search results matching tag: Scientific American
» channel: learn
go advanced with your query
Search took 0.001 seconds
Videos (13) | Sift Talk (2) | Blogs (1) | Comments (31) |
Videos (13) | Sift Talk (2) | Blogs (1) | Comments (31) |
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Already signed up?
Log in now.
Forgot your password?
Recover it now.
Not yet a member? No problem!
Sign-up just takes a second.
Remember your password?
Log in now.
Project Offset part 2 (cinematic quality game engine)
"There are solutions being developed but as there is no demand for real-time ray-tracing its not comming along very quickly."
There is a lot of demand for real-time ray-tracing and it's coming along very quickly. The August Scientific American has a good article on it. But yeah, real cinema quality... a ways off. Still, this engine is pretty sweet. Highly recommend the full videos from their website.
I might add that although this engine looks sweet, I'm not big for games that look "real". I just don't think it necessarily makes a good game. I still load up Ultimate Doom on occasion and play it through and have a blast. (I have a DOS-box just for older games). I still prefer Warcraft II to Warcraft III and wish they didn't go to the 3D engine. It was just a funner, better looking game in 2D to me. I think some games go 3D just to go 3D, and it's done at the expense of the fun-factor, at least for me. I quit playing the Command and Conquer games when they went to a 3D engine. Oh well, I'm old and somewhat nostalgic for the old stuff anyway.
Sheesh! Am I still talking? Sorry...