Unity Adam demo

Friendly conversations, and everything that doesn't fit into the other forums.
37 posts Page 4 of 4
deathbravo
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Feb 01, 2016 7:06 am
by deathbravo » Thu Jul 07, 2016 5:34 am
ooooh my shiiiiiiiting god;
I think this thread is a proof of we are a great community.
we don't need others to criticize us.
we do criticize ourselves.
even got a civil war. :mrgreen:
flysouth
Posts: 105
Joined: Sun May 15, 2016 10:16 am
by flysouth » Thu Jul 07, 2016 12:17 pm
@ andrewmac
You and the others who originally responded to this literally ruined the discussion on the video
The artwork and ideas shown in the movie are interesting and thought provoking.
This is a game engine forum not a movie makers forum. So posting it here will result in members seeing it as a demo for the Unity Game Engine.
Unity themselves are not saying that this is only good for film makers. No they are hoping that people assume that this is how their games could be too.
Many forget that a movie only needs 30FPS to be good. Most of us here complain when our games get down to 30FPS. :lol:

So do not see this as people attacking you, see this rather as a bunch of gamers / game creators commenting on a game demo not a movie demo
Bloodknight
Posts: 288
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 8:58 pm
by Bloodknight » Thu Jul 07, 2016 1:17 pm
perhaps if information was posted by the OP instead of a random youtube video we wouldnt be here at all.
if you post a picture or a video its to show off.
If you want a discussion you add information.
If you want to highlight something specific you add information.

Because of piss poor information, people ask questions, its not up to the users here to google search for information regarding the video, this should have been provided, or at least a link to the page that discusses the concept that the video is showing off.

as for ruining the thread.

People who asked questions are being attacked, by a user who neither uses torque or even promotes the use of torque, in fact torque users here are being attacked by somebody who actively *actively* talks up other engines in this community as well as *actively* talking down the torque engine

1) there was no discussion ever in this thread, it started with questions and was hijacked by unity fanboy
2) the first person to start using provocative/evocative commentary was *REDACTED*
3) the only person shitting on other people here is *REDACTED*
4) the only person who continually talks down torque *REDACTED*


As a final note regardless of this being a general forum, it is a general forum of a torque community, it is a general forum of a game development community. Regardless of the generality it would be sensible to make posts about those two things. While this video is made using a game engine, its pretty simple to increase rendering quality if you remove all *game* from scenes. The fact that the video shows unity competing with blender (and potentially winning depending on your view) should have been highlighted in the text if the OP, so now we've come full circle.

nb: @ deathbravo no. this is torque community vs unity community, the problem is that we have unity fanboys masquerading as torque community members
LukasPJ
Site Admin
Posts: 426
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 7:25 pm
 
by LukasPJ » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:16 pm
I'm just gonna stand down here, and I will ask that all of you do the same.
It seems that the discussion has descended to a point where it doesn't contribute anything, and I'd like us to heed the OP's early call for ceasefire:
This is becoming a war. I posted the video just to show the advances in real time graphics. I didn't want to start a feud. Is just a video, please calm down.
So, if the war continues then I will lock the topic. Let's just move on and leave the negativity behind us.

Image
Dwarf King
Posts: 182
Joined: Thu Feb 05, 2015 7:20 pm
by Dwarf King » Thu Jul 07, 2016 2:54 pm
@Dwarf King: You and the others who originally responded to this literally ruined the discussion on the video. You can say whatever you want to justify that to yourself but you helped to derail what could have been an interesting and constructive discussion. You're contributing nothing positive and this is the third post where you've patronized my responses in an attempt to insult me. Great community we've got left here, really inviting.
I do not dabble in the arts of attempting to insult or patronizing people. I asked about game play and I argued in a civilized way that I wanted more demos with game play and that GUI technology helping with more streamlined workflow in interactive design indeed has evolved over the years. So in some sense I simply corrected some of your observations.

All that above I did in a civilized way. I never once used any bad words.

I do admit that I used irony and a bit of humor :D However I never meant any harm with it.

Perhaps we have a cultural difference here? I do not know how people debate where you live, but around here(among the Vikings) it is perfectly fine to have different opinions and still get along without seeing other people's different view as attempts to insult. The irony I used because it seems to me that you are having a hard time to accept critical questions/suggestions and other people's view about a nice looking video.

I also agree with @ Bloodknight that some people around here have a rather unrealistic negative view about T3D capabilities. That is not good for the future of the T3D MIT engine. People are allowed to have such negative views, but if such negative views are not met with common sense it will grow to become a disease that spread among our users. In the end it will destroy our forums, webchat(I believe that has already happened to some extent) and dry out our small user base.

I read what @ LukasPJ wrote, but I believe that my post brings some light to my intentions and that it holds some important views about what is actually happening with our community.

Now if @ LukasPJ wish to remove my post then he is free to do so. I shall not post more in this thread as I have said what needed to be said.

I wish you all the best and I really mean that :D
andrewmac
Posts: 295
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:45 pm
 
by andrewmac » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:30 pm
I also agree with @ Bloodknight that some people around here have a rather unrealistic negative view about T3D capabilities. That is not good for the future of the T3D MIT engine. People are allowed to have such negative views, but if such negative views are not met with common sense it will grow to become a disease that spread among our users. In the end it will destroy our forums, webchat(I believe that has already happened to some extent) and dry out our small user base.
There is also a group of users, yourself included, who have unrealistically positive view about T3D capabilities. It blinds you to what the rest of the gamedev community is doing and causes the engine to further fall behind. If it were up to you T3D would never drop D3D9 support and thus always limit itself in capabilities. If such fanboyism isn't met with common sense it will grow to become a disease that spread among our users.

Rather than discussing integrating Area Lights into T3D we're arguing about the video. So while T6, Unity, and UE4 (and likely all the other engines) are getting real time area light support, we're sitting here arguing about it because no one here can appreciate or evaluate anything that isn't Torque.

Anyway, I thought I could be the voice of reason but it looks like I'm the source of the problem at this point. I'm clearly in the minority and you would all rather be left to shit on anything that the other guys are doing. Lesson learned, if you don't have something pro-torque to say, don't say anything at all.
JeffR
Steering Committee
Steering Committee
Posts: 945
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2015 9:49 pm
 
by JeffR » Thu Jul 07, 2016 3:56 pm
What @ LukasPJ said. There's no need for this to be an Us vs Them debate. We can easily point at a thing and go 'Hey that's neato' without it becoming some big deal.

@ andrewmac You mentioned 'rather than discussing area lights', but I don't think anyone's linked that paper TO discuss it. I believe that's part of the problem, here. There's not much discussion to be had as-is. The video looks nice, but there's not much to critique, and no one had posted stuff relating to the techniques used in it's production such as that area light paper, so currently there's almost no discussion to be had.

Edit: Right, thread was locked, so no one'll be able to post the whitepaper link, haha. Will say that, in the future, I think threads like these would be better served if someone offers discussion points or tech speculation. There's only so much that can be said about how generally neat a video is.

So to thread starters and posters in general, a good attitude to approach from is "How did they do X", or "Are there any papers/videos/code for doing Y", and "What would be needed to replicate this look". These are good for discussion, and get to the heart of what we all ACTUALLY want to discuss, rather than sitting around cooing over a video. Leave that to the youtube comments section :P
37 posts Page 4 of 4

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests