Read the last 3 paragraphs carefully.... the quote from the article doesn't really touch on the syngergy between LucasArts and ILM. It looks to me like ILM is trying to do coordinated game and movie development - probably using the same models, effect engines, artists and scripters.
A thought comes to mind... did EA have any easy way to bring movie LOTR geometry in the game engine? More probably they spent lots of money: either on converting the models or remaking them to render in realtime on a console. Perhaps the scenes needed to be reengineered as well.
From the economic point of view the more a product costs to develop the less risk you want to take in making something innovative, the more units you have to sell to turn a profit and the higher the entry barrier for a small company. I'll wager this is true of movies as well as games.
See Splotch for what 3D diffraction synthesis looks like. In '95 it took 3.0 seconds to synthesize a 36MB fringe-buffer - apparently a throughput of 200MFLOPS. Given that the '360 and ps3 are 5x and 10x that speed, I'm hopeful to see a piece of their hardware dangling off my console sometime soon.:)
I've found that programmers without much experience with the code in an OS project fix it by creating a 'patch of least dependency'.
For example, they don't want to change too much because they might change something they don't understand - and break it. So they make wee-little changes that allow the code to work the right way.
There are two problems with this: as more people make changes to the code, it gets more complicated to make more changes.
How bad it gets probably depends upon organization; If there are some people that are paid somehow to integrate patches and cover the larger architectural issues then things could be maintained with higher quality.
Slashdot Mirror
Read the last 3 paragraphs carefully.... the quote from the article doesn't really touch on the syngergy between LucasArts and ILM. It looks to me like ILM is trying to do coordinated game and movie development - probably using the same models, effect engines, artists and scripters.
A thought comes to mind... did EA have any easy way to bring movie LOTR geometry in the game engine? More probably they spent lots of money: either on converting the models or remaking them to render in realtime on a console. Perhaps the scenes needed to be reengineered as well.
From the economic point of view the more a product costs to develop the less risk you want to take in making something innovative, the more units you have to sell to turn a profit and the higher the entry barrier for a small company. I'll wager this is true of movies as well as games.
See Splotch for what 3D diffraction synthesis looks like. In '95 it took 3.0 seconds to synthesize a 36MB fringe-buffer - apparently a throughput of 200MFLOPS. Given that the '360 and ps3 are 5x and 10x that speed, I'm hopeful to see a piece of their hardware dangling off my console sometime soon. :)
Can anyone reccomend an 'RFID finder' that can tell me if I'm 'clean' (like those 802.11b network finders')?
I've found that programmers without much experience with the code in an OS project fix it by creating a 'patch of least dependency'. For example, they don't want to change too much because they might change something they don't understand - and break it. So they make wee-little changes that allow the code to work the right way. There are two problems with this: as more people make changes to the code, it gets more complicated to make more changes. How bad it gets probably depends upon organization; If there are some people that are paid somehow to integrate patches and cover the larger architectural issues then things could be maintained with higher quality.