Login [Register]
Don't have an account? Register now to chat, post, use our tools, and much more.
http://vimeo.com/36768371

This video is awesome. I'm also pretty sure that it was done with L3P and POV, which means that you should be able to do something similar yourself.
That is cool elfprince. really awsome. Very Happy
Jaw -> floor. That is rather impressive and I believe 100% that it easily took 3 years to do.

I personally own the smaller version of that model, which is much much more fragile but seems to have a bit more internal detail. Its a pain to move without it breaking into like 5 pieces though. Sad
elfprince13 wrote:
http://vimeo.com/36768371

This video is awesome. I'm also pretty sure that it was done with L3P and POV, which means that you should be able to do something similar yourself.


Quote:
Created using 3ds max and V-ray.


He modeled every piece used. That also means though that because we have LDraw we could completely bypass that step and shave 2 years off of an undertaking like this.
DShiznit wrote:
elfprince13 wrote:
http://vimeo.com/36768371

This video is awesome. I'm also pretty sure that it was done with L3P and POV, which means that you should be able to do something similar yourself.


Quote:
Created using 3ds max and V-ray.


He modeled every piece used. That also means though that because we have LDraw we could completely bypass that step and shave 2 years off of an undertaking like this.


Huh, I missed that in the credits somehow. No wonder it took so long. On top of the the modeling issue, the LDraw file format has built in support for building steps (to support generating an instruction manual). Of course, the rendering would be a bear in any setup.
Yeah the rendering would be a bear, but isn't that what SSE3 and Altivec are for. Wink Any modern machine of decent speeds and a few spare cores could handle it much faster than 3 years, and I'd bet at a higher quality to boot.
TheStorm wrote:
Yeah the rendering would be a bear, but isn't that what SSE3 and Altivec are for. Wink Any modern machine of decent speeds and a few spare cores could handle it much faster than 3 years, and I'd bet at a higher quality to boot.


Absolutely. And I'd love to throw a job like that at one of AMD's "Piledrivers" when they come out.
elfprince13 wrote:
TheStorm wrote:
Yeah the rendering would be a bear, but isn't that what SSE3 and Altivec are for. Wink Any modern machine of decent speeds and a few spare cores could handle it much faster than 3 years, and I'd bet at a higher quality to boot.


Absolutely. And I'd love to throw a job like that at one of AMD's "Piledrivers" when they come out.
Not to derail this thread but iirc doesn't AMD's "hyperthreading" equivalent use one integer pipeline per thread and then share a FPU between them? If that is correct then wouldn't it not be much of an improvement over a single thread per core for this sort of workload? Not to mention that the clock for clock efficiency of the BullDozer procs was poor even compared to their existing offerings, let alone Intel, according to what I was seeing. :/

Note: That said anything is better than the Atom and its lack of Out-of-order execution. What were they thinking, thats been standard since the Pentium days.
TheStorm wrote:
Note: That said anything is better than the Atom and its lack of Out-of-order execution. What were they thinking, thats been standard since the Pentium days.


I don't know how important that is for most tasks, but I do know that processor was never meant to be used for any kind of serious work. It's a netbook/tablet processor for which the entire purpose is getting the user on the internet so they can they can look at ponies or whatever.
DShiznit wrote:
I don't know how important that is for most tasks, but I do know that processor was never meant to be used for any kind of serious work. It's a netbook/tablet processor for which the entire purpose is getting the user on the internet so they can they can look at ponies or whatever.

Out-of-order execution is important for pretty much ALL tasks.

TheStorm wrote:
Not to derail this thread but iirc doesn't AMD's "hyperthreading" equivalent use one integer pipeline per thread and then share a FPU between them? If that is correct then wouldn't it not be much of an improvement over a single thread per core for this sort of workload? Not to mention that the clock for clock efficiency of the BullDozer procs was poor even compared to their existing offerings, let alone Intel, according to what I was seeing. :/


I dunno, but the resonant clock mesh technology they've invested in for Piledriver seems to be unique in the x86 world, and the massive power savings are allowing them to push the clockspeed up past 4GHz, which we haven't seen in a long long time, while still being multicore.


Anyway, back to Legos.
elfprince13 wrote:
DShiznit wrote:
I don't know how important that is for most tasks, but I do know that processor was never meant to be used for any kind of serious work. It's a netbook/tablet processor for which the entire purpose is getting the user on the internet so they can they can look at ponies or whatever.

Out-of-order execution is important for pretty much ALL tasks.

TheStorm wrote:
Not to derail this thread but iirc doesn't AMD's "hyperthreading" equivalent use one integer pipeline per thread and then share a FPU between them? If that is correct then wouldn't it not be much of an improvement over a single thread per core for this sort of workload? Not to mention that the clock for clock efficiency of the BullDozer procs was poor even compared to their existing offerings, let alone Intel, according to what I was seeing. :/


I dunno, but the resonant clock mesh technology they've invested in for Piledriver seems to be unique in the x86 world, and the massive power savings are allowing them to push the clockspeed up past 4GHz, which we haven't seen in a long long time, while still being multicore.
Well in the x86 world yes, IBM has been doing it for years in their POWER rigs, but that is because IBM is awesome.

Quote:

Anyway, back to Legos.
Woo Legos!
If I could fly that ship in-game without slowing my FPS into decimals I would straight up drop a log.
DShiznit wrote:
If I could fly that ship in-game without slowing my FPS into decimals I would straight up drop a log.


That's a large part of my vision for the game Very Happy
  
Register to Join the Conversation
Have your own thoughts to add to this or any other topic? Want to ask a question, offer a suggestion, share your own programs and projects, upload a file to the file archives, get help with calculator and computer programming, or simply chat with like-minded coders and tech and calculator enthusiasts via the site-wide AJAX SAX widget? Registration for a free Cemetech account only takes a minute.

» Go to Registration page
Page 1 of 1
» All times are GMT - 5 Hours
 
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 

Advertisement