More pages: 1 ...
11 ...
21 ...
31 ...
41 ...
51 ...
61 ...
71 ...
81 ...
91 ...
101 ...
111 ...
121 ...
131 ...
141 ...
151 ...
161 ...
171 ...
181 ...
191 ...
201 ...
211 ...
221 ...
231 ...
241 ...
251 ...
261 ...
271 ...
281 282 283 284 285 286
287 288 289 290 291 ...
301 ...
311 ...
321 ...
331 ...
341 ...
351 ...
361 ...
365
Query Failed
Humus
Tuesday, June 8, 2004
Lol, mkay ..
It was hardly obvious that you referred to him. And even then, I don't think Carmack has ever called himself god of graphics programming. He appears to be quite humble. Other people frequently call him that, which of course is a bit exaggerated, but he deserves some creds. He's one of the better guys in the industry.
MesserFuerFrauSchmid
Monday, June 7, 2004
Excuse me but Mr. Blinn was the original idea provider. Personally I do not see a great inefficincy in Blinn's approach, many people just say that because Blinn's approach is more difficult to understand and using normal maps is plain easy (but for dynamic maps, filtering gets more complicated and takes more time than just calculation the partial difference from a heightmap).
Oh and about DXT tell that your artist he will likely kill you!

MesserFuerFrauSchmid
Monday, June 7, 2004
HELLO!!!1 I was refering to Mr. John C. Carmack and not you.
Humus
Sunday, June 6, 2004
MesserFuerFrauSchmid, are you here only to moan and complain? Why do you persist in coming to my site if you hate it so much? Noone has called himself god of graphics programming. You're probably just jealous that there actually are people out there who like my work while noone praise yours. And your friggin API preference is as irrelevant as mine is. If you like D3D, then use it and be happy. No need to come here and point out everywhere who bad OpenGL is.
Humus
Sunday, June 6, 2004
Well, first of all, there's no such thing as "real bumpmapping". Just because Blinn did it in one particular way doesn't mean that's how it must be done. It's inefficient to deal with heightmaps directly.
No, you don't agree with me on DXT. Both DXT and 3Dc rocks IMO. Benchmarks in a test app I've done:
DXT1 + 3Dc = 530 fps
DXT1 only = 490 fps
3Dc only = 380 fps
No compression = 280 fps
I get almost twice the performance with compression than without, and if I add some per-pixel phong lighting I'm still getting over 60% performance boost, at nearly no visible quality reduction.
Rodge
Sunday, June 6, 2004
Cool, but you better watch it does not silently hover away, before we all get some of those new demos!
PS. Very nice tft and speakers, and everything else for that matter.
davepermen
Sunday, June 6, 2004
actually, it just happens to be the fact this time, that supporting the compression in dx was more simple to implement that supporting it in ogl.
in other cases, nearly all actually, this is not the case. namely when ever you need to add something to the api.
MesserFuerFrauSchmid
Sunday, June 6, 2004
I don't apply anything what is better or worse, just saying some facts that D3D dominates in certain areas. And one simple stubborn guy will not really change that fact - even when he calls himself the god of graphics programming (which I highly doubt)
More pages: 1 ...
11 ...
21 ...
31 ...
41 ...
51 ...
61 ...
71 ...
81 ...
91 ...
101 ...
111 ...
121 ...
131 ...
141 ...
151 ...
161 ...
171 ...
181 ...
191 ...
201 ...
211 ...
221 ...
231 ...
241 ...
251 ...
261 ...
271 ...
281 282 283 284 285 286
287 288 289 290 291 ...
301 ...
311 ...
321 ...
331 ...
341 ...
351 ...
361 ...
365