Brrreeeport

By Shamus Posted Saturday Feb 18, 2006

Filed under: Nerd Culture 0 comments

About 5 days ago blogger Robert Scoble started an experiment by asking his readers to use the totally unknown and meaningless term “Brrreeeport ” in their blog posts. Since then mostly small bloggers have been concocting Brrreeeport posts. Even though the cause has been taken up by small-time sites, the sheer number of bloggers involved has raised the Technocrati rankings to the point where Brrreeeport is ranked above things like the “Mohammed Cartoon” and “Cheney” as a hot news topic.

In keeping with the spirit of the thing, here are a few of the hundreds of sites that have done a Brrreeeport post.

Interesting that no big-time bloggers have joined in. If, say, Glenn Reynolds did one, he would most likely top the list of people talking about Brrreeeport. But when I look at the list, it’s all small-time blogs. Very interesting.

 


 

Terrain, Part 9

By Shamus Posted Friday Feb 17, 2006

Filed under: Programming 7 comments

Diminishing texture sizes

Right now my program makes 64 different textures for the terrain, each of which fits over a particular zone. Right now all the textures are the same size, which is 256×256. This takes about 16MB of video memory. Not bad, but certainly not ideal. This means every zone, no matter how close or how far, has the same sized texture. Check it out:


In this set of textures, each one is 256×256 pixels. The entire set takes about 2 seconds to build and takes up 16MB of memory.

If you remember from previous updates, I need to rebuild all of the textures if I move the sun. (If I don’t, the terrain would look exactly the same, which would defeat the purpose of moving the sun. It needs to re-make the textures with the new shading and shadowing.) But right now it takes 2 full seconds to rebuild the textures. I have to “steal” that two seconds a few milliseconds at a time, unless I want the user to endure a long pause every time the shadows need to move.

But, we don’t need every dang texture to be 256×256. In fact, only the ones nearby do. Let’s make the texture size variable, so that the ones nearby have lots of detail and the ones far away have much less:


In this set of textures, the closest ones are 256×256 pixels, and the ones in the distance are 8×8. The entire set takes about 0.7 seconds to build, and uses just over 2MB of video memory.

I think I’m actually being too agressive here. The ones at the top that you can’t read are 16×16 and 8×8. They look pretty crappy, and I think 32×32 should be the minimum. Anyway, I need to calibrate this a bit, but it’s clear this is the way to go. I’m using a fraction of the memory I was before and the texture rebuild happens about three times faster.

However, this introduces a new problem. (Doesn’t it always?) Let’s assume this engine is being used in some sort of Sim City or RTS setting. The user may want to zip from their current location over to the other side of the map. When they get there, the area right in front of them will look like this:


Ugh. Not so nice.

So, while before I was worried about keeping shadows moving smoothly, now I have to keep these texture updates coming so the above doesn’t happen. If the user hurries accross the terrain, I think it would be a good idea to dedicate more time to the texture rebuild, so that I can come up with a new set of textures with the detail in the right place. This would mean that moving very fast from one side of the terrain to the other would lead to the framerate dropping and things getting choppy for a second until the texture rebuild gets caught up. This is acceptable in my book, as long as the game doesn’t require lots of fast hops around the terrain.

EDIT (July 6 2007): A much better idea, now that I’m thinking about this a year and a half later, for for each zone to hold onto several different resolutions. When I go to a new area of the map, it will build the higher res textures I need nearby, but it won’t throw away the high res ones I was looking at a second ago. It will just shuffle them out of use for a minute. If I come back, the textures go back into use. After a while, unused high-res textures are purged from memory. This means If I jump around between various “hotspots” the game won’t have to do a lot of texture rebuilding, and the game stays smooth.

 


 

Some Female Advice

By Shamus Posted Friday Feb 17, 2006

Filed under: Rants 6 comments

From Fox News comes this article on personal finance, about how one could better spend an annual $260 that would otherwise go to the lottery, comes a number of suggestions from Eva Rosenberg. This is just beyond satire:

Use the $260 for a one-night stay at a bed-and-breakfast inn with your spouse. Use the short getaway to have a long walk together and a long conversation over dinner and a bottle of wine about your financial plan for the future. Leave the inn with a budget in hand, and return each year to rewrite the plan.

First off, if people are playing the lottery, do you really think they are Bottle of Wine / Bed & Breakfast type people? But more to the point: Here is a woman who’s financial advice is to go out to eat, drink wine, and have a long conversation. This is not going to help women overcome common stereotypes anytime soon. I’m surprised she doesn’t follow up by suggesting you invest in shoes, fur coats and diamond rings. If a man were to suggest taking your spouse hunting and discussing investment plans while perched in the treestand with a case of beer, he would be regarded as a self-interested idiot. I don’t see why the same shouldn’t happen to Rosenberg.

As financial advice, this is preposterous. Note that the only “financial” aspect of this plan is to have a “long conversation”, which you could easly have for free in your own living room. A conversation that would, one expects, be easier to conduct with financial records at hand. Records that will not be around if you go to a Bed & Breakfast. As marital advice, it doesn’t seem very sensible either. If you’re having trouble getting your man to engage you in conversation under normal circumstances, does it make sense to ask him to take you out for a very expensive night and have a long converstion? About money?!?

The rest of the article is just as silly. And remember, at some point along the line, an editor approved this. Amazing.

UPDATE:


Eva Rosenberg has responded in the comments, and her response is quite temperate considering the abrasive nature of my original post. And, while she claims I’m almost right, I’m not sure how. The Bed and Breakfast suggestion came from a man, which sort of pokes holes in just about everything I had to say. In fact, that even makes the title of the post itself incorrect. *wince*

But how would I spend the $260? Well, I guess it depends on if you’re asking “How would you spend $260?”, or “How would you spend $260 responsibly?” Because, if you’re just asking what I’d do with $260, then honestly my top 10 list would just be a bunch of computer games and hardware. For my wife, it would no doubt be art supplies and antiques.

I doubt I’d have 10 different ideas of how to put the $260 to work. My top 10 list is only 3 items long:

  1. Put it in the bank (savings, not checking). Not the best idea. If I was really putting it away for a while, then I would be better off…
  2. Putting it into the mutual fund, which is doing very well. However, my most likely course of action would be to…
  3. Spend it on the house, probably by surfacing the driveway, getting some carpet put in, or some other general improvement. This lets me “invest” the money in the house by raising the resale value, but also lets me enjoy the money by getting to live in a nicer home.

But really: It isn’t very hard coming up with better ways to blow $260 than on the lottery. In fact, it would be better to take the $260, put it in a pile and set it on fire, and then use the fire to cook a toasted cheese sandwich. Sure, it’s a stupid waste of $260, but I managed to cook a tasty sandwich, which is still way more than what the lottery-players got for their $260.

And finally: Thanks to Eva Rosenberg for the polite correction to a not-so-polite post. We don’t get many National Columnists ’round here, and I would like to have made a better first impression.

 


 

Single-Player Gaming is Doomed!

By Shamus Posted Thursday Feb 16, 2006

Filed under: Video Games 30 comments

From the spamming shills at Gamespot, comes the article: Luminaries with ties to EA, Ubisoft, Sony, Microsoft converge to talk about the online future of the gaming industry. Here a bunch of industry heavyweights get together and bloviate about the future of games, while making it clear they don’t even understand the present. Earlier I already took them to task for making silly predictions of a disc-free future. Now I want to savage some of the idiotic things they have to say about multiplayer gaming. I mean rebut. Not savage. I don’t even know why I said that.

Anyway, let me just cherry-pick a few of the most senseless comments:


Doomed to obscurity: I’ll bet people never tried this game because it didn’t have multiplayer.

Lars Butler, former vice president of global online for Electronic Arts and current CEO of the upstart TWN, “Linear entertainment in single-player is to media what masturbation is to sex. It’ll always be there, but it is not the real experience.”

Very classy. And also total nonsense. Some poeple, even in this day of fancy board games and multiplayer ping-pong still choose to do the crossword. Playing against a human and playing against a system are totally different experiences, but each have their place and one is not superior to the other.

Raph Koster, chief creative officer of Sony Online Entertainment, “The players, once they go connected, they don’t go back. They find it difficult to go back to experiences where they can’t share experiences with others. Even any single-player game today is going to have wrapped around it the forums, the cheat sites, and so on endlessly.”

This is not true. I tried on-line gaming. I’ve played a few massively multiplayer games. I’ve played online deathmatch. I’ve played online RTS games. And I still prefer the single-player experience.

I like how he tries to include forums and cheat sites in as part of the multiplayer experience. I’m not buying that. I don’t care how you make your console system, nobody wants to surf the forums using a dual shock controller. When they go to the forums, they walk away from their Sony Playstation, sit down at the computer, and are clearly no longer playing your game. Trying to include the fun of fansites and forum chatter as part of the game itself is just silly. Pac-Man is a single-player game, and talking about Pac-Man with other people doesn’t transform it into a multiplayer game.

Koster again, “The entire video game industry’s history thus far has been an aberration. It has been a mutant monster only made possible by unconnected computers. People always play games together. All of you learned to play games with each other. When you were kids, you played tag, tea parties, cops and robbers, what have you. The single-player game is a strange mutant monster which has only existed for 21 years and is about to go away because it is unnatural and abnormal.”

These idiots are acting like they just invented online gaming. PC users have had online gaming for roughly a decade now, and single-player games like the The Sims and Roller Coaster Tycoon still top the charts.


Take the massive, record-breaking success of the bestselling series and money-making dynamo The Sims. Now add the magic of multiplayer to create The Sims Online, a mediocre also-ran that has yet to turn a profit.

All of this makes it clear that none of these guys have really sat down and done any actual multiplayer gaming. You know what multiplayer gaming is? It’s a 14-year old kid calling you a fag 100 times during the game because he thinks it’s funny. It’s cheaters. It’s people accusing YOU of cheating whenever they lose. It’s people disconnecting whenever they are about to lose. It’s lag and frustration over ping times. It’s people scamming and selling game items in EBay. It’s enduring a bunch of bad grammar, worse spelling, and inane chatter while looking for a suitable matchup in the lobby chatroom. It’s PK’s and teamkillers. It’s endless debate and ranting about game balance issues. It’s fat middle-aged men pretending to be 16-year-old elven girls. It’s hardcore gamers and casual gamers being thrown together and each group concluding the other is a bunch of freaks. It’s trying to learn a game by playing against people who have long since mastered it and who now derive enjoyment from taunting newbies. It’s not being able to play when the server or your net service goes down.

The multiplayer experience has a lot to offer games, but it won’t replace single-player gaming any more than the subway replaced cars. What is really going on here is that the console makers and console game publishers have seen how great multiplayer games are to their bottom line. This isn’t about “a better gaming experience”. This is about “not having to work so hard”. Connectivity in PC’s has led to the practice of releasing shoddy, bug-filled games and then patching them. This lets the developer ship a game before it’s done, which is critical to sales near the holidays or when facing a quickly flooding market. Publishers would also rather collect a monthly fee for games as opposed to a flat-rate. (Or better yet, both!) And finally, multiplayer gaming gives publishers the ultimate weapon against piracy, which is requiring users to identify themselves and create an account. It doesn’t matter if the user has mod chips or DVD burners, there is no way around the login screen.

I don’t have a problem with multiplayer. I’m all for it. What bugs me about this article is that a bunch of flacks were treated like objective visionaries. The industry is growing up, and people should know better by now.

 


 

Terrain, Part 8

By Shamus Posted Wednesday Feb 15, 2006

Filed under: Programming 3 comments

If you recall back in Part 6 I introduced shadowing, and then I did some tests on the terrain to see how it looks at various resolutions. I’ve noticed that most of the problem with the lower resolutions is not that the hills look undefined or blocky, but that the lighting looks bad. The light and dark side of hills get blurred, and shadows become big dark blobs.


Notice how the shadows are kind of vague blobs of darkness. I’ve turned down the the resolution on the terrain, and the result was that the shadows became undefined.

Continue reading ⟩⟩ “Terrain, Part 8”

 


 

The Price is Wrong, Bob

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Feb 14, 2006

Filed under: Pictures 2 comments

I was going through a bunch of old photoshops I’d done. Most are unfinished ideas of some sort. Many of them are dated sometime in 2003. While wading through these, I found this:

I assume this was going to be some sort of joke, but I don’t remember making it, much less what the idea was. It isn’t very funny like this. Still, it’s clearly something I did (I have it saved as a .psp in seperate layers, which wouldn’t be the case if I’d just found it someplace) and it was odd to find something I’d done, and of which I have no clear memory.

I wish I could remember the joke. I must be getting old.

 


 

Are Gamespot spammers?

By Shamus Posted Tuesday Feb 14, 2006

Filed under: Nerd Culture 0 comments

Digg has a writeup of how Gamespot has been progressively leaking private email addresses to random spammers. Gamespot has been completely non-responsive when contacted.

Based on the comments I’m seeing, it looks like old users are left alone, and new users are being harvested / sold.

I wrote about this last month and the problem remains. I should add that I’ve never used the forums. All I did was create an account so I could download a file.

read more | digg story