python programming

category: general [glöplog]
Locking the indexbuffer to access the z-buffer? Eh?

Also, depth-of-field is not an effect.
added on the 2004-03-25 13:09:54 by sagacity sagacity
Effects are D34D!!!
added on the 2004-03-25 13:15:43 by Optimus Optimus
Long live dead.
Obviously, I meant surfacebuffer... typo.

Depth-of-field is not an effect? Eh?
added on the 2004-03-25 17:06:26 by rabit rabit
No, depth of field is <insert a long and wordy explaination of the word "effect" here>.

added on the 2004-03-25 19:39:51 by eye eye
It's like calling glow an effect. Bah.
added on the 2004-03-25 20:21:09 by sagacity sagacity

It's like calling glow an effect. Bah.

But depth of field and glow is are effects. :)

At least according to the 3D tools I've been using for the last six years. In the demoscene, I suppose that it could mean whatever.
added on the 2004-03-25 20:47:39 by rabit rabit
It depends on what you call an effect.
added on the 2004-03-25 20:47:55 by Gargaj Gargaj
I would say that every visual transformation is an effect. In the early days, "texturemapping", "bump mapping", "gouraud shading" and "fake phong shading" were really called "effects". Well, world would be just somewhat too boring with only these!

But really, refusing to call more or less nonstandard things such as shadows, depth of field or glow an effect, means no respect towards the guys who have made the effort to implement that! Be ashamed, sagacity.

What are your definitions of effect?
added on the 2004-03-25 21:24:40 by eye eye
But really, refusing to call more or less nonstandard things such as shadows, depth of field or glow an effect, means no respect towards the guys who have made the effort to implement that!

So to conclude, if anyone codes anything, no matter how shitty, you MUST give him the props that "this is an effect", even if it's just stuff like opening a window?
added on the 2004-03-25 21:37:57 by Gargaj Gargaj
Opening windows is admittably boring. And i'm not sure it goes even into my definition of effect. Nor would l call texturemapping and all standard kinds of shading an effect, since it's waay too standard... or at least i would not like calling them an effect, although they do go into the definition. At least i see Rabit support my opinion, i guess. ;)
added on the 2004-03-25 21:50:10 by eye eye
i guess an effect is when it astonishes you.
texturemapping on an a500 can be considered an effect methinks
added on the 2004-03-26 00:36:41 by xyz xyz
added on the 2004-03-26 13:01:38 by Optimus Optimus
hermes: so like, 30 dots fullframerate on a 486 are not an effect but 3000 dots are?
added on the 2004-03-26 13:09:14 by Gargaj Gargaj
Lol Gargaj! I love these kinds of funny arguments!!! (Reminds me of another disagreement at CSDB about what is a demo and what is not (..if it doesn't have any effects :))
added on the 2004-03-26 13:28:08 by Optimus Optimus
"i fail to get what exactly did you like in this so called demo, first of all it is not a demo, but that's not really important, the important thing is that it shows the same thing over and over, the only effect is the occasional crossfade or a screen flash or something, i saw it once and deleted it on the spot..."
added on the 2004-03-26 14:07:25 by 216 216
"Be ashamed, sagacity."

Um okay. It's just that doing a glow or DOF "effect" is:

a) so incredibly trivial
b) needs source-data to begin with, since you can't "just" glow or DOF
c) has already been around for about 7 eons and has now been degraded from "effect" to "helper", just like a fade-out or whatever. Or do you call fades effects too?

Be ashamed, eye/midiclub.
added on the 2004-03-26 14:29:55 by sagacity sagacity
I agree Sagacity on point C (I think DOF's and glows are more like engine-features now), and point A is subjective, but point B would basically mean that no postfiltering are effects, since they need a rendered image, no objectmorphs are effects since they need a base object, and if you think wider, 90% of the stuff need textures (="source-data"), be it rotozoomers, tunnels or metaballs.

Be ashamed, Gargaj. :(
added on the 2004-03-26 15:15:08 by Gargaj Gargaj
My point is that the combination of all these things is what makes an effect. Or something. I forget.
added on the 2004-03-26 16:15:04 by sagacity sagacity
"doing" one or another effect, such as glow or DOF is apparently not really trivial at all. Well, it would be in software rendering, but it requieres effort to embed it into hardware-accelerated rendering engines!

And yes, i do call fades effects by definition too. Although i'd be ashamed to say it out loud. But admit it, they are very important in demos due to their creative use - what would be Farbrausch without fade-ins/outs?

i'm always ashamed. ;) So be double ashamed sagacity! :>
added on the 2004-03-26 16:20:10 by eye eye
When you take something A, process it and it returns in a B where A != B, then you made a "filter". Combine two or more filters and you have an "effect". Combine two or more effects and you have a "demo".

Now how good looking/listening/etc these filters, effects and demos are, it's up to the "end users" (me, you, him, her, them...), but they don't have any relation with the abone as to the definition.
added on the 2004-03-26 18:04:34 by BadSector BadSector
effects are what make the people go ooh.
added on the 2004-03-26 22:11:14 by skrebbel skrebbel