pouët.net

gloom: Come on, you can't expect people to utilize modern-day techniques and features just because this stuff requires the same hardware as content made using real languages / SW platforms?!

> knos: I don't see how it's really relevant, especially since it's not a demo?

Why is it not a demo?

Unfortunatelly... as is the case with so many browser-based stats.... the stats on that page are pure bullshit.

According to the stats on that page, 64% of all webusers, have firefox or chrome installed.

Yeah, right!

mrdoob: the statement was that surely the tameness could be forgiven "since it was his first demo". Clearly, that isn't the case, and add to it the mega-ripped soundtrack, and no demoscene affiliation that I could see, I fail to grasp what's so wrong with not calling it a demo.

Don't misunderstand though -- I see absolutely nothing wrong with such experiments, in fact I encourage them all the time, but in the context of the current demoscene dogma, you either enter into it or you don't, and since this doesn't, that's just another label left for later. It's not meant as a negative, rather "I don't see why I can't call it tame, since it is, and 'oh behave, it's his first demo'" simply isn't a valid anything.

mrdoob: It would be like saying "Well, that was rather shitty" to one of the one-screen-effects online somewhere and being asked to keep quiet since it was someone's first attempt at a demo. Makey no sensey.

SDoryyr sorry dbg sbfg\
dbf to drunke forumwh
why you don't join db f nteractive
bete than ouet
code
drunk drunk durnk

Graphics programming in javascript is like using an F1 in a Scalextric track.

There's a video of that thing here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qu0b5978tHM
It's the only way I can see it. The terrain looks really bad with that rendering, the lack of atmosphere / fog / a gradient in the sky / whatever hurts the whole thing. The use of a fluid solver in the sky however looks cool.

the mountains and the sync sucked but the aurora thing was really cool.

mrdoob: it has no greetings-part, so it's not a demo!

so far i think optimus' contribution to the thread is my favourite.

Gloom, I'm not sure what your agenda is about this demo definition matter and I honestly don't care so much. I ended up at random on his WebGL demo before I saw it mentioned here and thought it was one. And was happy for it.

I disklike its music, I don't like its direction, and find demos that try to mimic nature nerdy and offensive.

However I reacted to your judgement because you basically said _we_ are past fading colors of a big texture. I just thought you wouldn't have reacted this way or commented at all if this was "just" the first demo of a newcomer, released in a demo-party. Maybe I'm wrong and you like to do that, I just find it unproductive and discouraging if it is read by the creators.

I certainly did not disagree about the content, it's just the "we've come further" phrase that suggested you judge it as a demo.

Also for a bit of context I don't even know what's the cutting edge of graphic programming anymore. It certainly is not demos, from what I've seen this year.

It's way too hard for someone like me who's not a game graphics programmer at day to keep up to date.

Which is a different issue and I'm not sure why I make the connection.

Possibly to say that it's hard to judge what's "acceptable" technically in a WebGL demo.

I typically tell it like it is, or just say nothing if I don't have anything positive to say. You touch on something important: how not to discourage beginners. I don't think there is any one right approach to this, but then again I don't believe in hand-holding people and going "Good job son, you're the greatest!" to pure mediocrity (or worse) - that's just counter-productive.


I just meant it as "people who do real-time graphics". Since it was being commented on as "hey, this was pretty demo-ish, wasn't it?" I felt it was a proper comment to make. Sceners or random WebGL-tinkerers alike can probably agree that this thing didn't break any new ground at all, which is more or less my biggest gripe with WebGL right now: we're basically seeing year 2001-alike prods being hailed as OMG AWESOME by massive amounts of people, which is annoying. But it's also a huge opportunity of course: demosceners are basically in a place now where we can apply 10 year old knowledge and make something that's super state of the art and impress people. The sad thing is that nobody/very few seem to be doing it.

Go make a WebGL experiment about it

nice.

nice? hitting that other side of the uncanny valley is precisely the kind of challenge that should be encouraged. Everyone can do cubes/ribbons/abstract art. Now make convincing/believable stuff, that's hard. If that's nerdy or offensive, then that applies as well for size coding and coding for limited platforms.

I jus had to disagre :)

just* disagree* ...damn laptop keyboard

Well, at the end it says "A WebGL demo by Steven Wittens". It also shows what WebGL can do, which I know it doesn't surprise us ("experienced" sceners) but there are tons of web developers that don't know what WebGL can do and that didn't got introduced to the demoscene.

Also, I suspect that what makes a demo for you is whether it was added to pouet or not. Which makes an interesting situation where tons of (what we used to call demos) are done on the internets but, because they aren't added to pouet, we say that the demoscene is dying.



Right. I don't care if you think it's good or not. I care that you're said it's not a demo. I can understand that people didn't considered ROME a demo, but if this isn't a demo, then I don't know what a demo is anymore...

Most never will. Graphics programming requires skills most web programmers don't have... like understanding what RAM is.

Xtr1m, I'm not one to forbid anyone to do what they love. I have a strong opinion now about nature-mimicking demos, let's try to explain it.

Any demo should strive for believability. It is the core of a demo's immersive effect. Even an abstract demo should feel "natural." For these, believability would come from internal consistency, a feel that its visuals and sounds can be understood and follow global principles.

As an aside, synchronisation is one way to achieve that. The most commonly used 1-1 synchronisation is however quite sterile and negates both visuals and audio by making each other almost redundant.

Nature-mimicking demos lack imagination. By picking nature as a subject, one would hope believability can be achieved. The truth is, it makes any attempt to add something artificial (even music) artificial and jarring.

They're also nerdy and offensive.

Nerdy, because they claim to reduce nature to a set of generators that can be fully understood. Because they claim that what makes nature beautiful is the efficiently computable one. Too distant to the reality of the experience.

They're offensive to me as well, because they presume I should be willing to spend minutes to watch them preaching to me what the director's opinion of what makes nature beautiful (or ugly, one would hope) is, rather than just going outside. The very experience of a traditional fly-by demo is antithetic with the nature-mimicking goal: compare the experience you have a watching the sea or a mountain skyline. It's a singular, personal experience, not a directed walk-through through a series of shots.

So take it as challenge. I'd love to see a demo prove me that I'm full of shit here.

mrdoob: well, be difficult if you must, so let's rephrase the question: if it isn't issued by a demoscene group, a demoscene person, or using a demoscene alias, uploaded to a demoscene archive, added to a demoscene production database or described by the author in ANY WAY (no, using the term "demo" doesn't count, since demosceners certainly didn't coin that phrase in the first place, we only adopted it) ... then while it's still real-time graphics, I think it's fair to say that it's not really a demo -- or at least -- not intended to be.

Therefore, I don't understand what's wrong with saying: "This kettle right here? Black."

Well, I just hope I'm not the only one that disagree with that.

you aren't.

https://mobile.twitter.com/unconed/status/283429527802236928

What you have to remember though is that if it's not made by one of gloom's pals or added to some specific website, it's not a demo.