What is efficient enough to be feasible real time is.
Yet in the case of Raytracing, "efficient enough to be feasible" means real shadowing, not the shadow-map crud we see in most video games.
Can you honestly tell me you think the shadows in Nvidia's demo look better than the ones in, say, Crysis?
I can and I will. Shadow maps used in games like Crysis beat you over the head with depth perspective. i.e. "Look, there's a shadow! Now you know how far off the ground the helicopter is!" While that's nice and all, only the objects that you map and define to have shadows actually cast a shadow. The subtle interactions of the environment and the actors are usually lost. It's almost like someone took a bunch of stage props, covered a stage with styrofoam sand, then threw all the props on top. Thus the actors stand out from their environment.
With ray tracing, the shadows are correct. Period. If a monster picked up that NVidia car and threw it through the air end over end, you'd see all kinds of shadow interactions happening that simply won't be visible on a shadow-mapped engine like Crysis.
Heck, you don't even have to get that complex. The car casts shadows upon itself. Which already makes it look more realistic on a closeup than anything an existing game engine can do.
In addition, ray tracing can scale a hell of a lot farther when it comes to realistic lighting and shading. With more rays not only comes softer shadows, but multiple shadows, reflective surfaces, and other "realistic" shadowing techniques that can't be touched by today's shadow map engines.
Yes, the shadows and reflections may be pixel perfect, but that just doesn't matter that much. You usually can't tell they are anyway.
Sure you can. A human instinctively knows when something looks "right" or "wrong". And one of the reasons why rasterization is capped is due to lighting problems. Lighting technology has improved significantly in the last decade, but still not sufficiently to compete with raytracing. Raytraced lighting will look more natural to an untrained viewer.
And "graphical quality becomes a matter of raw horsepower"? This unlike in rasterization then?
Rasterization is heavy on hardware features to improve the quality and performance of the scene render. e.g. Blending, pixel shaders, z-buffers, etc. Ray tracing is a far simpler operation on the hardware side, though it still behooves the software side to improve the number of objects tested for rendering. (Nothing new there.)
Wow, those screen caps are gorgeous. I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that rasterizing with upteenth number of features added in can compete with the image quality of Raytracing. While rasterizing may have a number of competitive features, it's hard to get the same level of specularity, reflection, shadows, shading, and other features so nicely demonstrated by this demo.
The genius of what NVidia is doing here, I think, is that by using their existing GPU architecture, they create a path by which Raytracing can be phased in as a technology without removing the support and investment in current rendering pipelines. This is a bit different from Intel's goal, which appears to be a cutoff between the old and the new.
Another interesting point is that this demo is currently capped at 3 casts per pixel. Which means that the scenes shown could look even better than they already do. Shadows could be softer, reflections could be more complex, and inventive scenes could be created to make for interesting styles of gameplay. (e.g. Fighting in a hall of mirrors.) If 3 casts/pixel is the baseline, then NVidia is setting up a vast new territory for graphical improvements. Each increase in casts/pixel will increase the realism of the scene. Thus graphical quality becomes a matter of raw horsepower. A market that I'm sure NVidia would gladly be interested in opening up.
Actually, I doubt NVidia has changed its position by very much. They're probably making a smart business decision and ensuring that they ride the wave of Intel's hype. If Intel *does* succeed in convincing the market that Raytracing is the future, NVidia will be ready to compete rather than cede the market.
-1 Offtopic? Apparently some folks don't like well thought out answers. Too bad. Stupid troll mods.
As usual, mod abuse will not be tolerated. Here is the post again:
--
To generalize like that (which we are all guilty of at one time or another, of course) shows a complete lack of critical thought.
If you were looking for a more specific answer, ask a more specific question. General issues raised will result in general answers given. One cannot apply further critical thinking to a matter for which further data for consideration has not been presented.
In this particular case, I can say that watching Reality TV in general is definitely NOT a sign of intelligence. If you were to bring up specific examples, however, you'd get more specific answers. Some which would seemingly disagree with the general statement. Such is the way of things.
You also talk about the negative effect that reality TV has on a person's priorities... I find that statement interesting from someone who is so up in arms over this issue and wasting all this time bitching about it on Slashdot.
You seem to be suggesting that Slashdot is a priority for me. Which I can assure you is far from the truth. In fact, it has always been more of a release for me. I mean, where else can you have entire conversations in hex code* or about RC4 encryption?
I enjoy my day life and I enjoy my work. But sometimes it's nice to just plain geek out.:-P
(* Sorry for the lack of a link, but the hex code conversation is a bit hard to find in Google.)
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it synergies the way you think it optimizes overhead and reduces complexity to create a more stable and reliable team-work environment.
Ice Road Truckers is an American documentary-style reality television series...
(Emphasis added.) Now consider for a moment. Had Ice Road Truckers been produced before the advent of "reality television", would it still be called "documentary-style reality television" or would it simply have been referred to as a "documentary series"?
I would even go as far as to say that the "reality" aspect is played up on modern documentaries in order to appeal to those who *cough* "enjoy" *hurrk* Reality Television. Which aligns perfectly with the statement I made above.
To generalize like that (which we are all guilty of at one time or another, of course) shows a complete lack of critical thought.
If you were looking for a more specific answer, ask a more specific question. General issues raised will result in general answers given. One cannot apply further critical thinking to a matter for which further data for consideration has not been presented.
In this particular case, I can say that watching Reality TV in general is definitely NOT a sign of intelligence. If you were to bring up specific examples, however, you'd get more specific answers. Some which would seemingly disagree with the general statement. Such is the way of things.
You also talk about the negative effect that reality TV has on a person's priorities... I find that statement interesting from someone who is so up in arms over this issue and wasting all this time bitching about it on Slashdot.
You seem to be suggesting that Slashdot is a priority for me. Which I can assure you is far from the truth. In fact, it has always been more of a release for me. I mean, where else can you have entire conversations in hex code* or about RC4 encryption?
I enjoy my day life and I enjoy my work. But sometimes it's nice to just plain geek out.:-P
(* Sorry for the lack of a link, but the hex code conversation is a bit hard to find in Google.)
Deadliest Catch and Ice Road Truckers are not what I think of when someone says "Reality Television". If anything, those shows ride the reality wave for a chance to do more documentary-style television. No, I think shows like Big Brother, Wife Swap, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, The Bachelor, Simple Life, and other such crapola. (And yes, I had to look those up some of those names.)
Other shows like American Idol are often incorrectly lumped in as "Reality Shows" even though they're straightforward talent competitions. (Though I do have to admit, I stopped watch AI in the third season when they attempted to inject "reality" aspects into the show.)
A few of the reality shows have managed to do some good (e.g. Extreme Makeover occasionally helped people out who really were in need), but they often botched just as many attempts to help as they succeeded. Which arguably is not helpful in the long run.
You'll have to forgive me if you find my stance offensive, but reality TV epitomizes stupidity and Lowest Common Denominator thinking.
Fast Food? Not even sure why it was included. It's fine. Beer? Fine. Crude Humor? Fine on occasion. Sitcoms? Sometimes incredibly stupid, but mostly fine. Interest in fishing, NASCAR, sports, or other non-nerdy pursuit? Perfectly fine.
Reality TV? No.
Reality TV is a trap of the most dangerous and intellectually lethal kind. It encourages people to track the personal lives of others to a point that makes gossiping look tame. Yet like gossiping, it can become a trap that lures people in and encourages them to waste their time, judgment, and critical thinking. In effect, it causes you to stoop to the level of those who would participate in the activities of having their lives bared for all to see. (Which usually means they're the type to appeal to sex and voyeurism.)
The end result is that your thinking becomes stuck in a quagmire of complex personal matters that are not of your own. Which has negative effects on your thinking, priorities, and thus day to day life.
You may think ill of me all that you want. But "reality television" as it is defined today is NOT something I think any intelligent person should see as "entertainment". And I am highly suspect of anyone who claims otherwise. If anything, they are likely to be faux intellectuals who would rather put on a show of intelligence than actually make an effort to *be* intelligent.
We intend to fill our idle section with a very small collection of the very best the net has to offer, making it the most efficient way to waste your time.
Translation: Porn, stupidity, and bugzappers.
I tried visiting idle.slashdot.org once. I was outright embarassed by the content. So much so that I changed my sig in response to Slashdot's, "Never visit idle.slashdot.org" teaser. My reply? "Good idea."
I hate to say this, but Slashdot does attract a lot of intelligent people. They're not always the ones who post, but they frequent the site anyway. Attempting to "entertain" the more intelligent types with the same sort of filth/LCD* they see on their television is a counterproductive goal. Slashdot and Slashdot-Idle cannot coexist.
Sorry guys, but it's time for you to go back to marketing school. Using brand recognition for a product that does not represent the brand will only devalue the brand. You may see short term gains on the new product, but in the end you will see long-term losses across the board. If you want to do something like Slashdot-Idle, try making a new site rather than lumping it in with Slashdot.
* If you don't know what LCD stands for in this context, you should turn in your geek card. Assuming you had one to begin with...
P.S. What's this fascination with making a Digg-like site, anyway? 95% of what's on Digg sucks. Stop trying to be like them.
P.P.S. Idiocracy was not a documentary. Stop trying to bring it about.
...is how all the animosity has gone out of the relationship between Sega and Nintendo. Not just in the corporate world (where most of it was blustering, anyway) but in the minds of consumers as well. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Sega is way better than Nintendo!" or "Nu-uh, Sega beats the pants off Nintendo!" Even when the Dreamcast came out, it was well received on both sides of the fence.
Of course, the wussifying of Sonic the Hedgehog might have something to do with this. Considering that he's now portrayed as a "cute" character rather than "cool and edgy", this might have gone a long way toward changing the public's perception of Sega.
I have to say that I admire their gall. They're paying a rather dangerous game*. Unless they have some really kick ass lawyers who can convince a judge of the unenforcability of Apple's licensing terms, I don't see anything happening except Psystar getting smacked down HARD. As in, take all their assets + punitive damages hard.
Of course, this could be a situation like General Computer Corporation. (The Namco & Atari partner who created Ms. Pac Man.) They were just a bunch of college kids having fun, and they didn't have money anyway. When they got sued, their reaction was: "Cool, we get to go to court!" Sometimes it's nice not having anything to lose.;-)
If knowing Miyamoto's hobbies is enough to scoop Nintendo, then why can't competitors even touch his track record?
I think Nintendo is confusing ideas with implementations. Having ideas is great. Anyone can have ideas. In fact, they're a dime in quantities of tens of thousands. The problem is getting those ideas implemented. And without Miyamoto-san's insight into the implementation, I sincerely doubt competitors are going to be able to get ahead of Nintendo.
This seems like a case where Miyamoto should ignore his employer and just do his own thing. Unfortunately, I think he's too nice to take a stand on this. He will probably go along with his employer's request. Thankfully, however, I imagine that this requirement will loosen and fall off with time.
Which can only be good for fans. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have found the stories behind the development of Miis and Wii Fit to be fascinating. (And hilarious. "You guys are useless!":-P)
Indeed. Massachusetts, allow me to introduce you to the fourth amendment:
>i>The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This fellow needs to make sure that the local authorities are smacked down. HARD.
Unfortunately, I can't see the article because it's slashdotted. Anyone know if he got the Hamster Dance? How about Jenni the original web cam person? The ICQ craze? Does he have ANYTHING old school or is it all modern playskool?
You know what is easier? basic. Does that make it better?
Yes! In some situations, BASIC is "better".
If that confuses you, then you need to learn that "better" is a subjective term. Depending on the circumstances, what is "better" and what is "worse" will change places. In more modern terms, we tend to say, "Use the right tool for the right job." Of course, if all you have is C^H a hammer...
That was poor wording on my part. What I'm trying to say is that women often say that they gain weight during pregnancy that does not come off after pregnancy. (e.g. You'll sometimes hear, "You gain 10 pounds for every baby!") The truth is, however, women eating a normal diet will only have a slight increase in their food consumption and will NOT see a weight gain after pregnancy because of their eating during pregnancy. Many women actually lose weight after their pregnancy compared to before their pregnancy.
It's silly to say that women will weigh the same during pregnancy since there are a dozen or so biological reasons why they are carrying more weight. The key is that it comes off after because it's all related to the baby. The respondent to your post appears to have understood that point.
There's a post higher in this thread where I detail the weight gains.
Slashdot Mirror
Yet in the case of Raytracing, "efficient enough to be feasible" means real shadowing, not the shadow-map crud we see in most video games.
I can and I will. Shadow maps used in games like Crysis beat you over the head with depth perspective. i.e. "Look, there's a shadow! Now you know how far off the ground the helicopter is!" While that's nice and all, only the objects that you map and define to have shadows actually cast a shadow. The subtle interactions of the environment and the actors are usually lost. It's almost like someone took a bunch of stage props, covered a stage with styrofoam sand, then threw all the props on top. Thus the actors stand out from their environment.
With ray tracing, the shadows are correct. Period. If a monster picked up that NVidia car and threw it through the air end over end, you'd see all kinds of shadow interactions happening that simply won't be visible on a shadow-mapped engine like Crysis.
Heck, you don't even have to get that complex. The car casts shadows upon itself. Which already makes it look more realistic on a closeup than anything an existing game engine can do.
In addition, ray tracing can scale a hell of a lot farther when it comes to realistic lighting and shading. With more rays not only comes softer shadows, but multiple shadows, reflective surfaces, and other "realistic" shadowing techniques that can't be touched by today's shadow map engines.
Sure you can. A human instinctively knows when something looks "right" or "wrong". And one of the reasons why rasterization is capped is due to lighting problems. Lighting technology has improved significantly in the last decade, but still not sufficiently to compete with raytracing. Raytraced lighting will look more natural to an untrained viewer.
Rasterization is heavy on hardware features to improve the quality and performance of the scene render. e.g. Blending, pixel shaders, z-buffers, etc. Ray tracing is a far simpler operation on the hardware side, though it still behooves the software side to improve the number of objects tested for rendering. (Nothing new there.)
Wow, those screen caps are gorgeous. I hope this finally puts to rest the idea that rasterizing with upteenth number of features added in can compete with the image quality of Raytracing. While rasterizing may have a number of competitive features, it's hard to get the same level of specularity, reflection, shadows, shading, and other features so nicely demonstrated by this demo.
The genius of what NVidia is doing here, I think, is that by using their existing GPU architecture, they create a path by which Raytracing can be phased in as a technology without removing the support and investment in current rendering pipelines. This is a bit different from Intel's goal, which appears to be a cutoff between the old and the new.
Another interesting point is that this demo is currently capped at 3 casts per pixel. Which means that the scenes shown could look even better than they already do. Shadows could be softer, reflections could be more complex, and inventive scenes could be created to make for interesting styles of gameplay. (e.g. Fighting in a hall of mirrors.) If 3 casts/pixel is the baseline, then NVidia is setting up a vast new territory for graphical improvements. Each increase in casts/pixel will increase the realism of the scene. Thus graphical quality becomes a matter of raw horsepower. A market that I'm sure NVidia would gladly be interested in opening up.
Funny how things change, eh? :-P
Actually, I doubt NVidia has changed its position by very much. They're probably making a smart business decision and ensuring that they ride the wave of Intel's hype. If Intel *does* succeed in convincing the market that Raytracing is the future, NVidia will be ready to compete rather than cede the market.
-1 Offtopic? Apparently some folks don't like well thought out answers. Too bad. Stupid troll mods.
As usual, mod abuse will not be tolerated. Here is the post again:
--
If you were looking for a more specific answer, ask a more specific question. General issues raised will result in general answers given. One cannot apply further critical thinking to a matter for which further data for consideration has not been presented.
In this particular case, I can say that watching Reality TV in general is definitely NOT a sign of intelligence. If you were to bring up specific examples, however, you'd get more specific answers. Some which would seemingly disagree with the general statement. Such is the way of things.
You seem to be suggesting that Slashdot is a priority for me. Which I can assure you is far from the truth. In fact, it has always been more of a release for me. I mean, where else can you have entire conversations in hex code* or about RC4 encryption?
I enjoy my day life and I enjoy my work. But sometimes it's nice to just plain geek out. :-P
(* Sorry for the lack of a link, but the hex code conversation is a bit hard to find in Google.)
You keep using that phrase. I do not think it synergies the way you think it optimizes overhead and reduces complexity to create a more stable and reliable team-work environment.
That's one of the most unintentionally funny posts I've read. Kudos! :-)
Oh, but the world does! What's the first thing you see when you look up Ice Road Truckers on Wikipedia?
(Emphasis added.) Now consider for a moment. Had Ice Road Truckers been produced before the advent of "reality television", would it still be called "documentary-style reality television" or would it simply have been referred to as a "documentary series"?
I would even go as far as to say that the "reality" aspect is played up on modern documentaries in order to appeal to those who *cough* "enjoy" *hurrk* Reality Television. Which aligns perfectly with the statement I made above.
Think about it.
If you were looking for a more specific answer, ask a more specific question. General issues raised will result in general answers given. One cannot apply further critical thinking to a matter for which further data for consideration has not been presented.
In this particular case, I can say that watching Reality TV in general is definitely NOT a sign of intelligence. If you were to bring up specific examples, however, you'd get more specific answers. Some which would seemingly disagree with the general statement. Such is the way of things.
You seem to be suggesting that Slashdot is a priority for me. Which I can assure you is far from the truth. In fact, it has always been more of a release for me. I mean, where else can you have entire conversations in hex code* or about RC4 encryption?
I enjoy my day life and I enjoy my work. But sometimes it's nice to just plain geek out. :-P
(* Sorry for the lack of a link, but the hex code conversation is a bit hard to find in Google.)
Deadliest Catch and Ice Road Truckers are not what I think of when someone says "Reality Television". If anything, those shows ride the reality wave for a chance to do more documentary-style television. No, I think shows like Big Brother, Wife Swap, Who Wants to Marry a Millionaire, The Bachelor, Simple Life, and other such crapola. (And yes, I had to look those up some of those names.)
Other shows like American Idol are often incorrectly lumped in as "Reality Shows" even though they're straightforward talent competitions. (Though I do have to admit, I stopped watch AI in the third season when they attempted to inject "reality" aspects into the show.)
A few of the reality shows have managed to do some good (e.g. Extreme Makeover occasionally helped people out who really were in need), but they often botched just as many attempts to help as they succeeded. Which arguably is not helpful in the long run.
You'll have to forgive me if you find my stance offensive, but reality TV epitomizes stupidity and Lowest Common Denominator thinking.
Fast Food? Not even sure why it was included. It's fine.
Beer? Fine.
Crude Humor? Fine on occasion.
Sitcoms? Sometimes incredibly stupid, but mostly fine.
Interest in fishing, NASCAR, sports, or other non-nerdy pursuit? Perfectly fine.
Reality TV? No.
Reality TV is a trap of the most dangerous and intellectually lethal kind. It encourages people to track the personal lives of others to a point that makes gossiping look tame. Yet like gossiping, it can become a trap that lures people in and encourages them to waste their time, judgment, and critical thinking. In effect, it causes you to stoop to the level of those who would participate in the activities of having their lives bared for all to see. (Which usually means they're the type to appeal to sex and voyeurism.)
The end result is that your thinking becomes stuck in a quagmire of complex personal matters that are not of your own. Which has negative effects on your thinking, priorities, and thus day to day life.
You may think ill of me all that you want. But "reality television" as it is defined today is NOT something I think any intelligent person should see as "entertainment". And I am highly suspect of anyone who claims otherwise. If anything, they are likely to be faux intellectuals who would rather put on a show of intelligence than actually make an effort to *be* intelligent.
Let me see. What's the best way to phrase this?
No, no it doesn't.
That wasn't funny. That was terrifying.
Oh, and thanks for reburning that shade of pink into my retinas. I just managed to recover, you jerk!
So what do you guys think? Is this:
A) A plant
B) A poor attempt at humor
C) A truly ironic post
You can begin "do-ing" your responses... now.
I'm confused. When did Slashdot do funny April Fools?
I agree. The more disuse, the better! Bring on the mold!
Translation: Porn, stupidity, and bugzappers.
I tried visiting idle.slashdot.org once. I was outright embarassed by the content. So much so that I changed my sig in response to Slashdot's, "Never visit idle.slashdot.org" teaser. My reply? "Good idea."
I hate to say this, but Slashdot does attract a lot of intelligent people. They're not always the ones who post, but they frequent the site anyway. Attempting to "entertain" the more intelligent types with the same sort of filth/LCD* they see on their television is a counterproductive goal. Slashdot and Slashdot-Idle cannot coexist.
Sorry guys, but it's time for you to go back to marketing school. Using brand recognition for a product that does not represent the brand will only devalue the brand. You may see short term gains on the new product, but in the end you will see long-term losses across the board. If you want to do something like Slashdot-Idle, try making a new site rather than lumping it in with Slashdot.
* If you don't know what LCD stands for in this context, you should turn in your geek card. Assuming you had one to begin with...
P.S. What's this fascination with making a Digg-like site, anyway? 95% of what's on Digg sucks. Stop trying to be like them.
P.P.S. Idiocracy was not a documentary. Stop trying to bring it about.
...is how all the animosity has gone out of the relationship between Sega and Nintendo. Not just in the corporate world (where most of it was blustering, anyway) but in the minds of consumers as well. When was the last time you heard someone say, "Sega is way better than Nintendo!" or "Nu-uh, Sega beats the pants off Nintendo!" Even when the Dreamcast came out, it was well received on both sides of the fence.
Of course, the wussifying of Sonic the Hedgehog might have something to do with this. Considering that he's now portrayed as a "cute" character rather than "cool and edgy", this might have gone a long way toward changing the public's perception of Sega.
It was originally going to point to the second paragraph, but I changed the format and forgot to remove the asterisk. Sorry about the confusion.
I have to say that I admire their gall. They're paying a rather dangerous game*. Unless they have some really kick ass lawyers who can convince a judge of the unenforcability of Apple's licensing terms, I don't see anything happening except Psystar getting smacked down HARD. As in, take all their assets + punitive damages hard.
Of course, this could be a situation like General Computer Corporation. (The Namco & Atari partner who created Ms. Pac Man.) They were just a bunch of college kids having fun, and they didn't have money anyway. When they got sued, their reaction was: "Cool, we get to go to court!" Sometimes it's nice not having anything to lose.;-)
If knowing Miyamoto's hobbies is enough to scoop Nintendo, then why can't competitors even touch his track record?
I think Nintendo is confusing ideas with implementations. Having ideas is great. Anyone can have ideas. In fact, they're a dime in quantities of tens of thousands. The problem is getting those ideas implemented. And without Miyamoto-san's insight into the implementation, I sincerely doubt competitors are going to be able to get ahead of Nintendo.
This seems like a case where Miyamoto should ignore his employer and just do his own thing. Unfortunately, I think he's too nice to take a stand on this. He will probably go along with his employer's request. Thankfully, however, I imagine that this requirement will loosen and fall off with time.
Which can only be good for fans. I can't speak for anyone else, but I have found the stories behind the development of Miis and Wii Fit to be fascinating. (And hilarious. "You guys are useless!" :-P)
Indeed. Massachusetts, allow me to introduce you to the fourth amendment:
This fellow needs to make sure that the local authorities are smacked down. HARD.
Unfortunately, I can't see the article because it's slashdotted. Anyone know if he got the Hamster Dance? How about Jenni the original web cam person? The ICQ craze? Does he have ANYTHING old school or is it all modern playskool?
Yes! In some situations, BASIC is "better".
If that confuses you, then you need to learn that "better" is a subjective term. Depending on the circumstances, what is "better" and what is "worse" will change places. In more modern terms, we tend to say, "Use the right tool for the right job." Of course, if all you have is C^H a hammer...
"Falcon 1? Wow! Isn't that the rocket that's raining debris all over Europe?"
-Chris Knight, slightly modified
That was poor wording on my part. What I'm trying to say is that women often say that they gain weight during pregnancy that does not come off after pregnancy. (e.g. You'll sometimes hear, "You gain 10 pounds for every baby!") The truth is, however, women eating a normal diet will only have a slight increase in their food consumption and will NOT see a weight gain after pregnancy because of their eating during pregnancy. Many women actually lose weight after their pregnancy compared to before their pregnancy.
It's silly to say that women will weigh the same during pregnancy since there are a dozen or so biological reasons why they are carrying more weight. The key is that it comes off after because it's all related to the baby. The respondent to your post appears to have understood that point.
There's a post higher in this thread where I detail the weight gains.