Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On Apr 12, 2012, at 5:12 PM, BGB wrote: > On 4/11/2012 11:14 PM, Josh Gargus wrote: >> On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:31 PM, BGB wrote: >> >>> now, why, exactly, would anyone consider doing rendering on the server?... >> >> One reason might be to amortize the cost of global illumination >> calculations

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On 4/11/2012 11:14 PM, Josh Gargus wrote: On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:31 PM, BGB wrote: now, why, exactly, would anyone consider doing rendering on the server?... One reason might be to amortize the cost of global illumination calculations. Since much of the computation is view-independent, a Rea

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On Apr 8, 2012, at 7:31 PM, BGB wrote: > now, why, exactly, would anyone consider doing rendering on the server?... One reason might be to amortize the cost of global illumination calculations. Since much of the computation is view-independent, a Really Big Server could compute this once pe

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On 4/9/2012 10:53 AM, David Barbour wrote: On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:25 AM, BGB > wrote: Running on a cluster is very different between having all the intelligence on the individual clients. As far as I can tell, MMOs by and large run most of

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

David Barbour wrote: it is not clear that client-to-client would lead to necessarily all that much better handling of latency either, for that matter. Client-to-client usually does improve latency since you skip an intermediate communication step. There are exceptions to prove the

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On Mon, Apr 9, 2012 at 8:25 AM, BGB wrote: > >> Running on a cluster is very different between having all the >> intelligence on the individual clients. As far as I can tell, MMOs by and >> large run most of the simulation on centralized clusters (or at least >> within the vendor's cloud). Mili

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

BGB wrote: On 4/8/2012 8:26 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: On 4/4/2012 5:26 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: Not so sure. Probably similar levels of complexity between a military sim. and, say, World of Warcraft. Fidelity to real-world behavior is more important, and network late

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On 4/8/2012 8:26 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: On 4/4/2012 5:26 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: Not so sure. Probably similar levels of complexity between a military sim. and, say, World of Warcraft. Fidelity to real-world behavior is more important, and network latency matters

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

BGB wrote: On 4/4/2012 5:26 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: Not so sure. Probably similar levels of complexity between a military sim. and, say, World of Warcraft. Fidelity to real-world behavior is more important, and network latency matters for the extreme real-time stuff (e.g., netw

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On 4/4/2012 5:26 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: Not so sure. Probably similar levels of complexity between a military sim. and, say, World of Warcraft. Fidelity to real-world behavior is more important, and network latency matters for the extreme real-time stuff (e.g., networked dogf

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

BGB wrote: Not so sure. Probably similar levels of complexity between a military sim. and, say, World of Warcraft. Fidelity to real-world behavior is more important, and network latency matters for the extreme real-time stuff (e.g., networked dogfights at Mach 2), but other than that, IP n

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On 4/4/2012 1:06 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: On 4/4/2012 9:29 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: - game-like simulations (which I'm more familiar with): but these are serious games, with lots of people and vehicles running around practicing techniques, or experimenting with new weapons and t

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

BGB wrote: On 4/4/2012 9:29 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: - game-like simulations (which I'm more familiar with): but these are serious games, with lots of people and vehicles running around practicing techniques, or experimenting with new weapons and tactics, and so forth; or pilots training in

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On 4/4/2012 9:29 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: On 4/4/2012 6:35 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: still not heard the term CGF before though. If you do military simulations, CGF (Computer Generated Forces) and SAF (Semi-Automated Forces) are the equivalent terms of art to "game en

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

BGB wrote: On 4/4/2012 6:35 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: still not heard the term CGF before though. If you do military simulations, CGF (Computer Generated Forces) and SAF (Semi-Automated Forces) are the equivalent terms of art to "game engine." Sort of. "military simulations"

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On 4/4/2012 6:35 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: still not heard the term CGF before though. If you do military simulations, CGF (Computer Generated Forces) and SAF (Semi-Automated Forces) are the equivalent terms of art to "game engine." Sort of. "military simulations" as in RTS (R

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

BGB wrote: still not heard the term CGF before though. If you do military simulations, CGF (Computer Generated Forces) and SAF (Semi-Automated Forces) are the equivalent terms of art to "game engine." Sort of. -- In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice,

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

On 4/3/2012 9:29 PM, Miles Fidelman wrote: BGB wrote: On 4/3/2012 10:47 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Hah. You've obviously never been involved in building a CGF simulator (Computer Generated Forces) - absolute spaghetti code when you have to have 4 main loops, touch 2000 objects (say 2000 tan

Re: [fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

BGB wrote: On 4/3/2012 10:47 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: Hah. You've obviously never been involved in building a CGF simulator (Computer Generated Forces) - absolute spaghetti code when you have to have 4 main loops, touch 2000 objects (say 2000 tanks) every simulation frame. Comparatively

[fonc] Physics Simulation (Re: Everything You Know (about Parallel Programming) Is Wrong!: A Wild Screed about the Future)

(changed subject, as this was much more about physics simulation than about concurrency). yes, this is a big long "personal history dump" type thing, please ignore if you don't care. On 4/3/2012 10:47 AM, Miles Fidelman wrote: David Barbour wrote: Control flow is a source of much implicit