Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Hap on April 24, 2010, 07:44:07 AM
-
http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2010-04/video-new-graphics-tech-promises-unlimited-graphics-power-without-extra-processing
-
If it truly works...we won't need massive video cards...probably need some large system process to be optimized for it...will be interesting to see if anything comes of it.
-
If it works...it would change the gaming world..... :cheers:
-
I think I'll leave the computer business once people with Intel Celeron processors attempt to run this technology.
-
I think I'll leave the computer business once people with Intel Celeron processors attempt to run this technology.
It's going to happen...some dweeb with a dual core celeron from Dell is going to :banana: and run it.
-
Care to explain?
-Penguin
-
The new software or the Intel Celeron processor joke?
-
Wow, I'm stunned. I'm going in Software Engineering next Fall and I sure as hell will keep an eye on this with my teachers and teammates :O
Lets hope this technology is not scrapped by some super company like ATI or NVidia. Give it some time and see how it all unfolds because when something is too good to be true, a lot of scepticism and proof requirements is on the line.
-
My first thoughts after reading that is "cold fusion".
The claims don't add up.
-
My first thoughts after reading that is "cold fusion".
The claims don't add up.
Neither does the big bang theory and dark matter but people are swallowing it whole.
-
Neither does the big bang theory and dark matter but people are swallowing it whole.
You might want to read a bit more about the Big Bang theory and the data supporting it before you babble like that....
-
Optimistic at best, even if it does work I wouldn't be surprised to see ATI or Nvidia put the kibosh on it. If it does work though, I'd love to see it flourish. Guess will see.
-
It's rubbish, the same old voxel technology from the 90's. It has huge limitations which means it will never make it as a complete graphics solution in gaming (or anything else).
-
It's rubbish, the same old voxel technology from the 90's. It has huge limitations which means it will never make it as a complete graphics solution in gaming (or anything else).
It strikes me that it would almost require more calculations to determine which of a trillion points could be seen than to just render the trillion points in the first place.
You'd start by rendering the points closest to the camera, then as the camera was identified as seeing the point, not bother calculating for points behind that point which would be blocked from view by that point. Then you'd simply go further and further away, theoretically gradually eliminating the need to calculate the position of most of the points.
Seems very iffy to me.
-
It strikes me that it would almost require more calculations to determine which of a trillion points could be seen than to just render the trillion points in the first place.
You'd start by rendering the points closest to the camera, then as the camera was identified as seeing the point, not bother calculating for points behind that point which would be blocked from view by that point. Then you'd simply go further and further away, theoretically gradually eliminating the need to calculate the position of most of the points.
Seems very iffy to me.
Yeah but calculating all those trillion points is not really such a large process before selecting the ones that need displaying on the screen. Its the shading, rendering, lightning, shadows, physics, particles, post-effects that take mostly all of the processing and memory power. So the script takes the relevant points and then renders them only, saving probably 80-90% of the work in a complex virtual environment. I might be wrong on the lightning/shadows/physics though, because this technology could use what's left of the CPU to render these effects in post-processing only once the points have been given a basic texture and geometry.
Although, the maker claiming that no memory card is needed and only processing hardware is a bit non sense because you need graphic/memory hardware to render pixels and send them to your computer screen anyway. Its probably just a way of talking us in.
-
You might want to read a bit more about the Big Bang theory and the data supporting it before you babble like that....
You assume I haven't...and I'm not babbling...until it can be proven beyond doubt, it's still as much speculation as evolution...wasn't that long ago it was believed that the sun orbited the earth...the moon was made of cheese and there were martians on Mars...millenia after stone age and bronze age civilizations had figured out differently.
-
You assume I haven't...and I'm not babbling...until it can be proven beyond doubt, it's still as much speculation as evolution...wasn't that long ago it was believed that the sun orbited the earth...the moon was made of cheese and there were martians on Mars...millenia after stone age and bronze age civilizations had figured out differently.
Ok, so you're a know nothing who doesn't understand the scientific process.
FYI, evolution has stronger evidence than the law of gravity. Theory is as good as it gets in science. Laws are not the same. What a layman calls a theory, a scientist calls a hypothesis.
-
Ok, so you're a know nothing who doesn't understand the scientific process.
FYI, evolution has stronger evidence than the law of gravity. Theory is as good as it gets in science. Laws are not the same. What a layman calls a theory, a scientist calls a hypothesis.
Actually, it's obvious you don't understand scientific process...theory is not as good as it gets in science...if it were, nothing we do in modern civilization would be happening. Every theory looks good on paper, but it takes repetitive testing with the exact same results to determine if it is correct...that is why you see theories changing. What you see and obviously base your erroneous judgment on is the theories that have undergone peer...and even then they are not actually accepted as fact...merely accepted as a hypothesis that can be tested with the same results. When a theory can be proven as fact, it ceases to be a theory...quantum physics, quantum mechanics, quantum math are all "theoretical" science discplines...developing theories and testing them against the laws.
-
You assume I haven't...and I'm not babbling...until it can be proven beyond doubt, it's still as much speculation as evolution...wasn't that long ago it was believed that the sun orbited the earth...the moon was made of cheese and there were martians on Mars...millenia after stone age and bronze age civilizations had figured out differently.
And I assume that your point can and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, gained a scientific consencus, and provided massive quantities of data and explaination? No, I didn't think so. Now let's not get into a debate on Evolution, or else we all might end up getting a vacation.
Finally, 3 bad points don't make a good one. Right now, I'm this | | close to launching on a tirade about evolution, but I can let Moray or any other biology teacher/ ist handle that.
-Penguin
-
And I assume that your point can and has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt, gained a scientific consencus, and provided massive quantities of data and explaination? No, I didn't think so.
Quite the contrary...it is a statement made, proven and accepted by the scientific community...
Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
Finally, 3 bad points don't make a good one. Right now, I'm this | | close to launching on a tirade about evolution, but I can let Moray or any other biology teacher/ ist handle that.
-Penguin
If you really feel compelled to do so, I'm not stopping you...I know how genetic mutation a la natural selection due to multiple factors, which is fact, fits into the theory as it sits right now...and it's not the wild eyed beliefs that many have glomed onto. Scentists admit the speculative nature of the theory (as well as many others) based on the lack of some hard evidence and it's the laypeople who see only the unprovable aspects of the theory as fact...which is a complete diservice to the theory. It has merits and it has offered excellent explanations to many phenomenon within nature...it is a valuable tool in which to further explore the changes within life on this planet...but no fish is going to change it's genus to homo.
-
Quite the contrary...it is a statement made, proven and accepted by the scientific community...
Theory:
1. a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena
2. a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Fact:
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
2. something known to exist or to have happened
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true
If you really feel compelled to do so, I'm not stopping you...I know how genetic mutation a la natural selection due to multiple factors, which is fact, fits into the theory as it sits right now...and it's not the wild eyed beliefs that many have glomed onto. Scentists admit the speculative nature of the theory (as well as many others) based on the lack of some hard evidence and it's the laypeople who see only the unprovable aspects of the theory as fact...which is a complete diservice to the theory. It has merits and it has offered excellent explanations to many phenomenon within nature...it is a valuable tool in which to further explore the changes within life on this planet...but no fish is going to change it's genus to homo.
Hmm, you seem to be missing something on fact... aha, here it is.
4.) Confirmed Observation
Notice how many facts there are, and how few laws and theories, and in some parts of science, there are no laws, since there is just too much case by case study to be done. Conversely, thermodynamics has many laws.
Theories are more important than laws because they explain things. Furthermore, of course a fish wouldn't do that, since homo is a sub-set of primate. First, it would need to become an amphibian, then a lizard, and finally develop, after a billion years or so, into a primate, then millions of years later, a man.
Theories remain as theories even when they are proven to be true, they just gain that extra title, because if you could find something that was wrong and prove that that problem existed, we would change it. Laws apply to more specific areas than theories, which give explaination. Theories aren't tested against laws, hypotheses are, theories explain the laws and how they fit together to make this big hot mess called the universe run.
Finally, the number 2 on Theory, that doesn't seem to work, as electricity would fall into something of conjecture. Number 1 is correct, Number 2 has some holes that need to be patched. What you are looking at in number two, is a half-way tested hypothesis.
No hard-feelings in this debate, if you please? :aok
-Penguin
-
No hard-feelings in this debate, if you please? :aok
-Penguin
LOL...but of course sir. Are we officially hijacking this theoretical thread? :D
-
Yeah, hold on a sec, I'll make a new topic for us to debate in.
-Penguin