Forum Overview :: Motherfucking News :: Tsk tsk, and you were almost making sense up until that point

[quote name="Entropy Stew"][quote name="I need clarification"]You REALLY don't know anything about this shit, do you? Up until now, I'd assumed you understood at least on some level what we were talking about, but it finally dawned on me that when I say, "multi-pass texturing," it doesn't mean much to you. I apologize, from now on I'll try to be more explicit. <b>Multi-pass textures</b> The idea that every pixel (the dots that comprise raster graphics) being drawn to the screen in a given frame could have several "passes" (each "pass" is sort of like a "layer" of color, if you will) to incorporate such attributes as base color, reflections, environment maps, bump maps (I can go into more detail on this, but basically it's a method of adding a certain amount of apparent geometric detail through the use of a texture map rather than the addition of actual geometry in the artwork), transparency, and of course lighting HAS certainly been talked about in the games industry for years. So, yes, you're quite right - the concept has been out there, coming as most things in game graphics do from the non-real-time world of pre-rendered 3D (ie. movies like "Lord of the Rings," to quote the most obvious current example). However, the "implementation," as you put it, of such technology always seemed far-off, partially because the current slate of hardware would be hard-pressed to maintain a decent framerate when dealing with more than one pass, and partially because, well, it's just really fucking difficult to do. Imagine you getting a job. It's THAT hard. You can say that Carmack merely "implemented" such technology, but the fact is no one else was able to do it before he did.[/quote] What you're referring to is called multitexturing. Multi<b>pass</b> texturing is what's used when your hardware doesn't have the ability to apply all of the textures you want in a single clock cycle (or "pass", as you call it), which equates to MUCH SLOWER RENDERING on whatever generation of hardware you're using. That you even bring this up makes it clear you have no clue what the fuck you're talking about, as the ability to process multiple textures quickly is ENTIRELY DEPENDANT UPON YOUR HARDWARE. THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY FOR A SOFTWARE WORKAROUND/TWEAK/ETC HERE. As for the software difficulty, I'm pretty sure sticking another texture on is just an API call - OHHH SO HARD. [quote name="Teh Jeenyus"]<b>Client-side Entities</b> Things like blood-splats and smoke trails may seem like icing on the cake, but these are the things gamers look to when they rave about "realistic graphics." And remember, graphics is what Carmack is best known for. By moving these entities to the client side (ie. they occur on each player's machine individually; they're not tracked by the server and then synchronized on all the players' machines), Carmack has allowed developers to add all sorts of graphics enhancements without worrying that missiles and smoke trails and graffiti and blood splats and even enemy players would be jumping all over the place as the server tried desperately to keep everything aligned. That. Is. A. Fucking. Innovation.[/quote] That.Is.Fucking.Obvious. No, really, this is the absolute stupidest thing you've said yet. The first rule of optimization is not to do the unnecessary. In the case of an online game, bandwidth is our limiting factor, so, to optimize it, WE ONLY SEND WHAT IS ABSOLUTLY NECESSARY. Are we going to send gib locations every nanosecond? FUCK NO. If we were going to send those, we might as well send the entire player model every time somebody moves. Shit, this isn't really even an issue of optimization - one of the first things you decide when building a client-server architecture is what goes client-side, and what goes server-side. Quake could be made into a thin-client that downloads the entire game from the server every time you play, but it wasn't. You know why? Because that's as fucking retarded as your argument. [quote name="A++ Certified"]As I've already shown, I can go on and on. But the whole argument is ridiculous - you claim you're not a fan, and I am left in the unenviable position of trying to make the case that you should be one. It's quite difficult.[/quote] Obviously more difficulty than you can handle. [quote name="The Ubermensch"]But being the supergenius that I am, I will go one step beyond that and prove (using SB PATENT PENDING ARGUMENT LOGIX) that not only should you be a fan, but YOU ALREADY IS ONE: 1. Someone on this board asked what 3D card you recommended (Szenji?) 2. You recommended some nVidia solution or other (I believe it was GeForce4, but it hardly matters at this point), because you're a fan of the hardware 3. The nVidia chipset has the functionality it does because Carmack has developed applications that call for it, and the hardware manufacturers are following his lead. 4. ERGO, THEREFORE, IN CONCLUSION, THE SUM TOTAL IS: <b>You are a fan of Carmack's.</b>[/quote] Actually, the higher-end video cards nowadays usually coincide with the latest DirectX specification. Yes, I realize Carmack has input into this process, but you make it seem like he's the fucking Hardware Pope. Moving along to your original argument, here's a <a href="http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=12916&cid=131998">quote</a> of dubious authenticity: [quote name="JC"] I don't put a lot of stock in pinning down "firsts", even though people in general, and the media in particular, love to harp on it. Everything is built on past work. A lot of people like to think of creativity and innovation as something that springs from the void, but the truth is that everything is traceable to its origins. I consider myself fortunate that I am consciously aware of the process. I can dissect all of my good ideas into their original parts, and even when there is an interesting synthesis, the transformation can usually be posed as an analogy to some previous work. Given that fact, you will rarely find me touting anything as a "first", because I could always say it is "sort of like this thing over here, but with the principle demonstrated by this over there added to allow it to give the feature we wanted back then" and so on. There are the occasional "eureka!" moments, but they tend to be in twitchy little technical things, not the larger ideas like "3D environment" or "multiplayer gaming". I'm not all that concerned with our place in history. The process has been interesting enough in its own right, and lots of people have enjoyed the work as we produced it.[/quote] I actually found this one via Google(may its servers run forever!) linked from the Shack, which adds to its dubiousity - I only include it because imposters are usually fingered quickly by Slashdot readers. I'd also like to point out that both you <i>and</i> SB are a couple of hairy Greek faggots. I agree with your veneration of JC as sko coder demiurge, but for somewhat different reasons. As you pointed out, SB seems to be glossing over the fact that this shit isn't easy to implement. JC is actually innovative in that he brings us playable tech that we would otherwise only be able to run 1-2 years into the future - in this industry Performance is the only god and Carmack is his prophet. In addition to that, I don't think of him as unable to invent new tech - the thing is, he's a designer of entire systems. In this role, you take whatever the fuck you can in order to make your goal. If it exists, and is fast enough, use it. If it doesn't exist, or is too slow, build it yourself or optimize it. -/ES/-[/quote]