Karnov

23rd September 2002 02:52 UTC

i feel like a flipping moron

well, in context it sounded like u werent just messing around.
and there are people out there who are anal retentive about "goals" and "dreams" and the such
they have planners and stuff
they are a bad, bad, people
viva la procrastination!

DoH! :igor:

UnConeD

23rd September 2002 17:20 UTC

with c=1 and it looks OK. But there should be a way to get it more physically correct. By not using zr but for example a polynomial of zr (or what ever) that approximates the true distance dependence between zr and xr/yr, or the distance dependence it self if it can be expressed by a formula that is somewhat efficient to calculate.

I don't understand what you mean with this. This *is* physically correct. You seem good at maths, so try to calculate this: the projection of a point onto a plane, by connecting it with an eye point and using the intersection point of that connecting line with the plane as projection.
If you place the eye in (0,0,0) and use the plane z=1 as your projection plane, then the projected coordinates of (x,y,z) are:
(x/z, y/z, 1).

Placing the eye at an infinite distance results in an orthogonal projection (like you had first).

Unless you want to simulate actual lenses like in a camera, but you'd probably need a complicated raytracing approach then.

dirkdeftly

23rd September 2002 18:15 UTC

No one's commented on how uber-fucking-1337 my spiral is :P j/k

Spetz (sorry about the mispeeling): I'm serious. Things like coming out with a preset that's a pain in the ass to prepare to view and saying that it's unoptimized because you've got a better processor just makes it look like you don't care what other people think about your presets (in other words you're making an ass of yourself).

Spetz Naz

23rd September 2002 19:47 UTC

Originally posted by UnConeD


I don't understand what you mean with this. This *is* physically correct. You seem good at maths, so try to calculate this: the projection of a point onto a plane, by connecting it with an eye point and using the intersection point of that connecting line with the plane as projection.
If you place the eye in (0,0,0) and use the plane z=1 as your projection plane, then the projected coordinates of (x,y,z) are:
(x/z, y/z, 1).

Placing the eye at an infinite distance results in an orthogonal projection (like you had first).

Unless you want to simulate actual lenses like in a camera, but you'd probably need a complicated raytracing approach then.

Hi UnConed,

first of all, prior to comenting what you have written regarding the distance scaling, let me express what I felt the first time I saw your AVS work. You are not only technacally skilled guy with a stable grasp of your math, you are also very innovative art creator with feeling for detail and beauty. Most people don't combine these attributes to well, RESPECT. (Also, in a way, you are promoting math as the knowledge of coolness. Now that IS magic! RESPECT^2!)

Now, now that I have looked into to this, I realised that you are completelly correct, the projection of an arbitrary (x,y,z) to a plain z=1 is (x/z,y/z,z). And that is easy to derive too. (Looking at x (y is similar), I just used the triangle-proportion ratio the x/z = x2/1. If the plane is elevated, "1" is replaced by the corresponding elevation hight in z). I intuitivelly knew that the correct projection on x and y generates symmetrically smaller values for x and y, I didn't thought it was that easy. Life seems to be simpler than I think, time to reevaluate my assumptions :)


/Spetz - Optimizer Bunny

jheriko

23rd September 2002 19:52 UTC

You could 'raytrace' from the points to the centre of a sphere and then project the intersections with the sphere onto a plane to give a 'human eye' view sort of thing. Your framerates would drop to less than 1.

(I use raytrace in inverted commas since I've always called that solving a vector equation or finding a point of intersection, but raytracing seems to be the accepted term in the world of computers)

Also, in a way, you are promoting math as the knowledge of coolness. Now that IS magic! RESPECT^2

Does that make me cool because I am doing a maths degree and can do things in my head that most people would need a sheet of paper and a calculator for?

Spetz Naz

23rd September 2002 20:35 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
Does that make me cool because I am doing a maths degree and can do things in my head that most people would need a sheet of paper and a calculator for?

Definetly!!! Now that world can see that math is useful for creating fancy plots correlated to the music of their choice, it will not take long before girls will prefer mathematicians before physicians (med. doctors).

/Spetz - Very cool (M.Sc. Eng. Phys.)

PS. How cool is a M.Sc. that missed to discover the x/z=x2/1 relation? :) DS.

jheriko

23rd September 2002 20:59 UTC

Wow, I'm going for an MSci at the moment, in maths.

I see maths everywhere, it is used everywhere. Personally I think that the coolness of maths isn't just visible in AVS, or computer programming in general, but the fact that it is built into the human brain, into nature and into the things that we construct.

Take a look at anything and there is some maths present. Right angles, pi, root 2, phi, e, etc... These numbers crop up in everything, from A4 paper to the pyramids. In fact the ratio of the sides of a sheet of A4 paper is the same as the ratio of the sides of the rectangular rock surface on which the pyramids were constructed.

'Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers'. That is because mathematics was created to help us to understand the universe, and to define its fundamental laws, to bring simplicity to the chaotic real world around us and make it easier to explain.

Spetz Naz

23rd September 2002 22:20 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
'Everything around us can be represented and understood through numbers'.

...A sentence from the movie "Pi"... Great movie...

/Spetz

ssj2gohan1018

24th September 2002 01:06 UTC

hehehe im a freashmen in high school i dont even get math till next term witch sux i love math and im pretty shure i wont get algrabra 1
then cause im in sbh for my opisitional diffient dissorder and socil angcity dissorder i cant handel the regular classes caus there is far to many people (about thirty) but i read books like the lord of the rings and the silmarilion witch i can follow better than most adults
but i we work on the soler system in sience bah i learnd about that in 3rd grade but unlike the others in my class i memorized it the first time i heard it cause it was cool but the people in my class can hardly read they dont read on site they over use phonics and have 30-50 word vocabs(<-- they probly cant define vocabularey much less say it).


Whoops ultimate run on sentance there not my best spelling either!
I tend to ramble on the net since i hate being in the near people (see above) much less vocalising with them.LOL,well i didnt memorize my times tables but i loze my math but our suck school has only 4 periods a day and i didnt get to pick my electives (they were chosen for me by my counsoler) since i missed the registration day cause my father was killed one week before school(god i miss him)


Whoops there i did it again well i guese i better press submit befor i start again (oww carple tunnel).

Zevensoft

24th September 2002 07:18 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
Does that make me cool because I am doing a maths degree and can do things in my head that most people would need a sheet of paper and a calculator for?

Actually, most people's subconcious is way smarter than the concious mind. It does things extremly complex very quickly, yet there is no direct communication towards the concious mind. Like for example, if you imagine an object and rotate it, your mind is doing all the 3D stuff and all you see is the picture created, not the numbers behind it. We can imagine huge, complex, atomically-accurate worlds and universes, yet we can barely divide 2 floating point numbers by thinking.

The mind works in mysterious ways...

jheriko

24th September 2002 08:28 UTC

In computer terms I think that the best way to explain the complex maths that the brain does to do day to day things (like depth perpception) is that it is hard-wired into the brain, but there is no hard wired division because it isn't a brain function which evolution favoured during our development. As a result we have to do 'software' maths to do division, our minds partly act as emulators to do things like maths using other functions, like memory and logic, which are hard-wired, resulting in a slower performance. It's like using software rendering to run Quake II because you don't have a 3D accelerator card, the brain doesn't have any simple maths acceleration built in to it.

Zevensoft

24th September 2002 09:12 UTC

I'd say it's more like having hardware acceleration built-in, but not knowing how to access it, and resorting to software methods.

Spetz Naz

24th September 2002 22:34 UTC

Hehe, taking a step further! :)

Originally posted by Atero

New DM: T goes to a constant of about 0.8, a better line would be something like this (this is just random-ness):
frame:
t1=t1+0.06;
t=1.1*sin(t1);
t2=t*cos(pow(t1,P=1.2));
beat:
t1=t1-1;
pixel:
d=(asin(1.05*d)-sigmoid(t2,t))/2;

Atero, I took the liberty to take a closer look on parts of the iterative function above. The variable t2 doesn't just oscilates. Because of the power term P="1.2" not being equal to "1" it has changing (over time) spectral signature. It is slightly noticible for values of "1.2", but higher values will change the spectral signature more rapidly. Try the matlab code below (if you have matlab, hehe):
--------------------------------------------------------
clear all;
t=0; t1=0; t2=0; i=1; P=1.6

t=t+0.06;
t1=1.1*sin(t);
t2=t1*cos(t^P);
while (i < 16384),

t(i+1)=t(i)+0.06;
t1(i+1)=1.1*sin(t(i));
t2(i+1)=t1(i)*cos(t(i)^P);

i=i+1; %simulating beat, mod(i,40) approximates 60 bmp
if mod(i,40)==0
t=t-1;
end

end

figure; plot(t);
figure; plot(t1);
figure; plot(t2);

f1=fft(t2(1: (end/2)));
figure; plot(abs(f1(1:end)));

f2=fft(t2(end/2:end));
figure; plot(abs(f2(1:end)));

f3=fft(t2);
figure; plot(abs(f3));

sound(t2);
----------------------------------------------

Try to set P to 1, 1.2, ..., 1.6, ..., 2.0. You can even listen to t2, if you don't want to do the fft-transform. Keep the loop spining 2^n (2^13 = 8192) times, then the fft runs faster, but you probably know that.
When P is 1, you have 1 harmonic in the t2, when t is increased t2 stops having a constant harmonic but becomes spectraly non-constant, t2 gets different spectral signatures depending when in time the spectra is estimated, just listen to t2 :)

Originally posted by Atero
...Was that too much for everybody? :p

My question is: ...Was THAT too much for everybody? :p

/Spetz

dirkdeftly

25th September 2002 00:35 UTC

Yes, especially since I don't have matlab. Besides, note the comment 'just random blah-ness,' meaning it was random coding (much like what you see in 'i don't know what i'm doing but i guess if i look confusing i can look cool' presets ;) )


Still no one comments on how uber-1337 my spiral is :p

Karnov

25th September 2002 01:18 UTC

your spiral is uber-elite.
congratulations.

:blah:

dirkdeftly

25th September 2002 02:49 UTC

thank you karnov :D

but no one can use it cos it's going in teh 4ward flo

Spetz Naz

25th September 2002 15:19 UTC

Originally posted by Atero Still no one comments on how uber-1337 my spiral is :p

Atero,

your spiral is uber!!!

[i]
Yes, especially since I don't have matlab.
[/B]

Why haven't you pulled the plug yet? Life is nothing with out matlab, pitty it (MATLAB 5.1) crashes on my XP-mashine all the time. (Any one: can I fix that in some way, or do I need newer MATLAB?)

[i]Besides, note the comment 'just random blah-ness,' meaning it was random coding (much like what you see in 'i don't know what i'm doing but i guess if i look confusing i can look cool' presets ;) )[/B]

LOL, there are lot of dudes out there having those lines above as their principal design mantra when making new presets... Our presets may be ugly, at least (we think) we know what we are doing :)

/Spetz

Karnov

25th September 2002 21:46 UTC

i TOTALLY concur w/ spetz

its such a rush to see what you wanted to happen happinging

even if the presets look stupid.


:P

dirkdeftly

27th September 2002 03:47 UTC

You don't need newer matlab, you need older windows :hang:

Spetz Naz

27th September 2002 08:52 UTC

chain reaction...
Older windows = WIN98 ---> WIN98 = constant crashes ---> constant crashes = unworkable system ---> unworkable system = no fun using the PC :cry:

dirkdeftly

27th September 2002 15:09 UTC

Win98 is more stable than XP, and much more useable, unless you're a goddamn techie that needs everything to be the newest no matter how much better the old versions are *cough* WA3 *cough*

jheriko

27th September 2002 15:36 UTC

Windows 2000 is far and away the most stable windows version ever. I've had zero crashes since using windows 2000, no more illegal operations and fatal errors. The worst that happens is that the software crashes, my screen goes blank and deals with it for a second or two then Win2K resumes its normal operation with all of my other apps none the wiser.

Win2K rocks my world.

Spetz Naz

27th September 2002 20:22 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
Windows 2000, win98, XP

Hi,

win98 is a joke... Sorry... refuses to shutdown, hangs, acts strange etc. Win2K is good but I had problems running couple of games I have (gta3-total crashes pc, nhl2002-graphical issues, etc) so I switched to XP, everything works now (except that winamp crushes sometimes when I run avs, MATLAB crashes and some flash heavy sites on the net crash on me too.) :) However I have found XP coolest so I stick with it.

/S

skupers

27th September 2002 20:54 UTC

Originally posted by jheriko
When I see the words 'Awesome AVS' I expect my eyes to start bleeding upon watching it, this didn't happen. I felt gutted, robbed, dissapointed and denied.

The preset is alright but a spiral isn't technically impressing and you should use a perspective projection for your 3d code, it makes it look more far more 3 dimensional. Something like:

x=x1/(1+z1*0.5);
x=y1/(1+z1*0.5);

If you want to see some really awesome avs (and rip them apart to learn, but don't steal code) here are some eye-bleeders, and there are plenty more out there too.

http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/603764
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/722676
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/386803
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/330228
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/545801
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/460418
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/674054
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/720677
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/660561
http://www.deviantart.com/deviation/680790

Nice selection, UnConeD, Duo, EL-VIS, AVS-King, Danjoe, You and me! :D Thanks for including my pack.

jheriko

27th September 2002 21:59 UTC

I had to include you skupers, a lot of your presets are really cool. You have a much better grasp of dynamic movement than a lot of other artists have. (Personally I hate DM cos I haven't mastered it to a similar degree as my favorite artists yet)

dirkdeftly

28th September 2002 05:41 UTC

Well then it was your comp, not the OS. You weren't by any chance using a Compaq? ;)

jheriko

28th September 2002 11:13 UTC

Originally posted by Spetz Naz

gta3-total crashes pc

[rant]

GTA3 is a joke. If I was making a computer game and it got into the same state as that, I wouldn't release it. Anyone who makes a game which doesn't use OpenGL or at least D3D for its graphics is asking for trouble, thats why GTA3 runs like a pile of dog crap.

Why do game deveolpers insist on releasing games before they are finished and optimised, and why do they do things the hard way if it is only *guaranteed* to make their game much worse?

GTA rocked my world. GTA2 has crap graphics but was fun. GTA3 was a cool idea but was made far too late and it was far to unfinished and unprofessionally made.

[/rant]

Spetz Naz

28th September 2002 11:16 UTC

Originally posted by Atero
Well then it was your comp, not the OS. You weren't by any chance using a Compaq? ;)

No, I never buy branded computers from compaq, HP, siemens, fujutsu, IMB etc. Poor expansion possibilities, less value, non-standard solutions, etc. They are allt b.s. products. I have built my own pc, and it is stable with hours of 3d-gaming with out the slightest error or crash. I have a p4-1.8Ghz (1800/100/400), but I am running it OCed @ 2400/133(memory @ 178)/533. :)

/S

jheriko

28th September 2002 11:21 UTC

Intel build their processors to safely run at 137% of the stated clock speed. You could still clock it up by another 66MHz :D

dirkdeftly

28th September 2002 16:54 UTC

Well that could also be your problem: you fucked up with the installation. In any case it's an isolated problem, 98 doesn't do that if it's properly run, XP still sux, as well as anything other than 98/2k. Of course, MacOS is the BEST, but I'm not going to go into that ;)

Warrior of the Light

30th September 2002 08:47 UTC

why not run Linux?

It's far more reliable than windows...

Jaheckelsafar

30th September 2002 13:52 UTC

Meh. Liunx is not a desktop operating system. To finicky if you want to do anything. I, personally, don't wan't to have to manually recompile my kernal everytime I make a change to my system.

Zevensoft

30th September 2002 13:57 UTC

Bah, use Commodore Basic 2.5

load "winamp3.exe",8,1
loading winamp3.exe

ready
run

syntax error in 10

:D :D :D

jheriko

30th September 2002 15:36 UTC

Originally posted by ;-c ,rattaplan
why not run Linux?

It's far more reliable than windows...

I tried installing red hat on three different *REALLY* standard boxes and xwindows worked on none of them under linux. it was the cd that came with 'red hat linux for dummies' and i definately am not a computer dummy, i've built three boxes and made countless utilities and programs and I've never had a problem with windows or unix that I couldn't handle. The only people I know that have got linux running are three really lucky dimwits and a man with a PhD in computer science who spent three entire days forcing it to work.

Now tell me that Linux is more reliable than windows.

Besides Win2K is as stable as a rock. I've been running a win2k adv server for over a year now, i've only had to reformat once and it was for a virus.

Jaheckelsafar

30th September 2002 16:37 UTC

Originally posted by Zevensoft
Bah, use Commodore Basic 2.5

load "winamp3.exe",8,1
loading winamp3.exe

ready
run

syntax error in 10

:blah: LOL :blah:

UnConeD

1st October 2002 14:15 UTC

Actually these days you don't need to be rocket scientist to install Linux. And you don't need to recompile your kernel every time you make a modification, because most things are compiled as a module.

Though the Linux community has a lot to learn about user interfaces. I remember reading about a 'graphical kernel configuration utility' which was simply the same as the command line one except it displayed things in a tree view. But you still couldn't use your mouse to click it. Then wtf is the point of a graphical interface??? :)

3dino

1st January 2003 13:39 UTC

I play around with jherikos rmx.avs and ad some movements but I cant explain the water like effect. Watch this:

zborgerd

1st January 2003 16:09 UTC

Originally posted by Jaheckelsafar
Meh. Liunx is not a desktop operating system. To finicky if you want to do anything. I, personally, don't wan't to have to manually recompile my kernal everytime I make a change to my system.

Suit yourself. I think that it is a wonderful desktop OS.

But really, it sounds like you just don't know what you are talking about... You NEVER (NEVER EVER!) have to recompile your kernel. Quit spreading false rumors. YOu have to recompile your kernel about as much as you need to compile your NT kernel. Nada... Ziltch.

Been using Linux for years, and never have had to do it. Only bored people with a lot of time on their hands need to compile their Linux kernel- or those that have absolutely weird requirements.

dirkdeftly

2nd January 2003 07:33 UTC

you'll note that this thread is over 60 replies long and the last post was two months ago...

read: this thread is dead and has been for a long time.