[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: chick flick?
- To: email@example.com
- Subject: Re: chick flick?
- From: Morbus Iff
- Date: Thu, 4 Mar 1999 09:51:51 -0500
- In-Reply-To: <002701be6501$83088960$04000005@zeus>
- Reply-To: idrama (at sign removed to prevent spamming) flutterby (dot) com
- Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org
>First off, I can confirm that Dan is indeed a graphics weenie's weenie and
>would also agree that the current generation of graphics cards are enough to
>push the polys needed to convey emotion. The soon to be available cards will
>be pushing around 15 million polys a second (translation A BIG boat load)
>and will just improve the fidelity and numbers of objects that can viewed.
>Soon Lighting and transforms will be done by hardware on the video cards and
>then we can start working with more complex scenes.
Are we more concerned with telling a story, or showing emotion? That's
probably a totally incorrect expression - I know that I love playing in
worlds, and so forth, but due to my crappy ass computer, I can't. The
graphics discussion pretty much euthanasia's me from any sort of enjoyment
into your world.
>My apologies for the emoticons. I am sure my friends will club me like a
>baby seal now.
------- <http://www.disobey.com/> ----------- ICQ: 2927491 ----
We have QuadrapalegicMorbus - able to lay still
o-/----' on tall servers for days at a time, slower than
Christopher Reeve at a full roll, smells stronger
than 128 poobits. Defender of Bedsores, Boredom,
Bedpans of Shat.... Devil Shat that is....
-04------------<\/>--------------- Bad Ascii, Short Notice ----