I have no use for a low resolution, awkwardly small device which you must crane your neck to use or hold in front of your eyes eternally. I like computing on the edge baby, with ultra high resolution big screen and a comfortable chair. And maybe most of all.... a REAL keyboard with buttons. I am sure there are some fast screen typists out there, but its not for me... I like tactile feedback and lit keys in a dark room. The tablet may be ideal for going to the bathroom however...

At first I thought they were using empire at war as the engine, but it does indeed look 2d so it is totally custom. Unfortunately it is kinda sad too, there is no excuse for that display to be chugging like that for 2d images (yes, even at a super high resolution wall display like this, todays consumer CPUs would make hundreds of thousands of 2d objects a joke to throw around).

As for the interface, well to be fair, the people who created this demonstration are probably not game creators. The interface looks nothing more then a simplistic method of choosing what ship types to spawn for an unwinable demonstration battle. In a real game things would be more stream lined. Empire at war is a good example of that. Alot of options can be automated, much like what would happen in a real battle, would you be the fleet commander and not worrying about the deployment of tie fighters from destroyers.

>> ^frizlefry:

Fingerprints on my screen and inefficient slow controls with the possibility of repetitive stress injuries? Sign me up!


Btw friz, welcome to 2011, with millions of touch phones and tablets all over the world being used. Todays glass can be coated in a way where thumb prints don't cause to much of an issue. May be a slight prismatic look when sweaty, but people have no problems enjoying gaming on them. The touch interface shown here is far more superior then a gamepad or mouse could do. Having one hand on a keyboard to help facilitate issuing command types with your next touch could easily be handled with an onscreen panel too.

Theres a good mod for anyone going back to play the original, "Duke Nukem 3D: High Resolution Pack".

You can grab it here: http://hrp.duke4.net

Trailer here: http://hrp.duke4.net/media.php

This video really is just alot of fail. As some of pointed out, Unreal really should have made the list. It combined a traditional 3d engine like quake with post processed 2d effects that epic was well known for in the demo scene. Even worse, the game seemed to list alot of war games.

And for "first person", it didn't list a whole lot of first person non shooters. Did anyone see any?

I'll give ya one... under a killing moon. Quite possible the first use of "megatexture" technology, the 3d fullmotion video extravaganza series by Access used a pretty descent 3d engine where objects and walls used a solid unique rendered texture. This gave the games 3d scenes a very detailed look, sadly performance was total crap as even 3d card's couldn't help because the textures spilled over into system memory. Still when viewed at a high resolution, the game was pretty sharp looking.

Tribes also deserves honorable mention, it was one of the first games to offer up really huge maps, large bases, and a FPS with flight that worked! All leading up to planetside, who despite having many game issues over its life time, is still the only game in exhistance that can offer up 300 player battles featuring land, air, and infantry class based warfare.

Quakeworld should also deserve mention for bringing to the table client/server FPS play as we know it today, but in reality it was simply quake with tcpip network support.

Btw, JiggaJonson, opengl did not add any new textures to the game. It simply added additional rendering capabilities, the biggest being texture smoothing.

TheSluiceGate, Hive13, take another look at the Santa Claus billboard at 1:21. You have to admit that that one is quite mocking. Funny though.

Edit: Better yet just view it here:
http://www.ffrf.org/uploads/images/SantaKinghighres.jpg

And then go look at the full collection here:
http://www.ffrf.org/press/high-resolution-images/

Restoring sanity and/or fear:
A crowd size estimate commissioned by CBS News and carried out by AirPhotosLive.com estimated the crowd at 215,000 people, plus or minus 10%.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rally_to_Restore_Sanity_and/or_Fear#Crowd_size

Restoring Honor:
Anywhere from 80k - 1,6 mil (Seriously doubt that last part)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Restoring_Honor_rally#Crowd_size

"CBS News reported that AirPhotosLive estimated 87,000 attended, with a margin of error of 9,000. CBS commissioned the AirPhotosLive.com company to calculate an independent estimate, and said this was the only scientific estimate made of the number of people at the rally.[98] CNN contacted AirPhotosLive about the estimate and were told they had three experts use their own methodologies to estimate the size of the crowd.[99] AirPhotosLive had their image analysts, and Stephen Doig, a professor at Arizona State University who specializes in quantitative research methods, and crowd estimate expert, use the same images to conduct separate estimates. By laying grids over the high-resolution images and counting the density per unit of each grid cell, Doig calculated the crowd size to be 80,000, while an AirPhotosLive analyst arrived at 87,000; a statistically insignificant difference within the margin of error. CBS elected to use the higher figure.[98][79][100]"

That sounds believable - I'd even give them the benefit of the doubt and round up to 100,000.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

The link would have been adequate and wouldn't have taken up 5 screens.
>> ^ant:
Featured Games:
[snip]


It was six for me. We just need bigger monitors and high resolutions.

The graphics are dated, but there are some high resolution mods out there. I've not tried them myself, but I hear they help a good deal.

Even so, the game is absolutely worth playing through even with its ugliness. It wasn't even particularly pretty in 2000, really.

Kind of low quality video. Here is a pretty high resolution picture of Mars terraformed:
http://www.acceleratingfuture.com/michael/blog/images/TerraformedMarsGlobeRealistic.jpg

>> ^NordlichReiter:
DGhandi, I suppose open source Application writers are Naive too.

Coders don't need time on supercolliders, or satellite high resolution IR cameras. People who do large scale science need access to resources which are limited to large institutions, these institutions, as a common practice, enforce strict IP regulation.

The fact that it is bad for science/society is a problem, but has NOTHING to do with any wrong doing by the CRU.

>> ^MilkmanDan: I just mean that the burden of proof needs to be on the AGW supporting people

That's birther logic.

Science is not about perfection, it's about the best available hypothesis. AGW opponents have not yet put forth models which work better than the models being used by supporters of AGW, therefor AGW is considered the consensus scientific opinion. None of these models are perfect, but we should still use the best ones, even if some folks don't like the implications.

How can you expect me to take these folks seriously, much less award them correctness by default, when Ball supports ,the trivially falsifiable, urban-concrete-island hypothesis for GW?

As ABSOLUTELY AMAZING as this is, my first question remains. Why is NASA not videoing at insanely high resolution. We should be seeing this in 1080p at a 10x compression from their original video files... not blurry 640x480 crap. Video technology has come a LOOONNNGGG way since 1970 and we should see that. If (read "when") there is another trip to the moon, I expect to see perfect video... On top of that, EVERY SINGLE VIDEO we see from the ISS should be in absolutely perfect HD with HD quality sound. Why, in 2009, are we still seeing fuzzy video with telephone-quality sound from our astronauts? Better, why are our astronauts apparently communicating via completely low-rez, almost incomprehensible quality CB-style radio? It should look and sound like they are in the next room... heck, our webcams are better quality than what we get from the ISS. As it appears to me, that would seem to be an additional 1 pound of technology in terms of the cams and only maybe 1000x the bandwidth they sent to earth in the 70's, and if they can't send that amount of data down today, than they need to rethink things a bit. psh. psh I say. I simply unimpressed by NASA's PR department. As a scientist I'm profoundly affected by their work, but as a citizen AND a scientist, I'm uni pressed with the way they've presented what they've been doing to the general public.

For goodness sake, SHOW US SOME COOL STUFF!! It's not that hard. Show us video from the moon. Show us video from the probes, show us video from deeps space. Show us ANYTHING! It is not that hard people. Think of us curious folks who just want to see things and know things. No more of these "artistic renderings" of everything you discover. Plug some damn HD video cams on your dang equipment for goodness sake.

Disclaimer: I recognize that I know jack-shit about space technology, and that I don't understand how exactly we get information direct from from outerspace installations and etc... but seriously, come on. 30 years and no improvement?

There's apparently a limit to how long images will stretch. If you have a high resolution and the page width setting set to "loose" there's a chance a poll bar will stop at that limit, even though it's supposed to be longer.

Will be fixed with the next update.

>> ^nibiyabi:
I noticed at work it looks fine. Must be my monitor at home:
http://i69.photobucket.com/albums/i52/nibiyabi/Untitled.jpg
I don't know why it's so small, but they are 0, 7, and 13, respectively.
Right now the 16 and 20 are the exact same length.

>> ^Hex:
You can not use zoom with the camera because the camera has to live in a 3d space and that 3d space has limits.
Think of this a glorified Level Of Detail system.

Looks much closer to a 4D to me with LoD rendering planes, on a surface. The real question is since this is only a tech demo is whether or not it will include rotational planes on the 4th axis or simply maintain them on a 3d one with static planes.

I thank yew

In reply to this comment by kronosposeidon:
*promote

YouTube videos are getting a lot better now that it's allowing higher quality and high resolution cameras have gotten so cheap. It also helps this guy has a steady hand too.