Call me crazy, but I think there's more to 3D games (especially
first-person shooters) than just the life-like graphics. Once you conquer
life-like graphics (as far as the human eye can tell), I believe game
vendors will move to more complex physics engines or AI routines to make the
opponents more intelligent. e.g. buildings that fracture and crumble when
hit by an RPG, transforming the terrain and enemies that recognize certain
heuristics in your game play.
On top of all this, I'd love to see the performance of this after
crunching 10-20k tweaked particles (assuming it was run on a machine that
had a realistic amount of ram, e.g. 128-512M). Better yet, just let it run
for 3 hours straight and graph that. My guess is that you'll see all kinds
of lag spikes from GC, but then again, that's a whole other issue to tackle
:-P I think that these tests are slightly misleading in that area because
they do not run for a realistic amount of time.
Yes, Java at some point may possibly be the language of choice for
3D games. However, it doesn't come down to just 3D rendering benchmarks
over 120 seconds of runtime. Plus there is so much competition in the
gaming industry right now that pushing the processor to the extremes will no
doubt be necessary for success.
~~K
-----Original Message-----
From: Darrin Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Monday, March 11, 2002 3:07 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] ANNOUNCE: Evaluating Java for Game Development
Oh man I don't agree with that.
The human eye can only discern, what is it 30 or 60 frames per second?
As far as the number of triangles never being enough well that goes along
with how many colors are really needed to be displayed. Again, the human
eye can only differentiate about 16 million or so if I recall correctly so
what use is there to display more than that?
I'm sure that there is a point to which additional triangles on a given
resolution will not improve the image as far as the human eye can tell.
So someday (in the not too far distant future), I can see us reaching a
point where we will have "lifelike" images on our PC's for games. At that
point, why is there a need to more triangles? If a Java app can provide the
number of frames at the required triangle count, then where is the arguement
for a faster language for games?
>From: Jacob Marner <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Reply-To: Discussion list for Java 3D API <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: Re: [JAVA3D] ANNOUNCE: Evaluating Java for Game Development
>Date: Mon, 11 Mar 2002 20:30:45 +0100
>
> >
> > After all, just how many frames do you need to
> > have per second anyway?
>
>Wrong question. The question is "how many more triangles do you need on
>screen?"
>
>And the answer is that I want all those I can get while still getting a
>a decent frame rate. You will never come to a point where top notch
>games have *enough* triangles on screen.
>
>Jacob
>
>===========================================================================
>To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
>of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
>[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
_________________________________________________________________
Chat with friends online, try MSN Messenger: http://messenger.msn.com
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
===========================================================================
To unsubscribe, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body
of the message "signoff JAVA3D-INTEREST". For general help, send email to
[EMAIL PROTECTED] and include in the body of the message "help".
