My thoughts on this problem always ended up at something that looked like a diving hardsuit suspended in one of those free-rotating rings like in the movie Lawnmower Man. The exoskeleton would both sense your limb position and be powered so it could a) try to anticipate your movements and move such that it was difficult to feel it and b) provide force-feedback when needed. Mount the ring system on a hydraulic system like those in movie rides for the ultimate in simulated movement.
The deluxe model might even provide thermal and ofactory feedback. Military versions might even include facilities for eating, drinking and waste elimination by adding systems from spacesuits.
Of course, there would have to be movement constraints so you couldn't damage the exoskeleton by clapping your hands, and the suit would have to be thin enough that those contstraints wouldn't break the willing suspension of disbelief.
This has been discussed in computer animation circles for some time. The reason film at 24 frames per second (and tv at 30fps) looks better than normal computer animation at 60fps is that for film you have 24 frames of motion, whereas for cgi you get 60 still frames. Motion blur for cgi usually involves generating three times as many frames and then blurring them together to get the illusion of frames of motion.
What's holding up Display Ghostscript?
on
GNUstep 0.6.0
·
· Score: 1
Of all the things that are interesting about GNUStep, the one that I really lust for is Display Ghostscript. What the heck is the holdup in that area? The last version is a year and a half old! I've been casually following GNUStep's development over the years, and the glacial pace of DGS development has been irking me the whole time. It's not even something one could join in and help, AFAIK, the code was contracted out to a commercial company.
Any DGS coders out there care to comment? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Hash makes a very good product and deliberately prices it at a level that will be affordable for all (c'mon, it's the price of three games). They know they could charge $1000 or more for it, and that doing so would actually gain them some respect from their peers in the business. They don't care. Their attitude ("software even an artist can afford") is, in my opinion, just as noble as Stallman's "all software should be free".
While faking positive postings is quite clearly wrong, every pro-Microsoft posting can't be dismissed as "astroturf". Some people legitimately believe in Microsoft's position and even their software - which, let's face it, often gets a bum rap just because it's from them. If I worked on software at Microsoft, I'd certainly take to the net to defend it, even if I had to use a pseudonym to avoid looking like a company spokesthing. What, you mean other people are allowed to use pseudonyms but Microsoft advocates aren't?
Hell, if I was Bill Gates, I'd be all over places like this. You don't like my OS, nerd-boy? Spanq me. (Well, maybe not like that, but it would be nice to see him out here with the geeks mixing in.)
Slashdot Mirror
My thoughts on this problem always ended up at something that looked like a diving hardsuit suspended in one of those free-rotating rings like in the movie Lawnmower Man. The exoskeleton would both sense your limb position and be powered so it could a) try to anticipate your movements and move such that it was difficult to feel it and b) provide force-feedback when needed. Mount the ring system on a hydraulic system like those in movie rides for the ultimate in simulated movement.
The deluxe model might even provide thermal and ofactory feedback. Military versions might even include facilities for eating, drinking and waste elimination by adding systems from spacesuits.
Of course, there would have to be movement constraints so you couldn't damage the exoskeleton by clapping your hands, and the suit would have to be thin enough that those contstraints wouldn't break the willing suspension of disbelief.
This has been discussed in computer animation circles for some time. The reason film at 24 frames per second (and tv at 30fps) looks better than normal computer animation at 60fps is that for film you have 24 frames of motion, whereas for cgi you get 60 still frames. Motion blur for cgi usually involves generating three times as many frames and then blurring them together to get the illusion of frames of motion.
Of all the things that are interesting about GNUStep, the one that I really lust for is Display Ghostscript. What the heck is the holdup in that area? The last version is a year and a half old! I've been casually following GNUStep's development over the years, and the glacial pace of DGS development has been irking me the whole time. It's not even something one could join in and help, AFAIK, the code was contracted out to a commercial company.
Any DGS coders out there care to comment? Anyone? Bueller? Bueller?
Hash makes a very good product and deliberately prices it at a level that will be affordable for all (c'mon, it's the price of three games). They know they could charge $1000 or more for it, and that doing so would actually gain them some respect from their peers in the business. They don't care. Their attitude ("software even an artist can afford") is, in my opinion, just as noble as Stallman's "all software should be free".
While faking positive postings is quite clearly wrong, every pro-Microsoft posting can't be dismissed as "astroturf". Some people legitimately believe in Microsoft's position and even their software - which, let's face it, often gets a bum rap just because it's from them. If I worked on software at Microsoft, I'd certainly take to the net to defend it, even if I had to use a pseudonym to avoid looking like a company spokesthing. What, you mean other people are allowed to use pseudonyms but Microsoft advocates aren't?
Hell, if I was Bill Gates, I'd be all over places like this. You don't like my OS, nerd-boy? Spanq me. (Well, maybe not like that, but it would be nice to see him out here with the geeks mixing in.)