addons, schmaddons
They're changing the face of computing and in doing so, they're redefining the OS. There *will* be a major paradigm shift in desktop thinking and google will be a part of it I predict. This is just another 'hint' that they're not *just* concerned with searching...
So my free account was boosted to 100 Mb this morning and my $20/yr. account has 2Gb and no ads. Very cool. They also seemed to update the interface with CSS...
Who said software "gets better over time"? What the heck does that mean anyway?
Your last two sentences don't make any sense and we're not talking about the GPU. In short we're talking about the engine....and probably when it comes down to it, we're probably agreeing with you....
Anyway, sorry if I offended you, though there still is a "or what" option.
Well then I'll take the "or what" option if it's still there.
If you are so sure about its potential, can you give some impressive examples? I can name some games that ran much slower than warranted by their visual quality (Halo and GTA3 being the prime culprits), but I can't really think of any prominent titles that did the opposite.
Err, I don't get your point here.
surely we would see some PS2 developers do it
Ummm, you're kidding right? There is quite a difference between industry implementation and cutting edge science.
The fact that all modern PS2 games look the same as old ones did (which is like shit, by modern standards) proves that you are wrong.
Oh, man, you really lost me now. Unless you're saying that the PS2 is a fixed piece of hardware so we should see improvement in the quality/speed of the video game since algorithmic/method development is , according to my premise, also an effective strategy for improvement. Do you really think game developers for a PS2 or other static mediums want to shift their "way" in order to possible get speed up? No. They want to sell games and they can develop quite quickly by doing the same old stuff because it is a fixed machine. And they can optimize for this machine, which they most likely did in the first game.
My original point was simple: given the frustration that more computing power (PC) is needed at a (seemingly) faster pace, it seems likely that that this would be due to software inefficiencies. I think hardware and software inherently rely on each other, which makes it hard to measure what is the source of the problem....perhaps this was your point! Anydangway, you've provoked an interesting thread...
Well this is indeed the paradox, IMO. Researchers in the computational sciences (including graphics, vis., simulations, etc.) rely on this balance. For *if* algorithms and methods were entirely optimal and were only bottlenecked at the hardware end, then all funding (and effort) would consequently be put in the hardware. The other way holds true as well.
Hardware and algrothims/methods go hand-in-hand. They feed on each other and hinder each other. It makes sense then that there is and will be progress to be made in both ends. So I'm not sure you could say one is "outpacing" the other, but it does present an interesting case...
Your mentality is exactly my point: "If you want X and we do it with Y, then it will take more hardware power." The goal is then to rethink the paradigm, not just give up and use method Y. This is research, my friend.
Perhaps you're stuck with "algorithm" versus "methodology". They are, in fact, different. Fixing a current methodology and cranking the algorithm will only go so far...I'll agree with you on that.
Re:at the rate PC games are pushing the market
on
Cinematic Game Graphics
·
· Score: 3, Interesting
This is right on. Of course we should expect computing power to grow according to Moore's Law (although there was a recent article indicating this may fail soon for laptops: Wired).
But if one looks into Moore's Law for Software (Googled) you find a different analysis. In short it looks like algorithm development has lagged sufficiently behind the computational power.
So what does this mean for gaming? It seems developers are hanging onto old ideas and relying on the growth in proc speeds (and bus speed and etc. etc.) to enhance their graphics/rendering. Thus the improved visualization comes to the cost of the consumer by forcing them to purchase faster and faster computers. Now we can run the newest games on the tricked out settings only on the fastest/cutting edge computers. This trends seems to be getting worse recently indicating that Moore's Law for Gaming Software is indeed lagging Moore's Law for computing power. IMO...
Slashdot Mirror
Is there a full video somewhere? It would be nice to see it from start to finish...
addons, schmaddons They're changing the face of computing and in doing so, they're redefining the OS. There *will* be a major paradigm shift in desktop thinking and google will be a part of it I predict. This is just another 'hint' that they're not *just* concerned with searching...
They're obviously setting themselves up to enter the OS/desktop market.
Does anyone know how the w3c fits into this?
So it won't replace Teamspeak or Rogerwilco for online gaming communications. Wonder if they'll offer a lighter version for this....
So my free account was boosted to 100 Mb this morning and my $20/yr. account has 2Gb and no ads. Very cool. They also seemed to update the interface with CSS...
Who said software "gets better over time"? What the heck does that mean anyway?
Your last two sentences don't make any sense and we're not talking about the GPU. In short we're talking about the engine....and probably when it comes down to it, we're probably agreeing with you....
Anyway, sorry if I offended you, though there still is a "or what" option.
Well then I'll take the "or what" option if it's still there.
If you are so sure about its potential, can you give some impressive examples? I can name some games that ran much slower than warranted by their visual quality (Halo and GTA3 being the prime culprits), but I can't really think of any prominent titles that did the opposite.
Err, I don't get your point here.
surely we would see some PS2 developers do it
Ummm, you're kidding right? There is quite a difference between industry implementation and cutting edge science.
The fact that all modern PS2 games look the same as old ones did (which is like shit, by modern standards) proves that you are wrong. Oh, man, you really lost me now. Unless you're saying that the PS2 is a fixed piece of hardware so we should see improvement in the quality/speed of the video game since algorithmic/method development is , according to my premise, also an effective strategy for improvement. Do you really think game developers for a PS2 or other static mediums want to shift their "way" in order to possible get speed up? No. They want to sell games and they can develop quite quickly by doing the same old stuff because it is a fixed machine. And they can optimize for this machine, which they most likely did in the first game.
My original point was simple: given the frustration that more computing power (PC) is needed at a (seemingly) faster pace, it seems likely that that this would be due to software inefficiencies. I think hardware and software inherently rely on each other, which makes it hard to measure what is the source of the problem....perhaps this was your point! Anydangway, you've provoked an interesting thread...
Well this is indeed the paradox, IMO. Researchers in the computational sciences (including graphics, vis., simulations, etc.) rely on this balance. For *if* algorithms and methods were entirely optimal and were only bottlenecked at the hardware end, then all funding (and effort) would consequently be put in the hardware. The other way holds true as well.
Hardware and algrothims/methods go hand-in-hand. They feed on each other and hinder each other. It makes sense then that there is and will be progress to be made in both ends. So I'm not sure you could say one is "outpacing" the other, but it does present an interesting case...
Nice way to reply...well done.
Your mentality is exactly my point: "If you want X and we do it with Y, then it will take more hardware power." The goal is then to rethink the paradigm, not just give up and use method Y. This is research, my friend.
Perhaps you're stuck with "algorithm" versus "methodology". They are, in fact, different. Fixing a current methodology and cranking the algorithm will only go so far...I'll agree with you on that.
This is right on. Of course we should expect computing power to grow according to Moore's Law (although there was a recent article indicating this may fail soon for laptops: Wired).
But if one looks into Moore's Law for Software (Googled) you find a different analysis. In short it looks like algorithm development has lagged sufficiently behind the computational power.
So what does this mean for gaming? It seems developers are hanging onto old ideas and relying on the growth in proc speeds (and bus speed and etc. etc.) to enhance their graphics/rendering. Thus the improved visualization comes to the cost of the consumer by forcing them to purchase faster and faster computers. Now we can run the newest games on the tricked out settings only on the fastest/cutting edge computers. This trends seems to be getting worse recently indicating that Moore's Law for Gaming Software is indeed lagging Moore's Law for computing power. IMO...
Xblast is quite good. Easy to setup and get the hang of. Very very low requirements to run.
The Itanium we have takes a ton of power and has 6 fans. How does AMD expect to put their chips into a laptop?