they're using "CGI" as a substitute for "CG" which, in the industry, specifically refers to 3D generated assets, as i stated a while ago. NO ONE in the industry uses the term "CGI" for all the reasons i also stated above. they are using "CGI" in this sales pitch because they're aware laypeople know that term and don't know the distinction between CG, FX, comp, previs, and all those department's sub categories. all their examples, including the one you quoted, are referring to CG generated images, which are explicitly NOT 2D processing, filters, compositing, editing, or DI.

You could recreate this with the exception of 3D. http://www.algodoo.com/.

Been playing with program for years and it's fairly simple once you play with it for a while.

Algodoo is a physics-based 2D sandbox freeware from Algoryx Simulation AB as the successor to the popular physics application Phun. It was released on September 1, 2009 and is presented as: a learning tool, an open ended computer game, an animation tool, and an engineering tool.

I think it kind of depends on what he means by 16,000x louder? If he's talking in decibels, then it's already a logarithmic scale, so 16,000x times higher output amplitude is about 84db? higher (which is no joke) not quite sure on the maths there. 16,000db higher is basically impossible unless we are talking a supernova or something.

That puts it at over 204db which is apparently the same volume as the Saturn V launch. Which would definitely kill you, but maybe not 8000 times over... I mean once really does the trick.

If he's talking about the energy input, it seems that's a different thing according to wikipedia, and would result in an increase of 42db, which puts it at 162db, which is about the same as a 12-guage.

He may also mean that the sound is that loud at source, but as the guy was probably trying to say as he was squirming, the distance matters. The sound energy will be dissipated over a 2D shell and so I'd guess it drops off proportional to distance squared plus some extra for loss as it goes.

All of that is in air, it's quite a different matter in the water as I think the force is transmitted more efficiently.

Either way, every 10 seconds for months? No thanks.

Major photography oversight. Always know your background. Many times you will see people with trees, poles and even the Washington Monument growing out of their heads.

This guy looks like he has a feather sticking out.

Otherwise, a very interesting vid. [thumbs up emoji here]
_______________________________________________

On occasion I've played around with "reaction wheels" using a cool 2D physics program called Algodoo that is free for download. Check it out below.

http://www.algodoo.com/

"Maps" doesn't adequately describe the extent of information that things like these convey. They are more like "animated visualizations".

I took a computer graphics class in college where we learned about data visualization. One of the most famous examples in that field is Charles Joseph Minard's map/visualization of Napolean's march into Russia in 1812. On the surface, it is a 2D map. However, the width of the line showing the path of advancement conveys troop numbers, the color denotes whether they were advancing or retreating, and a connected chart below shows the air temperatures that the soldiers were exposed to, etc.

Basically, at a glance you can easily see the broad strokes of the advance and retreat, and you can get much more depth of information if you look a little closer. These kinds of animated visualizations are definitely continuing on in that same vein -- packing a lot of information into a presentation method that is easy to pick up and also very deep with some more inspection.

Wikipedia article about Minard showing that famous Napolean march visualization if anyone is interested:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Joseph_Minard

Very cool.

I sure would have thought that it would be a platform with hundreds of partially inset mouse/trackballs, rather than treadmills on axes 90 degrees apart. I mean ... sure, any 2D vector can be split into a sum of two orthogonal components. But with redundant inset trackballs you could get stuff like spot pivots that are much finer scale than the scale of the 2-3 inch wide secondary axis treads...

On the other hand, these guys actually have a working prototype, so they clearly thought things through and decided that the orthogonal treadmill solution was better. Rubber meats road trumps off-the-cuff theoretical any day!

jesus christ some people have to much time on there hands.

I pretty much dissected each zone. It is actually not any feat of programming, but simply utilizing good video effects many people have forgotten about. Under the core of the setup, the lights are mapped in 2d space in a program and then a bit map image or video playing over it can control what the lights look like every second. This is the same software video billboards use (Translating a video or image to lights mapped in a 2d space).

All the person had to do was setup his video files. A very efficent way of doing complex video effects to a pixel based light project. What was great is I saw a lot of old Demoscene (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demoscene) stuff like plasma and color cycling. Brings back memories.

Well, not nearly as hyped as Duke Nukem Forever, but was hyped as "design is god", but turned out to be many horrible design decisions (even if you fixed crappy AI, this game was still bad).

I didn't know there was a 2D top-down zelda-like (released in EU,Japan) of a Gameboy Color Daikatana... gonna look for the ROM.

[author flagged as a spammer - redacted]

Monsters in Doom didn't really fly. All characters extended from the floor to the ceiling even if they didn't look like it. If you tried walking under one of the "flying" monsters, you would run into an invisible wall. This was also noticeable in multiplayer. I remember playing deathmatch with a friend and when he went up an elevator to grab a power up, I ran and sat at the bottom of the elevator waiting to surprise him when he jumped down. He couldn't jump down, because my character was blocking him even though he couldn't see me down at the bottom of the elevator.

Doom's levels, as far as the computer was concerned, were still a flat sheet of paper, and the player and monsters were just little 2D sprites moving on top of the paper.

Jinx: Wolfenstein 3D did not have a Z coordinate, in Doom one could set floor and ceiling height and specify how far down/up the walls should extend. Players and monsters would then correctly follow the floor level (or fly).

The 3D environment (think of it as being inside a box rather than on top of a playing field) was correctly displayed from a first person perspective and you could move in it in all 3 directions. Aiming and shooting (and lighting and determining LOS) was 2D.

Wolfenstein - 3D display, 2D movement and aim.
Doom - 3D display and movement, 2D aim.
Quake - 3D all three counts. And mouselook.

All other FPSs ever - small improvements in graphics and gameplay :-)

Oh come on. Fairly informative and correct for the most part except for the title and main argument. Still, it is about Doom and binary partitions, so thats all OK.

Anything on a flat monitor is "just faking" 3D.

Yes, Doom levels could still be designed in plan view, but the in-game display of the floors, walls and ceilings is a very rudimentary, but definitely 3D, experience. Displayed objects have an obvious X, Y and Z coordinate. The Z coordinate was not used for aim (people had not got used to using a mouse for aim at that point) but it was used for display and movement.

Also forgot to complain about flat sprite monsters.

No Doom was not "computed like any other 2D game", or rather it partly was, but then on top of that it was displayed in 3D, which was a big deal back then. Yes, fake 3D, on a monitor, but definitely 3D.

Quake ran in plain VGA so the argument about 3D accelerators falls rather flat :-)

Oh yeah...sorry.
http://videosift.com/video/Vancouver-Expo-86-Part-III-GM-Holographic-Exhibit

You've reminded me of something hilarious from the expo, but I can't find a picture of it. There was a 2D sculpture of a Canadian Mountie, I think near the roller coaster, that totally had a huge boner! It was really the end of the arm, but the way it was made the elbow is in back, but in front was just a little triangle just below waist level. It was too funny, and obviously not intentional. Oh, the things you notice when you're 16.

Well, it may look more complex than it is.
We made these in my first year 3D Sculpture class in Art school.
We used Foam-core, cardboard and paper, but the concept was the same. Creating a multi-layered image that expands out in 3D but when viewed straight-on can be viewed as 2D.

What he has here is no so much as a puzzle as it is, assembled.

The thumbnail image for this video has been updated - thumbnail added by eric3579.