pouët.net

kb: I guess you meant: 'kill ze troll!!!!' there you go

HAPPY CAT IS HAPPY BECAUSE POUET IS A HAPPY PLACE WITH HAPPY PEOPLE!!!

kb & ryg:

ahahaha :)

scamp: Come on, be a little fair. The point is very valid: If the argument is that high resolution and high framerate make for a better visual impression than "infinite" detail, then that IS subjective, as Manwe correctly points out. Those great-big-battle scenes from LOTR still look pretty awesome in "just" HDTV resolution., while a spinning cube is just a spinning cube, however crisp the edges are. To the coder who made it spin it might be the most beautiful thing in the world. To most other people it's a spinning cube.

I like the reasoning that realtime is still preferable to video because it looks better to the people who matter most (the coders), but doesn't that also mean that a couple more years of computers doing the Moore thing will make video preferable anyway because you'll be able to reach that same resolution and framerate in a filesize that's easy to distribute AND because pure video removes all of the other obstacles holding the artists back.

I know, I know, and I agree, coding is also an art, but then shouldn't you look at demos as not JUST audiovisual presentations? If the realtime aspect is JUST a necessity for getting the best picture quality in that regard, it'll be gone in five years, tops. If it's because realtime is a PREFERENCE, then that's different, but that's not really the impression I'm getting from all this.

(And yeah, to the trolls, stop reading between the lines, because there's nothing there. I didn't spend a year writing this post, so if you think I might mean something I'm not EXPLICITLY saying, assume that I didn't.

I mean, Reed, seriously: "this thread is the biggest gathering of retards"... so... what, you just had to join all the other retards in the great big retard gathering? I'm actually gaining some understanding of the PC scene mindset, and I really feel it's helping me make up my mind about a lot of things, such as whether PC coding would ultimately be interesting to me. If that's retarded to you, then maybe this'll sound clever: Go fuck yourself. Quietly.)

On the other hand, maybe those random pictures are all the answers I'll ever need.

Now Reed's point is even more obvious :)

I just heard a rumour that if this thread gets over ten thousand responses, the BP07 organizing team will change back to last year's demo size limit. So come on guys! Only several thousand more responses needed! You can do it!

hello reed!

gloom, you just can see forward at the distance of your nose length.
Here is a cat for you.

1. light-maps cals in "precalc" (used p.s. may be)
we democoders, or not?
2. texture > 512x512, for what?
and more other textures in demos one can in texgen.
For what saving simple textures like plasma, fractals, clouds in jpeg? You say "demo is not 64k-intro?", yes, but... demo it is demo
3. imho, 64mb limit for demo - this sux and bullshit

go on DVD-demo, 4,7gb limit, and all

rmeht, it's actually become quite an interesting discussion along the way :)

fuck, that was a 2 page old post i replied to :)

that said, i'm all sad now because reed called me and friends retards :-(

skrebbel: fuck, two more pages of bullshit along the way :)

make the limit what you can put in the compo machine's graphics card and the compo machine's cpu memory. thats what the limits used to be about. you have 512kb memory, you spend 512kb memory. I'd like to see what graphicians can do with the limitations set by todays! hardware

loaderror: yeah, the C64 scene will LOVE us when we tell them that we only accept onefilers from now on.

Uh, wait.

Loaderror, so we should up the limit for PCs to 2gb? :)

yes

I have 80 GB of free space on my harddrive..

I read that a digital cinema projector standards thingy uses jpeg2000 compression for each frame and no temporal compression because that leads to some degradation of the picture (don't ask me why).

In order to be competitive with old cinema picture quality they ended up with 2048xsomething resolution images and a quality setting that made your average movie take up 300 Gigabytes of space (according to that article I read).

Avi grabs of demos mostly suck unless they are 300 meg or so.

BITL: All of your questions have been answered in detail in this very thread already.

laderror, nice joke. I like such jokes too. Here is another one from me: I read in article that N billion polygons needed to make a human model looking exectly as a live actor in a movie. For M characters scene we need M*N billion polygons. It means K thousands computers linked parallely for realtime rendering. Let's connect all computers on the party area to make a real compomachine which could finally beat ancient Charlie Chaplin movies!
OMG, why some people like mathematic so much?..