oh, and also, Fantasy Edge...

uh, i''ve always felt that the computers HAVE been aiming for an atomic-based system. however, for today''s computers, it''s totally out of the question. i''m sure somebody has already thought of it.

    class ATOM{public:int NumElectrons;int NumProtons;int NumNeutrons;float radius;void CreateIsotope();}    

and so on. damn, that would actually be downright sickening.

if you REALLY think about it, this is what THE MATRIX is. that''s probably how it would be coded. At the ATOMIC level. As computers get faster and faster, i''m sure we''ll see plenty of atomic-based code.

Anybody wanna help me code The Matrix?

a2k

Of course, there comes the question of if we really need atomic based code. I mean, it would be difficult to tell the difference between code that used a Newtonian physics model, and one which had a quantum/relativity etc. based physics model, except the second one would be a lot slower. It comes down to what you actually notice.

------------------------------
#pragma twice

sharewaregames.20m.com

oh in that case,

be patient, man! john carmack can only do so much!

anyway, what i mean by this, is that game developers ARE trying to sway the balance towards 3d modelling and less towards texturemapping, but the problem is still, the general retail market does not possess powerhouse machines to run the games at a decent frame rate that will generate cool non-textured 3d models. i saw in a magazine, i think it was PC Accelerator, or whatever, the evolution of the Quake models, and there is quite a big difference from Quake 1 and Quake 3, so... john carmack can only do so much.

a2k

are you mocking me..... in any event, yes, the thought of atomic programmingis certainly mind bogling. Actully, other than photoreaistic texture mapping, how can you really do a realy world. no matter how advanced the graphics get, they are still 2d because the monitor is only a flat face, even vr these days is 2d. so the only way to create true to life 3d is to tap directly into the sensory nerve.

"Why does my life have to be so hard in every world?"

Nanami Jinii;El-hazard

Hi there,

>>start actually modelling out the nose and eyes well not in too too much i mean you could do a head model with less than rouguly 300 polys which still would run smoothly on any machine. now for shading details THAts when you should employ the texture mapping. But i find that texture maps are being over used too often. Obviously texture maping must be used for environments like floors but more objects should be modeled more in detail. <<

Okay...
Currently average poly counts for in game is between 800-1000. Per model. This is more than enough to define the shape of the object with some accuracy, however alot of components are still heavily compromised. (The hands on a human model for example)

However, "Low" low poly modelling (150-1000 polys) is nearing the end of its days as the main body, with X-Box and other Next-Gen consoles, as well as the constant flow of PC tech, models will be rangeing from 2000-5000 within the next 18-24 months. Lower poly may well still be used in some cases for LOD. And there is still the instance of people modelling at lower because you can''t see you geometry difference of a particualar model at 600 against 2000. If it''s not noticable, you''ll always shave polys off your model...

I got a brief from a company for an artist position, the brief is to model a creature in "no more than 5000 polys" the model can use 4 256x256 32bit colour textures and does not have to be seamless. currently used 3800 with some stuff still left to do along with optimisation.

If anyone is modelling out there for practise etc, still do some low poly models (I''ve got a 150 poly and 1000 poly model Apache Ah-64 helicopter on my website) but don''t "stick" to nothing but low low low poly modeling. It''s all about creating an illusion, rather than actually trying to make the object as detailed as possible,

As for texture mapping, what to you mean it''s (texture mapping)being used too often? Let''s say you want to create a rusted pipe, to create it untextured, would take thousands of polys and offer no advantage over a 250 poly "pipe" with a 256x256 32bit colour texture of "metal and flakes of rust" To use anything else other than polys is cool, but not in realtime, as that the hardware required to view the model must also be reasonable.

So yeah, we''re STILL using texture mapping but we''ve added filtering, perspective correction, higher colour depth on texture and output, larger textures, bump mapping to name but a few of the "changes" to the output since 1990.

Anyway, there''s my 2 cents (again!)



www.stephen-hawes.co.uk

sorry if i came across as "mocking" you fantasy edge, i didn''t mean to. also, i''m not quite to sure as how tapping into a sensory nerve can affect the way you view a world, because whatever you see through VISUAL perception is brought about through the light rays that enter your eye. i can understand that through MENTAL perception, you can generate an image in your mind (i.e. the Matrix), however, wouldn''t this cause you to think an image different from that which you are viewing? that''d be kinda trippy. in fact, wouldn''t that be even MORE virtual than current VR?

i''d like to hear your thoughts.

a2k

Actually, once we get to a point of absolute photorealism, where polygon counts are literlarly no longer an issue, and each and every object (perhaps gravel) would actually be created with untextured polys, competition for the highest level of detail would be insane, with perhaps even things like eye lashes being done in 3D, and with the exception of paper print outs which would use a texture etc... Ok, so this is very far sighted, but I think that generally as a rule we will see, with every generation, less and less textures being used in games. An example of this is Elixer studio''s Revolution. The cherubs on the sides of buildings will be in 3D as opposed to the usual texture map.