Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space
-
- level0
- Posts: 2
- Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 5:58 pm
-
- level1
- Posts: 22
- Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 5:18 pm
Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space
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
-
- level5
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm
Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space
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
Lets not forget he was protesting that we can only see in the 3 dimensions, which depends entirely on your interpretation. You're perfectly right we see in 3D (or least a 2D image with a plane of depth, so 2.5D), but he's correct in saying we can see in 2 dimensions (cover one eye).
However, it's quite clear Byron meant we wouldn't be able to see in a 2D world. After all, all we'd see is a 1D (1.5D) projection of the 2D world (if we had the right equipment...). Tell me what that looks like.
Although I completely disagree with the whole "senseless colours" and "troublesome to go around each other". A 4D being would take exactly the same view of our 3D world.
Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space
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
-
- level5
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm
Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space
RabidZombie 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
Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space
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
-
- level5
- Posts: 2414
- Joined: Fri Nov 18, 2005 10:09 pm
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.
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.
Re: Xiotex - On portals and Plane Space
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
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 11 guests