When companies try to "innovate", it usually doesn't involve any truly new gameplay. They merge genres. Deus Ex merged an FPS with an RPG (most of which were watered down features of System Shock 2), Warcraft III merged an RTS with some half-hearted RPG elements, and a bunch of shooters have tried to become semi-adventure games (talk to character to find item to get to area, repeat).
There has been some real innovation though. Rainbow Six (the first two at least, the 3rd appears to have been butchered by Ubi Soft) created a first person shooter *simulation*, whose gameplay was defined by reality and not the other way around (which is what most military-themed shooters are today). Medieval Total War was similar in its emphasis on realism, an RTS in which you control groups of dozens of units who have moral, stamina and varying degrees of skill.
Which brings us to a common fact; none of those games were hits. Sure, they all received critical acclaim (Medieval Total War won RTS of the year from Gamespot and Gamespy), but they weren't top sellers, compared to games like Quake 3 and Warcraft III. Innovation is risky to profit-driven companies and unfamiliar to the constantly growing number of new gamers. Developers stick with the tried and true because it's what sells (see Warcraft III).
Innovation, when done right, can sell millions, like Half-Life. That kind of innovation though actually requires real game development skill, which is what most developers lack.
We are probably not as dependent as you think on GPS. There is not a single piece of military equipment that relies solely on GPS- all of them use GPS coupled with an inertial guidance system (the primary component of which is a laser ring gyro). In addition, military aircraft use TACAN (Tactical Aid to Navigation) to provide highly accurate positioning data when close to airbases (suitable for landing and ATC in adverse conditions), and are tracked on radar along with civilian aircraft (except when in very remote locations, like the middle of the Atlantic). Of course we're talking about non-special cases here (assuming that the military aircraft are not evading detection for any reason). And of course there's the good old compass, laminated map and grease pencil.
An ASAT weapon to be used against European satellites? Why in the hell would the U.S. want that? Destroying something so valuable to such a strong ally would be a supreme offense and would weaken the capability of the U.S. military. After all, what will the U.S. military use if those much ballyhooed Russian GPS "jammers" become widespread (in addition to other types of position information)?
Actually, with differential GPS (2 GPS receivers with software corrected data), accuracies of 2 to 45cm are attainable.
Source: http://www.geod.emr.ca/index_e/geodesy_e/gps-13_e. html
Two receivers are used; one receiver over a known location (the base or reference receiver) and the second (Rover or roving receiver) is placed over the new or unknown location. The receivers track and record data from the same satellites at the same time recording similar information. The data is eventually transferred from the receivers to a computer. Specialized software is used to 'correct' the data.
But this is kind of moot for your example. Since when do commercial aircraft use GPS for landings? Inertial navigation systems coupled with ground based positioning transponders and cockpit instrumentation provide highly accurate navigation data close to the airport, when necessary for low-visibility landings.
Scaled Composites has frequently been contracted by NASA to perform final design analysis and manufacturing of experimental aircraft. That is their business. The X-prize is just on the side.
I like SpamBayes for its ability to be trained on past spam. You can point it to a folder full of past spam and it scores them all, which is much faster than gradually teaching the software to recognize spam through individual email updates.
POPFile does not have this convenient ability (yet), though it does do general purpose sorting (i.e. not just differentiate between spam and non-spam, but stuff like work, school, linux or whatever you want). It does take a while to train though.
A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Why not?
Because by the second day of compilation, any objects that have undergone reversion compilations give rise to revertant binary like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
What about C decompilation?
I've already tried it. Reverse disassembly, templates as an decoding agent and potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the system was dead before it left the startup sequence.
Then a repressive extension that blocks the operating code?
Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an era in replication so that the newly formed code carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But this-- all of this is academic. The code was made as well as we could make it.
I'm a bit worried about the lack of 64 bit applications. Converting an application to run well on a 64 bit CPU is no small task I suspect, so Mac users might have to deal with sub-G4 performance with 32 bit software for quite a while as software developers scramble to advance.
I wonder how the Athlon64's (aka "Clawhammer") 32 bit performance will compare to the PPC970. With x86-64 extensions I'd expect it to be significantly faster, though I wouldn't be surprised if its 64 bit performance was slower.
and for people who are looking for a good balance (as opposed to the best in any one area)
PC's are best in how many areas? Value (performance vs. price), 3d graphics rendering, 2d sample length graphics rendering, video rendering, application compatibility, customizability, scalability, 3rd party hardware support, what else...? No PC is best in only one area.
Any article by the CS Monitor about Christianity must be significantly "biased"? And I suppose every article about America in US News (even those "blame America" editorials) must be deemed propaganda? Please. Have a more open mind.
Expansion of the graphics processor's abilities
on
Future of 3d Graphics
·
· Score: 1
3Dlabs came out with its Wildcat VP graphics cards a while ago. What makes these unique is their "Visual Processing Architecture" (formerly "P10"). It is composed of hundreds of small, relatively simple SIMD vector and scalar units, allowing for extreme scalability and re-programmability.
New features that would require hardware revisions with traditional graphics architectures only need a software update with the Wildcat VPs (3dlabs gave the example of Matrox's ingenious fragment anti-aliasing, which could be added in this way, though this has not been done to my knowledge). In addition, the less-specialized nature of the hardware also allows for the acceleration of things such as Photoshop filters (Rampage anyone?). The use of VPU's allows for rapid software modification of the hardware.
The latest model, the Wildcat VP990 (not out yet) doesn't compare to the Geforce FX 5900 Ultra in terms of DX 9 compatibility (it's not a gaming card, it's for CAD/CAM and other high-end graphics applications) and pure polygon thoroughputs, but its potential for flexibility is unmatched.
He elaborated on that, by sketching the new computer architecture, as envisioned by NVIDIA, with the GPU forming the heart of the system and the CPU taking care of the "lesser" non-multimedia functions. A good example of this is NVIDIA's Nforce(2)-chipset, with both the graphics core, sound logic and north- and south-bridges all having been developed by NVIDIA. All that's still needed is a CPU and memory.
In what way does the nForce2's onboard graphics adapter form the "heart" of the system though?
There is nothing unique about the nForce in terms of revamping computer architectures by an increase of dependence on graphics processing hardware. If you buy any other motherboard with onboard graphics all you need are CPU and memory as well.
About the CS monitor (if you've never heard about it before, it's probably not what you think it is).
Is the paper a religious periodical?
No, it's a real newspaper published by a church -- The First Church of Christ, Scientist in Boston, Mass., USA. Everything in the Monitor is international and US news and features, except for one religious article that has appeared each day in The Home Forum section since 1908, at the request of the paper's founder, Mary Baker Eddy.
In an age of corporate conglomerates dominating news media, the Monitor combination of church ownership, a public-service mission, and commitment to covering the world (not to mention the fact that it was founded by a woman shortly after the turn of the century, when US women didn't yet have the vote!) gives the paper a uniquely independent voice in journalism.
Then if the paper's basically secular and for everybody, why is "Christian Science" in its name?
Eddy insisted, against strong opposition from some of her advisers and church officers, that the words "Christian Science" should be in the paper's name. According to one of her biographers, Robert Peel, to Eddy, "the designated title was an identification of the paper with the promise that no human situation was beyond healing or rectification if approached with sufficient understanding of man's God-given potentialities. Nor did the 'good news' of Christianity involve the prettification of bad news, but rather, its confident confrontation" (witness Monitor correspondent David Rohde's widely followed reporting in late '95 on alleged massacres by Bosnian Serb forces).
Why would people who have played in Maya be able to tell that they're metaballs? Maya has no metaball features whatsoever. Anyways, they didn't use metaballs (and they don't look like metaballs to me at least)- they used RealFlow, a full blown fluids simulation solution.
Lightwave having the best renderer of all of the off-the-shelf packages? Definitely not. Softimage would have to take the crown their with Mental Ray as its standard renderer (hypervoxels be damned).
Maya Complete is only about 1,500 GBP, and has real NURBS support, infinitely better animation abilities and a far more powerful shading interface. Its GUI is almost as drawn out and tedious as Lightwave's though.
"using motion blur in Pixar's PRman only has a render time hit of 50%"
Additional render time caused by motion blur can vary vastly depending on the settings and what's being rendered. In 3ds max, 2d motion can look quite good (with slower motion and minimal rotations) and add much less than 100% to a render.
Slashdot Mirror
When companies try to "innovate", it usually doesn't involve any truly new gameplay. They merge genres. Deus Ex merged an FPS with an RPG (most of which were watered down features of System Shock 2), Warcraft III merged an RTS with some half-hearted RPG elements, and a bunch of shooters have tried to become semi-adventure games (talk to character to find item to get to area, repeat).
There has been some real innovation though. Rainbow Six (the first two at least, the 3rd appears to have been butchered by Ubi Soft) created a first person shooter *simulation*, whose gameplay was defined by reality and not the other way around (which is what most military-themed shooters are today). Medieval Total War was similar in its emphasis on realism, an RTS in which you control groups of dozens of units who have moral, stamina and varying degrees of skill.
Which brings us to a common fact; none of those games were hits. Sure, they all received critical acclaim (Medieval Total War won RTS of the year from Gamespot and Gamespy), but they weren't top sellers, compared to games like Quake 3 and Warcraft III. Innovation is risky to profit-driven companies and unfamiliar to the constantly growing number of new gamers. Developers stick with the tried and true because it's what sells (see Warcraft III).
Innovation, when done right, can sell millions, like Half-Life. That kind of innovation though actually requires real game development skill, which is what most developers lack.
We are probably not as dependent as you think on GPS. There is not a single piece of military equipment that relies solely on GPS- all of them use GPS coupled with an inertial guidance system (the primary component of which is a laser ring gyro). In addition, military aircraft use TACAN (Tactical Aid to Navigation) to provide highly accurate positioning data when close to airbases (suitable for landing and ATC in adverse conditions), and are tracked on radar along with civilian aircraft (except when in very remote locations, like the middle of the Atlantic). Of course we're talking about non-special cases here (assuming that the military aircraft are not evading detection for any reason). And of course there's the good old compass, laminated map and grease pencil.
An ASAT weapon to be used against European satellites? Why in the hell would the U.S. want that? Destroying something so valuable to such a strong ally would be a supreme offense and would weaken the capability of the U.S. military. After all, what will the U.S. military use if those much ballyhooed Russian GPS "jammers" become widespread (in addition to other types of position information)?
I recall hearing about India launching some satellites for its own global positioning system. Does anyone know any more about this?
Source: http://www.geod.emr.ca/index_e/geodesy_e/gps-13_e
Scaled Composites has frequently been contracted by NASA to perform final design analysis and manufacturing of experimental aircraft. That is their business. The X-prize is just on the side.
I like SpamBayes for its ability to be trained on past spam. You can point it to a folder full of past spam and it scores them all, which is much faster than gradually teaching the software to recognize spam through individual email updates.
POPFile does not have this convenient ability (yet), though it does do general purpose sorting (i.e. not just differentiate between spam and non-spam, but stuff like work, school, linux or whatever you want). It does take a while to train though.
A coding sequence cannot be revised once it's been established.
Why not?
Because by the second day of compilation, any objects that have undergone reversion compilations give rise to revertant binary like rats leaving a sinking ship. Then the ship sinks.
What about C decompilation?
I've already tried it. Reverse disassembly, templates as an decoding agent and potent mutagen. It created a virus so lethal the system was dead before it left the startup sequence.
Then a repressive extension that blocks the operating code?
Wouldn't obstruct replication, but it does give rise to an era in replication so that the newly formed code carries the mutation and you've got a virus again. But this-- all of this is academic. The code was made as well as we could make it.
Guys, Tyrell knows....
Install Ghostscript first, then use GSView to open the .ps files.
I just checked that out with GhostScript and GSview. That is damned impressive.
I'm a bit worried about the lack of 64 bit applications. Converting an application to run well on a 64 bit CPU is no small task I suspect, so Mac users might have to deal with sub-G4 performance with 32 bit software for quite a while as software developers scramble to advance.
I wonder how the Athlon64's (aka "Clawhammer") 32 bit performance will compare to the PPC970. With x86-64 extensions I'd expect it to be significantly faster, though I wouldn't be surprised if its 64 bit performance was slower.
It's Pentium 4, not Pentium IV!
Mac users talk about the "megahertz myth". Maybe PC users should talk about the gigaflop myth.
and for people who are looking for a good balance (as opposed to the best in any one area)
PC's are best in how many areas? Value (performance vs. price), 3d graphics rendering, 2d sample length graphics rendering, video rendering, application compatibility, customizability, scalability, 3rd party hardware support, what else...? No PC is best in only one area.
The "bitness" of the processor also refers to the precision of numerical values it can handle (important for high end 3d rendering).
Any article by the CS Monitor about Christianity must be significantly "biased"? And I suppose every article about America in US News (even those "blame America" editorials) must be deemed propaganda? Please. Have a more open mind.
3Dlabs came out with its Wildcat VP graphics cards a while ago. What makes these unique is their "Visual Processing Architecture" (formerly "P10"). It is composed of hundreds of small, relatively simple SIMD vector and scalar units, allowing for extreme scalability and re-programmability.
New features that would require hardware revisions with traditional graphics architectures only need a software update with the Wildcat VPs (3dlabs gave the example of Matrox's ingenious fragment anti-aliasing, which could be added in this way, though this has not been done to my knowledge). In addition, the less-specialized nature of the hardware also allows for the acceleration of things such as Photoshop filters (Rampage anyone?). The use of VPU's allows for rapid software modification of the hardware.
The latest model, the Wildcat VP990 (not out yet) doesn't compare to the Geforce FX 5900 Ultra in terms of DX 9 compatibility (it's not a gaming card, it's for CAD/CAM and other high-end graphics applications) and pure polygon thoroughputs, but its potential for flexibility is unmatched.
"I'm really interested in what kind of chipset NVIDA will be offering for AMD64-based CPU's!"
There is the nForce3 Pro.
In what way does the nForce2's onboard graphics adapter form the "heart" of the system though?
There is nothing unique about the nForce in terms of revamping computer architectures by an increase of dependence on graphics processing hardware. If you buy any other motherboard with onboard graphics all you need are CPU and memory as well.
God, when will people realize how redundant this is? Yes, it's true, story matters in a movie. When will people stop saying this?
More about the CS Monitor's origin and purpose
Why would people who have played in Maya be able to tell that they're metaballs? Maya has no metaball features whatsoever. Anyways, they didn't use metaballs (and they don't look like metaballs to me at least)- they used RealFlow, a full blown fluids simulation solution.
Lightwave having the best renderer of all of the off-the-shelf packages? Definitely not. Softimage would have to take the crown their with Mental Ray as its standard renderer (hypervoxels be damned).
Maya Complete is only about 1,500 GBP, and has real NURBS support, infinitely better animation abilities and a far more powerful shading interface. Its GUI is almost as drawn out and tedious as Lightwave's though.
"using motion blur in Pixar's PRman only has a render time hit of 50%"
Additional render time caused by motion blur can vary vastly depending on the settings and what's being rendered. In 3ds max, 2d motion can look quite good (with slower motion and minimal rotations) and add much less than 100% to a render.