Defcon

[NeatNit]

xander wrote:

NeatNit wrote: xander wrote: NeatNit wrote: Actually, we see in 2 dimensions. It's just out awesometastic brain that can take 2 2D pics and make em 3D. Also, if there is/ever was/will ever be a 2D world, it's creatures would see in 1D. That's right, just a line of senseless colors. Also, it would be troublesome to go around each other... Hard world it would be, hard world....... Why do people say that? It isn't true... If you had only one eye, you might be able to claim that you saw in only two dimensions (you would be seeing the projection of a three dimensional world onto a retina that is basically two dimensional. However, with the addition of a second eye, you are reconciling two 2D projections of a 3D world, and are seeing more than a simple two dimensional projection of a three dimensional space. I mean, if you want to claim that humans see in less than 3D, perhaps 2.5D would be more appropriate? We certainly don't see in only two dimensions. xander Are you actually going to respond, or just quote me? xander

[Romanu]

I definately have to check this out when i have some free time. Highly curious about how you're implimenting it and the ideas. Thanks for keeping us updated.

[RabidZombie]

NeatNit wrote:

xander wrote: NeatNit wrote: xander wrote: NeatNit wrote: Actually, we see in 2 dimensions. It's just out awesometastic brain that can take 2 2D pics and make em 3D. Also, if there is/ever was/will ever be a 2D world, it's creatures would see in 1D. That's right, just a line of senseless colors. Also, it would be troublesome to go around each other... Hard world it would be, hard world....... Why do people say that? It isn't true... If you had only one eye, you might be able to claim that you saw in only two dimensions (you would be seeing the projection of a three dimensional world onto a retina that is basically two dimensional. However, with the addition of a second eye, you are reconciling two 2D projections of a 3D world, and are seeing more than a simple two dimensional projection of a three dimensional space. I mean, if you want to claim that humans see in less than 3D, perhaps 2.5D would be more appropriate? We certainly don't see in only two dimensions. xander Are you actually going to respond, or just quote me? xander

Yeah, but the bit highlighted in bold demonstrates our ability to see in 3D. It's taking the inputs and creating a 3D image for us.

[xander]

We certainly see in 3D. Our brain is wired to take the two 2D images that each of our eyes receives, and incorporate them into a 3D mental image. The brain also uses other tricks, such as relative size and speed, to create a 3D image, so that even people with only one eye still perceive more than simple 2D (though there is some loss of depth perception). Seeing only occurs when an eye receives and image and there is a brain to interpret that image. Now, you might argue (accurately) that they image projected onto the retina of each eye is only 2D, but there is more to seeing than the mechanics of the pinhole camera that is the human eye.

xander

[Byron]

prophile wrote:

It runs, slowly, on my OS X machine! Cue OpenGL nazi: I see an OpenGL error every frame from CFont::RenderText in glEnd - immediate mode is slow and also now deprecated with OpenGL 3.0 so I'd suggest using vertex arrays exclusively. I see many things being rendered which aren't actually on screen - quadtrees are your friends! The OpenGL state is changing a hell of a lot (enabling and disabling GL_TEXTURE_2D?) - this can cause a major performance slowdown, so I'd highly recommend caching the current state of GL_TEXTURE_2D and GL_BLEND and all those other jobbies and changing them only at the beginning of any rendering function if they need changing. You also really don't need to invoke glTexParameterf for each separate item of text. Finally, glGet* are big performance-eaters because they cause a pipeline stall any time you use them - avoid at all costs! It's much better to implement your own matrix class and use glLoadMatrix to set state rather than using the OpenGL syntactic sugar and then pipeline stalling every time you need to find those matrices.

Some excellent tips there - thanks. This is my first foray into OpenGL beyond the projects I have done on the iPhone. My DirectX renderer for instance is optimized to hell and back with very minimal state changes. The game is only 4 weeks in time worked on it but rest assured work is beginning to convert all the immediate calls to vertex arrays - it was just nice using a very simplified way of getting triangles to the GPU.

[darrenhubbard]

Byron wrote:

I have a feeling NeatNit will tell us. That does raise an interesting point though, how do I know if one of the planes becomes impossible to play?

Use the Seti@Home principle - distribute blocks of levels to a wide audience for testing

[skull13]

The number 4,294,967,296 wouldn't happen to be the limit for 32 bit numbers, would it? Also, its the number of unique IP's on the internet.

So Xiotex takes place on the internet.

EDIT: Ah, the 32 bit thing was already caught.
Darn.

[Pox]

skull13 wrote:

So Xiotex takes place on the internet.

Because, clearly, IPv4 is the only thing that has ever been enumerated by a 32-bit identifier.

[Byron]

skull13 wrote:

The number 4,294,967,296 wouldn't happen to be the limit for 32 bit numbers, would it? Also, its the number of unique IP's on the internet. So Xiotex takes place on the internet. EDIT: Ah, the 32 bit thing was already caught. Darn.

Back in the 80's the original idea was to place the world in the internet but since I now work for Introversion that feels too much like a well trodden path.

[RabidZombie]

Byron wrote:

Back in the 80's the original idea was to place the world in the internet but since I now work for Introversion that feels too much like a well trodden path.

So? Just because the paths been trodden before doesn't mean you can't split off from it and take it in new directions.
Scrapping an idea because parts of it have been done before only serve to threaten the integrity of the idea as a whole.

Last edited by RabidZombie on Wed Feb 04, 2009 7:29 pm; edited 1 time in total

[NeatNit]

RabidZombie wrote:

[quote="Byron"] skull13 wrote: Back in the 80's the original idea was to place the world in the internet but since I now work for Introversion that feels too much like a well trodden path. So? Just because the paths been trodden before doesn't mean you can't split off from it and take it in new directions. Scrapping an idea because parts of it have been done before only serve to threaten the integrity of the idea as a whole.

Wow. You fail at quote editing.

RabidZombie wrote:

Byron wrote: Back in the 80's the original idea was to place the world in the internet but since I now work for Introversion that feels too much like a well trodden path. So? Just because the paths been trodden before doesn't mean you can't split off from it and take it in new directions. Scrapping an idea because parts of it have been done before only serve to threaten the integrity of the idea as a whole.

There.

[RabidZombie]

Alas, it's true. My secret is out! ;-;