Why should I pay for something that is 10%-25% faster when it costs 30% as much as a PC? I care about value over absolute top performance.
I don't care about the Mac's legendary ease of use, I'm not braindead. Windows XP is very stable for me (3d graphics in Maya, 2d in Photoshop, video editing in Combustion, games), so OS X is not matter. And I don't care about any of those iLife applications.
So why should I, a PC user, buy a dual 2GHz G5 Power Mac instead of a 3GHz P4 PC, if I care about bang for the buck?
Some fresnel lenses should do the trick. The monitors with the attached lens boxes could be spaced and angled to make the edges of the lens boxes adjacent.
Al Qaeda probably doesn't even need a simulator. Flying is easier than most people think-- people with no flying experience have landed aircraft under the coaching of another. Flying into a building does not require as much precision.
I've kind of delegated the "CRT's emit significant harmful radiation" into the "exagerrated/myth" category of supposed dangers in our world. But that's just me.
I've noticed a lot of screenshots from various people of various things have stuff that is "censored". Personally I think that they just want to add some mystique to make themselves seem a bit more important.
And what's with the superfluous Photoshop filters? Drawing a white box over the stuff isn't enough, he had to add some noise and then the word "Censored", in case we believed that those windows actually did display noise. And he had to use that stupid crystallize filter too. Why the hell didn't he just blur the stuff, concealing the information without being distracting?
Too fuzzy in my opinion, especially with the smaller text. The larger black text almost looks like it has a drop shadow. ClearType on XP looks sharp and smooth, unlike the too soft text of OS X.
You're saying an awful lot after seeing only a few beta screenshots which, sobering as it is, do not show anything earth-shattering. Do all Mac users display such flagrant baseless sensationalism, or is it just you?
"And speaking of flight sims whatever happened to the Jane's/EA gaming colaboration? Am I ever gonna see a flight simulator better than F-18???"
The Jane's endorsement of EA products ended a while ago. Jane's Fighter Squadron was still under development at the time. Since then JFS has had its development transferred to Xicat Interactive, and was later released. It was a very bad game, very outdated and didn't hold a candle to Il-2.
Better sim than Jane's F/A-18? That game had a lot of flaws in my opinion; highly inaccurate flight model for the F/A-18E according to a Super Hornet pilot (not the F/A-18C pilot who worked on the game), very very bad framerates (single digits) on high end computers, bland textures on all of the non-player vehicles, repetitive terrain, sparse "cities" and scripted campaign. Falcon 4.0 with the SP3 patch is better in all those areas and many more. Same goes with Il-2 Sturmovik if you want WW2.
I agree. Mapping the image around a cylinder would look as photorealistic as a mercator map of the world rolled into a cylinder. That's why the guy mapped his skull image onto a rough model of a skull, not a cylinder.
Well, if you only wanted to scan in your face (not your entire head), you could use a single image of your face from the front and paste it into the corresponding area in the texture. The facial area is flat enough such that a cylindrical mapping isn't needed.
Or better yet, have the horizontal post mounted on a circular track, and have the rangefinder on a motorized pivot to let it pitch up and down. An object could then be scanned from all sides.
Such software exists. It is called Rotomapper, and can be found here, hosted on my website. I did not make the original application, and google turns up nothing on the filenames or application title. I just uploaded it now. I don't remember where I found it.
A home-made 3d scanner does not seem unfeasible. It would require having a computer-controllable laser range finder mounted on a vertical post, which is connected to a horizontal post. The laser could slide vertically on its post while the vertical post could slide horizontally on the horizontal post. Motors/pulleys/pistons would be integrated where necessary. In this way the laser would be able to move in a local XY plane.
All of these electronic components would be computer controlled, with the software controlling the laser's XY position. The software would increment the laser's position in both the X and Y directions, and find the distance (using the laser range finder) between the XY position and a point perpindicular to the XY plane on the object being scanned. That distance would provide the Z coordinate. The computer would store each set of XYZ coordinates and then generate a mesh from it.
Mocap is a helluva lot more complex than that. You need a motion server, either electromagnetic or optical system with numerous detectors, software that interfaces with said hardware and software for cleaning up the raw data. Using some cameras and tracking the points by hand is far from actual motion capture (a la Matrix).
Slashdot Mirror
When Microsoft releases 4 service packs, it's because Windows XP is buggy. When Apple releases 6, it's because Apple is being attentive and caring.
Why the hell did this get modded to 5 Interesting? Is an unfounded "OS X will be better than everything!" all it takes?
Why should I pay for something that is 10%-25% faster when it costs 30% as much as a PC? I care about value over absolute top performance.
I don't care about the Mac's legendary ease of use, I'm not braindead. Windows XP is very stable for me (3d graphics in Maya, 2d in Photoshop, video editing in Combustion, games), so OS X is not matter. And I don't care about any of those iLife applications.
So why should I, a PC user, buy a dual 2GHz G5 Power Mac instead of a 3GHz P4 PC, if I care about bang for the buck?
No, WindowsXP 64 bit edition has been planned for a while.
I've read some of your past posts as well as the comments of others, and with all due respect, you seem a bit off your rocker.
Pentium 4 clock speed vs. performance discussion...
Seconds before G3, G4 or PPC970 is mentioned:
3...
than = then
No, it's not big news. The P4 is the first Intel processor to have a lower IPC (Instructions Per Clock) then its predecessor since the Pentium I.
Some fresnel lenses should do the trick. The monitors with the attached lens boxes could be spaced and angled to make the edges of the lens boxes adjacent.
Yes, it is old. I saw similar photos 2 years ago.
Al Qaeda probably doesn't even need a simulator. Flying is easier than most people think-- people with no flying experience have landed aircraft under the coaching of another. Flying into a building does not require as much precision.
I've kind of delegated the "CRT's emit significant harmful radiation" into the "exagerrated/myth" category of supposed dangers in our world. But that's just me.
50 year old military aircraft? B-52's which have had nearly every part in them replaced since the 1950's don't really count as being 50 years old.
Do the ends justify the means?
I've noticed a lot of screenshots from various people of various things have stuff that is "censored". Personally I think that they just want to add some mystique to make themselves seem a bit more important.
And what's with the superfluous Photoshop filters? Drawing a white box over the stuff isn't enough, he had to add some noise and then the word "Censored", in case we believed that those windows actually did display noise. And he had to use that stupid crystallize filter too. Why the hell didn't he just blur the stuff, concealing the information without being distracting?
Too fuzzy in my opinion, especially with the smaller text. The larger black text almost looks like it has a drop shadow. ClearType on XP looks sharp and smooth, unlike the too soft text of OS X.
Holy fucking shit. Apple's marketing team has convinced a Slashdotter, of all people, to defend a copyright. Advertising can indeed move mountains.
You're saying an awful lot after seeing only a few beta screenshots which, sobering as it is, do not show anything earth-shattering. Do all Mac users display such flagrant baseless sensationalism, or is it just you?
"And speaking of flight sims whatever happened to the Jane's/EA gaming colaboration? Am I ever gonna see a flight simulator better than F-18???"
The Jane's endorsement of EA products ended a while ago. Jane's Fighter Squadron was still under development at the time. Since then JFS has had its development transferred to Xicat Interactive, and was later released. It was a very bad game, very outdated and didn't hold a candle to Il-2.
Better sim than Jane's F/A-18? That game had a lot of flaws in my opinion; highly inaccurate flight model for the F/A-18E according to a Super Hornet pilot (not the F/A-18C pilot who worked on the game), very very bad framerates (single digits) on high end computers, bland textures on all of the non-player vehicles, repetitive terrain, sparse "cities" and scripted campaign. Falcon 4.0 with the SP3 patch is better in all those areas and many more. Same goes with Il-2 Sturmovik if you want WW2.
I agree. Mapping the image around a cylinder would look as photorealistic as a mercator map of the world rolled into a cylinder. That's why the guy mapped his skull image onto a rough model of a skull, not a cylinder.
Well, if you only wanted to scan in your face (not your entire head), you could use a single image of your face from the front and paste it into the corresponding area in the texture. The facial area is flat enough such that a cylindrical mapping isn't needed.
Er, I meant to refer to the vertical post, not the horizontal one.
Or better yet, have the horizontal post mounted on a circular track, and have the rangefinder on a motorized pivot to let it pitch up and down. An object could then be scanned from all sides.
Such software exists. It is called Rotomapper, and can be found here, hosted on my website. I did not make the original application, and google turns up nothing on the filenames or application title. I just uploaded it now. I don't remember where I found it.
A home-made 3d scanner does not seem unfeasible. It would require having a computer-controllable laser range finder mounted on a vertical post, which is connected to a horizontal post. The laser could slide vertically on its post while the vertical post could slide horizontally on the horizontal post. Motors/pulleys/pistons would be integrated where necessary. In this way the laser would be able to move in a local XY plane.
All of these electronic components would be computer controlled, with the software controlling the laser's XY position. The software would increment the laser's position in both the X and Y directions, and find the distance (using the laser range finder) between the XY position and a point perpindicular to the XY plane on the object being scanned. That distance would provide the Z coordinate. The computer would store each set of XYZ coordinates and then generate a mesh from it.
Mocap is a helluva lot more complex than that. You need a motion server, either electromagnetic or optical system with numerous detectors, software that interfaces with said hardware and software for cleaning up the raw data. Using some cameras and tracking the points by hand is far from actual motion capture (a la Matrix).