Crysis
Looks real nice.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by amanderino on Thu Mar 8th at 8:59am 2007
Posted by amanderino on Thu Mar 8th at 8:59am 2007
Re: Recently Found
Posted by OtZman on Thu Mar 8th at 10:15am 2007
Sweet, looks really cool. Crytek made FarCry as well, right?
OtZman
member
1890 posts
199 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 12th 2003
Location: Sweden
Occupation: Student
Posted by OtZman on Thu Mar 8th at 10:15am 2007
? quoting amanderino
Crysis
Looks real nice.
Looks real nice.
Sweet, looks really cool. Crytek made FarCry as well, right?
OtZman
member
1890 posts
199 snarkmarks
Registered: Jul 12th 2003
Location: Sweden
Occupation: Student
Re: Recently Found
Posted by reaper47 on Thu Mar 8th at 11:48am 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Thu Mar 8th at 11:48am 2007
This is probably the best looking game of the coming generation. I wish their animations were as good as the shaderwork.
PS: One thing PC users can that Mac users can't
PS: One thing PC users can that Mac users can't
Re: Recently Found
Posted by Crono on Thu Mar 8th at 12:25pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Thu Mar 8th at 12:25pm 2007
It's odd, something that's fairly impressive in Crysis is subsurface scattering and they're not mentioning it explicitly. (You can tell if you look at objects that have it applied. Also if you find a developer screenshot it shows all the types of texture maps you can apply. There's like 12 or something)
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by reaper47 on Thu Mar 8th at 3:33pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Thu Mar 8th at 3:33pm 2007
Yes, it's absolutely stunning.
I'd say that there is no (and I don't mean little, I mean no) difference to Hollywood CGI work anymore. At least not at any reasonable viewing distance. I remember subsurface scattering being mentioned in a Pixar making of, thinking, "wow, would be cool if this could be done real-time". A week later I found these Crysis shots
I'd say that there is no (and I don't mean little, I mean no) difference to Hollywood CGI work anymore. At least not at any reasonable viewing distance. I remember subsurface scattering being mentioned in a Pixar making of, thinking, "wow, would be cool if this could be done real-time". A week later I found these Crysis shots
Re: Recently Found
Posted by Crono on Thu Mar 8th at 8:16pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Thu Mar 8th at 8:16pm 2007
I can point out a lot of stuff that makes it look very fake.
For starters, they're using polygon mesh's as opposed to nurbs or solids (though I don't think pixar ... or anyone ... uses solids).
So you have a higher edge detail. You can even see in that picture, the white guy's head has a pointy angle, it's less obvious because they're using depth of field and focusing on something in front of that.
Find the picture of the black guy of his full head. Look at the ear and the eyes, they don't look quite as nice as the rest of him.
Another blazing difference between off-line and real-time rendering is that, in real-time you're often trying to achieve off-line render algorithms to some estimation. Because of that, you generally get a lot of aliasing because of the shortcuts you're taking. Which can be seen on some of the eyes.
You can also see the lack of characters with hair. The reason why is that hair is incredibly complex. I've seen a close up of the girl in that image and everything looks amazing ... except where the hairline starts.
They may have fixed up a lot of this stuff since then, though.
I don't agree with the no difference thing, as is probably obvious. If the animators and modelers do their job well, you wont tell what's computer generated and what isn't. Also, most things rendered in movies can't be adequately used in real-time, they're too complex. I mean, that's why we use all sorts of mapping techniques to try to simulate it.
As for the point on Subsurface Scattering, I'm surprised more developers don't implement it ... I mean ... it's not like the newer graphics cards (GF7, for example) don't support it in hardware. Now with the unified shader architecture on the SM4 cards, it should be even less of an issue.
Crysis looks great. But, the more I delve into graphics the more I'm starting to think that a lot of developers short change us in the graphical department.
For starters, they're using polygon mesh's as opposed to nurbs or solids (though I don't think pixar ... or anyone ... uses solids).
So you have a higher edge detail. You can even see in that picture, the white guy's head has a pointy angle, it's less obvious because they're using depth of field and focusing on something in front of that.
Find the picture of the black guy of his full head. Look at the ear and the eyes, they don't look quite as nice as the rest of him.
Another blazing difference between off-line and real-time rendering is that, in real-time you're often trying to achieve off-line render algorithms to some estimation. Because of that, you generally get a lot of aliasing because of the shortcuts you're taking. Which can be seen on some of the eyes.
You can also see the lack of characters with hair. The reason why is that hair is incredibly complex. I've seen a close up of the girl in that image and everything looks amazing ... except where the hairline starts.
They may have fixed up a lot of this stuff since then, though.
I don't agree with the no difference thing, as is probably obvious. If the animators and modelers do their job well, you wont tell what's computer generated and what isn't. Also, most things rendered in movies can't be adequately used in real-time, they're too complex. I mean, that's why we use all sorts of mapping techniques to try to simulate it.
As for the point on Subsurface Scattering, I'm surprised more developers don't implement it ... I mean ... it's not like the newer graphics cards (GF7, for example) don't support it in hardware. Now with the unified shader architecture on the SM4 cards, it should be even less of an issue.
Crysis looks great. But, the more I delve into graphics the more I'm starting to think that a lot of developers short change us in the graphical department.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by reaper47 on Thu Mar 8th at 10:24pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Thu Mar 8th at 10:24pm 2007
I think right now game character graphics are exactly in the uncanny valley. But they're climbing up fast.
I feel like for shaderwork there's little that could be done to make them more real. Of course the little is the most work, as always (don't think I underestimate you shader experts, you're my heroes )
Do you mean this screen? Considering that this pic wouldn't even fit on a normal monitor, it's pretty impressive. Scale it down to a resolution you'd normally see in game and it's near-perfect. If you zoom to the eye you might see that the reflection is too blurry as well as the general texture resolution. But it's a perfect compromise for anything except close-range zooms. Especially regarding polycount.
I think there's a lot more to be done in the animation department than for shaders. From what in-game footage I've seen they have near photo-realistic bodies that move like Disneyworld animatronics.
There are five things I wanted to see in real-time since the early DX9 hype: radiosity lighting, ray-tracing reflections/refractions, physics-based effects (hair sounds like something that'll be done with this new phyiscs hardware soon), motion blur and yes, NURBs.
Except for NURBs (I think) the coming generation seems to solve almost all of these - and they're fast. From what I've seen in videos, Crysis has good motion-blur effects and I could have sworn I've seen some sort of radiosity in one of the videos). Also the latest cards have better and better anti-aliasing. Sub-surface scattering came out of nowhere, it was a big surprise and bonus for me to see it coming. With all that you can integrate the characters really well in the environment. Everything that's left is animation (which is probably a physics problem, too, because anything else wouldn't be dynamic enough). Close-ups will always stay a problem but I'd like to see developers concentrate on the usual (2-5 meter) distances more which today is merely an animation job.
For some reason I can't resist posting this video, also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Nt0iAu3qw
I can watch this all day
I feel like for shaderwork there's little that could be done to make them more real. Of course the little is the most work, as always (don't think I underestimate you shader experts, you're my heroes
)
Do you mean this screen? Considering that this pic wouldn't even fit on a normal monitor, it's pretty impressive. Scale it down to a resolution you'd normally see in game and it's near-perfect. If you zoom to the eye you might see that the reflection is too blurry as well as the general texture resolution. But it's a perfect compromise for anything except close-range zooms. Especially regarding polycount.
I think there's a lot more to be done in the animation department than for shaders. From what in-game footage I've seen they have near photo-realistic bodies that move like Disneyworld animatronics.
There are five things I wanted to see in real-time since the early DX9 hype: radiosity lighting, ray-tracing reflections/refractions, physics-based effects (hair sounds like something that'll be done with this new phyiscs hardware soon), motion blur and yes, NURBs.
Except for NURBs (I think) the coming generation seems to solve almost all of these - and they're fast. From what I've seen in videos, Crysis has good motion-blur effects and I could have sworn I've seen some sort of radiosity in one of the videos). Also the latest cards have better and better anti-aliasing. Sub-surface scattering came out of nowhere, it was a big surprise and bonus for me to see it coming. With all that you can integrate the characters really well in the environment. Everything that's left is animation (which is probably a physics problem, too, because anything else wouldn't be dynamic enough). Close-ups will always stay a problem but I'd like to see developers concentrate on the usual (2-5 meter) distances more which today is merely an animation job.
For some reason I can't resist posting this video, also: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3Nt0iAu3qw
I can watch this all day
Re: Recently Found
Posted by Crono on Thu Mar 8th at 10:42pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Thu Mar 8th at 10:42pm 2007
Yeah, something that's missing from games is some sort of Global Illumination solution, so objects don't have inter-reflections. That's actually something I'm working on for a project I mentioned a little while back. I'm trying to get that to run well in real-time with an efficient occlusion algorithm.
I don't want to offend you, but you're mis-using some of your terms.
Radiosity is a measurement. Radiosity Methods, are the technique in which you model that measurement in the scene. There's plenty of ways to do it (most common techniques have you comparing energies, rather than light rays).
Of course, you should keep in mind that, even though graphics architectures are getting faster and more robust, they're not even close to being able to simulate reality yet.
I've also been curious about doing a sort of hybrid of keyframe animation, physics calculations and AI to do animation.
It sounds like you might be a tad confused or mis-informed on what a shader is. In terms of the program you write, it's simply a program that runs on the GPU in one of the shader processors. Now that General Purpose GPUs are being pushed, even languages like C++ and Java can be compiled and ran on the GPU.
Even SM3 cards can do some sort of physics calculations with the vertex processors.
They're very dynamic and aren't limited to pixel-to-pixel after effects. You can do all your collision detection, physics, particles, and many other things entirely on the GPU with this architecture.
Also, just to make a note, there are actually built in functions "reflect" and "refract" into the Cg shader language. You feed them an incoming angle and the normal of your surface and they'll give you the reflection or refraction angle. It's also pretty fast.
If you look hard enough online, you'll find real-time implementations of ray tracing, through, to be honest, ray tracing is a pretty poor technique for making things look realistic. It generally makes things shiny. But there are many alterations that have been done to make it look better.
Anyway, check out some stuff on global illumination techniques, I'm sure you'll find it amazingly interesting.
I think the two fields in games that need to begin expanding more are dynamic animation and AI in general. I mean, a mesh of paths just isn't cutting it anymore.
I don't want to offend you, but you're mis-using some of your terms.
Radiosity is a measurement. Radiosity Methods, are the technique in which you model that measurement in the scene. There's plenty of ways to do it (most common techniques have you comparing energies, rather than light rays).
Of course, you should keep in mind that, even though graphics architectures are getting faster and more robust, they're not even close to being able to simulate reality yet.
I've also been curious about doing a sort of hybrid of keyframe animation, physics calculations and AI to do animation.
It sounds like you might be a tad confused or mis-informed on what a shader is. In terms of the program you write, it's simply a program that runs on the GPU in one of the shader processors. Now that General Purpose GPUs are being pushed, even languages like C++ and Java can be compiled and ran on the GPU.
Even SM3 cards can do some sort of physics calculations with the vertex processors.
They're very dynamic and aren't limited to pixel-to-pixel after effects. You can do all your collision detection, physics, particles, and many other things entirely on the GPU with this architecture.
Also, just to make a note, there are actually built in functions "reflect" and "refract" into the Cg shader language. You feed them an incoming angle and the normal of your surface and they'll give you the reflection or refraction angle. It's also pretty fast.
If you look hard enough online, you'll find real-time implementations of ray tracing, through, to be honest, ray tracing is a pretty poor technique for making things look realistic. It generally makes things shiny. But there are many alterations that have been done to make it look better.
Anyway, check out some stuff on global illumination techniques, I'm sure you'll find it amazingly interesting.
I think the two fields in games that need to begin expanding more are dynamic animation and AI in general. I mean, a mesh of paths just isn't cutting it anymore.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by reaper47 on Thu Mar 8th at 11:59pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Thu Mar 8th at 11:59pm 2007
Did you see this? That demo truly impressed me.
I'm sorry for mis-using the terms. I lack the mathematical and programming knowledge to truly grasp the problems at their core so I'm a bit vulnerable to generalizations. I'm very interested in the technological background, though. When I read sentences like "There's plenty of ways to do it (most common techniques have you comparing energies, rather than light rays)." it makes me want to learn more about programming, really.![<img src=]()
" SRC="images/smiles/icon_wink.gif">
I'm sorry for mis-using the terms. I lack the mathematical and programming knowledge to truly grasp the problems at their core so I'm a bit vulnerable to generalizations. I'm very interested in the technological background, though. When I read sentences like "There's plenty of ways to do it (most common techniques have you comparing energies, rather than light rays)." it makes me want to learn more about programming, really.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by amanderino on Fri Mar 9th at 12:07am 2007
Posted by amanderino on Fri Mar 9th at 12:07am 2007
I can't remember if they talked much about the AI of Crysis in that video I posted, but I know I saw that it's supposed to be pretty smart. Just look up 'Crysis' or 'DX10' stuff on youtube. A lot of the stuff was pretty cool.
---
Also, I just found this trailer for Crysis. Official Trailer 3. I noticed that some of the stuff doesn't look so great when you get up close to it, but the gameplay looks nuts.
---
Also, I just found this trailer for Crysis. Official Trailer 3. I noticed that some of the stuff doesn't look so great when you get up close to it, but the gameplay looks nuts.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by Crono on Fri Mar 9th at 3:25am 2007
Posted by Crono on Fri Mar 9th at 3:25am 2007
Yeah, man, that's the exact stuff I'm talking about! You should check out some papers (though you probably wont understand much of what they're saying, there are pretty pictures) on real-time photon mapping. It's pretty crazy stuff.
Well wanting to learn is very good, but it's not particularly related, since it's more of a physics problem than anything else. The computer science aspect comes in when you try to design an algorithm that can run fast in real-time and look good enough to be worth using.
Anyway, check out this video. It's a real-time implementation of Photon Mapping as well as Ray Tracing to get some extra data needed. It looks really nice. The photon mapping part is slow (this is why caustics and specular effects take awhile to show up). The card they did this on, in 2003, was a GFFX 5900 Ultra. Obviously, our SM standards are higher now and we could blow it away!
I'm actually sort of sad that people don't like the shadowing technique in Doom 3. It's a great, accurate, technique. id just decided that they wanted hard shadows ... by no means do shadow volumes restrict you from doing soft shadows of any kind.
Anyway, this is really interesting stuff.
Here's some more information Though if he plans on implementing the thing in real-time he should look into shader languages.
If you want the "masterpiece", you should check out the off-line rendered animation by Henrik Wann Jensen
Well wanting to learn is very good, but it's not particularly related, since it's more of a physics problem than anything else. The computer science aspect comes in when you try to design an algorithm that can run fast in real-time and look good enough to be worth using.
Anyway, check out this video. It's a real-time implementation of Photon Mapping as well as Ray Tracing to get some extra data needed. It looks really nice. The photon mapping part is slow (this is why caustics and specular effects take awhile to show up). The card they did this on, in 2003, was a GFFX 5900 Ultra. Obviously, our SM standards are higher now and we could blow it away!
I'm actually sort of sad that people don't like the shadowing technique in Doom 3. It's a great, accurate, technique. id just decided that they wanted hard shadows ... by no means do shadow volumes restrict you from doing soft shadows of any kind.
Anyway, this is really interesting stuff.
Here's some more information Though if he plans on implementing the thing in real-time he should look into shader languages.
If you want the "masterpiece", you should check out the off-line rendered animation by Henrik Wann Jensen
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by Naklajat on Fri Mar 9th at 6:17am 2007
Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKphYfUk-M
The beginning is that kind of skeletal/physics/AI animation, the rest has some other cool physics thingies in it. The animation isn't perfect, it looks fairly stiff and clumsy, but I'm sure it'll become a lot better after some refinement. (one thing that bugs me about that video is how the guy keeps saying "These objects act exactly as they would in the real world")
The hard shadows and extreme lighting contrast are what killed it for me. You don't get full illumination bordering zero illumination like that in the real world, and it just looks fake. Not to mention the over-shiny everything. I am by no means well-versed in virtual lighting tech, but I can tell, just by living in reality and knowing what reality looks like, that Source's static lightmaps with radiosity bounces look a lot more believable than Doom3's fully dynamic hard shadows.
I've recently been playing around with lighting in UE3 (with Roboblitz), and I really like the solution Epic has come up with. You can specify different channels for each light you place in the level, including BSP, static, and dynamic (static geometry can be flagged to cast dynamic shadows). No, it's not realtime radiosity, but just take a look at Gears of War, any of the UT3 videos, or those of any of the other games using UE3, and you can see a clear improvement from previous game engines in terms of lighting. Even though there's no radiosity, the baked lightmap + dynamic lights casting soft shadows takes another step forward in believability.
Also noteworthy; as I mentioned in the Realtime Radiosity thread, Geomerics has a commercial realtime radiosity product called Enlighten that has been integrated into UE3 and is available to licensees of both.
Geomerics' Enlighten page
Naklajat
member
1137 posts
207 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 15th 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Occupation: Baron
Posted by Naklajat on Fri Mar 9th at 6:17am 2007
? quote:
I've also been curious about doing a sort of hybrid of keyframe animation, physics calculations and AI to do animation.
Like this? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3bKphYfUk-M
The beginning is that kind of skeletal/physics/AI animation, the rest has some other cool physics thingies in it. The animation isn't perfect, it looks fairly stiff and clumsy, but I'm sure it'll become a lot better after some refinement. (one thing that bugs me about that video is how the guy keeps saying "These objects act exactly as they would in the real world")
? quote:
I'm actually sort of sad that people don't like the shadowing technique in Doom 3. It's a great, accurate, technique. id just decided that they wanted hard shadows ... by no means do shadow volumes restrict you from doing soft shadows of any kind.
The hard shadows and extreme lighting contrast are what killed it for me. You don't get full illumination bordering zero illumination like that in the real world, and it just looks fake. Not to mention the over-shiny everything. I am by no means well-versed in virtual lighting tech, but I can tell, just by living in reality and knowing what reality looks like, that Source's static lightmaps with radiosity bounces look a lot more believable than Doom3's fully dynamic hard shadows.
I've recently been playing around with lighting in UE3 (with Roboblitz), and I really like the solution Epic has come up with. You can specify different channels for each light you place in the level, including BSP, static, and dynamic (static geometry can be flagged to cast dynamic shadows). No, it's not realtime radiosity, but just take a look at Gears of War, any of the UT3 videos, or those of any of the other games using UE3, and you can see a clear improvement from previous game engines in terms of lighting. Even though there's no radiosity, the baked lightmap + dynamic lights casting soft shadows takes another step forward in believability.
Also noteworthy; as I mentioned in the Realtime Radiosity thread, Geomerics has a commercial realtime radiosity product called Enlighten that has been integrated into UE3 and is available to licensees of both.
Geomerics' Enlighten page
Naklajat
member
1137 posts
207 snarkmarks
Registered: Nov 15th 2004
Location: Austin, Texas
Occupation: Baron
=o
Re: Recently Found
Posted by reaper47 on Fri Mar 9th at 11:10am 2007
OUCH. You have a talent of making me feel like a 3-year old, here.
I'll check these out, though.
PS: Doom3 could have used true soft shadows as well? That's hard for me to believe. There must have been at least hardware limitations at the time of release. I heard Carmack talking about how excited he is about soft shadows in the coming generation, also, which makes me doubt using hard edges only was a stylistic decision.
I was quite impressed with Doom3's lighting, btw, I just like the warmth of HL(2)'s lighting which I think comes mainly from their pre-calculated radiosity lighting.
Posted by reaper47 on Fri Mar 9th at 11:10am 2007
? quote:
though you probably wont understand much of what they're saying, there are pretty pictures
OUCH. You have a talent of making me feel like a 3-year old, here.
I'll check these out, though.
PS: Doom3 could have used true soft shadows as well? That's hard for me to believe. There must have been at least hardware limitations at the time of release. I heard Carmack talking about how excited he is about soft shadows in the coming generation, also, which makes me doubt using hard edges only was a stylistic decision.
I was quite impressed with Doom3's lighting, btw, I just like the warmth of HL(2)'s lighting which I think comes mainly from their pre-calculated radiosity lighting.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by Crono on Fri Mar 9th at 8:08pm 2007
Posted by Crono on Fri Mar 9th at 8:08pm 2007
Sorry, but, really, go look at the paper (I didn't actually give a link to the paper, but it's at the same site with the video)
It's some complex stuff. It talks about how they can't use a classic algorithm on the graphics card because memory doesn't work the same way. So a so-so efficiency algorithm for sorting now runs very slow and is unsuitable for real-time use. The discuss an alternative and then lots of lighting calculations. So, don't be offended if I say you probably wont understand it. I know people that are in the same CS courses with me that don't understand what I'm saying when I talk to them. I get blank stares.
At the time it wouldn't have been a good idea since the hardware may or may not have been able to really perform well. Soft shadows aren't exactly fast. But I think I was talking about actually blurring.
What I was talking about (which I've now said in like three different places, I think) was if you combine techniques. Having hard edged shadows and very dramatic changes between light and shadow is not what you have to do if you use shadow volumes of any kind. You can change it so it implements some other algorithms too.
The thing that I'm noticing is the more I learn about this stuff the more I think that valve went down the wrong route. It just feels like they're holding on to ancient techniques because that's how it was done in quake. We've adapted. Crysis is really a step in the right direction. UE3 is good too. (which uses two shadows maps, one blurred and one hard and interpolates between them based on distance. You can think of interpolation as ... averaging or gradient.) The thing about UE3 is it's made to be very user friendly and they have a lot of good techniques in there.
That is something like what I had in mind, but, there's no "intelligence" there. I mean, all they're doing is calculating new frames with physics. I'm talking more along the lines of attempting to purge the scripted sequence besides things that you want to be cinematic and exact.
If the animation is dynamic, then it can be effected by real-time events. I'm also interested in pursuing some sort of injury system. I mean, if we're going to be able to do physics quickly on the GPU, we might as well use it!
Also, that video is a little mis-leading. There are no light bounces in a radiosity method, because they generally measure energy. Notice, it did diffuse lighting very well ... and nothing else.
It's some complex stuff. It talks about how they can't use a classic algorithm on the graphics card because memory doesn't work the same way. So a so-so efficiency algorithm for sorting now runs very slow and is unsuitable for real-time use. The discuss an alternative and then lots of lighting calculations. So, don't be offended if I say you probably wont understand it. I know people that are in the same CS courses with me that don't understand what I'm saying when I talk to them. I get blank stares.
At the time it wouldn't have been a good idea since the hardware may or may not have been able to really perform well. Soft shadows aren't exactly fast. But I think I was talking about actually blurring.
What I was talking about (which I've now said in like three different places, I think) was if you combine techniques. Having hard edged shadows and very dramatic changes between light and shadow is not what you have to do if you use shadow volumes of any kind. You can change it so it implements some other algorithms too.
The thing that I'm noticing is the more I learn about this stuff the more I think that valve went down the wrong route. It just feels like they're holding on to ancient techniques because that's how it was done in quake. We've adapted. Crysis is really a step in the right direction. UE3 is good too. (which uses two shadows maps, one blurred and one hard and interpolates between them based on distance. You can think of interpolation as ... averaging or gradient.) The thing about UE3 is it's made to be very user friendly and they have a lot of good techniques in there.
That is something like what I had in mind, but, there's no "intelligence" there. I mean, all they're doing is calculating new frames with physics. I'm talking more along the lines of attempting to purge the scripted sequence besides things that you want to be cinematic and exact.
If the animation is dynamic, then it can be effected by real-time events. I'm also interested in pursuing some sort of injury system. I mean, if we're going to be able to do physics quickly on the GPU, we might as well use it!
Also, that video is a little mis-leading. There are no light bounces in a radiosity method, because they generally measure energy. Notice, it did diffuse lighting very well ... and nothing else.
Blame it on Microsoft, God does.
Re: Recently Found
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Mar 11th at 10:44pm 2007
Posted by reaper47 on Sun Mar 11th at 10:44pm 2007
Worst CGI work ever
(unrelated to the global illumination discussion, for now, I'll officially give up on that)
(unrelated to the global illumination discussion, for now, I'll officially give up on that)
Re: Recently Found
Posted by Rumple on Mon Mar 12th at 5:17am 2007
Rumple
member
518 posts
72 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 22nd 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Occupation: Web Dev
Posted by Rumple on Mon Mar 12th at 5:17am 2007
Rumple
member
518 posts
72 snarkmarks
Registered: Aug 22nd 2001
Location: NSW, Australia
Occupation: Web Dev
<A HREF="http://rumple.biz" TARGET="_blank">SourDough2.0</A> - With Strawberry Jam
Re: Recently Found
Posted by amanderino on Fri Mar 16th at 11:29am 2007
Posted by amanderino on Fri Mar 16th at 11:29am 2007
Re: Recently Found
Posted by French Toast on Fri Mar 16th at 6:11pm 2007
French Toast
member
3043 posts
300 snarkmarks
Registered: Jan 16th 2005
Location: Canada
Occupation: Kicking Ass
Posted by French Toast on Fri Mar 16th at 6:11pm 2007
I recently found out that if you do something stupid like stay up until 6, then you wake up at 2 PM with the same amount of homework left to do.
French Toast
member
3043 posts
300 snarkmarks
Registered: Jan 16th 2005
Location: Canada
Occupation: Kicking Ass
Re: Recently Found
Posted by Riven on Fri Mar 16th at 8:42pm 2007
Riven
super admin
1639 posts
802 snarkmarks
Registered: May 2nd 2005
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Occupation: Architect
Posted by Riven on Fri Mar 16th at 8:42pm 2007
Heh, I can relate to that...
Riven
super admin
1639 posts
802 snarkmarks
Registered: May 2nd 2005
Location: Austin, Texas, USA
Occupation: Architect
Re: Recently Found
Posted by RedWood on Sat Mar 17th at 7:19am 2007
Posted by RedWood on Sat Mar 17th at 7:19am 2007
Soo... you've been spying on me. (dam it)
© Snarkpit.net 2001 - 2023, about us, donate, contact
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 1.1631 seconds.
Snarkpit v6.1.0 created this page in 1.1631 seconds.