#exult@irc.freenode.net logs for 19 Oct 2003 (GMT)

Archive Today Yesterday Tomorrow
Exult homepage


[00:01:38] --> Kirben has joined #exult
[00:01:38] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to Kirben
[00:19:01] <-- Fingolfin has left IRC ("42")
[01:08:26] --> Coren_ has joined #exult
[01:11:56] --> Xenic` has joined #exult
[02:22:45] --> Matt_O has joined #exult
[03:40:08] <-- Xenic` has left IRC (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[03:51:13] <-- Matt_O has left IRC (Read error: 104 (Connection reset by peer))
[04:25:04] --> Matt_O has joined #exult
[06:51:07] --> bsdaniel` has joined #exult
[07:07:11] --> Xenic` has joined #exult
[07:27:02] <-- Xenic` has left IRC ()
[08:14:27] --> `daniel has joined #exult
[08:16:28] <-- bsdaniel` has left IRC (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
[08:36:59] <-- `daniel has left IRC ("Leaving")
[10:28:34] --> armav has joined #exult
[11:46:18] <-- armav has left IRC ("Client Exiting")
[12:59:06] <-- Kirben has left IRC ("System Meltdown")
[15:41:53] --> Colourless has joined #Exult
[15:41:53] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to Colourless
[15:42:17] <Colourless> hi
[15:49:04] <Coren_> Hey there, O Monochromatic One.
[15:49:39] <Colourless> s/Monochromatic/Nonchromatic/
[15:50:02] <Coren_> That, by definition, is impossible. :-)
[15:50:42] <Colourless> and that is the only thing about Colourless Dragon that is impossible?
[15:51:14] <Coren_> A dragon is /possible/.
[15:51:33] <Colourless> that *I* am a dragon?
[15:51:56] <Coren_> Granted, that's rather unlikely. ;-)
[15:52:34] <Colourless> ok then, if that is possible, then why isn't Nonchromatic? Dragons of course are said to be magical beasts
[15:54:08] <Coren_> Because, given /any/ visibility whatsoever, there will be at least /one/ frequency. In other to have *no* color you'd either need to be entirely invisible.
[15:54:20] <Coren_> s/either //
[15:54:58] <Coren_> I typed either because I was going to add 'have no reflectance' but even then you'd have blackbody radiation. :-)
[15:55:21] <Colourless> uh huh. I couldn't care less about things outside of the visible light spectrum
[15:55:32] <Coren_> And if you *are* entirely invisible, you still have a color, we just aren't priviledged enough to see it. :-)
[15:56:39] <Coren_> Heh. Sorry, but 200nm is just as much a color as 540nm, wether our lousy perceptive organs can detect it or not. :_)
[15:57:07] <Colourless> bah. away with you
[15:57:30] * Coren_ chuckles.
[15:57:38] <Colourless> colour only applies to the visible light frequencies that as you state our lousy perceptive organs can see
[15:57:52] <Colourless> that is all that concerns Colourless Dragon in regards to Colourlessness
[15:58:47] <Colourless> any ultraviolet or infrared light is not visible, therefore has no visible colour, therefore is colourless
[15:59:07] * Coren_ shows Colourless to a good Xyllk' friend of his that sees very well into longer wavelengths. He says "He's bluugish-dronk with mook spots."
[16:00:37] <Colourless> you think i care about such things?
[16:00:50] <Coren_> I'm sure, you don't, "Spotty".
[16:01:38] <Coren_> Erm. It's been a while since I've been that silly. :-)
[16:01:43] <Colourless> probably residual traces from one of the many 'paint' incidents involving that naughty bunny known as Darke
[16:02:58] <Coren_> Yeah, I've noticed sometimes the #exult logs look like they were lifted off FurryMuck. :-)
[16:04:12] <Colourless> you slander our good channel by comparing us to something Furry related
[16:05:41] <Coren_> No slander intented, certainly. Bemusement at most. Furries are sorta odd at times, but basically nice people.
[16:06:49] <Colourless> :-)
[16:07:27] * Coren_ goes to see if, after all these years, his patches are still in the fb TinyMuch codebase. Or if that source can still be found in the first place.
[16:10:56] <Coren_> LOL! Furrymuck itself still exists!
[16:15:39] <Colourless> Oh wow. This is funny. Got this in an email i sent to myself:
[16:15:39] <Colourless> X-SpamDetect: ***: 3.428000 Forged mail pretending to be from Eudora
[16:15:49] <Colourless> odd thing... I actually do use eudora :-)
[16:16:16] * Coren_ chuckles.
[16:16:34] <Coren_> Apparently, you're only pretending to. :-)
[16:16:47] <Colourless> so it seems :-)
[16:18:32] <Coren_> Heh. Neato. My code is still in there after, oh, 15 years or so.
[16:53:32] --> wjp has joined #exult
[16:53:32] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to wjp
[16:54:58] <wjp> hi
[16:55:21] <Colourless> hi
[16:55:44] <wjp> so... tag and release tonight? :-)
[16:55:58] <wjp> (i.e., in a few hours or so)
[16:59:19] <Colourless> yeah
[17:31:22] <Matt_O> release!
[17:52:40] <Coren_> Hm. Is it unreasonable to expect that users nowadays have at least 64M of elbow room in ram?
[17:54:22] <Colourless> nope.
[17:54:52] <Coren_> I found a way to make my lights *much* faster at the cost of a great deal of ram.
[17:55:02] <Colourless> we don't even know how much memory exult wants, but i've seen it even use up to 80 mb :-)
[17:55:10] * Coren_ chuckles.
[17:55:12] <Colourless> how so?
[17:55:56] <Coren_> Oh, by caching lightmaps for every light/surface pair as well as the combined result. Given that most lights do not move, it's a big gain when one does.
[17:56:59] <Colourless> do you know which do and don't move?
[17:57:16] <Coren_> You meat which can and cannot move?
[17:57:23] <Coren_> s/meat/mean/
[17:57:25] <Colourless> yes
[17:58:03] <Coren_> Yes, for the most part. But I already precalculate static lights once. Most /can/ move even if they rarely do, which was my problem.
[17:58:15] <Colourless> ah
[17:58:32] <Colourless> there are 'tricks' that you can use
[17:59:02] <Coren_> At any rate, I just calculated that caching per light/surface lightmaps for the biggest world should be a bit under 32M.
[17:59:47] <Colourless> if you only ever do single texturing, you could just use separate lightmaps for each light, then apply each light to the framebuffer using an additive blend. Then finally, you would draw the decal texture using a multiplicative blend
[18:00:19] <Coren_> I've considered that, but tha requires a fairly beefy fill rate, which is the weak point of most video cards.
[18:00:33] <Colourless> well, actually not really
[18:01:22] <Colourless> generally there wouldn't be too many lights effecting a single triangle at any given time
[18:01:24] <Coren_> Well, it results in every fragment being manipulated 1+n times for n lights.
[18:01:46] <Coren_> Ah, true...
[18:01:46] <Colourless> then you can use multitexturing to blend multiple lightmaps per pass
[18:02:16] <Coren_> I guess it's worth a try, certainly.
[18:02:51] <Coren_> It'd be perfect if I could /rely/ on EXT_FRAGMENT_PROGRAM being avaliable, because then I could get rid of lightmaps entirely.
[18:03:24] <Colourless> ideal world :-)
[18:04:01] <Coren_> Actually, I'd be curious to see how many of today's 3d card don't support it.
[18:04:33] <Colourless> well.... lets see. Only Radeon 9500 and above, and GeForce FX 5200 and above
[18:04:59] <Coren_> Really? I tought all the Ti's supported it.
[18:05:04] <Colourless> no
[18:05:48] <Colourless> they have something like NV_fragment_program
[18:06:35] * Coren_ still deams of being able to glEnable(GL_FRAGMENT_LIGHTING); :-)
[18:06:50] <Colourless> which is equiv to Direct3D Pixel Shader 1.1
[18:07:13] <Coren_> No, I was hoping for something that actually works correctly. :-)
[18:08:09] <Colourless> i don't think there ever will be a GL_FRAGMENT_LIGHTING state
[18:08:34] <Coren_> One of the philosophies I like about GL is that things are implemented 'correctly or not at all'. Weheras DirectX uses 'fake it now and change how it works next version'.
[18:08:45] <Colourless> with ARB_fragment_program it's simple enough to write it yourself
[18:08:57] <Coren_> I know, that's why GL_FRAGMENT_LIGHTING is a pipe dream. I *couldn't* work right in the general case. :-)
[18:09:55] <Colourless> but still, it would be 'nice'.
[18:10:07] <Colourless> especially if you could force older programs to run with it
[18:10:28] <Colourless> even if just to do phong shading
[18:10:47] <Coren_> Actually, I'd be happy with Phong even, for lights before texturing it's normally "close enough".
[18:10:52] <Coren_> LOL. GMTA.
[18:11:25] <Colourless> :-)
[18:12:23] <wjp> hmm.. now what was that tagging command again
[18:12:23] <Colourless> the default opengl lighting model is poor enough that phong is a huge improvment :-)
[18:13:04] <Coren_> Actually, I could still get rid of lightmaps if I had /some/ standard way of doing a dot product per vertex.
[18:13:16] <Coren_> Per fragment, that is.
[18:14:10] <Colourless> there is ARB_texture_env_dot3
[18:14:26] <Coren_> How well supported is it?
[18:14:50] <Coren_> I wish I could find a table of video card/GL extension.
[18:14:56] <Colourless> All GeForce and Radeon cards i would think
[18:15:43] <Colourless> and you'd probably want ARB_texture_cube_map too, which should be supported by all those too
[18:16:39] <Coren_> cube maps are fairly ancient. I think even old Voodoos deal with it.
[18:16:55] <Colourless> 'fraid not. Voodoos don't support them
[18:17:11] <Coren_> I'm almost positive my Voodoo3 did.
[18:17:28] <Colourless> well, you'd be mistaken
[18:17:49] <Coren_> I guess. Might have been implemented in software, though.
[18:18:08] <Colourless> software cubemaps are easy enough, but not entirely useful
[18:18:08] <wjp> Colourless: ok, I just tagged CVS
[18:18:13] <wjp> tag is 'Release1_1Beta3'
[18:18:24] <Coren_> Wjp: Wootness.
[18:18:28] <Colourless> ok
[18:19:19] <wjp> I already added a beta3 release to the SF file release system yesterday
[18:20:42] <Colourless> lets do this
[18:20:46] <Coren_> Well, I'm certainly going to /try/ it. The nice part about relying on the fill rate this way is that if I can put a fragment program rather than just the texturing I can do normal maps for "free".
[18:20:53] * Coren_ goes to it.
[18:20:57] <wjp> uploading source .tar.gz...
[18:23:35] <Colourless> ?time
[18:23:35] <exultbot> It is now Sun Oct 19 18:23:35 2003 (GMT).
[18:24:38] <wjp> ok, source done
[19:04:57] <wjp> Colourless: btw, an exult ML email which was CC-ed to you bounced yesterday
[19:05:23] <Colourless> bounced you say
[19:05:25] <wjp> ("message still undelivered after 4 hours")
[19:05:32] <Colourless> that might explain why i haven't been getting any mail :-)
[19:05:35] <wjp> so not really 'bounced' I guess
[19:06:13] <wjp> I got that bounce email 19 october 20:08:00, your time
[19:06:36] <Colourless> been having problem for about a day
[19:07:02] <Colourless> can you try sending an email to triforce at internode.net.au
[19:09:25] --> Dominus has joined #exult
[19:09:29] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to Dominus
[19:09:34] <wjp> of course
[19:09:36] <wjp> (done)
[19:09:39] <wjp> hi
[19:09:44] <Colourless> hi
[19:09:55] <Dominus> release? (rethoric question as I read the log)
[19:09:57] <Dominus> hi
[19:11:00] <Colourless> well, i haven't gotten your email so far
[19:44:12] <Dominus> I can not understand how companies are allowed to file patents for sth like cookie-technology (in this case MS got that patent)
[19:44:39] <Colourless> yeah well, someone patented the <embed> tag
[19:44:54] <Dominus> see, stupid
[19:45:37] <Colourless> the thing is, at the time when ms applied for the patent that would cover the cookie, it wouldn't have been an 'obvious' technology
[19:45:41] <Colourless> and that is all the problem
[19:45:56] <Colourless> in hind sight all this stuff is 'obvious' because we just know it
[19:46:27] <Colourless> so we go, what, that's stupid and so on
[19:46:35] <Colourless> that said, i don't agree with most patents
[19:47:01] <Dominus> that's true, but it's still not something that should be patented
[19:47:20] <Colourless> win32 release is uploaded btw
[19:47:34] <Dominus> great!
[19:47:59] <Colourless> i really disagree with software patents
[19:48:54] <Dominus> yup
[19:49:31] <Colourless> problem wiht software patents, most programmers tend to think alike, so it is very possible that multiple programmers will independantly come up with the same solution to a problem
[19:49:51] <Dominus> how is .au standing on the software patent issue?
[19:49:54] <Colourless> s/programmers/software engineers/
[19:50:22] <Colourless> honestly, i don't know about how things are in .au
[19:50:36] <Colourless> patentt system here though is pretty screwy though too
[19:51:48] <Colourless> mostly screwy inregards to biotech
[19:52:22] <Colourless> gene patent.... this is worse IMO than i.t. patents
[19:52:32] <Dominus> biotech is just a complicated area
[19:52:55] <Dominus> all that moral and ethical issues just make it hard to be unpartial
[19:53:29] <Dominus> I couldn't be judge of anything concerning this
[19:53:50] <Dominus> and not just because of my poor inside knowledge
[19:54:00] <Colourless> an australian company managed to come up with a patent that covers most if not all types of genetic screening
[19:54:27] <Dominus> Gattaca (or how that movie was called)
[19:54:48] <Dominus> genetic screening is just poor evil if you think it through
[19:55:07] <Colourless> genetic screening has many good uses though
[19:55:14] <wjp> I have a rather bad headache, so I'm going to bed early (i.e., now)
[19:55:23] <wjp> if you see Fingolfin, could you ask him to build a osx package?
[19:55:25] <Colourless> cya wjp
[19:55:31] <Dominus> see you and get well
[19:55:37] <wjp> I'll write up a little news blurb for the homepage tomorrow morning
[19:55:38] <Dominus> will do so
[19:55:48] <wjp> night
[19:55:57] <-- wjp has left IRC ("Zzzz...")
[19:56:35] <Colourless> of course the genetic screening patent being approved ends up being the fault of scientists world wide in the early 90s
[19:56:35] <Dominus> gen screening sure has its good side but the potential for misuse and abuse is just veeeeeeeeeeeeeeery high
[19:57:41] <Colourless> gen screening is actually used quite a bit to test for various types of cancer
[19:58:25] <Dominus> I won't dispute the good sides of it
[19:58:31] <Colourless> of course this company has decided that these procedures that are actually very cheap to perform, and of course patent violations and they are charging an excessive amount of monney to do it
[19:58:51] <Dominus> he he
[19:58:54] <Dominus> of course
[20:01:02] <Colourless> anyway the scientists in the early 90s pretty much dismissed an idea about a certain part of the DNA being useful for anything. This are is known as the non coding region. It's use was, and still is largely unknown. Of course because the use was unknown the scientists, being narrow minded said there is no use
[20:01:06] <Colourless> and wouldn't give it a second thought
[20:01:47] <Dominus> :-)
[20:02:02] <Colourless> one scientists though was thinking other wise. He got funding from this company to do research on his own. For the company it was a gamble. The investment was actually fairly small
[20:02:27] <Colourless> the conventional wisdom at the time said this guy was a crackpot, but turns out he wasn't
[20:02:55] <Dominus> not too uncomon
[20:03:31] <Colourless> he ended up patenting the use of entire non coding region of the DNA in all species IIRC, which then got owned by the investing company
[20:04:08] <Colourless> this all happened in the early 90's before anyone else thought that these non coding regions would be a vital part of genetic screening
[20:04:20] <Colourless> or even had a clue they would be
[20:04:29] <Dominus> that sounds rather interesting (patenting the use of DNA-non-coding-regions)
[20:04:55] <Dominus> makes you dount patent-law
[20:05:00] <Dominus> doubt
[20:06:07] <Colourless> end result is that the company didn't realize they had this wide ranging patent and various techniques were developed to detect the suspectibility of various cancers, and the procedures were offered to the public for virtually nothing. Now, this company has it's patent and is enforcing it making the proceedures expensive
[20:06:36] <Dominus> sounds very wrong!
[20:07:10] <Dominus> hmm, reminds me a bit of SCO (though in a whole different way)
[20:08:37] <Colourless> wrong yes, how wrong though, it's sort of hard to say. It's a bit of a grey area. According to patent law it's acceptable. But the ethics behind it are very questionable
[20:09:06] <Colourless> Ethics and Biotech (companies) though really don't seem to fit together very well, which is a worring thing
[20:09:13] <Dominus> yeah wrong in the moral/ethical view. Law is something different
[20:10:33] <Dominus> In school my ethic teacher liked nothing more to than to start flaming discussions about ethics and biotech
[20:10:55] <Dominus> just to show us how hard it is to draw the line
[20:12:58] <Colourless> anyway, i think i'll be off now
[20:13:19] <Colourless> cya
[20:13:38] <Dominus> ok, see you
[20:13:47] <-- Colourless has left IRC ("casts invisibility")
[20:28:10] <Coren_> The problem isn't patents. It's this stupid idea that "intellectual property" can be assigned or transfered.
[20:29:13] <Dominus> :-)
[20:29:51] <Coren_> I'm serious. Look at all the patent problems, or copyright woes. In 100% of the cases, the "owner" of the disputed IP isn't its creator.
[20:30:31] <Dominus> I know you weren't joking and yes that is true
[20:32:10] <Coren_> Besides, the only putative *reason* why you have patents and copyrights and such is as an incentive for creation of new stuff, by giving the creator a reward (legal monopoly) for a time. How does giving money to someone who bought some neat invention from an inventor encourage new inventions?
[20:33:13] <Coren_> Nevermind that I have never seen any true creator of value do something because of the "reward" of patent or copyright.
[20:33:57] <Dominus> yup
[21:08:02] --> Fingolfin has joined #exult
[21:08:02] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to Fingolfin
[21:09:56] <Dominus> hi Fingolfin
[21:10:21] <Dominus> I have the task to ask you for an OSX release of beta3
[21:15:08] <Fingolfin> oh yeah
[21:15:09] <Fingolfin> ugh
[21:15:14] <Fingolfin> I just came home
[21:15:17] <Fingolfin> I have to get up in a couple hours
[21:15:18] <Fingolfin> <sigh>
[21:15:43] <Dominus> well it's not *that* urgent
[21:16:24] <Fingolfin> branch/tag is Release1_1Beta3 ?
[21:17:07] <Dominus> yes, according to wjp
[21:17:15] <Fingolfin> yuo just checked via cvs log
[22:04:00] <-- Fingolfin has left IRC ("42")
[22:46:04] <-- Dominus has left IRC ("a pooka invited me to Charlie's")
[23:53:09] --> Kirben has joined #exult
[23:53:09] --- ChanServ gives channel operator status to Kirben