Does anyone recall the name of the projects for creating tiny versions of windows 98 and xp? I've googled it and searched on slashdot, but cant find anything.. I think it just involved deleting files and fixing any problems that came up.
I've been curious about this.. Will Vista's new 3d accelerated gui allow for faster or even instant alt+tabbing? i was thinking if everything is just texture mapped polygons (at least thats my understanding of the new gui) then the desktop could quickly be brought to the front, instead of taking forever to load up like usual. I know resolution changes are a factor too, but that delay seems relatively negligible.
i think its just important that its something that works ontop of normal text messaging. before emoticons, all we had was CAPS and the exclamation point! but even emoticons arent precise enough. i cant tell you how many times ive gotten in trouble for overestimating how subtly sarcastic i could be using text for example.
i did try There once, and i was impressed with the expressiveness of the characters... but something that requires that much immersion will never hit it off. we need to be able to multitask, including being away from the computer... something that a full-on virtual environment, or even something like realtime videoconferencing wouldnt allow us. i think the answer is probably as simple as more emoticons, and more complex ones, possibly animated... also, more precision in choosing different types of emphasis in text, and better ways of conveying delay and whatnot might be nice.
this suggests to me that the final audio format could still have a samplerate of 44khz, it would just have to be recorded with a higher samplerate and downsampled. all the audible frequencies made by the interference would still be present in the final recording.
does that figure take into account being able to look around the environment? that might not come up so much in films, but in games for sure. the resolution would still be finite, but not the same as when the eye is held fixed.
Yeah, I've done the same with mixed results. If your sources have any lossy compression on them you'll basically get (the vocals)-(music)+(compression artifacts due to the music and vocals). As for doing more literally the "opposite" of a vocal cut... I'm pretty sure its theoretically impossible. At least with stereo audio using simple methods. Maybe something with FFT would work. When you add the inverse of the left channel to the right channel, you end up with one channel that is R-L. So if you try to subtract that from the original channels you get 2 channels: R-(R-L) and L-(R-L), which comes out to -L and R-2L. Other combinations will have similar results... I think the root of the problem is that the vocal cut doesnt just give you the original audio minus the audio which exists simultaneously in both channels (a new stereo audio file), it essentially gives you what I just said, but merged into one channel. Maybe someone can give a more rigorous explanation?
cochlear implant simulator
i guess this is supposed to simulate different quality implants. i.e. what the implantee hears. basically seems to break the sound into frequency bands and modulate the amplitude of filtered noise or sine waves accordingly. not too special, but nice to have a quick link to perhaps.
Ok, I'm just speculating, but I think I see some things people are missing here...
First, the bare minimum fps should be the rate at which flicker is no longer detected (according to the article its 72 fps). In reality, the decay rate and decay curve of the display device are the real factors here, but this will soon be irrelevant as you'll see.
If you have an object moving across the screen, with no motion blur (such as with 3d games) at a low fps, you see multiple separate instances of that object rather than a single smeared object. The distance between the separate instances of the object increases with increased speed of the object, and decreases with increasing fps. And the opposite goes for the number of separate instances of the object. So the issue is now about minimizing the distance between the separate ghost images, to the point that it is perceived as a smooth blur. I'm assuming that this would actually be less than the resolution of the eye itself (not that it has one exactly), but for arguments sake, lets say the fps have to allow for distances between ghost images less than one pixel equivalent of the human eye with a display device that takes up the viewer's full field of view. This means the final determining factor is the maximum possible speed of the IMAGE of moving objects ON THE VIEWERS RETINA (or the display to be more realistic). In an application per application basis, one could determine the maximum speed of any given object. For example, in Quake 3 one could assume that rockets are the fastest moving object in the game, and the fastest it moves across the display is when it passes perpendicular to your direction of view, and passes as close to the camera as possible. With these assumptions, and the other factors determined before, you should be able to determine an ideal minimum fps. Unfortunately, in more general applications, there is probably no limit to the possible speed of images passing across the viewer's field of view, so plugging it into the equation would result in the need for infinite fps. FPS=s where s is the max speed of a moving image on the display in "pixels per second". So an object that moves across 20 pixels in one second would require 20 frames to avoid skipping any pixels (of course this would need to be higher for sub-pixel antialiasing) So, it depends on the application. OR, the answer is infinity. OR, I'm missing something.
actually, i have a microsoft optical 5 button mouse, and i remap the 'middle click' to the thumb button. ive found its much easier to use that way in mozilla. im assume this new mouse will also have a similar thumb button.
Re:Just wait for the game with this feature...
on
Mutating Animations
·
· Score: 2, Interesting
I think they were saying is that the characters actions are not directly scripted... i.e. "say this line, enemies come up hill, wait 3 seconds, start shooting at enemies", but instead, the actions are more dynamic and controlled by a.i. What they are NOT claiming (as far as I know) is that the a.i. learns and evolves as do the walking figures in the parent story.
I was thinking the same thing today... I think it might have something to do with having to constantly do calculations for the legs and such to walk across varying elevations, and since youd be seeing it so closeup, it would have to be more precise than other npcs. Not to mention thats just more polys that have to be on the screen ALL THE TIME (well, when you look down moreso), and again, it being closeup means youd need more polys.
If I made a game I'd definitely want to implement legs.
Slashdot Mirror
Does anyone recall the name of the projects for creating tiny versions of windows 98 and xp? I've googled it and searched on slashdot, but cant find anything.. I think it just involved deleting files and fixing any problems that came up.
I've been curious about this.. Will Vista's new 3d accelerated gui allow for faster or even instant alt+tabbing? i was thinking if everything is just texture mapped polygons (at least thats my understanding of the new gui) then the desktop could quickly be brought to the front, instead of taking forever to load up like usual. I know resolution changes are a factor too, but that delay seems relatively negligible.
i think its just important that its something that works ontop of normal text messaging. before emoticons, all we had was CAPS and the exclamation point! but even emoticons arent precise enough. i cant tell you how many times ive gotten in trouble for overestimating how subtly sarcastic i could be using text for example. i did try There once, and i was impressed with the expressiveness of the characters... but something that requires that much immersion will never hit it off. we need to be able to multitask, including being away from the computer... something that a full-on virtual environment, or even something like realtime videoconferencing wouldnt allow us. i think the answer is probably as simple as more emoticons, and more complex ones, possibly animated... also, more precision in choosing different types of emphasis in text, and better ways of conveying delay and whatnot might be nice.
this suggests to me that the final audio format could still have a samplerate of 44khz, it would just have to be recorded with a higher samplerate and downsampled. all the audible frequencies made by the interference would still be present in the final recording.
does that figure take into account being able to look around the environment? that might not come up so much in films, but in games for sure. the resolution would still be finite, but not the same as when the eye is held fixed.
Yeah, I've done the same with mixed results. If your sources have any lossy compression on them you'll basically get (the vocals)-(music)+(compression artifacts due to the music and vocals). As for doing more literally the "opposite" of a vocal cut... I'm pretty sure its theoretically impossible. At least with stereo audio using simple methods. Maybe something with FFT would work. When you add the inverse of the left channel to the right channel, you end up with one channel that is R-L. So if you try to subtract that from the original channels you get 2 channels: R-(R-L) and L-(R-L), which comes out to -L and R-2L. Other combinations will have similar results... I think the root of the problem is that the vocal cut doesnt just give you the original audio minus the audio which exists simultaneously in both channels (a new stereo audio file), it essentially gives you what I just said, but merged into one channel. Maybe someone can give a more rigorous explanation?
cochlear implant simulator i guess this is supposed to simulate different quality implants. i.e. what the implantee hears. basically seems to break the sound into frequency bands and modulate the amplitude of filtered noise or sine waves accordingly. not too special, but nice to have a quick link to perhaps.
Ok, I'm just speculating, but I think I see some things people are missing here...
First, the bare minimum fps should be the rate at which flicker is no longer detected (according to the article its 72 fps). In reality, the decay rate and decay curve of the display device are the real factors here, but this will soon be irrelevant as you'll see.
If you have an object moving across the screen, with no motion blur (such as with 3d games) at a low fps, you see multiple separate instances of that object rather than a single smeared object. The distance between the separate instances of the object increases with increased speed of the object, and decreases with increasing fps. And the opposite goes for the number of separate instances of the object. So the issue is now about minimizing the distance between the separate ghost images, to the point that it is perceived as a smooth blur. I'm assuming that this would actually be less than the resolution of the eye itself (not that it has one exactly), but for arguments sake, lets say the fps have to allow for distances between ghost images less than one pixel equivalent of the human eye with a display device that takes up the viewer's full field of view. This means the final determining factor is the maximum possible speed of the IMAGE of moving objects ON THE VIEWERS RETINA (or the display to be more realistic). In an application per application basis, one could determine the maximum speed of any given object. For example, in Quake 3 one could assume that rockets are the fastest moving object in the game, and the fastest it moves across the display is when it passes perpendicular to your direction of view, and passes as close to the camera as possible. With these assumptions, and the other factors determined before, you should be able to determine an ideal minimum fps. Unfortunately, in more general applications, there is probably no limit to the possible speed of images passing across the viewer's field of view, so plugging it into the equation would result in the need for infinite fps.
FPS=s
where s is the max speed of a moving image on the display in "pixels per second". So an object that moves across 20 pixels in one second would require 20 frames to avoid skipping any pixels (of course this would need to be higher for sub-pixel antialiasing)
So, it depends on the application. OR, the answer is infinity.
OR, I'm missing something.
actually, i have a microsoft optical 5 button mouse, and i remap the 'middle click' to the thumb button. ive found its much easier to use that way in mozilla. im assume this new mouse will also have a similar thumb button.
I think they were saying is that the characters actions are not directly scripted... i.e. "say this line, enemies come up hill, wait 3 seconds, start shooting at enemies", but instead, the actions are more dynamic and controlled by a.i. What they are NOT claiming (as far as I know) is that the a.i. learns and evolves as do the walking figures in the parent story.
I was thinking the same thing today... I think it might have something to do with having to constantly do calculations for the legs and such to walk across varying elevations, and since youd be seeing it so closeup, it would have to be more precise than other npcs. Not to mention thats just more polys that have to be on the screen ALL THE TIME (well, when you look down moreso), and again, it being closeup means youd need more polys. If I made a game I'd definitely want to implement legs.
Ok, that makes much more sense, I was imagining agents trying to be sneaky while wheeling around on Segways.