the quality settings are set incredibly low, no video card and CPU combination will be able to render that many pixels at a decent framerate (unless you consider sub-single-digit, "decent"). With cluter computing it might be possible (30 AthlonFX-53 workstations, though there are better ways to use that much processing power), but not with anything powering a game server today.
Please... having all the frames pre-rendered by the server is completely impractical, bordering on ridiculous. I can't believe anybody could take such a solution to cheating seriously.
He's also regarded as somewhat of a showman (like Dean Kamen) who easily attracts less-informed fans.