I'm just looking for modularity. Just like I am talking about separating the rendering from the scene description, I could say the same thing about the physics engine. Why is it tied to the games so closely, when it could be separable? Why can't we use the best one we can find in all our games?
Maybe that sounds laughable because no one has done it. Why can't I use emacs as the editor for this post? If I find an editor I like bettor, why can't I switch to it for all purposes? Everywhere, the task and its implementation are tied together.
I'm not saying it's easier. It's an ideal that software hasn't really achieved in any area yet (and I do know a bit about this). In the areas of software that I work in, separating the code into clean and separately upgradeable components is the biggest uphill battle we fight because it's:
1) cheaper to throw together a big ball of code
2) easier to throw together a big ball of code
3) more profitable if the product costs more to maintain (people pay us for enhancements)
4) less likely that a competitor will make use of one of our components if it's hopelessly tied to our product
I started to mention OpenGL in my last post as a step in the right direction, but didn't because, as you mention, I don't know enough about it. Tell me, if DirectX and OpenGL are a separation like I'm after, then why are we so focused on the redering engine in each new game? My (perhaps wrong) assumption is that they are doing something outside OpenGL as an enhancement. While not as drastic anymore as Doom's 2d sprites, these shortcuts do show their age after a while, and the more general graphics hardware and subsystems keep advancing around them.
If I zoom in will I be able to see the blood pumping through it's wings?
Or a bunch of flowers.
Much more likely to see blood than flowers.
The point was, if I play DOOM today, I don't see any advantage out of several generations of graphics cards. Not even a better resolution without changing the software. If the game just told the graphics card where the polygons and lights etc are, then DOOM would look better every year, no?
It's a better separation of responsibility. It may cost a few fps over a custom solution, or actually look less stunning at first (since this generation of cards may not do all you'd want). But since a new generation of graphics hardware comes out so often, it seems like a winning proposition that gives software a longer lifespan.
The industry didn't evolve in that direction, though, so we may never know.
What are we up to now? Three months to obsolescence?
It would be good if we could go to a model where the scene is described in software in pretty-much its final form, and new generations of hardware do a better and better job of rendering it.
I used to be the same way (only w/Linux). I thought there was a sort-of charm in it, I guess.
Then I realized that for $200 I could get a machine immensly faster than my $3000 1995 machine (a P120 w/32MB). And when I get the extra power and memory/HD space, I found ways to make good use of it pretty quick.
So, next time your power supply or HD fizzles out, don't spend $40-60 dollars replacing them? Take the opportunity to upgrade. The console still works fine on these machines, I promise.
Slashdot Mirror
To me 'redundant' implies duplication of something already there. (a=1; a=1;)
a=a; and dead code aren't so much redundant as they are superfluous. It's still a sign of possible errors, for sure.
Man, it's like I'm being tracked day and night. When I think about it, someone knows where I am all the time, and probably why I'm there.
But enough about married life. What's this about tires? The site's slashdotted.
Coffin + solar cell + 802.11 + owner's cadaver == the last word in case mods. Literally.
"Hi, this is Dave Hughes. Wanna chat?"
Um, not really.
"Well could you at least brush the leaves off my solar cells? I'm losing power."
Dude, you're the reason there's 6 BILLION people on this IRC server. I'm fucking stepping on your solar cells!
I'm just looking for modularity. Just like I am talking about separating the rendering from the scene description, I could say the same thing about the physics engine. Why is it tied to the games so closely, when it could be separable? Why can't we use the best one we can find in all our games?
Maybe that sounds laughable because no one has done it. Why can't I use emacs as the editor for this post? If I find an editor I like bettor, why can't I switch to it for all purposes? Everywhere, the task and its implementation are tied together.
I'm not saying it's easier. It's an ideal that software hasn't really achieved in any area yet (and I do know a bit about this). In the areas of software that I work in, separating the code into clean and separately upgradeable components is the biggest uphill battle we fight because it's:
1) cheaper to throw together a big ball of code
2) easier to throw together a big ball of code
3) more profitable if the product costs more to maintain (people pay us for enhancements)
4) less likely that a competitor will make use of one of our components if it's hopelessly tied to our product
I started to mention OpenGL in my last post as a step in the right direction, but didn't because, as you mention, I don't know enough about it. Tell me, if DirectX and OpenGL are a separation like I'm after, then why are we so focused on the redering engine in each new game? My (perhaps wrong) assumption is that they are doing something outside OpenGL as an enhancement. While not as drastic anymore as Doom's 2d sprites, these shortcuts do show their age after a while, and the more general graphics hardware and subsystems keep advancing around them.
If I zoom in will I be able to see the blood pumping through it's wings?
Or a bunch of flowers.
Much more likely to see blood than flowers.
The point was, if I play DOOM today, I don't see any advantage out of several generations of graphics cards. Not even a better resolution without changing the software. If the game just told the graphics card where the polygons and lights etc are, then DOOM would look better every year, no?
It's a better separation of responsibility. It may cost a few fps over a custom solution, or actually look less stunning at first (since this generation of cards may not do all you'd want). But since a new generation of graphics hardware comes out so often, it seems like a winning proposition that gives software a longer lifespan.
The industry didn't evolve in that direction, though, so we may never know.
What are we up to now? Three months to obsolescence?
It would be good if we could go to a model where the scene is described in software in pretty-much its final form, and new generations of hardware do a better and better job of rendering it.
If humans had these ships they'd at least have have fins or something by the next season.
Then I realized that for $200 I could get a machine immensly faster than my $3000 1995 machine (a P120 w/32MB). And when I get the extra power and memory/HD space, I found ways to make good use of it pretty quick.
So, next time your power supply or HD fizzles out, don't spend $40-60 dollars replacing them? Take the opportunity to upgrade. The console still works fine on these machines, I promise.