Wait @harlequinn take a step back from the borders of advanced theoretical physics back to practical stuff like geometry and astronomy and measuring time and heating stuff and using other sources of power than slave labour.

Religion did not get us far in many areas.

If science had to start all over again maybe quarks and strings would look different, but steam engines would be the same. Heart transplants would be very similar. Other parts of medicine might not.

If you have the specs necessary to run it, you can download it and play it for yourself here. Warning: it's huge (over 7GB)

This project was an experiment to see how much geometry and textures we could push in UE4 on modern PC hardware, and as a result, it is fairly system intensive. We recommend 16GB of RAM and at least an Nvidia GTX760 or AMD equivalent as the minimum requirements.

For more fluid frame-rate, and/or screen resolutions above 1920x1080 we recommend at least an Nvidia GTX970, or AMD equivalent or higher (2GB of VRAM for Low texture settings / 3GB for Medium texture settings / 4GB for High texture settings / 6GB or higher for EPIC texture settings)

Also, Terrain displacement is a very system heavy feature. Please note that enabling this feature on a GPU slower than an Nvidia GTX980 Ti may cause a significant drop in frame-rate.

The short answer is "It depends!"

I know it's a crappy answer, but there are way too many parameters at play. There are many games today that have scripted scenes in them that are pretty cinematic. Think of GTA III, from 2001. The cut scenes in that game still outshine the actual gameplay of GTA V today.

If the scene is scripted, then all the animation, and camera movement can be fine tuned and all compute resources are pooled into the viewport of the camera. This allows the artists to focus all of the trickery on the shot itself, but not the rest of the world. From a PVS or scene-graph stand point, you have pretty much reduced the complexity to just what you are seeing.

I do not know how they made this demo and cannot comment on it with any authoritative capital. I've written 3D engines before (not for videogames though) and can comment on the technology I think I'm seeing here. My comments are just an opinion based on what I know. I do not have access to Unity and have never used it before. But here it goes:

For a scene like this, there should be reduced/canned computation in:

• Collision detection and response
  
• AI
  
• Animation / IK
  
• PVS
  
• Texture Atlasing
  

The shaders, unless they are geometry (the ripping of the skin/flesh in the Adam scene) could or could not be reduced in scope and complexity. I am not sure if they are scripted or dynamic. By scripted, I mean a geometry shader that reads vertex data from a VBO stream or some memory buffer instead of computing the vertices on the fly. It's still real-time, just not dynamic.

Most of the graphics you see here are standard applications of technology that's been around for a while:

• PBR shader
  
• Motion Blur Shader
  
• Depth of Field Shader
  
• Cascaded Shadow Maps Shader
  

The particle system seems pretty standard as well.

This is a great demo and I am extremely impressed with the art direction, but the engine itself is, after all, Unity with PBR for the characters, and maybe Global Illumation for the indoor scenes, which I believe they licensed from Geomerics.

It's such a terrible waste of life and property and yet there's always something I've found fascinating about the geometry of destruction. Probably explains why I'm 200 hours into Fallout 4, I find the urban environments in Fallout 4 to be much better than Fallout 3.

No it's not. He makes the demo one like that but the finished one that looks like it's going to fit together too tight is not glued.

As for it being useful if 3D printed I really don't think it's got any value as a joint in that sense. If you want to make something quick and easy to put together and strong there are plenty of ways of doing so with the joints we already have which would be better than this joint.

This joint is an interesting exercise in geometry and an interesting challenge to make, but it's actually not a very good joint. It's overly complicated without adding strength and just pulls apart.

It's a clever little exercise but not actually useful in the real world.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I got a C- in geometry. This is too much for my feeble brain.

I thought the video made a good point, but rather different from the one I assumed it was going for before watching.

As I was finishing up my senior year of High School after 4 years of taking crap for being a nerd etc., a friend/acquaintance of mine was starting her freshman year. She got picked on also, probably worse than I had had it. She made it through 1 semester before dropping out. Then she got a part time job for a half-year, took night classes at the local community college, and got her GED.

At the time, I thought she was making a terrible decision by not sticking it out and trying to get through High School the usual way -- 4 years of hell. But then, the next year she ended up at the same University where I was, both as Uni-freshmen, and she handled the much more mature University environment just fine.

It ended up completely turning the tables for me, to the point that I thought that her path of dropping out -> GED -> Uni was actually objectively superior to my suffering through the more traditional path.

So, that's what I thought "don't stay in school" was going to refer to.


But the actual message is good as well. The best classes that I had in Middle and High School were more practical things. But oddly enough, the best examples of that for me were my math classes. I had the same teacher for Geometry, Algebra 2, Pre-Calc, and Calculus (AP, so equivalent to Calc 1 at a University). He stressed the real-life applications of advanced mathematics by doing lots of word problems, and only teaching topics that he could point to concrete, real-world applications for. And by letting us use calculators for everything as long as we could explain WHY specific operations were needed to answer the questions.


...So, long-winded response boiled down:
I like the message. More practical stuff in school is better. And feel free to drop out -- especially if doing so is just a shortcut to further education at a University, Vo-Tech, or whatever.

Anyone remember TI graphing calculators, which at the time I was using them (90s) I think ran on 8088 processors?

Quite a bit MORE expensive than this. MUCH less powerful, even factoring in Moore's law. AND, they were in no way intended to be an open, hackable design like this is. And even with all those limitations, they became one of the primary "introduction to hardware and software hacking" devices of my generation.

When I was a 16-year-old HS Freshman, I had a TI-81 that I hooked up to a PC with a serial port and "hacked" zShell onto. I learned a bit of assembly code and put on lots of little programs like games etc. onto my calculator. I even got an image display program where you could load up bitmap images that were converted to a specific size and color depth (4-8 grays if I remember right). I got busted in my Geometry class that year looking at a blurry grayscale picture of a topless Pamela Anderson. On my calculator. If that doesn't put me in the running for biggest nerd ever, I don't know what would.

Anyway, I can only see this "Chip" thing (I agree that I'm not too big on the name) as a very cool idea. Sometimes, something as simple as a hackable platform or a blurry 4-bit picture of some boobs can be enough to push someone towards a lifelong interest in IT and other technology. Raspberry Pi and the others are great too, but the price of this one gives it a real leg up in the universal accessibility department!

Your video, The geometry of a movie scene, has made it into the Top 15 New Videos listing. Congratulations on your achievement. For your contribution you have been awarded 1 Power Point.

Videosift is clearly not the forum on which to teach economics (let alone philosophy or epistemology), but suffice it to say that logic applies to economics, just as it applies to geometry, and the other natural sciences.

Economics follows axiomatic-deduction. Human behavior is too complex to treat empirically (thereby precluding experiments that would be similar to, say, chemistry, which replicates the same results over and over again). With economics, such experiments are impossible because there are too many variables for which there are no controls, so therefore, a deductive approach is used, like with geometry which, if you recall, experiments aren't conducted in geometry, but logical deductions are made based on self-evident axioms.

This is in contrast to what, say, econometricians do. They try to make economics into an empirical science, like physics or chemistry and so they focus on the "science" and ignore the "social" in "social science."

Hermeneuticians/rhetorician on the other hand, ignore the "science" and focus on the "social."
Economics cannot be properly studied as a natural empirical science, but it also cannot be properly studied as rhetoric.

Deductive rationalism is the best fit for economic study.

No one is talking about a comprehensive view of everything relating to the world. But with economics, like geometry, and the other natural sciences for that matter, yes, they follow logic and rationalism. Rational theories are necessary to make sense of the data.


That you seem to understand nothing about it is a completely different issue.

Geometry and economics are not in any way comparable.

Geometry worked before humans evolved and will continue to work long after we're going. It has no need of human input.

Economics, on the other hand, is entirely dependent on human behaviours. Rationality might be a factor, but you would have to be willfully ignorant of history to argue that human behaviour is always rational.

Economics is not a science, and it's certainly not logical.

Honestly, you could not have picked a worse comparison. Imagine if Pythagoras' Theorem was "the square of the hypotenuse is mostly, kinda equal to the sum of the squares of the other two sides"? Or "the sum of the angles in a triangle is 180 (except on rainy days)"?

Economics is not a matter of faith. It's a matter of rationality. Logic. The laws of geometry do not change on the basis of one's interpretation. Same is true in economics. As such, one can apply this logic in the absence of any particular belief system. I cite Mises' book because it lays out, in a clear and understandable way, why this is so. But you can read others on the topic (e.g., Hazlitt, Hayek, and Rothbard), as I am not attached to any sort of "fundamentalism" despite your attempts to depict me as such. But so long as you (or anyone) believes they're going to gain any understanding or insight or ability to parse the type of rhetoric demonstrated in this video, then the confusion and suffering that it propagates will continue. I assure you, nowhere in the text I linked (nor in any of the work of the authors I've cited) have addressed, specifically, the "babysitter economy" or the "prison camp economy," and yet, somehow I've pointed out the flaws in the postulated arguments here (flaws, I might add, you chose to ignore, opting instead to engage in a diatribe about me personally).

I could care less if you or anyone on videosift likes me as a person, but stupidity can be addressed with education. Willful ignorance, on other hand, cannot be helped.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'singing teacher geometry' to 'singing, teacher, geometry' - edited by Fusionaut

More liek Saints Row 3.5. I've heard of people recycling assets but never between games

Now I'm done being contrary I will say that I bought it at full price and I don't regret it at all. I particularly liked the part where I thought my vRAM had lost the plot when I saw some, err, imaginative geometry on a deliberately glitched character model.