Re:You love it... You should buy it.
on
Protoss For a Day
·
· Score: 1
THQ is much, much larger than Blizzard, for what it's worth.
THQ is a worldwide publisher with maybe 10 in-house development teams scattered all over.
Blizzard is (IIRC) one studio with a few hundred staff.
Keeping their teams relatively small is part of why their products are so good.
Second this!
I picked up a hand grinder off ebay, and with that, my Aeropress and a milk frother (of the hand plunger type) make a cup of coffee that my barista friend said was the equal of any she'd ever tasted.
Unlikely you'll be anywhere that doesn't sell torches though. No point taking spares for things you can replace wholesale with a cheapie for the duration.
Reviews of the Wii version of the latest DBZ game are promising, if looking really stupid while playing is a bonus:)
"Ka me ha me HA! Oh crap, there goes the TV."
Damned good rule of thumb, yeah:D
It's tempting to apply that, but I'm thinking it wouldn't go down too well. Heh.
In my experience the cause of the discrepancies is that the estimate only covers getting the feature to minimal functionality, whereas the final product requires something more polished and complete.
Thanks for the entertainment, always great when an Anonymous Coward questions someone's background:D
Anyway, creating usable systems costs in programmer and scheduling time is often inefficient compared to using an off the shelf solution. Varies a lot, and some off the shelf solutions are definitely NOT cost effective. Of the five games I've worked on, varying in size from a few hundred thousand budget, to fifteen million, to a self-funded one, none have had a homebrew mocap solution, and none have had any issues with their off the shelf solution.
Weird that you'd be so confrontational about it, really. Why's that chip on your shoulder?
I would go so far as to say that _most_ consider a homebrew solution. I don't think it's a great idea personally, as they're unlikely to realise beforehand just how large a task it can be. If your schedule relies on accurate estimates and fixed costs it's a dangerous thing to attempt.
In the case of an indie game it may not be an issue, but yeah, in any commercial context . . .
I can't imagine how little you must value your programmer time if you're considering a homebrew solution! If programmer time is cheap, then ok, but my preference would be to outsource it. There are plenty of contract mocap studios around, take advantage of that fact . . .
Well, I am certainly more concerned with the terrain rendering, but its atmosphere and cloud rendering are also better, and its water transparency (as of the version released earlier this year) also eclipses Bryce. The way surfaces work is better for many applications as well (e.g. for making tiles for a 2d game, which was what I used it for).
Bryce wins out if you need objects in the scene, or if you need the water to reflect clouds, and its procedural textures can be very useful (I use Bryce to make textures that I then use in Terragen). I really like Bryce's heightmap editor, too, it's better than Terragen's. Fortunately it's easy to import Bryce's heightmaps into Terragen . . .
Actually, Terragen is much better at landscape rendering than Bryce . . . but it currently lacks the ability to incorporate objects into the scenery.
It does an amazing job of water, atmosphere and surface rendering.
Slashdot Mirror
THQ is much, much larger than Blizzard, for what it's worth. THQ is a worldwide publisher with maybe 10 in-house development teams scattered all over. Blizzard is (IIRC) one studio with a few hundred staff. Keeping their teams relatively small is part of why their products are so good.
Second this! I picked up a hand grinder off ebay, and with that, my Aeropress and a milk frother (of the hand plunger type) make a cup of coffee that my barista friend said was the equal of any she'd ever tasted.
Kudos on a successful troll. :)
Unlikely you'll be anywhere that doesn't sell torches though. No point taking spares for things you can replace wholesale with a cheapie for the duration.
I thought "Earth" was very interesting. Bit preachy, but that's Brin ;-)
Reviews of the Wii version of the latest DBZ game are promising, if looking really stupid while playing is a bonus :)
"Ka me ha me HA! Oh crap, there goes the TV."
Damned good rule of thumb, yeah :D
It's tempting to apply that, but I'm thinking it wouldn't go down too well. Heh.
In my experience the cause of the discrepancies is that the estimate only covers getting the feature to minimal functionality, whereas the final product requires something more polished and complete.
Thanks for the entertainment, always great when an Anonymous Coward questions someone's background :D
Anyway, creating usable systems costs in programmer and scheduling time is often inefficient compared to using an off the shelf solution. Varies a lot, and some off the shelf solutions are definitely NOT cost effective. Of the five games I've worked on, varying in size from a few hundred thousand budget, to fifteen million, to a self-funded one, none have had a homebrew mocap solution, and none have had any issues with their off the shelf solution.
Weird that you'd be so confrontational about it, really. Why's that chip on your shoulder?
I would go so far as to say that _most_ consider a homebrew solution. I don't think it's a great idea personally, as they're unlikely to realise beforehand just how large a task it can be. If your schedule relies on accurate estimates and fixed costs it's a dangerous thing to attempt. In the case of an indie game it may not be an issue, but yeah, in any commercial context . . .
I can't imagine how little you must value your programmer time if you're considering a homebrew solution! If programmer time is cheap, then ok, but my preference would be to outsource it. There are plenty of contract mocap studios around, take advantage of that fact . . .
Well, I am certainly more concerned with the terrain rendering, but its atmosphere and cloud rendering are also better, and its water transparency (as of the version released earlier this year) also eclipses Bryce. The way surfaces work is better for many applications as well (e.g. for making tiles for a 2d game, which was what I used it for). Bryce wins out if you need objects in the scene, or if you need the water to reflect clouds, and its procedural textures can be very useful (I use Bryce to make textures that I then use in Terragen). I really like Bryce's heightmap editor, too, it's better than Terragen's. Fortunately it's easy to import Bryce's heightmaps into Terragen . . .
Actually, Terragen is much better at landscape rendering than Bryce . . . but it currently lacks the ability to incorporate objects into the scenery. It does an amazing job of water, atmosphere and surface rendering.