pouët.net

Web GL

category: code [glöplog]
iq: You know how to solve that. You just need to do a kickass demo (or interactive/effect/game/whatever) and not care about doing workarounds for any bugs you find. That would encourage browser/driver devs fix their stuff.
added on the 2013-01-02 22:35:08 by mrdoob mrdoob
Quote:
The thing that really bothers me is that we might be putting all this effort into making ourselves known to the outside world - whether that's Outreach with a capital O, or events like DemoJS, or just making great demos that have an appeal beyond the demoscene hardcore - all in the hopes of attracting new people to the scene, with new backgrounds and new perspectives.


I agree wholeheartedly.

This whole thing about the boundaries of the demoscene is an endless byzantine discussion.
added on the 2013-01-02 22:43:40 by ham ham
mrdoob, that's probably a good attitude/approach
added on the 2013-01-02 23:33:39 by iq iq
iq: That only works if either you or doob does it,- tried to unearth a two year old bug in FireFox with a demo - still isn't fixed.
added on the 2013-01-02 23:47:10 by mog mog
Quote:

Well, if I was the creator of that webgl demo and I ended up here and read this thread, I probably wouldn't want to be associated with this scene...

Even if I quite like pouet as it is, I agree this an issue. Furthermore, this thread will probably be his first contact with the demoscene (referal stuff).

Before reading this thread, I did not think knowing the author intention was an issue.
Linger In Shadows & this case are totally different.
For RO.ME I'm not sure. I was the one who added it to pouet, but my point was more "look at the cool stuff mr. doob is doing in WebGL" than "this is a demo". And I thought mr doob didnt consider it as a demo, but I was obviously wrong...

Quote:

And maybe, just maybe, that message is getting through, and people are coming away with their own interpretation of what demos can be, and reinventing demoscene ideas in a new format (and even calling them 'demos'). And we're not even acknowledging them, because they doesn't tick enough boxes on our mental checklist of what a demo should be.

OK, I get your point now, I agree.

So, if the message is actually getting through, how do you "acknowledge"?
Add the prod to pouet? (:/)
Send an email from someone@scene.org "cool stuff, can we add this to our archive?" (because scene.org is probably the most ""official"" demoscene website)
Or just send them a mail "cool stuff"?

Again, I really think the mix between "demosceners" and "the WebGL guys" is a killer, both sides have to learn.
Examples: "They" make demoish stuff on the "real world" platform of 2012, and they use 2012 communication & promotion channels (Twitter rather than a BBS ;p).
"We" know how to collaborate between coders and artists to make a cool and consistent audiovisual prod, and we know how organize parties&compos (w/ the awesome bigscreen experience).


(and yes, the fact that YT captures are needed for WebGL or even canvas prods because compatibility issues is VERY sad)

added on the 2013-01-03 00:03:47 by wullon wullon
Quote:

Well, if I was the creator of that webgl demo and I ended up here and read this thread, I probably wouldn't want to be associated with this scene...

Even if I quite like pouet as it is, I agree this an issue. Furthermore, this thread will probably be his first contact with the demoscene (referal stuff).

Before reading this thread, I did not think knowing the author intention was an issue.
Linger In Shadows & this case are totally different.
For RO.ME I'm not sure. I was the one who added it to pouet, but my point was more "look at the cool stuff mr. doob is doing in WebGL" than "this is a demo". And I thought mr doob didnt consider it as a demo, but I was obviously wrong...

Quote:

And maybe, just maybe, that message is getting through, and people are coming away with their own interpretation of what demos can be, and reinventing demoscene ideas in a new format (and even calling them 'demos'). And we're not even acknowledging them, because they doesn't tick enough boxes on our mental checklist of what a demo should be.

OK, I get your point now, I agree.

So, if the message is actually getting through, how do you "acknowledge"?
Add the prod to pouet? (:/)
Send an email from someone@scene.org "cool stuff, can we add this to our archive?" (because scene.org is probably the most ""official"" demoscene website)
Or just send them a mail "cool stuff"?

Again, I really think the mix between "demosceners" and "the WebGL guys" is a killer, both sides have to learn.
Examples: "They" make demoish stuff on the "real world" platform of 2012, and they use 2012 communication & promotion channels (Twitter rather than a BBS ;p).
"We" know how to collaborate between coders and artists to make a cool and consistent audiovisual prod, and we know how organize parties&compos (w/ the awesome bigscreen experience).


(and yes, the fact that YT captures are needed for WebGL or even canvas prods because compatibility issues is VERY sad)

added on the 2013-01-03 00:03:47 by wullon wullon
Thinking about this thread on my rainy walk inside Paris, I was wondering if really the guys who made so many of the early demos on the Amiga even thought they were making a "demoscene demo", or if they were just into making cool, standalone realtime stuff with their computer, that happened to be inspired with other cool, standalone realtime stuff they happened to encounter when copying games.

There's the form of delivery (an executable program), and there's the demoscene which is a cultural phenomena focused on endless copying and refining of the same symbols and techniques, with a competitive mindset.
added on the 2013-01-03 00:15:20 by _-_-__ _-_-__
Again, why do we need to separate them from us?

We're all just coding cool shit in realtime. Some are interested in size coding, others in oldschool, and others in webgl or interactive stuff. And we all just want to show our skills and push the tech on our chosen platforms. We do it by making demos, demonstrating skill or tech.

You know what really separates us from the webgl guys? They're not dicking around arguing over what constitutes a valid webgl and who is or isn't part of the webgl scene. Which makes them look pretty good.
added on the 2013-01-03 00:19:37 by psonice psonice
Oh look, somebody already made a demo about it.
added on the 2013-01-03 00:23:37 by mog mog
added on the 2013-01-03 00:29:25 by wullon wullon
Quote:
Well, if I was the creator of that webgl demo and I ended up here and read this thread, I probably wouldn't want to be associated with this scene...

To all extents, if someone (even that demo creator) came into pouet, I'd say *this* thread is one with a quite interesting and to some extent mature discussion going on... I'd worry about the rest of the site, really :-)

Quote:
For some people, RO.ME was a borderline case - arguably things like Linger In Shadows / Datura / Catzilla are somewhere in between too.

I'd say (but then again that's just me) RO.ME was one of the most demosceneish prods I've ever seen in WebGL... it's just "who" made it (as in Google Data Arts Team, not Ricardo) and it's "commerciality" (even if it's free) which might make it dubious to include it as "demoscene". The tiny amount of interactivity doesn't count: there have been other interactive scene prods in the past (even old amiga ones). RO.ME looks great, and looks sceneish.... and at least one of its authors is a "proven" scener too, since that seems to count :-)
added on the 2013-01-03 08:36:38 by Jcl Jcl
Quote:
You know what really separates us from the webgl guys? They're not dicking around arguing over what constitutes a valid webgl and who is or isn't part of the webgl scene. Which makes them look pretty good.
added on the 2013-01-03 09:25:42 by __ __
Quote:
The thing that really bothers me is that we might be putting all this effort into making ourselves known to the outside world - whether that's Outreach with a capital O, or events like DemoJS, or just making great demos that have an appeal beyond the demoscene hardcore - all in the hopes of attracting new people to the scene, with new backgrounds and new perspectives. And maybe, just maybe, that message is getting through, and people are coming away with their own interpretation of what demos can be, and reinventing demoscene ideas in a new format (and even calling them 'demos'). And we're not even acknowledging them, because they doesn't tick enough boxes on our mental checklist of what a demo should be.


look, (as someone who is actually actively involved in some of those other scenes) i agree with you on all of that.
but it depends on what your goals are.

if you want the demoscene's creative essence in terms of creative coding, realtime graphics or whatever to surivive, i dont think it's in any danger. it's thriving, there are more people doing it than ever before in many different sub-scenes and environments of which the traditional demoscene is just one.

if you want the demoscene in terms of its current form and the form it's taken for the last 20+ years - parties, demogroups, the community itself - to survive and grow, then shit like this does matter.



added on the 2013-01-03 10:34:18 by smash smash
(personally im on the fence :) )
added on the 2013-01-03 10:39:39 by smash smash
Quote:

(and yes, the fact that YT captures are needed for WebGL or even canvas prods because compatibility issues is VERY sad)

yes!!!

ah! Those days when the compatibility word was used for real compatibility issues.
added on the 2013-01-03 10:46:16 by JaK JaK
Quote:
You just need to do a kickass demo (or interactive/effect/game/whatever) and not care about doing workarounds for any bugs you find. That would encourage browser/driver devs fix their stuff.

Yeah, like a 4k about a snowy mountainscape - if that crashes on NVIDIA, surely the driver team would notice, right? :)
added on the 2013-01-03 10:58:57 by Gargaj Gargaj
They sure will notice if Google tells them to fix their shit because they want Chrome to just work. Same with Mozilla/Firefox I presume. Don't know about Opera, still waiting for webgl on Opera for Linux.
added on the 2013-01-03 11:13:20 by mrdoob mrdoob
Gargaj: Looking at your contribution on this thread. Seems like you have become yet another pouet troll. Sad.
added on the 2013-01-03 11:16:52 by mrdoob mrdoob
mog: more info?
added on the 2013-01-03 11:20:02 by mrdoob mrdoob
Am I the only one who prefer watching simple productions made by outsiders, fresh blood, even if naïve... than productions like this one featuring oldschool and rather unattractive effects?

Sorry guys but I really find it amazing that some of you criticized the demo from "that guy outisde the scene" but didn't jump on the opportunity of laughting about some guy doing a js webGL demo featuring...a torus, and more oldschool scene-candies. Oh wait, the other one is from the scene and he made his production FOR the scene, that's all what matter, am I right ?

I'm quite impatient to see notch posting more js demos, considering you guys were also criticizing him on pouet, most probably because, well, he got known and you didn't.
added on the 2013-01-03 11:40:12 by __ __
Quote:

look, (as someone who is actually actively involved in some of those other scenes) i agree with you on all of that.
but it depends on what your goals are.

if you want the demoscene's creative essence in terms of creative coding, realtime graphics or whatever to surivive, i dont think it's in any danger. it's thriving, there are more people doing it than ever before in many different sub-scenes and environments of which the traditional demoscene is just one.

if you want the demoscene in terms of its current form and the form it's taken for the last 20+ years - parties, demogroups, the community itself - to survive and grow, then shit like this does matter.

well put.

kaneel > now, you're not.
But I don't think that the point. Actually it's more the opposite: the "other scenes" are making cool stuff ; why they don't give a shit about the 20+ years old demoscene? is it a big deal anyway? (cf smash post)

Also, for me bitsnbits is from "the outside scene", but it happens to know a bit more about the demoscene so he added the prod on pouet (and that's cool) (furthermore, he totally deserves credits at least for the JS port of Sonant) (the oldschool references are naive, but the prod is fresh in may ways).

It would have been a good sign if unconed added his prod to pouet, and I'm sure it would have received the same welcome.
Quote:

if awareness is the issue - people making what amounts to a demo but that they dont consider to be one - then surely that's down to us. either a) they dont know about us or b) they know but dont want to be associated. go figure.


added on the 2013-01-03 12:20:44 by wullon wullon
Quote:
if awareness is the issue - people making what amounts to a demo but that they dont consider to be one - then surely that's down to us. either a) they dont know about us or b) they know but dont want to be associated. go figure.

And a perfect way of making sure they dont want to be associated with us it by saying that their demo is not a demo.
added on the 2013-01-03 12:25:50 by mrdoob mrdoob
mrdoob: I was able to run a few WebGL things, including a (real) demo on Opera for Linux a few months ago.
added on the 2013-01-03 12:56:42 by xernobyl xernobyl
Wullon: my point was not about bitching actually, it's more like "if you mean to be TRUE and HONEST then stop thumbing prods that are definitely relying on pleasing the sceners". (plus, did it have a tunnel? DID IT HAVE A FUCKING TUNNEL?)
added on the 2013-01-03 12:58:45 by __ __
Sorry to go all Larry David on y'all, but why would WebGL guys care about the demoscene at all? IMHO the only people who think the demoscene is still relevant in the innovation of graphics are demosceners. That doesn't make it *irrelevant* per se, but I think some people are vastly overestimating its cultural impact.

Now, deciding whether outlets like HN or Reddit are any less irrelevant is entirely up to you :)

Anyway, go make a generative art piece about it!
added on the 2013-01-03 15:12:01 by sagacity sagacity

login