pouët.net

Go to bottom

UE4 engine vs. rendering quality of demos

category: general [glöplog]
Quote:
It's not "academia contributes", but rather individual researchers contribute and for commercial companies: employee contribute, usually at the very bottom of the company hierarchy.

When a paper contains the name of an academical institution or a company, it's because they paid to have the paper written, so the contribution very much originates from the organisation.
Quote:
So what's your point, really?

That you're overstating the merits of the demoscene. The demoscene has many merits, but contribution to science isn't one of them.
added on the 2016-11-06 15:18:14 by absence absence
tomkh: sounds like an amiga demo ;)
added on the 2016-11-06 15:19:51 by smash smash
Quote:
it's because they paid to have the paper written, so the contribution very much originates from the organisation.


Ok, so let's just say our view of the world and values are "incompatible". I see it differently and cannot agree with this statement.
added on the 2016-11-06 15:20:54 by tomkh tomkh
Quote:
they _bake them_.

Quote:
pretending to be "real-time"

Quote:
you cannot even change camera anymore so much, because only visible parts of the scene are "production ready".

Sounds like a demo alright.
added on the 2016-11-06 15:27:04 by noby noby
^ it's "oh sweet summer child" and "no true scotsman" rethoric dangerously entangled. Read: Let's not go there and argue about what's really real-time.
added on the 2016-11-06 15:30:27 by tomaes tomaes
Quote:
Ok, so let's just say our view of the world and values are "incompatible".

They may very well be. Still, you have to agree that if organisations stopped paying salaries to people who write papers, there would be virtually no papers written.
added on the 2016-11-06 15:35:59 by absence absence
Quote:
Still, you have to agree that if organisations stopped paying salaries to people who write papers, there would be virtually no papers written.


I kind of agree when it comes to psuedo-sciences like applied comp.graphics research.
I've seen things and ignorance you wouldn't believe.

For basic/fundamental research: it's pretty far from that.
added on the 2016-11-06 15:45:25 by tomkh tomkh
Quote:
For basic/fundamental research: it's pretty far from that.

Are you suggesting that basic research isn't funded, and that it's done by volunteers in their spare time?
added on the 2016-11-06 15:54:58 by absence absence
OMG guys plz im crying


dont do this, not here
absence: sure, there are plenty of open paper archives with papers written in people's spare time without any direct funding. I'm not saying the avg. quality is so great, but it happens, yes. There are even some well-known exceptions, when a paper posted there turned out to be a breakthrough.
added on the 2016-11-06 16:08:49 by tomkh tomkh
tomkh, stop pretending like anyone would do research based on genuine curiosity, thats ridiculous! /s
added on the 2016-11-06 16:13:52 by LJ LJ
Quote:
There are even some well-known exceptions, when a paper posted there turned out to be a breakthrough.

So if they're exceptions, the norm is that research is funded?
Quote:
stop pretending like anyone would do research based on genuine curiosity, thats ridiculous! /s

I do plenty of personal "research" based on genuine curiosity. It amounts exactly zero papers published in peer reviewed journals however. :)
added on the 2016-11-06 16:30:16 by absence absence
Quote:
I do plenty of personal "research" based on genuine curiosity. It amounts exactly zero papers published in peer reviewed journals however. :)


So you have zero experience, but so much to say? (no offence)
added on the 2016-11-06 16:43:05 by tomkh tomkh
Quote:

So if they're exceptions, the norm is that research is funded?


I meant: exceptions to the fact that average quality is not so great.

Also, everything is funded, the question is how direct the funding is. Some research grants are very broad and researchers can do many things that were not even stated in the application. The same goes for commercial companies: it is usually not your job if you are an engineer to write technical papers. Often you have to even ask management for permission to do so and sort of do it anyway in your spare time. Unless of course you are in the commercial research center, but even that research centers produce majority of papers, they are not the only source of valuable ideas.
added on the 2016-11-06 17:25:53 by tomkh tomkh
Excuse me, but who the fuck cares whether demo coders contributed to science? Tomkh: sounds like you have a specific grievance, and I think I speak for all of us when I say we are very sorry that NAME HERE did not get the recognition they deserved for INVENTION HERE.

Right, now that's sorted, back to arguing about what a demo is for the four-hundredth time in recent demoscene history. Jesus.

I think a demo is only a demo if I can double-click on it and it has a tunnel. But not if UE4 drew the tunnel! The only admissible tunnel drawing API is OpenGL. Thoughts?
Coded two Tunnels today! One classic Dot-Tunnel and one made of stretched Prisms.
I made them in HLSL, the shader-language of the DirectX-API. :p
tunnneeelll :) with coders colors ^^
added on the 2016-11-06 19:07:54 by ntsc_ ntsc_
DirectX is also admissible provided your demo also features at least 1 (one) spike-ball and a alpha-blended bitmap of a pouting lady.
Quote:
Excuse me, but who the fuck cares whether demo coders contributed to science?


Some random dude on the internet and I.. I had to explain him.. he was wrong... you know... lol
added on the 2016-11-06 21:01:21 by tomkh tomkh
Quote:
So you have zero experience, but so much to say? (no offence)

Come on, you're not even trying to maintain a serious discussion. Additionally, your arguments are dwindling, so I'll just leave it at that.
added on the 2016-11-06 21:03:14 by absence absence
Quote:
Additionally, your arguments are dwindling, (...)

So there we go... I think I know people like you who love logical discuourse and are first one to point out what are "facts" and what are "opinions" and so on. It's good approach, at least better than the opposite, but if at the same time, you know nothing from the first-hand experience, rhetoric is all you have and the discussion is rather dry and concentrate on nitpicking/petty issues. Yeah, let's leave it at that, especially it's OT.
added on the 2016-11-06 21:30:32 by tomkh tomkh
Quote:
I think a demo is only a demo if I can double-click on it and it has a tunnel. But not if UE4 drew the tunnel! The only admissible tunnel drawing API is OpenGL. Thoughts?
No.
added on the 2016-11-06 22:02:21 by numtek numtek
Quote:
The demoscene has many merits, but contribution to science isn't one of them.

Totally technically correct, and it's important that people shed this "holier than thou"-attitude that some people tend to have about being in the demoscene. And while it is indeed technically correct, that's not to say that people in the demoscene hasn't made contributions to science (of technology, mostly), because they surely have. And, most likely they'll have done better science because being in the demoscene and exposed to other smart people and their thoughts and ideas as well.

So I would argue that as a subculture, the demoscene has indirectly contributed quite a lot to science, if "only" (mostly) the science of graphics and technology.
added on the 2016-11-06 22:36:26 by gloom gloom
I'm sorry, but since demoscene is not funded, I doubt anyone will _in his spare time_ do better demo than Adam/Unity, ever! Absence's kind of thinking persuaded me at the end.

So, let's just focus on size-coding and intros and admit demo competition is officially dead.
Killed by commercial engine tech-demos and commercial libraries/tools that are superior to whatever we have and can come up with.

/s
added on the 2016-11-06 23:07:07 by tomkh tomkh
Looks like some people here forget (ignore?) the #1 reason to make demos: to have fun.
added on the 2016-11-06 23:21:50 by keops keops

login

Go to top