Coding as art?
category: general [glöplog]
Afaik nobody compared fr-19 to 3dmark...
I merely said that Farb-Rausch make demos that always run smoothly and look very good (and they have been using trilinear filter at least since FR-08 if I'm not mistaken). And the polycount seemed high, the figures that Chaos just posted, confirm that.
Haujobb's stuff usually runs smoothly aswell, but they have simpler stuff.
Anyway, that's not the point... the point is not that these demos run smoothly, it's the ones that don't, and don't look as good as these examples either, so their slowness is in no way justified.
(A nice example is Adrenalin... runs like shit, and sure the detail is high, but if they'd used some smarter code for better occlusion and LOD, they could have gotten much more performance... and if done well, I don't think anyone could even see the difference :)
Also my point is not that demos are changing... My point is that code quality is slowly slipping to dramatic lows, while it once was at the center of every demo.
I merely said that Farb-Rausch make demos that always run smoothly and look very good (and they have been using trilinear filter at least since FR-08 if I'm not mistaken). And the polycount seemed high, the figures that Chaos just posted, confirm that.
Haujobb's stuff usually runs smoothly aswell, but they have simpler stuff.
Anyway, that's not the point... the point is not that these demos run smoothly, it's the ones that don't, and don't look as good as these examples either, so their slowness is in no way justified.
(A nice example is Adrenalin... runs like shit, and sure the detail is high, but if they'd used some smarter code for better occlusion and LOD, they could have gotten much more performance... and if done well, I don't think anyone could even see the difference :)
Also my point is not that demos are changing... My point is that code quality is slowly slipping to dramatic lows, while it once was at the center of every demo.
styx: yes (exept the girl thing)
knos (the guy without name): yes
today, demos are a way to express yourself. and a very affordable compared to buying a complete video and music studio, since most creative people owb a pc anyway. coding is what makes it different from other media, but its not all.
badsector: no
this non-scene people vote non-scene demos is a common myth, but i don't think so. perhaps many great visual artists just don't know great coders.
scali: yes
except that we use trilinear only where needed and
that adrenalin pushes even more polys than you can imagine. adrenalin was planned as wild and later they found out that it actually works on some computers. adrenalin is really well coded but just a bit ahead of todays hardware-polycount. smash engines have always been some of the best. i just wish they made it less boring.
knos (the guy without name): yes
today, demos are a way to express yourself. and a very affordable compared to buying a complete video and music studio, since most creative people owb a pc anyway. coding is what makes it different from other media, but its not all.
badsector: no
this non-scene people vote non-scene demos is a common myth, but i don't think so. perhaps many great visual artists just don't know great coders.
scali: yes
except that we use trilinear only where needed and
that adrenalin pushes even more polys than you can imagine. adrenalin was planned as wild and later they found out that it actually works on some computers. adrenalin is really well coded but just a bit ahead of todays hardware-polycount. smash engines have always been some of the best. i just wish they made it less boring.
>Also my point is not that demos are changing... My >point is that code quality is slowly slipping to >dramatic lows, while it once was at the center of >every demo.
The point is good! We have good so superb hardware, but some demos even crawl on that with their mode13h wannabe 1337 oldschool effects. If we count the average frame rate from all modern demos in an average configuration, it will be smaller I guess than in the older times. I rarelly see a demo running at full frame rate (Especially in software, even if some still keep in 320*200*8bpp) And the bad unoptimized coding things that would look lame in the older times, are nothing important for todays sceners.
Few demos are doing respected stuff, but the hardcore coding spirit is missing today in most sceners. Times have changed... (Heading back into my cave with my 386 now :)
The point is good! We have good so superb hardware, but some demos even crawl on that with their mode13h wannabe 1337 oldschool effects. If we count the average frame rate from all modern demos in an average configuration, it will be smaller I guess than in the older times. I rarelly see a demo running at full frame rate (Especially in software, even if some still keep in 320*200*8bpp) And the bad unoptimized coding things that would look lame in the older times, are nothing important for todays sceners.
Few demos are doing respected stuff, but the hardcore coding spirit is missing today in most sceners. Times have changed... (Heading back into my cave with my 386 now :)
full framerate is not everything, and with today's computers, getting full framerate the whole time is very hard - there's too much involved with it (all it takes for some small glitches is windows deciding the swapfile needs some cleanup).
besides, i don't really care anymore either - whether framerate matters or not very much depends on what you're doing. blur effects tend to look as good in 30fps as in 60fps, while fast paced camera cuts work best when running in full framerate.
framerate is really a bad measure of general code quality - it took me quite some time to get rid of some rather noticeable texture upload pauses between the scenes in fr-013 for example, and that was only a texture management issue.
what IS annoying though is when demos are noticeably slower than they should be (prime example is fr-012 - could've been double or triple as fast, but the engine was designed to display a few cube scenes in black2000, and it shows). sometimes this is a result of (too much) party code, sometimes this is a result of lazyness or lack of time, but anyway, I don't like it when stuff gets released that's a lot slower than it should be (note that this applies to several of my own demos, most notably everything from fr-012 to fr-015 in a row :)
besides, i don't really care anymore either - whether framerate matters or not very much depends on what you're doing. blur effects tend to look as good in 30fps as in 60fps, while fast paced camera cuts work best when running in full framerate.
framerate is really a bad measure of general code quality - it took me quite some time to get rid of some rather noticeable texture upload pauses between the scenes in fr-013 for example, and that was only a texture management issue.
what IS annoying though is when demos are noticeably slower than they should be (prime example is fr-012 - could've been double or triple as fast, but the engine was designed to display a few cube scenes in black2000, and it shows). sometimes this is a result of (too much) party code, sometimes this is a result of lazyness or lack of time, but anyway, I don't like it when stuff gets released that's a lot slower than it should be (note that this applies to several of my own demos, most notably everything from fr-012 to fr-015 in a row :)
another point in "good code" is also compatibility and internal structure. sadly, these are qualities that can hardly be seen in the result itself. in the old days of 8bit machines, this was different. compatibility was not a big issue there since the machines basically wera all the same. i think today, the demoscene has become a lot more serious form of art including other goals than producing code that breaks records that are measured in a technical quantity.
rac: good point
hm, I think while watching a demo, one should not care about code too much (I don't care what technique musicians or film makers use either - what's important is the result). of course, better code allows for more visual creativity but code itself isn't enough (look at great satori prods where code almost doesn't matter). by analyzing, counting polygons, bytes and fps, you may miss the moment of fascination. I'd say competing in number of polygons/bytes/whatever is a 'sport' for coders, not an artform. However, code can be a part of than 'something' that makes some demos a real pieces of visual art.
hm, I think while watching a demo, one should not care about code too much (I don't care what technique musicians or film makers use either - what's important is the result). of course, better code allows for more visual creativity but code itself isn't enough (look at great satori prods where code almost doesn't matter). by analyzing, counting polygons, bytes and fps, you may miss the moment of fascination. I'd say competing in number of polygons/bytes/whatever is a 'sport' for coders, not an artform. However, code can be a part of than 'something' that makes some demos a real pieces of visual art.
baze, when watching demos one shouldn't concentrate on anything but just let your mind blow with the compo. I usually manage it to both enjoy the artistic side of demos as well as realizing technical masterpieces. however, I'm not the man for analyzing demos during the compo, if I want to do that, I'll do it at home :)
concerning demo speed I agree with ryg, as long as it's not a cube running at 8 fps fps doesn't matter that much anymore (apart from that most time you won't realize it anyways whether you have 10 fps more or less, except you're working at the lower limit of an acceptable framerate). however, more fps is not bad after all ;))
oh, someone mentioned it already...I'm really looking forward to Doom3. not because of the game though, but graphics seem to become really...nice =)
chaos: of course getting the girl thread away is not the main thing...main thing is I stop that now and work on the intro =)
concerning demo speed I agree with ryg, as long as it's not a cube running at 8 fps fps doesn't matter that much anymore (apart from that most time you won't realize it anyways whether you have 10 fps more or less, except you're working at the lower limit of an acceptable framerate). however, more fps is not bad after all ;))
oh, someone mentioned it already...I'm really looking forward to Doom3. not because of the game though, but graphics seem to become really...nice =)
chaos: of course getting the girl thread away is not the main thing...main thing is I stop that now and work on the intro =)
Scali: I just have to disagree with one point of yours, the one about farbrausch demos always running smoothly. Well, I do have a "crappy" computer (PIII 450) and a crappy ATI Rage, but there are still plenty of new prods that run fast, when fr prods are nearly always very sluggish.
DiamonDie: well, yes, you say it yourself, you have a 'crappy' computer... FR demos are generally designed for ... 700+ MHz and GF2+ I'd say.
So your computer is slightly under spec...
Reminds me of when Crystal Dream II and Second Reality came out... I only had a 386sx-16 at the time...
Ofcourse you can't please everyone. But FR still has 'reasonable' requirements, if you have a high-end PC, their demos WILL run smoothly.
FR aims higher than eg Haujobb, granted... but that's a choice everyone makes for themselves.
You can choose to aim for 'crappy' computers, and do simpler objects, lighting, effects, etc... Or you can choose to aim for high-end, and make more beautiful things.
Bottom line is however: please try to make it as beautiful and fast as possible, on the type of hardware that you aim for.
What I'm talking about is the 'unreasonable' requirements... Eg. Adrenalin, which I ran on an XP1800+ with 512 mb DDR and a 'built by ATi' retail Radeon 8500... One of the fastest systems around...
and STILL it ran sluggish.
Well if Adrenalin really was meant to be wild, they should have made an anim of it. They decided to release it as a realtime demo, so they will have to take the criticism now, imho. Let's face it, as a realtime demo it stinks.
Adrenalin is an easy target, but it's not the only one... There's many demos that require too much power. Either more power than even exists, like Adrenalin, or they just don't do much with the power... A lot of software demos have that problem aswell, like Optimus said. Using 320x200 because it's 'oldskool', but they require fast CPUs and do nothing that hasn't been done before on simple 486/Pentiums... that's NOT 'oldskool', that's 'lame' :)
As for hardware-demos... how about 0x4D44 by Magic Dreams? Their particles screech to a halt on even the fastest systems... While I've seen much more particles, doing much more interesting things, at much higher speeds, in other productions (perhaps they have not heard of subdivision yet, for their collision checker :).
Anyway, I'm just saying that the code falls below a certain 'minimum' level these days. That's not to say that I expect all code to be at 'maximum' (it never was like that anyway). It should just be reasonable :)
But that too is probably a choice that everyone makes for themselves.
I know that as a coder, I always enjoyed that 'coding art', and I get annoyed by badly coded demos (either in speed or in accuracy (some people STILL don't know how to subpixel/subtexel... DON'T CODE SOFTWARE THEN, it's not 'l33t' or 'oldskool' if it's not done right).
So well, to me it's a shame that the 'coding art' seems to disappear...
So your computer is slightly under spec...
Reminds me of when Crystal Dream II and Second Reality came out... I only had a 386sx-16 at the time...
Ofcourse you can't please everyone. But FR still has 'reasonable' requirements, if you have a high-end PC, their demos WILL run smoothly.
FR aims higher than eg Haujobb, granted... but that's a choice everyone makes for themselves.
You can choose to aim for 'crappy' computers, and do simpler objects, lighting, effects, etc... Or you can choose to aim for high-end, and make more beautiful things.
Bottom line is however: please try to make it as beautiful and fast as possible, on the type of hardware that you aim for.
What I'm talking about is the 'unreasonable' requirements... Eg. Adrenalin, which I ran on an XP1800+ with 512 mb DDR and a 'built by ATi' retail Radeon 8500... One of the fastest systems around...
and STILL it ran sluggish.
Well if Adrenalin really was meant to be wild, they should have made an anim of it. They decided to release it as a realtime demo, so they will have to take the criticism now, imho. Let's face it, as a realtime demo it stinks.
Adrenalin is an easy target, but it's not the only one... There's many demos that require too much power. Either more power than even exists, like Adrenalin, or they just don't do much with the power... A lot of software demos have that problem aswell, like Optimus said. Using 320x200 because it's 'oldskool', but they require fast CPUs and do nothing that hasn't been done before on simple 486/Pentiums... that's NOT 'oldskool', that's 'lame' :)
As for hardware-demos... how about 0x4D44 by Magic Dreams? Their particles screech to a halt on even the fastest systems... While I've seen much more particles, doing much more interesting things, at much higher speeds, in other productions (perhaps they have not heard of subdivision yet, for their collision checker :).
Anyway, I'm just saying that the code falls below a certain 'minimum' level these days. That's not to say that I expect all code to be at 'maximum' (it never was like that anyway). It should just be reasonable :)
But that too is probably a choice that everyone makes for themselves.
I know that as a coder, I always enjoyed that 'coding art', and I get annoyed by badly coded demos (either in speed or in accuracy (some people STILL don't know how to subpixel/subtexel... DON'T CODE SOFTWARE THEN, it's not 'l33t' or 'oldskool' if it's not done right).
So well, to me it's a shame that the 'coding art' seems to disappear...
tractor pulling
pulling tractors
My target platform is a Duron 650 with GeForce1 DDR 32MB (though I currently use an ATI Radeon8500, I still test my stuff on the GeForce). On that configuration, all FR prods should run reasonably.
I would just like to say that the demos of today are far more interesting than the demos of the late 80's.
I would also like to say that game companies are conspiring with hardware manufacturers to get consumers to buy the latest in technology. The demoscene has no commercial goals, and therefore targets what people actually have, not what they might purchase in the near future.
But we all know conspiracy theories are foolish.
I would also like to say that game companies are conspiring with hardware manufacturers to get consumers to buy the latest in technology. The demoscene has no commercial goals, and therefore targets what people actually have, not what they might purchase in the near future.
But we all know conspiracy theories are foolish.
all code is shit
all shit is code
all shit is code
droid, all you need is a wrapper :)
thom: Well if the demos of today WEREN'T far more interesting, we should seriously be worried :)
droid: Yes, but how much shit can one fit into 64kb? :)
droid: Yes, but how much shit can one fit into 64kb? :)
Depends on how you pack the fudge.
Scali: quality over quantity. my shit is better than your shit.
Uh puhleeze, not again.
Honestly, does anyone really care what FPS a demo gets? if it looks fluid I couldn't care less if it runs with 50, 60 or 300 FPS.
And all this "pushing the limit of 3d cards"-stuff is just useless. Sure, I could activate every shiny feature on my card and feed it with hundreds of thousands of polys, but what would be the use? A benchmark? 'Cause that's what 3DMark is - it's for kids who want to compare their pen...tiums and brag about it. If it is nicely done - all the better. But this is not a demo. I'm glad the "This demo runs only with a top of the shelf 3000$ PC" or "This demo only runs on my computer" days are over.
If one DOES push a hefty amount of polys and show ..let's say some rollercoasters (relation to existing demos intended), then ppl just complain "it sucks because it is boring". Plain Power won't win you flowers anymore. So why even try to make the impossible happen? Stay with the possible stuff, mix a little design, add a bit of innovation and you got a solid enough demo. And maybe some cookies with it.
Honestly, does anyone really care what FPS a demo gets? if it looks fluid I couldn't care less if it runs with 50, 60 or 300 FPS.
And all this "pushing the limit of 3d cards"-stuff is just useless. Sure, I could activate every shiny feature on my card and feed it with hundreds of thousands of polys, but what would be the use? A benchmark? 'Cause that's what 3DMark is - it's for kids who want to compare their pen...tiums and brag about it. If it is nicely done - all the better. But this is not a demo. I'm glad the "This demo runs only with a top of the shelf 3000$ PC" or "This demo only runs on my computer" days are over.
If one DOES push a hefty amount of polys and show ..let's say some rollercoasters (relation to existing demos intended), then ppl just complain "it sucks because it is boring". Plain Power won't win you flowers anymore. So why even try to make the impossible happen? Stay with the possible stuff, mix a little design, add a bit of innovation and you got a solid enough demo. And maybe some cookies with it.
Delax: I agree, the actual FPS don't bother me, as long as it looks smooth... Clearly Adrenalin and 0x4D44 don't qualify, they crawl at times...
That should not happen, at least not on the fastest computers around.
And yes, good code is nice, but it's not everything. One must have good objects, scenes, effects, music... I thought that goes without saying.
It's the combination that makes a good demo. Not just one thing.
I merely pointed out that imho the coding part of that equation seems to slip, so things don't always run smooth (sorry PC people, you won't get this... I'm still an Amigan at heart, running in 1 frame is holy :).
Also, not everyone may see 3dmark as a demo, but codewise it's excellent, which was the point.
I don't see why you wouldn't see it as a demo though. The 3dmark demos are some of my favourites. Perhaps people are jealous? The quality is excellent ofcourse :)
Hard to beat that with a demo made in your spare time.
That should not happen, at least not on the fastest computers around.
And yes, good code is nice, but it's not everything. One must have good objects, scenes, effects, music... I thought that goes without saying.
It's the combination that makes a good demo. Not just one thing.
I merely pointed out that imho the coding part of that equation seems to slip, so things don't always run smooth (sorry PC people, you won't get this... I'm still an Amigan at heart, running in 1 frame is holy :).
Also, not everyone may see 3dmark as a demo, but codewise it's excellent, which was the point.
I don't see why you wouldn't see it as a demo though. The 3dmark demos are some of my favourites. Perhaps people are jealous? The quality is excellent ofcourse :)
Hard to beat that with a demo made in your spare time.
Coders aren't artists, because coders are coders. Coders usually don't give a fuck about how something looks, that's what you have designers for. Coders are usually on a mission to get other coders yanking their little buddy until it falls off. Designers/graphicians are usually there to beat the coders with a stick when they use purple/green colorschemes and such.
And I think this is the way it should be. Coders doing design gave rise to that *horrible* 64k intro craze back in 1995/1996 with all those freedir tunnels+8bit linear palette+dune wannabe music+HORRIBLE 'POETRY'+cousin cletus' first buggin envmap routines+bumpmapping effects.
If coders are artists they are so in a coding respect imho. Oldskool VGA tricks like using 64 colors for an effect so you only need to clear 1/4 screen each cycle, or some of the tricks used on GBA and C64, that's art, that's poetry. But fellow coders, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD (allah, buhdda, etc) leave the design to people who know what they are doing!
/Inopia
And I think this is the way it should be. Coders doing design gave rise to that *horrible* 64k intro craze back in 1995/1996 with all those freedir tunnels+8bit linear palette+dune wannabe music+HORRIBLE 'POETRY'+cousin cletus' first buggin envmap routines+bumpmapping effects.
If coders are artists they are so in a coding respect imho. Oldskool VGA tricks like using 64 colors for an effect so you only need to clear 1/4 screen each cycle, or some of the tricks used on GBA and C64, that's art, that's poetry. But fellow coders, FOR THE LOVE OF GOD (allah, buhdda, etc) leave the design to people who know what they are doing!
/Inopia
what a closed minded opinion
what a stupid post
we can't deny any longer that coding computergraphics became something that can be picked up more easily (look at those NeHe tutorials for example.. every idiot with a bit of knowledge could use those tutorials as a start..)
another thing is the actual knowledge people have about the hardware, the operating system and the interfaces (directX, openGL) they are using, which is kinda lacking among a lot of people imho. if you want to get a really neat framerate out of direct3d (which is the only 3d API i'm able to use decently at the moment) you'll have to do research and know the so-called 'tricks of the trade'. if you don't.. well no sweat because you can easily slap together something that works anyway.
but it wont be as fast as it should be.
ofcourse this has nothing to do with the subject called hardware support (regarding vertex/pixel shaders).. but there aren't a lot of scene productions using them.. (something i'd like to see tho.. but i'll have to buy a better display adapter first before i can really get started with them myself).
anyway i'd like to conclude that it's just like it was in the past (remember yourself ranting about someone's slow fillers back in 95/96? ;).. only difference being that there are more people who just want to be creative and make visually appealing things without the years of experience and the broad interest regarding programming, which explains their "incompetence" regarding the usage of a system (resulting in "engines" that are slower than they should've been).
let me know what you think :)
another thing is the actual knowledge people have about the hardware, the operating system and the interfaces (directX, openGL) they are using, which is kinda lacking among a lot of people imho. if you want to get a really neat framerate out of direct3d (which is the only 3d API i'm able to use decently at the moment) you'll have to do research and know the so-called 'tricks of the trade'. if you don't.. well no sweat because you can easily slap together something that works anyway.
but it wont be as fast as it should be.
ofcourse this has nothing to do with the subject called hardware support (regarding vertex/pixel shaders).. but there aren't a lot of scene productions using them.. (something i'd like to see tho.. but i'll have to buy a better display adapter first before i can really get started with them myself).
anyway i'd like to conclude that it's just like it was in the past (remember yourself ranting about someone's slow fillers back in 95/96? ;).. only difference being that there are more people who just want to be creative and make visually appealing things without the years of experience and the broad interest regarding programming, which explains their "incompetence" regarding the usage of a system (resulting in "engines" that are slower than they should've been).
let me know what you think :)
"Either more power than even exists, like Adrenalin, or they just don't do much with the power... "
well scali
ofcourse i could be wrong
but i rather suspect the lack of proper culling in combination with (and i'm not all that sure about this) an engine that causes too much traffic in adrenalin.. they werent drawing all that much per frame..
well scali
ofcourse i could be wrong
but i rather suspect the lack of proper culling in combination with (and i'm not all that sure about this) an engine that causes too much traffic in adrenalin.. they werent drawing all that much per frame..