scene.org awards 2008 - your nominations
category: general [glöplog]
iq : don't worry, we don't, it's just your opinion.
Some people are impressed by demos using shaders and algorithms found in GPU gems and Siggraph articles, others are more impressed by home-made techniques that have no academic name or paper to explain how to make them.
I'm not sure motion blur, screen space ambient occlusion or depth of field running on a 8800 while displaying a scene with a few objects impress any person with the "proper knowledge" in 2008. Those techniques have been explained 50 times in 50 different papers for quite a while now.
Smash has my respect for his talent and he knows it, but surely not because he did motion blur or ambient occlusion, things we all can find well explained and even optimized in tons of papers.
Some people are impressed by demos using shaders and algorithms found in GPU gems and Siggraph articles, others are more impressed by home-made techniques that have no academic name or paper to explain how to make them.
I'm not sure motion blur, screen space ambient occlusion or depth of field running on a 8800 while displaying a scene with a few objects impress any person with the "proper knowledge" in 2008. Those techniques have been explained 50 times in 50 different papers for quite a while now.
Smash has my respect for his talent and he knows it, but surely not because he did motion blur or ambient occlusion, things we all can find well explained and even optimized in tons of papers.
interesting (polemical?) point... if scene.org awards were to celebrate more the technical side of demos, they would need a jury totally expert and uptodate about technical knowledge ; judging demos from their artistic attributes is easier, even 'outsiders' are legitimate to do so.
on the other hand artistic judgment is more subjective and polemical whereas technical judgment is supposedly more scientific and rational, less disputed.
on the other hand artistic judgment is more subjective and polemical whereas technical judgment is supposedly more scientific and rational, less disputed.
anyway most new techniques are brought to bring extra artistic values and thus usually indirectly acknowledged by scene.org awards, so maybe there's actually no real need of any big change.
i don't recall any accurate example of super technical demos unfairly forgotten by scene.org awards, except maybe MOPED, Dream Equation 1 & 2... already too many to my mind.
i don't recall any accurate example of super technical demos unfairly forgotten by scene.org awards, except maybe MOPED, Dream Equation 1 & 2... already too many to my mind.
zest: Regarding "MOPED", I think Keops said it best:
Quote:
pretty cool and good physics engine but it lacks some "demoscene feeling" for a thumb up :)
added on the 2004-08-26 by keops
see that sounds like a partial judgment to my eyes! obviously the guy wasn't coming from the 'historical' demoscene tribe but the gamedev community, his prod may lack some demoscene feeling but it does show some demo power, and it's artistically witty with the funny 'epic fail' cutscenes.
back in 2004 this *homemade* physics engine was quite impressive and should have been recognized by the scene.org awards in my opinion.
back in 2004 this *homemade* physics engine was quite impressive and should have been recognized by the scene.org awards in my opinion.
Quote:
*homemade*
demoscene is not the special olympics, backwardness is not an excuse
havoc: what do you mean ?
by "homemade" i mean that he didn't use any available physics engine/library.
seriously, i actually don't know where that 'technical achievement' question came from, but i do more and more think that it's clearly missing in scene.org awards. Your opinions ?
by "homemade" i mean that he didn't use any available physics engine/library.
seriously, i actually don't know where that 'technical achievement' question came from, but i do more and more think that it's clearly missing in scene.org awards. Your opinions ?
Quote:
and it's artistically witty with the funny 'epic fail' cutscenes.
Witty, yes. Artistically? After the Nth repetition, no. ;)
I see your point though, but then again: that's what the demoscene is -- partial, subjective etc.
Quote:
by "homemade" i mean that he didn't use any available physics engine/library
Quote:
This software uses simple multi-body package by Eugene Laptev, Oxford Dynamics <eugene_laptev@oxforddynamics.co.uk> http://www.oxforddynamics.co.uk.
Quote:
License
You can freely use and modify source code of the multi-body package (the Free Software), provided that the following conditions are met:
[...]
2. The product, presumably a game, that uses the software or a part of it must include somewhere in the documentation the following acknowledgment: "This software uses simple multi-body package by Eugene Laptev, Oxford Dynamics <eugene_laptev@oxforddynamics.co.uk> http://www.oxforddynamics.co.uk"
Clues, they are essential to your understanding, especially when explaining that something is wrong or not done the right way.
lol.
uh i've forgotten that acknowledgment but the nfo stated also that this lib is used 'only' for the collision check code and i trust the author who named his physics engine with his own name for having worked a lot on it by himself.
to be honest (but i know keops that dishonesty is our favourite french sport specially in spoken and written debates...) i don't think that MOPED should come down in esteem because of that (fully acknowledge) outside resource use.
anyway i'm just questioning the scene.org awards a bit, i think it's always good to question 'institutions' according to their past and present evolution, and i'm really curious to know where iq's prods will be present in the next scene.org awards :P
to be honest (but i know keops that dishonesty is our favourite french sport specially in spoken and written debates...) i don't think that MOPED should come down in esteem because of that (fully acknowledge) outside resource use.
anyway i'm just questioning the scene.org awards a bit, i think it's always good to question 'institutions' according to their past and present evolution, and i'm really curious to know where iq's prods will be present in the next scene.org awards :P
keops: what i meant is that he didn't use Ogre physics engine nor Havoc.
I know this discussion shouldnt be about MOPED, but collision checks are more or less alpha and omega in a physics engine. When you handle collision correctly, all there is to it is a copy/paste from your favourite (and most probably poorly written) physics tutorial to calculate impulse force.
..and if you take out the physics from MOPED, what are you left with? Not a lot (just check the comments on the prod: "Great physics, but looked like crap", "Nice physics, but boring" etc.).
..and now: back to the original topic, because that was actually quite interesting.
..and now: back to the original topic, because that was actually quite interesting.
Zest: Exactly how should moped have been recognized by the scene.org awards in 2004 btw? I mean, if you look at the categories at that time, where would you have put it?
(Sorry Gloom, the question was too interesting to ask)
(Sorry Gloom, the question was too interesting to ask)
^^^^^^^
breakthrough performance.
HA HA HA ;(
Gargaj: AMAZING joke dude :D
if we are to titillate scene.org awards, and in connexion with what Insectecutor and Ra said, i think it's important to remind that these prizes always reward demos and their authors as whole groups, they aren't academic decorations for individual persons and their disciplines : that's exactly the demoscene spirit imho.
now, are they fair and exhaustive enough, uh that is the question :p
now, are they fair and exhaustive enough, uh that is the question :p
Quote:
keops: what i meant is that he didn't use Ogre physics engine nor Havoc.
as a side note, there is no "Ogre physics engine" per se, only integration with other physics engines like Bullet, Newton, etc
keops: that said, my dof implementation has a novel optimisation technique (you might have seen me or one of my colleagues talking about depth buffer tile classification at one of the playstation conferences and seminars) - so does it count if you come up with the technique? :D
and when you have 2 instead of 1,
what do you do ?
what do you do ?
I think the best effect should be the most goodlooking effect, but since it's subjective i find no real value in the Scene award for it.
oh, and stuff like ambient occlusion - the point is, you can make a naive implementation of a technique like that that works ok on a 8800 with a simple scene, but to get it working efficiently on a "real" scene with soft shadows, accurate dof and a series of other rendering effects on say a gf7800 at a decent res - that's a really big engineering challenge, as game console programmers for example probably know.
but therein lies the point. the goalposts are moving so fast that it's probably impossible to judge this stuff properly. what was a challenge requiring a lot of custom optimisations on the hw a year ago is achieveable with a simple brute force technique the next year. besides, we arent the "graphics engineering scene". :) much better to give it to something which everyone can agree looks pretty. :)
but therein lies the point. the goalposts are moving so fast that it's probably impossible to judge this stuff properly. what was a challenge requiring a lot of custom optimisations on the hw a year ago is achieveable with a simple brute force technique the next year. besides, we arent the "graphics engineering scene". :) much better to give it to something which everyone can agree looks pretty. :)
but does looking pretty depend on the coder or the graphics artist?
who knows. that line is pretty blurry anyway, given the number of demos made largely by coders who happen to be part-time graphics artists too.