Hi Jason > I've not seen any other commercial game today that competes visually > (be that PC or Console) so maybe no one else wants to write a game of > that visual depth yet? :) I think MGS2 impressed me much more than any screen from Q3. Okay they have dynamic shadows? So what? Shadow algorithmen are over 20 years old.
> And J3D1.4 maybe up to it but it's not out for at least 18 months, then > add the ~2 year dev time and you're talking in 4 years time Doom3 style > visuals with J3D. > > What did games look like 4 years ago compared to today? Well IIRC Quake3 came 99. And still even games coming out now or in a few months still use the Q3-engine. So where's your problem? > I would suspect that 4 years from now you'll see games with film like > quality in the rendering starting to emerge. Not really. For example the Shrek-character was 10x the polygon count as the characters in Doom3. So raw polygon-rasterization-burning is definitly not the right way. I think transfering raytracing-technology to gfx hardware might be the real way to get cinema-feeling to games. > that set the standards that drive the cutting edge. But Java can still > be a good games platform, as more people get broadband Web based games > will become more popular and Java/J3D could certainly kick Flash's butt > in that market ONCE plugin delivery is seamless! Look at PS3. Of the latest plans of Sony. PS3 won't have any storage media installed but rather use highband-internet-connection as storage. EOF, J.D. -- Explore SRT with the help of Java3D (http://wwwvis.informatik.uni-stuttgart.de/relativity/minkowski) (http://www.antiflash.net/java3d/relativity (mirror) =========================================================================== 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".
