I'm happy to talk to anyone who wants to set up a game development site that is not ad driven since we have no costs, and i would love it to become more popular than the ad driven portal mentioned in the header, contact me
Posted on 2012-01-22 04:35:39 by Homer
these guys voted yes to sopa also, did i mention that?
Posted on 2012-01-22 04:37:06 by Homer
grrrr @ softcore for the masses, they look at each other and nod knowingly while their code burns a hole in their framerate, good for them :)
Posted on 2012-01-22 04:39:06 by Homer
I don't necessarily disagree with the paid membership scenario of a place as huge as GD. Someone has to pay for the bandwidth and maintenance of that place... a reality of the world we currently live in. Although I would lower the cost to about $1 a year and offer a reasonable lifetime membership, just enough to recoup costs, keep it ad-free, reinvest into the site and eliminate 99% of the spam issues related to fully open/free sites. However, I say that with respect to participation (e.g. posting to the forums) and perhaps premium content, but there should always be a generous amount of basic/free content (and openly readable forums) to get people going.

You might want to skip the critical mass, bandwidth cost and volunteer/manpower issue and use http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/, although it sounds like that place may have its own issues.

Which parts of GD are you trying to reinvent? Would a Wiki-like replacement suffice?

At any rate, let me leave you with this bit of wisdom I've gained from dealing with this place...


I don't know the key to success, but the key to failure is trying to please everybody. ~Bill Cosby
Posted on 2012-01-22 13:53:53 by SpooK
Heh, funny, the discussion of triangles vs other polygons:
http://gamedev.stackexchange.com/questions/9511/why-do-game-engines-convert-models-to-triangles-compared-to-keeping-it-as-four-s

For my recent oldskool stuff I had exactly the opposite argument: n-gons are more efficient to process and rasterize.
I guess that's oldskool vs newskool. Nobody in that thread seemed to be able to think of any reason why n-gons would be desirable... Nor did any of them mention the REAL reason why only triangles are used:
Modern hardware and APIs simply don't support anything else anymore. Direct3D never had a native quad primitive anyway (closest is a triangle fan with 2 triangles, but you wouldn't want to use a separate call for every quad that way). OpenGL had one, but this was removed in newer versions, and is only available in legacy contexts now (and is probably emulated in the driver by... emitting triangles).

On the other hand, ancient 3d renderers generally used n-gons everywhere, because of the higher efficiency (not even THAT ancient, if I'm not mistaken, Quake still used n-gons, and that would be one of the last software renderers ever made for a mainstream 3d game). I don't really see the argument of "but it has to be coplanar"... Yes, for a modeling tool this may occasionally cause problems (then again, you are modeling, the tool has extra metadata, so it should know that all vertices of a polygon are supposed to be coplanar), but for a renderer it generally doesn't matter. Eg, with my oldskool code, I just pick the first three vertices to determine the plane that I use for things like lighting.
If you were to split up a quad, you'd still be using those three vertices. The difference would be that you'd calculate the same things AGAIN for the other triangle. Now, if you had coplanar issues, you'd still have them after splitting the triangle up. You may see slight lighting errors, or other gradients. But this is generally not a problem in practice. Especially not with 3d hardware, which has very good precision anyway.
If you process the n-gon as a single entity, the inaccuracy would be hidden, since you'd use the exact same plane equation for the entire polygon (as you should, since you assume each polygon to be coplanar).

I guess the point is that such communities are quite useless. It's mostly the blind leading the blind.
Posted on 2012-01-22 17:18:54 by Scali
I dont want to pay a premium to be demoted and then finally banned by people who disagree with me because they dont understand what i am talking about, if they were peers that would be totally different but they are just cattle. That is not a good environment for developers. That is called a prison camp. Discussion with the administration yielded nothing, anonymous voting scheme stays in place, which I am quite tempted to manipulate at my leisure. Maybe when I have nothing better to do :)
If that means setting up a new place for developers to talk, among their peers, and possibly under a NDA, then that is what needs to occur. Dumbing down the content to feed the people who are snapping at your heels is not necessary, they will rise above or they wont, without your assist. When you publish a whitepaper, you are throwing your pearls before swine. But when you discuss your ideas among your peers, you should feel like you are actually adressing peers, and there should not be mechanisms for punishing that kind of sharing, I have lost all respect for that site, its hosts, its administrators, and its financiers.
You are welcome to disagree with me, and I encourage debate, but I can not condone silencing those few of us who don't stay inside the lines. Development inherently means that new lines need to be drawn, to encompass new paradigms, when you stifle that creative pathway and you are taking a wage to do it, you are a little nazi working for a trade rag.
The only barriers to creative thought are those we impose on ourselves.
Posted on 2012-01-24 07:22:22 by Homer
I was banned on the basis that random cows who stumbled on my blog content there could vote yes or no... and do so anonymously. Thankfully, we have admin blogs here that cows can not vote down, and our costs are low. We don't get paid to admin, so we don't live on advertising. This is about as free as it gets.
I recommend we extend blogging capability to all proven account holders.
Our users deserve nothing less. We can and should encourage all forms of discussion and debate, within the guidelines of our membership rules.

Note - banning me by cookie doesn't prevent me looking at all the content, it just silences my anonymous vote by a factor of one ! I don't like being silenced by randoms who are not enumerated. That is not remotely like democracy, that is called fascism. It means they (A) have no mechanism to prevent automated abuse of privilege, and/or (B) the admins are corrupting free speech on an american hosted site ;)
Posted on 2012-01-24 07:49:13 by Homer

No worries mate, we'll ban you here for FREE... absolutely no cost involved!
Posted on 2012-01-24 17:53:13 by SpooK
I like the fundamental theory behind the upvote/downvote system, as it allows people to quickly find a good answer and not have to wade through incorrect, inane or off-topic responses.

In practice, well... you obviously pointed out a major flaw with GD, a similar flaw to that which plagues Wikipedia: a broken system of trust. I think you also hit a big reason as to why that is: pandering to the lowest common denominator. In short, it is politics at its worst.

However, be careful about leaning too much in the other direction, that of elitism. There was a person who once was a moderator here, who thought their technical "prowess" was enough to justify dictating which users should even be allowed to participate here, among other childish and tyrannical behavior.
Posted on 2012-01-24 18:27:44 by SpooK
I used the word free, and I used it freely.
We have some guidelines which dictate a social etiquette, and I do believe in democracy, however I also believe in common law, which gives individuals a voice.
I certainly didn't mean to sound like an elitist, I share what I know as it was shared with me, free of the shackles of anyone. I just would have expected that an american hosted site would have guarded its 'inalienable rights' a little better and provided them to the rest of us, like the French did back in the day.
Posted on 2012-02-19 07:04:13 by Homer

I just would have expected that an american hosted site would have guarded its 'inalienable rights' a little better and provided them to the rest of us, like the French did back in the day.


An individual, or even a non-profit consortium, yes. However, in this case, It's Just Business, LLC.

It does seem like the treatment you received is the result of a technological feature that tries to compensate for behavioral issues... and in the end that only works to alienate the "customers" you'd rather keep, e.g. draconian Ubisoft-style DRM.

In the case where a few individuals disagree -- as opposed to someone who is blatantly a troll, spammer or just needs a "chill pill" in the form of a temporary ban -- they should have implemented an individual ignore list, i.e. kill file... but I guess that would prevent the righteous performing their Internet Duty :lol:
Posted on 2012-02-19 13:52:04 by SpooK